My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-21-85 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1985
>
05-21-85 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 8:00:06 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:05:43 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5-21-85 <br />Page 3 <br />was about $80,000 and because road work was needed the cost would go <br />up to $150,000-$200,000. There was not enough of an accident problem <br />to spend that kind of money. Since that time, the County has put an <br />overlay on County 17 and restripped it so there are two lanes of <br />approach. When there are two lanes of approach, Mn/DOT operates on <br />different warrant criteria. Based on this new criteria the warrants <br />are no longer met. <br />Mn/DOT would allow an overhead flashing beacon to be installed, but <br />would not participate in the cost which would be around $10,000. <br />Mn/DOT's opinion is that a beacon would have no affect on the <br />accidents and for that reason they do not see the benefit for the <br />State to participate in the cost. <br />In 1983, Mn/DOT received a resolution from the city requesting signs <br />for "unlawful passing on shoulder", and Mn/DOT's response was that <br />these types of signs are used only when there is a severe congestion <br />problem and where there's an unusually high volume of violators. <br />Mn/DOT's philosophy is they don't like to install signs that state a <br />State Law because a motorist seeing a sign at a given location may <br />interpret that it islegalanywhere else, which is not the case. The <br />other, carried to extremes, completely overload the highway system <br />with signs providing instructions. <br />B. Application by Bill Eder for a simple lot subdivision and <br />zoning code variances. (tabled). <br />5. City Engineer's Report <br />A. Public Hearing for zoning code (lot size) variance and <br />shoreland permit for application by David Strusinski in <br />the Lanes DeMontreville Country Club Addition. <br />Pursuant to published notice, this public hearing was opened at 7:53 <br />in the city council chambers. <br />The Council discussed David Strusinski's request for a lot -size <br />variance and shoreland permit on the last buildable lot in Lanes <br />DeMontreville Country Club Addition. Strusinski plans to build a home <br />on a previously platted 0.67 acre lot, fronting on Hill Trail Court. <br />Council approval is contingent upon DNR approval of the shoreland <br />permit and City Engineer, Larry Bohrer's recommendations. Bohrer told <br />the Council Strusinski should submit soil test results and septic <br />system design showing that there is adequate room for the primary and <br />alternate system, site plan be submitted showing all the applicable <br />set backs for this well and septic system in relation to all the other <br />wells and septic systems in the area and a contour map before he <br />applies for a building permit. Public hearing was closed at 8:07. <br />M/S/P Morgan/Christ - to grant a lot -size variance and shoreland <br />permit subject to the City Engineers's three recommendations. <br />(Motion Carried 4-1 <Mike Mazzara's comments were that no hardship was <br />proven and concerned about adequate septic systems in the area, size <br />of lot and road frontage. >) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.