Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 13, 2004 <br />Page 5 <br />project impact would be less than 0.5 seconds /vehicle added delay for northbound <br />approach of Deerwood Lane /Birch Road. He noted the project will increase the average <br />daily traffic on Deerwood Lane by 348 vehicles per day north of Fox Road. The project <br />will increase average daily traffic on Fox Road by 188 vehicles per day west of <br />Deerwood Lane. He noted the past studies have suggested that "livability" may begin to <br />deteriorate upwards of 1,500 average daily traffic. <br />Mr. Hyden asked if the peak PM was a slight increase over the AM peak. Mr. Helmer <br />replied that was correct. <br />Mr. Tralle asked what generated the improvement of an existing road. Mr. Helmer <br />replied new development, new additional traffic, or deterioration of the road due to <br />existing traffic. <br />Mr. Tralle stated he understood they did not build the road ahead of time, but only after <br />the traffic on the road justified an improvement. Mr. Helmer replied that was a standard <br />practice in the State of Minnesota. <br />Chair Rafferty invited those for or against the project to make comment. <br />Al Stender, 6379 Deerwood Lane, commended the City Engineers and the developer for <br />working on this development. He noted the development was much improved from the <br />original proposal. He expressed concern about the increase in traffic in this area. He <br />stated he had a seven minute wait today on County Road J and Birch and two minutes to <br />take a left turn from Deerwood onto Birch. He noted all of these new development only <br />added to the traffic. He asked if the traffic engineer had taken into consideration all of <br />the other developments being added to this area also in his analysis. He requested they <br />think about the infrastructure before approving the developments. <br />Rick Kamrath, Deerwood Circle, expressed concern about traffic and asked if any options <br />had been identified to alleviate some of the neighborhoods concerns with respect to <br />increase in traffic. Mr. Studenski replied this was an issue with all of the projects in the <br />City at the present time, and prior to the start of the project they videotaped it to see if <br />there were any additional traffic or deterioration due to the construction and if there was, <br />the developer was responsible to repair the road. He stated if necessary, they would have <br />flag people directing traffic in and out of the area. He stated he did not know of any other <br />options other than monitoring the traffic. He stated if there were issues with safety, the <br />residents should call the police. He noted the roadway was designed to handle this <br />amount of traffic. <br />Mr. Kamrath asked for additional clarification in regards to the drainage on the site. Mr. <br />Schoenbauer replied the drainage plans were being developed right now and if the <br />neighbors wanted to look at the plans as they were completed, he would be willing to <br />discuss this with them. He stated he could ensure that the stormwater drainage would <br />remain on site. <br />Mr. Tralle asked why there were no sidewalks in this development. Mr. Smyser replied <br />in the past the residents did not want sidewalks in their development, but this was slowly <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />