Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council July 14, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br />1 lose the right to park in the driveway could potentially sue the City for being deprived of the use <br />• 2 of their property and that could be a big cost impact to the City. <br />3 <br />4 Mayor Linke asked the City Attorney to comment on the use of the County right-of--way. <br />5 <br />6 City Attorney Vose indicated that it would be difficult to comment definitively as he does not <br />7 have all of the information but said that he feels there is relatively little risk to the City in this <br />8 matter. <br />9 <br />to Angela Olson of 5046 Longview Drive brought up that the plan does not budget for replacement <br />11 of trees and they were told that trees were to be replaced. She then said that the City has 150 <br />12 trees to replace on her property line. She then said that she has heard of other cities that have had <br />13 to replace lost privacy so she is asking the City to put a privacy fence on her property. <br />14 <br />15 Public Works Director Lee explained that tree replacement only applies to trees that may be <br />16 removed or damaged that are on private property not within the right-of--way. <br />17 <br />18 Ms. Olson indicated that at the informational meeting residents were told that trees lost would be <br />19 replaced and it was not specified that those trees had to be on their property. <br />20 <br />21 Council Member Quick commented that if there is root damage to a tree on private property due <br />?2 to work in the right-of--way and that tree dies it would be removed and replaced by the City. <br />• 23 <br />24 Deb of 5046 Long Lake Road indicated that her driveway is one of the ones that would be <br />25 cut in half and she has not gotten any response from the City as to what to do about that. <br />26 <br />27 Council Member Stigney asked the City Attorney to comment on the driveway issue. <br />28 <br />29 City Attorney Vose indicated he did not have all the specific facts but said that the right-of--way <br />30 is dedicated to uses including streets and sidewalks and is not to be used for private parking. He <br />31 then commented that residents seem to be making political claims on Council attention but that is <br />32 not the legal issue as the right-of--way is intended for streets and sidewalks and is not owned by <br />33 the private property owners. <br />34 <br />35 Elizabeth Shelberg 5045 Rainbow Lane indicated she feels the sidewalk will make things less <br />36 safe because drivers will have to stop at the sidewalk and check for pedestrians and then try to <br />37 get out on H that is already very difficult to do. She then said she has seen adults having trouble <br />38 crossing the street and she does not think it is a good idea to have the children crossing. She <br />39 further commented that she feels that someone is going to get hurt with this proposal. <br />40 <br />41 Michael Maroni of 5045 Brighton Lane commented that County Road H has gotten very busy in <br />42 the last 13 years that he has lived here and he feels it is dangerous to route children along a busy <br />~3 street. He then said the City should reconsider whether it is a good idea to have children walking <br />44 along a street that has 6000 cars driving on it and whether it is prudent to spend half a million <br />• 45 dollars on this sidewalk. <br />