My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1993_1011_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1993
>
1993_1011_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2011 10:17:47 AM
Creation date
10/13/2011 10:02:47 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
126
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
um <br /> without the pathway. Bituminous does not hold up for a <br /> long period of time and concrete would be a better <br /> solution if a pathway .i is necessary. Concrete is also <br /> more aestetically pleasing and people expect concrete for <br /> a sidewalk, bituminous has a lower perceived value. <br /> S. is it morally responsible to use Federal dollars to fund <br /> non-essential city projects? it appears the 8 foot <br /> pathway is more important than the Roseville public' s <br /> wish for sidewalks on both sides of county Road c because <br /> the ava i 1 ab i l ty of Federal funds, and the Federal funds <br /> seems to be the driving force behind this project.' <br /> 7 No previous knowledge of possibility of pathway. Over <br /> the past several gears we have been planning a house to <br /> be constructed on our vacant lot. We have been to the <br /> city to discuss plans at least 3 tires and telephone <br /> contact numerous times and never has the poss i b i l ty of a <br /> pathway been brought to our attention. We may not have <br /> spurt the time and money to work with an architect to <br /> design a house for this lot had we known about the <br /> pathway. <br /> 1W <br /> Concerns: <br /> 1 . Who is going to maintain the pathway? tt has been stated <br /> that the city will maintain for now, but what about the <br /> future, what assurance do we have that the city will <br /> continue to maintain 5-30 years from now? <br /> 2. where w i l l the snow from 3 lanes of traffic be put"? The <br /> itnow from county Road C is very heavily salted and the <br /> salt kills the vegetation. <br /> 3. A fence would need to be installed at the dropoff .. with <br /> increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic the possibility <br /> of are accident where soneone could go over the bank is <br /> very possible. with the installation of a fence the snow <br /> would need to be mauled away and not put onto primate <br /> property* <br /> 4. Liability issue. who will be liable if a person goes off <br /> the pathway and is injured? We would need assurance from <br /> the city that as property owners we are not liable for <br /> potential injury of others* With increased use of our <br /> right of way the potential for injury is high* <br /> 5. Removal of trash thrown by the public. With no pathway <br /> at present there is much trash that is thrown on our <br /> property and Mrs* Adams, who is going to clean up the <br /> trash? <br /> So Increased potential for vandalism and crime. with <br /> increased traffic there will be increased potential for <br /> vandalism. Someone at the hearing cited a thesis that <br /> stated the increase of crimes was unfounded along <br /> pathways . The thesis was on pathways along old railroad <br /> tracks and so certainly the crime should be less than <br /> before the pathway. we are not property owners that live <br /> along side a deserted railroad track , ' we are property <br /> owners that live on a busy county road. It was stated <br /> that posev i l l s police patrol existing pathways and w i l l <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.