01-11-1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#2425 Rebers/Service 800 January 8, 1999 Page 3 Th? sixty fouf dollar question is. should the City now be forced to accept the nght~in/nglitr out access, or should the site be redesigned to incorporate an access that MnDOT would approve across from Rrimhall? Applicants are requesting that the City allow the subdivision to proceed and the office building to be consiructed with the existing curb cut and right-in/right-out access only. They submitted a ^ revised site plan today and are requesting Council s consideration at Monda • s meeting. Rebers attorney has submitted a proposed revision to Conditions 1 and 2 for incorporation into the final plat resolution, that drops all reference to the access being across from Brimhall. The access dilemma begs the question as to whether the service road or alternate access is now warranted. One of the primary reasons the City wished to avoid the right-in/right-out access was to eliminate the need for U-tums on Highway 12. The fact that this will be an office site rather than a high-traffic retail site, may make this situation less onerous. Bredeson indicates her use will not be hindered by the right-in/right-out access. Long Lake Review At the eleventh hour during staff discussions with the Long Lake Fire Department regarding a hvdrant for this site, it was indicated that Long Lake owns the triangle. This begged investigation, since the plat maps all show it is MnDOT right-of-way located within Long Lake’s corporate boundary. Staff contacted Long Lake, Ms. Bredeson met with their staff, and the result is the letter attached as Exhibit H. The triangle is in Long Lake, but it is MnDOT right-of-way, and Long Lake is OK with the originally proposed access design and location. Long Lake would not be directly involved in the alternate right-in/right-out access now proposed. Park Dedication Fee Under the current park fee ordinance, this site will be charged 8% of the fair market value (established by City Assessor at $3.05/s.f. or $125,270), i.e. a park fee of S10,021. This amount falls within the $7,250-12,250 per acre range established by Council on December 14, 1998. Security for Future Service Road Construction On December 14 Council concluded that the developer will qqI be required to post financial security for future service road construction, as long as a formal agreement is executed in w»'ich the owner of Lot 1 waives his/her right to appeal the special assessment for such road. Such an agreement has been drafted by the applicant's attorney and is attached as Exhibit C. Please review conditions 1-5