06-19-84 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 19, 1984 PAGE 7 phase 2 and twenty lots developed in phase 1. The attorney's response was that it was a valid contract and should be treated as such. Jim Buggert, adjacent property owner, stated he was very disappointed with this proposed lot split. He purchased his land from a concept that presented to him, and this concept was that the lots would remain large. Mayor Eder pointed out that the area directly north of the proposed lot split could conceivably be rezoned to R1 (1-1/2 acres) in the future as this is allowed for in the comp. plan. Helen Hoffman, adjancent property owner, stated she was opposed to this lot split. If the purpose in splitting this lot is because of the road frontage, the problem of excessive road frontage will not be eliminated by the lot split. Also, she bought her property with the idea that there would be only one house on this lot, and is, therefore, opposed to this proposal. The public hearing was closed at 9:05 p.m. Fraser stated that the only difference with this proposal and Mr. Springborn's proposal in February, 1984, is the creativity of the lot trade; and she is opposed to this lot split for the same reasons she was opposed to the application in February. Morgan stated he had no strong feelings on this proposal. Eder stated it was not clear to him to what degree the developer's agreement relates to the land versus how the zoning ordinance relates to the land. He feels the attorney is being conservative in saying a variance is required. Does the zoning ordinance take precedent over the developer's agreement? Mazzara feels the lot trade would be in the City's best interest because the size of some of the lots in phase 2 would be larger, and would conform more closely to the city code. M/S/P Eder/Fraser - To table a decision on this application until the City Attorney clarifies the validity of the developer's agreement of 1978. (Motion carried 5-0) G. Application for a shoreland permit and variances for the construction of a new house on lot 2, block 1 of Ruth's First Addition (10825 32nd Street) by Jerry Kromschroeder The City Engineer reviewed his letter of June 14, 1984 in which he addresses his concerns on the discrepancy regarding the high flood elevation of Lake Elmo. Ruth's lst Addition was approved based upon a high flood elevation of 889. This also agrees with the federal Flood Insurance Study. The VBWD calculates the high flood to be elevation 891. If 889 is used, a variance is required for the alternate drainfield only of 60 feet where 75 feet is required. If elevation 891 is used, a variance is necessary for both primary and alternate drainfields. The setback for the primary would be 50 feet and the