12/18/2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Mr. Olson advised the County would acquire a minimum of 100' of right -of -way. This has been part of the County's plan for decades. The City has agreed to that. The maximum impact to homes or businesses is 12' of right -of -way. Mayor Bergeson inquired about the x's on the map. Mr. Olson advised the setback line is 40' feet. The x's indicate where the 100' right -of -way is out of that 40' setback. There are currently about six (6) cases that the setback won't be met. Council Member Carlson inquired about the width of the roadway now, especially by the townhomes. Mr. Olson indicated he does not have that number. Council Member Carlson asked if 20' feet of additional right -of -way will be requested as the project goes down Lake Drive. The City Engineer advised that as development occurs, the other side of the roadway will require 20' of right -of -way. Council Member Carlson stated this is another example of thin without realizing the significance. The City is giving the Count paying for it. before Council nts without them The City Engineer stated the City is giving the County a eas Tent but is saving money on the project. A typical County plan includes 6 fight -of -way from the center line. Mr. Olson advised that as part of the Co .r � Plan, there is a requirement for right -of -way. In 1994, a letter was to rom e County asking cities to consider right -of -way for County road dev ere is a new law in effect where the cities must allow for a 30 day review e •r th ounty. Right -of -way is sought after because it lowers the cost of project : s . a o a way for development to help defray costs. Ms. Margaret Langfi - d, Coun ommissioner, came forward and reminded the Council there are two (2) other • . he apologized that the Council did not receive this information prior to the p ' eeting. She stated it is the primary job of the County Engineer to design safe roads. It i° . so the job of elected officials. This issue is not about how the road looks or how close it is too homes. The project only affects six (6) properties. She stated the County does not want to take property. However, the County can not fix the state issue of road problems. The Metropolitan Council feels the project is appropriate. A solution is needed to move traffic. She stated that possibly the traffic volume amount is negotiable. She stated it would be helpful to have a meeting with both cities and Counties. The City has hard choices to make. The State has told the County to do this project. The County won't be back for this project for 4 -5 years and that may be too late. The City and County need to think about the future. Council Member O'Donnell asked if the Council has received information before about the six (6) properties that are affected. Mr. Olson advised six (6) properties will be non- conforming because of the setbacks.