Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-12-03 Applicant Ltr. to OPH Re Trail ConnectionROBERT L. BRACKEY 80 E. Arlington St. Paul, MN 55117 651- 488 -6113 Fax: 651 - 4891405 Email: rlbbracs @aol.com December 3, 2007 Eric Johnson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North Oak :Park Heights, MN 55082 -2007 Re: Best Buy Store 60 Street North &Krueger• Lane Oak Park Heights, MN Dear ErIC /- t At the City Council Meeting on November 27, 2007, the Mayor requested that we send members of the Council our reasons for opposing the location and installation of a north /south connection trail from 58` Street to 60 Street as part of the proposed PUD. We retained Tim Erkkila, a city planner, to provide his analysis of the Planning Commission's recommendations on this point and what Mr. Erkkila believes is the proper timing for the location and installation of the trail, Mr. Erkkila's sets forth the following reasons in support of his analysis: 1. Routing the trail through the undeveloped lot east of the AmericaInn (Brackey Second Addition) will jeopardize the use of that site. The parcel in question is already relatively narrow and is further divided by a north to south utility easement. The utility easement is somewhat compatible with parking uses on that site but the routing of the trail over the utility easement or abutting it would deny parking uses on the encumbered area. A trail route through that site might be possible but it can't be created pri-o-,-r.-.,-, to creating a viable private development site plan. Eric Johnson December 5, 2007 Page two 2. Grading issues at the south end of the site exacerbate the impact of a premature route selection. The existing lay of the land would require regrading the proposed trail route to minimize an existing steep slope. This grading expands the area impacted by the trail route and complicates the future grading by the future lot user at the south end of this trail (on Outlot A). 3. Requested improvement has dubious benefit to the Best Buy retail facilities, as it will not provide direct access to the users of Lot I. or Lot 2 of the proposed Brackey's 4 Addition. 4. Requested route is similar to, and less functional than, anorth -south trail on Krueger Lane from 58 11 ' to 60 The proposed north end of the trail "T's" into an existing trail at 60 It is not a terminal destination (such as a park, school or other destination). The sidewalk system along Krueger does provide access to businesses along Krueger Lane whip the proposed route west of Menards does not. 5. Requested improvement is not within the PUD area 6. Requested improvement is within an undeveloped area; the City retains full power to require future location and installation upon development of the land where the trail will be located. 7. The City will incur maintenance and snow clearing expenses on a prematurely installed trail, when there is no demonstrable need at this time for a trail which doesn't, at this time, go anywhere. 8. The Park Dedication fees for this plat have been established and previously paid by the Land Owner at City request. Summary: The proposed trail route linking 58 to 60 has no apparent value to the proposed retail buildings of the Brackey O tt, Addition. More importantly, there is great risk of damaging the development potential for the two undeveloped sites the proposed trail would traverse if the trails are built before site plans are approved for those sites. There are no development plans in hand at this time for these two sites. Eric Johnson December 5, 2007 Pa three The proposed trail is premature and the approval of the proposed Best Bu PUD/CUP/Site Plan/Subdivision Submission without the re to build the north-south trail will not preclude establishin this trail route in conjunction with the future development plannin of the involved parcels. The land owner will consider north-south trail routin options when the land involved (eastern Lot of Bracke Second Addition and Outlot A of the proposed Bracke 4t" Addition) are before the Cit for development consideration. We re that this re for a north-south trail be removed from the conditions of approval for the Best Bu project but the developers will a to consider the routin options at the time site plans are bein reviewed for the land in q uestion. Eric, would y ou please distribute copies of this letter to the Ma Cit Council members, and all appropriate staff. Thank y ou for y our consideration on this matter. S cerel im Mc Govern roj b ect Manager.