Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-96 City of Lakeville PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 20, 1996 The meeting was called to order by Ghair Luick at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Roll call of members was taken. Present: Bellows, Miller, Rieb, Luick, Cecchini, Wulff. Absent: Kowalke, Amborn. Also present:. Robert Erickson, City Administrator; Michael Sobota, Community and Economic Development Director; Daryl Morey, City Planner; Tim Hanson, Assistant . City Engineer; Jim Walston, Assistant City Attorney; and Donna Quintus, Recording Secretary. The minutes of the June 6, 1996 Planning Commission meeting were approved as printed. Chair Luick turned the meeting. over to Vice-Chair Rieb for the duration of the public hearing and discussion of Agenda Item No. 4 due to his membership on the Board of Trustees of the Trinity Evangelical Free Church. ITEM NO.4: P 1BLIC' H .A: TRINITY EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT (CUP) AMENDMENT Vice-Chair Rieb opened the public hearing to consider a conditional use permit amendment for Trinity Evangelical Free Church. Assistant City Attorney Jim Walston attested that the legal notice had been duly published and mailed as required by state statute. City Planner Daryl Morey presented an overview of the application from Trinity Evangelical Free Church to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 95-03, which was. approved by the City Council in March of 1995. CUP No. 95-03 permitted the ' construction of an off-site parking area on property owned by the church located in the northwest quadrant of Klamath Trail and Kenwood Trail (C.S.A.H. S), a metes and bounds parcel located west of and contiguous to the church building. An extension of the conditional use permit to November 1,.1996 was granted by the City Council. The proposed CUP amendment is due to the church's proposal to modify the original layout of the parking lot expansion area. The main differences between the original and revised plans are as follows: • 98 parking spaces are not proposed instead of the SS parking spaces previously proposed in an area only slightly larger than the approved plan resulting in a more efficient design; Regular Planning Commission Meeting Notes June 20, 1996 Page 2 • sli ht increase in tree removal iven the sli htl iar er area of the arkin lot with g g g y g p g no adverse affect on adjacent property to the north; and • one less light standard than originally proposed. Similarities between the two plans consist of the .following: • the installation of 13 six-foot tall Black Hills Spruce trees .along the proposed northerly boundary of the expanded parking lot area; • the two existing and proposed driveway accesses onto Klamath Trail are in the same locations; • parking stalls and driveway aisles meet minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements;. and • stipulations for approval of the amended CUP remain the same as originally stated in Conditional Use .Permit No. 95-03. Planner Morey noted that the Environmental Affairs Committee reviewed this application at their June 18, 1996 meeting and unanimously recommended approval with two added stipulations including the church providing a trailway easement along Klamath Trail and that the Assistant City Engineer shall inspect the site to determine . saved and removed trees prior to the parking lot expansion. Mr. Jerry Rypkema, representative for the church, answered questions regarding the revised parking lot expansion site plan and stated that the applicant was in agreement with staff's recommendations and the stipulations added by the EAC. He noted that a Scenic Easement Agreement between the church and the northerly property owner was required in the original CUP. No revisions are proposed for that agreement at this time which remains as a stipulation for approval and will be honored as part of the amended CUP. Mr. Michael Holloway, 16172 Keystone Court, was present and requested additional time to study the impacts that the. revised parking lot expansion site plan would have on his. property located north of the parking lot expansion. He stated his desire to have the revised plan examined by his attorney and landscape architect who worked with him when the original CUP was approved in 1995. Mr. Jim Bergerson, 16508 Kingsley Court, was present and commented that he felt the proposal represented a significant impact on the value of the surrounding properties. He further stated that the church has not completed site clean-up as originally promised. He expressed his belief that this site for church use was not conducive to • the neighboring .area and that the church has outgrown the property. City staff advised that the proposed revisions to this CUP represent an improvement to the original plan providing for substantial additional parking with minimum site Regular Planning Commission Meeting Notes June 20, 1996 Page 3 • impacts, reduced site lighting, and a lower site grade which will minimize glare of car headlights on adjacent properties. It was further noted that the parking lot expansion on the revised plan is the same along the northerly boundary as was originally .reviewed and accepted by Mr. Holloway. 