My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-04-80 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1980
>
03-04-80 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2025 6:32:31 PM
Creation date
10/1/2019 4:04:34 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MARCH 4, 1980 -3- <br />SPRINGBORN - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND MINOR SUBDIVISION: <br />j Bruce Folz reviewed the property location. The Planning Commission recom- <br />mended rezoning the 16i14 A tract to R-1, and allowing the parcel to be <br />divided into a 7.14 A parcel and a 9 A parcel. Folz stated the 7.14 A <br />tract would be the minimum building site due to the soil type and area <br />necessary to locate the drainfield. The Planning Commission did not want to <br />leave a non -conforming lot (9.05) in Ag. The surrounding area is R-1, <br />therefore, they recommended rezoning the entire tract thus amending the Comp <br />Plan to include this R-1 area and a minor subdivision on the 7.14 A tract. <br />Armstrong did not feel the City could legally rezone the 9A parcel without <br />the legal description being given in the hearing notice. Zoning to the <br />north and east is RR now. The Comp Plan provides R-1 to the north line of <br />of the property on the east and west. <br />Armstrong moved, seconded by Pott, to approve the Springborn request to amend <br />the Comprehensive Plan, Resolution 80-11, adopting Ordinance 7906, rezoning <br />7.14 acres, and approving that Minor Subdivision, Resolution 80-12. Motion <br />carried 5-0. This approval allows only one house to be built on the 7.14 A <br />site as only one area meets the one acre drainfield requirement due to the <br />topography of the parcel. The Council did not rezone the remaining parcel <br />(per Planning Commission recommendation) since the legal descr#tion of this <br />piece was not included in the notice sent to surrounding property owners and <br />questioned its legality. <br />HASELEY REZONING: Bruce Folz explained the difficulties in surveying a parcel <br />this time of year. Mr. Hjelmgren submitted the perc tests and requested soil <br />borings. Bob Wier indicated, barring unusual soil conditions, an adequate <br />system could be located on the lot. Don Raleigh said clear title will have <br />to be secured, but the record indicates Haseleyes hold ownership. No notification <br />was sent to the adjacent neighbors, as the Council had agreed. <br />Armstrong moved, seconded by Morgan, to table any action until March 18, 1980. <br />Motion carried 5-0. <br />Bob Wier will review the perc test and soil boring results and verify its <br />compliance with the Ordinance. Any area of non-compliance should be noted <br />for the Council. The title opinion of the City Attorney to become part of <br />this record. <br />DICK HEROLD - WASHINGTON COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT - COUNTY ROAD 6 PLANS: <br />Mr. Herold requested Council approval of plans and a parking agreement for <br />County 6. He reviewed the plans, the drainage problem, the proposed routing <br />of water along County 6, and location and size of culverts along said route. <br />Armstrong moved, seconded by Morgan, to approve Resolution 80-13A, requiring <br />parallel parking on County Road 6; and Resolution 80-13B, plan approval for <br />County Road 6, required to expend State Aid Funds. Motion carried 5-0. <br />ENGINEERING STANDARDS: Larry Bohrer reviewed his draft Engineering Standards. <br />Policy recommendations include grading and preparing utility easements the <br />j same as streets and boulevards, so these easements will be used for their <br />intended purpose. This would provide for an additional 20 ft. of clearing <br />along roads. He does not feel utility easements should be designated unless <br />they are intended to be used. Other standards for consideration is reestablishing <br />turf with no signs of erosion after a development finishes its streets. Also, <br />ponding criteria for commercial and residential areas, and drainage <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.