My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCMin_88Aug10
FalconHeights
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
CCMin_88Aug10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2009 8:52:30 AM
Creation date
6/23/2009 2:11:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />AUGUST 10, 1988 <br />PAGE 2 <br />DAN SOLER, RAMSEY COUNTY, Project Engineer for the proposed <br />improvement, indicated he had not heard of the Buford closing, <br />but if so, it would certainly impact the use of Gortner. He <br />explained that a signal is warranted at Gortner at the present <br />time; however, a signal at Prior would not be warranted and the <br />County could not participate in the cost of signalization at <br />Prior and Larpenteur. Miller informed Council that coordinated <br />signalization at Prior/Larpenteur and Gortner/Larpenteur would <br />be most acceptable to the University. <br />JOE MICHAELS, representing St. Anthony Park District 12, stated <br />they are working with the University on a transit project and <br />that a report written in 1978 recommended Carter, Buford and <br />Gortner be closed. Gortner would then be replaced and realigned <br />with another access going through the University field test <br />plots. He felt City Officials should be aware of this 1978 <br />report. <br />DON HAMILTON, HEWLETT PACKARD, commented on the many years that <br />they have participated in discussions to solve the safety <br />problem, and explained that their firm is sales oriented and <br />they would be opposed to any plan requiring the closing of their <br />driveway access. <br />In response to an inquiry from Chenoweth, asking whether or not <br />any written report had been prepared on the University's stand <br />on the situation, Miller explained that there is no written <br />report, however, it has been reviewed by advisory committees <br />and presented to Central Administration who approved the <br />Committees' position. Ciernia felt that it was prudent to <br />obtain a written response from the University and information on <br />future plans prior to Council making any final decisions. <br />COUNCIL APPROVES FEASIBILITY STUDY THROUGH ALTERNATE 3 <br />Ciernia moved approval of the Larpenteur/Gortner/Prior <br />Feasibility Study stipulating that Ramsey County's recommended <br />Alternate No. 3 is also considered the Council's best solution <br />and that solution will be pursued. Motion carried unanimously. <br />Council then directed Wiesner to contact Harvey Turner, <br />University of Minnesota, to obtain a formal response, and to <br />meet with him and discuss the situation. Wiessner is also to <br />request any information on the University's long range plans. <br />The matter will be discussed further at the August 24, 1988 <br />meeting. <br />STATUS REPORT ON HAMLINE ALLEY (SOUTH OF LARPENTEUR RUNNING FROM <br />ALBERT TO HAMLINE) <br />Baldwin explained that he had been contacted by several <br />neighbors abutting the alley expressing concern that the tar did <br />not set up after the sealcoating and disappointment in the <br />general appearance of the alley following reconstruction in <br />1986. Maurer reviewed his letter of August 4, 1988, (a copy of <br />which is on file in the clerk's office) explaining that in his <br />opinion, it was economically impossible to tear up the alley <br />and start over and that the corrective action taken provides the <br />best overall solution to the problem. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.