Memo Mainstreet Reconstruction
:\
c " . }<
j
. CITY OF HOPKINS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 3, 1991
TO: Mayor & city council
FROM: Thomas K. Harmening, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Update - Mainstreet Reconstruction Project -
Design Review Committee
---------.------------.--------.----
As of the date of this memo, the Design Review Committee (DRC)
has met three times. As recommendations have begun to be
developed by the DRC, staff felt it appropriate to advise the
Council of the DRC' s action such that the Council may react to
the recommendations.
Attached are the minutes of the 12/6, 12/13, and 1/3 DRC
meetings. Some of the more significant recommendations which
have been developed by the DRC include:
. 0 A historical light fixture and pole should be used along
the entire segment of Mainstreet.
0 New mid-level lighting (historical - 16' in height)
should be used along the entire segment of Mainstreet
with high-level lighting located only at the i.
intersections. The implementation of this recommendation
would add approximately $50,000 to the cost of the
project.
0 Study is being given to the use of a historical lighting
fixture similar to a fixture used in the 1940's and
1950's on Mainstreet.
0 Recommending that all intersections which currently have
traffic signals continue to have signals after the
project is completed.
0 Recommendation that buses remain on Mainstreet but that
the number and location of bus stops be minimized. There
was considerable discussion on this item and no overall
consensus was reached. I encourage you to read the 12/13
minutes regarding this item.
0 Recommendation that the number of bus stops along the
. entire length of Mainstreet be reduced and be spaced at
larger intervals, particularly in the core area of
downtown (please see minutes of 1/3/91)
0 Other miscellaneous items which are outlined in the
minutes.
? .. j
i
Up-date Mainstreet
. Page 2
Dick Koppy, and possibly a representative from MTC, will be in
attendance at our meeting. staff would like to receive a
reaction from the Council on all of the recommendations made to
date, and in particular those recommendations pertaining to the
bus issue. If th& Council should concur with the recommendations
regarding the bus issue, staff would suggest the Council direct
that a public meeting be held'to allow riders of the buses, as
well as other interested persons, to comment on the issue.
XDESIGN
.
.
--
;
;
. Meeting Minutes
Hopkins Mainstreet Design Review Committee Meeting #2
December 13, 1990
Attendance: (prepared from sign-in list at meeting)
Fran Hagen, Sr. - Westwood Tom Harmening - City staff
Allan Klugman - Westwood Jim Gessele - City Staff
Ed Hanlon - Boston Subway Jon Thiel - City Staff
Dick Koppy - Project Manager Deanna Podratz - Mr. Movies
Harriet Ahlstrom - Daniels Photography Dick Stanley! - HCP
Chuck Redepenning - Bud's Music Center George Jace - photo Quick
Bart Jordano - Jordano Associates Gordon Nelson - Hopkins Honda
Barbara Jordano - Jordano Associates Toni Richardson - Chairperson
Harry Smith - Hopkins Eye Clinic Dale Lommen - Little Blind spot
Eugene Maxwell - Midnite Market
The meeting convened in the Boston Subway restaurant on Mainstreet and 11th
Avenue at 7:30 a.m. by Chairperson Toni Richardson. An attendance sign-up
sheet was passed around the table. Minutes from the December 6, 1990 meeting
were previously distributed and no corrective or substance comments-were made
on the December 6 minutes. A member requested that the minutes and material
distributed to the DRC be "3 holed" punched for easy insertion in a 3-ring
. binder notebook.
The following issues were covered and a related summary of the discussion is
included.
1. Nodes (intersection qeometrv and MTC Bus stops: Design details of the
intersectional nodes had been laid out with paint and cones on the northeast
corner of the 11th Avenue and Mainstreet intersection. At-the beginning of
the meeting, the members of the DRC reviewed the geometric layout in the
street area just outside the Boston Subway restaurant. The size of the nodes,
as explained by Dick Koppy, reflected two design details. First, a minimum of
16 feet of lane width is needed from the centerline of the street to the face
of the curb. Secondly, the MTC needs adequate curbing on the node so both
doors on the bus open up and allow passengers to disembark onto curbs. with
the bus stop at the node, the tangent length of curbing for the node is 22' to
24' . without the bus stop at the node the tangent length is 10'.
