My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 08/22/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2000
>
Agenda - Council - 08/22/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 1:46:03 PM
Creation date
9/8/2003 11:53:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
08/22/2000
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
323
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
Ms. Kalstabakken replied that the sidewalk would go through the front yard of their property if it <br />is placed on the north side and that there are Councilmembers she's not comfortable with making <br />the decision. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied that he personally does not care about rumors and it is up to the <br />Councilmembers to vote. <br /> <br />Ms. Kalstabakken stated that the area in question is only a three-block area and questioned why <br />they can't just leave the area alone. She does not think it will be as harmful as the Council thinks <br />and they could reroute people over to the church and park. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Connolly, seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman, to leave the <br />existing neighborhood as is with a walk/bike path on the roadway. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Hendriksen stated that once Sunwood Drive is extended, he <br />thinks the residents will be back requesting a sidewalk and for that reason a sidewalk should be <br />constructed on at least one side of Sunwood Drive. Councilmember Connolly replied that if the <br />residents decide in the future they want a sidewalk then they can come forward and petition the <br />City for one. Councilmember Anderson noted that if the trail were constructed in another <br />location the City would not receive the federal funding. Councilmember Connolly replied that <br />the trail would have to be included in the development agreement for any developments witkin <br />that area. Councilmember Anderson stated that the Lord of Life trail would not connect T.H. <br />#47 and C.K. #5. Councilmember Cormolly replied that it would do so, but they would have to <br />go through the Lord of Life property. It would not be a direct connection. Mayor Gamec stated <br />that families are currently walking through the development and he can't see that stopping. If <br />residents are walking to the school they would not go over to Lord of Life to use the trail, they <br />would go up Sunwood Drive. Councilmember Anderson stated that this is a financial <br />opportunity so the residents would not bear the entire cost of the sidewalk. City Engineer <br />fankowski noted that there will already be an eight-foot walk/bike area within the roadway. <br /> <br />Motion failed. Voting Yes: Council.members Connolly and Zimmerman. Voting No: Mayor <br />Gamec and Councilmember Anderson. Abstained: Councilmember Hendriksen. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that he did not believe any Councilmember is guilty of anything where they <br />would not be able to vote on the issue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen agreed, but noted there would still be a deadlock il'he were to vote. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec suggested having Park/Utilities Supervisor Boos, Director of Public Works <br />Kapler, and a Park Commission Board member work with residents and come back with a <br />recommendation in two weeks. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec apologized to the residents for the problems the issue has caused and the delay in <br />making a final decision. <br /> <br />City Council/June 27, 2000 <br /> Page 10 of 26 <br /> <br />-53- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.