Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3-5-85 PAGE 7 <br />preliminary way, that the soil limitations in Phase I can be avoided <br />or overcome for drainfields and can be rezoned if the City feels the <br />proposed land use is compatible. He is not one -hundred percent <br />confident on how the ponds are going to come together, and recommended <br />not approving a preliminary plat until drainage volume computations <br />and runoff computations are provided. When Phase II and III are <br />brougt forth, the same information will be required - that is, because <br />of the questionable nature of the soils, soil tests will be required <br />on each lot. <br />Morgan stated that since becomming Mayor, he has set a policy whereby <br />he will not make a decision on any major rezoning until the Council <br />has had time to think about it. <br />Armstrong feels that the concern for loss of rural atmosphere is <br />relevant, and she also does not wish to burden our Watershed District <br />with any extra water. <br />M/S/P Morgan/Dunn - To table this application from Clapp-Thommsen/Don <br />Bishop for rezoning and concept approval until the March 19, 1985 <br />meeting. (Motion carried 5-0) <br />E. Schaefer Contracting fill permit. <br />Mr. Robert Rudy, representing Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. stated that <br />they have a surplus of earth material from the 194 project and Mr. <br />Douglas DeCoster has expressed a desire to improve his property <br />located just north of 194 and west of Ideal Avenue North in the City <br />of Lake Elmo. <br />The Engineer explained the building permit application by Shafer <br />Contracting Company to dispose of excess soil materials on property <br />within Section 32. The property is owne 5y Doug­__9eC`os�'er and by <br />Mn/DOT. The Mn/Dot property is located west of Ideal Avenue and had <br />been part of the right-of-way purchased for the I-94 northern route. <br />Mn/DOT has since declared this right-of-way as access property and the <br />City has requested it for park purposes. The Engineer referred to his <br />review letter dated March 1, 1985 which pointed out that conditions <br />would need to be attached to any approval given to the fill permit. <br />Morgan stated he is concerned with what good this proposal would do <br />for the overall community. He can see where it would do some good for <br />the State of Minnesota, but believes it is questionable how much good <br />it would do for the landowners. <br />Bohrer stated that most of the land is lower than the road. The <br />intent is to bring the property up to the level of the road and feels <br />this area will be the major access point for any development that goes <br />in. At present, the property is about ten to twenty feet lower than <br />the road. <br />Mazzara asked that the adjacent property owners be notified of this <br />venture, even though it is not required by city code. <br />Bohrer stated this fill process would begin on the DeCoster property <br />(where it joins the DOT property) and go in a westerly direction on <br />the DeCoster property. This would allow Shafer to take advantage of <br />some erosion control measures as they are filling. <br />Morgan stated that at a minimum, the 1% rule should apply here, and <br />