Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />February 14, 1989 <br /> <br />Page 14 <br /> <br />Council Business. continued <br /> <br />Benke exp 1 a i ned that the proposed plans wi 11 keep two 1 anes of <br />traffic open in both directions on the main line. This will be <br />accomplished by shifting traffic to the outer lanes and shoulders. <br />while the middle and new lanes are being built. When these four <br />lanes are completed. the traffic will be shifted to these lanes and <br />then the outer lanes and shoulders will be rebuilt. <br /> <br />Mr. Purune verified that two lanes of traffic will be maintained on <br />1-694 up to 35W. There is a possibility of limiting traffic to one <br />lane on east bound 1-694. but maintaining two lanes over 35W then <br />dropping to one lane on southbound 35W. <br /> <br />Benke suggested to Purune that Proper be kept informed and involved <br />in any decision making meetings. <br /> <br />Gunderman mentioned that with the upcoming construction on 1-694. <br />would there be a possibility of installing the additional panels <br />that were di scussed a few years ago. Benke verifi ed that the <br />construction of these additional panels would be at the City's <br />expense. <br /> <br />Williams said that in previous discussions the suggestion of adding <br />plant material instead of wall panels would make this area more <br />attractive. <br /> <br />Gunderman commented that he has heard that the additional wall <br />panels are laying somewhere in storage. Benke said that the wall <br />panels have already been used for other projects. <br /> <br />Benke commented that the Council had previously decided to not <br />contri bute the funds necessary to i nsta 11 the additi ona 1 panels. <br /> <br />Gunderman asked what alternatives would be possible to resolve this <br />wall panel situation. Benke said Gunderman could formally ask the <br />Council to reconsider their previous action of deciding not to <br />install the wall panels. Gunderman said he would not ask for any <br />further action because of the $40,000 to install these wall panels <br />would be charged to the City. But. Gunderman asked LeFevere's <br />opinion of the settlement action taken years ago. <br /> <br />LeFevere said the settlement action was taken before his tenure as <br />City Attorney. LeFevere is not familiar with the case. but feels <br />the Statute of Limitations may have expired. Ordinarily. before an <br />injunction is issued a bond is required to insure no one is damaged <br />by 1 awful issuance of thi s i nj uncti on. Issuance of a bond is <br />important to prove damages and for the collection of the bond. If <br />a bond is not secured the pursuit of damages is more difficult. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />MN/DOT Plans & Specs <br />for 1-694 Third Lane <br />Project <br />Report 89-37 <br />Resolution 89-19 <br /> <br />Color Selection of <br />1-694 Sound Walls <br />Report 89-38 <br />