Agenda - Council - 09/13/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I sidewalk located 2.1 meters (7 feet) behind the south curbline of T.H. #47. Clearin~'~j. for- Sunwood Drive has taken place and grading is continuing. If the project were to be as desigmed, three additional trees wold need to be removed from the right-ofrv~'aY':'°ff northeast corner of the Mark Wilson property. These trees include two mature sc6'.{'~h'pines, and one four-inch diameter spruce tree. Alternatively, these trees could remai¢:71~t hb~V~-:agood chance of survival providing the sidewalk was moved seven feet to the north'~'~s criti'~:iP_.oJnt which would eliminate the seven foot gutter terrace between the sidewall~'.afiat:~the.. ... curb. ~;i~s_.,.. how the grading and clearing has been left at this point. Staff recom.m.ende~!.:~b.[ a sidewalk placed on at least on side of Sunwood Drive and that placement:6~t~.side~i~: behind the curb be minimized, since this type of placement re~6'~Si':Ped~i'~an safe, and creates substantial ad&t~onal mmntenance - Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if there will be:80'percent federaI fuCding on the portion of the sidewalk through the existing development or,6n! ;" p gh the ne~,.~C'&istruction. City Engineer Jankowski replied that the City will receive-~i~i~}';'~nt--"' funding on the entire portion ofthe s'idewalk . ~:':'~}}!!})~}~.{ Councilmember Hendriksen stated th~f~the issue should be decided b~¢!;~b(~r~ii}e Council and recommended the item be sent to the ?ou'fiCit~.fo~: farther discuss/on. ,,4~;? Motion by Councilmember H~h'drikse~.~:~econded by C;an~}~tmeml~'br Zimmerman, to send the item to the City Council for further discda~'ion. ~::57;~ Further Discussion:, Councilmember Hend.fiks'eri requested 'fhat City Engineer Olson receive comments from the.r~Side:n~:s regarding the si'~t~walk and then sunm2arize those comments for the next City Council 'meetingl :Councilmember'¢~nngHx. stated that she would like to include the option of a :kideWalk/trail to b~':'constructed on ~JL0~t of Life Property. Moti3n-ca, ed.: Voting ,~es:~. Councilme~b~i: Zimmerman, and Councilmember Hendriksen. Voting No: Nons . ( .¢~'-' ........... ~-'-'~.--2.:i ~..-.-.?~'7~"Berm along T.H2 g47- Ci~ ~ngi~Jer- Jankowsk~ e~tamed that at the pre-construction public informational meeting, which was l~Id on May-'tS,' 2000, several residents along Waco Street commented that the existing berm'atbng T.H. #47 west of their properties will effectively disappear, since the grade of the highwa>i ,'.Wi_'ll be raised substantially in that location. They requested whether the existing berm could be.raised to provide some level of visual and noise screening that continually exists. ,He explained:'~t the height of the berm is limited by two functions, the grade at the back of the east curbline:of the hig&way and the existing bituminous trail. The cost of the additional work is es):imated~'t~5;'be about $5,000. -14- Public Works Committee/June 20, 2000 Page 2 of 7