Agenda - Public Works Committee - 09/16/2008

Home

• -Two property owners commented of their desire to see water and sewer included in the improvements. A previous feasibility study conducted in 2003 included sewer and water as an option. This previous project was rejected by petitior2. Properties close to the existing sanitary sewer on the frontage road could be polled to see whether it is feasible to extend sewer and water to a portion of the project area, * 'The closure of the 152"a access onto TH47 was opposed by most property owners in attendance. Residents noted that southbound traffic turning into the neighborhood at the remaining access at 149`" Avenue would need to make a U turn. This U turn is made difficult by the narrow width and close proximity of the service road to'the highway. Residents also noted that during the morning peak hour backups occur due to volume and inability of vehicles to properly align themselves to make the desired turn. After reviewing these comments and observing the intersection staff concurs with the residents and recamrnends that tl2e closure of 152n`~ Ave at TH 47 be eliminated from the improvements. • 'The connection of 1 S2"`~ Avenue to Helium Street was supported in the comments of two property owners but was opposed by the majority ofthose in attendance. 1't is the stated goal of the City zo connect neighborhoods and 152nd Street was stubbed to within 140 feet of the e.xistir2g dirt street for this purpose. Staff recommends .that this elerrrent of the project remain in the proposed improvements because it is consistent with stated City planning policy. • Concern was expressed over tree loss associated with the storm water outfall into the wetland. Staff will review the alternatives for the storm water outfall including; directional boring; relocating the outfall to an alternate location; obtaining a wider easement to avoid impact to the trees. Evaluation of a suggested alternative to discharge the storm water west into the adjacent system has been evaluated and rejected as not possible because that system is several feet higher than the lowest portion of the street to be drained. One property owner questioned the validity of assessing the corner lots on the intersections of 151` Ave and 152"d Avenue and the frontage road. The road adjacent to these properties would be widened from 2p feet to 28 feet and then receive a wear course overlay apposed to a completely new base and surface course as the remaining project, Properties along the frontage road have never been assessed for the pavement in place on 1 SI'B` Ave and 1 S.2"`~ Ave, The pavement on 1 S.~"d was placed in .1996 in conjunction witl2 the sanitary sewer project and there is no record of the installation of the pavement on 1 Sls` Ave These existing pavements are in good condition, There-does not appear to be a past precedent for addressing this particular situation. Sta, f,~'recommends retaining an equal assessment based on fronting footage similar to the other properties. Alternately, a reduced assessment for these parcels might be considered. 2