My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6367
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6300
>
res_6367
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:09:46 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 11:49:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6367
Resolution Title
Approving county Plans for County Road D Improvement No. P-75-17
Resolution Date Passed
5/10/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />work would all be done by the county and almost all expenses <br />would be absorbed by the county. Wayne Leonard of the Ramsey <br />County Department is here to present a short summary of some <br />of the detail. <br /> <br />MR. LEONARD: I'm Wayne Leonard, design engineer for Ramsey <br />County. I have a drawing colored to represent the improvement <br />essentially from the west city limits over to Highcrest - over <br />to Cleveland. The present roadway is operating in the area from <br />35W west over capacity that we feel is a safe capacity for that <br />stretch of roadway. It's also creating a maintenance problem <br />in that the structural section of the road has deteriorated <br />where we can hardly maintain it any longer. We have asked the <br />Council, along with St. Anthony and New Brighton, to let us be <br />heard and present a proposal for the improvement of the road. <br />The county policy here is essentially that the cost of the road <br />improvement - so far as the road surface - would be borne by <br />the county from Highway State Aid Funds. Right of way would be <br />borne by the county state aid funds. Any oversizing of the <br />storm sewers, which in this case we don't anticipate because <br />Roseville drains to the south and New Brighton to the north, <br />but in that event (inaudible) not required for roadway purposes <br />so it would be considered for payment by the city, and the major <br />thing here would be the curb and gutter. We ask that 75% of the <br />cost, or approximately $3.00 assessable front foot be paid for <br />by the city. <br /> <br />Another important consideration is that we have recently <br />acquired new railroad signal crossings at.the railroad next to <br />35W ramps. The state has installed signals. We have signals <br />at (inaudible) Highway 8. With this improvement we would also <br />hope to install new signals at old Highway 8 intersection. In <br />that case, three legs of the intersection are owned by the <br />county or operated by the county, and the fourth leg is that of <br />the city, in which case the city would be expected to partic- <br />ipate to one-fourth of the cost. So, without going into fur- <br />ther detail - what we're talking about is a 52 foot roadway - <br />two lanes in each direction with a 24 inch gutter and 26 inch <br />high curb on either side, coming essentially from Silver Lake <br />Road past the schoolhouse, past Highcrest, and continuing over <br />to the vicinity of the PDQ store at which point we introduce <br />the medians. <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.