Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Jankowski reported that in this draft, he talked about a frontage access management plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that with the addition of the frontage road, we tend to get a <br />better flow of traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski commented on the wording of the application and should it say that if funded, the <br />City will cause this frontage road to happen. <br /> <br />Mr. Eyler talked about who would pay for the signal. Roadway improvements to serve as an <br />access for development is a low priority. This one signal is for access to serve local access. If it <br />comes down to that, you may wish to offer to pay for the whole signal. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued pertaining to the lanes - mm lanes, four lanes, two lanes, etc., and the <br />acquisition of property. Mr. Jankowski inquired who becomes the acquiring agency if this project <br />is funded. <br /> <br />Mr. Eyler replied that the City does - it would probably go faster then. Sometimes that's the City's <br />contributions for the right of ways. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that Lord of Life wants to alleviate some of the traffic <br />congestion. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski stated they would be the only ones we have to acquire right of way from. <br /> <br />Mr. Eyler stated that we should make mention that this will facilitate the trail. This is the missing <br />piece of the trail from the regional park to 153rd. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski suggested there may be some public informational meetings on these accesses and <br />if so, who do we want to hold these with. <br /> <br />City Administrator Schroeder inquired if closing the right-in, right-out, would give the City more <br />points. <br /> <br />Mr. Eyler did not know. <br /> <br />Right of access was discussed. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder stated that the question right now is just what process you follow. If we show <br />accesses remaining, there is probably no reason to have a public hearing, but if you show them <br />closed, there are a number of people who would be opposed to it. They should be shown closed <br />then for purposes of a public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Eyler offered to make changes as discussed and present an updated draft at a subsequent <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Case //2: Continued Discussion of Policy for Processing Traffic Calming <br /> Requests <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained that this case is a continuation of the discussion initiated at the <br />July Road and Bridge Committee meeting on policies and procedures for handling traffic calming <br />requests. At the August meeting, the consensus was that the following process would be followed <br />in handling such requests: 1) requests for various traffic calming measures shall be considered <br />only if made in writing; 2) each request shall be reviewed by a staff committee comprised of the <br /> <br />Road and Bridge Committee/September 9, 1996 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />