03-07-95 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 7, 1995 5 D. Armstrong application for Text Amendment and CUP Amendment relating to Alternative Ag The Council received a letter from John Bodey suggesting a means by which the city could allow storage without negatively impacting adjacent property owners. M/S/P Conlin/John - to direct staff to prepare a findings of fact to support denial of the request of Thomas G. Armstrong, Thomas P. Armstrong, and Jodi Armstrong for a Text Amendment to the Lake Elmo Municipal Code relating to Alternative Ag: (Motion passed 5-0). At the February 27, 1995 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the application for amending the Conditional Use Permit for 60 days and pick a liaison from the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider other options. Councilman Hunt explained the purpose of the following motion would be to take a look at uses currently allowed and see if there are any uses missing or potentially deleted. We could contact people who have a CUP in Ag zone to see if they have any general comments on planning, legal and administrative issues. This does not mean the group as a whole would meet every time. This group would not be vested with any authority and not be considered a commission nor a committee. M/S/P Hunt/DeLapp - to request as a volunteer member of the city council to be determined by the city council and a volunteer member of the planning commission to be determined by the planning commission to work with the city staff; primarily, the administrator, attorney, planner, as need be, to study what uses might be permitted in the Ag zoning district and to respond to the council within 60 days. (Motion passed 5- 0). Council member Hunt volunteered as the member of the council with no objections from the rest of the city council. Thomas P. Armstrong stated "they gave their o'k to the planning commission to table it and we are fine with the current 60 day tabling of our CUP application. We will offer no objections on that basis of it being tabled even though the ordinance has been denied. We are willing to work with the city to reach a solution. I hope the council is too." Thomas G. Armstrong stated "on December 20th I asked you a question, 'how can you amend the site plan of a non conforming conditional user. You refused, on the record, to answer that question. The city attorney said he would give us an answer in writing. He has not responded to that. We would like to know our present position with the city. Please answer the letter of February 16, 1995." The city will receive a response from the city attorney to the questions raised in the February 8th letter from Thomas P. Armstrong rather than send a response to the Armstrongs.