My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6939
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6900
>
res_6939
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:12:49 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:02:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6939
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. P-79-2 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
4/14/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />6 <br /> <br />residential areas, there seems to be a (inaudible) for <br />drivers to over accelerate and drop back down to the speed. <br />We showed some examples of tests made in Ohio and San <br />Francisco and other par~ of the nation that reflect and <br />show that the speeds will increase and then decrease back <br />down to a steady speed, so the overall impact of them is to <br />slow down traffic within a few hundred feet of the sign <br />and then increase for a few hundred feet beyond. So the <br />concern is that 1) you will develop some drivers that have a <br />tendency to disobey the sign and perhaps somebody else is <br />anticipating they will stop, and a small area where the <br />speeds are actually decreased. There have been some cases - <br />I can think of one in an eastern suburb of St. Paul - where <br />the street was actually slightly narrower than Skillman and <br />had more dense vegetation where the speeds should be slow <br />to begin with and the speeds were measured before and after <br />stop signs and they found even with signs two blocks apart, <br />the speeds were higher. I'm trying to talk in general terms. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN KEHR: Would you put a 3-way stop there? <br />If you're going to put a stop sign, you'd have to put <br />a 3-way to make it effective. <br /> <br />MR. VAN VORMER: You don't want to build a system of <br />signs or controls that the driver might not expect, and to <br />allow (inaudible) the through stop might think he has to <br />stop when he doesn't (inaudible) you could easily have some <br />accidents so, yes, you probably would at least want to consider <br />a 3-way stop if you had to put a stop along that street. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN ANDERSON: I'd liketo ask Charlie, if we <br />were to go ahead with this project, what would the assessments <br />be to the property owners? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: The assessments to the single family and <br />duplex owners would be zero because - at least it's assumed - <br />that would be established at the hearing - but this is our <br />policy. The assessments to the apart ment and to the bowling <br />alley and the State Farm office would be $98.10 a foot as <br />per the estimate. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN ANDERSON: Having driven over that road, <br />and I guess I'm one of the culprits that puts the traffic <br />count up once in a while, it seems that road is not develop- <br />ing what I'd call potholes that are going to be easy to <br />repair. It appears that the street is breaking up. How <br />would you repair the thing to put it back in condition <br />if we did not go through with this proposal? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: prob ably in one of two ways. For the <br />immediate future we would do what we call pothole repair. <br />For the long range future, we would wait for that area to come <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.