CC 04-14-1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mi~utes of Regular Counc; I Meeting Page two Apri I 14, 1975 Case No. 74-17, McDonald's Corporation - Traffic Study Report Lynden referred Counci I to the report from the Minnesota Highway, Department (4-2-75), noting that, while more traffic will be present, the Highway Department analysis indicates it should not be of a level to create serious problems or require a change In traffic controls, such as installation of a signal. ' Crichton questioned why a similar traffic load (less than 7000!day) warrants a signal at Lexington and 1-694, and not at County Road E and Highway 51 access at Connelly Avenue. Feyereisen indicated that the letter from the Highway Department satisfies his concern, but other aspects of the McDonald's proposal 4It remain unresolved, namely: I. Resolution of parking space for Flaherty's Arden Bowl (por- tion of proposed McDonald's site 15, uti lized presently for Flaherty's Arden Bowl parking). 2. Resolution of park dedication requirement (Ord. 98). ~. Resolution of prior stipulations placed on the Building Permit (screening, hours of operation etc.). . Crichton stated that he is still concerned about the traffic hazard; letter from the Highway Department does not have any material effect on the motion that "when and if a semaphore is installed at County Road E and Connelly Avenue, Counci I will authorize issuance of a Building Permit..."; if not a traffic light, something else must be done to resolve the hazard; dissappointed that traffic analysis did not look into this specific intersection where there are visual barriers and a unique traffic pattern; special hazards are Involved here - not so much the number of cars, but the complexity of this intersection; not sure a signal wi I I resolve the problem, but possibly islands, turn lanes, signs-or limited movement of traffic could be imp I emen-ted . Wingert noted that, in talking with residents and business people in this Immedia~e area, several "near misses" have occurred at this Inter- section; would I ike to see some resolution of this traffic hazard so It is not incl-eased;' perhaps a more detai led traffic study of this intersection should be requested. After discussion, Counci I concurred that there is a traffic hazard at this intersection; McDonald's operations tend to Increase traffic and the traffic hazard potential. Lynden reminded Counci I that there 15,no opportunity to obtain further studies prior to the trial which is scheduled on Apri I 16th re "res- taurant vs. drive-In issue", and asked the Counci I's opinion re rele- vancy of this issue. Feyereisen - not the substance for not granting the Building Permit; traffic hazard is main concern. . Wingert - traffic Is first concern, but sti II feels McOonald's opera- tion is a drive-in, under our ordinance definition - McDonald's, in the past, and at present, delivers pre-packaged food in a manner .hlch does not preclude pu'rchaser from eating it at home, in the car or In the bui Iding; therefore fits Vi Ilage ordinance description of a drive-in. Crepeau - Safety matter Is of uppermost concern; sti I I believe that McDonald's is a drive-In. Crichton - under the terms of our ordinance (Ord. No.99), McDonald's operation is a drive-in; we have worked with the applicant to permit construction, if possible, without the involvement of "restaurant vs. d rive - i nit. Woodburn- We are locally cognizant of the existing traffic situation at this location. McDonald's operations tend to increase traffic and the traffic hazard potential. Crichton noted that the Counci I is charged with rrovldlng safety for its citizens; this is what we are trying to accompl ish. -2- - - ______________ ___ __n_ __ __________