Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting, April 27, 1987 <br /> Page 3 <br /> REZONING (CONT'D) Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council deny Case <br /> No. 87-04, Rezoning from B-1 to B-2, Hamline Avenue and <br /> Highway 96, rationale for denial as follows: not proven sufficient need for a <br /> convenience/retail operation in the area, concerned about litter, noise, <br /> increased traffic, level of on-sight activity, type and quality of lighting, <br /> incompatibility with residential area and Arden Hills comprehensive plan: be it <br /> further noted that Council is opposed to the concept of spot zoning and <br /> conditional zoning and has determined that approval may be a precedent setting <br /> action. Motion carried. (Hansen, Peck, Woodburn voting in favor; Winiecki and <br /> Sather opposed) (3-2). <br /> GLENVIEW AVE. Council was referred to Change Order #5, relative to <br /> STORM SEW. RPT. the Glenview Avenue Storm reconstruction being added to <br /> the contract for Edgewater Estates. <br /> Barry Peters reported that C.W. Houle has estimated the construction costs at <br /> $19,980.50. Peters estimate, for an independent project, at an earlier Council <br /> meeting ~as $23,800.00. <br /> Council was advised the Clerk Administrator had suggested the monies could be <br />. taken from the PIR Fund. There was discussion relative to placing this item in <br /> the 1989 Budget. <br /> Mrs. Caniff, 3946 Glenview Ave., briefly explained the problems she has been <br /> experiencing and stated her opinion is that the problems are caused because of <br /> the small storm sewer placed in the area by the City. She feels it is the <br /> City's responsibility to provide proper drainage and correct the problem. <br /> Councilmember Hansen asked why Caniff's had built their home in the area if <br /> they were aware of the problem. <br /> Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council include <br /> the reconstruction of the Glenview Avenue Storm Sewer in the 1988 Budget for <br /> the City of Arden Hills, and that this item be included under the Public Works <br /> Fund or Revolving Fund. <br /> In discussion, Council questioned if there were funds available for the project <br /> this year. <br /> Public Works Supervisor Raddatz advised he and Barry Peters had discussed the <br /> possibility of holding off the seal-coating projects for 1987 until the <br /> Pavement Management Plan results are received. He explained the funds budgeted <br /> for seal-coating in 1987 would be available if Council deems the Glenview <br /> project necessary this year. Council asked if there are any streets in need of <br /> seal coating this year and if the remaining funds would cover the cost of those <br /> streets. <br />. Raddatz advised there are streets in need of seal coating and the remaining <br /> funds should cover the cost of the project. <br /> Peck moved, seconded by Sather, to amend the motion to <br /> read as follows: that the project for the reconstruction of the Glenview Avenue <br /> Storm Sewer be completed in 1987, with funds to be expended from the 1987 Seal <br /> Coating Budget. Amendment to motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> Original motion as amended carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> RES. NO. 87-20; Council was referred to the final draft of the Joint <br /> GLENHILL ROAD Powers Agreement with the City of Roseville for the <br /> RECONSTRUCTION Glenhill Road reconstruction, and the resolution <br /> approving plans and specification, ordering <br />. advertisement for bids and accepting the bid. The memorandum dated 4/22/87 <br /> from the Clerk Administrator advised that the Attorney had reviewed the <br /> Agreement, made minor changes and recommended approval. <br /> Moved by Sather, seconded by Winiecki, that Council <br /> approve Resolution No. 87-20, RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, <br /> ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND ACCEPTING THE BID, and further approve the <br /> final draft of the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Roseville for the <br /> reconstruction of Glenhill Road. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br />