Resolution 96-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Lake Elmo Washington County, Minnesota Resolution 96 -3 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY OF OAKDALE DENY THE PETITION OF THOMAS G. ARMSTRONG, THOMAS P. ARMSTRONG AND JODI M. ARMSTRONG, "THE ARMSTRONG'S ", AND DOUGLAS M. DECOSTER AND JEAN F. DECOSTER, "THE DECOSTER'S" FOR ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO. WHEREAS, the City of Oakdale received a request from the Armstrong's and the DeCoster's for annexation of approximately 284 acres of land within the corporate boundaries of the City of Lake Elmo; and WHEREAS, through an Agreement between the Cities of Lake Elmo and Oakdale dated February 14, 1995, both cities agreed that: " In order to allow each City to undertake a reasonable planning process and to maintain the integrity of the planning process, each City agrees that it will not support annexation petitions filed by property owners requesting detachment and annexation from one city to the other for a period of one year following the execution of this Agreement by both Cities;" and WHEREAS, by application dated June 9, 1994, the Armstrong's requested the City of Lake Elmo amend the text of the City's Alternative Agricultural Use Regulations as contained in Lake Elmo Code Sec. 301.070 DIb6 in the manner proposed by the applicants, and 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; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 1994, the Lake Elmo City Council adopted Ordinance No. 8097 repealing the then existing Lake EImo Code, Section 301.070 Dlb6 thereby placing all currently existing alternative agricultural uses into a legal non conforming use category; and WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 1994, 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; and WHEREAS, by correspondence dated August 10, 1994, the Armstrong's requested that the City continue to process its application even though the City Council had repealed the Alternative Agricultural Use Regulations on June 21, 1994; and