Koppy explained that there were four options for each intersection.
0 Four nodes per intersection, one on each corner
0 Two nodes per intersection, diagonally placed
0 No nodes at the intersections
0 Combination of the above
There was significant discussion on the MTC bus route in conjunction with
. discussion on the need for nodes within the streetscape design. Based upon a
question, Koppy responded that the significant Pros and Cons for the placement
of nodes are as follows:
,
,
. Meeting Minutes
December 13, 1990
Page 2
Pros:
0 Pedestrian crossings are enhanced because of less crossing area of the
traveled way.
0 More area within the streetscape area is available for esthetic
treatment including landscaping, planters, and street furniture.
0 Buses can pick up and drop off passengers without having to move out of
the driving lane. This allows a bus route to exist without the current
impact of the loss of considerable parking space.
0 The node area serves as a physical barrier protecting parked vehicles
from the traveling public. At each intersection, drivers are forced to
adhere to the center driving lanes.
Cons: -
0 Snow removal and general maintenance of the streetscape area is
. complicated because of the preSence of the curbed nodes.
0 Traffic is affected at each intersection with less maneuverable area
(i.e., no right turn ianes).
0 Up to one parking space per node is affected when the larger nodes for
MTC buses are constructed.
Several votes were taken by the DRC members regarding their recommendations on
the nodes and the MTCbus route. The ORe voted against recommending the buses
be moved permanently over to 1st Street or off of Mainstreet. They understood
and agreed that the bus route would be moved to 1st street during the actual
reconstruction of Mainstreet.
Another vote was taken on the motion to minimize the Mainstreet bus route by
utilizing.a one way route eastbound on Mainstreet and westbound on 1st street.
This motion was defeated.
A motion to leave the bus route on Mainstreet but to minimize the number of
bus stops was made and seconded. The motion included bus stops at. locations
without nodes protruding into Mainstreet. As an alternative, review the nodes
placed on the sidestreet and on the opposite side of the intersection from the
entering traffic. Buses would pullout of the traffic stream using right turn
lane areas to pick up and drop off passengers. After discussion this motion
was approved. Westwood agreed to bring back design review plans at the next
DRC meeting.
.
I
. Meeting Minutes
December 13, 1990
Page 2
The DRC urged staff to pass the message along to the City Council that there
was no consensus on the issue of the MTC bus route. A considerable amount of
discussion about the pros and cons took place, and it was agreed the bus route
should be left on Mainstreet but with as minimal impact to the Mainstreet
environment as is possible. Miscellaneous comments included:
0 ,We need to protect the Mainstreet traffic from the motorist that will
pull up alongside of another and race thru the intersection.
0 The movement of the bus route off of Mainstreet could become quite
controversial. It certainly would involve a public. hearing process and
slow down the Mainstreet design process.
0 Buses typically move thru retail, commercial areas such as along
Mainstreet in contrast to residential areas such as along 1st street.
There is a benefit to business to have potential customers passing by
your business every day.
0 There was concern about stopping the bus in the main flow of traffic to
. pick up and drop off passengers. This becomes especially disruptive
when the nodes physically only allow one lane of traffic in each
direction. If the bus picks up the passenger at the node, it blocks
traffic completely.
0 If the parking stalls are marked on the pavement, the lane is more
adequately designated as not a driving lane.
2. Street Liqhtinq Desiqn Discussion: It was mentioned that the design in
the budget for Concept #5R for street lighting had an estimated cost of
approximately $300,000. The street lighting option discussed at the December
6th DRC meeting which included high level lighting at the intersections and
mid-level. lighting between the intersections would add approximately $50,000
to the cost of the project. This assumes new mid-level poles and fixtures
approximately 16 feet in height from 5th Avenue to Shady Oak Road. Fran
Hagen, Sr. pointed ,out the existing low level poles along Mainstreet are
approximately 14 feet in height.
Several photos and brochures on historical lighting fixtures were passed out
to the DRC members. Considerable interest was demonstrated for the historical
pole/fixture that was on Mainstreet prior to the fluorescent fixtures of the
1950s. Either one and/or two fixtures per pole should be considered.
A motion, was made and seconded to use existing high level lighting at the
intersections and mid-level lighting between the intersections. This was
passed unanimously by the DRC members.
