Memo - SuperValu Perishable Warehouse Public Improvements Update
.l t
Public Works Department
Memorandum
To:
From:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director CGt7
Copy:
Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
Date:
January 19, 2001
Subject:
SuperValu Perishable Warehouse Public Improvements Update
Purpose: To inform City Council of remaining approvals required on subject project
public improvements and discuss staff's intended course of action.
Backaround: The October 25, 2000 Conditional Use Permit Agreement for the subject
project includes a detailed description of several public improvements. The agreement,
approved by City Council at the October 3, 2000 Council Meeting, requires SuperValu
to pay design, construction and right of way acquisition costs for roadway, utility,
pedestrian way and landscaping work. City council approved the project CUP and the
associated preliminary design of most road and pedestrian way improvements on
August 2, 2000 and SuperValu is proceeding with design. The only roadway
improvement whose preliminary design has not been approved is the 5th SUSth SU 10th
Avenue South intersection work.
5th St/6th St/10th Avenue South Intersection Improvements: As Council probably
recalls, staff reviewed and discussed with residents and City Council several different
options for improving this intersection. The Benshoof & Associates traffic studies
included consideration and analysis of seven different intersection designs - diagrams
of these options are attached. The CUP agreement specified that if SuperValu
acquired the commercial properties on the southwest corner of their site that Option C
would be built. However, SuperValu did not purchase these properties and did not
request that the city acquire them. The area residents preferred Option C. In fact, the
10th Avenue South residents presented a petition signed by more that 20 property
owners encouraging the city to purchase the two commercial properties so that this
option could be built. To-date, City Council has not expressed interest in buying the
two properties. The August 2, 2000 Council minutes include the following statement:
"Neither SuperValu nor the City was willing to fund the taking". This was in response to
the residents request that Option C be built. The CUP agreement states that if the
"
properties are not purchased then the developer agrees to reconstruct the intersection
according to a design approved by the City, the design will not include Option C.
Future actions: Staff will now invite area residents to a public meeting to present and
discuss the remaining intersection options. Staff intends to recommend that Option D
be built. This is the least expensive option that meets the intersection improvement
objectives. Staff will then report the results of the meeting to City Council and request
approval of a proposed option. A tentative schedule is as follows:
Neighborhood meeting: February 7
Council approve intersection plan: February 20
Staff will be meeting with SuperValu representatives early next week to discuss a
proposed sound wall design and the public improvement design and construction
schedules.