Agenda - Council - 01/14/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

'-106- resignalizing this intersection and modifying the road ge0metrics to add this additional leg is estimated to be $l$0,00 to $200;000. ~vinDot is proposing to revise the signal system along Highway #10 in 2004, which includes this intersection. If the additional leg has been added by the time that project occurs, the City's cost in the MnD0t project.is estimated to be $5,000. [t should be noted that MnDot has a policy, which prohibits the expenditure of state funds on improvements caused by development. In this case~ the fourth leg of this intersection is considered by MnDot to be attributable.to development. MnDot submitted a letter dated September· 16, 2002 that states there should be at leaSt a 500 foot separation between U~S. Highway #10 and where another intersection can occur (i.e. the entrance to Anoka County Park and the continuation of the frontage road to the west). In order for the developer to comply with this requirement, the developer will need to purchase additional land from Anoka County (south of the proposed Riverdale Drive alignment). This presents a problem as Anoka County owns the land through a life estate contract. Anoka County has contacted the landowner and haS been unsuccessful in obtaining permission to construct a road through a portion of the property at this time. Therefore, staff discussed an interim option with the Planning Commission to plat. the portion of Riverdale Drive that runs from Lot 1, Block 2 to U.S. Highway #10 as an outlot for purposes of preliminary plat approval. The developer woUld then only final plat Lots 8, 9, and 10, of Block. 2 at this time. This would allow the developer the ability, to construct three 8 unit structures (24 units) and construct Riverdale Drive from Garnet Street to where 1384 Avenue intersectg Riverdale Drive. The Planning Commission met on October I0,.2002 and recommended that the City Council approve'the preliminary plat contingent upon compliance with City Staff review letter dated September .27, 2002; revised November 8, 2002 and further subject to modifying the proposed plat to include Outlot A as proposed by Staff, and' the Developer receiving a reZoning of that portion, of the subject property which is zoned B-1 Business. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council accept the proposed landscape buffering along the southern boundary line of the plat as fulfilling density transitioning reqUirements. The Planning Commission also recommended that the developer final plat the proposed' development in phases and the first phase consist of Lots 8, 9, and 10. . . Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, Staff and the Developer had further discussions regarding the option to plat a Portion of R/verdale Drive as an Outlot. The-Developer stated that he would prefer to plat and construct Riverdale Drive to connect to U.S. Highway #10 as proposed and at such time when Anoka County is ready to develop the park, negotiate with Anoka County and the City for the cost. and design to realign Riverdale Drive to meet MnDot's second entrance standards. The City Council met on November 12, 2002 and reviewed the proposed sUbdivisiOn. During the meeting several issues and concerns were raised. The City Council inquired hoWthe developer ia.going-to handle the adjoining property to the south that has. a fence located on the deVelopbr's property. Subsequent to the City Council· meeting, Mr. Shulte discussed this issue with the title company and they are unwilling.to oliow Mr. Shutte to provide an easement to the resident whose fence protrudes onto the developer's property. Mr. Shulte is willing to work with the. resident to assist in removing, the fence and may-be willing to pay. half the cost associated in removing the fence' from the property. : Concerns were raised 'in regard to Riverdale Drive possibly needing to be realigned.in the future to meet MnDot's intersection separation requirements for the Regional. Park entrance and continuation of 'R/verdale Drive west. Subsequent to the City Council meeting, staff met wii~h the:Anoka coUnty Engineer and Anoka County Attorney. Anoka County Staff agreed that a' frontage road would probably continue west through the'regional parkand the main entrance to the park would be at the intersection of' Highway #I0-and. Ramey Blvd. City Staff asked if it would be legally possible to move the Pdverdale DriVe intersection south in the future to meet Mn.Dot's second' entrance intersection separation requirements. It is the County Attorney's opinion that if the County and the City needed to realign the Riverdale Drive intersection in the future, this would most likely, be. possible when. the correct government agency took control of the property. The City would most likely be responsible for finding · additional land that is contiguous to the regional park to. swap with the government agency for the land' that would be utilized for road right, of-way for the intersection and continuation of Riverdale Drive. I I t I I I