Agenda Packets - 1997/08/25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I • MEMO IN .;,.. Or To: Mayor and City Council 0N Ly i� From: Michael Ulrich 4-1 Subject: Spring Lake Road Reconstruction Date: August 21, 1997 The second informational meeting for the reconstruction of Spring Lake Road was held on August 19, 1997. I thought I would provide Council with a brief summary of the two meetings, in case you receive any questions from residents. At the first meeting, staff received a petition from the residents merely to resurface the street and not construct a sidewalk. Staff presented the trailways plan and informed the residents that the decision not to construct the walk would be that of Council, not staff. Also presented were the requirements of State Aid for the street design. Again, these would be 26 feet with no parking, 32 feet with parking on one side and 38 feet with parking on both sides. 0 Other than the petition, a consensus on the street width was not reached. Conversation between street width and sidewalks somewhat limited the decision of the residents. Staff also informed the residents that the sanitary sewer around the lake would be replaced due to some pipe and joint deficiencies and water main would be installed from Spring Lake Road to Pleasantview on County Rd. I. The latter would provide City water to those residents. . At the second meeting, estimated assessments were given on all of the improvements. Since the City has a minimum street width set at 30 feet and assessment policy of assessing 50% of a 30 foot street, the assessment was based on this width. The actual street design width was 32 feet, to allow parking on one side. This design was chosen only to provide estimated improvement costs - and assessment. The road may be designed and built at a different width. Barbara Haake volunteered to coordinate a neighborhood survey to determine what the majority of the residents of the street would like included in the project. She will be presenting the results at the September 22, 1997 Council meeting. I agree with this approach, particularly headed by a resident, and thanked her for her efforts. The following are some of the concerns voiced by the residents at both meetings: 1. No sidewalk/trailway construction 2. Don't widen the street 3. They don't like the assessment policy II 4. They feel that the Co. Turnback dollars and State Aid should be utilized to lower their assessment. 5. Concerns with the right of way issues on County I and St. Paul Water 6. Possible petition to kill the project.