Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> <br />CON~ULTINGENGINEER~ <br /> <br />1326 Energy Park Drive <br /> <br />St. Paul, MN 55108 <br /> <br />612-644-4389 <br /> <br />1-800-888-2923 <br /> <br />Fax: 612-644-9446 <br /> <br />March 12, 1997 <br />File: 230-261-11 <br /> <br />Mr. Steve Ach <br />City Planner <br />City of Elk River <br />13065 Orono Parkway <br />P.O. Box 490 <br />Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> <br />RE: COTTAGES OF ELK RIVER <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Ach: <br /> <br />CIVIL ENGINEERING <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL <br /> <br />'^IJNIC!PAL <br /> <br />SOLID 'WASTE <br /> <br />STRUCT(/RAL <br /> <br />SURVE¥1NG <br /> <br />TRAFFIC <br /> <br />TRANSPORTATION <br /> <br />ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL <br />ENGINEERING <br /> <br />HYAC <br /> <br />POWER DISTRIBUTION <br /> <br />SYSTE~x <br /> <br />OFFICES IN: <br /> <br /> ,NNEAPOLIS <br /> <br />PRIOR LAKE <br /> <br />ST. PAUL <br /> <br />WASECA <br /> <br />As we discussed, we have done an analysis of traffic issues regarding Cottages of Elk <br />River and their requested change in the CUP to a non-senior type of housing. Using the <br />Institute of Transportation Engineers' trip generation guide dated January 1991, we tried <br />to compare the trips generated by this type of housing development with seniors only and <br />with no restriction on the owners. It appears, as you might imagine, that the most <br />significant change is in the weekday a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour traffic. A non- <br />restricted ownership of this type of housing development has the possibility of generating <br />seven to ten times more traffic in these peak hours. In doing the same type of <br />comparison for a weekend trip generation, it appears that the factor is more on the order <br />of two times as much traffic from a non-senior housing. <br /> <br />Based on this information, we would make two recommendations. First, we would <br />recommend that a second access to the development be provided if the change to no age <br />restriction is granted. We make this recommendation for two reasons: one is the <br />increased traffic generation, and the second is the precedent that may be set. All other <br />similar type of townhome developments in the City have two points of access. In <br />reviewing this development as a senior housing, the recommendation was for one access <br />only because of the limited number of trips and the desire to keep through traffic out of <br />the development to create essentially a neighborhood atmosphere for the senior residents. <br /> <br />The second recommendation we would make is to reconsider whether or not sidewalk <br />should be provided internal to the development for pedestrian trips. Again, the reason <br />a sidewalk was not required was because it was felt the total number of vehicle trips <br />would be minor based on the age restriction of the development. Therefore, pedestrian <br />trips could safety use the roadways. <br /> <br />An Equal Opportunity Employer <br /> <br /> <br />