Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />� <br />� <br />� r�� <br />II <br />� %` <br />1? <br />]�I <br />]� <br />1� <br />1" <br />l� <br />1� <br />��1 <br />�l <br />?? <br />��� <br />��= <br />�5 <br />�f� <br />�8 <br />�� <br />� C� <br />3] <br />�� <br />33 <br />3� <br />�� <br />�6 <br />�'r <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />r� � <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />A8 <br />�� <br />SU <br />�� <br />S? <br />t :4��i�a+ral; <br />��UE�T FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Manager Reviewed: <br />1 <br />� '.�li 1 <br />4 , •� <br />� <br />=trr�.�-.� <br />f <br />Date: 4/23/07 <br />Item: 10.b <br />James Addition Access <br />DATE: ��16/07. <br />ITEM NO. : S.i <br />_ Agenda Section: <br />r ��- ` �� <br />Item Description: James Addition Access Follow Up and Request for Intersection Analysis <br />Background: Staff discussed the Public Works Environment, and Transportation Commission <br />findings regarding the James Addition alternative access issue at y4u:r meeting on March 12, <br />2007. The Commission studied six alternatives at their September 2006 meeting for feasibility <br />and cost. The tl�ree most feasible alternativeswere presentedto the neighborhood at the <br />Commission's October 2006 meeting. Over 20 neighborhood residents were in attendance. The <br />results of the PWETC study presented to the Council were that the maj ority of neighborhood <br />residents that commented preferred leaving access as it exists �oday, even if MnDot moves <br />forward with the full closure of the median on Snellir�g Avenue, as opposed to losing homes in <br />the neighborhood to construct an alternative access. The Commission also supported additional <br />intersection analysis to detennine if any signalization on T'airvie�v Avenue would be beneficial to <br />neighborhood access. <br />The Couizcil discussed concerns for emergency vehicle access if MnDot moves forward with <br />closure of the median and whether some type of closure that would allow emergency vehicles to <br />cross the median would be possible. Staff has discussed this issue with MnDot staff, and they <br />indicated they would look into what could be constructed to permit this type of crossing. They <br />have not responded with a design at this point. <br />The Council also asked staff to look into the cost of additional intersection study on T'airv�er�v <br />Avenue to determine whether there would be a benefit to the neighborhood provided by some <br />level of signalization on Fairview Avenue. Staff inet with the Ramsey County traffic engineer to <br />discuss this type of study. He concurred that it would be helpful to do some intersection analysis <br />to determine the benefits or negative impacts of signalization. We determined that three <br />alternatives should be looked at in this study and the resultant data. They are a 3-way intersection <br />with a signal at west Oa.lrcresi and �airview intersection, a 4-way offset intersection with both the <br />east and west legs of Oakcrest included, and comparing to the existing configura�ian with stop <br />conditions on Oakcrest Avenue. <br />We discussed the scope of this study with our traffic consultant w�ao has done previous work in <br />this area and received an estimate for this work of $7D00. Ramsey County would agree to <br />participate to the level that they can provide �l�e field work required for this study and crash <br />analysis. They would provide this information to the consultant utilizing their in house staf£ This <br />would reduce the cost to the City to $5000 or less. <br />Staff recommends moving forward with this study utilizing funds from the Special Assessments <br />and ConstructionFund. <br />���N,�I����� COUNCIL ACTION: <br />Provide direction to staff regarding support for additional intersection analysis on �'airvi�w <br />Avenue. <br />Prepared by: Duane Scl�wartz <br />