Agenda - Council - 02/10/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

maximum life from the reconstructed street while minimizing maintenance costs over the life of the street. Both streets are proposed to be reconstructed to match the existing widths of 31 -feet from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. However, concrete curb and gutter is proposed for both streets to better facilitate drainage and to protect the edges of the pavement. Storm sewer is also proposed to be constructed to better facilitate drainage. The construction of 6 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within City right-of-ways along the east side of Garnet Street and the north side of 168th Avenue is also being proposed. The new sidewalk will connect the existing 6 -foot concrete sidewalk segment on the east side of Garnet Street that dead -ends south of 169th Lane NW to the existing sidewalk north of 167th Avenue. These sidewalks connect to the regional bituminous trail west of TH 47. Adding the proposed sidewalk segments will close a significant gap in existing pedestrian facilities in this developing area. A map showing the location of existing pedestrian facilities is included in the Feasibility Report as Figure 2 of Appendix A. The Feasibility Report also explores costs to construct public utilities during street reconstruction for the following reasons. 1. Extending 8 -inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) watermain under Garnet Street will benefit the City by allowing staff to maintain the water supply system more efficiently due to creating a looped (connected) system. 2. Extending 8 -inch DIP watermain under 168th Avenue will provide a looped water supply system for the Brookfield development after they extend their 8 -inch DIP watermain to the west end of existing 168th Avenue. 3. Looped systems allow smaller areas to be isolated during watermain maintenance activities, thereby requiring fewer properties to be taken out of service. 4. Proposed street improvements have a design life of 60 -years, and adjacent properties were developed over 20 years ago. As septic systems and wells begin to fail, requests to connect to City utilities may occur and if watermain is not installed with the project the street(s) would need to be reconstructed before their useful life is over. 5. During the January 29th public information meeting numerous property owners voiced an interest in connecting to City utilities, either now or in the near future. For these reasons, staff proposes to construct 8 -inch DIP watermain under both Garnet Street (stubs exist at both ends of the street segment to be reconstructed) and 168th Avenue, including 1" copper water service lines to each property. Staff also recommends constructing gravity sanitary sewer with this project for the same reasons noted above, again including 4" PVC sewer service lines to each property. Staff is only proposing to install one set of services to each property as there are too many unknowns regarding future lot splits to consider installing additional services at this time. Storm sewer improvements will need to be looked at carefully during final design. The existing culvert under Garnet Street north of 168th Avenue is very shallow so the streets may need to be elevated by a foot or more in certain locations to allow the storm sewer system to function properly. The existing ditch and ponding area east of Garnet Street may also need to be regraded to increase capacity. The storm sewer design will be addressed with the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization during final design. Public Input On January 29th, a public information meeting was held at City Hall to solicit input from the property owners abutting this project prior to the Public Hearing. In attendance were 7 of the 12 property owners proposed to be assessed for the project. In general, the property owners support the project but questioned the need for utilities and sidewalks as proposed along the streets, and how the City planned to replace any trees that are either damaged or removed as a result of the project. City utilities — Many property owners were concerned about whether the proposed assessments included costs for installing City utilities, and whether utility services were proposed to be stubbed to each property. They also asked what the costs would be to connect to City utilities during the project versus at a later date, and whether the costs could be deferred until a connection was made to the City utilities. Staff answered as many questions as possible