Laserfiche WebLink
G. Fire Service Agreement (Mutual Aid) - DELETED <br />7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: <br />A. Signal Justification Report for CR13 and CR10 <br />The City received a Signal Justification Report for 10"' Street N. at Inwood Avenue N., dated March 6, <br />2000, which was reviewed by City Engineer, Tom Prew, in his March 17 memo. Council member Dunn <br />noted the data presented in the report did not warrant a signal light because accidents were due to <br />inattentive driving. She talked to County Commissioner Pulkrabek about holding a workshop, which is in <br />the process of being set up, on signal justification in the City. <br />Council member Armstrong indicated 10`" Street is a ridiculous situation —with a two-lane highway, then <br />four lanes, and then back to two lanes. She questioned the population figure for the City because the <br />County based traffic volume on population. <br />Mayor Hunt stated there are other places in the City, such as CSAH17 and 5 intersection, where we need <br />signal lights more. <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Armstrong — to postpone consideration of this item until a workshop with the Washington <br />County Highway Department and direct the Administrator to send a letter to Mr. Sandberg stating that the <br />City is in the process of setting up a roads workshop, and this item will be postpone until that occurs. <br />(Motion passed 5-0.) <br />8. PLANNING LAND USE & ZONING <br />A. Comp Plan Amendment PUD Concept & Development stage plans & preliminary plat: Carriage <br />Homes IX <br />At its March 8 meeting, the City Council referred this item to the Planning Commission to hold a Public <br />Hearing. At its April 10a' meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending denial of all <br />applications based on a Finding that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan are not <br />in compliance with the SRD definition of 0.90 units per acre previously recommended by the Planning <br />Commission. This Finding was made with knowledge that the Council had adopted an SRD definition of <br />1.4 units per acre. <br />Planner Dillerud indicated in his report that the decision to submit concurrent applications, including a <br />Preliminary Plat, was that of the applicant, with full understanding from City Staff, that, should his concept <br />Plan be denied or substantially modified by City action, his Preliminary Plat may require substantial <br />modification as well prior to its approval. <br />Attorney Filla pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and approval of the SRD definition <br />required four votes by the Council as opposed to three votes as pointed out in the staff report. <br />Mike Gair, representative for Carriage Homes, reported the commercial building would be in a barn motif, <br />not unlike the entrance from the west side into Lake Elmo. He asked that the City Engineer continue on <br />with the preliminary plat review. Plans have been submitted to the Valley Branch Watershed. The <br />conditions listed in the proposed resolutions are amenable to the applicant. There is a desire by Oak Park <br />Heights to have joint powers agreement for use and maintenance of 55°i Street. <br />Administrator Kueffner responded none of the plat is within Oak Park Heights. That portion of Mr. <br />Arkell's land that is in Oak Park Heights is an exception on the plat. Therefore, approval of the plat by Oak <br />Park Heights is not required. <br />Administrator Kueffner supports the plat and four different cost options for providing water to this <br />development would be brought to Council at the next meeting. <br />LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 <br />