Laserfiche WebLink
<br />INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />. Street Widths <br />It is the recommendation of the majority of Review Group members that the current widths of <br />the project roadways be maintained.2.3 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. Alternative Methods <br />All Review Group members recommend that feasible cost effective and efficient alternative <br />methods such as rain gardens be reviewed and analyzed for the Ingerson Project as a possible <br />means of avoiding the installation of a storm sewer piping system. <br /> <br />. Curbs and Gutters <br />All Review Group members recommend that the Ingerson Project not include the installation of <br />6", or more, concrete curbs and gutters. <br /> <br />The majority of neighborhood residents that responded to the Dec. 1999 neighborhood survey <br />indicated that they are opposed to the installation of any curb and gutter system. From a water <br />quality standpoint, installation of curbs and gutters may be detrimental. To maintain the integrity <br />of the roadway without increasing the road width flat concrete edge bands could be installed. <br />Surmountable curbs could or should be installed in areas that require control of water drainage. <br /> <br />. Water Holding Ponds In the Area Between Hamline Ave. and Snelling Ave. <br />Four (4) members of the Review Group believe that by incorporating alternative methods to <br />address stormwater runoff, the holding ponds in the area between Hamline Ave. and Snelling <br />Ave. are unnecessary. Three (3) members ofthe Review Group believe that the project should <br />incorporate thc installation of a holding pond in this area. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Before any final decision about holding ponds is made, the City and Engineering staff should <br />obtain additional information regarding the area, including whether it currently meets the needs <br />from a water quality standpoint and information regarding the anticipated water quantity for this <br />area. <br /> <br />. Closure of Hamline Avenue <br />The Review Group is split on whether Hamline Ave. should be permanently closed. If, however, <br />Hamline Ave. north ofIngerson Road is not reconstructed and is closed, all Review Group <br />members recommend the area be landscaped appropriately to maintain the natural setting of the <br />area. <br /> <br />A concern the Review Group has about the closure of Ham line Ave. is the detrimental effect it <br />may have on the traffic speed in this area. Based upon current knowledge of the traffic speed in <br />this area (fast speed around the Hamline/lngerson intersection), some Review Group members <br />believe traffic speed may increase in this intersection if the stop signs are removed and/or if the <br /> <br />2 One member felt that the roads shonld only be increased 10 obtain nniformity with the rest of that road. In other <br />words, if a portiou of the road was e.g. 24' and another portion of the same road was e.g. 26'; the entire road should <br />be increased to e.g. 26'. . <br />J One Review Group member felt that Hamline Ave. should be rebuilt to MSA standards and the remaining streets <br />should be increase to 30'. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />August 17. 2000 <br />