Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Paget 22 <br /> <br />Wednesday, July 6, 1988 <br /> <br />that this would be an easement for utilities and that the lot <br />would remain in it's existing state. <br /> <br />Goedeke indicated concern that traffic going in and out of the <br />site would be a problem because it was so close to the stop light <br />on Rice street. <br /> <br />Wilson responded that the state plans to upgrade Rice street so <br />that it is similar to Lexington with a center dedicated left turn <br />lane which should improve traffic flow. <br /> <br />stokes pointed out that there where hundreds of apartment units <br />in the area as well as other high traffic generators such as u.s. <br />Swim and Fitness and the Cub Foods which already create high <br />traffic volumes. Wilson pointed out that a three lane design and <br />a change in the timing of the signal lights would help traffic <br />flow in the area. <br /> <br />Berry concurred that signal timing would improve traffic flow <br />situation in the area. <br /> <br />Leslie Krumm, 2252 Marion, indicated the concern that each time a <br />development project has been proposed for the site it has been <br />bigger than the previous proposal. Krumm pointed out that signal <br />timing is a problem in the area. <br /> <br />Ray McDonald, 2241 Marion, pointed out that the previous proposal <br />was limited because of traffic impacts and that new development <br />has occurred in the area which has added to traffic problems in <br />the area. McDonald encouraged that a traffic study be done to <br />deal with the traffic problems in the area. <br /> <br />Larry Bieza, 182 S. McCarrons Boulevard, discussed the traffic <br />problems in the area, questioned why the project has changed, and <br />encouraged that the project be as small as possible. Waldron <br />responded that the previous developer was unable to obtain <br />financing for the project, and that is why it did not move <br />forward. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated that he could not believe that a traffic study was <br />not done for this project. Johnson pointed out that it was a <br />state road and that the state comes out and evaluates traffic <br />levels and makes appropriate improvements when they are <br />warranted. <br /> <br />Stokes pointed out that this developer has a good history, but <br />that the traffic in the area would be a condition "f" in his <br />