My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/22/1996 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1996
>
04/22/1996 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/27/2015 12:02:01 PM
Creation date
1/26/2015 1:19:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
04/22/1996
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 1996 <br />OSM, Inc. to prepare a feasibility study investigating the street and utility services. Staff, <br />residents and the consultants have met a number of times to discuss the project. Mr. <br />Ahrens said hopefully the improvement can be ordered in the next meeting or so. <br />Mr. Ahrens introduced Bruce Houle, project engineer for OSM, and asked him to discuss <br />the utility improvements. The proposed improvement consists of a number of items. The <br />utility improvements are a major issue although the road issue, which Dave Mitchell of <br />OSM will outline, is the primary concern. Mr. Mitchell will also talk about pedestrian <br />issues. At the conclusion Mr. Ahrens will discuss the project assessments and the project <br />schedule. <br />Mr. Houle used the overhead project and explained that he will discuss the utilities that <br />will be needed to service the area. The area consists of the school site, the areas north of <br />Elm Street and north of the Shores of Marshan Lake. He said the only feasible way to tie <br />this area into the trunk sanitary sewer line, which is off of Apollo Drive north of I35W, is <br />to jack the line from Apollo Drive south under I35W and then extend a gravity line south <br />along the Fourth Avenue right-of-way. The gravity line will service the school area as <br />well as all of the parcels west of Lake Drive (TH 49) and east of Fourth Avenue. A stub <br />will also be provided to serve the areas south of I35W for any development that would <br />occur to the east of Lake Drive. This plan will enable the existing force near the Shores of <br />Marshan subdivision and the new condominium development to be rerouted into the <br />gravity line. The existing line will not have compacity when this area is fully developed. <br />Mr. Houle noted that there is an existing 12 inch trunk water main along Elm Street <br />which services the Shores of Marshan Lake subdivision at this time. There is also an <br />existing 16 inch water main line along Apollo Drive. To serve the school site and other <br />areas just outlined, the water main along Apollo Drive will be extended and jacked south <br />under I35W with a 12 inch water line and then it would be looped to the existing water <br />main with an eight inch water line. This system will provide adequate fire protection for <br />the proposed school as well as all the areas east of Fourth Avenue and south of I35W. <br />Mr. Houle used the street configuration noted as Option F to show the proposed <br />drainage. The drainage along the roadway (new Elm Street to Lake Drive) would be <br />drained north to a proposed pond. This pond would receive drainage from about two- <br />thirds of the school site. The pond would be about four acres in size and would handle all <br />flood storage. This is a Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) requirement. <br />Mr. Houle outlined the cost for construction of the required utility systems. The cost <br />does not include the cost of easement or right-of-way acquisition. The cost to construct <br />utilities which would be installed, if Option F were approved for the street alignment, <br />would be about $800,000.00. This cost to provide utility services to the area, if Elm <br />Street Option F is approved, is less costly that if Option B was selected. He explained the <br />reasons for the difference in costs. <br />PAGE 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.