My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/13/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2000
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/13/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 9:59:07 AM
Creation date
9/8/2003 2:56:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
01/13/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
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 />c. <br />" <br /> <br /> I <br />i <br />1 <br />I <br />l <br />I <br /> I <br />, . <br /> <br />\"i- <br /> <br />CASE # 3 <br /> <br />RECEIVE COMMENT ON TRAIL OR SIDEWALK <br />SITING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITY <br />By: Mark Boos, ParkslUtilities Supenrisor <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />Recently, there has been renewed discussion on within road right-of-way trails. City <br />Council the Park Commission, and staff have noted that their function is essentially that <br />of a sidewalk. This fact suggests that developers should be constructing these trails as <br />part of any subdivisions infrastructure. In order to provide for this, a policy is needed to <br />determine several things, some of which are listed below; <br /> <br />. Should these "sidewalks" (bituminous or concrete), be only along arterial roads - or <br />should their siting be linked to density. . <br />. Should the width be standardized at eight feet to ensure flexibility in future snow <br />removal and to provide for safe two-way traffic. (A transportation consultant for the <br />City a few years ago reconunended ten feet wide as a standard for the last reason.) <br />. If a developer is required to construct these facilities, is the cost credited against the <br />$300 per unit trail fee? If not for interior streets, how about arterial roads? If there <br />was credit offered, and the costs for the sidewalk/trail exceeded the $300 per dwelling <br />unit, would the City reimburse those costs? If so, from which funding source? <br /> <br />Staff has polled approximately two dozen cities relative to these questions, the results of <br />which are attached. The recommendations of both the Park and Planning Commissions <br />will be forwarded to City Council for 'policy adoption. The intent would be that this <br />could occur before a significant subdivision is submitted for approval. Staff recommends <br />that a consensus decision be made on each of the points above. <br /> <br />Commission Action: <br /> <br />Based upon discussion. <br /> <br />'I \. Reviewed by: <br />ParkslUtilities Supervisor <br />;~oning Administrator <br />pirector of Public Works <br />iCity Engineer <br /> <br />( PC; 1217/99 <br /> <br />Copies also Distributed to: <br />City Administrator <br />. City Council <br /> <br />O:\uscrs\City Shared File\PLANNrNG\Cases\1999\Sidewalk Case.doc 11/30/99 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.