Agenda - Council - 01/14/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-1-22- The townhouse units will front onto priVate streets. The Planning Commission held a public hearing, and reviewed the preliminary plat on September 5, 2002. The. Planning Commission tabled the item and directed staff to complete the following:. 1) Hire a consulting firm to Conduct a traffic generation analysis for the proposed development 2) Discuss with the devel'oper the cost of upgrading the ex/sting signals on U.S'. Highway #10 and how the Cost is to be distributed 3) Provide clarification on how 'the existing berm will be maintained. The developer is proposing to satisfy density-transitioning requirements by the Landscape Buffering option. The Density Transitioning Ordinance states that when an R-2 Medium Residential Development abuts a R-1 Single Family development the developer must provide a 25 foot wide buffer, in common ownership, with .a minimum of 2 over story trees, 2 evergre, en. trees, and 2 under story trees per 100 feet of property abutting the adjacent K-1 district. In this. case, the development would be required to provide 72 trees; the berm currently contains 34-4 established' over story, evergreen, and under story trees. The townhouse development significantly exceeds landscape buffeting density-transitioning requirements. City Engineer Jankowsld stated the consultants made a recommendation that no noise mitigation would be required because, the model shows it would be within M2:~CA noise standards and it further showed that one there was some buildings in-between the highway and Riverdale, it would further lower the noise. Normally when the consultant makes this recommendation, they sit down and review their recommendations with ~'v[PCA. He stated they have been successful in the past with MPCA agreeing with the consultant on that.. Chairperson Nixt asked what staff thought about this because with a sizeable undeveloped tract of land that has mixed use potential all over it and would it not be a waste of money to put up a noise barrier before there was any development done on the [and. City Engineer Jankowski stated the noise study said without the development there the requirements would fall below the standards and would be reduced more once there were buildings there. City Engineer Jankowski stated the traffic issue was a concern ra/sed by MN/Dot in their letter. He stated they had contracted SRF to do a traffic study and there was some consultation between SRF and MN/Dot to find out the scope of that study. A summary of the study states that the major points that would be affected from a traffic standpoint would be the Intersection of Sunfish Boulevard and Highway 10. He stated the traffic level.is currently at a level ofF10 service, which is below acceptable right now, and the traffic generated from this at: full build our would decrease the level to E. He stated it was pointed out that the majority of the decrease in level of service was not due to the additional.traffic fromthe development but the additional growth oftraffi'c on Highway 10. On the positive side, MN/Dot indicated the particular intersection, having installed double lef~ turn lanes in 2004. He stated this. issue has been addressed. In: the_comments at a public hearing there was a more localized concern with the traffic issues. One of'them was. at the intersection of Riverdale. and Garnet and would' it require some kind of signalization. Once Riverdale Drive connects to Highway 10 they would have a stop sign at Garnet. He stated one of the concerns .of the Fire Chief is if they are going to have as many townhome units as they have Planning Commission/October 10, 2002 Page 8. of 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I