. ~
. '", c.,
i
. Meeting Minutes "
December 13, 1990 .
Page 4
Concern was expressed as to the height of the fixtures in relationship to the
following esthetic elements:
.-<.,.
0 Appearance at 16 feet high
0 Hanging Christ~as decorations, banners, and flags
0 Festoon electrical outlets
0 Single versus double fixtures on each pole
Koppy indicated this design would be looked at very closely and more detailed
design plans and cost estimates would be brought back to the DRC in the near
future.
3. ORC Meetinq Schedule: It was agreed the next DRC meeting will be on
January 3, 1991 at the same time and place. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00
a.m.
Aqenda for Januarv 3. 1991 DRC Meetinq
. 1. Street lighting design discussion continued from 12/6 and 12/13
- Mid-level lighting option: pole spa~ing and height of
pole/fixture unit
- Hardware options, cost ,estimates
2. MTC Bus stops and Node Discussion
- Design options, MTC staff involvement/meetings
- Geometry of proposed Mainstreet design
- Shelter design
3. Introduction to Landscaping and Street Furniture Issues
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
- Finalization of street lighting design option, including spacing,
height, illumination characteristics and hardware
- Decision on bus stops and nodes in design geometry
.
i
.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Hopkins Mainstreet Design Review Committee Meeting
DATE: Minutes from meeting on December 6, 1990
ATTENDANCE: (Prepared from sign-in list at meeting)
- Fran Hagen, Sr. Westwood - Tom Harmening City Staff
- Allan Klugman Westwood - Jim Gessele City Staff IA'IJ.:::
- Ed Hanlon Boston Subway - Dick Kopp y. Project, Mgr~~ 11!~ .
- Jon Thiel City Staff - Deanna Podratz Mr. Movies
- Dick Stanley HCP - Brian Fritsinger City Staff
- Ed Strele Hopkins Auto Body
- Harriet Ahlstrom Daniels Photography
- Chuck Redepenning Bud/s Music Center
- Bart Jordane Jordane Assoc. 1819 Mainstreet
- Harry Smith Hopkins Eye Clinic, 29 - 9th Avenue
- Toni Richardson 204 E. Farmdale Road
- George Jace Photo Quick 1002 Mainstreet
. - Dale Lommen Little BI ind Spot, 811 Malnstreet
MEETING MINUTES:
The meeting convened in the Boston Subway restaurant ori Mainstreet
and 11th Avenue at 7:30 am. An attendance sign-up sheet was passed
around ,the table and an agenda packet including design background
material was handed out. After an introduction of those in
attendance and a discussion of the Design Review Committee meeting
organization, the discussion of the agenda items WCl.S led by Dipk
Koppy, Project Manager. The following issues were covered and a
related summary of the discussion is included.
1. Discussion of Responsibilities: A brief review of the Design
Review Committee members responsibIlities was discussed. Their
relationship as an "ad hoc" advisory committee to the CIty
Council was noted.
2. Project Description: Concept #SRwas described as being
approved by the City Council on November 6, 1990 and extending
from 5th Avenue to Shady Oak Road. inclUding Segments three,
four and a temporary signalization project at Shady Oak Road.
3. Project Schedule: A schedule was handed out which described the
projedt processing details over a two year period. It was
pointed out that the Design Review Committee/s (DRC) primary
. act i v it 1 es wou Id occur between December 6th and the end of
February, 1991. Design plans are due at the City Counci I
meeting on March 5, 1991. Additionally, a copy of specific
scheduled events was handed out for the month of December. It
was mentioned that the monthly calendar of expected events would
be updated at the end of each month for the succeeding month and .
handed out to the DRC and City Council members.
Paqe 2 Desiqn Review Committee record of December 6. 1990 meetinq
.
4. DRC meeting schedule: It was agreed to have the meetings twice
each month. at a minimum. at the Boston Subway restaurant on
Thursday morning at 7:30 am. The meet i ngs wi 11 end at 9:00 am.
The third Thursday of each month will be avoided to eliminate a
conf 1 ict wi th the Downtown Business Council Meeting. It was
agreed ,the next DRC meeting will be December 13th and then,
because of the hoI iday period. not until January 3, 1991.
