11-26-85 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council Plov. 26, 1985 Recess nt this point in the meeting, 9:10 P.M., Council took a short recess. The meeting v~as reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Little Canada The City Attorne.y reported that as a result of numerous meetings Road Bridge ~•iith NiN DOT and various groups svithin MN OOT, there are three proposals Project for the alignment ofi Little Canada Road uncler the Little Canada Road bridge v~idening project. The Attorney suggested that the Council look Agenda at the effects that each of the proposals will have on the property Item PJo. 6 owners and the cost to the City. Mr. Van Eierkom of ~iN DOT presented proposal #1. Van Berkom reported that under this proposal the City would have to obtain a large amount of right-of-way and there were also a lot of objections from the property owners along Little Canada Road. P1r. Sweeney pointed out that the second proposal for the project came very close to some existing structures on Little Canada Road. Van [~erkom pointed out that under the third proposal the alignment of Little Canada Road would be changed so that the road would lie atmost entirely within the right-of-way. There ~aould only be three pieces of right-of-wa,y that the City would have to purchase. The road would also be moved a little further to the north and would n~c have the impact on the properties on the south that the first and second proposals had. Van ~3erkom explained that the County and State had planned to let the contracts in P4ay under the seconcf proposal with a finish date for the project of 19II7. However, if the City changes the projec't by adopting proposal #3, the let date for the contracts may not be until September or October and the project would probably not be started until 19f37. The City Clerk pointed out that if the City cannot get the easements it needs, the City will have to go to condemnation that that evill delay the project for six months. Mr. Eilesener pointed out that the City cannot go with Proposal #1. The City Flttorney stated that the City may not be able to afford Proposal #2 because oP the cost of the easements. There may be damac~es involved in the easements for the southern properties. Fahey suggested that the City may be shifting the impact of the project uncler Proposal #3. 'fhe Attorney pointed out that the road is being shiPted within existing right-of-way under Proposal #3. Van Berkom pointetl. out the delay in the start of the project if the City adopts Proposal f#3. Scalze commented that if the Cit,y has to go to condemnation, the project wi11 be delayed anyv~ay. Page -q4-