My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_0223
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_0223
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2015 10:53:14 AM
Creation date
3/6/2015 10:41:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/23/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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,February 23,2015 <br /> Page 8 <br /> Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification that there was no indication that the <br /> lowest rated intersections were dangerous in terms of safety,just slow. <br /> Mr. Culver responded affirmatively, suggesting that a lack of safety concerns may <br /> be due to the level of congestion along Fairview Avenue, with the roadway being <br /> flat and open with plenty of wide shoulders and two all-way stops; and unfortu- <br /> nately therefore limiting funding options. Mr. Culver noted the problems encoun- <br /> tered during p.m. peak drive times or when events occur or incidents on I-35W, <br /> creating even more significant congestion issues on Fairview Avenue. <br /> Councilmember McGehee questioned if there were any legal requirements obli- <br /> gating the City and its taxpayers to provide assistanced So correct traffic issues that <br /> are significantly under the purview of the County <br /> Mr. Culver responded that from the perspective of the roadway and corridor itself, <br /> they were maintained by Ramsey he corridor fornty and lr capacity andlty to monitor safety. However, <br /> maintain it, as well as to program <br /> Mr. Culver noted that, when a County project was undertaken, it included a local <br /> cost share and obligation for the municipal jurisdiction. <br /> Mr. Lux used Terrace Drive as a good example: <br /> City <br /> street, it a 50/50 cost tersected <br /> spl t with a County Road (Fairview Avenue) and therewould be <br /> be- <br /> tween the County and City of Roseville if a four-way signal was installed. How- <br /> ever, Mr. Lux acknowledged the foresight of City staff to retain a right-of-way on <br /> the west side, so when that does develop, it will keep future costs down. Mr. Lux <br /> also noted that funding for development-driven signals were often passed onto the <br /> developer by the City, with some cities escrowing funds from developments for <br /> that purpose. Mr. Lux advised that the County also required lead time to build <br /> such improvements into its budget similar to the City's budget process. <br /> In the past, Councilmember McGehee noted that the City had attempted to build <br /> in infrastructure costs into the development, but the concept had been legally <br /> challenged, and ultimately eliminated as an option. Councilmember McGehee <br /> questioned how Mr. Lux's proposal differed from what the City had already tried. <br /> Mr. Culver clarified that Councilmember McGehee was referencing originally <br /> proposed Traffic Impact Fees that had been legally and successfully challenged, <br /> with those fees intended for collection some time prior to and sometimes post- <br /> development. Mr. Culver noted that an example of a past success was with the <br /> WalMart development, when specific impacts to the adjacent road network was <br /> identified with a specific development, and required to pay for those improve- <br /> ments, similar to a development triggering installation of a traffic signal. Mr. <br /> Culver advised that in a lot omay <br /> s dependent onthoseo so, <br /> bmt <br /> most realized that the success of their development wa <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.