My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
March 6, 2006 CCP
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
2000's
>
2006
>
March 6, 2006 CCP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2025 12:40:31 PM
Creation date
10/1/2019 3:19:18 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
103
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
accessory structure, dwelling unit, garage and the definition of total square footage <br />dwelling area. of a <br />What we need to figure out is the actual usage of the garage area and then can start <br />making comparisons in terms of square footages, one to another. Also need to figure out <br />if the accessory building is intended for the storage of passenger cannot exceed 1000 square feet. Currently the City doeautomobiles, as then it <br />s not know how much is intended <br />for use of passenger automobiles. <br />The Council took no further legal action in regards to Size of Garage to Residential <br />Dwelling at this time. The council identified that in the future we need to fix the code <br />and this item should be added to a Council Workshop meeting. <br />Allowed Uses for Side Yard Setback: <br />Attorney Filla summarized the information he stated in his <br />2005. Personal recollection, when the City Council adopte <br />because they were being asked to expand the definition o <br />fieldstone as a form of ground cover and landscaping Tt` this time as an overall drainage plan. The code is maintain the side yard setback area in an attractive that <br />well <br />that the materials currently there are not maintained ini <br />Mayor Johnston stated that the City has a <br />and implied in that responsibility is an am <br />run off: In his opinion, whether a Eeta'nln <br />an impact on grading and the ClA, tie <br />and it is quite clear that the rqi'ning wall <br />a detrimental affect on run off i t ie=Cit} <br />removed. <br />Council mernh, <br />writing that the <br />Attorney Filla st t d <br />December 5, <br />99-37, it was <br />to include <br />ttto the City at <br />' twner needs to <br />ion. It appears <br />r LV In4nage run off and grading <br />);rnanage thlugs that affect grading and <br />put in with or without approval, it has <br />y to control grading and control run off <br />In without authorization and in fact has <br />be requiring that the retaining wall be <br />me property owner has stated verbally and it is in <br />referring to is a retaining wall. <br />a e unarm rn'S case the City would be hard pressed to say that the <br />property owner could not itse`freldstone on this property. He said that he didn't believe <br />draintile was a permitted encroachment in the side yard. He said the City is on very <br />weak grounds regarding size of garage to residential dwelling and the Council needs to <br />tell staff what regulations they want to see regarding garage size versus house size. Then <br />staff can tell the Council how to fix the code. <br />Council and attorney discussion identified that there are four primary items in the motion <br />that encompasses all that was stated: Pet containment system that crosses over the <br />Property line; retaining wail, drainage system; and the berm. <br />M/S/P Smith/Johnston - to direct the staff to take enforcement action against the property <br />owner of 5699 Keats Avenue by requiring all four illegal structures need to be moved to <br />LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES . DECEMBER 6, 2005 <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.