Loading...
ST9302-CS 930923 (3) NOTES September 23, 1993 Sandy Lake Road Meeting ST93-02 The following items need to be address prior to the September 30, 1993 meeting. 1. There should be contact made with TU Electric concerning the cost to relocate their utility lines underground and also the current and proposed voltage on the utility line. 'f'. I should check the 1990 bond sale to ascertain exactly what was presented to the voters ie. roadway improvements/4 lane undivided roadway/4 lane divided roadway/6 land divided roadway... 3. Should investigate who the owners of the fence are between Maple Leaf and Sugar Berry on the south side of Sandy Lake Road. ~. Should investigate our files to determine if we have any current traffic council on Sandy Lake Road, if not I should perform some traffic count surveys next week and have that information available next Thursday night. 5. I should check our records to see if we have any current speed survey information along Sandy Lake Road, if not I should perform a speed survey before next Thursday night. I should backtrack our thoroughfare plans to ascertain when the first thoroughfare plan was adopted by the city and what that thoroughfare plan showed for Sandy Lake Road. V~. I should review the tape of the meeting, and write down the various questions and answers particularly the comments by the consultant that may or may not be accurate and be ready to explain those comments on the September 30th meeting and also to address some questions why answers where never given at the September 30th meeting. 8. I need to review our transportation improvement plans and talk a little about reasonable :. thoroughfare plans and stress we have committed to Council of Governments that Sandy .f ~c Lake Road will be on a regional thoroughfare plan and as such we are currently being funded for approximately $800,000 for roadway improvements at Moore and Sandy Lake and that we are in the process of trying to obtain approximately $1,000,000.00 grant for landscaping improvements along Sandy Lake Road. Both of those grants are predicated on the fact that this will be a regional thoroughfare plan ie a minimal of four lanes. At the September 30th meeting I should again introduce myself, and the others present, and thank every one again for coming. At that point I should digress and talk about the philosophy that we held for the two public meetings, and the fact that we had wanted to separate landscaping issues from roadway design consideration, and that going into the meetings it was our belief that this was the prudent and proper way to approach the issue. Stress that we walked in with no preconceived ideas and no design. Point out there are two ways do the design of this nature, 1) Hire a consultant to go off and design a roadway that meets city standards and generally accepted engineering practices, with giving little regard to the community and/or the adjacent properties and the concerns of the residents. The other way was the way we attempted, which was to involve the citizens up front, to gather their concerns and issues and to take those issues and then formulate the plans. It's still our opinion this is the proper approach, however, stress that in retrospect the first public meeting would have been held somewhat differently. The fact is we would have talked about the basic design of Sandy Lake Road. ie. 4-lane divided roadway with limited access, with sidewalks on both sides, with overhead utilities, insulation of a new water line, storm drainage, the curb and gutter aspect, the property from the back of curb to existing fence lines, the general areas where fight-of-ways will be needed, and issues such as that. Again in retrospect it was our opinion we erred in the first presentation by not generally informing the public of what the meeting was all about, or what the roadway design was all about. Stress that the second public hearing, September 30th, we are not wishing to be argumentive with the citizens, but only to present an initial conceptual design of Sandy Lake Road, and that the roadway has not been designed yet and that we are definitely there to gather input as to the concerns and whatever nature those concerns take, however that we will be addressing the questions and concerns as to why that we have conceptually prepared the design as presented. Stress again that this is not to be argumentive, but only to point out the thought process behind what's presented. Once I made the opening comments the meeting should be turned back over to Bennett Ratlift, and we should prepare to let the fireworks begin.