My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_0223
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_0223
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2015 10:53:14 AM
Creation date
3/6/2015 10:41:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/23/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, February 23, 2015 <br /> Page 19 <br /> With no one else appearing to speak, Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at ap- <br /> proximately 9:05 p.m. <br /> In response to the question of the status of the sidewalk north of County Road B, <br /> Mr. Culver responded that a set of plans had been developed for that segment, <br /> with discussions underway with Ramsey County for subsequent action by the City <br /> Council at a later date and as an individual project if necessary. Mr. Culver noted <br /> that costs may vary since there were economies of scale involved with this pro- <br /> ject. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver clarified that Park Renewal Program <br /> funds would only cover the sidewalk between County Roads B and B-2. <br /> 13. Budget Items <br /> 14. Business Items (Action Items) <br /> a. Request to Order Victoria Street Reconstruction Project <br /> Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11210 (Attachment <br /> B) entitled, "Resolution Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans and <br /> specifications for Victoria Street between Larpenteur Avenue and County Road <br /> B." <br /> Councilmember Laliberte questioned whether the goal was to have the sidewalk <br /> on the cemetery side extend throughout the entire corridor; and whether or not it <br /> had been reviewed for the west side due to residential properties and mailbox ac- <br /> cess. <br /> Mr. Culver advised that some analysis had been performed prior to his hire, but <br /> the biggest issue with the west side was the number of driveways and safety con- <br /> cerns in locating the sidewalk on that side, as well as impacts to front yards, <br /> driveways and losing the drainage ditch, essentially impacting negatively on the <br /> rural design. With locating the sidewalk on the east side, Mr. Culver advised that <br /> there would still be enough room to retain drainage on the east side and have no <br /> driveways for pedestrians and/or bicyclers to contend with. <br /> Councilmember McGehee questioned the status of City standards versus home- <br /> owner specifications or expectations for driveway replacement. <br /> As a result of discussions held after the County Road D project about that issue, <br /> Mr. Culver advised that City standards remained in place when replacing or in- <br /> stalling a concrete driveway for a 6" concrete on top of a deeper base than gener- <br /> ally installed for private parties. Mr. Culver clarified that issues developed with <br /> the County Road D project due to the need for resloping driveways that had pre- <br /> viously been reinforced, but the City did not do so when replacing them. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.