01-29-07-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 29, 2007 5 Muriel Olson, 1498 Royal Lane, stated she has done a visual inspection of the road and there were two spots that needed repair, but other than that she did not see the need to do this. She stated if they needed improvements, why could they not only do what needed to be done and not rip out the entire street. She believed the developers should have to pay for the streets and money be put into an escrow account. She did not believe the entire road needed to be done right now. Richard Peterson, 3322 Katie Lane, noted in the 18 years he had lived there, Katie Lane had been seal coated one time approximately four years into the origination of the neighborhood and since then cable had been put in so they had tracks horizontally across. He noted temporary surface repair had been put in, but this had not been completed. He agreed with everyone's comments that a seal coat should take care of this. He opposed ripping the street up, even if they were not going to build at the end of the road. He stated the idea of doing anything prior to construction was a huge concern for all of the residents. He asked staff to relay to the contractor the residents' concern about the wear and tear on the road due to construction equipment. Steve Peterson, 1491 Royal Lane, stated he agreed with Ms. Olson's comments. He noted there were two potholes, but other than that the street was fine and when the street deteriorated it really was a result of construction traffic. He supported the development of some escrow fund that contractors would have to contribute to to help with the road repair. He suggested a third tier for assessments. He noted Royal Lane was an access street and a lot of the wear and tear on the street was not from the residents because there were only six homes on Royal Lane. John Borchardt, 3304 Katie Lane, stated he was also concemed about the construction traffic on the road. He asked if they were going to continue Katie Lane back onto Cleveland that the construction traffic use their own road instead of using Katie Lane. Steve Jorgenson, 3326 Katie Lane, stated there were a number of people in attendance that all felt the same way. He believed their street did not need to be reconstructed at this time and that the additional lots would cause additional damage that would not be necessary at this time. He also agreed Option 2 was the more appropriate way of assessing. Mayor Harpstead continued the public hearing to the next Council meeting. Mr. Lehnhoff noted the ten lots were not approved and no application has been submitted to the City. The developer was only putting out an interest inquiry. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to continue the public hearing on the 2007 Pavement Management Program to the February 12, 2007 Council meeting. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion to }.dopt Ordinanee #381 to Plaee a Moratorinm on the Construetion of New and the Modifieation of Existinlr Eleetronie Chanl!eable COpy Skns, Eleetronie Craphie Display Skns, Video Displa'/ SiEns, Flashinl! Sil!ns, and Multi Vision Sil!ns on All Sizes in "A.ll Sil!n Distriets far the Period of One Year