Laserfiche WebLink
351 <br />Discussion ensued regarding options available with existing street widths for the <br />352 <br />segment of Rice Street project south from County Road B to Larpenteur Avenue, <br />353 <br />with Mr. Schwartz clarifying that while it is considered a newly reconstruction <br />354 <br />path, that segment of Rice Street would be out seven years for reconstruction. <br />355 <br />356 <br />While recognizing Member Stenlund's comments about safety along the Rice <br />357 <br />Street corridor, Member DeBenedet opined that he had no conflicts with the <br />358 <br />current ranking. <br />359 <br />360 <br />Map #4 - County Road C on- road (Lexington Avenue to Rice Street) <br />361 <br />Discussion included the considerable amount of maintenance to keep the pathway <br />362 <br />trimmed; erosion of existing pavement, with Mr. Schwartz advising that the City <br />363 <br />had been replacing that piece that had deteriorated with the fence sliding down the <br />364 <br />hill, but now the sidewalk had been widened and the embankment area better <br />365 <br />maintained. <br />366 <br />367 <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that Ramsey County had committed to changing that <br />368 <br />section to a 3 lane design; and if so, Member Stenlund noted that his ranking <br />369 <br />should then change ac cor ' gly, to avoid a 4 lane design and make something <br />370 <br />work on -road. <br />371 <br />372 <br />Since on -road striping was minima ost Member DeBenedet suggested that it <br />373 <br />be designated in a different category other than as a capital improvement; noting <br />374 <br />that they were also often part of a reconstruction discussion with Ramsey County <br />375 <br />376 <br />on road within their jurisdiction. <br />Page 9 of 19 <br />