Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES May 8, 2017 <br />DRAFT <br />3 <br />- Phasing Plan; 91 <br />- 55 lots and no outlots; 92 <br />- Park dedication fees will be collected in the amount of $133,000 (park will be constructed in 93 <br />conjunction with Anoka County); 94 <br />- Architecture and landscaping (same as current phase); 95 <br />- Planning and Zoning Board approval of the final plat. 96 <br /> 97 <br />Council Member Maher moved to approve Resolution No. 17-37 as presented. Council Member 98 <br />Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 99 <br /> 100 <br />Council Member Manthey moved to approve Resolution No. 17-38 as presented. Council Member 101 <br />Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 102 <br /> 103 <br />6D) Consider Resolution No. 17-42, Accept Feasibility Report, West Shadow Lake and 104 <br />LaMotte Neighborhood Street Reconstruction – City Engineer Hankee reviewed a PowerPoint 105 <br />presentation outlining: 106 <br />- Project background, including the location of both proposed projects, the city’s Pavement 107 <br />Management Plan rating and need for work on these streets; 108 <br />- The roadway project and scope (one preliminary neighborhood meeting has been held for each 109 <br />project); 110 <br />- The scope includes consideration of safety and function; 111 <br />- Existing condition of both roadways (including drainage, wells and ISTS systems); Council 112 <br />Member Maher asked how drainage systems get blocked and Ms. Hankee explained that they 113 <br />get clogged and while the Public Works Department routinely works on a storm water 114 <br />maintenance program, there is great demand); 115 <br />- Picture from 2007 showing a full ditch and water on the road; 116 <br />- Culvert on road (currently full of water); 117 <br />- Three options presented: 1) replace roadway without storm water improvements; 2) 118 <br />Reconstruct city roadway to city standards with smaller rural section and include storm water 119 <br />improvements as possible; 3) reconstruction to full city standards with stormwater 120 <br />management to improve drainage. Option 3 would be divided into four drainage sections that 121 <br />were reviewed; 122 <br />- Discussions with the golf course (Anoka County) about involvement in stormwater detention 123 <br />(they already have reuse ponds); 124 <br />- No specific site for detention of water (cost evaluation and neighborhood discussion remains 125 <br />ahead); 126 <br />- Discussion has occurred about the possibility of utilizing a lift station to move water but it is 127 <br />an expensive option; 128 <br />- Possibility of road through golf course during construction. 129 <br /> 130 <br />Regarding options, a council member asked about resident input and what is popular with the 131 <br />neighborhood? Ms. Hankee noted that Option 3 is popular with the neighborhood and further 132 <br />explained how city and watershed standards have changed since past projects were proposed in the 133 <br />area, how that along with neighborhood comments have guided staff to bring a proposal that is based 134 <br />both on standards and comments and that also considers options for drainage (the option of a lift 135