03/11/2009 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• that a six -lane facility in the interchange area is not sufficient? When the text talks about the improvements being made today does it take into account the interchange improvement or just the roadway expansion to the interchange project limits? If it doesn't, the text should be modified to account for the interchange improvements and if it does take into account the interchange project, why was this not brought up as a problem in the interchange project? That area has been modeled several times and if there are operational issues we need to discuss this ASAP. • Figure 6.6 — Post 2030 Traffic Forecast o Where do the 3,000 trips that are on CSAH 34 (as shown on Figure 6.4) between CSAH 21 and CSAH 54 go? Additional trips are not shown on Holly Drive and the numbers drop on existing CSAH 14 in this same area. We understand that the new CSAH 14 alignment will pull traffic off of the old alignment, but it is really out of the way for vehicles on CSAH 34 to go to the northern end of the city. It appears as though 1,000 may use CSAH 21 to go south, but where do the others go? o The new CSAH 14 alignment shown in the goldenrod color should be on top of the green line that is shown for Rondeau Lake. The way it is currently depicted on the map makes it look lie traffic volumes drop from over 13,000 vehicle and then go up to 16,000 vehicles without a number in between. o Traffic volumes on existing CSAH 14 through the park — similar situation as noted • for Figure 6.4, although the difference is 800 trips versus 1,600 trips. • Page 6-19 — Access Management — first paragraph — last sentence- change "accident" to "crash" • Page 6-19 — Access Management We would recommend that the plan endorse/adopt Mn/DOT and Anoka County guidelines on access management. It is a Met Council plan requirement and if we hope to get federal funding grants for roadway improvements through the regional solicitation process, endorsement of the guidelines needs to be made explicit. The text sort of dances around the issue of endorsing the guidelines by saying that they try to meet the county guidelines on minor arterials. We understand the city's concern that the guidelines cannot be met in some areas due to existing development patterns. We do, however anticipate the city would support implementation of the guidelines as new development occurs. This should be acknowledged for both principal and minor arterials — not just the minor routes as identified in the text. The text should include reference in an appendix to the guidelines for both the state and the county. It should also note that the guidelines will be incorporated into subdivision and zoning ordinances (Met Council requirement) • Page 6-19 — Right of Way. The county agrees that the city will need to be a partner for preserving right of way on state and county facilities. We feel that the text does not quite go far enough. The tools suggested for right of way preservation on city roads also applies to preservation of right of way for state and county facilities. We recommend that the text be modified to say that the tools for right of way preservation can be used on all facilities. Cities