CC 11-29-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 29,2004 5 . turnaround driveways, which may be safer for pedestrians. He stated there were also breaks in traffic on the north side. He indicated if they were looking forward and looking outside of the box, tbe logical path from the tunnel at Tony Schmidt Park would to have a sidewalk on the north side. He stated there would also be less homes impacted on the north side compared to the south side. He indicated the areas pedestrians could cross the street could be at the bowling alley or McDonalds. He noted the biggest issue when it came to safety was that no one would have to cross over traffic if the sidewalk was on the north side ofthe street. He requested they make their decision based on safety issues. CounciImember Larson stated they needed a sidewalk and it made the most sense to put the sidewalk on the south side of the street. He stated he understood the logic of putting the sidewalk in on the north side of the street, if all things were equal, but all things are not equal. He indicated the south side had fewer homeowners than the north side; the south side had no utility conflicts; if the sidewalk was on the south side, it would connect two City trails; it could connect the crossing of the bridge to the only trail which runs the length of County Road E; there would be minimal grading and no retaining walls if the sidewalk was located on the south side; it would not have any homeowners prevented from parking in their driveway if the sidewalk was located on the south side; there were no adverse private driveway impacts; the PTRC, City staff, and City Engineer had all recommended putting the trail on the south side; and the north side would cost considerably more to put in a sidewalk. He stated there were crosswalks at the . existing ramps and Council had not been given any acknowledgement that there was a significant safety concern. He stated if all things were equal, they would not locate this on the south side of the street because of the ramps, but all things were not equal. He stated he had looked at other freeway bridges within the community that had this type of a situation and in most cases, pedestrians were crossing freeway entrance and/or exit ramps. He indicated this had been done frequently in the City as well as other Cities. He stated they had no evidence that it might be safer to put the sidewalk on the north side versus the south side. He noted this was all speculation. He stated it did not make sense to spend $211,000.00 more on a hunch. He stated the Fire Department would soon be coming to the Council for money for a new fire truck, which amount would be less than what they were proposing to spend on this sidewalk. He indicated they did not have a good basis for deciding to spend this additional amount. He stated as long as he has been on this Council, he believes the Council has been fiscally conservative and this is what the residents wanted. He indicated they did not have the information that told them that they should spend this type of money on a project simply because pedcstrians were going to cross the on illld off ramps at Highway 51. Councilmember Grant stated he was not speaking for or against the north side. He stated he had wanted for a long time to solve the Snelling bridge trusses. He indicated with respect to other crossings in the City, there was no other choice because there are turning radiuses on both sides of the street. He agreed they were fiscally conservative and the question here was balancing all of the various priorities ~ cost versus safety. He stated there were times that they . wanted safety. He stated he would not be interested in a sidewalk on both sides. He asked if they did option B, would Council come back at a future time and add a sidewalk on the other side, or where they essentially blocked in to one side. Mr. Brown replied they would generally --------