Laserfiche WebLink
MAR-18-1998 09:4? BENSHOOF & ASSOC. 612 832 9564 P.03/03 <br /> Mr.Robert Cunningham -2- March 18, 1998 <br /> • was not a sufficient reason to justify this access. Scott said that there was now an effort at <br /> Mn/DOT to "correct the mistakes of the past" whenever the opportunity arose. This means <br /> that although all the other access locations on T.H. 10 in the vicinity of the Walgreens <br /> development do not meet Mn/DOT spacing requirements, Mn/DOT now requires all future <br /> access locations to strictly adhere to Mn/DOT guidelines. <br /> I asked Scott Peters to discuss the T.H. 10 access situation with Bill Warden in order to <br /> reconcile the conflicting messages that we had received from Mn/DOT. Following Scott's <br /> discussion with Bill Warden, Scott advised me to contact Michael Christiansen as Scott felt <br /> that he was not in a position to grant the T.H. 10 access. (According to Scott,Bill Warden has <br /> not changed his original response to the access issue.) I contacted Michael Christiansen on <br /> March 10. Mr. Christiansen stated that he agreed with Scott Peters' review of the T.H. 10 <br /> access and felt that the access should not be permitted due to the safety concerns addressed in <br /> the report. <br /> He further mentioned to me that while Mn/DOT has the right to grant or refuse access on T.H. <br /> 10,the City of Mounds View has the right to make the final decision to either accept or reject <br /> the Mn/DOT recommendation. According to.Michael Christiansen, the City of Mounds View <br /> has,the right to grant the Walgreens development access to T.H. 10 over the objections of <br /> Mn/DOT staff If the City were to disregard the Mn/DOT recommendation, it would be up to <br /> Mn/DOT staff to object to this decision. The level of the Mn/DOT objection would be <br /> dependent upon the relative impact that the Walgreens access would have on T.H. 10 <br /> io operation. This is a decision that Mn/DOT staff must make. If Mn/DOT staff have serious <br /> concerns about this Walgreens access,then the level of their objection could be significant. If <br /> their concerns are minor, Mn/DOT staff could allow the proposed access to proceed by not <br /> objecting too loudly. <br /> This completes the summary of the discussions that I had with Mn/DOT staff from January to <br /> March 1998. Let us know if you have any questions or comments about the points addressed <br /> in this letter. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. <br /> Michael H. Chen <br /> I <br /> TOTAL P.03 <br />