1998 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

, ` � _ ___ � � ` -' - � � � ` �; - - --- ' - - -- - -- —= - :..w�-:-� ; :-:-� - - ---�-�-- - - — Planning Commission Report #5 Walgreens �roposal March 26, "1998 Page 3 Analysis: One of the primary issues that has not been resolved is the effect of Walgreens development on the abutting property owners. While staff has not yet learned of any previous studies or comparable situations, we will continue to search. Given the information provided by the two real estate appraisers contacted, property values may be negatively impacted by the addition of the Walgreens. The e�ent of the impact, if any, would be mitigated by the type of use, the neighborhood in which it is located, the amount of buffering provided, and other factors. It is staf�s contention that any decrease in value would be negligible if at all. The developer has offered to compensate the adjacent property owners with additional land (as much as 4,000 square feet per property) or by means of a cash settlement. Staff is not aware of whether or not the settlement offers have been accepted. There are other impacts to the surrounding property owners and the neighborhood beyond property values. The issue re;arding additional pass-through traffic on Greenwood Drive is as much of a concern to the City as it is the residents living on Crreenwood Drive. The traffic experts claim that the additional vehicle trips will be negligible and would not be noticed given the numbers of vehicles already using the street. While this may be true from a theoretical perspective, from the perspective of a resident that already considers traffic to be excessive, more tr�c would only add to the problem. For this reason the applicant would consider installing some type of traffic calming device, perhaps similar to the options presented herein, or in some other form. The result of which would be that the additional tra.ffic that would have used Greenwood Drive and perhaps some existing traffic would be diverted to Long Lake Road or some other street. The speed of the remaining traffic would be reduced in addition. With regard to the access onto Highway 10, it has been learned that the City, not MnDOT, holds the right of approval in this location. That being the case, the City could approve the site plan at development review with the access onto Highway 10 indicated on the plans. And while ample justification might exist for doing so by looking at other properties having similar "difficult" access points (SuperAmerica, proposed Holiday store, the Oasis Mart at H2 and 10, to name a few), MnDOT stresses that the mistakes of the past should not be the basis for approving future problem access points. The other consideration regarding the access is if the City does approve the site plan with the Highway 10 access, how might that impact future City/MnDOT negotiations? The Highway 10 design theme implementation could be compromised if the City contradicts MnDOT's position. Mr. Cunningham has stated that the project is dependent upon the Highway 10 access without which there would be no project. It would be sta�s recommendation to approve the requests before the Commission and deal with the Highway 10 access at the development review stage of this project. Even though the City could approve the access poini outright, the applicant should be directed to continue to negotiate with MnDOT to resolve this issue without City intervention.