2008_0825_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

portion of the cost may be attributable to United. Properties as a necessity to the senior coop development, the mqjority of the cost is due to the need. to separate this road. from the coop's parking lot and. the construction of the road. as a public street versus private service drive. We estimate the total public road. to be approximately 1,100 feet in length. Exclu.d.ing any lighting as well as costs associated. with treating water runoff, we would. be looking at costs of approximately $200 per linear foot for a 24' wide road.. Approximately 600 linear feet of this road. was not contemplated. in our earlier plan since it was not going to be a public road.. The $120,000 associated. with this 600 feet of public road. does not even take into account the ad.d.itional costs to build. the balance of this road. to meet public road. standard.s, ad.d.itional requirements such as street lighting, the pedestrian path contemplated. within our site from the Brenner Avenue Easement to Langton Lake Park, or the loss of revenue noted. earlier resulting from the elimination of the town homes. Connection to the Park was specifically planned. by the City and. identified. as an important goal for fulfilling Park needs. While the City Ordinance exclu.des utility and. right-of- way improvements from the Park Fee Calculation, it does not exclu.de road. access. We therefore feel very strongly that the cost of the Park access road. that is not attributable to necessary site improvements should. be counted. against any required. Park Dedication Fee. In this case, the road. cost, pedestrian paths within our site that are accessible to the public, lighting, and. the proposed. construction of paths around. the southern wetland. area, should. be subtracted. from the $190,000 total Park Fee likely to be assessed.. We feel these costs in total negate this fee in its entirety. It is our understanding that the Park and. Recreation Commission voted. for the fee assessment, so we would. like the appropriate City entity (City Council?) to reconsider this issue as part of the Final Plan Approval. It is our assumption that we will be constructing public improvements (the public road. and. pedestrian paths) within our site only. Any connection through the Brenner Avenue Easement and. the extension of the road. into the City-owned. land. to the south of our parcel inclu.d.ing the proposed. "turn around." and. connection to the existing Park parking lot will not be the responsibility of United. Properties. In summary, we look forward. to ad.d.ing a second. Applewood. Pointe Community in Roseville. The previous community has been a tremendous success — both for United. Properties and. the City of Roseville. Many of our residents have come from within Roseville and. we are confident that providing this type of hou.sing opportunity will continue to free up existing homes for younger buyers. We have enjoyed. a great working relationship with the City, and. look forward. to breaking ground. on this community as soon as possible. AH/bls