2005-063 Council Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Apollo Landing /Equinox Page 4 April 8, 2005 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota • • • be required at the south end of the property where the streets are located. Typically, the County has requested right of way dedication of up to 60 feet from the center of a roadway, and it is likely that an Agreement with the County will be needed. The proposed driveway entrance will also require a permit from the County. The County may have additional comments with regards to the driveway location, width, turning lanes, etc. 3. Drainage and utility easements are shown on the Preliminary Plat around all detention and infiltration areas. The drive easement should also be designated as a drainage and utility easement. Platted drainage and utility easements adjacent to property lines (10 feet) must also be provided per City requirements. 4. A proposed site landscaping plan has been provided. Screening from adjacent properties is proposed by the use of a Wood Privacy Fence, subject to approval by the City. The Landscape Plan should either include or refer to the Grading Plan the proper establishment around the ponds and infiltration areas. 5. Soil borings generally indicate a soil profile of topsoil underlain by coarse alluvium. For the building foundation and roadway and parking area subgrades, varying amounts of engineering fill and granular material will be required. Recommendations as provided in the Geotechnical Report must be provided throughout construction. 6. In addition to trees and vegetation, the existing site contains various remains of structures and facilities from previous site use (foundations, silos, etc.). All above and below ground abandoned facilities must be removed from site and disposed properly. The removal of any septic, well or other such facilities shall be also subject to the rules and regulations of the State of Minnesota and /or Anoka County as required. 7. A Traffic Study was previously prepared by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates (BRAA), and comments for the study were provided in an earlier TKDA review. A Memorandum dated March 9, 2005 has since been prepared by BRAA in response to the TKDA comments. Upon further review, the following comments and questions remain: A. An office development does not typically induce pass -by or diverted trips from existing background traffic. Also, with an office -only scenario, internal trips would be minimal or non- existent. For the office only scenario, it must be stated clearly if pass -by, diverted, and internal trips were added back into the project - generated trips for the a.m. peak hour analysis. B. The traffic study suggests that level of service will improve with the proposed development. It is understandable from a very technical modeling perspective how turn movement levels of service could actually improve under the with- project scenarios. However, this would likely be very difficult to explain during a public review process. It is recommended (if possible) that the future signal timing be modified such that the 0.1 or 0.2 second improvement in average vehicle delay would not appear under the with project scenarios.