12-04-90 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 4, 1990 PAGE 3 The Council questioned the deck proposed on the drawing that was submitted to them that night. The drawing in the Council packet did not include a deck. Therefore, the Council could not take any action on the deck at this time. The applicants would have to reapply for a variance for a deck. The Council indicated to the applicants they would not be favorably inclined to look at a further encroachment of this side of property with the addition of a deck. M/S/P Armstrong/Hunt - to approve a variance for sideyard setback for the purpose of constructing a 24' x 26' addition for Wayne and Kathy Wensley, 8470 DeMontreville Trail N., based on the hardship the house was placed on an erroneous assumption of their propertyline, the house to the south is 135' away, the lay of the land makes this the most logical place to put the addition on the house, it preserves the septic and drainfield area, and only a small portion of this addition will actually interfere with the sideyard setback, and based on the neighbor's letter (Jeffrey & Kathleen Hamme) indicating no objection to this variance request. (Motion carried: 4-1: Williams: He noted he has voted against other variances of this type in the past for the reasons he stated and adjustment of the size of the addition could have avoided the variance.) B. PUBLIC HEARING: David Schwarz, 10961 32nd St. N. Variance for height of garage The applicant requested this item be deleted and placed on the January 15th Council agenda. C. Residential Estates Zone In response to a proposal to the City requesting approval of a preliminary plat, Councilman Graves pointed out the developer took the total acreage and divided it by 3.33 acres and came up with the number of allowed lots. Graves felt this was not the intent of establishing the RE Zoning District. He felt the gross development area; exclusive of park dedication acreage, was to be 3.33 acres and felt this was not clear within the zoning ordinance. M/S/P Graves/Hunt - to direct PZ to look at the intent of the RE Zoning District. (Motion carried 5-0). Councilman Graves indicated he saw as a goal of the RE Zoning Dist. the ability to utilize "more desirable areas" or portions of parcels of land for the residential. development. He asked if it would be to the advantage of land utilization policy to obtain our community goals to obtain open space if we were to develop a. provision within the RE Zone which would allow clustering . The consensus of the Council was not to send clustering in RE back to the PZ for discussion. D. Park Dedication Councilman Graves recalled the Council had rewritten the portion of the ordinance that dealt with park dedication and requiring up to 10% of the total gross acreage of a roposed development and/or up to $450 per platted lot could be required by the City as park dedication. The