Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting, March 9, 1987 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Council questioned if Roseville would proceed with the project in <br />Arden Hills does not participate. Janisch advised Roseville would <br />Glenhill Road improvement if Arden Hills does not participate. <br /> <br />the event <br />not begin the. <br /> <br />Mayor Woodburn asked the residents if they believed traffic has increased on <br />Glenhill Road. Two residents stated traffic had increased; one stated it has <br />not; one resident expressed concern for the excessive speed on the road. <br /> <br />John Shelendich, 1459 Glenhill Rd, asked if provisions were made for access to <br />property during the construction period. <br /> <br />Janisch stated that notice would be given to residents if access to property <br />would be prohibited during construction; he advised that every effort would be <br />made to keep access to individual properties open. <br /> <br />In discussion, Council advised residents that the assessments for the project <br />would be payable in 1988; also noted that Roseville has agreed to allow the <br />City to budget funds for this project in the 1988 Budget, by deferring payment <br />from Arden Hills for one year. Also discussed was the possibility of <br />streetlights in the area and if speed signage should be considered, due to the <br />increased traffic. <br /> <br />After determining there were no additional questions or comments, either . <br />written or from the floor, the public hearing was closed at 8:03 p.m. <br /> <br />In discussion, it was determined that the wording in the proposed Resolution, <br />under Item #2, would have to be changed to designate Roseville's Engineer for <br />the improvement rather than Arden Hill's Engineer. <br /> <br />Hansen moved, seconded by Sather, that Council approve <br />Resolution No. 87-16, RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS <br />FOR P-86-28, GLENHILL ROAD, as per the proposed agreement and as amended under <br />Item 1/2 by deleting "Village's Consulting Engineers, Short. Elliott, <br />Henrickson" and adding: "Roseville Engineering Department". Motion carried <br />unanimously. (4-0) <br /> <br />AGREEMENT FOR <br />IMPROVEMENT OF <br />GLENHILL ROAD <br /> <br />Council reviewed the draft of" an agreement with the City <br />of Rosevi11e for this project; questioned the language <br />in Item #7 pertaining to payment. . <br /> <br />Dave Janisch explained that upon completion of the project an invoice will be <br />sent to Arden Hills; after 60 days from receipt of that invoice, Roseville will <br />begin to charge the interest. He noted that a specific date could not be given <br />because the Glenhill project is being done in conjunction with other <br />improvements in the City of Roseville. ... <br /> <br />Council commended the Roseville staff for the their cooperation on the <br />reconstruction project. <br /> <br />Moved by Hansen, seconded by Sather, that Council enter <br />into a Joint Powers Agreement for Reconstruction of Glenhill Road, from <br />Snelling Frontage Road to Hamline Avenue, pending review and approval of the <br />draft agreement by Arden Hill's Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) <br /> <br />CASE #87-02:A & B; <br />SETBACK VARIANCES. <br />4173 & 4183 NORMA <br /> <br />Council was referred to Board of Appeals minutes <br />(2/26/87), Planning Commission minutes (3/4/87) and <br />Planner's report (2-24-87). <br /> <br />Planner Miller explained that setback variances were granted, when the addition <br />was platted, for a 20 ft. aggregate setback for several lots; the lots were 85 <br />ft. frontage and the unusual lot conditions warranted the approval of the <br />request. He also noted that the properties for which the current variances are <br />requested resulted from incorrect positioning of the homes on the lot by the <br />builder; Miller pointed out that granting the variances will simply "legalize" <br />them, for the record. and eliminate encumbrances which might hinder the <br />salability of the properties in the future: both Planning Commission and Board. <br />of Appeals recommended approval of the variances. <br />