Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES <br />May 892017 <br />APPROVED <br />91 - Phasing Plan; <br />92 - 55 lots and no outlots; <br />93 - Park dedication fees will be collected in the amount of $133,000 (park will be constructed in <br />94 conjunction with Anoka County); <br />95 - Architecture and landscaping (same as current phase); <br />96 - Planning and Zoning Board approval of the final plat. <br />97 <br />98 Council Member Maher moved to approve Resolution No. 17-37 as presented. Council Member <br />99 Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. <br />100 <br />lol Council Member Manthey moved to approve Resolution No. 17-38 as presented. Council Member <br />102 Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. <br />103 <br />104 6D) Consider Resolution No. 1742, Accept Feasibility Report, West Shadow Lake and <br />105 LaMotte Neighborhood Street Reconstruction — City Engineer Hankee reviewed a PowerPoint <br />106 presentation outlining: <br />107 - Project background, including the location of both proposed projects, the city's Pavement <br />108 Management Plan rating and need for work on these streets; <br />109 - The roadway project and scope (one preliminary neighborhood meeting has been held for each <br />110 project); <br />III - The scope includes consideration of safety and function; <br />112 - Existing condition of both roadways (including drainage, wells and ISTS systems); Council <br />113 Member Maher asked how drainage systems get blocked and Ms. Hankee explained that they <br />114 get clogged and while the Public Works Department routinely works on a storm water <br />115 maintenance program, there is great demand); <br />116 - Picture from 2007 showing a full ditch and water on the road; <br />117 - Culvert on road (currently full of water); <br />118 - Three options presented: 1) replace roadway without storm water improvements; 2) <br />119 Reconstruct city roadway to city standards with smaller rural section and include storm water <br />120 improvements as possible; 3) reconstruction to full city standards with stormwater <br />121 management to improve drainage. Option 3 would be divided into four drainage sections that <br />122 were reviewed; <br />123 - Discussions with the golf course (Anoka County) about involvement in stormwater detention <br />124 (they already have reuse ponds); <br />125 - No specific site for detention of water (cost evaluation and neighborhood discussion remains <br />126 ahead); <br />127 - Discussion has occurred about the possibility of utilizing a lift station to move water but it is <br />128 an expensive option; <br />129 - Possibility of road through golf course during construction. <br />130 <br />131 Regarding options, a council member asked about resident input and what is popular with the <br />132 neighborhood? Ms. Hankee noted that Option 3 is popular with the neighborhood and further <br />133 explained how city and watershed standards have changed since past projects were proposed in the <br />134 area, how that along with neighborhood comments have guided staff to bring a proposal that is based <br />135 both on standards and comments and that also considers options for drainage (the option of a lift <br />3 <br />