9b-77 MOTION by Cecchini, second by Miller to continue the public hearing until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 18, 1996. Discussion continued. City Administrator Robert Erickson noted that the timing for. construction of the parking lot. is critical for the church as they have .already been delayed in their construction due to legal issues regarding the taking of church property by the County for additional road right-of-way. Should action on the revised plan be delayed, the church does have the right to construct the parking lot under the original CUP conditions approved in 1995 and extended to November 1, 1996. Staff believes that the modified plan is a better design and provides greater sensitivity and benefit to adjoining properties. Staff recommends approval of the CUP amendment as presented. Roll call on the motion was called. Ayes: Cecchini. • Nays: Miller, Rieb, Wulff. Abstain: Luick. Due to his membership in the Trinity Evangelical Free Church and .his serving on the Board of Trustees for the church. Motion fails. 96-78 MOTION by Miller, second. by Wulff to -close the public hearing. Ayes: Rieb, Cecchini, Wulff, Miller. Nays: 0. Abstain: Luick. Due to his membership in the Trinity Evangelical Free Church and his serving on the Board of Trustees for the church. 96-79 MOTION by Miller, second by Wulff to recommend to City Council approval of the Trinity Evangelical Free Church request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 95-03 subject to the stipulations as stated in the.June 14, 1996 planner's report to include specifically listing the two recommendations of the Environmental Affairs Committee and directing church representatives to meet with Mr. and Mrs. Holloway to discuss the revised parking lot expansion siteplan prior to the July 1, 1996 City Council Meeting and. the. findings of fact. Roll call was called on the motion. Ayes: Cecchini, Wulff,. Miller, Rieb. Nays: 0. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Notes June 20, 1996 Page 4 • Abstain: Luick. Due to his membershi in the Trini Evan elical Free Church and P tY g his serving on the Board. of Trustees for the church. Luick resumed his position as Planning Commission. Chair. ITEM NO. S: PITBL.IC' HF.ARnv,C: GRIST MILL: REZONING -PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT - PUDCUP -CUP FOR OFF-.STREET PARKING Chair Luick opened the public hearing to consider the applications from Grist Mill for a rezoning, a preliminary and final plat, and planned unit development conditional use permit (PUDCUP), and a conditional use permit (CUP) for off-street parking. Assistant City Attorney Jim attested that the legal notice .had been duly published and mailed as required by state statute. Community and Economic Development Director Michael Sobota advised the Commission that Grist Mill Company has requested their planning actions be tabled to allow them additional time to review their long range. development plans for potential phasing of their proposed .project. Staff recommends tabling action on this item and continuing the. public hearing. • 96-80 MOTION by Rieb, second by Miller to table action on the Grist Mill Company proposal for a rezoning, preliminary and final plat, PUDCUP, and CUP for off-street parking and continue the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. ITEM NO. 6: P TB .i . HF. RiN(T; TARRY CREEK PRELIMINARY PLAT/LOT AREA & WIDTH VARIANCES FOR FOUR LOTS Chair Luick opened thepublic hearing for consideration of the preliminary plat of Tarry Creek and for lot area and width variances for four lots within the Tarry Creek proposed. subdivision. Assistant City Attorney Jim Walston attested that all legal notices had been duly published and mailed. City Planner Daryl Morey presented an overview of an application from Mr. Peter Sampier for the Tarry Creek preliminary plat.. The 39.4-acre site consists of four separate metes and bounds parcels, 0utlot A, Creek View Estates, Outlot A, Highview Heights. 