My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 10-25-2004
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CCP 10-25-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:19:48 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 3:36:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
194
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />OCTOBER 12,2004 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />most of the residents outside of this specific area would not use the sidewalk. She expressed <br />concern about a lack of communication with the neighborhoods. She noted the City might not <br />get the grant and they had to take this into consideration. She stated she was not in favor of any <br />sidewalk until they dealt with the intersection east of the bridge. She noted she was not <br />comfortable voting for a sidewalk and invited residents to walk along the sidewalk when that <br />intersection was so unsafe. She stated she was in favor of the bridge, but not the sidewalk until <br />they addressed that intersection. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated he supported this and there were good reasons to support it <br />including the pedestrians and public safety. He stated a primary duty of the Council was to <br />protect the residents' safety. He stated they had a park plan approved by the PTRC and Council, <br />and the top priority of the residents was they wanted trails which were rated highest. He stated <br />he believed people wanted to have options for moving around the City and not always having to <br />be in an automobile. He noted they had no connection between the east and west side ofthe City <br />and this was the one place where they had the one opportunity to make an east/west connection. <br />He stated this was on the public right-of-way and they were not taking anyone's property. He <br />noted there was nothing they were doing that was different than what any other city would do. <br />He indicated this was not unusual and it was something most cities did. He asked if they did not <br />put in a sidewalk here, where would they put one in. He stated he was a biker and he probably <br />would not use the sidewalk, but that did not mean there aren't other people, including children, <br />who would want to be up on the sidewalk. He did not believe bikers not using the sidewalk <br />should be an influence as to whether they should put in a sidewalk or not. He noted there would <br />be an increase of traffic on County Road E and he believed there would also be an increase in <br />pedestrian traffic and they needed to ensure their safety. He stated the benefits of having a <br />sidewalk was a better alternative than leaving them in the street. He stated the City's goal was to <br />put in trails that would keep people off the streets. He stated they needed to provide some off- <br />road alternatives for the residents. With respect to a north side sidewalk, he believed the grade <br />was such that if a sidewalk was put in, retaining walls would also be needed and it would not <br />connect the park. There are also utilities in the right-of-way and a very short driveway at 3609 <br />County Road E. If a car should be parked in that driveway, it would block the sidewalk. He <br />stated the Council could not base their decision on where the residents were going, but the <br />Council knew the residents crossed the bridge to use the businesses on the other side. He asked <br />what they would gain by delaying this decision. He noted traffic would only get worse on <br />County Road E and he did not know what they would learn later that they did not already know. <br />He noted just because some homeowners opposed the sidewalk did not mean the Council should <br />ignore the remainder of the neighborhood. He stated they had tried as a Council to be sensitive <br />to the homeowners and they had come up with a compromise that would address the residents <br />concerns that included a sidewalk up to the road and a narrower sidewalk than originally <br />proposed. He stated the Council has a history on how they proceeded on this and every step of <br />the way they were in support of this and the only new ingredient now was the opposition of some <br />of the homeowners. He believed it was time for the Council to show some vision and some <br />leadership. He stated it was important to him to represent the entire City, and for that reason he <br />was going to support this because he wanted to protect the public safety of all of the residents. <br />He also expressed concern if they did not go forward with this project, it would be more difficult <br />in the future to put in trails and sidewalks into other neighhorhoods throughout the City. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.