Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 18, 2012 <br />Page 16of 17 <br />Council member Loo inquired whether the public will have an opportunity to review the <br />final underpass project design. CIP Manager Trettin explained this proposal was <br />intended to be the final.Public Works Director Kowar explained some of the challenges <br />of the underpass were thegrades,the cost of retaining walls, the trail connections and <br />the site lines. Given all the engineering constraints of the project, staff believes this is <br />the best design for the project. <br />Council member Loo stated she understood the engineering constraints, but felt the <br />public thoughtthe underpass would be more centrally located. <br />nd <br />City Manager Fleming suggested continuing this discussion to January 22to allow <br />public comment. CIP Manager Trettin statedthe project is at 50% design and <br />continuing the design for public opinion would delay the project one month. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Dalton stated if the public is not happy with the underpass, Council <br />could discuss other options, including a stop light at the intersection. <br />Mayor Muckle was not concerned the public would oppose the location of the <br />underpass. He felt only the people who access the underpass from Washington may <br />oppose the location. He felt the design is the safest option for crossing McCaslin. <br />Council member Loo wanted the public to be aware of the location of the underpass. <br />Planning Director Russ explained in the original plan the location of the underpass was <br />further north, which required a large S-curve to avoid the parking lot and the irrigation <br />ditch. The underpass was closer to McCaslin. The other option was to bend the <br />underpass toward Washington Street. He noted the underpass design was bent. He <br />suggested the bottom part of the sideways “W” be removed to save money or build in <br />additional landscaping. Mr. Belonger stated this design represents the fifth formal <br />layout of the underpass. <br />Council member Keany stated when Council last looked at the design the underpass <br />was located to avoid the irrigation ditch. <br />Mr. Belonger reviewed the projectbudget. The enhancement opportunities include, <br />underpass aesthetic treatments, public art, retaining wall/grading treatments, landscape <br />plantings/irrigation, additional hardscape areas and colored hardscape treatments. <br />Mayor Muckle called for public comment. There were no public comments. <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS <br />Mayor Muckle asked about the cost savings with road closure. CIP Manager Trettin <br />reported a $117,000 savings with road closure and the staff preferred acast in place <br />concrete box. Mr. Belonger stated the numbers he presented were with cast in place <br />31 <br /> <br />