08-03-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AUGUST 3, 1982 -3- Bone:stroo Continued --Engineer Bohrer - (2) provides a flat -- needed additional trench. No health or with the 10'variance from the house. --Novak - auestioned the need 1-n check sure it is functioning properly. --Boncestroo - did not think this would --Mottaz - this variance should require area to construct the structure related problems this system yearly to make be necessary. the same stipu]_ation for annual inspection as was required for Steven. Larson. Whenever a variance is permitted in the. Lanes Demontreville Country Club or J. L. Cohn the inspection requirement should be attached to the variance. concernedaboutthe distance of the last trench from the retaining wall - distance should be the same as from a structure .to prevent moisture from forming. --Bohrer - Explained his understanding of the distance requirement. Pomna:bility"that the third trench will not be as close as indicated on the sketch (6'-7')to the wall. Engineers"Bohrer and Machmeier will review the-perc tests and make a determination on the design of the system before a permit is issued. M/S/P Novak/Mottaz to grant David Bonestroo, 8199 Hill Trail N.",- a'variance from the 751 s Srroreland'Ordinance, etback.to_'permit coristruotiorr of a drainfield and retaining wall within 36' of Lake Olson; and a variance from the 20' Septic Svstem requirement to permit construction of a drainfield no' less thn'n 10' from the house subject to: 1. Approval of tfie design and construction of the system and retaining wall from the DNR and City Engineer. 2. An 'agreement -between the City of Lake Elmo.and David Bonestroo providing for an.annual inspection and' -report on the system and retaining wall. Said agreement to be in the format of the Development Agreement between the City and Steven Larson Motion carried 4-0. WASTE TO ENERGY PLANT - Guidelines The Council had the following comments on the Administrator's memo of July 28, 1982, Re: Waste/Energy Plant Concerns. --Fraser - Page 2, Item 6 - aesthetics -of the plant can be done architecturally rather than cosmetically - no need to put up something ugly and then disguise it. Structure can be functional_ and reasonably attractive. Page 1, Item 1 - is it necessary to expect the prospective plant` purchaser to buy more property than he might need when the land owner would most lzkely'sell the best part of the:property first on the -Open market. ---Mottaz - have to see the property -to understand this recommendation. Would preserve a- large wetland area .- keep the facility more isolated from residential - would probably pay as much for the whole parcel as for the 20 best acres - purchaser might not do this unless it is suggested. Talking about 80 acres with 60A being marginal or not buildable. --Eder - Page 2. Item 8 - why use 50( rather than $1.00 per design ton. Would like to see a higher figure. �, --Mottaz - just a discussion figure. Boston plant is $1.00 pdt.