CC_Minutes_2015_0223 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 23,2015 Page 9 provements as well. However, Mr. Culver noted that a Regional Traffic Impact Fee was more difficult to justify,probably impacting why it failed. Mayor Roe further clarified thatlt ftheer that failure to Minnesota Statutelement Chapteh429 assessment ose fees, it was the City's decision to proceed w process to demonstrate benefits to properties with infrastructure improvement. Regarding 1-35W managed lane improvements, Mayor Roe sought additional in- formation as to the status of those intended improvements. d in Mr. Vaughn responded that the due diligencetwas and analysisl h d beenperformedto most recent plans, but proper determine that it provided a positive impact on the transportation system, and should be next in line for improvements. Mr. Vaughn noted the improvements found already with the work on the I-35E, 1-494 and Highway 62 managed lanes in mitigating system issues. While not sure of the status of that study, Mr. Lux noted that MnDOT indicated the managed lanes would be built by 2019. Public Comment Mayor Roe opened discussion for public comment at 7:08 p.m., reviewing proto- col, and the intent to respond to questions tonight or at subsequent meetings as applicable. LisaMcCormick,Wheeler Street Ms. McCormickexPressed appreciation for the presentation, and listed a number of questions: • Sought further clarification of changes referenced to the regional transporta- tion system (page 4 of the SRF Report) and clarification if that included I- 35W construction as early as 2019 and when proposed for completion • Rationale in and accountability for indicating a 15%decrease(page 4) • Clarify the table that Fairview and Lydia are currently operating at a Level B (page 7) • Applied 15%reduction to account for two regional )stributions if more than a multi-use e 13) and the expanded rationale for that calculated reduction, trip and potential traffic generation • Assumptions relying on two additional lanes on Snelling Avenue and if that was programmed, or when expected to occur • Table 7: Snelling Avenue level of service indicated at F and improving to E that still seems unacceptable, and whether other mitigation efforts were ac- ceptable in that area • If modifications are not made to Snelling Avenue, and diversion flowing to al- ternate routes, when that was anticipated