06-21-94 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 21, 1994 H. Petition for signs on 32nd Street The City received a petition from property owners living on 32nd Street requesting (1) a 25 mph speed limit sign at the beginning of 32nd Street for westbound traffic entering from Lake Elmo Avenue; (2) a "slow children" sign; and (3) a "blind driveway" sign to alert drivers of the driveway at 11075 32nd Street, that according to the petition is not visible to traffic traveling from he Klondike end of 32nd Street (towards Lake Elmo Avenue). The Maintenance Department has already put up the 25 mph speed limit sign. Now there is a 25 mph sign at each end of 32nd Street. The County had reservations on "slow, children" signs because they felt it gave people a false sense of security and too many signs can be a distraction. The purpose of all advisory signs is to call attention to a special hazard that exists; whereas, children playing can be in any block of the city. A "blind driveway" sign is not a standard sign and would not fall under the standards established under the MN manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and would require a special manufacturer. A more appropriate sign would be "Limited Sight Distance". M/S/C Johnson/Conlin - to direct the staff to erect a "Limited Sight Distance" sign with appropriate distance added at both ends of 32nd Street and reject the petition for a "Children Playing" sign on 32nd Street based on discussion. (Motion carried 5-0). 7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: A. Partial Payment #5, Tower Asphalt in the amount of $105,082.14 1993 M SA M/S/C Johnston/Mottaz - to approve partial payment #5 to Tower Asphalt in the amount of $105,082.14 for work done on 1993 MSA Project per recommendation of the City Engineer. (Motion carried 5-0). B. 1994 Crack Sealing Program M/S/ Mottaz/Conlin - to contract with Bergman Companies for the City's 1994 Crack Sealing in accordance with the low bid submitted to Washington County up to $10,000. Councilman Johnson pointed out this motion was in violation of the city's purchasing policy because sealed bids are mandatory. Attorney Filla explained the city's purchasing policy contains some amounts that are much lower than what the State Law now permits.