Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'. <br /> <br />D. What is the official local status of the plan amendment? (Check all that apply.) If <br />a report regarding this plan revision was prepared for the local Planning <br />Commission or City Council please include one (1) copy of that report along with <br />the submittal package. <br /> <br />X Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on June 22. 1998 <br /> <br />X Approved by governing body on June 23. 1998 , contingent upon <br />Metropolitan Council review. <br /> <br />Considered, but not approved, by governing body on <br /> <br />Other <br /> <br />E. List adjacent local governmental units and other jurisdictions (school districts, <br />watershed districts, etc.) to which copies of the plan revision or amendment have <br />been sent, and the date the copies were sent to them. (Required by Minn. Stat. <br />473.858, Subd. 2.) None. <br /> <br />II. CONFORMITY WITH METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLANS <br /> <br />A. Transportation <br />1. Does this plan revision or amendment potentially increase existing trip generation <br />(use Institute of Transportation Engineers trip-generation manual)? <br /> <br />No. . . if no, Skip to #5 <br />X Yes. .. if yes, <br />· What is the estimated average daily traffic increase? 916 upd <br />· What is the estimated peak hour traffic increase? 92 uph <br /> <br />2. Does the existing local and regional road network (including metropolitan <br />interchanges) have the capacity to accommodate planned land use(s)? <br />X Yes <br />No... <br /> <br />3. Does this plan amendment impact transit service or facilities--either positively or <br />negatively? <br />X No <br />Yes. . . briefly explain <br /> <br />4. Can the potential traffic impacts ofthe land use be mitigated by implementing <br />Traffic Demand Management (TDM) strategies or through land use and urban <br />design measures that encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicles (SOV)? <br />X No <br /> <br />ii <br />