3rd Addition, and a portion of a fifth metes and bounds parcel, and is proposed to be developed into 57 single family residential lots in three phases. The property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential District and is located east of Highvew Avenue and south of 160th Street (C.S.A.H. 46). In conjunction with the subdivision request, Mr. Sampier has also submitted. an application for lot area and width variances for four lots proposed to abut major collector Griffon Trail. Proposed Outlots A and B are comprised of wetland areas that traverse the plat and will be deeded to the City upon final platting of Phase. L Regular Planning Commission Meeting Notes June 20, 1996 Page 5 Variances for lot azea are being requested for Lot 10, Block 2; and Lots 3 and 5, Block 3. Variances. for lot width are being requested for Lot 10, Block 2, Lots 3 and 5, Block 3, and Lot 19, Block 4. `The zoning ordinance was revised in 1994 requiring lazger lot areas, however, existing lots in this azea were developed and established under the previous ordinance minimum lot requirements. In that perspective, staff has conducted a study of the area and determined that the proposed variances are consistent with existing lots located along Griffon Trail east of the proposed Tarry Creek subdivision. In addition, staff is recommending that a landscaped buffer screen not be required for the lots abutting Griffon Trail consistent with the existing developments to the east. .Planner Morey's overview of the plat included the following: . pazks and trails; . tree preservation; • .wetlands; • grading plan;. . landscapinglberming; • subdivision identification location & design; and . cul-de-sac design of the proposed Gunflint Trail and a requirement for a landscape treatment at the terminus of that cul-de-sac as a buffer to the existing homes. to the east. The Tarry Creek preliminary plat has been. distributed to the Engineering Department staff, the Dakota County. Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Environmental Affairs and Parks and Recreation Committees for their review and comment. All agencies have recommended approval subject to conditions as outlined in their correspondence and reports included in the Planning Commission packet. Mr. Peter Sampier was present in the audience to discuss his proposal and answer questions. He stated that he was in agreement with staff's stipulations- for approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. Sampier further discussed the financing of the proposed Griffon Trail within the development noting that the road financing is dependent upon a previously reached verbal agreement with the property owner to the north to shaze the cost of constructing Griffon Trail. Community and Economic Development Director Sobota stated that the issue of financing for the construction of Griffon Trail is a private matter and not a concern to the City because the roadway is listed as anon-programmed item in the five-yeaz CIP. Sobota further stated that the Planning Commission may wantto add a stipulation to their recommendation to require Mr. Sampier to request City Council action on the preliminary plat prior to March 17, 1997 which will allow Mr. Sampier Regular Planning Commission Meeting Notes June 20, 1996 Page 6 • time to address the financin issue of Griffon Trail. Mr. Sam er concurred with g p staff's recommendation. Chair Luick opened the. hearing for public comment. Mr. William Faust, 16628 Hearthside Way, questioned whether the proposed street for this .development would increase traffic through his neighborhood. Staff responded. Both Mr. Faust and. Ms. Kristie Helgen, 16500 Harwell Avenue, expressed concern for existing wildlife in the wetland area on the subject property and what impacts site development and construction of the proposed road over the wetland would have regarding existing wildlife and natural water flow. Staff responded. Mr. Ken Patera, property owner and development partner for Tarry Creek, questioned why the City was not participating in the funding of the proposed Griffon Trail. He stated that he had understood that when the City acquired an easement in the 1980s over his property it was for future street right-of--way as part of the City's Transportation Plan and that the City would be responsible for the funding and construction of the future road. Sobota reiterated City policy and Subdivision Ordinance requirements that streets • within new subdivisions shall be the responsibility of the developer. Greg Eisele, $400 160th Street West, addressed the Commission and staff and stated that he, as a property owner and potential development partner of the subject site, had discussed the proposed development with Mr. Sarnpier. However, no formal agreement has been executed between the property owners regarding sharing the cost of constructing Griffon Trail. Mr. Eisele stated that he and his family have not determined whether it is in their best interest to participate in the cost of this road construction. 