Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Rosehaven Addition / County Road Access Policyi i P'o BOY 110 1 O 2$75 145TVI ST W ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 550CIiR ©JoVE F17-4�� .1411 Tim. rig J 0. , TO: Mayor Hoke Councilmembers:, Napper Oxborough Walsh Wippermann FROM: Stephan Jilk, Administrator/Clerk DATE: July 29, 1988 RE: Rosehaven Mall/County Road Access I have discussed the County Road Access request for the Rosehaven Mail with Gary Erickson, Physical Planning Director for Dakota j County. We have also sent a letter of request to Dakota County j to have someone at our council meetingon Tuesday to discuss their policy, the purpose behind it and to clarify the policy as it relates to the access for the proposed mall. Attached is a letter from Gary Stevenson, county surveyor, on the clarification request. I believe it speaks very well to the clarification of the policy. We do hope that the representative of the county attending our meeting, will explain the reasoning } behind the policy as to safety, design etc. At this writing we have not been advised as to who will represent the County at the Tuesday meeting. I i 0 COUNTY DAKOTA L SURVEY DEPARTMENT 7300 WEST 147th STREET, SUITE 0300 GARY H. STEVENSON, R.L.S. COUNTY SURVEYOR (612) 431-1153 APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55124 July 29, 1988 City of Rosemount 1367 145th St. E. Rosemount, MN 55068 ATT: Stephan Jilk, City Administrator RE: ROSEHAVEN MALL Dear Mr. Jilk: Dakota County spacing guidelines for the section of C.S.A.H. NO. 42 adjoining the preliminary plat of ROSEHAVEN MALL call in part for: 1. No direct access for private residential or individual commercial driveways. 2. 1/8th mile spacing with no median opening for low volume, non -continuous streets. In the Plat Commission's review of the preliminary plat of ROSEHAVEN MALL, it was noted that the proposed entrance served multiple commercial properties, and therefore, a similar purpose as a low volume, non -continuous street. Under our guidelines, as written, however, the access would only be permissible if the city considers this a street. A street is defined as a public street dedicated to the public. Non -continuous means that the street does not serve an extended linear group of traffic generators such as a residential or commercial collector street. It does assume, however, that the street connects to other public- streets to allow alternativeingress and egress to the properties served. The Plat Commission's authority only pertains to the County highway. The City has the authority beyond the County's right of way in the determination and requirements concerning streets. If the City does not desire the proposed access to become a street, but rather a private driveway, then the access would not be recommended for approval by the Plat Commission. County Board resolution number 82-151 states the following: If a plat is submitted to a city and the access spacing is NOT consistent with the Access S acinq Guidelines, then the city may proceed one of two ways: AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A. If the city approves of the access spacing as shown in the preliminary plat, then the -city staff :should submit written comments to the County Plat Commission outlining their reasons for recommending approval of the plat. The Plat Commission may then consider whether a variance is in the best interests of the County. B. If the city does NOT approve of the access spacing as shown in a preliminary plat, then city staff should work with the developer in attempting to meet the County's guidelines. Also, city staff should submit a j written memo to the County Plat Commission outlining their objections to the preliminary plat. Any conflicts must be resolved' 'before the County Plat Commission considers final approval. The review of the preliminary plat by the Plat Commission is required in order to notify the city of the County's requirements and guidelines during the city's review of the proposed plat. It is not to be considered a recommendation of the plat as it concerns the city's requirements or ordinances. I hope this clarifies the County's Plat Commission review of this plat. The Plat Commission apologizes for any misunderstanding our letter dated June 14, 1988, may have caused. Please feel free to call me if you have further questions. Sincerely, Gary H. Stevenson Secretary, Dakota County Plat Commission GHS/vf cc: Steve Loeding, Chairman, County Board of Commissioners Gary Erickson, Physical Development director Dean Johnson, City of Rosemount David Everds, County Highway Engineer 0 11fl<:/l:U11Rtl ii July 25, 1988 a. Mr. Gary Stevenson, Surveyor Dakota County Surveyor Department Dakota County Plat Commission, Secretary 7300 West 147th Street, Suite 300 Apple Valley, MN 55124 RE: Rosehaven Mill Rosemount, MN Dear Mr. Stevenson: You have already received a letter on this matter fr_cxii Dean Johnson our Community Development Director; this is a follow up to that letter, On July 19, 1988 our city council held a public hearing to consider the preliminary plat for the Rosehaven WI -1. proposal. One of the major items of concern was the proposed "right in only" access from CR 142 east of Chippendale Avenue. The city received your letter of June 14, 1988 addressing the county's review of that proposed access. In that leLLer_ you outlined just how the proposed access fit into the county's guidelines; but, in order to clarify the county's position atxi policy on this request, we would ask that sottieone from Lhe couttty staff do that at our city council meeting on August 7. We feel we need clarification about the 1./4 distance spacing versus the 1/8 mile distance spacing guidelines the county has, when a variance is grantable atxl for the type of access for which a variance would be granted. It is the city's understanding that a 1/8 mile spacing can be considered as a variance to the regular 1/4 mile spacing if the proposed access is for a'Il.ow volume city street versus a commercial driveway.. This proposed access is a commercial driveway and, in our understatiding of the county's policy, would not be allowed even through a variance process. This is why we need an interpretation of the county's policy and a better_ understanding of the reasoning behiiid the pol.i-cy. 'ihat is, if the policy is N-Ised on safety, highway design, Lraf.f.ic flow or a combination of all of these. 1- lift I:1 Rosehaven Mall Page 2 We will wait to hear from you as to who may attend our council. meeting for this discussion. Also, if there would be any written correspondence that we can share with our city council, we would appreciate receiving it by Friday, July 29. Thank you. Sinc rely, �� r Ste an Jilk Administrator/Clerk sjs cc: Gary Erickson, Dakota County Dean Johnson, Rosemount Rich Ilefti, Rosemount July 22, 1988 Mr. Gary 11. Stevenson Dakota County Surveyor 731111 West 147th Street, Suite 3110 Aphic Valley, MN 55124 RE: ROSE1tAVEN ADDiTiON Dear Mr. Stevenson: On July 19, 1988, Ilse Roscnrouni C;IV C'ounc•ii the itr+llchavcn Addiliou Concept PUD/Preliminary Plat. This plat is a replat 1)f a pollion of S411rlh Rose Park Addition Replat, which currently show-, access restricted all along CSAR 42. The major issue regarding the proposed plat is the rccluesled right - in from CSAR 42 to the site. Your letter, dated .lune 14, t988, summarized the plat review by the Dakota County Plat Commission. You noted lhal spacing guiclelinc•s do 11411 allow commercial driveways at 1/81h mile spacing; yet, it was further nosed that "'Phis access is acceptable to the Plal Commission..." The proposed access is definitely private and not a public street. The City Council has requested written clarification rettardirig lite County's spacing policy, with specific respect to this proposcd'private access. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sin rely, Dean R. Johns n AK Director of Community Uevclopmcnt DJ/DQ