03-04-80 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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