5. Meeting minutes/agendas: Recordings of all the DRC meetings
wi 11 follow the format of th i s memorandum. I t wi II be mailed
out approximately one week following the meeting and before the
next scheduled meeting date. AIl DRC members on the mailing
list will receive copies. The City Council will also receive
copies of the recordi ngs at the first Counc i r meet 1 ng fo 11 owi ng
the DRC meeting.
6. Project cost and design criteria: Cost estimates were handed
out for Concept #5R. The estimated total cost of $3.6 million
is to serve as a budget guide for the project design. A break
down of costs by segments and by categories was discussed. A
typing mistake was discovered on the estImates that were h~nded
out. This has been corrected and is attached.
. 7. Street lighting design details: Koppy explained three
objectives, illuminatIon characteristics, spacing of lights and
street lighting hardwar-e, and handed out a data sheet to help
lead the discussion. The DRC agreed that historic poles and
fixtures were favored and requested mor-e specific information be
brought to the next meeting on hardware selection. Considerable
discussion took place on whether a high level system, a high/Low
level system, or a mid-range level system is preferred. Height
of poles and fixtures will be very important in the final
analysis. Miscellaneous comments included:
- Its redundant to have street lights where businesses are well
lighted. It would be desirable to highlight the frontage of
specific buildings by using lighting.
- Appropriate brackets for hanging plants, banners, flags and
signs should be reviewed based upon the pole selection.
- One of the DRC members said she would bring to the next
meeting photos of the 1 i gh t i ng po le/f i xtur-e used in Hopk i ns
during the 1930"s period.
- There was concern that the 16-18 foot high mid-level poles
would put the fixtures too high in the air-, out of eye level
view. Other comments indicated a higher height than the
existing low level lights may be needed because of concerns
r-egarding vandalism and hanging plants, banners, etc.
- Street 1 ightpoles should have festoon outlets with 20 and 30
. amp cIrcuitry for the varied uses throughout the year.
8. Traffic signal design details: Alan Klugman discussed the ten
traffic signals that are part of the Mainstreet pr-ojec~. He
highlighted data on the intersection geometries at the traffic
signal locations, discussion on the r-emoval of traffic signals,
.
i
PaGe 3 DesiGn Review Committee record of December 6. 1990 meetinG
.
and hardware selection at each location. Input from the DRC
indicated that no traffic signals should be removed. Each was
placed to serve a specific purpose and should be maintained.
Miscellaneous related comments included:
- 10th Avenue on the 'north s ide of Ma i nstreet shou I d be closed
or made a one way to the north. The signal should be
designed accordingly~ ,
- At the 10th Avenue and 11th Avenue intersections something
should be included in the design which highlights the parking
ramp entrances south of Mainstreet.
- Traffic signals should have a standard appearance throughout
the length of Mainstreet.
9. Miscellaneous comments that were brought up by DRC members prior
to the close of the meeting:
- There was a request for a review of thermal conduits in the
sidewalks.. particularly on the south side. to el iminate the
icing problem in the cold weather seasons.
- Kiosks aLe needed throughout the pLojectto be used as
community message boaLds.
- The undergLound system in the pLoject shouLd allow a music
. sound system to be installed in the future.
- A clock toweL should be planned. The Lions Club may want
involvement in this endeavoL and should be contacted. It was
mentioned there is limited money in the cost estimate for a
clock toweL that is pc-oposed for the, 9th Avenue plaza area.
AGENDA FOR THE DECEMBER 13TH DRC MEETING:
1. Street lighting design discussion continued from 12/6.
- Illumination lighting chaLacteListic
- Lighting spacing and height of pole/fixtuLe unit
- HaLdware selection. design options
2. MTC Bus Route location.
- Design options. MTC involvement
- Construction impact. bypass Loute for buses
- Route relocation decision process
3. Nodes and geometry of the inteLsectional areas.
- GeometLY of proposed Mainstreet design
- Pros & Cons related to construction and maintenance of nodes
- Impact on.vehicular and pedestLian traffic
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
. - Street lighting design option. including spacing.
illumination characteristics and hardware
- Inclusion of nodes in design geometry
- MTC Bus route location
.
