08-02-88 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Cable: Also enclosed is a breakdown of cable viewership in the City; we are at 37.22% penetration; David Garloff advises this is a bit below overall area penetration. I-94 Right -of -Way: I received a call from Gary Workman, MnDot's Right -of -Way Dept., advising that a six acre parcel, of the I-94 proposed R-O-W would be sold back to the heirs of the Schiltgen family (off County Road 13) for $12,000. This parcel was apparently offered to the City in January, 1988, for $12,000, with a 30-day requested response time. It is now being sold to the Shiltgen heirs, as the City did not express interest in purchasing it. Request for Hearing; Washington Co. Landfill Permit #1: As per your request of July 19th, I called Douglas Hall, of MPCA to determine the status of our request. Our request was turned over to Marge Valke, who was apparently out this week; I will try to get an update by Tuesday's meeting. Fire Dept.: Fran has advised he will be submitting specifications to advertise for bids for the Department's personnel transport; $23,000 was directed toward this expenditure in the Department's 1988 capital program. The bids will be submitted for your consideration. Morton/Engstrom Development: On Wednesday, the 27th, Rose Armstrong, Larry Bohrer, Mary and I met with Willard Morton and Bob Engstrom to discuss appropriate processing of their proposal to subdivide approximately 50 acres into 18 lots on property south of 10th St., on the west side of Lake Elmo. The applicants had appeared before the Planning Commission on May 9th of this year to discuss their development (Mr. Engstrom also was before the Council to express his views on the R-R ordinance). Staff reviewed two alternate procedures they could pursue (the land is currently zoned Ag): 1.) apply for rezoning to R-1; plat and encompass within the development agreement the stipulation of a minimum 2 1/2 acre lot size (the applicant had been waiting for the RE Ordinance adoption, but has an August 30th deadline on his option to buy) and, apply for variances on lot frontage and length off cul-de-sac; OR 2.) apply for PUD and R-1 zoning. Morten/Engstrom advised they would like to pursue a PUD, and that they would attempt to be on the Planning Commission agenda of 8-8-88 and Council agenda of 8-16-88 with their General Concept Plan. As the City has denied some applications with similarities to this case, and the Planning Commission generally encouraged the applicant to proceed with his PUD, and this is the first (to my knowledge) residential PUD the City has reviewed, I have taken the liberty to request a professional planner (Mike Black, of James Hill Assoc.) to review this application when it is processed; it is anticipated the majority of his costs will be pass-throughs.