Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 7 <br />recommendation, which is a favorable recommendation. There was no <br />legal reason that Knaak could see to turn down this request. Knaak's <br />recommendation would be to approve the Final Plat. <br />Councilwoman Armstrong looked at it as a camouflage variance by <br />calling it a temporary road which is saying they do not need a <br />variance to an 800 foot cul-de-sac. She sees no need to put a <br />variance on a new piece of land because it could be designed right. <br />Planning Commission Chairman DeLapp explained that Mr. Peltier <br />indicated that he would not extend the road as long as the land <br />remains zoned as it is toward Lake Elmo Avenue. If the Council is <br />considering this road a temporary road, you are effectively rezoning <br />the land to the west as far as the Planning Commission is concerned. <br />Armstrong noted that the Planning Commission recommended that the City <br />Council deny the Final Plat because of the length of the cul-de-sac. <br />Ann Bucheck reported that she contacted Bob Snyder from the University <br />of Minnesota who spoke at a Planning Seminar she attended. Mr. Snyder <br />stated that the City should follow their code and limit the street to <br />800 feet even if we have not done so previously. Also, it has been <br />recently brought to her attention that the Developer of Packard Park <br />has testified in a lawsuit brought against the City of Lake Elmo that <br />dealt with the City not upholding all of their codes. Bucheck <br />wondered if the Developer was fully aware that this development does <br />not meet all of the Codes. Bucheck felt if someone felt this strongly <br />about the City meeting the code, he certainly would want his own <br />development to meet the Code. <br />Based on the City Attorney and City Engineer recommendations that the <br />Final Plat does meet City Code, Councilman Johnson felt if the Council <br />turned this Final Plat down we would be open to some legal problems. <br />Councilman Johnson asked the City Attorney if a variance is required. <br />Knaak answered that a variance is not needed. He believes that the <br />intent of the road going through at some point is sufficient and meets <br />the requirements of the Code as it is written now. <br />M/S/P Johnson/Moe - to adopt Resolution 87-55 approving the Final Plat <br />for Packard Park 2nd Addition, contingent upon the developer meeting <br />the conditions specified in the City Engineer's letter of 10-22-87; <br />upon providing a letter of credit and an acceptable Developer's <br />Agreement; upon payment of park dedication fees and pass-thru costs; <br />and upon giving the City an easement to allow surface water drainage <br />from the 2nd Addition to the proposed ponding area. (Motion carried <br />3-1<Armstrong: She voted against the final plat based on the Planning <br />Commission's recommendation and believes it is an improper cul-de-sac <br />and should require a variance. This should have been designed right <br />in the first place>) . <br />M/S/P Johnson/Moe - to amend the above motion to include the added <br />requirement that the developer give the City a road easement so that <br />24th Street can be extended west to Lake Elmo Avenue at some time in <br />