Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> .. FEB-06-'90 TUE 09:18 ID:11ETRDF'OLIT8H COUI,CIL TEL HD:612 291 6550 115",1 F'D4 <br /> Recommendations for <br /> . Revision to Ardan Hilla' Gateway Bueine88 Diatrict OrdinancQ <br /> and comprehen~dvll Plan Amendmant <br /> The follcwin& .ra options Arden Hill. can consider in ravbing the G...tQ~AY <br /> Busln..a District ComprehensivQ Plan Amandment and Ordinance. Thll ovar~ll <br /> goal in revi81ng the ordinance and comprehensiva plan should be to eomehow <br /> limit the nUlllber of peak trips bM~d on existing transportation capacity I <br /> particularly at the Ip35W!T,H. 96 interchange. Should additional capacity <br /> and 1l1&nalization improvel1lente be needed to handle paak traffic generated <br /> by nQW development, then accommodations should be made in the ordinance <br /> for the d,v,lopar to fund improvemenu directly relllted to the <br /> developm.nt, <br /> Tha SEI! traffic IlItudy sh.:Mad that th~ level of development proposed in the <br /> plan amandment and ordinance, Qven with a conservative. assumption of 25% <br /> office!7:S1. warehoull~ and maximUl'll FAR of . ~, would negatively impact: the 1- <br /> 35W!T.H, 96 interchange, desp!te adding lanes On the interchange bridge. <br /> Th. Council cannot approve the comprehensivQ plan amendment as aubmitted <br /> becausa of this metro highway system impact. <br /> The City should at-tempt to revise the ordinance and comprehensive plan to <br /> aither SClll.a back allowable development or stage and fund addi tionlll <br /> roadway improvements (beyond merely changing the Round Lake Road access <br /> . and addins l11.nes on t.ha interchan.,..) which can bccomodate tlle proposed <br /> level of development. The City 9hould ensure maintaining an accepu.bls <br /> laval of service (LOS) on th" 1-35W!T.R. 96 interchange and other major <br /> l'oadways by /Jetting the maximum number of p.m. peak hour trips that may be <br /> genaratod by any pa~itted U~Q, and the maximum square feet of development <br /> a,.ociatedwith that number of trips. This would, in effect. set a <br /> dev.lopment cap for new development and redevelopment. No development <br /> would be approved unless vehicle trip gensr/l.tion is within acceptable <br /> Leval of Service limits or unless the developer will fund the improvements <br /> nquired, <br /> To e~leulate all~ablQ trip gener&tion rates and square footage, Council <br /> staff racommends that ll. traffic impact analysis (TIS) be conducted for the <br /> entire dhtriet, analyzing the I-3SW!!. I!. 96 int..rchange and I~35W <br /> mainline. (See Mn!DOT's counts enclosed.) Using the TIS and SEH's traffic <br /> analYllill, provision" could be added to the ordinance and! OT! the plan <br /> amendment that ties square footage of development, developm~nt type, peak <br /> tripa and caplilcity improvementa. This provi~ion would allow dQvelopmsnt <br /> to be well coordinated with transportat:ion llnd enSUl'e good on-~ite &CC.53, <br /> Saversl improvQm~nt9, such as a bridge over I-3SW, connections with old <br /> Hwy. 10, a bridge over T.H. 10 or other access options into the dhtrict, <br /> . would need to b~ coordinated with Ne~ Brighton, Mn/DO'!', and the council. <br /> New Brighton'" proposed compl'ehensive plan amendment does not show any <br /> T.H. 96/1-35W interchange improvemants, nor a new bridge over I-35W north <br /> of 1-694. . .. <br /> -1- <br />