Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />and/or size of the holding ponds are decreased substantially, ifnot eliminated. Instead of <br />installing holding ponds, the existing natural streams could be cleaned,62 the natural area should <br />be revegetated for maximum water control improvement and weirs could be incorporated <br /> <br />The City should work closely with the Rice Creek Watershed District, the Arden Hills water <br />quality committee and an cnvironmentallandscape architect or engineer on the development and <br />design of any water quality methods for this area. Any work done to this area should maintain <br />the existing natural setting and should be landscaped so it continues to provide the natural setting <br />desired by the residents. <br /> <br />Closure of Hamline <br /> <br />Review Cronp Recommendations: <br /> <br />The Review Croup is split on whether Hamline Ave. should be permanently closed. If, <br />however, Hamline Ave. north of Ingerson Road is not reconstructed and is closed, all <br />Review Croup members recommend the area be landscaped appropriately to maintain the <br />natural setting of the area. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A concern the Review Croup has about the closure of Hamline Ave. is the detrimental <br />effect it may have on the traffic speed in this area. Based upon current knowledge of the <br />traffic speed in this area (fast speed around the Hamline/Ingerson intersection), Review <br />Group members believe traffic speed may increase in this intersection if the stop signs are <br />removed andlor if the area is designed without taking into account area traffic speed. By <br />landscaping appropriately, residents will utilize this area for recreational henefit. It is the <br />recommendation of the Review Group that this area not only be landscaped appropriately <br />but that design considerations be given in regards to the potential effect on traffic speed <br />and residents' safety. <br /> <br />Those Review Group members that favor permanent closure cite the significant cost of <br />reconstruction due to the poor soil conditions at the site. Traffic considerations were the factors <br />for those Review Group members that believe Hamline A ve_ should remain open. (One Review <br />Group member was not present for the discussion.) <br /> <br />The initial BRW feasibility report proposed to permanently close Harnline Ave. north of <br />Ingerson Road. The major argument for the closure of Ham line Ave. is due to the significant <br />cost that would be incurred by the City to improve the roadway. City staff advises that Hamline <br />Ave. north of Ingerson was improperly constructed. For the most part, homes do not abut this <br />portion of Hamline Ave. so any repairs would need to be absorbed by the City. <br /> <br />The original BRW feasibility report also indicated that this portion of Hamline Ave. needed to be <br />closed in order to constructed the recommended holding ponds. If holding ponds are eliminated <br /> <br />. 62 At the 7/6100 Review Group meeting, Dwayne Stafford advised that one of the natural streams <br />running from the wetlands has been plugged by debris. <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />August 17, 2000 <br />