06-13-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Ms. Katie Larsen April 06, 2016 Page 5 K:\02029-820\Admin\Docs\20160516 Engineering Review Lino Lakes-Mattamy.docx laid out based on Anoka County access spacing guidelines and the following considerations: · South access: Goal to connect 21st Avenue to the west using the existing access at 73rd Street to minimize CSAH 54 access points. · Middle access: Within 100 to 200 feet of the access guidelines, located to avoid wetland impacts on the west side of CSAH 54. · North access: Rehbein Street was used verses 77th Street due to wetland impacts. Goal was to connect to existing intersections and minimize CSAH 54 access points. Anoka County requires that each access location meets County sight – distance requirements. The applicant will need to provide this analysis for approval by the County with the preliminary plat. 3. Anoka County requires left and right turn lanes on CSAH 54 at each new City street access. These include Rehbein Street, 73rd Street, and Street B. Cross sections for the turn lanes on CSAH 54 need to be included in the plans to verify they can be constructed within the existing/proposed right of way. Specifically the right turn lane at Street D. The applicant will need to have the preliminary design reviewed by Anoka County with the preliminary plat. 4. The applicant needs to provide clarification regarding the outbound lanes needed for City streets exiting onto CSAH 54. The Daily Traffic volumes shown in the update memo on the figure appear to be inconsistent with previous analysis. The traffic volume submittals summarized: o Original Study February 13, 2015 - 450 at Street D, 2970 at Street B and 1380 at Street A o March 9, 2015 revised site plan figure 4 - 1570 at Street D, 1850 at Street B and 1380 at Street A o March 27, 2015 update memo - 1870 at Street D, 1820 at Street B and 1430 at Street A o March 25, 2016 update memo - 1970 at Street D, 1930 at Street B and 1380 at Street A The applicant should respond to the following: a. Why did Street D and Street B increase from the 2015 updated memo to the 2016 update memo? b. Why did Street D increase by 100 vehicles when the internal approaches only went up 20 vehicles? c. Why did Street A decrease from 2015 update memo to the 2016 update memo? 5. The City’s maximum cul du sac length is 500 feet from the centerline of the roadway to end of the right of way. There are a number of cul du sacs exceeding this length and they should be addressed by the applicant (Streets F,K,P,Q,L, and future V). 6. Street C exceeds the City’s maximum block length of 1,500 feet. See comment below. 7. Street V should be a through roadway, within the ghost plat, and connect to Street C. 8. Direct driveway access on Street D should be removed between CSAH 54 and Street C, or a center median constructed. The roadway should be 36 feet based on the traffic