03-07-2011 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 7, 2011 APPROVED 45 amenities that are mostly on the north side so you must get them to a point where they can 46 cross safely. 47 48 The council discussed the speed limit for the corridor and Ms. Corkle explained that the 49 speed is set by the county since it is a county roadway; she suspects the speed of the cars 50 will change somewhat with the planned improvements. She also reminded the council 51 that as they consider development plans for the corridor area, they should be cognizant of 52 following the plans for good traffic movement. 53 54 Regarding changes to the width of the corridor, Mr. Shorten explained that a maximum 55 120 foot wide footprint is planned, adding that 70% of the corridor is already that width. 56 57 Community Development Director Grochala added that he feels that in the two years that 58 have been spent on this project, they have covered a lot of ground and set up a good plan 59 to allow for the vision ahead. It will allow the city to address issues as the corridor 60 develops. 61 62 Robert Bening, 6788 East Shadow Lake Dr, noted his concern that the trails planned for 63 the project will not be acceptable for bike traffic. They are shared and do not allow for 64 the pace of a bike. Also, as he has publicly requested previously, he hopes any 65 improvements will include left turn signals that are sensitive enough to detect bike traffic. 66 He added that shoulders can be used by bicylers but he has concern if they are also used 67 for right turn lanes. Ms. Corkle responded that she will research the turn lane sensitivity 68 as well as the shoulder-sharing question. 69 70 The council will consider acceptance of the plan at the March 28, 2011 council meeting. 71 72 2. RCWD Watershed Management District—Representing the Rice Creek 73 Watershed District (RCWD) were: Phil Belfiori, Administrator; Rick Mastell, Board 74 Member; Patricia Preiner, Board President; and Attorney John Kolb. Mr. Belfiori 75 explained that they are returning to the council after their last visit in February to continue 76 discussion of Anoka County Ditch Project 10-22-32. The council has heard about the 77 importance of improving this watershed (ditch) and why the RCWD is requesting that the 78 city concur with their plans to use watershed law to finance the repairs. 79 80 The mayor noted that he understands that the issue is a ditch that hasn't been kept up and 81 is causing due concern among property owners. Further that the RCWD is asking to 82 charge the cost of improvements to some others rather than just the adjacent property 83 owners. 84 85 Attorney Kolb responded that typically, the system for charging looks at who gets 86 drainage from their property and to what degree; it is not technically an assessment 87 process. What the RCWD is proposing to do is to look at the immediate contributing area 88 for a local share of the cost and also directly charge based upon benefit. However, they 2