~OPKINS COST ESTIMATES NOVEMBER 26. i990 SEGMENT #3 REVISED #5R
SEGMENT THREE: 5TH AVENUE TO 12TH AVENUE PAGE 1 OF 1
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE.MEETING. DECEMBER 6. 1990
. ---------------------~--------------------------------------------------------------
SEGMENT THREE COST ESTIMATE
M.S.A.S. NON-M.S.A.S. LINE ITEM
ITEM TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
====================================================================================
3.1 STORM SEWER
Sub-total $19.882.50 $19.882.50 $39.765.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.2 SANITARY SEWER
Sub-total $0.00 $136.180.00 $136.180.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3 WATERMAIN
Sub....total $0.00 $121.082.50 $121.082.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4 ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Sub-total $303.871.60 $5.000.00 $308.871.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.5 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Sub-total $331.100.00 $106.425.00 $437.525.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. 3.6 STREET LIGHTS
Sub-total $18.161.00 $163.449.00 $181.610.00
---------------------------------~--------------------------------------------------
3.7 LANDSCAPE AMENITIES
Sub-total $19.668.00 $172.392.00 $192.060.00
---~~---~--------------~------------------------------------------------------------
3.8 BUS PLAZAS
Sub';" tot a I $4.400.00 $5. 981. 25 $10.381.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.9 PLAZA AREAS (9th & Mainstreet)
Sub-total $0.00 $165.000.00 $165.000.00
=======---==========================================================================
Total Construction Cost -- Segment #3
Items 3.1 thru 3.9 $697.083.10 $895.392.25 $1.592.475.35
Engineering 15% $104.562.46 $134.308.84 $238.871.30
Administtation. Legal & Misc. $34.854.15 $44.769.61 $79.623.77
. - - - - - ----
Project Total Estimate $836.499.72 $1.074.470.70 $1.910,970.'42
.- - -- -- -- - -. -- ----------
------------
Note: Mobilization amounts equal to 10% of categor-y totals are included for
con ti ngency purposes.
. .
.
, HOPKINS COST ESTIMATES NOVEMBER 26. 1990 SEGMENT #4 REVISED #5R
SEGMENT FOUR: 12TH AVENUE TO SHADY OAK ROAD PAGE 1 OF 1
. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING. DECEMBER 6. 1990
-----------------------------------------~------------------------------------------
SEGMENT FOUR COST ESTIMATE
H.S.A.S. NON-H.S.A.S. LINE ITEM
ITEM TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
====================================================================================
4.1 STORM SEWER
Sub-total $14..214.75 $14.21f'l.75 $28.429.50
------------------------------~------~----------------------------------------------
4.2 SANITARY SEWER
Sub-total $0.00 $146.135.00 $146.135.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3 WATERMAIN
Sub-total $0.00 $242.011.00 $242.011.00
------------------------------------------~-----------------------------------------
4.4 ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION
Sub-total $444.275.70 $0.00 $444.275.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.5 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Sub-total $99.165.00 $132.935.00 $232.100.00
.-------------------------~------------------------------------------~---------------
4.6 STREET LIGHTS . .
Sub-total $0.00 $112.942.50 $112.942.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.7 LANDSCAPE AMENITIES
Sub-total $33.110.00 $173.002.50 $206.112.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.8 BUS PLAZAS
Sub-total $1.100.00 $3.245.00 $4,345.00
- - - - -
Total ConstructIon Cost -- Se9ll1ent #4
Items 4.1 thru 4.8 $591.865.45 $824.485.75 $1.416.351.20
Engineering 15% $88,779.82 . $123.672.86 $212.452.68
Administration, Legal & Misc.5% $29.593.27 $41.224.29 $70.817.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Total Estimate $710.238.54 $989,382.90 $1.699.621.44
411r-============================--=============--=======================================
. . .
.
..
