06-02-87 Special CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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