Laserfiche WebLink
c^s # <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />On Wednesday, <br />Consulting Enginee <br />regarding Sunwoo¢ <br />west of County Ro! <br />will run west with~ <br />N.W. We have reqi <br />DNR permits. <br /> <br /> SUNWOOD DRIVE <br />By: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator <br /> <br />~ctober 5, 1994, City Administrator Schroeder, City Engineer Jankowski, and <br /> Raatikka met with representatives of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources <br /> Drive permits. Sunwood Drive is proposed to extend from its current terminus just <br /> d #5 in the Wood Pond Hills Subdivision to Sunfish Lake Boulevard. From there it <br /> a WMMI property to County Road #116, then further west to Ramsey Boulevard <br /> ~ested permits for the f'zrst two sections. The third segment probably will not require <br /> <br />In the first two segrr}ents, we need to cross three sections of protected wetland. We proposed crossing all <br />with fill and culvertsl. The eastern-most wetland (Woodland Hills) effectively has been denied. The DNR <br />prefers a 200-foot b~idge span at $500,000 as opposed to eight culverts and fill at about $150,000. They <br />suggested, however{ that if we wanted to provide conceptual drawings for a 100-foot span, they would <br />review that and provtde an approval/denial within three weeks. <br /> <br />The second (minor) iwetland is proposed as a culvert span of an existing ditch. They are OK with that <br />proposal. <br /> <br />The third wetland i~ just west of Sunfish Lake Boulevard where Sunfish Drive currently intersects. <br />Previously, the DNR[had recommended a road alignment bisecting the wetland in the middle. They now <br />prefer a northerly alil~nment that impacts a more narrow,, section of, the wetland. The site distances are not <br />as good with this ch~ge, but engineering accepts it as workable. <br /> <br />Given the above, ple~e see the attached map. The DNR is accepting the "lA" alignment as proposed, <br />but with a bridge to ~e east. They are suggesting the "2A" alignment rather than "2B", which had been <br />proposed earlier and ~greed to by the City. <br /> <br />City Staff accepts the~DNR position with the exception of a concern regarding the eastern bridge. This <br />represents a significant capital and ongoing maintenance expense that must be recognized. Our choices <br />seem to be: <br /> 1) Don't ~uild the road <br /> 2) Build ~e road up to the eastern wetland <br /> 3) Appea~ the pending DNR decision to the Commission and probably District Court (the <br /> DNR h~s represented that they have won all similar battles in the past) <br /> 4) Sugges[ a compromise <br /> <br />My recommendation is to authorize a concept plan which shows a bridge crossing in order to more <br />accurately define cos~ factors. Further, once that is complete, pursue a permit for the roadway, <br />withholding, however4 a final decision on scope of the project. It could be, for instance, that once the <br />area builds out, our arggment for a crossing will be enhanced. <br /> <br />Council Action: <br /> <br />Motion to authorize preparation of an amended concept plan for Sunwood Drive and include a bridge span <br />of the eastern wetland ~.114P. ' <br /> <br />Reviewed by: Copies also distributed to: <br /> <br />City Administrator <br /> <br />City Engineer <br /> <br />CC: 10/11/94 <br />/jk <br /> <br /> <br />