My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017_10-24_PWETCpacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2017
>
2017_10-24_PWETCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2017 2:12:49 PM
Creation date
12/8/2017 1:47:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/24/2017
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.
/
54
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
170 Chair Cihacek stated these are enterprise funds that can only be used on water <br />171 infrastructure and they are anticipating an increase on the cost of water. <br />172 <br />173 Mr. Culver stated the increase will go from $1.91 to about $2.00. The City's total <br />174 utility rate increase is anticipated to be about three percent. <br />175 <br />176 6. Pathway Master Plan <br />177 Andy Hingeveld, WSB and Associates, referred to the Policies and Standards <br />178 document on page 45 of the meeting packet. <br />179 <br />180 Definitions <br />181 Mr. Culver commented some Commission members suggested they move this <br />182 portion to the beginning of the Policies and Standards section. <br />183 <br />184 Mr. Hingeveld went over the definitions of the different pathway types. He stated <br />185 these definitions could also be incorporated in the beginning of the Pathways <br />186 document. <br />187 <br />188 Item 1.4. Sharing pathway rights-of-wav with underground utilities will be allowed <br />189 as long as there is no interference with the function of the pathway. <br />190 Mr. Hingeveld stated this is a common approach to have in the policies and <br />191 standards. Typically with underground utilities, a permit is required to make sure <br />192 detours are in pl th ork is done correctly, and the pathway is back to the way <br />193 it should be. <br />194 <br />195 Chair Cihacek commented there could be some reciprocity issues and it should say <br />196 the underground utility should not be impacted by the pathway and the pathway <br />197 should not be impacted by the underground utility. <br />198 <br />199 Mr. Freihammer stated it depends how an easement is defined. On Lexington <br />200 Avenue, there was a sanitary sewer easement, but it only gave rights for sanitary <br />201 sewer and they had to purchase the sidewalk easement. What is stated in the policy <br />202 will not conflict with what has been done in the past. <br />203 <br />204 Item 2. Provide Pathways along all roads. <br />205 Mr. Hingeveld stated roads that do not have pathways on either side of them will <br />206 be apriority. <br />207 <br />208 Item 2.5. Sidewalks parallel to roads are preferred in zoned residential areas to <br />209 ensure continuitv of design and maintain overall impact to property. <br />210 Chair Cihacek stated he likes this addition along with the definition of sidewalk. <br />211 <br />212 Mr. Hingeveld referred to the chart on Page 47 of the meeting packet. He pointed <br />213 out the speed limit listed of 25 miles per hour and stated there are not any instances <br />214 of this in Roseville. However, there could be some opportunities for it and they <br />215 may want to keep that row in as part of the chart. <br />Page 5 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.