Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Schwarting <br />May 7, 2003 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />design based on your preliminary construction cost estimates. It would be understood that <br />the County would have final say on the road section and any amenities such as left or right <br />turn lanes, bypass lanes, etc. <br />You had indicated that the County has done the topography on this road but has not done <br />all the necessary research to establish existing right-of-way. Therefore, the County has <br />not laid a preliminary design onto the existing right-of-way, so there is no determination at <br />this point whether or not additional right-of-way would be necessary. <br />We did talk about the potential of having the entire road be constructed as an urban <br />section. I believe the odginal proposal was to have this portion of County Road 44 south of <br />the railroad tracks be an urban section, and the portion north of the railroad tracks remain <br />a rural section. I indicated that the portion north of the railroad tracks is in the City's urban <br />services district and is developed in an urban manner so it may be appropriate to consider <br />an urban road section. <br /> <br />C. County Road I <br /> <br />· You indicated that the County has the reconstruction of County Road I north of County <br />Road 32 to the north City limits in their 2005 reconstruction plan. <br />· County has 100 feet of right-of-way in this area, so no additional permanent right-of-way <br /> would be needed. <br />· It is likely that some temporary slope easements would be necessary along the route. You <br /> indicated that temporary slope easements would be obtained by the County at the <br /> County's cost. If a property owner refused to give a temporary slope easement and <br /> wanted it to be a permanent easement, that request would tdgger a City expenditure to <br /> acquire a permanent easement. <br />· You indicated that the reconstruction would be a rural section, and based on cost <br /> participation policy, you did not anticipate that there would be any significant City share in <br /> the construction costs. <br />· I indicated the City's desire to potentially look at a bituminous trail continuing north to the <br /> City limits. You indicated that because of some of the severe slopes and wooded areas <br /> adjacent to the existing road, it may be difficult at many locations to establish a corridor for <br /> a detached bituminous trail. <br /> <br />D. County Road 331County Road 77 Realignment <br /> <br />· You indicated that the draft State Transportation Improvement Program does contain <br /> funding for this project in fiscal year 2006. <br />· The one issue that we discussed was whether or not the City would allow County Road 33 <br /> to be realigned between the Elk River Country Club and Woodland Trails Park. You <br /> indicated that from the County perspective, if that connection is never going to happen, you <br /> would prefer to see the realigned County Road 33/County Road 77 to have the east-west <br /> movement the predominant movement with County Road 77 the intersecting roadway. I <br /> suggested that you wdte a letter to myself or the City Council requesting a decision on that <br /> future road alignment to answer this question. <br />· We agreed that if the County needed any participation from the City in dealing with the <br /> property owners and/or the utility companies, the request would go through Steve Rohlf. <br /> <br />Ltr-O50703-Schwarting <br /> <br />Howard R. Green Company <br /> <br /> <br />