Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 2, 2006 <br /> DRAFT 17 <br /> . reconstruction there was limited acccss on Highway 96. He indicated Ham1ine Avenue <br /> also had high volume with a lot of driveways and City streets on it. He stated the City <br /> needed to determine if they felt comfortable how they were going to allow access into <br /> imd out of the site. He stated the County was comfortable with the right-in and right-out <br /> access as well as 1cft turn-in and left turn-out. He stated the lIamline Avenue access <br /> could have any number of different accesses and it became a matter of what the City felt <br /> comfortable with. <br /> Commissioner Larson asked if the traffic engineering finn was reliable. Mr. Soler stated <br /> as far as he knew, they were a reliable firm and hc did not see anything done within the <br /> study that would try and hide or fool anyone. He noted traffic studies when it pertained <br /> to developments made a lot of assumptions and level of service was an "out there" <br /> concept. Hc statcd they had to look at this from a morc holistic way and they would look <br /> at thc impacts to the County roads if they allowed a certain access or configuration. <br /> Commissioner Zimmerman asked how many trips were eastbound on Highway 96 on a <br /> daily basis, Mr. Soler respondcd thc traffic on Highway 96 was about 50/50. He noted <br /> the difference was that during di fferent timcs of day that could fluctuate greatly. He <br /> statcd it was over 10,000 a day on eastbound Highway 96. <br /> Commissioner Zimmennan asked what the traffic count was on Hamline on a daily basis. <br /> Mr. Soler responded he did not have the specific answer, but he believed it was over <br /> . 10,000, 1 Ie stated they should rcfcr to thc traffic study for this information. <br /> Commissioner Zimmerman staled the study show cd 434 cars in and 434 cars out of this <br /> development, which would total 868 trips. Mr. Soler statcd the County would try to <br /> makc the roadways operate with whatever development the City chosc to put in. <br /> Chair Sand stated they could not mathematically predict, but they could assume the U- <br /> turn at Keithson. He asked if they could put a no U-turn sign on Highway 96 at Keithson. <br /> Mr. Soler stated he was not aware there were any problems with U-turns at Keithson. He <br /> noted no U-turns were difficult to enforce and if there would be a problem with U-turns <br /> they would enforcc no U-turns. He indicatcd if there were no access at Hamline, they <br /> would anticipate a lot of U-turns at Keithson. He noted a signal at Keithson would be <br /> good and bad. It would allow easier access, but it would also add to the potcntia1 of more <br /> accidents on Highway 96. He stated they would need to determine if it was safer to add <br /> another red light on Highway 96 or if it was safer to allow U-turns. He stated hc had not <br /> considered the possibility of adding a signal at Keithson until tonight's meeting. He <br /> noted they were anticipating a signal at the TCAAP entrance in the future. <br /> Chair Sand stated many comments were made tonight of the bottle effect at southbound <br /> Ham1ine A venue. He asked if Hamline Avenue would be two lanes southbound from <br /> Highway 96 to County Road F at some point in the future. Mr. Soler responded that was <br /> not an easily answered qucstion, He stated they did not know what the configuration was <br /> . going to be south at Interstate 694 and Hamline Avenue. lIe stated there was the <br /> potential of not having an access on or ofT lnterstate 694 in the future, so that might <br /> -- DRAFT -- <br />