03-09-95 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and controversies that the current or future City Council must struggle with, inherent in this particular type of CUP. With these two provisions (existing buildings and inside storage only) added to the Conditional Use Permit section of the Municipal Code regarding storage businesses, everyone would be satisfied! The agricultural land owners would have an alternate source of revenue to preserve their agricultural lands, the adjacent property owners would not be affected by commercialization of their neighborhoods, the residents of the City of Lake Elmo would have the rural image of their city safeguarded, and the City Council could avoid the controversial decisions associated with a Storage Business CUP. If you adopt a Storage Business CUP without these provisions, the present or future City Council can expect controversy. For instance, if Armstrong Farm is granted an expansion of its storage business, what's to prevent other Lake Elmo property owners from arguing that the City Council allowed Armstrong Farm its expansion and thus the City Council must grant them the same entitlements. Where will it end? I sincerely hope that the City Council will incorporate the "existing buildings" and the "inside storage only" clauses into any storage business addition to the allowable Conditional Use Permits in the Municipal Code. It is interesting to note that both former Lake Elmo Mayor Morgan and former Councilman Dunn, the two assenting votes to the original Armstrong Farm CUP in 1986, stated their concerns about the appropriateness of outside storage for the City of Lake Elmo (Exhibit 2). Finally, I am concerned about the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council regarding liaisons from the Planning Commission and the City Council working with Armstrong Farm to construct a Storage Business CUP addition to the Municipal Code. I hope the outcome of their combined efforts is not a Storage Business CUP tailored to the special interests of Armstrong Farm, especially if it is designed to provide Armstrong Farm with the storage business expansion which Armstrong Farm vehemently desires. With the two provisions that I have suggested to be incorporated into the Storage Business CUP addition to the Municipal Code, Armstrong Farm's complaints about its current legal non -conforming use would be resolved and Armstrong Farm would have its existing storage business revenue to preserve its agricultural lands, including the grandfathering of its 100 vehicle outside storage limitation. As stated in my previous letter regarding Armstrong Farm's original 1986 CUP request, Mr. Thomas G. Armstrong stated that there would be no further request for expansion if Armstrong Farm was granted the storage limitations it currently has! Sincerely, John Bodey 8155 15th Street North cc: Lake Elmo Planning Commission