My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06-26-2017 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2017
>
06-26-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2018 12:50:49 PM
Creation date
3/14/2018 12:11:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
06/26/2017
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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).
View images
View plain text
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION June 5, 2017 <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br /> 2 <br />use for study criteria. She reviewed the recommendations, including no stop sign with 44 <br />continued monitoring of the traffic by the Police and continued traffic monitoring. 45 <br />A resident of the street (not identified) addressed the council. He noted concerns about 46 <br />how the traffic study was conducted (noting on a map the area where speed sticks were 47 <br />used for the study). There are very many children in the area. When the mayor asked if 48 <br />speeders are people from the neighborhood, the residents present said yes, noting that 49 <br />there are quite a few teens. 50 <br /> 51 <br />Residents spoke in favor of a stop sign and asked for a new traffic study with different 52 <br />data gathering sites. 53 <br /> 54 <br />Public Safety Director explained that placing a stop sign where drivers don’t expect it 55 <br />creates a less safe situation because of an expectation that may not be met (drivers may 56 <br />not stop). He would be interested in data from a different spot though. Also he wonders 57 <br />about being creative by placing temporary speed bumps. 58 <br /> 59 <br />Mayor Reinert noted the results of the speed study; what changes or devices does the 60 <br />study result point to? 61 <br /> 62 <br />The council directed staff to work further on the issue (additional data to be gathered and 63 <br />communication to area residents) and report back at the July work session. 64 <br />3. Culvert Maintenance ACD 10-22-32 – City Engineer Hankee introduced the 65 <br />Rice Creek Watershed district representatives. Ms. Hankee reviewed the council 66 <br />direction to staff to gather additional data on the culvert area in addressing the 67 <br />draining/flooding situation that has occurred there. She reviewed communication with 68 <br />the property owner of the specific site where the culvert is located and the area residents 69 <br />who have expressed concern. She noted the balance required in maintaining the drainage 70 <br />systems. The history of the culvert and ditch system was reviewed. 71 <br /> 72 <br />Ms. Hankee explained the work that has been done to address the flooding. The water 73 <br />has receded to normal levels. 74 <br /> 75 <br />Ms. Hankee recalled a request to report on the original development (Bluebell Ponds) of 76 <br />the area; as outlined in the staff report there was study included with that development. 77 <br /> 78 <br />Mayor Reinert noted the circumstances that created the problem and that it seems that it is 79 <br />back to normal. An area resident disagreed, noting first that a certain area has cleared 80 <br />but noting also his concern about the dead trees near his home that are still sitting in 81 <br />water. He feels that the original plans and culvert don’t address all of the problem. 82 <br /> 83 <br />The son-in-law of a resident explained the current situation whereby there is still water 84 <br />threatening homes. 85
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.