My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-26-21-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
04-26-21-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2021 8:49:15 AM
Creation date
5/12/2021 8:48:37 AM
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.
/
26
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 /> <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 <br />type 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 /> <br />Councilmember Holmes supported the Mayor’s suggestion with Option 2 moving forward and <br />directing staff to discuss alternative options with MSA. She indicated she did not want this <br />project further delayed. <br /> <br />Interim Public Works Director Swearingen stated this item would need four votes in order to <br />move it forward. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jamnik explained State law requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council to order <br />improvements that do not come to the City under a petition. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.