06-22-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

P~INUTES City Council June 22, 1988 Car•1 a The Ci ty Engi neer• r~epor•ted that he pr•epar•ed a feasi bi 1 i ty r•epor~t on thi s Lane same impr•ovement two year~s ago. Estimated costs at that time wer~e Impr•ovement $17,900 for• two-inch over•lay of the str•eet and $75,300 for• water•main Petition improvement. The Engineer• r•ecommended that the City deter•mine if it (Cont.) is feasible to install curb and gutter• along the str~eet, and, if so, this impr~ovement should be included as well. The Engineer pointed out that ther~e is no solid foundation beneath the str•eet. In or•der to get a good foundation, the str•eet may have to be dug to a depth of 20 feet. The Engineer pointed out that the houses in the ar•ea ar~e on pylings. The Engineer• r•eported that digging the str•eet up 20 feet would be cost pr~ohibitive, ther•efor~e, he only recommended a 2-inch over•lay in pr•evious feasibility r~epor~ts. Scal ze asked i f an over•1 ay woul d cor~r~ect the pr•obl em of standi ng water• on the str•eet. The City Engineer~ r~eplied that the str•eet would be shaped to get the standing water to r•un. The Engineer• r•eported that ther~e ar•e stor•m sewer•s in the ar•ea. The existing sewer• line is a special line since it is located below lake level. The water~main would have to be a special pipe as well. Collova asked if the Engineer• thought the costs quoted two year•s ago woul d be i ncr•eased or• decr~eased. The Engineer• did not anticipate too much change in the costs of two year•s ago. Tom Olson, 736 Car~la Lane, r•epor~ted that thev~e has been a steady decr•ease of property values on Car~la Lane due to the condition of the str•eet as well as neighbor~hood. Fahey pointed out that there have always been pr•oblems with the street which was put in by a developer• and was never~ constr•ucted to City standar•ds. Fahey anticipated that the str~eet would be an on-going maintenance pr•oblem. However•, Fahey pointed out that the City is not adver~se to impr•oving the str~eet as long as the major•ity of pr•oper•ty owners on Car~la Lane ar~e in favor of the impr•ovement. Fahey pointed out that pr~evious petitions for str•eet improvement wer•e denied since the major•ity of the pr~operty owner•s on Car•la Lane wer•e opposed. Ol son fel t the matter• shoul d be addr•essed agai n and the pr~oper•ty owner•s given a chance to vote for• or• against the impr•ovement. The City Engineer• reported that the City of P1aplewood is in the process of prepar•ing a feasibility r•epor~t for• extension of water~main to Palm Cour~t. When that is done, the City of Little Canada would be in a position of obtaining water~ from Maplewood. Fahey noted that ther~e has al so been concer•n expr•essed r•egar•di ng str•eet Page -11-