Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Arden Hills Council <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />March 29, 1993 <br /> <br />Mayor Sather explained that the procedure to be used for <br />receiving public would be that all persons who signed the <br />guest register would be invited to speak; he asked that each <br />speaker limit comments to two minutes per person, Names <br />were called in the order listed on the guest register. <br />Comments made by citizens are as follows (not verbatim): <br /> <br />Ray McGraw, 1421 Bussard Court: These hearings have been <br />going on over a year, and the state has an obligation to <br />provide access to property. closure of the Snelling/51 <br />intersection has created difficulty accessing property and <br />has added time to emergency response. <br /> <br />Jean Lemberg, 1401 Skiles Lane: It is surprising that the <br />State thinks signalized intersections are less safe than <br />unsignalized intersections, yet they install so may signals. <br />When T.R. 51 originally came through, the Old Snelling <br />access was not closed because it was the only direct access. <br />Access now that the Snelling/51 intersection is closed is <br />very difficult. Convenience is not the only element; safety <br />is also very important. The Lydia/Snelling intersection has <br />worse sightlines than a redesigned intersection at <br />Snelling/51 would have. Petitions from citizens have <br />demonstrated the community's desire to reopen a safer <br />intersection at Snelling/51. Though the old intersection at <br />Snelling/51 was unsafe, the gory details of past accidents <br />have colored this issue. Accidents at the old intersection <br />were not necessarily attributed to the design of the <br />intersection, but probably to a large extent due to the high <br />speed limit of T.H. 51 and other factors. Roads cannot be <br />closed simply because accidents occur. We desire safety as <br />well as access. The County Road E bridge over T.H. 51 is <br />inadequate to accommodate the traffic that is now using it. <br />If we make no change now, this matter will surface again <br />when changes to the Snelling/694 interchange are considered, <br /> <br />Ken Schacht, 1683 West County Road F: I can't see a good <br />solution, but closing the Snelling/51 intersection is not <br />the answer. Residents along County Road E now have the <br />burden of the "moved" traffic. My daughter experienced a <br />near accident at the Snelling/51 intersection, but I think <br />opening the intersection with a signal seems appropriate. <br />with regard to MNDOT's concern that a signalized <br />intersection would impede "through" traffic, it must be <br />considered that there are several signals between <br />Snelling/51 and Rosedale; also, a signal would help to slow <br />the high rate of speed along 51. <br />