11/08/2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• Mary Kay Wyland Page 2 July 29, 1997 5. The plan amendment is not in conformity with the metropolitan system plan for transportation because the City does not have an up -to -date comprehensive plan and transportation plan element. These requirements were specified in the Council's 1996 approval of two plan amendments as a precondition for any future MUSA expansions north of the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve. 6. This nonconformity does not result in a substantial negative impact on the regional highway system because: a. A traffic analysis of the impact of the proposed development on the I- 35W/Lake Drive (CSAH 23) interchange shows that one of the ramps (northbound off -ramp from I -35W) is presently at Level of Service (LOS) D due to turning movement problems that cause traffic congestion on the I -35W mainline. All of the other ramps are operating presently at LOS C. b. The traffic analysis shows that the project will not adversely impact the LOS on the other ramps but will exacerbate the problems with the northbound ramp unless a traffic signal is installed at the intersection of the off -ramp and Lake Drive. c. A traffic signal, proposed in.the traffic analysis as the recommended method of mitigating the congestion and backups, will not only mitigate the problems at the ramp exacerbated by the project, but will significantly reduce the existing turning movement problems and resulting traffic congestion, improving Ell the LOS from D to C. d. The project developer has agreed to pay the estimated $120,000 cost of the traffic signal if the project is approved. 7. The plan amendment is in conformity with the regional system plans for Aviation, Recreation Open Space and Water Resources Management; and is compatible with the plans of adjacent governmental units and the school district. 8. There is precedent for delaying MUSA expansion proposals because of transportation system concerns. The Council has delayed a number of MUSA expansions in cities (Andover, Champlin, Cottage Grove, Eden Prairie, Maple Grove and Ramsey, for example) so that they could prepare traffic analyses to address specific problems that the proposals created on the Metropolitan Highway System, or could update their inadequate transportation plan elements or both. 9. In this case, a precedent is not applicable for the following reasons: a. The proposed amendment is smaller than previous MUSA expansions cited above. It involves 55.7 net acres, less than 10 percent the size of the Eden Prairie and less than 5 percent the size of the Maple Grove MUSA expansions. b. The proposed amendment is a land exchange, so there is no net addition to the City's MUSA acreage. c. The proposed amendment will result in a substantial improvement in the Level of Service of a regional principal arterial highway.