Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES <br />JULY 18, 1989 PAGE 3 <br />Linda Besk, realtor representing Laura Buggert, has made application for a <br />10 acre Large Lot Subdivision from a 110 acre tract of property zoned <br />Rural Residential. <br />The Planning Commission recommended, unanimously, that the Council grant <br />this large -lot subdivision. <br />Linda Beak stated they are in the process of rectifying an encroachment <br />problem with the Smith property and would not have a problem providing a <br />Certificate of Survey because they are required to have a survey at the <br />closing on Friday. <br />M/S/P Hunt/Williams - to instruct the staff to prepare a resolution <br />granting a 10-acre large lot subdivision to Modernistic Die/Laura Buggert <br />based on aright -of -way dedication for Lake Elmo Avenue, submission of <br />certificate of survey, and based on the applicant paying a park dedication <br />fee of $450 for the newly created lot. (Motion carried 5=0). <br />B. Architectural Standards <br />The staff prepared suggested architectural standards for the business <br />district within the city. The Planning Commission received these <br />recommendations at their meeting of June 26th and accepted them with some <br />.additions. The Commission recommended that the standards be quantified <br />for nuisance type operations. The Administrator asked if the Council <br />wanted to have these standards set out in the code or referred to by MPCA <br />Regulations. City Attorney Knaak suggested these standards be set in the <br />Zoning Code and in the Nuisance Section. <br />Planning Commission member, Ed Stevens advised the Council the PZ did not <br />specifically state to submit, or don't submit the standards to the <br />Council. It was his understanding that the PZ would want to review the <br />complete text. <br />The Council postponed action and requested the PZ continue on working with <br />the City Administrator's recommendations. <br />C. Future Park Needs <br />A summary of future parks needs, as proposed by Nancy Hansen and Wyn John, <br />was provided for Council consideration. The Parks Commission did not site <br />specific parcels of land to be set aside, but instead determined it more <br />appropriate to identify general areas. <br />Some of the Councilmembers noted these points were good general concepts, <br />but would like more specifics for identifying specific guidelines. The <br />Council requested they break the Future Land Use Map into specific <br />sections and identify potential park sites. Williams suggested looking at <br />how a developer's plan would coincide with the next developer's plan, so <br />if there is land inbetween that would make good park land, then we can <br />make sure both of them contribute to the same parcel to increase the size. <br />The recommendations should be brought to the Parks Commission for their <br />approval. <br />