Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1996 <br />The Council voiced several issues to be discussed between the applicant and staff. 1. The amount of <br />trees and date for planting of additional trees between home and the shoreline, 2. The existing septic <br />system shall be inspected while it is being removed from the shoreline area., 3. The septic system shall <br />be Inspected prior to issuing a building permit, 4. The existing garage shall be removed. , 5. the existing <br />garage's toilet facilities shall be removed prior to issuing the building permit., 6. All debris shall be <br />removed from the septic site prior to issuance of a building permit., 7. That a future garage expansion or <br />an addition to the house will not be allowed., 8. Removal of the blacktop driveway down to the house., 9. <br />Garage be brought up to compatible level with the main structure. <br />M/S/P Hunt/DeLapp - to postpone this agenda item until next meeting and ask Mike Downs to submit <br />detailed plans and direct the staff to meet with Mr. Downs to resolve these issues discussed by the <br />Council which could be made as conditions of approval and come back with a recommendation to the <br />Council. (Motion passed 5-0). <br />D. Proposed amendments to Sections 301.070 N.16, Subdivision 7 and 301.070D. Subdivision 7B of <br />the Lake Elmo Municipal <br />Planner Terwedo reported the amendment attempts to allow flexibility to the development standards in <br />the OP Ordinance if the development plan still meets the purpose and intent of the OP Ordinance and the <br />goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission postponed recommendation on <br />the Ordinance amending Section 301.070 D.16 Subd, 7B.i.b. relating to conservation easement <br />dedicated to a homeowners association for more information. <br />The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the ordinance relating to Development Standards <br />with an additional change of four affirmative votes required by the City Council. <br />M/S/P Hunt/DeLapp - to amend Ordinance 8143, An ordinance Amending Section 301.070 D. 16 <br />Subdivision 7 of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code. (Motion 4-1:DeLapp:l think this would cause people to <br />come in under PUD who otherwise wouldn't want to).Filla:This is not an option In the OP district. <br />M/S/P Hunt/Johnston - to amend Ordinance 8143 as modified (change votes from 3 affirmative votes to <br />four). (Motion passed 4-1:DeLapp) <br />M/S/P Hunt/Johnston - to adopt Ordinance 8143 as amended, to read as follows "based on recorded <br />findings that the proposed modifications(s) would better enhance the rural character more so than the <br />strict interpretation of the OP regulations of the City...). (Motion passed 4-1:DeLapp). <br />E. Letter from Meehan's requesting reconsideration of the fence between Torre Pines and the <br />Armstrong Property <br />The City received a letter form the Meehan's requesting reconsideration of the fence between Torre <br />Pines and the Armstrong Property. <br />Attorney Filla reported the Council on May 21,1996 approved a fence be constructed on the common <br />property line and consist of poles and four strands of wire -the two bottom strands being non -barbed wire, <br />the top two strands of barbed wire and will be 48 inches high. The statutes provide that if a party fails to <br />comply with that order the other party can construct the fence and their recourse is to obtain damages <br />through court action. The Council could amend action taken on May 21, 1996, but they need to know <br />what has been done by the property owner relying on the City's action. <br />Tom P. Armstrong stated they have spent $400 on a surveyor and purchased $1,500 on fencing material <br />relying on council action. The fence will be constructed this weekend. This Is not a forum for an <br />emotional kind of opinion, but should be addressing this issue to the state legislature who wrote the <br />statute. <br />