6.4. SR 08-15-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 1 of2 Mcpherson, Michele From: Mayorer@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:28 AM To: mcmpherson@cLelk-river.mn.us Subject: Kingdom Estates 2nd Michelle, I had a conversation with Dennis Wurm the developer of Kingdom Estates 2nd. He showed me a letter sent from the Sherburne County Highway Dept. (Dick Corbin) having to do with asking the city to require improvements at the intersection of County Rd. 33 and Olson Street as a condition of the plat of Kingdom Estates 2nd. I, of course, was the previous owner of this property but now have no attachment to it or contingencies concerning the sale. So I speak about this issue with the county as mayor and not as a developer. The county is completely out-of-line to be asking the city to require this developer to improve the intersection as a condition of his plat approval. Wurm's property does not border on County Rd. 33; it is an extension of Olson Street. If we require this developer to respond to a request by the county to improve an intersection some 1500 feet from his property line, don't we open up a can of worms for the county to be requesting this of other developers in similar situations. The county could use this to force improvements of all of its intersections with city streets simply because a developer is adding to the traffic counts in the area. I have seen many examples of existing city street intersections with county roads in Elk River not being required to be improved by developers platting other areas along the city street feeding into the county road. Also, the access permit issues by the county when the first phase of Kingdom Estates was developed does not have any limitation on it and the final plat of Kingdom Estates does not require any improvements to the intersection of County Rd. 33 and Olson Street. Also the developes agreement, which is now the responsibility of Wurm, does not required any improvements to the intersection. We have many discussions with the county highway staff, as you know, during the development of Kingdom Estates 1st Addition. As as result of these discussions, we moved the access point of Olson Street several feet to the west of the originally proposed point. This was to satisfy the county's concern that the street intersected the county road on a curve. That change considerably increased the cost of the development since another wetland was impacted. But this was done to create a better situation for the county. No agreement was reached by me or my husband that we would do the improvements with the 2nd addition. We simply had exhausted any further discussion with the county (they refused to discuss it further) and the county highway engineer issued the access permit. We neither agreed nor signed anything saying that we would improve the intersection with the 2nd phase. Besides we are not developing the 2nd phase and the one who is does not have property that borders on a county road. He should not be required to abide by something the county is requesting when it has no direct relation to the property he owns and is developing. Our major concern with improving the intersection with County Rd. 33 and Olson Street was (and still is) that there are wetlands on both sides of the road. Impacting these wetlands would not be in the best interest of the people living in the area. Also, I would think that protecting wetlands is a municipal responsibility. To be requiring unnecessary negative impact is just not in the best interest of the city and requiring a bypass lane and a turn lane for a road that will potential serve 20 homes is simply not necessary and a case of over-development. Also the county has not been consistent in apply the standards it is saying they need to apply to this intersection. Also constructing a bypass lane and a turn lane in an area of steep slopes and wetlands is an extremely expensive venture. These improvements would put undo handship on the developer of the project. Also the city's transportation plan calls for the extension of a state highway just to the south of this area with the county road eventually being turned back to the city. This section of County Rd. 33 is not anticipated to carry large volumes of traffic in the future. The cost of making these improvements to the intersection of County Rd. 33 and Olson Street will eventually be lost. Also, the county shows no interest in improving the safety of County Rd. 33 in any other way. Wanting these improvements at the intersection with Olson Street pales in comparison to the need for the county to improve the road by realigning it to remove the two 90 degree curves, which have been the cause of many accidents over the past 20 years. It doesn't seem that the county is all that interested in improving the safety of the traveling public on County Rd. 33 when they ignore the real major safety issues on the road. My request is that the city not include any improvement at the intersection of County Rd. 33 and Olson Street in the plat of Kingdom Estates 2nd. I do not believe that the city needs to be the county's henchman. The county needs to take care of county business. The developer needs to be free to deal with the county on the merits of the issues and not be held hostage by the city. I will oppose any condition in the plat of Kingdom Estates 2nd Addition that refers to the county's request for 7/26/2005