My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6782
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6700
>
res_6782
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:11:32 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 11:58:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6782
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. ST-P-78-30 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 and Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications
Resolution Date Passed
2/12/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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 />2 <br /> <br />nine-ton design which is a standard for MSA, construct curb and <br />gutter on both sides, and it's our recommendation that the roadway <br />be 36 feet in width. That's the narrowest it's possible to build <br />and still retain parking on either side. This is what's known as <br />Alternate lA. Later we will be talking of costs and expenses. <br />There are four alternatives. Alternate lA is a 36 foot wide <br />roadway with no sidewalk,and it would be done this construction <br />season if approved. <br /> <br />Alternate lB is identical in that it's 36 feet wide. The <br />difference is it would include a sidewalk on one side, if desired. <br />It's not our recommendation because of the relatively low traffic <br />volumes. So that was Alternate lA which is 36 feet wide and no <br />sidewalk, and lB which is 36 feet with a sidewalk on one side. <br />We would also be open to comments, if either of these two are <br />approved, as to which side you would desire to have the parking <br />on and which side the parking would not be on. We can only have <br />it on one side or the other at 36 feet wide. That's a state <br />requirement. <br /> <br />The other two are Alternates 2 which is identical to Alternate 1 <br />except it's 44 feet wide. The advantage is having a wider road- <br />way and being able to park on both sides of the street. The dis- <br />advantage is that it's moving closer to your home with the asphalt <br />and curbs and the traffic. Alternate 2B is the same - 44 feet in <br />width, but as in IB, it has sidewalk on one side or the other. <br /> <br />In addition to being petitioned for, this particular roadway <br />was rated through a scoring system used by the city earlier this <br />year as with all MSA streets. What these are is a designation <br />of roadway eligible to receive some cash from.the state in rebates <br />from license plates and gasoline tax. These are specific roadways <br />that form a system. To relate to you - you know about the <br />interstate system where 1-35 and 94 are, and you go to the state <br />highway system such as Rice and Snelling. Then comes the county <br />roads such as Dale, County Road C, and then the more important <br />city roadways which are called MSA, and that's where Iona comes in. <br />That's one of those, and the other classification would be regular <br />residential streets such as Kent. As I say, this is the paving <br />portion. The costs will be reviewed later in a fiscal presenta- <br />tion, but I do feel it's important that you all at least under- <br />stand going into this that if this is built to the state aid <br />standards through either of the alternatives discussed, the city <br />policy on this type of roadway is that no normal residential lot <br />would receive any assessments for street paving. The one exception <br />on this street is this lot between 567 and 591. Since the school <br />board does not pay taxes they do not qualify for the free roadway <br />assessment policy. With the exception of that one lot, all of these <br />parcels are recommended by the staff in compliance with the existing <br />city policy to have no assessments for paving. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.