My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-07-88 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1988
>
06-07-88 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 7:32:15 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:11:58 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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 JUNE 7, 1988 PAGE 10 <br />the Citv. For the purpose of clarity, Graves felt it should be <br />defined under hardsurface coverage what constituted hard surface --a <br />tennis court or a swimming pool? <br />Under Special Conditions, we now allow under R1 zoning 1000 sq.ft. <br />accessory structures. Graves felt 500 sq.ft. was too restrictive and <br />thought it would be unreasonable with 2 1/2 acres to have the <br />requirements up to 1000 sq.ft.. Mr. Engstrom stated he had a <br />covenant for an accessory structure 720 sq.ft. on smaller lots. <br />Grave also brought up his concern on the 22' wide roads. The City <br />has been very ,adamant in requiring all subdivision of Lake Elmo to <br />have a 24' paved road width. He would prefer this to continue. In <br />regard to a gravel road, he felt over a short period of time the City <br />would get petitions to have the road black -topped. DeLapp responded <br />the PZ was trying to make this economically viable enough so a <br />developer can come in with an RE development. Engstrom stated that <br />two-12 foot lanes would take care of most residential areas. In an <br />ordinary subdivision of 2 1/2 acre lots, he thought we should want <br />city standard type streets with a bituminous surface. Graves felt it <br />should be stipulated that on a 5 acre subdivision gravel roads would <br />be on a cul-de-sac and deemed private so the Citv is not required to <br />maintain them. <br />In regard to the statement that newlv developed property must adopt <br />covenants at least as restrictive as in adjacent subdivision, DeLapp <br />explained that if the subdivision would ao against FoxFire. thev <br />would have to start out with FoxFire covenants. Al Kunde added that <br />this would only be on adiacent lots to that subdivision --that being <br />across the street is no longer considered adiacent. <br />DeLapp also explained that in the Comp Plan it would require that anv <br />5 acre lot next to Rl zoning would not be eligible to have a horse. <br />Graves thought this should be out in the ordinance and not in the <br />Comp Plan. <br />Councilman Graves thought the RE zoning District was a good wav to <br />maintain and Dromegate the character of the Citv. He supported the <br />concept. <br />Councilman Moe was not against the concept, but questioned how was <br />the Citv goinq to enforce the landscape conditions. DeLapp answered <br />the enforcement would be through the submitted landscape plan which <br />the builder would submit. It would be the responsibility of the <br />Buildina Inspector to approve it and check on the trees and shrubs. <br />Moe asked the Citv Attornev if these special conditions have to be <br />applied city-wide. Knaak answered that this would be defined in the <br />particular zonina district and would onlv affect that area. <br />The no clear -cutting provision was discussed. Lee Hunt felt it would <br />be a real travesty to come in and clear a lot bare without leaving <br />some trees up and having some form of management. Ed Stevens <br />explained that clear cutting to him meant to cut everything down and <br />replace it with nothing. This wouldn't be acceptable. The builder <br />could clear out as much as he wants and replace it with whatever he <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.