Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Arden Hills Council <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />March 29, 1993 <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Probst moved, seconded by Malone, to accept MNDOT's <br />recommendation that the Snelling/51 intersection remain <br />closed, and to request that MNDOT actively keep the <br />City fully advised as to future plans or proposals for <br />T.H. 51 both at the 694 and the County Road E <br />intersections, <br /> <br />The following discussion took place prior to the <br />vote. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone asked if the intent of this <br />motion is to bring this matter to a close. <br />Councilmember Probst answered yes, that there does <br />not appear to be any other alternatives given <br />MNDOT's position. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks advised the audience that if <br />the motion on the floor passes, he is prepared to <br />make another motion with regard to other safety <br />concerns at County Road E, <br /> <br />Brad Lemberg said that having been a City Engineer <br />himself, he would urge Council to pursue answers <br />to the questions "What has MNDOT's study actually <br />included?", "To where did 1,200 vehicles per day <br />that previously used Snelling/51 go?", "Who at <br />MNDOT is ultimately responsible to make decisions <br />regarding this issue and why are those persons not <br />in attendance tonight?" and '~hat warrants and <br />criteria were the basis for MNDOT's position?". <br /> <br />Motion carried (3-2; Probst, Malone, Sather voted aye; <br />Aplikowski, Hicks voted nay). <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks reiterated his frustration with MNDOT's <br />position because it essentially "ties the City's hands". He <br />commented that the issue involves not only access to the <br />immediate neighborhood but also reasonable accessibility <br />throughout the City, He added that he does not believe the <br />frontage road option is acceptable, and he is concerned that <br />problems and hazards have simply been "moved" from the <br />Snelling/51 intersection to other routes, with regard to <br />the idea of widening the County Road E bridge, he stated his <br />belief that the cost would be prohibitive. <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Aplikowski, to take the <br />following actions to alleviate safety concerns in the <br />County Road E/T.H. 51 area: <br />