10/02/2001 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 10/2/2001 ,~;, Law Department. In the meatrtime, he wrote a memo to Civil Prosecutor Dan Ryan, who he believes may hold the answer to the letter. Law Director Gazeau asked Mr. McKay if it was his impression that the Building Department was not getting anywhere with Friends Church and so they sent it to the Law Departmern for prosecution. Mr. McKay answered yes, and Law Director Gareau said he would take care of it. Councilman McKay noted that, when the project came before the BZD Committee, the committee gave specific instructions that a mound was to be constructed to prevent the lights from shining into the homes in that particulaz area. He believes the coirtractor's response to the Building Department was that, if they put that mound up, that they were going to block a ditch. He visited the site and feels that, if in fact a ditch would be blocked, a pipe could be put in for drainage. Tammy Esperson, 26691 Caton Place, commented regarding the proposed light at Driscoll and Dover Center. She understands the school issues, but noted that a Gap study was done and showed that the light was needed outside of the hours for school and for the safety of the children. We would like to think the children are going all the way down to Brookpazk extension to cross the street, but they aze just dodging traffic on Dover Center. She would like to know why there's a discussion if there is a study that shows it is needed. Councilman Limpert commented that there had been discussion about suspending the rules on the legislation. However, the funding for the light will take place in the 2002 budget, so it is not critical from a funding standpoint to have it passed tonight. Mr. Limpert noted that for years the city tried to get this intersection to pass warrants by using the traffic volume coming out of Cottonwood and Driscoll. There was never enough volume. At the request of City Council, the Traffic Engineer researched other possible warrants and found that we could legally put a light there if it was declazed a school crossing with a painted crosswalk. Whether or not we keep the crosswalk at the Pine entrance and whether that's manned with or without a school guard is totally non- germane to the subject of the Driscoll light. Mr. Bohlmann said that the traffic warrant surveys aze done at the busiest times of the day. The only way we could get a warrant was by doing a Gap study with a crosswalk involved. Mrs. Esperson noted that there also is a safety issue as there is only one way in and out of the development. Mrs. Kasler commented that she believed in general all of Council is in favor of the light. However, since the funding isn't there until next yeaz, they had requested information from the schools and from the Safety Department to be sure that they azen't missing any needed information. Regarding the accidents, Mr. Limpert noted that is a potential warrant. Unfortunately, you have to have the accidents first. Also, to meet the warrant the accidents have to be only accidents that could have been averted by a traffic light. Councilman Miller said he thought it was safe to say that all of Council will be glad to get a light at that intersection. One of the concerns that he personally has is moving the crosswalk from in front of Pine School to that intersection. The fact that the crosswalk in front of Pine School was ground down and removed indicates an intention on the part of the city to keep the crosswalk down at Driscoll and Cottonwood and Dover. That crosswalk is outside of the school speed limit zone of 20 mph. He que~ions the wisdom of that, whether that is a safe thing to do. Right now there is no signage warning motorists of the replaced crosswalk that is now back at Pine School. All the signage has "' been moved down to Cottonwood and Driscoll, even though we know there's not going w~r; 11 ~. ..,... .~~ . I