10-26-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#2 - #2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Continued) 2) How do the 1995-96 safety improvements to H\v>-12 impact access to Outlot E? Is a shared access with adjacent Wear property necessary? Stoddard was informed that there would be no effect on the Wear property’s gas pump access as there is a third access. However, this does not solve the access issue for the east boundary property as it would require making U-tums which is not deemed desirable by the City. 3) Will the expected future relocation of Hwy 12 in the next 5-10 years effectively reduce the amount of traflBc on existing Hwy 12 to eliminate the need for a frontage road? 4) If the traffic levels are not reduced, should the conversion of Outlot E to buildable status be the trigger for construction of the frontage road? Gaffron cited the potential traffic volume impacts of the Highway 12 relocation. It was noted that Mn/DOT projects through traffic will use the new bypass and the traffic the current corridor will decline. The current H%vy 12 traffic through Long Lake isp,0W cars per dav. Under the "no build" option, the traffic would increase to 25,000 by 2015 with a three-fold increase on CoRd 6. Under the "Alternate 6 North" plan, Hi^ l^yaffi^ is e.xpected to decline to 14,600 cars by the year 2015. This traffic level is still significant considering a daily traffic volume above 10,000 cars generally requires a limited access 4- lane roadway with service roads. Hwy 12 is projected to remam two lanes only. The Hwy 12 safety improvement plans included medians and turn lanes which preclude direct access to the applicant’s parcel by eastbound traffic unless through the easterly Orono Shopping Center access The City feels it would not be appropnate to ^low Outlot E’s traffic to use that access. An anticipated future curb cut for Outbt E would be a right-in/right-out access and would necessitate U-tums for eastbound traffic which the City deems inappropriate. Gaffron said the City does not beUeve modifications >^1 be made to the median in the future to provide eastbound ingress/egress directly to Outlot E. Gaffron reported that the City’s preference for a frontage road would reduce/eli^^e direct access to Hw>' 12 and bring the traffic to a semaphored mtersection at either Brown Road or Willow Drive. The preliminary plat of Sugar Woods was conditioned on the frontage road being fully installed at the time of either the applicant’s development of the commercial corridor or as a result of other conditions requirmg the installation ^^^^d prior to the development of the commercial corridor. The conditions of the bugar Woods plat approval resolution indicate that installation of a road segment in Outlot D must be concurrent with development of Outlot E. 7^1