04-01-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Report#5 Walgreens Proposal • March 26, 1998 Page 2 or oversight is made during the project review or construction, according to Minnesota Statutes, a city, its staff and paid consultants cannot be held liable for any damages. Discussion with the City Engineer: One of the questions asked at the last Planning Commission meeting was how might the water table be impacted with the construction of the Walgreens store. Staff directed this query to the City Engineer for his comment. Rocky Keehn of SEH, who is a certified hydrological engineer specializing in stormwater and wetland management, explained that there should be no impact to the water table directly attributable to this project. If anything, because of the impervious surface area proposed, there might be less recharge into the water table. Recharge is the means by which a water table or aquifer replenishes itself by absorbed water through the ground. The recharge of a water table in a particular area is decreased as more impervious surface is added. The regrading of the subject parcels to prevent stormwater runoff onto adjoining properties should also lessen some of the existing problems experienced by the adjacent owners. MnDOT Meeting. On March 26, 1998, a meeting was held with MnDOT attended by myself, Robert Cunningham of TOLD Development, Dan Soler, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer; Scott Peters, MnDOT Local Government Liaison, Michael Christenson, Assistant Division Engineer for MnDOT, Michael Chen and Jim Benshoof of Benshoof&Associates; and other MnDOT staff. • The focus of the discussion concerned the right-in right-out access proposed on Highway 10. In a letter dated March 2, 1998, Scott Peters denied the proposed access due to safety considerations. Specifically, there was not enough spacing between the intersection and the access point to allow for safe deceleration. This letter was followed by another letter dated March 17, 1998, from Mike Christenson, who reiterated Mr. Peter's denial, stating that it would be irresponsible of MnDOT to allow such an access. (This letter has been attached for your reference.) In addition to this, however, he pointed out that MnDOT does not"own" the access rights for this location and as such cannot prevent the access being granted if the City so desires. The meeting expanded on this theme in that MnDOT could not actually deny the request since the approval was not theirs to give. The applicant and his traffic experts pointed out that the addition of the right turn lane on County - - the intersection, to which MnDOT and Dan Soler agreed, yet they did not feel the benefits exceeded the possible dangers associated with the proposed Highway 10 access. The meeting adjourned without MnDOT changing its position. Traffic Calming: The City Engineer was sent two diagrams showing possible traffic calming plans for Greenwood Drive. Of the two options presented, both of which are attached and labeled Option 1 and Option 2, both the City Engineer and Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works, indicated that Option 1 would be more of a deterrent to fast speeds due to the abruptness of the lane shift, whereas Option 2 is less abrupt and more smooth-flowing. The cost associated with either option are minimal, although Option 1 would be significantly less as no additional pavement would be required. Mike Ulrich explained that this might be a good test case which if proved • successful, could be incorporated into future street reconstructions and as a tool to reduce speeds on some streets with long, uninterupted blocks.