Hopkins Mainstreet Design Review Committee Meeting #3
. January 3, 1991
ATTENDANCE: (Prepared from s1gn-in list at meeting)
- Dick Koppy Project Manager - Tom Harmening City Staff
- Jim Gessele City Staff - Fran Hagen Sr. Westwood
- Toni Richardson Chairperson - Deanna Podratz Mr. Movies
- George Jace Photo Quick - Tony Coleman Donovans
- Eugene Maxwe I I Midnite Market - Tim Erkkila Westwood
- Ed Strele Hopkins Auto Body
- Harriet Ahlstrom Daniels Photography
- Chuck Redepenning Bud/s Music Center
- Bart Jordano Jordano Associates
- Dale Lommen The Little Blind Spot
MEETING MINUTES:
The meeting convened in the Boston Subway restaurant on Mainstreet
and 11 th Avenue at 7: 30 am by Chai rperson Ton i ,Ri chardson. An
attendance sign-up sheet was passed around the table. Minutes from
the previous meeting on December 13. 1990 were previously
distributed. There were no corrective or substance comments on the
December 13th minutes.
The following issues were covered and a related summary of the
. discussion is included. (Note: Relative to the agenda that
accompanied the 12/13/90 minutes for the 1/2/91 meeting~ it was
agreed to defer discussion about the street light design until the
next meeting.)
1. Desiqn, Review Committee <D.R.C.) Meetinq Schedule: After
discussion of available meeting dates for the DRC. it was agreed to
meet on January 10th and the 24th at the same location.
2. MTC Bus Stops and qeometric desiqn: Three options were
presented to the DRG with respect to the bus stops along
Mainstreet. Option #1 included eastbound and westbound bus stops
approximately every two blocks at alternate intersections. Option
#2 essentially was the same as Option #1 west of 12th Avenue.
However. between 12th Avenue and 5th Avenue two eastbound and
westbound bus stops are included. . This represents a reduction of
four bus stops from Option #1. All reductions are in the retail
ma 11 area. Option #3 demonstrated bus stops approximately every
three blocks along Mainstreet.
Discussion focussed upon the MTC role in the location of the bus
stops and the frequency of placement. Koppy explained theMTC
staff was desirous of gaining public input on any significant
changes to the Mainstreet routing or frequency of bus stops. Dale
Lommen was concerned about the loss of parking because of all the
bus stops shown in Option #1 and #2. He also was concerned about
. the decision making process relative to locating bus stops on
Mainstreet between the MTC and the City of Hopkins. Toni
Richardson was concerned that the MTC was insensitive to one of the
primary issues behind constructing the Mainstreet project <i.e.
parking availability on Mainstreet).
-.
"W' ,-
" .
Page 2 Design Review Committee meeting record of January 3, 1991
.
A motion was made and seconded to approve Option #2. After
discussion by the DRC members. the motion was withdrawn. A motion
to approve Option #3 without the bus stop at 9th Avenue was made
and seconded. During discussion on the motion. Ed Strele commented
that the bus stop at 9th Avenue could be designated at a later date
if the stop is warranted. The consultant agreed that the proposed
Mainstreet design would allow the later placement of the 9th Avenue
bus stop without any revisions to the physical pavement or
landscaping.
The placement of bus shelters was reviewed by the DRC. George Jace
said that "more rather than less" should apply when it came to
locating the bus shelters. Questions of cost and location were
discussed. The consultant indicated that further study would be
done on this design detail and presented at a future meeting.
3. Landscapina and Street Furnituredeslan details: Tim Erkkila
of Westwood was introduced and discussed the"street amenity package
for the Mainstreet design. He briefed the DRC members on the
design streetscape amenities such as street trees. brick paving,
planters. trash receptacles. benches and ornamental I i gh tin 9
fixtures. Toni Richardson was concerned that the design should
. follow the Mainstreet design guidelines that the City previously
had adopted. Additionally, she commented that the committee. "Art
in Public Places", should be involved in the plaza area design at
9th Avenue.
Erkk I I a indicated .that specific data would be presented at the next
DRC meeting regarding details of the amenity package relative to
the cost proposal for Mainstreet design option #5R.
AGENDA FOR THE JANUARY 10, 1991 DRC MEETING:
1- Street lighting design discussion continued from 12/6, 12/13
and 1/2:
- Mid-level I i gh t i ng opt ion: Pole spacing and height of
pole/fixture unit
- Hardware options, cost estimates
2. Landscaping and Street Furniture details and cost estimates
3. Discussion of the Plaza design details at 9th Avenue.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
- Finalization of street lighting design option, including
. spacing, height, illumination characteristics and hardware
- Review and comment on the detailed street furniture and
landscape amenities recommended as part of Option,#5R.
-- -~.
-- -. L