10-19-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL'MEETING, OCTOBER 1.9. 1982 -5- 7. DON RALEIGH/LEO RALEIGH - LOT RESUBDIVISION & RLS: Bruce Folz presented the proposed resubdivision and registered l land survey which identified the two redefined Parcels-. Folz explained the land area, building location and septic and drainfield area of both parcels. -^Mott z - asked if there were presently any septic problems on Tract A (Leo Raleigh parcel). --Don Raleigh - Leo has contacted a sewer installer about putting in a new system. --Jim McNamara, Building Inspector - has viewed the property - sees this division as benefitting Don Raleigh and not hurting Leo Raleigh. There is ample area on Leo Raleigh's property for another septic system. Adding the 40' to Don Raleigh's parcel will give him more room for an alternate drainfield site. The proposed room addition will not interfere with the alternate drainfield area. --Folz - About 7600 sq. ft. will be added to the Don Raleigh lot. --Don Raleigh - in response to a question concerning his present septic system, the present new system is functioning fine. --Mottaz - as long as Leo Raleigh has enough room for another system - sees no problem with the proposal. The Planning Commission recommend approval of the RLS.(Oct. 11). M/S/P Mottaz/Novak to adopt R-82-55, approving a RLS resubdivisiog two parcels of land owned by Don Raleigh, 3074 Laverne Ct. N. and Leo Raleigh 11256 N. 30th St. based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the fact that both Tract A (Leo Raleigh) and Tract B (Don Raleigh) were existing non -conforming lots and that the resubdivision provides additional area to the Don Raleigh lot for an alternate drainfield site. Carried 4-0. 8. MARLIN RYGH - AMENDED APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE AND CUP FOR ADVERTISING SIGN: Mr. Rygh acknowleded the Planning Commission recommendation to deny his request; but, desired a clarification on what he considered a conflict between What the City will permit vs what the State will permit. State will permit his sign to go up but the City will not. --Mottaz - State just says they will not allow anything closer than.. The State cannot authorize on the part of the City - this is not a conflict. --Jim McNamara - the approximate distance between the Rygh property and proposed sign and Lehman Mushroom is 2700 feet. --Rygh - talking about something that is within 300 ft. in an area where there are presently 22 signs - all of these are going to be eliminated. This puts Rygh in a bad position - has just slightly over 1/4 acre left. Do not know what other good business uses this land can be used for. --Mottaz - this is not a hardship. The reason for this residual parcel has been discussed at length - does not see this as the I issue, The issue is what the PZC has in their recommendation. As far as the Highway Department saying signs will go down - highway has been in the process of being built since 1958 - feel just have to wait until the present signs come down, then consider that aspect.