Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . , . <br /> . MINUTES - Informational Meeting of <br /> T.H. 51 and Snelling Avenue Median closing <br /> Monday, November 23, 1992, 3:00 p.m. <br /> Page Two <br /> Jean Lemberg inquired about the costs and whether increased MSA <br /> miles are a possibility. However, the State indicated those do <br /> not seem to be potentials at this time but could be taken into <br /> account given other changes. <br /> Further discussion indicated a serious concern about wetlands in <br /> that area, on the frontage road area, and also the need to <br /> purchase land from Northwestern College in order to link to the <br /> drive area. <br /> Discussion also followed regarding County Road E bridge and <br /> whether this was an alternative that needed to be considered. <br /> General discussion agreed that this alternative was expensive and <br /> did not address the concern of access onto Old snelling. <br /> Primary discussion centered on changing the angle of the Old <br /> Snelling and Hamline on the east side of T.H. 51 and <br /> signalization of the intersection. The State indicated that the <br /> City would be responsible for approximately one-fourth of those <br /> . costs with one-half paid by the State and the other one-fourth <br /> funded by the County on the Hamline side. <br /> Further discussion identified that the frontage road is the most <br /> costly. The reconfiguring of Hamline, Old Snelling Avenue, and <br /> T.H. 51 with a traffic signal is not in the 5-year plan of the <br /> County or State which may represent additional changes in their <br /> systems. <br /> County Commissioner Elect Wedell indicated a need for addressing <br /> concerns of opening 1-694. The State indicated that current <br /> planning designs exist for the reconfiguration of the T.H. 51 and <br /> 1-694 intersection and ramping. <br /> Councilmember Hicks indicated the discussion regarding the <br /> request from citizens on the reconfiguration of Old Snelling, <br /> T.H. 51, and Hamline be identified as the potential priority <br /> would be forwarded to Council. It is understood that the City <br /> needs to initiate this discussion with the county and State in <br /> order to move forward at that time. This issue will be brought <br /> up at the City Council meeting. <br /> It was also agreed by the group that a separate discussion needs <br /> to follow regarding what alternative for diversion of traffic on <br /> county Road E or the effect of that traffic on the County Road E <br /> . bridge and the adjacent travel lanes to that bridge on each side <br /> of the road. <br />