Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />Monday. September 10, 1984 <br />Page Three <br /> <br />Mu)cahy stated we are providing for traffic not in the area; lower <br />speed limit can discourage use of the street and make it less <br />attractive; could restrict access, similar to Nicollet Mall. Como <br />Park etc. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Van Wormer noted that if street is restricted. City's cost for the <br />improvement would be 100%; otherwise it would qualify for State Aid. <br /> <br />Rauenhorst asked if City is committed to decision Council makes <br />tonight. <br /> <br />Van Wormer said no. but Council should make the best decision it <br />can at this time; noted that State wants to design this fall and <br />build in the spring (south of County Road F); noted that the up- <br />grade of Hamline is subsequent to this. <br /> <br />Oan Grout. 1348 Eide Circle. said he lives at Eide Circle and <br />Hamline; agrees with Mulcahy; wants to reduce traffic on Hamline; <br />feels the need for a thru-way on Hamline is questionable; wants <br />something to accommodate sidewalk. narrow the thru lane. provide <br />more room on the sides; wants to know how to be paid. <br /> <br />Tom Rockne, 4101 James Circle. said there is bus traffic on Hamline; <br />said his preference'is a 3-lane road .providing for left-turns. <br />wants a road that provides no possibility for a 4-lane road; feels <br />40 mph is too fast - should be 35 mph. <br /> <br />Hicks asked the amount of through traffic on Hamline - what portion <br />is traffic to CPI etc, as opposed to straight through traffic. <br />Van Wormer said he does not have the answer tonight; estimated <br />that the bulk of traffic is local. <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Rauenhorst, that Council adopt Resolution <br />No. 84-27 ,ESTA8LISHING WIOTH AND TRAFFIC LANES OF HAMLINE AVENUE. <br />selected the 46' roadway with 3 lanes as the best alternative. <br /> <br />In discussion. Hansen noted that overstreet walkways are virtually <br />never used; commented that this has been her experience with them <br />in other areas of the cities. Motion carried (Hicks. Rauenhorst. <br />Hansen, Woodburn voting in favor of the motjon; Mulcahy voting in <br />opposition). (4-1) <br /> <br />John Zbarenh 4223 Hamline Avenue. said he is satisfied with the 46' <br />street widt . <br /> <br />Mark Peterson. 4468 Hamline Avenue. said he wants the bike path <br />separated from the roadway. <br /> <br />Payment No.4. 0 and P Contracting - Water Improvement 83-4 <br />Council was referred to request for Payment No. 4 (0 & P Contracting). <br />in the amount of $32.519.08. and Christoffersen recommended <br />payment thereof. <br /> <br />Christoffersen reported that 0 & P Contracting has over-laid the <br />road; noted that $9000 is being retained for miscellaneous items <br />pending completion. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />REPORT <br /> <br />OF VILLAGE PLANNER ORLYN MILLER <br /> <br />Case No. 84-25. Site Plan Review - Bethel College Oormitory <br />Council was referred to Planning memo (8/28/84). Planning <br />Commission recommendation (minutes of 9/5/84) and to plan for, <br />proposed Student Housing Phase IV. the 3rd building of a con- <br />templated 5-buildinQ residence complex. Miller explained that <br />the SpeCial Use Permit for Bethel College and Seminary was <br />based on a Campus Master Plan which included all existing <br />facilities on campus, and a number of additional facilities <br />programmed for future construction. Miller reported that the pro- <br />posed dormitory conforms to the Master Plan; therefore. only a <br />Site Plan Review is required. <br />