Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 <br /> 2 <br /> <br />Mr. Fisher explained the difference between rural and urban roadways, reconditioning versus <br />replacement, and a walk versus a trail. This project area is currently considered rural with no curb <br />and gutter, but they could reconstruct it as half rural and half urban. He reviewed the State Aid <br />Design Standards for rural and urban roads, and shared use paths (trails). <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden asked if smaller lane width slows people down from speeding. <br /> <br />Mr. Fisher replied that was correct, but a road being physically narrower will have a greater <br />impact than just striping the road narrower. <br /> <br />Mr. Fisher explained the requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District. The project is not <br />considered a reconstruction by their definition. Permits will be required for erosion/sediment <br />control and wetland impacts. <br /> <br />Mr. Fisher discussed the three design options and objectives. He presented drawings of the <br />options and explained each. Option 1 would be to leave the roadway as a Rural Typical Section <br />that would match the existing corridor design. Option 2 would be a Rural/Urban Typical Section <br />that provides on-road space for bicycles and an off-road concrete walk for pedestrians. Option 3 <br />would be an Urban Typical Section providing an off-road shared use trail for bicycle and <br />pedestrian users. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung asked if Option 3 was best for traffic calming. <br /> <br />Mr. Fisher responded that it was the best option for traffic calming. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant asked if Option 3 offered future reconstruction options and ease of design. <br /> <br />Mr. Fisher said assuming rules don’t change, there would be no reason why a similar technique <br />on a future reconstruction using reclamation couldn’t be done. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes felt Option 3 was the safest with the road being narrower for traffic <br />calming, and pedestrians and bicyclists off the road. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott asked if there was a minimum design speed on Option 3. <br /> <br />Mr. Fisher replied there was not. <br /> <br />Interim Public Works Director Swearingen added they had jurisdiction over the speed limit but <br />they couldn’t alter it because of MSA rules. <br /> <br />Mr. Fisher compared the costs of the three options which included estimated construction costs <br />with a 15% contingency and estimated total project costs with Engineering design, administration <br />and overhead. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden asked what the tree removal fee would be for each option.