Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . Arden Hills Council 9 March 29, 1993 <br /> MOTION: Probst moved, seconded by Malone, to accept MNDOT's <br /> recommendation that the Snelling/51 intersection remain <br /> closed, and to request that MNDOT actively keep the <br /> City fully advised as to future plans or proposals for <br /> T.H. 51 both at the 694 and the County Road E <br /> intersections. <br /> The following discussion took place prior to the <br /> vote. <br /> Councilmember Malone asked if the intent of this <br /> motion is to bring this matter to a cl os e , <br /> Councilmember Probst answered yes, that there does <br /> not appear to be any other alternatives given <br /> MNDOT's position. <br /> Councilmember Hicks advised the audience that if <br /> the motion on the floor passes, he is prepared to <br /> make another motion with regard to other safety <br /> concerns at County Road E. <br /> Brad Lemberg said that having been a City Engineer <br /> . himself, he would urge Council to pursue answers <br /> to the questions "what has MNDOT's study actually <br /> included?", "To where did 1,200 vehicles per day <br /> that previously used Snelling/51 go?", "who at <br /> MNDOT is ultimately responsible to make decisions <br /> regarding this issue and why are those persons not <br /> in attendance tonight?" and "What warrants and <br /> criteria were the basis for MNDOT's position?", <br /> Motion carried (3-2; Probst, Malone, Sather voted aye; <br /> Aplikowski, Hicks voted nay). <br /> Councilmember Hicks reiterated his frustration with MNDOT's <br /> position because it essentially "ties the City's hands". He <br /> commented that the issue involves not only access to the <br /> immediate neighborhood but also reasonable accessibility <br /> throughout the City. He added that he does not believe the <br /> frontage road option is acceptable, and he is concerned that <br /> problems and hazards have simply been "moved" from the <br /> Snelling/51 intersection to other routes, With regard to <br /> the idea of widening the County Road E bridge, he stated his <br /> belief that the cost would be prohibitive, <br /> MOTION: Hicks moved, seconded by Aplikowski, to take the <br /> following actions to alleviate safety concerns in the <br /> County Road E/T,H, 51 area: <br /> . <br />