5A - Conditional Use Permit for the RV Resort Village at the Preserve (continued)

Home Browse Search

APR.10.2006 1:30PM MN-DOT, 3R/GRERT ROOM NO.464 P.1 4 MEMO District 3—Permits Office Tel: (218)828-2469 76941ndustrial Park Road Fax: (218)828-6105 Baxter, MN 56425 April 10, 2006 To: City of Pequot Lakes Planning and Zoning, fax 218568-5860 Community Growth Institute,fax 218-828-3069 L From: Ken Larson Maintenance Specialist Subject: CS 1810 (171-1371) Proposed Conditional Use Permit for Dan Helbiing, RV Resort at the Preserve Section 27—Twp 136N—Range 29W, City of Pequot Lakes Hearing April 20, 2006 Thank you for allowing Mn/DOT the opportunity to review this CUP. Mn/DOT offers the following comments to this proposal: Mn/DOT wants no RV Park entrance of any kind to TH 371,whether it be for the RV lot owners/users, park staff, or any type of service, delivery or maintenance vehicle access. There is RV park access shown at two locations on Hurtig Rd., with access to TH 371 from Hurtig Rd. via CR 168 to the north and CSAH 29 to the south. Its our understanding the existing entrance on TH 371 must remain inplace to serve the one residential parcel surrounded by the RV park, and that continued use is acceptable, but we want no additional RV park use of that entrance location. The proposed Internal roads shown on the preliminary plat have connections from the RV park to the private driveway, and even though Mr. Helbling has proposed a gate somewhere in this area, it would be difficult to control all unauthorized and unsafe use of the highway entrance by RVs and other park traffic. Mr. Helbling has asked MWDOT for traffic signals to be installed at Jct. TH 371/CR 168, and has offered that he and others could contribute to the i signal cost. Mn/DOT cannot consider signals at any Intersection without it meeting traffic warrants to justify that, and the intersection does not meet warrants at this time. Mn/DOT would need to see a detailed traffic study. done by the applicant's engineering firm, to see how projected traffic volumes at this intersection may warrant signals in the future. A traffic study may show the need for left turn lanes at the CR 168 jcL before signal warrants may be met. Since this is a public road Mn/DOT on its own cannot require the developer to build left turn lanes to it, but its our understanding the City could make that a requirement of this or other CUP area approvals, either now or at a future date when warranted. Mn/DOT would like further review and discussion of the left turn lane option.