96-81 MOTION by Cecchini, second by Wulff to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. Commissioner Wulff stated she was not in favor waiving. the required installation of two boulevard trees in the front of the five double frontage lots abutting Highview Avenue in exchange for the installation of six-foot to eight-foot tall spruce trees in the rear buffer yard of these five lots. Ms. Wulff expressed that she would be content with the required four-foot evergreens along the rear of these five lots and retaining the requirement for two boulevard trees. The Commission concurred. The Planning Commission agreed strike the last two lines of stipulation #17 and to add stipulation #19 to state that "The Tarry Creek preliminary plat shall be moved to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Notes June 20, 1996 Page 7 • Ci Council or ormal action. b March 17, 1997 or the relimina lat shall be t3' .f Y 1~ ~7'1~ deemed null and void. " 96-82 MOTION by Wulff, second by Rieb to recommend to City Council approval of the Tarry Creek preliminary plat and variances subject to the stipulations as stated in the planner's report dated June 14, .1996 and amended to_nclude an additional stipulation as recommended above by the Planning Commission and the findings of fact. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous. ITEM NO. '7: Pi_TRL.I . N .ARiN KENRIDGE ADDITION: REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, VARIANCES Chair Luick opened the public hearing for consideration of the preliminary plat of Kenridge, a rezoning from R-A, Single Family-Agricultural Residential District to R- 2, Single Family Residential District, and a lot area variance for Lot 8, Block 4 of the preliminary plat. Assistant City Attorney Jim Walston attested that all legal notices had been duly published and mailed according to state statute. City Planner Morey advised that the public. hearing notice included a request for a lot • area variance for Lot 8, Block 4 of the preliminary plat. Upon further research, staff has determined that a variance is not required for this lot. The City will refund to the .developer the variance application fee and the variance will not be included in the Kenridge Addition public hearing. City Planner Morey stated that .the developer had contacted City staff on Tuesday of this week and informed them that they were unable to have a representative available for attendance at this week's Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission meetings. Therefore, the developer has requested tabling of action on the Kenridge preliminary plat and a continuation of the public hearing to the July 18, .1996 Planning Commission meeting. Review of the Kenridge preliminary plat was tabled at the June 18, 1996 Environmental Affairs Committee meeting. 96-83 MOTION by Rieb, second by Cecchini to continue the public hearing for the Kenridge preliminary plat and rezoning to the July 18, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Several residents had appeared at this public hearing to hear the details of the,proposed Kenridge plat and possibly provide public comment regarding the plat. Staff advised those in attendance that they are invited to return to the July 18th meeting for information and comment. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Notes June 20, 1996 Page 8 • ITEM 8. : GATEWAY CENTER PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT -PRESENTATION ON TRAFFIC STZ7DYBY TRAFFIC CONSULTANT (SRS Sobota presented an overview of discussions held at the June 6, 1996 public hearing regarding the Gateway Center preliminary and final plat.. Sobota stated that this 14- acre site located just west of and adjacent to the interchange of I-35 with County Road 5/50 intersections has been zoned commercial since 1961.. Several residents were in attendance at the June 6, 1996 public hearing and expressed concern regarding existing traffic issues and their opinion that commercial development of the property will. intensify the already unsafe traffic conditions. With regard to these concerns, the Planning Commission recommended that a traffic study of this area be completed by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., the City's traffic engineer, prior to formal action by the City Council regarding these plats. Sobota stated that staffdecided, in discussion with Planning Commission Chair Luick and as a courtesy to the Planning Commission, the results of the study should be presented this evening. Mr. Dennis Eyler, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., presented an overview of the results of traffic issues related to the Gateway Center development proposal. The traffic study document was distributed to the Planning Commission and to interested residents present at the meeting. Findings from this traffic study include the following: • Existing Conditions: • Current traffic in the area east of County Road 5/50 interchange and Highway 501I- 35 interchange is characterized as congested and problematic. • Current short-term conditions related to MnDOT, Dakota County, and City of Lakeville road reconstruction projects have exacerbated these