My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-22-2011 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2011
>
08-22-2011 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/26/2012 4:19:09 PM
Creation date
7/26/2012 4:04:22 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ' <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, August 22, 2011 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. . <br />(7. ORONO ORCHARD ROAD AGREEMENT WITHMCES, Continued) <br />Franchot asked if the general design is to replace the existing road. <br />Kellogg stated the road would be reconstructed as is. The Metropolitan Council project would reinstall <br />their parallel force main on the east side rather than on the west side where it currently is. <br />Franchot asked if the City would be maintaining the same type of road. <br />Kellogg stated it would be the same type of road with some possible improvements to the ditches. <br />Kellogg indicated they do not anticipate the need for any curb and gutter. It would remain a rural section <br />roadway similar to what currently exists. <br />Franchot asked if there would be any elevation changes. <br />Kellogg indicated there may be some minor elevation changes to help facilitate drainage. <br />McMillan asked if there is a bike trail in Orono's Comprehensive Plan for Orono Orchard. <br />Gaffron stated to his knowledge there is not. <br />McMillan commented some of her neighbors have asked about the possibility of a trail along that <br />roadway. • <br />Kellogg stated the feasibility study would look at the location of the right -of -ways. From a legal <br />perspective, because the road has existed for a number of years, the City has the right to replace the road <br />in kind, but that if further improvements are done outside the existing roadway and the area designated for <br />snow storage, there may be an issue with the land acquisition. <br />Mattick concurred that land acquisition would like be an issue if the road is not replaced in kind. Mattick <br />indicated that replacement in kind is typically straight forward from a land acquisition standpoint. <br />Kellogg noted if the Council does desire a trail along that roadway; it would impact the schedule due to <br />the need for land acquisition. <br />McMillan commented that the road is not the best for sight lines. <br />Kellogg stated they would look at whether the road qualifies for a 30 -mile design speed and that it may be <br />possible some improvements will be required in order for it to meet a 30 -mile design speed. <br />Printup asked whether there would be any I &I credits awarded for this project. <br />Kellogg stated because it would be a Metropolitan Council improvement and not a City improvement, it <br />would not be eligible for credit. Generally I &I is nonexistent in a force sewer and is only found in a <br />gravity sewer. Kellogg noted the only city sewer on that roadway serves Mayor McMillan's property. <br />There is a short length of gravity sewer along that roadway but it is relatively new and they do not <br />anticipate having to replace any of that sewer. • <br />Page 6 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.