02-06-90 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 1990 PAGE 5 hazardous condition and should not be approved. Bohrer suggested the road alignment should more closely conform to the preliminary plat previously reviewed by the City dated September 26, 1989. The Maintenance Foreman asked if he would be able to get his equipment in for snowplowing. The lane that goes around is 24' wide so Bohrer did not believe this would be too small for the type of equipment he would use. By opening up the entrance to the cul-de-sac by a teardrop shape, Bohrer felt this would be beneficial to school busses, would increase the site distance into the cul-de-sac and snowplowing would be made easier. M/S/P Williams/Hunt - to grant Development Approval for The Forest, based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and based on the following conditions: (Motion carried 4-0). (1) The staff prepare an ordinance for the rezoning of this parcel from AG to R1. (2) The City Attorney shall draw up a PUD Development Agreement which stipulates the specific terms and conditions established and approved by the City Council and accepted by the applicant. (3) The applicant pay a park dedication fee of $450 for each of the newly created lots. (4) The road plan shown on Preliminary Plat dated September 26, 1989 shall be used and the grading plan for Lots 7,8, & 9 dated January 18, 1990 shall be used. E. Packard Park 3rd Addition Resolution NO. 90-9 and Developer's Agreement At the January 2nd meeting, the Council approved the final plat of Packard Park 3rd Addition and directed the staff_ to prepare the necessary resolution and developers' agreement. A draft copy of the resolution along with the developers' agreement was provided. for Council. review. Councilman Williams pointed out the word "developers" (plural) should be used consistently through the agreement. M/S/P Hunt/Williams - to adopt Resolution 90-9 accepting the final plat of Packard Park 3rd Addition, and to instruct the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the proposed development agreement; contingent upon applicant providing Performance Assurance in the amount of $155,000.00, and contingent upon applicant meeting all other conditions set forth in the Resolution. (Motion carried 3-1: Armstrong: Based on the reasons the Planning Commission voted 6-2 to deny the Final Plat of Packard Park 3rd Addition.) F. Comprehensive Plan Update Mike Black, James R. Hill, Inc., reviewed a draft copy of the Ci.ty's 1990 Comprehensive Plan (pages 1 through 53). Mr. Black read the written materials, but had not reviewed the map and exhibits which