existing traffic operations which include temporary ramp closings and detours. • .The study indicates that when construction-related conditions have ceased it is expected that traffic operations in the study area will improve; however, it is also. anticipated that some congestion related problems during the morning and afternoon rush hours will continue in this interchange area after road construction activities are complete. The I-35/County Road 46 interchange scheduled for opening late. this summer or early fall will significantly improve traffic operations at the subject I-35/County Road. 5150 interchange with significant amounts of traffic, including trucks and school bus routes, diverting to the new interchange and crossing of I-35. Proposed Gateway Center Development: The proposed mixed use commercial development is classified as a neighborhood convenience center with typical neighborhood uses. Phase I development includes the construction of a gas station and car wash. Gateway Center trip generation estimates for maximum development of the site was based on average trip generation rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation" report, 5th Edition 1991 and 1995 update. Mr. Eyler stated that Table 1 in the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Notes June 20, 1996 Page 9 Traffic Stud document shows that this develo ment will not enerate si ficant Y p g ~ traffic in this area. Findings and Conclusions: • Significant improvement and relief of current traffic is expected when construction projects are completed, the new I-35/C.S.A.H. 46 interchange is opened redistributing traffic volumes and patterns and reducing the amount of traffic in the subject area immediately by up to 40%. • Commercial development of the subject site is not expected to generate a significant amount of "outside" through traffic The addition of a neighborhood convenience center will cause a reduction in traffic volumes through the County Road 5150 interchange by providing neighborhood type retail services to residents west of I-35. • The 172nd Street and County Road 5 intersection is too close to the west I-35 ramps to consider traffic signal installation. Amore likely location for future traffic signal. control in this area would be at 170th Street and Klamath Trail. Chair Luick called fora 15-minute recess prior to hearing comments from the public Chair Luick reconvened the June 20, 1996 Planning Commission meeting at 8:44 p.m. • Public Comment: Mr. Dennis Gillespie, 17542 Kodiak Court, was selected as a spokesperson for a neighborhood group wishing to be heard at this meeting. Mr. Gillespie discussed the concerns of the residents associated with the development of the Gateway Center. Issues addressed included the following: Existing and Proposed Infrastructure: Existing tra,~c volumes; proposed 3-lane design.; road configuration/planning; Traffic Control: Current tra,~c violations in use of left/right turn Zanes and running of trafJ`ic lights; accidents (including "near misses'); difficulty in maneuvering in crossover traffic; Planning/Future Development: Realignment of frontage roads; ,future costs to the City due to lack of planning; • Goals of the Neighborhood: Livable Neighborhood; Mr. Gillespie proposed the following solutions: - Delay development of gas station/car wash until actual tra,~c counts can be evaluated a, fler new interchange opens; • - Study existing access points for possible realignments; - Redesign I-35 to the norfh; - Initiate a moratorium on development to allow the City time to study future development and devise a transportation plan for future needs; Regular Planning Commission Meeting Notes June 20, 1996 Page 10 Chair Luick thanked Mr. Gillespie for his comments and expressed appreciation for all the residents in attendance. Staff stated that the City has authorized SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to conduct a comprehensive traffic study for the area east of the I-35/County Road 5/50 interchange. in 1997 for possible roadway realignments. The extension of Klamath Trail from County Road 5 to Kenyon Avenue will further reduce traffic in the subject area. Other future roadway improvements include: 1) completion of Jaguar Avenue between 165th Street and C.S.A.H. 46 will move traffic from the Lynwood neighborhood north, away from the County Road 50 interchange; 2) completion of County Road 46 between Kenrick and County Road 5; and 3) 1997 reconstruction of County Road 5 by Dakota County between 168th Street and County Road 46 from two lanes to three lanes and adding north driveway access from Mills Fleet Farm. off of 170th Street. Commissioner Cccchini reiterated his opinion that the City needs to address safety issues of current traffic conditions by installing temporary traffic control signage along • County Road 5 and 172nd Street. City Administrator