My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 06/14/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2005
>
Agenda - Council - 06/14/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 1:51:00 PM
Creation date
6/10/2005 2:31:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
06/14/2005
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.
/
571
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 />REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS <br />By: Public Works Staff <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />Thc Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 and discussed the following <br />SCVCl] cases: <br /> <br />CITIZEN INPUT <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />CASE #1 <br /> <br />Discuss Feasibility Study for St. Francis Blvd. Frontage Road <br />Improvement Project #05-24 with Project Property Owners <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />/ks a result o£concerns expressed by Mr. Greg Belier, one of three property owners along <br />thc St. Francis Boulevard frontage road, the public hearing on this project which was <br />opened at the May 10 City Council meeting was not adjourned. All three of the property <br />owners were invited to the meeting to discuss their concerns with the project. This is <br />intendcd to be an opportunity to consider suggestions as to how this project might be <br />modified to address resident concerns. <br /> <br />Mt'. Grcg Belier who was in attendance at the meeting indicated that he was very <br />conccrncd about the impact that the widened roadway would have on the landscaping <br />along the front of these properties which provide considerable screening from TH 47. He <br />also appealed to the committee to review the cost sharing proposed for the project. <br /> <br />Start agreed that this was an extremely unique situation considering the City's need for a <br />trail, the fact that this was a dead end street, and that only three property owners are <br />available to share in the financing the entire roadway. Staff felt these unique circumstances <br />would al low for the consideration of a 28 foot paved width, with the easternmost eight feet <br />dedicated for trail use. The Committee concurred and directed that the feasibility study be <br />rcviscd identify the costs associated with the trail, the roadway and the cul de sac. The City <br />Cou nell could then consider additional funding participation when the public hearing was <br />continued on June 28, 2005. <br /> <br />Action: <br /> <br />Rati fy thc consensus of the Public Works Committee. <br /> <br />CASE #2 Review Placement of Chevrons at the Corner of 169TM Avenue and <br /> Neon Street <br /> <br />lq <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.