03-20-90 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rates really much, if any, higher? In general, I am in favor of keeping the 201 systems on a self-supporting basis. If we review the rates every year, we can decrease them in the future if the fund balance increases to a healthy level. 5B. I agree with Bohrer's recommendation. 5C. Apparently, MnDOT feels this road is so heavily used that extra wide shoulders are required. This should put to rest any criticisms that this road is being improved merely for the benefit of a couple of landowners. Obviously, the road is used by many vehicles not connected with the abutting landowners. I favor using 6 foot wide shoulders and raise the assessments if necessary. 6A. Comments on Mike Black's draft of "Implementation Section" (See attached page) Comments on Future Land Use Map. The northwest quarter of Section 16 should be RRD, because it will be next to dense development in Oakdale. For the area north of Goose Lake: are we sending a wrong message by allowing relatively dense development so close to the proposed landfill in the Park? For the area west of Goose Lake: does the existing western RRD boundary include all the land once owned by Heritage Dev? Does it matter? Comments about "average lot density" for the RRD areas: As a compromise, I propose allowing 5 lots per 20 acres, with a minimum buildable lot size (exclusive of roads, easements, water, etc.) of 2.5 acres and a maximum size of 5 acres. A minimum development size of 20 acres would be required. 9B. I favor allowing only Lake Elmo -based non-profit groups to set up in the Park. 9D. While the new contract looks OK, are the additional monies sufficient to pay the extra monitor time and City staff time to turn the piles, fill out report forms, etc.?