HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 95-34CITY OF LAKE EL MO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 95-34
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE ARMSTRONG REQUEST TO ADD
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL USE REGULATIONS TO THE LAKE ELMO
CITY CODE.
1.0 WHEREAS,
A. By application dated June 9, 1994, Thomas GR Armstrong,
Jody M. Armstrong and Thomas P. Armstrong (herein
collectively "Armstrong") requested:
1. That the City of Lake Elmo amend the text of the
City's Alternative Agricultural Use Regulations as
contained in Lake Elmo Code §301.070D1b6 in the
manner proposed by the applicants, and
2® That the City amend the Armstrong's conditional use
permit in a manner that would be consistent with
the Armstrong's requested amendment to the City's
Alternative Agricultural Use Regulations.
B. On June 21, 1994, the Lake Elmo City Council adopted
Ordinance No® 8097 repealing the then existing Lake Elmo
Code §301.070D1b6 thereby placing all currently existing
alternative agricultural uses into a legal nonconforming
use category.
Co Prior to the City Council action on June 21, 1994, a
public hearing on the Armstrong application had been
scheduled before the Planning Commission for June 27,
1994.
D. On June 27, 19948 the Armstrong application was removed
from the Planning Commission Agenda because of the City
Council's action on June 21, 1994, in repealing the
Alternative Agricultural Regulations for the City
E. By correspondence dated August 10, 1994, Armstrong
requested that the City continue to process its
application even though the City Council had repealed the
Alternative Agricultural Use Regulations on June 21,
1994.
F. On September 208 1994,, the City Council directed that the
Planning Commission reschedule a public hearing to review
the Armstrong application Armstrong continued to assert
that a portion of the application was to amend the text
of the City Code. The City Council agreed to continue
processing this portion of the application as a request
to add text to the City Code since the original text had
been repealed by the City Council on June 21, 1994.
G. A public hearing was commenced before the Planning
Commission on October 24, 1994, and continued for further
review until November 14, 1994.
H. On November 14, 1994, the public hearing was concluded
before the Planning Commission and was tabled.
I. On December 12, 1994, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission
requested additional information prior to making its
recommendation to the City Council.
Jn On January 9, 1995, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission
continued its review of the Armstrong application to a
meeting which could be attended by the City Council. The
Planning Commission wanted to understand the City
Council's reasons for repealing the City's Alternative
Agricultural Use Regulations.
K. At the Planning Commission meeting on February 27, 1995,
after discussions with the City Council, the Planning
Commission:
1. Recommended that the City council deny
reinstatement (amendment) of the Alternative
Agricultural Use Regulations because the proposed
addition (amendment) would allow a use that is not
allowed anywhere else in the City and because it
would allow spot zoning; and
2. Recommended that the Armstrong request to amend its
conditional use permit be tabled for sixty days to
pick a liaison from the Planning Commission and
City Council to consider other options.
L. On March 7. 1995, the City Council reviewed the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and directed
staff to prepare findings to support the denial of the
Armstrong application for a text addition (amendment)
relating to Alternative Agricultural Uses.
2.0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lake Elmo City Council
hereby denies the Armstrong application to amend the
Alternative Agricultural Use Regulations of the City Code for
the following reasons;
A. On June 21, 1994, the Lake Elmo City Council repealed the
City's then existing Alternative Agricultural Use
Regulations and such regulations or siLmilar regulations
have not been re-adopted in the interim.
B. It is the City Council I s determination that, at the
present time, the City's prior Alternative Agricultural
Use Regulations do not adequately protect the future
welfare of the residents of the City of Lake Elmo because
they do not address termination of such Alternative
Agricultural Uses upon future development of adjacent
property.
C It is the City Council's determination that the Armstrong
application to add (amend) the City's Alternative
Agricultural Use Regulations to the City Code, do not
contain provisions which adequately protect the future
welfare of the residents of the City of Lake Elmo and
which otherwise properly address concerns about effective
spot zoning.
D. The City is in the process of evaluating what® if any,
benefit would result from a reinstitution of some type of
regulations which would permit Alternative Uses in
Agricultural zones. The City will conduct further
meetings or hearings as determined appropriate by the
City Council or as required in response to future
resident applications.
Approved by,the City Council
on -the day of
Bw 1995
ATTEST.,
Mary� �ue Cat` cministratar
b/city/armstron.res
I
A
yn Johh