CCP 02-17-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , .' Minutes Page 10 02/02/94 . Mr. Rye asked what was the decision. Chair Winiecki explained the curb cut served multiple businesses. Mr. Erickson recommended to follow the study along Lexington Avenue and connect with a frontage road there. Chair Winiecki asked if we want to specifically say a frontage road. Mr. Petersen stated deciding on a frontage road may not be the right decision. Chair Winiecki said there were no other proposals. Mr. Rye asked if a business had interest to move into the area would a year or two be a good guess. Mr. Fritsinger stated the redeyelopment of this area would require negotiation and/or the use of eminent domain. The decision to use condemnation and its legal process could be short or lengthy depending on the process and commitment to using it. A redevelopment project of this magnitude would . probably take several years. Mr. Fritsinger stated the preYious curb cut was approyed for a retail deyelopment of 30,000 square feet. This was given 3 years ago and not for the existing 60,000 square foot building. Mr. McGraw stated he is looking for a reason to deny it rather than just say because. Could we not approye the curb cut with language that with future deyelopment it will be reviewed. Chair Winiecki couldn't support this because the curb cut would only serye one business. Furthermore it would contribute to more traffic congestion along this area. Mr. Erickson doesn't want to limit the use but rather he felt the denial was for specific reasons. He said to inyestigate options which are in the study and connect directly those 3 accesses. It seems like a fairly simple process to him, unless the County or City limits are in the property lines. It would be similar to the frontage road up on County Road B and Snelling by pannekoeken. Mr. Petersen stated he would also haye had a difficult time voting for the motion. The information should all be . reyiewed.