Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MAR 20 '97 10:43 ERW INCo <br /> <br />P.4 <br /> <br />RECOMMf;NDATlONS, 11'\ 1\~\ <br />T~~ ex.pect~d trotffi~ i~~cts.i,mpa'rted b~ tbe pr~po~ed C~~ltre 'Poi~te deVeIOpmen~~'el t.\;.. <br />mitigated ~t1d/or mlDamu:ed If rhe roUowmg recqmmendatlons are 1D1plcmcnted. \>,J) <br /> <br />- Limit the number of access driveways to/from lht: propos..:d Co:ntrl.:: Point~ development to the existing <br />thr~~ fuH~mo\'.emc:nt intcrstctions, <br /> <br />- RestI'ipe existing (52 toot) CleveJaM Av.:nut: from (h~ 1-35W ramps intersection to County Road D to a <br />thr~;; Jane ~6iJ.dway, with exclusiv(; s()~thbound righ~ rum bae:> prc,vided at each of the three site acc~ss <br />jnteT::ccliuri,~. This should 1'Idt:quar~Jy JcCOmmod3t~ t-he fOrec<t.';I '(tar 2001 Post Development traffic <br />for~casts. <br /> <br />- Inw~tjgat~ opportunities to obIain additirJl1al rigllt'ofway alon;J Cleveland Avenue between the 1-35W <br />ramps inttrstction and County Road !) :nt~rscc~jon :tor pc.:isibJe funlf.: llpgrade to a five-lane (64 fOOl) <br />fi)adway. Y~)rtions of this right-of way may be (kdicaH~d by ~\dj~ccm property owners/developmentS !15 <br />piu1 of th~ pla( approval proCI:;SS and righr t';lming I~ne cOfl~tructjoli. The upgrade from a threE: lam: (0 a <br />fj.v~ Ian.: roadway should be: considert'd when !hc A:DT l)Jdhi~ :::tcrj(J!! ar CI~...dand A vc:nue approaches <br />15,00.0 vpd; This volume incre!\s~ !lI!1)' be prtdi:at.:d (')\. tht ~;mjll~ or thl:: propo:s~d nearby Twin Lakes <br />development. <br /> <br />- COr\s.idc,ration should be given ro consolidating access driws y;hcl'ec:ver possible, to }ocate access drives <br />direcTly opposite one another ,m citt.i.:.:r sid~ ()f CI~veland, A venlJ'~ <!lId to provide a minimum 150 foot <br />distancc'octwecn opposing access drjv~s Ii) dimina~~ onset intersections and problems associated with <br />ov~ralapping left turn$ and diagonal mO\l.:ml:nt5, -"':hich Yt;sult in multiple conflict points. <br /> <br />'.. <br /> <br />- Consideration should be given to installing exclusive right turning lanes at the foHowing loc8Iions; <br /> <br />- -$,outhbound at each oftht:, three existing Centrt Paim, if.ttrsections. <br />- On the nonh approach of the Cleve.1and r\j:\'cnue / 1-35W ramps intersection. <br />- On the w~st approah ofth~ County Road P / C.ltvdand Aven'Ut intersection. <br />- qn the east approacn ofthe Counry R.:>ad.p / 1-35W northbound ramps intersection. <br />- Lengthening the existing ri~t turn lane$ On rh~ north .il.nd C:a$t approaches of the Cleveland <br />A v~nue / County Road C inkrsectio(l. <br /> <br />- Periodically monitor the post-deve-Iopmenr conditions ~t the rhr"e :)it~ access intersections with <br />Cleveland ,~venue and considetthe itlstaJlarion of a trall1c :>ignal if all of the following are met. <br /> <br />I) the intt:rs~ction meets one or more of the traffic, signal warrants of the MMUTCD <br />2) the in1.t:r5c:ction is e"peritmcing a'traffic congestion aodJor safet)' problem susceptible to correction by <br />si~nal installation <br />3) th~ installation of a traffic: signal'\\'\.mM not result in q!Jeuing impacts through adjacent intersections <br />4) the spaemg relationship betwcen this si,gllali:t.l::d ~ocati(Jn and th~ othc:r signals along Cleveland Avenue <br />would be appropriate for future :>ignal prog~,-)sion pl,lrpQ-->t:s. <br /> <br />The possible future installation of ;s'lraffic :;ignal ~t~~ither ofIhe Cle\'cland Avenue intersections with <br />North Cen~r,f: Pointe Drive or Lydia A lI~nu~would allow ,th~se locbtions to operate at an acceptable !e:vtl <br />(LOS B) 'during the Year 2001 Post-Development:.PM peak hour. <br />. , <br /> <br />- The City of Roseville should consider rcquil'ing,thl: po!lsibl~ I;:scrowing of monies from Centre Pointe to <br />he}p pay fOf a futUIe traffic signal to servict the: d~v;e)op,m~nt. <br />