CCP 10-10-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER II, 2000 19 An audience member noted that the safety concerns related to street widths could go either way. However, another argument for maintaining the existing street widths relate to the livability of the community. She noted that there were a number oflarge trees along the roads that would be lost if the streets are widened. Additionally, the water quality was an issue and the Watershed study recommended the reduction of residential street widths in order to improve and maintain water quality. She indicated that the Rice Creek Watershed District stated that they would prefer the road widths to remain as they are and that the worst option for the water quality would be to widen the streets and add storm sewer systems. Councilmember Rem stated that she had been on the verge of seconding Councilmember Aplikowski's motion to postpone this project when Mayor Probst announced that the motion had died. She stated that the concern for the City was to move ahead with this project this year in order to spend the budgeted money on schedule. However, with street projects there have always been exceptions made. She stated that in this situation the large issue is the street structure. Councilmember Rem felt that one problem with this project was the neighborhood approach. She felt that there may be some improvements that can be accomplished in this neighborhood, however, the entire scope being proposed may not be necessary. She expressed concern about the amount of money that would be spent to widen the streets and she noted that emergency vehicles have been able to access the neighborhood with the current street widths. Councilmember Rem felt that the need for road reconstruction may be more convincing if extensive borings were done. She noted that the City has chosen a neighborhood with a number of issues, such as wetlands and hills, etc. She stated that the Council could vote on each issue independently, however, she concurred that the City should revisit the Pavement Management Program. Mayor Probst stated that the City has a responsibility to the community to maintain its infrastructure. He stated that the City was trying to find an appropriate way to fit the neighborhood with the improvements and that the City was not trying to ruin the neighborhood or change the character of it. However, he felt the City has a responsibility to the neighborhood as well as the entire community on how the City invests the tax payer's money in these projects, He felt strongly about the issue of reconstruction as this results in lower future costs. Mayor Probst pointed out that Ramsey County performed a cold in-place recycle project on Cleveland Avenue approximately five years ago. Since then, all the old cracks and bad spots have resurfaced and the County will have to reconstruct this street. He added that when the City reconstructed Oak Avenue, the neighborhood had strongly opposed the City's original proposal. These options had been worked out and a compromise had been reached that some of the residents most likely did not agree with. He indicated that the position of the Council at that time had been if the City was not going to reconstruct the street, then nothing would be done because the City did not believe it would be a wise investment of tax payer's money, Mayor Probst did not believe that there was any more information that could be provided to the City Council, in fact he felt that there was too much information that all parities are struggling to sort out. He noted that the City had decided that it would be appropriate to begin the 2000/2001