Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 10, 2013 2 <br /> <br />Mr. Thomas <br /> indicated that pedestrian improvements would be addressed in the plan, along with <br />balanced traffic mobility and property access. He noted boulevard trees and lighting would be <br />located along the corridor to enhance the corridor aesthetics. <br />Mayor Grant <br />questioned if the width of the bridge would change. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Maurer <br />explained that MnDOT and the County were evaluating a three <br />lane bridge. He commented that the plans were not yet in final design, but that three lanes with a <br />10 foot pedestrian lane on one side of the bridge is being proposed. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomas <br /> explained that if the lane configurations were to change, minor adjustments could be <br />made to the Phase I plans. He stated that it was his intent to work within the existing curb lines. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant <br /> asked what benefit would be received relative to cost. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomas <br /> commented that businesses and residents in the area would now have a corridor that <br />was clearly striped with better access for both vehicles and pedestrians. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the traffic flow around the Commers, Davidson, and <br /> properties along with which medians and turn lanes should remain in place. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomas <br /> stated that at this time, the plan showed a dedicated lane into the Davidson property. <br />The Council was not in favor of this turn lane as it would adversely impact bicycle traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomas <br /> indicated that the concept plan was not perfect, but it would accomplish a lot for <br />improving traffic and pedestrian movements, with the least impacts and expense. He noted that <br />the plan will continue to evolve and expand into the future. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes <br /> questioned if the business owners along the corridor have discussed <br />assessments for boulevard trees. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomas <br /> explained that this has been discussed in general terms. He told the business owners <br />there would be some upfront costs noting the distribution of the costs was yet to be determined. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden <br /> inquired what portion of the project costs the County would pay. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Maurer <br />commented that the County would be responsible for the <br />roadway seal coat, a portion of the sidewalk construction, median construction, and most of the <br />signal work. He stated that the County saw the traffic benefits to the proposed enhancements <br />along the corridor. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant <br /> requested further information on the Carrolasement. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomas <br /> stated that the City was made aware of an easement on Carroll <br />be used for a sidewalk. This was investigated further and after reviewing the documents, two <br />easements were found. The first was on the west side of the property which was titled as a <br />sidewalk and utility easement. The second easement was described in the same manner and <br />continues into the roadway. Until the Carrolparcel is redeveloped, it would be difficult to <br /> <br />