Erickson provided an overview of the events that had occurred in the Gateway property owner's. efforts to develop the subject site. The City has worked with the developer for approximately three years regarding development of his property. A significant number of planning actions as well as other items have taken place by City staff, on behalf of its residents, as a result of those initial discussions with the developer due to the complexities of this site and the number of issues that needed to be dealt with in order for the City to consider the proposed development. Issues that have been identified and addressed as part of staff's three-year review include: 1) water quality of Orchard Lake; 2) assurance by the City that the existing legal non-conforming mobile home park (Queen Anne) cannot be expanded; 3) discussions and significant efforts by City staff and the City Council to limit inflow traffic to the new I-35/County Road 46 interchange from Scott County (Savage); 4) traffic study of this intersection included in the City's 1996 CIP Budget; and 5) completion of a comprehensive traffic plan, with special attention to traffic flows along either side and through the I-35/County Road 5/50 interchange. Erickson further stated that also during this time, in a cooperative effort between the City, MnDOT, and Dakota County Highway Department, an agreement was reached and scheduling completed for construction of the I-35/County Road 46 interchange Regular Planning Commission Meeting Notes June 20, 1996 Page 11 f r h r een h pro~eet. This was accomplished with shared funding o t e p o~ect betty testate, county, and City of Lakeville. Mr. Erickson stated that during the City's moratorium on development that occurred. in 1991, lasting until 1993, the City acquired several easements far future road realignments and expansions in anticipation of future development and roadway needs for increased traffic. All current streets developed as three-lane have the potential for four-lane expansion, if warranted. Administrator Erickson stated that the implementation of the planning actions noted at this meeting and the traffic study demonstrates the City's goal to reduce traffic in this area and not increase the traffic volumes. The Planning Commission and staff stated their appreciation for resident. input and noted that their concerns will be forwarded to City Council along. with the Planning Commission recommendation.. This item is anticipated to be on the July 1, 1996 City Council agenda. 96-84 MOTION by Rieb, second by Wulff to accept the Gateway Center Development Traffic Issues Study dated June l8, 1996 as conducted and presented by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Luick, Wulff, Miller, Rieb. Nays: Cecchini. Commissioner Cecchini felt that the Traffic Study should address current traffic needs and provide. recommendations. or anaction plan for the installation of temporary traffic controls to alleviate existing traffic until it is determined that flows. have been reduced due to completed and scheduled roadway projects. Motion passes. The Planning .Commission was reminded that the regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 4, 1996 has been canceled. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respec idly submitted Donna Quintus, Record g Secretary A ST' David Luick, Chair . = J Ult-19-96 WED 10:55 SgF FAI ItO. 4752429 P. 02 Consulting Group, Inc~. Transportation • Civil • Structural • Environmental ¦ PIanning ~ Traffic • Landscape Architecture ¦ Farking SRF No. 09524fi0 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Sobota, Director Community 8~ Economic Development City of Lakevllie FROM:. Dennis. R. Eyler, P.E., Principal Jeff Bednar, Senior Traffic Engineering Specialist DATE:. June 18, 1996 SUBJECT: GATEWAY CENTER DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC ISSUES REVIEW • As our uested we have com feted a review of traffic issues related to the Y eq P subject development proposal.. Based on this review, we offer the following comments for your consideration: Existing Conditions • The proposed site is located just west of and adjacent to the interchange of 1-35 with County Road 5/50. Direct access to the site is provided from 172nd Street west of Kenyon Avenue and County Road 5 at 172nd Street (see Figure 1). • Existing traffic operations in the area east of the County Road 5150 interchange and the intersection of County Road 5 and the west ramp can be characterized as congested and problematic. During this construction season congestion has also developed west of I-35 for several reasons. SRF Consulting G=vup, Int. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447-4443 Telephone (672? 475-Q010 ¦ Fax (612) 475-2429 An Equal Uppor~uxity Enrplc~yer . ~ 1UN-19-96 WEll 10:56 SBF FAI K0. 