My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 04-27-1981
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
CC 04-27-1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:12:02 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 4:09:52 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.
/
5
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 />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br /> <br />April 27, 1981 <br /> <br />Jay Bros., Inc. Special Use Permit <br />Council was referred to Lynden's letter <br />City of Arden Hills vs. Jay Bros., Inc. <br />was sent to Attorney Filla. <br /> <br />of April 24, 1981 re: <br />et al., copy of which <br /> <br />Lynden reported he has not heard from Mr. Filla; assumes, there- <br />fore, that he ia agreeable to the points in the letter. <br /> <br />After discussion, Council concurred with procedure recommended <br />by Lynden in letter of April 24th to compel Jay Bros., Inc. to con- <br />form to the Zoning Ordinance regulations. <br />REPORT OF VILLAGE ENGINEER DONALD CHRISTOFFERSEN <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Lexington 1-694 Storm Drainage, Alternate D and Status of RCWD <br />Approval <br />Council was referred to Christoffersen's letter of 4-17-81 and <br />attached letter from MnDOT re Plan D. Christoffersen explained <br />that the change was requested by Shoreview and is the same as <br />Alternate C except that Arden Hills Detention Basin C-l is pro- <br />posed to contain a larger volume of storage and the Shoreview <br />Basin D-1 is proposed to be smaller than proposed in Alternate C <br />Plan; sees no change in costs for Arden Hills but lowers the cost <br />for Shore view . <br /> <br />Christoffersen reported that RCWD has reviewed Alternate C, and <br />is aware of Alternate D (letter of RCWD of 4-16-81); reported he <br />has not received written approval of plans to date; referred <br />Council to map illustrating the undeveloped areas south of 1-694; <br />noted that no Council action is needed at this time. <br /> <br />Report re Village Providing Traffic Counts for MnDOT <br /> <br />Christoffersen reported that SEH has countersavsilable for use by <br />Arden Hills on a loan basis this year, if the City desires to take <br />the requested traffic counts for MnDOT; noted that the only cost <br />would be to instruct the Public Works Dept. employee(s) in the <br />operation of the counters. Noted that it is his understanding <br />that the counts may be taken anytime and is probably going to be <br />an on-gOing count by the municipa~ity for MnDOT. . <br /> <br />Johnson moved, seconded by Hol1enho~~, c1:),at. couns..H./<..I~.t~ll.-P..!c~!.of".uz~.'7' ,-,,-.itA <br />of the counting equipment from SEH fo;-Wff1~iY~U.V6 con1fifCr: . ACt:t"r"",f <br />traffic counts by the City Public Works Dept. Motion carried uttan- <br />imously. <br /> <br />(McNiesh to see that counter(s) are covered by City's insurance.) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Improvement No. 80-1, County Road E - Project B, Street Lighting <br />Christoffersen reported that the specifications are substantially <br />ready for bid for the County Road E street lighting; referred <br />Council to the lighting diagram which indicates lights at about <br />100 feet apart, alternating each side of the street, based on <br />Planner Miller's proposal as discussed with the County Road E <br />task force - concrete poles with steel arm, and in accord with <br />NSP requirements for maintenance; suggested that it would be appro- <br />priate to authorize advertisement for bid for Project B at this <br />time to coordinate with the underground wiring which is apparently <br />scheduled. <br /> <br />In discussion, Johnson queried whether the type and height of the <br />lighting standards have been determined; expressed concern that <br />they conform with the base scheme; noted that it would be desirable <br />to also coordinate the semaphore(s) with the street lights. <br />Council concurred to refer the street lighting plans and specs <br />to Planner Miller for his review snd report at the next Council <br />meeting. Also requested at that meeting is response from the <br />State Hwy. Dept. re type of semaphore and whether or not a sema- <br />phor, is needed at the westerly ramp at STH S1. <br /> <br />Improvement No. 80-1, County Road E - Project A, UnderQroun~h~~r~~~. <br /> <br />In discussion re pendln9 easement, Chrl~toff:~:~n r~~~~~::~ reported <br />easements, except that of Standard 011 ave III Ive the easement <br />that It Is his understanding that Standar~ O~le:k In9the Island wi II <br />if aSSurance Is given. In writing, that t e r of <br />be provided. Council conculrretd thSatt ~~~~s6~if:~~e:s:~~: ~o~~~~uctlon of <br />the County Road E Island p an 0 an <br />the break as IndIcated thereon. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.