Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES <br />SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 PAGE 7 <br />l <br />4 have a crossover within its frontage which makes for a better <br />traffic pattern. Where there is site distance involved, Engstrom will <br />put in low maintenance vegetation and the stie distance is protected. <br />The Council was in agreement with 24' road widths with rollover curbs <br />and parking on one side and in agreement with 18' road widths for <br />single lane roads. The Council was in agreement with configuration <br />and access to Outlot A which is proposed for a wildlife enhancement <br />area owned by The Association, with the additional stipulation that <br />the City has the option to take this area over, without compensation <br />in the future, to combine with neighboring park land dedication with <br />details to be worked out (such as exact boundaries) at such time a <br />Comprehensive Park Plan has been approved. Council requests payment <br />of a park dedication fee of $450'per lot. The only problem the <br />Council had was with lots (Lot 7,8 & 9) that appear to be too small <br />from a perkable area dr/40Vtj(/Oi/iVy standpoint due to the highwater <br />mark. (Building Elevation recommended by the VBWD is 917.6). Another <br />concern was the cul-de-sac area should accommodate larger axel <br />vehicles. (Paragraph Amended 10-17-89) <br />M/S/P Graves/Hunt - to postpone consideration for the approval of <br />Development Stage of The Forest until the developer comes back with <br />the adjusted plan based on Council discussion. (Motion carried 5-0). <br />C. Architectural Standards Proposed Ordinance <br />The Council, at their meeting of September 5th, requested Planning <br />Commission rationale for determination on the limit of 50% glass for <br />structures. At their meeting of Sept. 11, the PZ's rationale was all <br />glass buildings were not appropriate material for a rural setting. <br />The City Engineer recommended standards for tilt -up concrete panels <br />for structures and presented building brochures. <br />Councilmen Graves and Moe had no problem if these standards pertained <br />simply to the Historical District/Old Village Area, but felt the <br />proposed glass standard (maximum of 50% of building or less) was too <br />restrictive and would impact potential development in Section 32 or <br />along 1-94. <br />Councilmen Hunt and Williams indicated they should be setting very <br />high standards of development along the corridor. The County was <br />taking a lead by trying to promote high standard development along <br />I-94. Williams added, the only reason anyone has ever said that we <br />need development along I-94 and Section 32 is for tax base, and the <br />way we get tax base is on high value buildings. Therefore, we should <br />require the best. <br />Councilman Hunt referred to Commercial District from the Eden Prairie <br />Zoning Code: Chapters 1.1 and 12, "75% of the exterior building finish <br />consist of material that are comparable in grade and quality of the <br />following, face brick, natural stone, glass". Hunt pointed out he <br />could not see how the Council could be looking at anything less than <br />one of the communities that are setting the standards is looking at. <br />Hunt will call Eden Prairie and verify their definition of "comparable <br />like buildings". <br />