My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-26-1985 PTRC Meeting Agenda - Minutes
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC)
>
PTRC Minutes/Packets/(1968 to 2009)
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
11-26-1985 PTRC Meeting Agenda - Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2024 12:18:34 AM
Creation date
8/12/2022 9:15:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
Minutes of Regular Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting <br /> • Village of Arden Hills <br /> November 26, 1985 <br /> Village Hall <br /> Call to Order <br /> The meeting was called to order at 7:35 by Chair Sand. <br /> Roll Call <br /> Present: D. Sand, A. Anderson, G. Dreyling, K. Enrooth, M. Gillies, <br /> D. Messerly, J. Mishek, T. Mulcahy, J. Otto, M. Peterson <br /> Absent: D. Klick <br /> Also Present: Councilmember N. Hansen <br /> City Planner Orlyn Miller <br /> Parks Director J. T. Buckley <br /> Approval of Minutes <br /> It was moved by Mulcahy, seconded by Anderson, that the minutes of October <br /> 22 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> Hamline Avenue Feasibility Study, Phase II <br /> Planner Miller stated that the Hamline Avenue Feasibility Study was referred <br /> to this committee by Council under authority of the Amendment to the Trans- <br /> portation Plan, which states that any improvement to a designated parkways <br /> route must be referred to the Parks Committee and to the Planning Commission. <br /> He stated that he had originally recommended that Hamline Avenue not be desi- <br /> nated as a parkway, because of lack of potential for parkway-type improvement. <br /> • z..The Parkway Ad Hoc Committee choose, however, to designate Hamline as a po- <br /> tential parkway, because the presently considered improvement was pending <br /> at that time, and thus felt it offered an opportunity to try to apply some <br /> of the parkway concepts. <br /> Deterrents to development of Hamline Avenue as a parkway include: <br /> 1. High traffic volume <br /> 2,_ Limited right-of-way of 66 feet. <br /> 3.: .Preponderance of overhead utility lines (entire length on one side, <br /> -half of .length on other side). <br /> 4, Limited availability of landscaping space; fairly extensive development. <br /> 5. F Right-,of-Vay not,sufficient to provide a median. <br /> Miller je.lt the only possibility for including any parkway-type amenities <br /> _were ,plantings.of larger shrubs and smaller trees under the utility lines, <br /> and/or either securing some land from private landowners, or encouraging the <br /> privatelandowners to add plantings along the route. <br /> The- F:easibiliz.y.Study shows a walkway on the west side of the road, two <br /> driving, janes, ,. nd a center-turn lane. <br /> Committee concerns included: <br /> - Flow of traffic on Hamline. . .will the proposed improvement increase the <br /> flow? Miller stated present usage is 6,000 to 7,000 cars per day; expect <br /> future usage to increase to 8,000. It was noted that employees of Cardiac <br /> Pacemakers and other businesses along County Road F contribute to this total, <br /> as well as the ±1,000 Arden Hills homes which access to Hamline Avenue. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.