Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />M~ <br /> <br />roNSULTI~G K~G1~'EERS <br /> <br />CIVil ENGINEERING <br />,I <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL <br /> <br />MUNICIPAL <br /> <br />PlANNING <br /> <br />.RUCiURAl <br /> <br /> <br />SURVEYING <br /> <br />7"(':'FFiC <br /> <br />7R,INSPCRTATION <br /> <br />1326 Energy Park Drive <br />51. Paul, MN 55108 <br />612-644-4389 <br />Fax: 612-64.4-9.4.46 <br /> <br />_00 Shelarc! Parkway <br />I Minneapolis, MN 5544 1 <br /> <br />612-546-Q432 <br />Fax: 612-544-6398 <br /> <br />December 9, 1993 <br />File: 230-152-10 <br /> <br />Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />City of Elk River <br />13065 Orono Parkway <br />Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> <br />RE: ELK PARK CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY <br /> <br />Dear Council Members: <br /> <br />As requested, we have begun work on the feasibility study for the Elk Park Center <br />development. Attached is information and analysis regarding the key issues which were <br />identified in our November 18, 1993, memo to Steve Ach, City Planner. As you are <br />aware, these issues were singled out as being the highest priority to be responded to by your <br />December 13, 1993, Public Hearing. For clarity, we have structured this report to follow <br />a question and answer format in the same sequence as our November 18th memo. <br /> <br />Before proceeding with our findings on these issues, it should be noted that this is not an <br />all-inclusive feasibility study. Due to the short duration of time, we have not addressed <br />issues such as sanitary sewer and water service to the development, nor have we tried to <br />address many of the internal improvements necessary to serve it. Also missing from this <br />report are any estimated costs of the various improvements or funding sources to pay for <br />them. The final item not included in this report is the timing of the various improvements <br />relative to the phasing of the proposed Elk Park Center development. All of these items <br />would be fully addressed in the final feasibility study. <br /> <br />A. <br /> <br />TRAFFIC <br /> <br />The traffic analysis was based on the developer's most current site plan. This is the <br />site plan that was presented to the City Council at the last public hearing. However, <br />some minor adjustments to the locations of the internal commercial establishments <br />have been made. Also, this revised site plan did show the alternative drainage with <br />one large on-site pond. Since this revised site plan indicated an open lot at the <br />extreme north end, our analysis assumed an additional fast-food restaurant of <br />approximately 3,300 square feet. This site plan is the base for Exhibit 1. <br /> <br />152-0901.dec <br /> <br />230-152-10 <br />