Laserfiche WebLink
volume. However, four years later the traffic had increased to a point where a stop sign was <br />requested and installed. <br /> <br />Planning Commissioner Dempsey stated he would like the ordinance to address the issue of <br />public good and what the sidewalks are intended to serve so it can be justified there is a public <br />purpose for this policy. <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated this would also provide a foundation to make the <br />argument. <br /> <br />Consensus was reached to include Section 107.301, Purpose, and Section 107.302, Objectives, <br />from the City of Prior Lake ordinance. <br /> <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos asked what "multiple residential" means. <br /> <br />Planning Commissioner Dempsey stated it would be higher density such as a twin home. <br /> <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated the process may be to make these revisions and then pass <br />the draft on to the Planning Commission for their consideration at the June meeting. <br /> <br />Planning Commissioner Dempsey stated another meeting could be held next week to consider a <br />new draft incorporating the revisions discussed tonight. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ostmm agreed with the need to schedule a special meeting. <br /> <br />Consensus was reached to schedule a special meeting on Thursday, May 18, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. at <br />City Hall. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ostrum invited anyone interested to attend. <br /> <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos suggested any other corrections be faxed to his office by <br />Tuesday, May 16, so they can be included in the document. He noted the Andover language <br />could be formalized into a maintenance policy but it may be better to have one that is not too <br />stringent to limit liability. <br /> <br />Planning Commissioner Dempsey asked who would be responsible for maintenance and if there <br />should be snow plowing. <br /> <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated the City Council's Public Works Committee is clear in <br />indicating they do not want the City to become involved with snow removal on trails unless it <br />can be done without an increase in resources or decrease in other levels of service. <br /> <br />Acting Chairperson Johns stated she used to live in Minneapolis where the responsibility for <br />snow removal was with the property owner. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ostrum stated he thinks the property owner should be responsible and if not done, <br />the City should remove the snow and bill them for the cost. <br /> <br />Park and Recreation Commission/May 11, 2000 <br /> Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />