Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />was shown to be 559 vehicles. In my opinion, Ingerson Road is a <br />"subcollector" street as defined by the American Society of Civil <br />Engineers, the National Association of Home Builders and the Urban <br />Land Institute. <br /> <br />I am not certain if any of us know whether a MNDOT State Aid <br />variance will require a "no parking" resolution on Ingerson Road or <br />Hamline. From our discussions, it is my understanding that you are <br />not recommending to the Council that no parking signage be <br />installed. <br /> <br />At one or more Task Force meetings, we discussed the beautiful fall <br />colors the trees on the extreme south end of Hamline provide, which <br />are currently visible. I personally, and I suspect others, do not want <br />that area disturbed. Any destruction will, in my opinion, decrease <br />the market value of the area. <br /> <br />Fernwood Court and Ingerson Court <br /> <br />As we discussed and as shown on your drawings/exhibits attached to <br />the feasibility report, these streets service 2, not 5 homes each! <br /> <br />From our discussions, it is my understanding that the current cul-de- <br />sac bulb on Fernwood Court is 30' and would not be reconstructed. <br />As discussed, please confirm the radius of the current Fernwood <br />Court cul-de-sac bulb. <br />According to your recommendations, Fernwood Court had a PCI <br />rating of 86 in 1999. Yet, you are proposing a bituminous overlay, <br />concrete curbs and gutter, as well as other construction all to the <br />tune of $35,900! In my opinion, that is not economically sound. <br /> <br />As we discussed, I see no reason why a 30' radius cul-de-sac bulb <br />should be installed on Ingerson Court which serves 2 homes, each of <br />which have private driveways. I do not recall any individual and/or <br />Association member ever requesting such a structure. It is totally <br />unnecessary and, in my, opinion, not wanted or needed. <br /> <br />Prooosed Storm Drainage Imorovement <br /> <br />As written, I was initially under the impression that you were back <br />to your original recommendation: dig up the streets and put in a <br />storm sewer! From our discussions, it is my understanding that you <br />are not proposing installation of a new storm sewer. <br /> <br />-, <br />