Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 8, 1999 <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone askcd if reconstructing Hamline Avenue would be possible if the project <br />were delayed. Mr. Brown stated that this option would become more reasonable if funds were <br />borrowed or if other funding sources could be found. <br /> <br />With rcgard to the requested action for this Resolution, Mayor Probst suggested that the City <br />Council proceed with a public meeting to gain neighborhood input. He was not sure what sort of <br />reaction the neighborhood will have other than the standard desire to not pay an assessment. He <br />felt that the City must get beyond this issue in order to have other pertinent discussions. <br /> <br />Cowlcilmember Larson asked Mr. Brown for his opinion on changing the strcct widths. Mr. <br />Brown stated that he was comfortable with the suggestions in the report. He understood the <br />argument that thc 32-foot width has been the standard and credibility may be lost with a <br />suggestion to deviate from this standard. Considering the functionality of a road with no on- <br />street parking, thc suggested widths should be acceptable. He noted that the City of Minneapolis <br />has many 24 and 28 foot wide roads. Most 24 foot wide roads do not allow parking. When <br />parking is allowed on 28 foot roads, this results in a calming of the traffic, however, when cars <br />are parked on both sides of thc road, only one vehicle can usually travel down the street at a time. <br />He felt that major through strccts should remain 32 feet, even with a no parking restriction. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson asked how wide Dunlap Street is. Mr. Brown stated that Dunlap Street <br />is 30-feet wide. <br /> <br />With regard to the cost to construct the proposed ponds, Councilmember Larson noted that the <br />funding scenarios showed the Rice Creek Watershed District committing $75,000 to this project, <br />which was less than half of the total cost. It had been his understanding that the Rice Creek <br />Watershed District would normally fund 75 percent of this typc of project. Mr. Brown stated that <br />this was correct, however, the Rice Creek Watershed District also had an upper limit per project. <br />Hc suggested that the ponds could be split into two scparate projects so each pond would receive <br />75 percent funding from the District. Councilmember Larson stated that this would be worth <br />pursuing with the Rice Creek Watershed District. <br /> <br />With regard to the inlet of Lake Josephine and the possibility of having some water run through <br />this inlet, Councilmember Larson asked what the benefit would be if this would be an <br />intermittent flow. He understood that this could add to the amount of water flowing into Lake <br />Josephine. However, with regard to the inlet itself, he wondered what would be gained or lost by <br />not running any water through this inlet. Mr. Brown stated that little would be gained other than <br />some flushing of the line. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson noted that the report included the cost or concrete curbs and gutters. He <br />asked what it was about this area that made the construction of curbs and gutters essential. Mr. <br />Brown stated that with the proximity ofthe housing to the street, he would recommend the <br />streets be constructed with curbs and gutters. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson confirmed that if the ponds were not constructed to inert standards, the <br />consequence would be untreated water running out ofthem. Mr. Brown stated that this was <br />correct. He noted that, being a developed area within the watershed, the City does not <br />