My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-19-01 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
2000's
>
2001
>
06-19-01 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2025 9:18:52 AM
Creation date
10/1/2019 3:27:13 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
The Council reiterated the concerns that were stated in the City Planner's <br />memo, dated June 19, 2001. Council member Dunn asked that the County <br />receive comments from the Washington County Sheriff's Dept. for <br />emergency vehicles. It was interested in the response from other cities <br />because every city has unique issues. <br />Council member Dunn asked the County to reactivate the City's request for <br />a signal light at Lake Elmo Avenue. <br />Council member Armstrong favored the 36 Overpass because of the <br />extremely dangerous intersections along the road. Her concern was focused <br />more on how the improvements would be funded. <br />Administrator Kueffner stated she had counted at least ten references by <br />Mn/DOT for their concern for safety along Highway 36. However, when <br />she called MN/DOT to ask that the speed limit be returned to 55 mph, she <br />was told that 65 mph was a safe speed for the road, that accidents did not <br />warrant reducing the speed limit to 55 mph, but they would monitor the <br />accidents that did occur. <br />Kueffner also referenced the map showing no access from County Road 17 <br />to Highway 36. She questioned if this was the first step needed to make the <br />North/South route through the County since previous efforts to make County <br />Road 15 a North/South route were unsuccessful. <br />Kueffner also commented on the scrutiny that our Lake Elmo's <br />Comprehensive Plan goes through when it is reviewed by the Metropolitan <br />Council. She wondered why the same scrutiny was apparently not given to <br />Stillwater when the Metropolitan Council reviewed its annexation <br />amendment for approximately 1500 acres from Stillwater Township. One of <br />the four systems they are required to review is transportation. Why was <br />there no plan or solution to the horrendous impact on the transportation <br />systein settled before the annexation amendment was approved, rather than <br />burden other communities with the negative impact of their development. <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Dunn — that the City of Lake Elmo has reviewed the <br />Highway 36 Corridor Management Plan, dated May 2001, and is in <br />fundamental disagreement and request participating parties, sponsoring <br />agencies get the city's jurisdictional authorities together to get a common <br />LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DUNE 19, 2001 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.