My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2014_0303
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
CC_Minutes_2014_0303
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2014 2:27:11 PM
Creation date
3/27/2014 2:25:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/3/2014
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,March 3, 2014 <br /> Page 17 <br /> Mr. Hartman had previously expressed concerns in allowing enough room to get <br /> emergency vehicles through; opining that a setback of 13 — 15' from the property <br /> line would be ideal. However, if more space was not available, and with assur- <br /> ances that a privacy fence would be installed and no parking on that side of the al- <br /> ley, Mr. Hartman opined that he could be satisfied. Mr. Hartman expressed his <br /> ongoing concern with off-street parking in the project site; however, he recog- <br /> nized that Mr. Buelow had continued working with him on various issues and <br /> concerns, and expressed his appreciation for the accommodations made for him <br /> to-date. <br /> Rich Lueder,794 Lovell Avenue <br /> Mr. Lueder expressed his concern with current traffic and projected increased <br /> traffic on Lovell Avenue; and referenced verbal assurances received at the last <br /> HRA meeting that traffic on Lovell would be part of the overall evaluation pro- <br /> cess. In his personal review and correspondence with City officials, Mr. Lueder <br /> noted that his interpretation was that any additional traffic studies beyond that <br /> would be the responsibility of the community. While understanding the process, <br /> Mr. Lueder asked for clarification on whether he or the neighbors with 51% sup- <br /> port from the neighbors, needed to pursue that study, or if they would be simply <br /> doubling the efforts. Mr. Lueder questioned if the study was already done; and <br /> whether those results would ultimately be taken to the citizens or neighborhood to <br /> address parking and traffic on that street; and whether the process would lead to <br /> costs being borne by the neighborhood versus a city assessment by engineers. If <br /> the response was that the cost and study was the responsibility of the neighbors, <br /> Mr. Lueder opined that he would then have problems. If the study only indicated <br /> a turn lane on Lovell without recommendations for other options as well, Mr. <br /> Lueder asked for clarification on that the traffic study would entail and ultimate <br /> potential results of that study. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon responded that the required <br /> traffic study as part of the development process, both a pre- and post-analysis, <br /> was typically borne by the developer unless the City chose to do so, which was <br /> not common practice. Mr. Trudgeon reported that any indicated modifications <br /> would need to be factored into the development. Mr. Trudgeon, in response to his <br /> understanding of Mr. Lueder's question, was related to additional neighborhood <br /> requests for a dead-end street or cul-de-sac, which would be considered neighbor- <br /> hood-initiated and affect a larger area than just the development itself and require <br /> a larger and more intense study, even though it would have some repetition of da- <br /> ta,but based on impacts to a larger area. <br /> Mr. Lueder questioned if a turn lane was the best option versus a dead-end or <br /> something between those two options, and the greatest engineering improvement <br /> available. <br /> Mayor Roe clarified that the developer's engineering study would deal with turn- <br /> ing movements, intersection geometries, and traffic flow; and proposed traffic <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.