My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 04-10-1995
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCP 04-10-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:10:18 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 4:16:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
<br /> . <br /> .. Alternatives for the Reconstruction of County Road F. West. <br /> . in Arden Hills, Minnesota <br /> presented by <br /> . Arden Hills Residents <br /> . INTRODUCTION <br /> A neighborhood information meeting was held on Thursday, 30 March 1995 at the New Brighton <br /> . Family Service Center. At this meeting, a number of Arden Hills residents discussed the city's <br /> proposed design for the reconstruction of County Road F. West. That plan, as approved by the <br /> city council on 27 February 1995, was viewed as having some problems that the citizens feel <br /> . need to be corrected before the construction begins. <br /> The citizen's concerns are in the following areas: <br /> . I. the plan for a walkway on the south side of the road; <br /> 2. the width of the road and walkway; <br /> . 3. parking on the road; <br /> 4. no passing; <br /> .- 5. safety of the road due to the speed limit. <br /> . 1. Walkway <br /> The walkway proposed for the south side of the road was discussed. Residenls from all along the <br /> . south side ofthe road expressed concern about what the walkway would do to their property. <br /> Residents on the other side of the road, as well as some from back in the Shorewood Hills area <br /> expressed concern about the real need and justification for the walkway. There was opposition to <br /> I the walkway in places where it would require the uprooting of trees and plants. And, there was <br /> opposition 10 the walkway where the design would place it well into the front or side yards of <br /> houses. <br /> . There was some discussion in favor of a walkway. It was acknowledged that the walkway would <br /> provide for the safe passage of children and adulIs without worrying about the traffic. However, <br /> . when weighed against the cost in terms of nature and yards, there was overwhelming agreement <br /> that the residents would like to see the walkway deleted from the reconstruction plan. <br /> . 2. Width of the Road <br /> . Once it was agreed that the residents wanted the walkway deleted, the width of the road was not <br /> .- as big of an issue as it had previously been. In fact, many residents expressed support for six foot <br /> wide shoulders, which if properly protected by solid white lines, would be needed to provide the <br /> walking space along the road. It was pointed out that County Road E2 has shoulders that are <br /> . 4 April 1995 - 1- County Road F. West <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.