Laserfiche WebLink
,Rnalysis would need to be completed to determine the specific impacts to each of these <br />individual roadways. <br />D AP dP dop iiiiiiiiii <br />dP dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dP <br />a dp dP dP <br />dP dP dP <br />dP <br />1. The vend�or mad�e two very important comments d�uring the July 13 public forum that he <br />failed to make when presenting to the City Council on July 18. At the July 13 meeting., <br />he ad�d�ressed� the County Road C2 resid�ents concerns about perceived "roller coaster If/ <br />cond�itions on C2 by stating that the slope was 8% and fell below the official problem <br />level of 11%. He d d acknowled ge there may be line of sight issues., but that these <br />could be ad�d�ressed� by painting right and left turn lanes on the road�. H�e said if that <br />weren"t enough., the City could ultimately consid�er putting in a traffic signal at County <br />Road C2 and Lexington. We ask that the vend�or please put those comments in writing <br />as part of this Q,&A activity. <br />RESPONSE: The discussion referenced here pertains to a number of items identified as <br />part of the "Roadway Design Review section contained in the traffic study document. <br />The study states that "The existing maximum grade in this segment (of County Road <br />C2) is eight percent (S%), which by itself does not pose an issue with design compliance <br />as the length is less than 500 feet and is less than the 11 - 0% maximum grade <br />suggested by MnDOT Road Design Manual Table 3-4.02A. However, the combination of <br />the rolling terrain and short vertical curves, cause deficiency in the design such that the <br />existing configuration does not meet the design standards for 30 mph in several areas. .11 <br />