Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OECEMBER 3~ 1996 <br />needs to make tonight is whether or not to order the <br />improvement, whether to include the Watershed in the <br />project, and which trail option the Council prefers. <br />Pedersen stated that he prefers trail Option 3, and <br />asked if MSA will resist this option. <br />The Engineer stated that MSA usually doesn't like a <br />shared trail option, however, given that the trail will <br />not be marked it should be possible to get approval. <br />One resident asked why curbing was necessary. <br />The City Enqineer replied that concrete curb and qutter <br />is City policy for new and reconstructed streets. Over <br />the long term, curb and gutter is a good economic <br />decision. <br />Fahey pointed out that the assessment would still be <br />$45 per front foot even without the curb and gutter. <br />Fahey noted that curb and gutter will extend the life <br />of the street as it funnels storm water into catch <br />basins and protects the edge of the roadway. <br />The Engineer pointed out that the City has the option <br />of barrier curbinq or surmountable curbing. <br />Surmountable is slightly less expensive. Council <br />discussed these alternatives and it was their consensus <br />to go with the surmountable curbing. This was due to <br />the fact that surmountable curbing would provide a <br />safer environment for walkers and bikers. There is <br />also surmountable curbing in the Westwind and Windrow <br />areas so the look would tie in better. A show of hands <br />of the residents present indicated that the majority <br />preferred surmountable curbing. <br />Drake asked if Maplewood would support the extra <br />shoulder width on Arcade between LaBore and Keller <br />Parkway. <br />The City Engineer reported that he would be discussing <br />this issue with Maplewood's City Engineer. Since the <br />extra width only involves two extra feet, the City <br />Engineer assumed that there would be no problem with <br />it. <br />One property owner noted that his property is dividable <br />and he was being assessed on that basis. <br />The City Administrator replied that it was correct that <br />larger parcels which could be subdivided would be <br />10 <br />