Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />;°�: �, <br />,.; <br />A; _ .' <br />�:. :� ; � <br />,; <br />� <br />July 2, 1964 <br />CAS E NO : <br />AP!'LICANT: <br />LOCATI� N: <br />ACTION REC�UESTED: <br />� <br />527-69 <br />Ramsey County <br />Larpenteur to Trunk Highway 36 <br />Approvcal of Plans for Impravement of Lexington <br />�venue from Trur�k Highwap 36 ho Larpenteur Avenue <br />F'LANNiNG CONSIDERATIONS: <br />1. A copy of �� memo to the Village� lvlanager from the Public V�Oor�cs Dir�ctor <br />is attached �ndicating the Pubfic Works Director's general recommendations <br />regarcling the improvement prnposal . As noted in the memo, plans are very <br />preliminar�� in nature. <br />2. In general, we agree with the concept of improving Lexington Avenue prior <br />to its being turr�c'd over to fhe County. If, however, such improvements <br />r�quire considerable investment on the part of the Village, we should be <br />extremely careful to ascertain that the extent of the improvements are necessary <br />for the road to serve its purpose, thus before any final recommendations are <br />made, it will be important to asc.ei-tdin to a reasonable degree the extent oi <br />these exp�nses. <br />3. We have not, as yet, examined the traffic flow projections, and these figures <br />will of course be instrumental in dafiermining the extent of the improvements <br />that are necessary. One item of concern that we note at this Pime would be <br />the efficiency of access to the two shopping centers at the intersection of <br />Lexington and Larpenteur Avenue. Generally, you will note that the cuts <br />in the median strip are allowed only at crossings of public streets. In the case <br />of the shopping r,enter, this policy may not necessarily be the best soluPion. <br />Again, examir�ation of the traffic fl�w will be the key factor in determining <br />a solution to this problem. We would suggest no immediate action on the <br />proposal pending more detailed examination of the points noted. <br />'-:i <br />