4752429 P. 03 i Michael Sobota - 2 - June 18, 't 996 • There are two significant currentlshort term conditions which have exacerbated these existing traffic operations problems. These temporary conditions include: - County Road 5 designated as detour route due to closing of ramps at I-35 and Crystal Lake Road Interchange to .accommodate Mn/DOTs reconstruction of 1-35 - 'T'he first phase by-pass for the 1-35 reconstruction has reduced the southbound off-ramp length and queuing capacity. which required significant signal timing changes to provide more green time to off-ramp approach and less green time to the County Road 5 approaches. These timing changes have resulted in doubling the green time for the ramp trattlc and hatving the green time for County Road 5. This condition results in queues on the county road approaches that spill back to and block the intersections of Courrty Road 5150 at 172nd Street, the east ramps and Kenrick Avenue. - In addition other current and previous detours that have changed travel patterns in the general area. These detours were related to construction • projects on County Road 50, County Road 48 and the frontage roads of 1-35. • Once these construction related conditions have ceased it can be .expected that traffic operations in the .study area will improve. However, there will confinue to be some congestion related problems during the afternoon rush .hour within the interchange area. • The 1-35/County Road 46 interchange scheduled For opening late this summer or early fall will signifcantty improve traffic operations at the subject I-35/County Road 5150 interchange. A significant amount of traffic (including trucks and school bus routes) will divert to this new interchange at County. Road 46 providing much needed relief at the County Road 5/50 Interchange area. Proposed Development • The proposed subject development is a mixed use development assumed to be anchored by a 48,000 s.f. grocerylsupermarket, and includes a gas/convenience store with car wash, a fast food restaurant with drnre- through, ahigh turn-over sit down family restaurant and specialty retail/office space (see Figure 2j. The first phase of the development includes only the gas station-convenience store with car wash. J Un- l y-yb w1;U ! 5 : 5y J8r r A,i nv. 415141y r. U4 Michael Sobota - 3 - ,tune 18,1986 • Trip generation est(mates for this subject development are shown on Table 1, Note that a 15 percent reduction for on-site multi-use/multi-purpose trips was made. • Up to half of this site generated traffic can be characterized as pass-by traffic and already is on either County Road 5 or 172nd Street. .Future Gonditions • Traffic operations in the subject study area can be expected to improve iflwhen south ramps are added to the I-35 interchange at 185th Street. • The City has authorized SRF to conduct a comprehensive traffic study for the area east of the interchange In 1997 (See attached figure from transportation for possible. roadway. alignments.) • Zoning will be changed from commercial to residential for fhe Rock Island development and. the property west of the railroad and north of 172nd Street. These changes have been recently approved by the City thereby reducing . trip generation in that area The extension of Klamath Trail from CSAH 5 to Kenyon 7rai! wiN further reduce traffic in this area. • The completion of Jaguar between 185th Street and CSAH 46, the completion of CSAH 46 between Kenrick and CSAM 5, the 1997 reconstruction of CSAH 5 by Dakota County between 188th and CSAH 46 from two lanes to three Lanes and adding driveway access from MiNs fleet Farm ofl: of 170th Street will .alt serve further to reduce traffic congestion in the area • SRF is preparing a feasibility study of a trail along Klamath Trail. Findings and Conclusions • Current traffic operations within the study .area are tem oraril however significant improvement and relief are expected w~hpnothe near future as construction projects are completed, the new interchange at I-35 and County Road 46 is opened, and trove! patterns are reordered and traffic volumes redistributed. • !UK-19-96 AXED 16:00 SIZF FAI K0. 4752429 P. 05 • Michael Sobota _ 4 _ June 18, 7996 • Improvemerrts at the subject interchange of 1-38 and County Road 5/50 are not planned due to the relief that will be provided by the Construction of the CSAH 46 interchange. • Subject proposallsite generated traffic Impacts related to the nearby neighborhoods should not be significant. It is not expected that a significant amount of 'outside' through traffic will be generated by this development. There maybe some addifionai traffic from neighborhood residents within the neighborhood traveling to and from the proposed site. .However, most neighborhood trips to and from the subject site would 6e pass-by trps and are already on the adjacent roadways. ~ The addition. of neighborhood convenience center wiU cause. a ne# reduction in vehicle miles of travel in general and a specific reduction in traffic volumes through the County Road 5/50 interchange by providing neighborhood type retail for the area lnrest of I-35. • The intersection of 172nd Street and County Road 5 is too close to the west ramps intersection to consider traffic. signal lnstaHatiort. The most likely location for future traffic signal control in this area would be at 170th Street) Klamath Trail Should you have any questions or comments eonceming this traffic review, please contact us. JRB:bba • .TABLE 1 . GATEWAY CENTER TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES ASSUMED LAND USE MIX Daily 8.