CC_Minutes_2013_0128 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,January 28,2013 Page 14 feedback was not that supportive of swales or depressions in their front yards, with only a few interested in rain gardens, and staff seeking alternative designs with RCWD to address drainage issues. Mayor Roe reviewed Public Hearing protocol and opened the Public Hearing at approximately 8:16 p.m., for the purpose of accepting public comment on receipt of a feasibility report for reconstruction of County Road D between Lexington Avenue and Victoria Street. Public Comment Wayne Griessel, 1067 Harriet Lane While not a resident along this corridor, Mr. Griessel advised that he was speak- ing as a representation of the Lutheran Church of the Resurrection, and spoke in support of the south side sidewalk for safety reasons. Ms. Griessel noted the cur- rent need for students to walk in the streets to and from home to catch their school bus on Victoria. Even though acknowledging that, if not maintained in the winter time, sidewalks became frozen rivers requiring people to walk in the street any- way, Mr. Griessel opined that for students, the elderly, and general public, it was beneficial to have a sidewalk in place. While recognizing the citizen petition re- ceived, Mr. Griessel noted the crumbling status of the church's sidewalk and their desire to replace it, and asked that their particular section be considered as part of the reconstruction project no matter the outcome of the petition. Vance Kusler, 1010 County Road D Mr. Kusler stated that he had two (2)problems with the proposed project: the high assessment cost, representing $5,500 for his family; and a sidewalk that he didn't want. Mr. Kusler referenced the Pathway Master Plan and his review of the lack of priority given this section, even though recent comments by a Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commissioner indicated sidewalks and path- ways were a broader issue beyond the individual homeowner preferences, but the connectivity of the community. Mr. Kusler took issue with that view, opining that the sidewalk was being pushed onto the neighborhood; and the Master Plan ap- peared to be thirty (30) years old, and seemed to continually come into question, and needed updated to accommodate current lifestyles and preferences versus those of that time period. While recognizing that the sidewalk installation would not fall under assessments, Mr. Kusler opined that there was no need to go beyond the roadway and utility re- construction with this project. Mr. Kusler further opined that while costs contin- ued to escalate, he didn't see local government attempting to cut costs; and that it would be refreshing if that could be done in this case. Mr. Kusler noted the poor condition of the north side sidewalk in Shoreview, with the concentration of win- ter sale destroying the boulevard and making the corridor very unsightly, not something wanted on the south side of the street. Mr. Kusler also noted his very steep driveway and limited amount of flat area, expressing concern in having a sidewalk that would require extra diligence that may not be possible under all cir-