pf_02978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

. .' Mr. Tim Nelson . -2- January 14, 1998 CHANGES BE1WEEN PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND THOSE EXPERIENCED IN 1987 The current development proposal and conditions on Hamline Avenue involve two differences from conditions in 1987 that lessen traffic impacts and enhance the ability of the roadway system to accommodate the. current potential development. One such change is that the 1997 volume on the subject segment ofHarnline Avenue was 10,800 vehicles per day, which actually is less than the 12,450 vehicles per day reported in 1985. The second change is that the current potential office development is a 50,000 sq. ft. building, which is less than 1/3 the size of the 1987 development proposal. One significant effect of the two changes mentioned above is that the total daily volume on Hamline Avenue after completion of the potential office building, assuming that the entire building is for medica1/dental use, would be about 12.050 vehicles. This post- development volume is 400 vehicles per day less than the actual volume counted in 1985 (12,450 vehicles per day), COMMENTS ON CITY STAFF REPORT We have reviewed the 1 1/2 pages of traffic comments presented by Jay Kennedy. Assistant Public Works Director. in his January 7, 1998, memorandum to Dennis Welsch. His comments serve a beneficial purpose in identifying traffic items that are important to address relative to the potential development. His comments represent just an initial review and are very inconclusive in terms of the traffic effects of the potential development. The inconclusive nature of Mr. Kennedy's comments are evidenced by the numerous occasions in which he used phrases such as: "it is possible that" and "'would likely." Nowhere in Mr. Kennedy's comments does he acknowledge that the volume on Hamline Avenue declined from 1985 to 1997 or that the current potential office building is less than 1/3 the size compared to the office project proposed in 1987. Given the preliminary and incomplete nature of Mr. Kennedy's report, we object strongly to the following statement under item 5.1.5 in the City staff report: "In addition, the traffic generated by a limited business use on this site would require Hamline to be upgraded in order to accommodate the additional traffic." Mr. Kennedy's report provides no support for such a general statement. CONCLUSIONS Four items presented in this report suggest a high likelihood that the potential 50,000 sq. ft., office building would not cause adverse traffic impacts. a) A traffic study completed in April 1987 demonstrated that an office development of 159,950 sq. ft.. could be accommodated on the east side ofHam1ine Avenue between Highway 36 and County Road B, without causing any adverse impacts on Hamline Avenue or other nearby roadways. b) Between 1985 and 1997, the volume on the subject segment ofHam1ine Avenue declined from 12,450 to 10,800 vehicles per day.