CC_Minutes_2013_0128 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,January 28, 2013 Page 19 fic levels on County Road D did not rise to the same levels as that of Lexington or Roselawn Avenues. Councilmember Etten spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that access was vital based on the school, church and local parks on or near this corridor. Coun- cilmember Etten noted that Roseville was originally constructed without path- ways for a more suburban rural feel. However, Councilmember Etten noted that was a few years ago, and citizens continued to seek connections within the com- munity to further build upon that community. Councilmember Etten opined that such connectivity would serve to further build and strengthen the entire communi- ty even further, and served to look to the future. As an example, Councilmember Etten referenced the adjacent City of St. Paul where even small city streets, not even identified as collectors such as County Road D, had sidewalks on both sides for safety and to connect the community. Councilmember Etten opined that this was an especially important consideration with the school and church located on County Road D, and would provide a stronger sense of community for future quality and safety. Councilmember McGehee advised that, in her review of the plan, she was seeking continuity, and since sidewalks were in place with the exception of one block, she would echo Councilmember Etten's remarks that pathways and trails continued to be the number one request of citizens and what taxpayers wanted their money spent on. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a continuous sidewalk. Councilmember Laliberte, while recognizing that installation of the sidewalk would be most cost-effective and efficient during reconstruction of the roadway, she also took into consideration the number of citizens who had worked on the Pathway Master Plan who did not consider this a priority spot. Councilmember Laliberte opined that she would prefer to spend money in areas where sidewalks or pathways are more needed and of higher priority in the overall Plan. Mayor Roe noted the difficulty in making this decision for the entire body. How- ever, he noted that his biggest pet peeve, and that often heard from other resi- dents, was existing pathways and sidewalks in Roseville to "nowhere;" and rec- ognizing those concerns about providing continuity, and not having a gap along this corridor, which didn't make sense to him. However, Mayor Roe noted that there are existing crosswalks to access crossing, but in the end he could not sup- port a proposal with that discontinuity. While having an existing sidewalk on the north side in Shoreview accomplished the needs of the Pathway Master Plan, Mayor Roe advised that he could support the project with no sidewalk installation on the south side; however, he could not support a discontinuous sidewalk along the corridor, or to remove the sidewalk in front of the church. Councilmember Willmus clarified that his motion was not to remove the existing church sidewalk.