01-28-1986 PTRC Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting Page two . Assuming a pedestrian/bike path is provided along the west side of a 46' wide road, any planting on that side of the street must be beyond the ROW, even if the electrical is buried. Burial of overhead wires with a 36' roadway actually restricts plant- ing with the ROW on the west side because an electrical easement is required. In discussion, Mishek asked if the City would be allowed (by higher govern- mental agencies) to build a 32 foot road if it so desired. Miller replied that Hamline is a city, state-aid, road; City can do as it wishes, but a 32' road would result in loss of MSA funding, and would require an amend- ment to the Comprehensive Plan, which states that collector streets must be at least 38' wide. Committee asked approximate costs of burying NSP lines. Miller stated that NSP would probably not give an estimate without doing a preliminary study. Cost of burying lines on County Road E, in 1981, was about $71 per lineal foot; using this as a basis, he would estimate $370,000 as bottom price at 1981 prices, more realistically would estimate $500,000. Again using costs on County Road E as a basis, his "guesstimate" for cost of decorative lighting would be $90,000 to $100,000, or more. Committee asked status of State's upgrading of I-694 - Hamline intersection. Sather stated it is planned to coordinate with City's upgrading of Hamline. • Committee asked if State might delay this reconstruction if City does not upgrade Hamline. Sather stated his belief that they would proceed with this reconstruction regardless of what action Arden Hills takes. Otto asked status of stop lights for Hamline Avenue and STH 96. Sather replied that traffic warrants have been met; State has placed the intersection on the "waiting" list, will be installed when funds are available. Wiring for the lights will hopefully be done at the time of the proposed road reconstruction. Peterson stated his support of a 46' roadway with center turn lane; said he lives on Hamline Avenue, feels it would be unsafe with anything less; feels there needs to be some way to cross the street, but "turn lane is essential for safety of Hamline Avenue motorists". Anderson replied that turn lanes address safety of motorists; we have an obligation also to look to safety of joggers and bikers; .a 36' roadway could allow for two pathways, one on each side of the road. ' Montgomery stated his observations from his own use of the road, that there seems to be little choice but to have a three lane road; the road is very dangerous without a turn lane. Mulcahy noted that a 36' road would give a better chance of reducing the speed limit, felt State would be more amenable to a lower speed limit • with that width road); sees this as a major reason for going.- to a 36' road.