CC 04-29-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular O:>uncil Meeting, 4-29-91 Page 10 P\IMl'. ~. (Cent' d) O:>uncilmernber Hansen requested the Fire Chief review the public safety issues related to bl=king the street; emergency vehicle access and response time. Fire Chief winkel stated if the road is bl=kErl in some manner, it is i111perative to provide a cul-de-sac or turn arOl.U1d of some type for emergency vehicles to maneuver. Winkel explained response time may be delayErl due to =fusion and if an a=ident occurred at either intersection, emergency vehicle access may be prohibited. O:>uncilmernber Malone noted there are two separate issues and suggested comments relating to the general improvement/assessment be heard pri= to the Valentine Avenue closing. Robert Rehaka:mp, 4060 Valentine Court, askErl if the drainage problem on Valentine Avenue has been addressed. He supported the project. Engineer Graham advised the drainage was reviewed by Public Works SUperintendent Winkel, Engineer Maurer and hllnself; it was determined that the drainage will be addressed in conjunction with the iInprovement and Graham offerErl to meet with Rehaka:mp to discuss the matter. Kurt Hallgren, 3700 Chatham Circle, requested the Chatham Circle cul-de-sac be included in the project and questioned what the procedure would be to include this area. Attorney Filla explainErl that if the city wishes to include additional areas in the 1991 project and proceed along the same timetable, a petition by all property owners in the cul-de-sac, requesting inclusion in the project and that 100 percent of the =sts be assessErl to the property owners, must be su1::mitte:i. He advised that if the petition is signed by 100 percent of the property owners, a public hearing is not necessary. Filla also advised it must be determined what impact inclusion of additional areas would have on the construction =ntract and whether or not the City wishes to proceed with award of the =ntract prior to arranging a public hearing f= assessments on the additional area. He noted the public hearing for the iInprovement is not necessary if the petition includes 100 percent signatures, however, the assessment hearing is still necessary. Councilmernber Malone questioned if the residents would then be asses:sErl at twice the amount of $2.82 per front f=t. He stated the petition would have to be su1::mitted by May 13, and the assessment hearing may be =ntinuErl to the May 28 Regular O:>uncil meeting. He advised Hallgren that city staff will provide a petition document in the proper format. Filla explained a chan;Je order to the =ntract may not exceed 25 percent of the original =ntract bid. He further advised that residents petition:in:J for the improvement and requesting the =sts be assessed at 100 percent, however, those signing the petition are not waiving their rights to appeal the assessment. Councilmember Mahowald questioned when Chatham Circle and Court areas are schedulErl for improvement in the pavement management program. Engineer Maurer explained both areas are borderline sealcoat/bituminous overlay projects and the program is arrangErl to delete streets after the bidding process, if necessary. He advised the bids receivErl were competitive and no streets will be deleted from the project; monies may be available to add the two areas to the project.