My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5-2-00
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Minutes-Board Or Commission PLZ 00900
>
2000
>
5-2-00
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2007 12:30:24 PM
Creation date
5/24/2007 12:30:24 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
Page 3 <br />Planning Commission - May 2, 2000 <br /> <br /> the project is approved. Hagen verified that traffic signalization is determined when traffic counts are <br />warranted, and current traffic levels do not warrant a signal. <br /> <br />th <br />One resident feels there should be a traffic control signal at the corner of 5 Ave. and Co. Rd. E-2. <br /> <br />The resident, 546 3rd Ave., said traffic levels are very heavy on Co. Rd. E-2 during the rush hour. <br /> <br />There were no other comments from the audience. <br /> <br />CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. <br />Motion by Zisla, seconded by O’Brien, to <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Hearing was Closed. <br /> <br />O’Brien noted that being the development will not be completed for several months, this would allow for time <br />to complete the traffic study and identify any needs for signalization. Staff will work with SEH to provide <br />preparations for further traffic analysis. <br /> <br />Zisla agreed that the Co. Rd. E-2/I-35W bridge is not well designed, and it is clear that the Phase II approval <br />will need to address resident concerns and signalization of the intersections. <br /> <br />Livingston added that the developer and the City need to determine and finalize the driveway aisle locations. <br /> <br />Livingston asked what approach can we take as a City to require a traffic study, and has there been discussion <br />with Ramsey County regarding traffic signalization. Teague said Ramsey County was contacted when the <br />project was originally discussed, and he agreed that the County should be brought back into the discussion. <br /> <br />Zisla asked if a condition of approval for the PUD could state that a traffic study be performed to address <br />raised concerns. Teague noted that other industrial projects are occurring in this area which will affect traffic <br />counts, therefore, agreed that a detailed look at traffic in this area is needed. <br /> <br />th <br />Zisla noted the following issues raised tonight: 5 Ave. on-street parking, signalization of two intersections, <br />capability of sewer system, lighting, and four-way stop versus traffic signalization. Staff will need to provide <br />a definitive recommendation on traffic impact before Phase II approval. <br /> <br />Motion by Zisla, seconded by O’Brien, to <br />WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION <br />PUD00-1LP00-6, <br />RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN <br />. <br /> <br />THE STAFF REPORT <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\2000\5-2-00.WPD <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.