My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-06-94 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1990's
>
1994
>
12-06-94 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 2:51:18 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:28:15 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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 DECEMBER 6, 1994 <br />1. The applicants have not shown that it would necessarily be in the city's best interest <br />to amend our comprehensive plan to allow this rezoning. <br />2. For the reasons expressed in the city planner's report dated December 1, 1994 <br />which is incorporated herein. <br />3. The current comprehensive plan, inspite of the claims that have been indicated that <br />we have not reviewed this on an annual basis, there is an indication that we do so. Our <br />comprehensive plan continually comes up for discussion and for potential amendments <br />where appropriate. Consistently, as far as the 1-94 corridor has been concerned, that <br />has been referred to LB area and we have always maintained that consistent stance. <br />4. The planned uses that we have for this corridor are entirely appropriate. We don't <br />have a sewer system in the area, it is outside the MUSA and so our LB is geared <br />entirely to having a low impact, low intensity use which is different from what is being <br />proposed. Recognizing even though the design submitted is considered to be <br />appropriate for an unsewered area. <br />5. Recommended by Planning Commission for this proposal to be denied. <br />M/S/P John/Conlin - to deny this application to rezone the area because it is <br />inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Motion passed 4-1:Mottaz). <br />C. Arabian Hills: Trees <br />Attorney Filla reported that as part of the documents for Arabian Hills preliminary plat, <br />the landscape plan, which is not dated, was submitted to the city as part of the contract <br />documents for this plat. The resolution approving the final plat does not indicate <br />landscape requirements, but does include subject to terms of development contract <br />incorporating development plans submitted by the developer. The landscaping plan <br />has an annotation that standards will be 6 trees per acre on this site and generally <br />indicates where they should be located. That requirement seems to have been <br />imposed, because in the same time that this was being reviewed, the city was <br />considering the RE regulations and that particular landscaping standard was one that <br />appeared in those regulations. If this matter needs to be pursued, the party that we <br />would pursue would be against the developer. Apparently, some of the parcels in <br />Arabian Hills were sold before the private covenants were placed on the property; <br />therefore, not subject to those covenants requiring planting of trees. A meeting <br />between Chuck Nelson, his engineer, Doug Pepin resident of Arabian Hills, City <br />Attorney and Administrator will be scheduled. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.