Laserfiche WebLink
15 <br /> City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> May 23, 2000 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 1 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 2 2. Resolution 00-047 re: Approve Change Order Relating to Sidewalk. Lighting; and <br /> 3 Landscape Improvements for 29th Avenue NE. <br /> 4 Mr. Hubmer reviewed for the Council that the change order came about because of the <br /> 5 decision to add sidewalks to the street reconstruction project. <br /> 6 Horst inquired about the type of decorative lighting to be used. Mr. Hubmer responded <br /> 7 that the specifics of the lighting would be discussed at a later point in the project. How- <br /> 8 ever, he did anticipate state aid funding would cover a type of lighting called"shoebox" <br /> 9 lighting. These are medium-priced, and a reasonable level of lighting,but that the City <br /> 10 would be responsible for any costs incurred over the original cost of a"shoebox"type of <br /> 11 lighting. <br /> 12 Hodson inquired how the shoebox lighting would compare with what is currently being <br /> 13 utilized on Silver Lake Road by New Brighton. Mr. Hubmer responded that he believed <br /> 14 it was the same type of shoebox lighting he was referring to earlier. <br /> �5 Morrison reminded the Council that the figures being discussed now with regard to this . <br /> 6 project only covered sidewalks and landscaping. The lighting issue would be covered un- <br /> 17 der a separate contract negotiated with NSP. <br /> 18 Horst confirmed that Mr. Hubmer would be talking with the residents on Thursday, May <br /> 19 25, 2000 regarding the width of the sidewalks, boulevard, and related issues. Mr. <br /> 20 Hubmer said the sidewalk would be a topic of discussion for Thursday,but that much of <br /> 21 that had already been discussed at previous meetings. <br /> 22 Additionally, Mr. Hubmer stated that the general consensus of the residents had <br /> 23 facilitated a new layout of the plan and he proceeded to present and display,that plan for <br /> 24 the Council. In short, the boulevard would be consistent from Stinson to Roosevelt, but <br /> 25 then at Roosevelt,the sidewalk would attach back to the curb because there are a number. <br /> 26 of homes close to the street along that stretch. Furthermore, Mr. Hubmer stated that he <br /> 27 would be receiving additional details and would go over those with the residents at the <br /> 28 meeting on May 25 because one resident is particularly concerned with the proximity of <br /> 29 the sidewalk. <br /> 30 Mr. Hubmer stated that a four-foot sidewalk had been considered until it was determined <br /> 31 that the City crews would inadvertently tear up the turf on each side of the sidewalk when <br /> 32 plowing and maintaining the sidewalks. A five-foot sidewalk was decided upon for those <br /> •33 reasons and to allow for passing of residents. <br /> 34 Motion by Hodson to approve Resolution 00-047, wherein the City Council of the City of <br />