Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ~n <br /> :"":-.'~ y. FE..f'J::-1216-' 90 TUE 09: 20 I D: METRDPDLI TAH mUcic I L TEL I"D: 612 291 6550 rt5E.l pca <br /> ,-.:-,.- <br /> . <br /> Karen LyOlU! <br /> J 1JIUlll'Y 26, 1990 <br /> Pll.lIII two <br /> 63 acres, contained in several parcela, is located weet of Round <br /> Lake. With the exception of parcels directly adjac<:lnt to major <br /> int&1'sections, visibility from highway~ is ;.or, but acceM is <br /> excellent. The configuration of the Ian imite eub-division <br /> potential, but is very suitable to large site u~ee. The continued <br /> developnent of Bpace-inteneive indu~trial ueee is expeoted." <br /> Based on these sources, statements in the proposed plan amendment regarding the <br /> devlllo~nt of a weinese c"rol(Us zone, and what SRH has put together reiarding <br /> trip sener-ation and development possibilities for the site, I airee with SEH'e <br /> trip jeneration numbers and conclusions. r also asree that the inter-Mctione <br /> will be lIianifioantly impacted. 'the developers of the parcels lllay be aeked to <br /> oont~ibute to any interchange and intersection modifications that are neceseary <br /> to support the development, including signalization. <br /> Round Lake Ro&d will moet likely require realignment. Again, the coet<, of B!'J)' . <br /> ohanje should be addressed by the developer. There may be eignificMt <br /> environmental impacts of reloc8tini Round Lake ~oad, however, <br /> !be Metropolitan Diatriot haa included capacity improv~mBnt6 to 1-35W between <br /> County Road C and old TH lO ae a priority for future funding. The Oakdale <br /> offioe considers this proposal as one of the highest priorities in the East <br /> Metro tu'ea. 'the Met Council has identified that any oapacity improvements <br /> recamm&nded for I-35W in this vioinity should be in the form of HOV lanes. The <br /> department CMnot identify speoific al tarnatives for- capac1 ty improvements prior <br /> to beainning the environmental documentation process. HOV lanes would moet <br /> likely be included within a raniS of alternatives. <br /> It may be that the development potential for the site is more inteneB than what <br /> is proposed. Based on the clty's comprehensive plan atatemonto, howevB~, thill <br /> Ileems unlikely. Thie issue Ilhould be clearly resolved between the Het Counoil <br /> and the oity when and if the comprBhenoive pl~1 amendment is a~pr~ved. <br /> Thank YOU fot the opportunity to review this proposal. <br /> S1l'lOel'/)).y, <br /> ~ <br /> Su. Hodapp . <br /> Sen10r Pietriot Planner <br />