~,. p~1, Land Use. Units Trips In Out In Out Gas/Convenience with 12 fueling positions 1,750 65 65 75 75 Car Wash Sit Down-High Turnover 5 KGSF 890 37 37 32 32 Family Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant 3.1 KGSF 2,200 87 87 57 57 with Drive-Through Grocery/Supermarket 46 KGSF 4,040 65 27 238 238 Special Retail 7.1 KGSF 2~4 ~ ~ 24 ~ 9.170 X77 ~ 4?? 417 Adjustment for 15% Multi- 7,795 235 203 359 354 Purpose Trips • KGSF = 1,000 gross square feet building area. Based on average trip generation rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation' report, 5th Edition 1991 and 1995 update. O BURNSVILLE V c . ur t ~ ~ CY.vq` < "K(L • ~ _ s. i + v ? ~ 30 ~ < tbl ST, ~O4Ly t ?t ,6 ~ ~ i W L.a~cG ~ ~ r V 0 J C 1 J 4~ ~ iWm ST, ~ v cT 165?t'+ ' e O~ 6 ~ Q ~ t66sr. SL S~ < +`r 19 SZ `j' •taeER Ifi7tt+ S7. 1 t66'~ 6{h t• w ~.169+n St. ~ ~S~{ G ' ~ 1<ir~slry (JPP£R 167m 57. j„~~ f 168tr+ 57.11. tc'Tn+ ST ~ _ ~ CT. (c ° 1 ~ c SZ• ~x~,w e ~ ~ Troiler ~ ~ T?~4M b R, f~ Ct. ~4. R2ttr RZO= A: IY ,ip„OAI I ` I tpm 51. ' Q~P 5 Ot^chard Ldu CffS ~ SITE d 3s ~S ~ M ~ ~ $ ? t ~ ST. X ~ mZ f' ~tr£ UPP1 172e~0 St. ~ CT. Troiler ~ ~ i ~''Hv: Court ~ ~ ' ~ ib' SO 175tt+ ST. tx. ~ ~ ;T. t ~ ~ r C. tt6tn ST v 'P S7. w. T t ST. w. i < .176tH }c~ tl; , ` ~ C..11 i ~ ~ < f v itc ,dmlP£A < v Sg jC L I' ~h lT PALM ~ t~n~_ ' ~e TR ~ ~ ,~Cttot+ Ranh ~ ` 174tH ~ ST CS. AVfJ..m CT. ~ ~O ~ C• ,utiC71R4 J c+ watir ~ g t ~ / t8ts S_ ~ ~ TI t.tN R?1R ' ~`~y ~,r 14'1] ~iTj v i 1 3rd i T. tr. W Q2 _ Y ~ ~ N< ~ CT.~ J~4i ~l 4 Ro. ~ taste ~ cT c ~ - • CITY OF LAKEVILLE PROJECT LOCATION ~°~~t1a;~~°°P•t°` GATEWAY CENTER.TRAFFiC REVIEW e N a o WWy G j a m ~Y ~ i ~ . .aec ~ ~ ' ~ V ~ ` 3 ~ Z" s W Q _ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ W J_ ~ LL' ' O Z ~ ~ ~ t i O - - ~ , . z c'Y _ 5 Oe i~ g3~~ ~ ~ .a a.x ..~.asui ~ '`A Jl~, i el ~ Y > !1 ~s o_ \ e ~e ~ ° ~s ' _ ~ ~ wa Y u~ ~ d o ~r t~:~ ~ ~ j f ~ i i ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ , • . ; ~ • , ki Jai ' ; 1 f /J c t . 12 if ~T ' J i ij ~ 's ~'f f ,!:f ~ REALIGN INTERSECTION p ~ } } ~i TO ALLOW THROUGH ~ ~ t~ ~t~' f : if MOVEMENT AROUND CURVE ! ~~f,l t ~ Gti UPGRADE EXISTING ,1 f ~1! i ~ l ~ ~ ROADWAY TO 44' ~ ; { s ! ! ' r ; ~ PAVEMENT WIDTH j: fffi >,t~. X ~ ~ ~f ! CLOSE .p CLOSE / > ; ACCESS ~ ~j~ ROADWAY ~ t i!~!{ / ' l 175th ST. f ~ ! ~ ~~-,t;~ .MONITOR INSTALL MEDIAN WITH `-''C,t•~r• , ; \ INTERSECTION LEFT TURN LANES 1~gtr # OPERATION TO BETWEEN KENYON AVE. \ ~ ~ ~ DETERMINE NEED AND 176TH STREET ~ ~ ; FOR CONTROLS _ ~ s CLOSE ~ ! ! ~ f!y ROADWAY ; ~ '""7~ ~ CONSTRUCT ! ~ ~ ! t ~ ~ ~ r ~ NEW ROADWAY 1 . 1r! i 1 ~ 16~r ' ~ ! ! ! `1 ~ UPGRADE EXISTING ; ~ k ROADWAY TO 44' y CONSTRUCT \ PAVEMENT WIDTH ~ HIGH CAPACITY k; ~ ; ~ SIGNALIZED !j! ! !NOTE: This proposal ~ ! ! ! represents one altemat~e ` INTERSECTION • / ! ! for improving traffic ~ ! operations in this area. ~ • CITY OF LAKEVILLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ~~h~ ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS NEAR t-35 E-4 AND TRUNK HIGHWAY 50 -ALTERNATIVE #2 - : i` ~ r / i ~if/ a ~j~ ~i~;/ll ~ per' , k, 3~i" ~ ' : ;j 1 ~ ~ ~Opt3AN ~ j f IW 1t % ; i/ REALIGN INTERSECTION O ~ ~ i ~~ifJ~r;~ TO ALLOW THROUGH ~ ~ ; : / j t ! MOVEMENT AROUND CURVE . r ~ < < ~ %if~ ~ 173TH ST. ~il` j ~t% i~rl ~ v y ~ ` ` ; } ' G UPGRADE EXISTING -Ji ~ ~ ROADWAY TO 44' RESTRICT ` ~ j ! ~ PAVEMENT WIDTH KENRICKTO ~ : ; ; t`~~` ; 'ti RIGHT IN/ j ~fifJ ice.. RIGHT OUT ' ~ ~r ~ ` ,0 PROVIDE ,,r ,.•'f; < ~ j SOUTHBOUND f j<' / ~ y RIGHT TURN 1 ~ ' f `i f ~ ` LANE ON JUNELLE lI 1~ If`f; MONITOR INSTALL MEDIAN WITH INTERSECTION LEFT TURN LANES 115 ~ ~ ; OPERATION TO BETWEEN KENYONAVE. DETERMINE NEED AND 176TH STREET FOR CONTROLS ~ ; jet r S~• ~ ~ Z;, ij;` %t :~i CONSTRUCT ' UPGRADE EXISTING SIGNALIZED I'fY j ;,1 ; ROADWAY TO 44' ~ ~ f ; ~ PAVEMENT WIDTH ` INTERSECTIONS X ~ ~ ~ ~r i ;NOTE: This proposal ~ ~ ~ \ :O f ` represerrts one altematt~e ~ f i ~ ` i~ for improving traffic ~ ft i f operations in this area. `X ` CITY OF LAI~VILLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FIGURE ~)1~?F ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS NEAR I-35 - AND TRUNK HIGHWAY 50 -ALTERNATIVE #1 E .3