2024-10-23 WS, CC & Closed Exec. Session Minutes - Approved

Home Browse Search

City of Centerville City Council Meeting October 23, 2024 Motion by Council Member Taylor, seconded by Council Member Mosher to Adopt Res.#24-022 Supporting Grant Application – Empowering Small Minnesota Communities (ESMS) as presented. All in favor. Motion carried th 3. Discussion of 20 Avenue & Center Street Traffic/Safety Mayor Love stated that he believed that the pedestrian path was the city’s and the city does have control over that. He stated that the city could make requests of the County and work with them but cannot make specific changes on our own. Administrator Statz stated that obstructions cannot be placed in the County’s road right-of-way. Discussion ensued regarding the City’s role with it being a safety issue, the corridor study recently completed do what we can with law enforcement, short term mitigation, state regulations, and things that can be addressed by the city. It was stated that it would be nice to protect pedestrians on the trail, alleviate last minute signaling and braking in the area, completing the Fairview Street and Center Street alignment in the future, having additional space between the trail and road right-of-way, assisting with accelerating the alignment, ability to place signage such as no passing, etc. Administrator Statz presented the final study and stated that the recommended future plan for th 20 Avenue was that Fairview Street and Center Street align and include turn lanes. He stated that funding from Amazon was received to complete this in a two-year plan. He questioned whether to complete this as a stand-alone project or include it with Anoka County’s project. He stated that he advocated that it be a stand-alone project and on everyone’s radar. He stated that a round-a-bout was considered but eliminated as there would be either one at Cedar Street or Birch Street or both. He also stated that Amazon deeded a sliver of property to Anoka County where the roadway may have a potential to be moved to the east of this area and the th timing, 2 years, or with the 20 Avenue project. City Administrator Statz stated that the focus should be placed on immediate changes and what can be completed. He stated that constructing a barrier may be an option. He stated that he did not believe that the County would allow the city to construct a barrier in the right-of-way or at least out of the “clear zone”. He explained that if there was an obstruction in the “clear zone” a guardrail is needed but if not in the “clear zone”, no guardrail per engineering guidelines and principles state. He felt that a temporary barrier could be constructed within days or weeks at the right-of-way or on private property. He also stated that discussions would be needed as to type, costs, permissions, etc. He felt that nothing stands in the way of placing barriers on private property as the County does not have jurisdiction on private property. He also stated that the City’s code can be adjusted if need be for this safety issue. He stated that he felt that was the quickest way to address this issue at this time and the other concerns were going to take longer to address than everyone would like. He stated that he does believe that the city can work with the County to expedite the other items as quickly as possible. Administrator Statz stated that he reached out to the Engineer as well and expected that a meeting will be held in the very near future. City Administrator felt that a no passing zone did not have unintended consequences, lowering the speed limit does not slow people down the data shows that it is not effective. He stated he was unsure that whether a daycare could be allowed to be Page 6 of 11