My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 05/11/2000 - Joint with Planning Comm
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2000
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 05/11/2000 - Joint with Planning Comm
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 10:00:09 AM
Creation date
9/12/2003 12:17:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Title
Joint with Planning Comm
Document Date
05/11/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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
MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: April 21, 2000 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Mayor and City Council <br /> <br />CC: <br /> <br />James E. Norman, City Administrator <br />Park and Recreation Commission <br />Planning Commission <br />Sylvia Frolik, Community Development Director <br />Dean Kapler, Director of Public Works <br />Grant Pdemer, Public Works Supervisor <br /> <br />FROM: Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Supervisor <br /> <br />SUBJECT: To summarize the sidewalk ordinance status <br /> <br />On Tuesday, April 18, 2000, the Park and Recreation Commission and Planning <br />Commission met in a joint meeting to discuss a sidewalk ordinance. All the points <br />detailed in the City Council meeting minutes of March 14, 2000, were addressed. <br />The following is the consensus outcome of the joint meeting. <br /> <br />Commissioners were in agreement that sidewalks should be installed, in new <br />urban residential subdivisions. (There was differing opinions on if they ihould <br />be required on both sides of the street.) <br /> <br />Most Commissioners agreed that sidewalks were not essential on cul-de-sacs. <br />However, the ordinance should remain permissive; that is, the City.should be <br />able to require them in cases where there may be extensions of the cul-de-sacs <br />or there may be destinations beyond their terminus. <br /> <br />Both Commissions were in agreement that arterial roads or thoroughfares <br />receive an 8' surface (either concrete or bituminous) paralleling it. All seemed <br />to be in agreement that any sidewalk be within the right of way and that 1-foot <br />within the property line was reasonable. <br /> <br />There was considerable discussion on widths. The majority taking a position <br />seemed to prefer 5' concrete walks on residential streets that are not collector <br />streets. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.