Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment C <br />1Zoscvi�le, MN - Officia� Webs�ite <br />Project Team to contin�e pursuing continuous pathways. <br />Pa�e 9 af 14 <br />Further discus5ion incfuded reduction of the median to allow access to <br />the tow�homes; identification oF wa�er tre.atment areas ertvisioned as <br />infiftra�.ion beds; limitations based on the curbs remaining as currently <br />located to facilita�e area businesses and to not fur�h�r infringe u�on <br />their property; snow s�orage provisians along the corridor; and ti�e <br />desire to make Che inte.rsection look more traditional to avoid <br />confusion far vehicular, bicycle and pedestriar� traffic. <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that six different concepts and configurations <br />were considered; and that this design appeared to be more amenable <br />to drivers and their navigation of �he intersection. <br />Pubfic Comment <br />Roger Toogood, 60]. Terrace Court <br />Mr. Toogaocl, representing the Roseville Citizens League, advised that <br />they had studied this desigr�� and suggested additional entry points <br />available for several areas to further alleviate traffic fil�ering onto Rice <br />Street. (e.g., Cub Foods traffi� east �ia an access iane; and eas� along <br />County Road B, with art exit going west to avoid Rice Street). <br />Mr. Tolaas advised that some of the original d�sign concepts had <br />considered those options, and offered to revisit them and provide a <br />mare detailed response and rationale to the Commit�ee. Mr. Talaas <br />advise� that the fewer entry point� on ramps the better other than for <br />acc.amrrtodating buses. Mr, Tolaas recognized the Committee`s intent <br />ta split heavy traf�ic through use of slip ramps. <br />Additional discussion included accommodations to the tawnhome <br />residents and their concerns. <br />Roe moved, Johnson secanded, support far the affset single-pnint <br />interchange as presented on the revised map this evenfng for Rice <br />Street and Highway 36; and to direct staff to continue to work with <br />the project team to address identified concerns. <br />Rol! Call <br />Ayes. Ihlan; Roe� Pust; Johnso�; and Klausing. <br />Nays. Nane. <br />11. Publ�c Hearings <br />12. Bus'rness Iterr�s {Action Items) <br />a. Consider an Alternative Budgeting Proc�ss for 20i3O <br />Finance Direc�or Chris Miller provided a sumcrmary of the RequesC for <br />Council Action dated April �.3, 2009, related ta the meri�s of using an <br />afternative budgeting process for 2Q10; and the urgency based on <br />timing of t�re process. <br />Mr. Miller spoke in support of developmen�, with the consulting <br />assis�ance o� the firm af Springsted of a matrix oF costs per participant <br />or beneficiary and the need for this additional inform�tion for further <br />City CounciE decision-making as the c.ity faced u�coming budget <br />cE�allenges and limited resources: <br />Discussion i�cluded reprioritization af programs and services; <br />l�ttp:l/www.ci.roseville.mn.uslarchive.aspx?AMID =&7'ype=&ADID=644&PI�VIEW—Y�S 8/�9/200� <br />