Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 9, 2001 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant agreed with changes two and three. He stated he did not agree with <br />change one since many streets currently do not have sidewalks. He asked if the intent was to put . <br />in sidewalks. Councilmember Larson responded he was not proposing sidewalks. He noted the <br />Council needed to consider how the road was used. He stated many residents walk in the streets <br />since there were no sidewalks. He added that before they decide on street width they should <br />discuss how the street was being used and how it affects that street. He stated some streets were <br />designated as trails and had many pedestrians walking on them. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem agreed the use should be considered. She stated they should not just look <br />at road width, but also consider lane width and shoulder width. She noted her concern it would <br />not be easy to put in sidewalks in some neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson suggested the term "sidewalk" was incorrect. He noted the correct <br />wording should be "pedestrian use of the road", <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem suggested the following change: on the first page, in the first paragraph, in <br />the second to last line, replace "expand" with "expend", <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem stated that concerning neighborhood streets ifthe width were 32 feet there <br />would not be much difference from a community width street. She noted it should be left with a <br />30-foot width. She added she could agree with a width of28 to 32 feet. She added she was not <br />ready to say they were widening streets. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated he would prefer neighborhood streets to be listed as 28 to 32 feet, . <br />but could agree with a 30-foot width. He noted to set the width at 32 did not give any flexibility, <br />He added to there would be little distinction between a neighborhood street and a community <br />street. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated there was a significant distinction between a neighborhood street and a <br />community street. He noted the recommended width was 32 feet. He added the presumption for <br />a neighborhood street was that it would not get wider than what was listed. He stated a <br />community street had a 32 width as the minimum, but it could go wider. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated his position had not changed either. He noted there was a <br />difTerence between a community and a neighborhood street. He added one was stating a <br />minimum and the other was a recommended width that could be enlarged. He stated he believed <br />32 feet was an appropriate width for neighborhood streets. He noted there should be an ability to <br />grant an exception if it was warranted. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst suggested the Council take action to make the modifications suggested by <br />Councilmembers Larson and Rem. He asked the Council to approve the plan with recommended <br />street width blank for neighborhood streets. He noted they could come back to it at the work <br />sessIOn. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem stated that would be fair. She noted Councilmember Aplikowski was not <br />at the meeting where this was discussed and was not here tonight. She added this would be one <br />last chancc for Councilmember Aplikowski to give input. <br /> <br />. <br />