Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 5, 1988 PAGE 7 <br />Johnston was in favor of the preliminary plat and felt the requirement <br />of pending was unnecessary because ponding would be so minimal it <br />wouldn't affect Downs Lake. <br />Bucheck was against putting the house on the northside of the property <br />because she feels their runoff would go to the South. If the house <br />was placed on the southside of the property, she understands that <br />esthetically it would be very distasteful to put the one house in <br />front of the other. Ann voiced her concern of protecting the <br />homeowners on Downs Lake above all else. <br />City Engineer Bohrer explained that the City code does not require <br />ponding--it requires that the rate and volume of runoff not exceed <br />predevelopment conditions. Pending is usually the outcome, but not <br />always. Runoff calculations are based on assumptions and estimates and <br />is concerned about how finely a computer answers based upon <br />assumptions and estimates. In this particular case there are several <br />farm buildings on the property. They are in the process of being <br />removed. They are larger than what a house would be if it were to be <br />constructed on that lot. The amount of impervious space that is going <br />to be constructed in the new house is going to be less than the farm <br />buildings that are already there. Therefore, he felt there would be <br />no additional runoff and did not feel pending is necessary. <br />Councilwoman Armstrong didn't want to go against the wishes of the <br />Planning Commission because they work hard, but since Larry has <br />changed his interpretation, based on the information that had come in, <br />reinforced his original conclusions. Rose made the suggestion that if <br />the impervious number increases, appropriate measures should be taken. <br />Bohrer responded that determination of a pending area could be <br />determined because they would see the building size on the permit, but <br />enforcement would be difficult because we might be dealing with a <br />different owner at that time. <br />M/S/P Graves/Moe - to approve the Preliminary Plat for Downs Lake <br />Estates. (Motion carried 5-0). <br />C. Rezoning for Packard Park 3rd Addition <br />Applicant: Gene Peltier <br />The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 22 and <br />continued it on March 14, 1988 where the Commission made a <br />recommendation to deny the zoning request for rezoning approximately <br />26 acres from RR to RI based on the Finding of Facts from the <br />Comprehensive Plan (PZ Exhibit A) and for the Council to note that the <br />VBWD has stated they will do a study on the water plan and until that <br />time the plan has been completed it could be detrimental to rezone. <br />(Motion carried 9-0). <br />Bruce Folz asked the Metro Council what Comprehensive Plan the City <br />was under and he received a letter stating Lake Elmo was under the <br />1979 Comprehensive Plan with the 1986 Amendments and none of the 1986 <br />Exhibits were acceptable. The 1979 Future Land Use Map was in effect. <br />On March 15, 1988 Folz did an Inventory of Lake Elmo and found in the <br />