My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 04/18/2000 - Joint with Planning Comm
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2000
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 04/18/2000 - Joint with Planning Comm
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 9:59:53 AM
Creation date
9/12/2003 12:16:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Title
Joint with Planning Comm
Document Date
04/18/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
CASE # <br /> <br /> RECEIVE COMMENT ON TRAIL OR SIDEWALK <br />SITING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITY <br />By: Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Supervisor <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 recommended 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 approxin ' rely 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 />Reviewed by: <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor <br />Zoning Administrator <br />Director of Public Works <br />City Engineer <br /> <br />Copies also Distributed to: <br />City Administrator <br />City Council <br /> <br />PC:I ZIW¢~ <br /> <br />G:\users\City Shared File\PLANNING\Cases\1999\S[dewalk C~e.doc I 1/30/99 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.