My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-10-21-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
05-10-21-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2021 3:56:15 PM
Creation date
5/6/2021 3:54:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
115
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
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 26, 2021 12 <br /> <br />redone and was beyond its serviceable life. He stated he would rather delay action than rush the <br />project through without having an optimal decision. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes indicated staff needed direction on how to proceed for Area 1, whether <br />that be Option 1 or Option 2. She questioned if the Council could move Option 2 forward <br />directing staff to speak with the MSA to see if narrowing travel lanes and a shoulder trail option <br />was viable. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant asked how things were looking in terms of the project timeline. <br /> <br />Interim Public Works Director Swearingen explained this project was slated to be bid in <br />February of 2022 with construction beginning in April of 2022. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes stated she did not believe it would take staff too long to speak with <br />individuals at the MSA to see if this proposal was viable. <br /> <br />Interim Public Works Director Swearingen commented he has discussed the proposed options <br />with MSA and it was recommended the trail not be made too wide so as to be confused as a travel <br />lane. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott stated his overwhelming concern was safety for residents. He indicated he <br />did not want to see the project delayed another year given the existing condition of the roadway. <br />He was of the opinion the residents in the area overwhelmingly supported Option 1. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes discussed the comments from the public that were provided to the <br />Council in Appendix J. She anticipated about 50% of the residents wanted Option 1 and 50% <br />supported Option 2. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden asked if the City could put any type of markings on the pavement they <br />choose. <br /> <br />Interim Public Works Director Swearingen stated this was possible and commented on the type <br />of buffer strips that could be painted on the roadway. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant noted this meant a person walking symbol could be painted on the pavement, along <br />with a double white line. <br /> <br />Interim Public Works Director Swearingen reported this was the case. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant asked if the Council was comfortable moving forward allowing staff the flexibility <br />to have further conversations with MSA. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott inquired if a date would be set for approval. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant commented he did not have a specific date or deadline in mind. Rather he was <br />hoping staff could speak with MSA and report back to the Council. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.