My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_1976_0510
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
197x
>
1976
>
CC_Minutes_1976_0510
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 8:56:32 AM
Creation date
2/1/2005 2:36:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/10/1976
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
<br />a bump there, where if this is okayed, then very possibly it will <br />force the completion of the other things. I really don't know <br />because I know there's quite a hump there at D and Cleveland. <br /> <br />MR. LEONARD: The proposal that we have here for this rood <br />improvement was developed entirely independent of any other pro- <br />posals on Cleveland Avenue sometime prior to our even being <br />aware of those. We had indicated on this plan that our grade <br />would stop at the radius point short of Cleveland probably <br />60 or 70 feet before the intersection and it can be carried <br />continuous around the intersection if two projects should afford <br />an opportunity to combine (inaudible). There's no relationship <br />between the two. One is a major traffic problem. Once we get <br />off 35W the traffic drops off and they're really not tied to- <br />gether and we can work out. the grade problem. <br /> <br />MR. THOMPSON: You could stop at the freeway ramp, or just <br />east of it, and not touch any of D. <br /> <br />MR. LEONARD: That was the original proposal to stop 60 feet <br />before Cleveland but we wanted to be able to get a - we wanted <br />to make room for a car to get around there so we carried it <br />almost to the intersection. <br /> <br />MR. THOMPSON: That's such a hump, possibly if the other is <br />approved, it will have to drop maybe one or two feet, but this <br />will have nothing to do with that. <br /> <br />MR. LEONARD: I would hope by doing them together we would <br />(inaudible) . <br /> <br />MRS. YVONNE BUCKLEY, 1866 West County Road C-2: Was there <br />any provision for bikes or safety considering the junior high <br />school there? <br /> <br />MR. LEONARD: In our original proposal which was presented <br />to New Brighton, we had proposed a bikeway on the north side <br />which the Council asked us to investigate a sidewalk in lieu of <br />the bikeway. Since that time, the county board has had pres- <br />ented to it from the recreation department a system of bike <br />trails which does not include a bike trail on this part of <br />County Road D. Prior to that we had considered the addition of <br />a bike trail on each improvement. Because of this new report, <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.