My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-11-26_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
2013-11-26_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2014 9:38:08 AM
Creation date
1/29/2014 9:37:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/26/2013
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
rank the County Road B segment comparably with Map #26 (Rosedale to Har <br /> Mar connection). <br /> With Member Stenlund noting that costs would depend on land acquisition costs, <br /> Mr. Schwartz responded that all estimated costs included in the list were assumed <br /> excluding reconstruction projects. <br /> Member DeBenedet stated that the PWETC needed to consider all neighborhoods, <br /> whether they had brought pressure or not to this discussion, needed to be <br /> considered; and without making comparisons with other segments, expressed his <br /> willingness to revise his ranking from 4.2 to 3 for the County Road B segment for <br /> either option (off- or on-road). Member DeBenedet noted that the City Council <br /> still needed to react to any recommendation of the PWETC and may determine <br /> that $10 million for those highest ranking segments may be the magic number to <br /> get the build-out accomplished within 7-12 years, or may choose to complete the <br /> entire list. <br /> Based on the fact that this segment remained under the jurisdiction of Ramsey <br /> County with no right-of-way owned by the City, Member Stenlund stated that his <br /> ranking of 5 (lowest) for County Road B would not change, as it was a moot <br /> point. Member DeBenedet suggested that, if Ramsey County chose to turnback <br /> the roadway to the City, one of the conditions should be that they reconstruct the <br /> road, including installing a pathway, opining that the City should not accept the <br /> road in its current significantly deteriorated condition. Member Stenlund further <br /> opined that any interim solution by the City would require tapping into that <br /> deteriorated road base. <br /> In response, Member DeBenedet noted that there were a number of segments <br /> where the City didn't own the right-of-way, but had not let that prevent anything. <br /> However, Member DeBenedet concurred with Chair Vanderwall that these details <br /> were all beyond the PWETC's charge from the City Council. <br /> Member Stenlund noted that these considerations were typical of his review and <br /> interpretation of the overall segments listed; and expressed concerns with safety <br /> in crossing Cleveland Avenue with an interim trail proposed for the south side <br /> when a long-term solution for a trail on the north side made much more sense to <br /> mitigate those safety issues and avoid a trail crossing a road that wasn't even yet <br /> under the City's jurisdiction. <br /> Chair Vanderwall noted that his current ranking for the County Road B segment <br /> had been at 5, but offered to revise that ranking for either an on- or off-road <br /> option to a 4.5, opining that the speed factor held some influence for that decision <br /> on his part. <br /> Member Felice revised her ranking from a 4 (On-Road) and 5 (Off-Road)to a 1 <br /> (highest priority) for either option. When discussing this at earlier meetings, <br /> Page 9 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.