12/18/2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 8, 2000 • Mr. Olson advised a three -(3) lane roadway is not an option on a road that has a speed limit over 40 m.p.h. • Council Member Reinert asked who has jurisdiction over the speed limit. Mr. Olson advised the Commissioner of Transportation determines speed limits. He explained the process used to change a speed limit noting most roadways under 55 M.P.H. will go up after a speed study is conducted. Council Member Reinert asked how the City could end up with a speed limit for a new roadway as compared to the roadway that currently exists. The City Engineer advised that if a speed study is conducted, it would include the habits of drivers currently using the road. Council Member Carlson expressed concern regarding receiving t urrent information and options right before this meeting. She noted the Council h•requ g ed the information prior to the meeting. She stated each option as sfo 105 120' of right -of- way that perhaps is not used. She stated that is too much ght f- _ ` She noted the meeting in March 2000 is the first the Council heard ajaou s pr ject. At that meeting, traffic counts and a map showing the proposed project t 06 was distributed. She stated that was not enough information. There h scussion that the project is from Lake Drive to County Road J, however • area hows the project to 35W. She expressed concern regarding residents on th north :.,d of the project. Council Member Carlson stated neit thy' Shoreview plan nor the Comprehensive Plan for Lino Lakes calls for a divided ., e current Comprehensive Plan calls for a four -(4) lane undivided highw. T' Sho view plan calls for a two (2) lane highway. The City of Shoreview has . reed to not extend the project north of Chippewa for seven (7) years. The r' : s fo a 62' wide three (3) lane highway south of Chippewa with the st '.ing o anes to be controlled by the City of Shoreview. The City of Shoreview has fir` Bey County to come back with another plan because they do not want a five (5)1 ®e hi hway. The City of Shoreview will reject the current plan. She stated the City need o work with the City of Shoreview on this project. She proposed option F, which includes the Council vote on options A -E and the City work with the City of Shoreview and the two (2) counties to find a compromise. Mayor Bergeson inquired about the distinction between this project and the project five (5) years out. Mr. Olson stated the City has put pressure on the County to include the northern stretch of roadway in the County's plans. The schedule for funding on that portion is 2003 -2006. He stated he is willing to meet with the City of Shoreview and Ramsey County to discuss options. He advised, however, that he will be designing the highway, not a committee. The City Engineer referred to a memo from the City of Shoreview to the Metropolitan Council. The City of Shoreview has requested a regional perspective of the plan. The