Laserfiche WebLink
Assistant City Engineer Feriancek replied that there are a lot of utilities in that area. He stated that <br /> in the review there was not really a benefit sound barrier wise going south because they would <br /> simply be creating another wall that serves no function. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff stated that he would prefer to have the first panel at an angle rather <br /> than going further to the south. He noted that the plans as proposed would already exceed what <br /> the City originally agreed to in the preliminary plat. <br /> Chairperson Riley agreed with angling the first panel for aesthetic purposes and to act as a barrier <br /> for sound. He noted that the intention of this project is to complete what the City thought was <br /> going to be done and what the City agreed to. He agreed that this would be more than what was <br /> agreed to in the preliminary plat, therefore he is comfortable with this proposal. He commented <br /> that he would support having a bid alternative for the removal of the existing fence, should that be <br /> desired,but noted that he would not support salvaging and reusing as that does not seem to provide <br /> cost savings. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff asked if it would be possible to connect the new fence and existing <br /> fence at the corner, if the first property owner agrees. <br /> Chairperson Riley commented that he assumed that they would be connected. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove asked if another panel would be necessary to connect the fences. <br /> Civil Engineer IV Linton replied that he would recommend against connecting the two walls. He <br /> explained that the existing fence is on private property and if that is connected to the new fence in <br /> the right-of-way, a new property owner would likely believe that they own the property out to the <br /> new fence. <br /> A resident commented that whatever option is chosen, he would not want a gap that would allow <br /> sound through it. <br /> City Engineer/Interim Public Works Director Westby commented that he did not envision <br /> connecting the fences. He commented that there are numerous utilities along that corridor that <br /> they want to avoid. He stated that if the existing fence were left in place, they could angle the end <br /> panel of the new fence. <br /> A resident asked if there would be cost savings in leaving the existing fence. He commented that <br /> the simplest solution would seem to be just putting in a new fence straight along Highway 47. <br /> Assistant City Engineer Feriancek commented that the two fences are about 27 feet apart. He <br /> stated that if the new fence were brought to the start of the old one, they could get close, within <br /> about 15 feet. He stated that there are some buried utilities that they want to avoid. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff stated that he would like to take the fence as close to Xkimo as <br /> possible and inform the two residents of the project. He stated that the City could offer to remove <br /> Public Works Committee/ November 15, 2022 <br /> Page 4 of 9 <br />