Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of the Meeting of June 24, 1999 <br /> <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />Robert Siedlecki, 8535 Baltimore Street, stated he uses 89th Avenue to go to Northtown Shopping Center <br />-nd the grocery store. He stated if the road was closed, it would bring traffic down Baltimore Street to the <br />rontage road so it would not benefit his block. He stated he does not support the closure. <br /> <br />Robert Hapy, 8800 Baltimore Street, stated his agreement that there was a lot of cut-thru traffic on Baltimore <br />Street that travels at a very high speed. He stated they experience high traffic levels all day but it was <br />higher during peak hours. Mr. Hapy stated this was a problem and he does not want the traffic on his street <br />either. He stated he did not support the petition that was circulated. He stated he would be inconvenienced <br />since they use 89th Avenue and understand it will push traffic to other roads, but he supported the closure. <br />Mr. Hapy stated that drivers of a licensed vehicle have the right to traverse on any street they want but this <br />was a behavior that needs to be changed. He suggested that the placement of a barrier would do that and <br />discourage cut-thru traffic, reduce the speed, and the level of traffic. <br /> <br />A resident, who resides at 8811 Goodhue Street, agreed the barricade would lessen the traffic to Davenport <br />and Baltimore Streets but it would increase the traffic to the service road and Goodhue Street. He asked if <br />sidewalks or bike trails were an option to increase the safety of children. He suggested that a police <br />presence might help lower the speed of the vehicles. He also suggested that parents take the responsibility <br />to keep kids out of the road. He stated that closing a road for only two blocks will not benefit everyone and it <br />will only detour the traffic to another street. <br /> <br />A resident, who resides at 8783 Davenport Street, stated they were home last night but the survey was not <br />presented to them or several of their neighbors. She stated she participated in the Initiative group for 7 <br />months and they did think about the safety of all neighborhood children, not just those on Davenport and <br />Baltimore Streets. She stated it was a safety versus a convenience issue and she supported the temporary <br />closure to see what happens. <br /> <br />Mayor Ryan stated that between the input provided tonight, telephone calls, and letters, the Council has an <br />understanding of the issues. He commented on the growing problems with traffic levels and rate of speed. <br />He stated that other closures have resulted in forcing that traffic to other streets and speed bumps must be <br />paid for by those living on the street. <br /> <br />Councilmember Swanson asked why the temporary closure term was one year instead of a shorter period of <br />time. The Community Development Director explained the original request was for a permanent closure that <br />was reduced to one year. He suggested that a period of three months would probably provide an indication <br />of whether the total number of trips were reduced or simply diverted. <br /> <br />The City Engineer stated that he does not know that a one-year period was a "magic number" but it may <br />take two to three weeks to erect a barrier during which time monitoring could be conducted. Then, during <br />the barricade, additional monitoring can be conducted. <br /> <br />Councilmember Swanson stated he believes a massive traffic problem exists and it appeared the entire <br />neighborhood recognized that but had different ideas about the solution. <br /> <br />The City Engineer suggested allowing monitoring until the second Council meeting in October. <br /> <br />Action 99-325 (AI 11.13) <br /> <br />- ~oved by Councilmember Swanson, seconded by Councilmember Rose, that Resolution No. 99-190, <br />Authorizing the Temporary Closure of 89th Avenue NE, City of Blaine," be amended to indicate submittal of <br />the report not later than the second Council meeting in October, 1999. <br />