CC_Minutes_2014_0721 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 21,2014 Page 22 • Twin Lakes Parkway Extension Mr. Culver noted that the Parkway was currently constructed to Prior Avenue; and reviewed further estimated extension costs, federal funding received for right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Culver anticipated the extension to Fairview Avenue as soon as 2015; and noted that the extension would include traffic controls at Fairview Avenue and Twin Lakes Parkway and Terrace Drive. • Traffic Signal at County Road C-2 and Cleveland Avenue Mr. Culver advised that this improvement was necessary for further redevel- opment including the existing Metro transit parking ramp; and anticipated costs of$500,000, which would provide significant benefit to existing uses on the west side of Cleveland Avenue. In order to assign benefit and cost allocation, Mr. Culver reviewed optional as- sessments under Minnesota State Statute Chapter 429 and the current City of Ro- seville Special Assessment Policy. Mr. Culver addressed calculations based on trips = benefit and how trip genera- tion was based on assumed highest and best use for a parcel as well as potential land use over an entire area at average trip rate calculations and average floor area (AFR) ratios used to determine the total number of trips for each parcel and their highest and best use. Mr. Culver reviewed calculations with the existing land use plan in defining parcels at 26% of parcel size for commercial/office use and 30% total parcel size for industrial use. Mr. Culver clarified that it remained unknown what the actual land use would end up on any individual parcel, but based on av- erage trip rate calculations, with the average FAR used to calculate the number of trips from each parcel and then distribute that across the area for pm peak hour trips. Mr. Culver provided a general example using a 3/7 acre parcel along Cleve- land Avenue. In accordance with City Policy, Mr. Culver reviewed the appraisal process for proving benefit and showing an increase in value of at least the proposed assess- ment; with any properties assigned a higher benefit only assessed for the ap- praised benefit amount. Mr. Culver noted that this could create gaps in actual versus calculated benefits, with that cost borne by the City and funding options (e.g. TIF funds) identified as appropriate. Mr. Culver identified benefit areas by map and reviewed how traffic was modeled throughout the areas and trip distribution using that model by tracking how many trips from each parcel went through each proposed improvement area, which de- termined the area of benefit and which parcels paid for each improvement. Regarding the next steps with direction by the City Council, Mr. Culver advised that staff intended to meet with property owners this fall, followed by a feasibility study; with eventual levying of assessments as individual improvements are com-