My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-19-93 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1990's
>
1993
>
01-19-93 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 3:09:44 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:25:40 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 19, 1993 3 <br />the traffic counts. Also, Johnson clarified the $12,000 <br />traffic study was not at the insistence of certain members <br />of this council. <br />Councilman Mottaz asked, if the projection is 11,000 <br />vehicles by the year 2010 on that intersection, then it will <br />be 11,000 vehicles up to at least County Road 19. Why then <br />isn't the county planning a 4-lane up to County Road 19? <br />M/S/P Mottaz/Conlin - to endorse Washington County Public <br />Works proposal for Option 1 for a 4-lane improvement of CSAH <br />10 from 1694 to 1/4 mile E. of CSAH13. (Motion carried 3-2: <br />Johnston: She hasn't seen enough traffic data to convince <br />her that a 4-lane facility is necessary; Johnson: See <br />reasons stated above.) <br />The County will prepare plans and come back at a later date <br />for official plan approval. The County will provide a berm <br />grading that would accommodate a bike trail. However, the <br />surfacing of that trail system would be the cities' <br />responsibility. <br />6. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING: <br />A. Ordinance 8078, An Ordinance amending Section <br />401.042(A) <br />At, their January llth meeting, the Planning Commission <br />concluded they could not approve a minor subdivision on this <br />property under the city's current regulations. If this <br />property is to be divided, it had to be platted. <br />Attorney Filla explained this proposed ordinance would give <br />the City the ability to treat this application as a minor <br />subdivision; therefore, avoid platting which requires <br />dedicated and constructed roads. If the Council adopts this <br />ordinance, then what is being proposed on the Raleigh <br />property would change so that only a rezoning, a minor <br />subdivision, and a variance to Parcel E for 300' of frontage <br />on an improved road and a variance to Parcel D which <br />currently has two accessory buildings that exceed 2000 <br />sq.ft., which is the maximum allowed in an RR zone, would be <br />necessary. <br />City Engineer Larry Bohrer explained that when flag lots are <br />on collector type roads, the concern is that it is best to <br />have fewer driveways coming off a collector road rather than <br />more driveways. More driveways tend to inhibit the free <br />flow of traffic on a collector road. If you had the <br />situation where the lots already had the minimum frontage on <br />the road, allowing the subdividing of the lots behind with <br />no frontage would effectively double the amount of driveways <br />that you have abutting the road. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.