Agenda - Council - 03/11/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion cmTied. Strommen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Kurak, to adopt Resolution. · #03~01-009 authorizing signatures for financiat transactions. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers COok, Kurak, Elvig, Pearson, Strommen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Pearson, Cook, Elvig, Kurak, Case #2: Request for Preliminary Plat Review of Rivenwick 3''d Addition; -Case of Turtle Moon, Inc. Associate Planner Waid' stated that 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 hoW the developer is going to handle the adjoining property to the south that has a fence located on the developer's property. Subsequent to the City Council meeting, Mr: Shulte discussed this issue with the title company and they are unwilling to allow Mr.'Shulte 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 Riverdale Drive west. Subsequent to the City Council meeting, staff met with the Anoka. County Engineer and Anoka County Attorney. Anoka County Staff agreed that a frontage road would probably continue west through the regional park and the main entrance to the park would be at the intersection of.Highway #10 and Ramey Boulevard. City staff asked if it would be legally possible to move the Riverdale Drive intersection south in the future to meet MnDot's second' entrance intersection separation requirements. It is the County. AttorneY's Opinion that if the County and the City needed to realigm 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 t, he 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 R/verdale Drive. Anoka County.staff made :it clear that the current platted RiVerdale Drive intersection cannot be changed until the appropriate govermnent agency is able to take control of the property and at. this pointj the County is unable to determine when that will-occur. Since Riverdale Drive is a designated MSA road, the Council inquired whether Riverdale Drive could be constructed to temporary standards until the realignment of Riverdale Drive occurred. MnDot would require Riverdale Drive to be constructed to MSA standards, however, there are measures the City could take to reduce road construction cost. The City Council also questioned if the placement of the 12-inch waterline would be affected if Riverdale Drive were to be. relocated. Staff and the deVeloper have discussed this issue and determined that the 12-inch waterline Could be placed so that it would not need to be relocated even if RiVerdale Drive is required to be realigned in the future. The ! I I I I I I I I I .I I I: -118- City Council/January 14, 2003 Page 9 of 27 i