My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 12-11-1995
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCP 12-11-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:10:43 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 4:40:54 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.
/
124
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 />ARJ)EN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 13.1995 7 .- <br />Ms. Lois Rem, 1670 Glenview Court, indicated the reason for the questions from the residents - '. I <br />was that they wanted the Council to be comfortable with their decision. <br />Ms. Rem provided a letter to be entered in the record as Exhibit 6.c. She requested an - <br />explanation as to how the Ogren development would have gotten from the March plan, approved <br />by Staff & Planning Commission, to its current state without the high level of involvement by I <br />the residents. <br />Mayor Probst indicated the original plan was not approved in March, it had not been reviewed by I <br />the Council until October 10, 1995 where Council established conditions for approval. <br />Mayor Probst expressed great concern for the notion that there was something other than a PUD - <br />request. <br />Mayor Probst indicated he felt the Council had reached a compromise between the developer and . <br />the residents. He indicated although not all agree, there is a basic right to develop your land. <br />This right can not be ignored. . <br />Motion carried unanimously (5-0). -I <br />Resolution #95-78. Ordering- Preliminarv Feasibilitv Reoort in the Matter ofthe 1996 <br />Street Improvement Project <br />City Engineer, Greg Stonehouse indicated the street re-rating was now complete. He provided I <br />the Council with a prioritized list of streets as compiled in accordance with the project schedule <br />and under the direction of Public Works Superintendent Stafford. I <br />Mr. Stonehouse indicated under the new system, streets with PCI ratings less than 60 will require I <br />reconstruction or cold, in-place recycling; street ratings from 61 to 80 will be best maintained <br />with a bituminous overlay; ratings form 81 to 90 will require a seal coat; and those rated above <br />90 will require no maintenance in the next two to three years. I <br />Mr. Stonehouse indicated a general Feasibility Study will be completed to outline the necessary <br />improvements and associated costs for streets within the first and second priority categories. I <br />This will allow City staff to hold informational meetings with the public in the next several <br />weeks to determine which streets will be reconstructed/rehabilitated in 1996. Following those <br />informational meetings, Staff would revise the Feasibility Study specifically toward the selected I <br />streets, and schedule the formal Public Hearing to allow the project to proceed. <br />MOTION: Hicks moved, and Keirn seconded a motion to adopt Resolution #95-78, Ordering I <br /> Preliminary Feasibility Report in the Matter of the 1996 Street Improvement <br /> Project. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). -. <br /> I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.