01/14/2004 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Eagle Brook Church page 2 We received the new analysis on January 8, 2004. Staff did not have time to review it prior to this report being completed. If the new analysis shows impacts similar to the Sunday peak periods, the mitigation measures would be the same: traffic personnel at driveways and affected intersections. If the analysis shows impacts far more severe than the Sunday peaks, it may warrant reconsideration. If the analysis is such that staff cannot conduct a preliminary review, staff may recommend tabling the project to the February P & Z meeting. This will require an extension agreement from the church. The alternative is to recommend denial of the project. • Information needed for review of the stormwater management design must be provided, as discussed in the City Engineer's memo. The new plans properly address drainage from 20th Ave. and from properties on the south. The previously proposed berm on the south property edge has been removed from the new grading plan. The ditch realignment design meets requirements. • Information needed for review of the roadway improvements. The new plans show the proposed turn lanes and pavement widening for bypass lanes. The design is acceptable. The plans also show the proposed right of way dedication. The existing right of way is 66' wide, or 33' on each side of the center line. The church proposed to dedicate an additional 30', to total 63' on the west side. The existing house lot fronting on 20th Ave. within the north portion of the site is not part of the plat. A separate deed will be necessary to dedicate the right of way along the 165' of frontage of that lot. • Traffic criteria and policy must be considered as it applies to the application and other development in the eastern part of the city. This relates to the level of service (LOS) criterion for plats, conditional use permits, and site plans. The traffic analysis prepared for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet concluded that the peak periods will create unacceptable levels of service at 35E ramps and at 20th Ave./Main St. Under the City's site plan and CUP requirements, this would be justification for denial of a project unless the project applicant proposes a way to resolve the level of service problem. The difficulty arises when looking at the larger picture. The 20th Ave./Main St. intersection is over 1 1/2 miles from the proposed church site. This is quite a distance for establishing levels of service for roadways. In addition, that intersection is in another municipality (Centerville), over which Lino Lakes has no jurisdiction. These questions loom even larger in relation to the I -35E interchange. Clearly, no project applicant can reconstruct a freeway interchange unless the proposed development project is huge