5. EDSR 10-10-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Below are staff comments/issues per preliminary review: If the lot is split, access (off of Twin Lakes Road, or a frontage road on the property) sewer and water service will need to be made available to the remaining portion of the parcel. o From an engineering standpoint, City Engineer does not recommend an access off of Twin Lakes Road. Access spacing guidelines identified in the City of Elk River's. transportation plan do not permit an access onto Twin Lakes Road. The City Engineer has no problem with a frontage road on the property to provide access to the remainder of the lot • Based on the proposed addition, a storm sewer line that exists along the current north property line will need to be relocated around the north side of the building. • The proposed plan shows dock doors adjacent to a public street which would require a conditional use permit and extensive screening. This typically takes about 6 weeks from the date of complete application to City Council review • The property is owned by the EDA, therefore, before the CUP application would be considered complete, CDI must purchase the property or the EDA must provide written support for the application/sign the application Should the EDA choose to move forward with the sale of a portion of the lot, the costs below should be discussed with the EDA and negotiated with the applicant: ^ Relocation of storm sewer line- $50,000 ^ Water Service- $3,900 ^ Sanitary Service - $12,000 ^ Turn Lane and entrance (off Twin Lakes Road)- $29,000 ^ Frontage road on property- $102,000 (approximately 450 ft. at $267.00/ft.) At their meeting on July 11T'' 2011, the EDA discussed their intentions with the lot in question as it pertained to Spectrum Charter School's request to place a dome on a portion of the lot. It was the consensus of the EDA that this lot was intended for industrial development, higher design standards and that the dome would decrease visibility, therefore bringing development down. Additionally, at their July 18`", 2011 Council meeting, the City Council expressed their desire. to hold the lot for future industrial development and indicated splitting the lot was not an option because of the lack of City owned property, with utility access available for industrial development. Staff is seeking direction on how to proceed. Options for consideration include: • Purchase lot at $2 sq/ft for a total of $773,625.60 (12.13 acre lot for net price of $1.46 sq/ft) • Purchase lot at fair market value; may be determined by appraisal PowEefo er ~~~~~