res_7079 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4 would not have to be spent. That's about $150,000 + that's included in the storm activities that potentially can be saved if the work is done with the streets the same time it's done with the storm, but there's no way for me to tell you it will or won't happen, but this assumes there are no paving projects to be done, but if it were done, it would lower the costs. I'd like to go through what's proposed. I'll start with Area A. Area A is generally along Brenner Street and (inaudible) to provide drainage for the intersection as shown, carry that water across the Snelling frontage road and then construct an adequately sized drain to approximately Woodlyn where it would then enter an 18 inch storm drain which ultimately leads to a 24. There's an existing storm drain about 8 inches in diameter (inaudible) doesn't have the capacity. The water stands, or sits, in the ditch. Area B is the area up near Hamline Avenue. There would be catch basins built to replace the existing facilities that are there, with the culvert now under Woodlyn, a pipe would take that down to the existing county 24 inch main where it crosses Hamline. Likewise, as in the previous case, we would put intersection drainage in, intercept the water part way up Clarmar so you don't have it standing on the street and getting on the pavement, bring it to the intersection of Hamline and Clarmar where the facility would replace substandard county facilities, and put it into the county line that exists. That is not a City facility but a county facility. That facility does run directly into the lake. That was the 6% we talked about, or I talked about a moment ago, that would remain in Roseville, not going through a pond. I would say that if the county would be agreeable to us putting something at the end of their facility, and if the property owners involved at the end of this lake wo'uld likewise be agreeable to an easement and the City would put an energy dissipator and cleanser at the end of that pipe, but we don't have control of that because it's not our facility and we don't have an easement. It's something we would like to consider, if possible. There's no way to tell me if it is possible or not. Area C is near the Brenner cul-de-sac primarily. Again it would pick up the drainage at the intersection of Pascal and Brenner, come along Brenner, pick up the Albert and Brenner intersection, and you know this is off the roadway. The reason is from Albert to the east, and the cul-de-sac, already has curb and gutter, and it's machine laid asphalt. We would desire not to tear it up, but since we're fortunate it's park property, we can go along the edge, put a catch basin to pick up the drainage and go through trees and to the park to enter the diversion pipe that goes to Little Josephine. Area D is somewhat similar to the others in that it would be picking up the drainage from Lydia, taking it to the existing pipe under Snelling and also be (inaudible) a pipe on Arona and on Asbury once again to intercept the water as it goes down the hill so it doesn't have to run extreme distances before it can get into the facility. We want the water off the road.