CCP 07-15-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---- , -- ,~ ... Review of 1996 Street Improvement Project Page 2 e July 12, 1996 Letters again were sent to the affected residents informing them of a Public Hearing, regarding the proposed 1996 Street Improvements. This hearing was held on January 29, 1996, at which time concerns of residents regarding the proposed street improvements were heard. After listening to the concerns of the residents and considering recommendations by staff and the City engineer, the City Council ordered the City engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the proposed project. On February 21 and 26, 1996 the project engineer, Greg Stonehouse and Arden Hills Public Works Superintendent, Dwayne Stafford met on site with residents to address issues of concern. Many residents attended this on site visit and seemed very appreciative for the visit. Residents had received a notice of this visit previously. During the months of February, March and April several meetings took place, as did many - telephone conversations between the affected residents, staff, and the City engineers, to discuss the residents concerns relating to the proposed improvements. Of primary concern was the standard width of 32 feet proposed for all reconstruction streets, the Oak A venue cul-de-sac, existing trees on Pascal and drainage on Pascal and Ridgewood. These issues were addressed and many changes were agreed on between the residents, engineers and staff. e Process Evaluation I believe the process used in 1996 was a significant improvement over that used in previous ~ years. However, there were a number of items which could be refined. Presentations I I think we need to keep in mind what our presentations are to residents who are not familiar with the terminologies of government or engineering. The language and illustrations used by staff I should be clear, simple and understandable. A good example was the additiona11etter sent with the assessment hearing notices attempting to describe the legal process in a straight forward fashion. Only one complaint was received this year regarding the understandability of the I notices. Counci1member Malone also identified several examples from the information meeting which I should be considered for future hearings: . avoid acronyms (i.e., PMP vs. Pavement Management Program) I . choose terms with great care ("urban section") . define all terms when eXplained . describe and define all graphs/figures I . listen carefully to public's questions . answer the specific questions asked -, I