HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-73 PZMVILLAGE OF LAKE ELMO
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSTON
MINUTES OF THE MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 1973
Meeting called to order at 7:45 p.m. Members present: Chairman Wm.
Lundquist, B. Folz, C. King, D. Lyons, J. Sovereign, T. Torseth.
Minutes corrected as follows:
Page 1, paragraph 3: "1. Comprehensive plan doesn't call
for commercial business in this area."
Page 1, paragraph 3: "3. There is not an adequate vehicle
turn -around for commercial operation."
Minutes approved as corrected.
BOB GARRITY, C. O. GEORGI, MIKE DYKEMA, appeared re subdivision of
149 acres at Stillwater Boulevard and Inwood Avenue. They are now
speaking of one -acre lots on a portion of the 149 acres. PZC inquired
about curvilinear streets being incorporated into their proposed plan
and requested that no individual driveway entrances be placed on
Stillwater Road and County Road 80.
MR. WEEKS, CREST CONSTRUCTION CO., appeared representing Geo. Herbst
property at Berschens Shores. Motion by B. Folz, seconded by
J. Sovereign, to recommend to Village Council that building on
Lot 16 and a portion of Lot 17 be denied for the following reasons:
1. The tract of land was not subdivided in accordance with
Ordinance 14, Section 20, dated April 12, 1960.
2. The minimum road width at the lot set -back line is 96'
which is below the 125' required minimum frontage.
3. The set -back from the lake to the garage is shown as 24'
and it is the opinion of the PZC that no set -back should
be less than 75'.
4. The building floor location must be a minimum of 3' above the
"high flood mark", as established by the Valley Branch
Watershed and the village engineer.
Motion passed unanimously.
NOTE TO VILLAGE COUNCIL AND VILLAGE ATTORNEY: Ordinance 129 has
apparently omitted the minimum distance for a set -back of building
structures. The State Shoreline Management Act requires a minimum
-2-
of 75' from the normal high water mark on this type of lake. PZC
recommends that the Village Council consider this and add it to
our established ordinance.
MIDWEST PLANNING PROPOSAL was discussed. PZC recommends acceptance
of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd proposal submitted by Midwest Planning.
There is some question re the 4th point. Those points recommended
for acceptance are:
1. Updating comprehensive plan.
2. Review PUD ordinance.*
3. Technical review of Dayton project.
Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandy Phernetton
Rec. Secretary
* It is our understanding that George Hite, Dayton Development
Corp., is in favor of having the PUD Ordinance reviewed and that
Dayton's has offered to finance such a project.