09-26-89 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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