Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 9 <br />Councilman Graves thought it made a lot of sense for us to go ahead and <br />put the road. all the way-,thr,ough to the west,e;rn, boundary of the property. <br />This would be easier on the property holders and fess disruption to the <br />area in the future if and when it was ever developed. <br />Councilwoman Armstrong explained the zoning was approved, but the plat <br />was not approved. She added that it was premature to sell a lot and <br />have the buyer count on placing their house on a cul-de-sac on the end <br />y of a paved road when it hasn't been approved by the City Council. <br />City Engineer Bohrer agreed that there are two separate and distinct <br />drainfield sites on every lot. As long as they are installed in <br />accordance with his recommendations of May 15th, if this plat is <br />approved, this is the way the drainfields will have to be constructed <br />in order to meet the code. He disagreed with each lot having at least <br />one acre of land suitable for drainfield purposes. In his opinion, <br />- this is different than the restricted soils overlay district. The <br />City has two restrictive overlay districts: restrictive soils and <br />wetlands. It is true that only a couple of the soils are listed in <br />either one of those. But those restrictive overlay districts prohibit <br />development of any kind, not just drainfields. Bohrer would consider <br />as being not suitable for drainfield purposes those soils that are <br />listed as having severe limitations for drainfield purposes as shown <br />in the Washington County Soil Survey. This is what he pointed out in <br />his original review in his April 24th letter. There are only two lots <br />at the end of the cul-de-sac that have enough soil, at least one acre, <br />that is not classified as severe. Bohrer would agree that the 10,000 <br />sq.ft. has been qualified, but would not agree that there is one acre <br />suitable for drainfield purposes simply because it is not listed as a <br />restrictive soil or a wetland soil. <br />City Engineer Bohrer felt that a determination would have to be made <br />• on whether a road will go through some time in the future. An <br />extension of this road is not nearly as imminent as the one in <br />Springborn. Bohrer did recommend that if the road was to go through <br />in the future, that is the proper way to do it now because we do <br />eliminate the question about assessments and who pays. <br />.City Attorney Knaak suggested that standards have to be established <br />and a record made stating these reasons. If one of the septic systems <br />should fail, people are looking for someone or something to blame and <br />developers are not around any more, and if it was established that <br />this was passed under code requirements, the legality of standards in <br />a record should be established. He reommended holding a public <br />hearing on the cul-de-sac variance and the one acre for septic system <br />soils per lot be resolved. <br />.Attorney John Stibbe disagreed, because they have an expert that has <br />shown that there is 10,000 sq.ft. of suitable soil. They have taken <br />}the burden off the City in showing that they have complied with the <br />code. He felt there was a question as to what certain people consider <br />as suitable soils. <br />Don Bishop suggested that the preliminary plat be approved contingent <br />upon acquiring a variance for the one acre suitable soil requirements. <br />M/S/P Graves/Johnson - to table a decision on the Lake Elmo Heights <br />Second Addition Preliminary Plat pending a public hearing on June 16th <br />on the one acre for septic system soils per lot be resolved. (Motion <br />carried 5-0). <br />