07-15-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C. LOCATION OF KELLEY PARKWAY CMP Does Not Define Kelley Parkway Routing. A few years prior to completion of the 2000-2020 CMP the City had its planning consultant, DSU, drafl concept plans for the areas north and south of Kelley Parlcway as a guideline for discussions (see Exhibit B). Two of the concept plans, “Study A” and “Study D“, became the City ’s standard discussion guide for developers inquiring about the property. However, although these concept plans were described in the CMP as created “to show how townhomes and a small number of commercial sites might be developed ” (CMP page 3B-34), these concept plans did not become part of the CMP. The applicants have suggested that the routing of Kelley Parkway in their revised Concept Plan “follows your comprehensive plan”. That is not accurate, as the CMP docs not define a routing for Kelley Parkway but merely indicates it will be “300-500 feet north of Highway 12" (CMP page 3B-34), and on Map 3B-7 suggests an easterly terminus directly across from the platted potential future service road behind the Otten property. The point of this discussion is intended to address staffs significant concern about applicants’ proposal to locate a segment of Kelley Parkw ay within the existing MnDOT stormw ater pond right- of-way. Although Study A does show- a similar configuration. Study D docs not, and it was never suggested to the applicants that a routing through the MnDOT pond right-of-w ay was preferred or feasible. Public Serv ices Director Greg Gappa discussed this with Ben Timerson of MnDOT on 7- 10-02. It v. as Timerson’s opinion that such a reconveyance to the City, though potentially feasible, would likely take at least 6 months or even a year to process, and would not be a hiuh priority for MnDOT. Staff believes it would not be in the City ’s best interests to pursue such a request on behalf of the applicants. City support and partnering in gaining approval for the use and expansion of the MnDOT pond right-of-w’ay for regional stormwater purposes is one thing, pursuing a swap for road purposes does not rise to the same level of importance, especially w hen equally feasible and less complicated road locations arc possible. The City is working closely with MnDOT to ensure that the Highway 1 2 project proceeds as smoothly as possible. .MnDOT does not have the resources to deal efficiently with requests such this, and likely will not give it a high priority. The City should not make any requests that jeopardizes its relationship with MnDOT. A« a secondary issue, the applicant’s development timeframe may be severely impacted by w aiting for a MnDOT reconveyance process to be completed. Thirdly, w hile applicant has shown conceptual sketches how' the two commercial outlets might be developed, the Kelley Parkw ay routing through the MnDOT pond area w ould seem to make those commercial sites somew hat more restricted in terms of flexibility. We need to ensure that the location of Kelley Parkw ay does not significantly restrict the ability to develop the outlot parcels for office use. Planning Commission should make a recommendation, if possible, as to w hether the applicant and City should pursue use of the MnDOT pond area for Kelley Parkway. #02-2789(Reviscd) Dahhlrom Dcvelopincnt LLC July 12, 2002 Page 7 of 13