08-09-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

participation in the traffic signal only. He stated there was some right-of--way purchase, and some additional bituminous in the geometry of the intersection and the design. He stated, when he was at the meeting he had indicated if the city of Spring Lake Park wanted this, they should provide for the cost, and if the City of Mounds View should provide for the cost of traffic signal only. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated that this resolution does support and approve the construction of that traffic signal. He stated it also identifies the funding source of Mounds View's MSA account. Council Member Marty stated the survey indicates two to one residents in favor of the traffic signal, and he would base his determination on this information. Mayor Coughlin stated, with respect for the residents input, he lived just one street from the proposed site, he tends to drive to Red Oak Drive when going south on County Road 10, and meets up with the signal at that location in order to access County Road 10. He stated, in recognition of his own nature, he would probably attempt to cut through Pleasant View Drive, a less traveled roadway, in order to speed his travel to County Road 10, if he were heading eastbound on that road. He stated he had significant concerns regarding traffic flow, and the impact to that particular neighborhood, and therefore, would be opposing this measure. He added that he believed there were other options that could be considered, which would accommodate the same resolution of problems. Council Member Stigney stated he believed this would assist in access to County Road 10, and some of the benefit to Mounds View would be in the form of improved access from the Fire Station. He stated some question was raised regarding moving it further to the west, however, he thought it was too close to the other intersection in that area. He stated that he was in favor of the proposal. Council Member Quick stated there were also considerable changes further up the road, that would alleviate some of the problems with Sunset Drive. He stated the proposal would also change some of the flow in and around the trailer court. He stated that overall, this would improve the situation on County Road 10. He stated that the current reception to this proposal was 100 percent more in favor than was indicated previously. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated that a more detailed plan was available for the Council's review. He stated the reason this proposal was presently at this stage, was that they had received some Hazard Reduction money that had been applied for from the Department of Transportation, and this project was finally coming to the drawing board, and appears it will be constructed in 2000. He stated it was correct that the Anoka County Road, or Sunset, will no longer access County Road 10, and will be somewhat of a frontage road for the businesses along the highway, and back through. the trailer court. He stated this would involve the vacation of some land in that area, and will create another access to Pleasant View Drive on the south side. Council Member Stigney noted an error in the third paragraph of the resolution which states "the City will utilized," and requested a correction to indicate "the City will utilize." • Council Member Thomason stated that she travels that stretch of road on a daily basis. She stated she agreed the proposal would help with the Fire Station access. She stated, however, further down 22 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-09-99.CC