Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Case #3: <br /> <br />h~onsider Change Order to S.R. Weidema for Storm Sewer <br /> odification to Improvement Project #96-21 <br /> <br />City Engineer J ~ankowski stated that City Council had indicated that the Road and Bridge would be <br />the proper committee to bring change orders to. A site plan for the construction of an office and <br />manufacturing facility for Vision Ease, Inc. will be on tonight's Council agenda. The drainage <br />plan proposes a direct discharge from the site's parking lot into the storm sewer to be constructed <br />in Sunwood Drive. Plans for this storm sewer anticipate drainage from the road plus some <br />additional disch..~,ge from the adjacent development; however, larger size storm sewer pipes will be <br />required to handle the runoff without on-site ponding on the Vision Ease site. This portion of the <br />project has not been completed and the pipe sizing can easily be changed. The cost of up-sizing <br />this storm pipe is $2,383.70. In addition, the contractor has requested an additional $1,242 to <br />connect to an existing manhole. The contract anticipated this manhole would be replaced by <br />another contractor, but that contractor's scheduling caused placement of the manhole first. Finally, <br />Public Works hal requested a hydrant be placed near the City shop yard to facilitate a convenient <br />location to fill thd street sweeper and water truck at a cost of $2,000. <br /> <br />Motion by Couneilmember Beyer and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to recommend <br />City Council approve the Change Order to Improvement Project g95-21 in the amount of <br />$5,625.70. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Beyer and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #2: Discussion of Policy Adoption for Processing Traffic Calming <br /> Requests <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated that in July, the Road and Bridge Committee began discussions <br />on handling citizen requests for various traffic calming. It was the consensus that a process for <br />handling such requests be defined. Following is the process proposed: Requests for various <br />traffic calming shldl be made in writing; each request shall be reviewed by a staff committee <br />comprised of the ~ity Engineer, the Public Works Supervisor, and the Chief of Police, or their <br />designated representatives; and a written summary of the staff committee s findings shall be <br />transmitted to bo~ the requester and the Road and Bridge Committee. He stated that staff would <br />inform the Cornm{ttee of the requests and responses unless the preference is that you review it <br />first. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman felt they would want to be kept apprised. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski inquired if they would want approval first. <br /> <br />Councilmembers Beyer and Zimmerman agreed they would. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski summarized that the process would be brought first to the Road and Bridge <br />Committee for review. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman agreed that is sufficient. <br /> <br />Councilmember Beyer stated that it takes the sting off of staff if the answer is no. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski continued that at the last meeting, Councilmember Beyer requested some <br />Minnesota specific information which is included in this case. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmennan commented that it's good to have some guidelines. <br /> <br />Road and Bridge Committee/August 13, 1996 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />