Laserfiche WebLink
CASE # <br /> <br />REPORT FRoM PUBLIC WORKS <br />By: Public Works Staff <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />The Public Works :Committee met on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 and discussed the <br />following eight cases: <br /> <br />CITIZEN INPUT <br /> <br />CASE #1 <br /> <br />CONSIDER INTERSECTION MODIFICATION AT TH47 & 142m~ <br />AVENUE <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained that MnDOT is planning to overlay TH 47 through the <br />City of Anoka and perform other Spot imProvements along the highway in 2005. Among <br />the additional improvements being considered by MnDOT for the segment of TH 47 <br />within the City of Ramsey are the folloWing: <br /> <br />· A northbound bypass lane at 157th Avenue <br />· A free right tum lane added for eastbound CSAH 5 to southbound TH 47, which <br /> will facilitatelwestbound Xkimo Street left turns onto southbound TH 47. <br />· An extension of the raised median through the intersection at 142nd Avenue. <br /> <br />Staff supports the first two improvements since they will have only positive impacts on the <br />highway system. However ~he closure of the median at 142nd Avenue, while it will <br />increase the safety of this interseati°n will also have adverse impacts to area businesses <br />and on access to the adjacent neighbo~rhoods. An open house was held on Thursday, <br />December 16, 2004 ito solicit public input regarding the proposal to close this median. <br />Individual notices of this meeting :Wer~ mailed to property owners of adjacent properties <br />along TH 47 as well as to the residential!neighborhoods both east and west of the highway. <br />A list of open house attendants andthe Comments submitted by them where provided to the <br />Committee. Those Who commented cited a cOncern over the negative impact to adjacent <br />businesses as well as the fact that a median would not address the safety concerns of <br />pedestrians, which cross at this~ inte. rsectiOn. Most open house attendees requested that the <br />signalization of this intersection be cOnsidered instead of the median. MnDOT has <br />indicated that they will consider traffic s~ignals for an intersection only if one or more of the <br />eight signal warrants outlined in the :Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control <br />Devices is met. A signal warrant stud~ was prepared by MnDOT for this intersection in <br />June of 2004. The Study shows that the four warrants, which relate to traffic volumes, <br />including the warrant relating to accidents, were not met for this intersection. Three of the <br />remaining warrants are not applicable to this intersection. The warrant relating to <br /> <br /> <br />