01-28-1986 PTRC Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting • Page three Rauenhorst moved that the Parks and Recreation Committee recommend to Council the selected turn lane alternative presented by Miller, location of turn lanes to be determined by a separate study of mos -used intersections, with a 36' roadway, widening to 44' where turn lanes are installed. Motion was seconded by Mulcahy. In discussion, Mishek stated he did not see that this wou d slow traffic. Miller noted that not having a continuous turn lane would mean that no individual homes along Hamline would have a turn lane. Buckley stated he sees the main areas of concern that sho ld be addressed as vehicle safety and access to Cummings and Floral parks (and a way to get between the two); this motion does not address this problem. Otto stated his belief that a 36' road would not reduce traffic; road is in "pathetic" condition now, but is still being heavily used by through traffic as well as local. Anderson asked that the motion be amended to include pathways on both sides of Hamline. Amendment was accepted by Rauenhorst. Montgomery stated his belief that the inconsistency of intermittent turn lanes (as the motion before the floor suggests) would only make the street . more dangerous. Motion failed (Mulcahy, Rauenhorst, Anderson in favor, En ooth, Mishek, Montgomery, Peterson, Otto opposed, Messerly abstaining). Motion was made by Peterson, seconded by Otto, that Parks and Recreation Committee recommend construction of 46' roadway with continuous turn lane and sidewalk. In discussion, Mishek asked if there were any way to install sidewalk on east side of the road with 46' wide road. It was determined that easements existed to make it possible to construct a walkway on the east side from Karth Lake Circle to Wyncrest. Mishek asked the motion be amended to include construction of this walkway. Amendment was accepted by Peterson. Motion carried, (Enrooth, Mishek, Montgomery, Peterson, Otto in favor, Mulcahy, Anderson, Rauenhorst opposed, Messerly abstaining). Council Report Sather suggested the Parks Committee discuss the possibility of buried utility lines along Hamline. Otto noted that quoted costs make this seem prohibitive. Sather noted that it is probable that NSP will have to move most of the poles anyway; is not convinced that burial of lines would be that much more expensive or labor-intensive. Motion was made by Mishek, seconded by Peterson, that Parks and Recreation Committee recommend to Council a feasibility study on burying power lines and/or having power lines moved to only one side of the roadway. Motion carried unanimously.