Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />URS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />Thresher Square <br />700 Third Street South <br />Minneapolis, MN 55415 <br />Phonc: (612)370-0700 <br />Fax: (612)370-137R <br /> <br />To: <br /> <br />Kristine Gigal Arden Copy: <br />Hills <br /> <br />31809837.00l01 <br /> <br />Michelle Wolfe! <br />Arden Hills <br />Deb Bloom! Arden <br />Hills <br /> <br />File: <br /> <br />From: Frank Ticknor P.E.! URS <br /> <br />Date: May 31, 2006 <br /> <br />Subject: 2006 PMP, Ridgcwood Ncighborhood <br />Siems Court Shared Driveway Design Timeline <br /> <br />Kris, <br />Provided is a summary of the research, meetings, and design options administered by URS and <br />the City of Arden Hills for the three properties along Sicms Court that utilize a shared driveway: <br />3511 Siems Court owned by Lisa and Curtis Abraham, 35 1 7 Siems Court owned by LoAnn <br />Crepeau, and 3535 Siems Court o\vned by Dave and Lisa Carlson. <br /> <br />. Open dialogue with the three residents that share this driveway stm1ed at the end of <br />January, 2006. <br />. Our first meeting to discuss thc cxisting conditions and to gather information on the <br />history ofthe driveway was scheduled for February 3, 2006. LoAnn Crepeau, Dave <br />Carlson, Lisa Abraham, Kris Giga, Mark Lynch, and Frank Ticknor were present at this <br />meeting. URS provided mapping with spot elevations and grades for the existing <br />conditions of all three properties. This information was gathered from the topographic <br />survey performed in the fall of2005 for the feasibility and design aspects of this project. <br />Also provided at this meeting was an example of a separate driveway per lot design in <br />order to gauge their interest for this type of scenario. <br />. Gathered from that meeting were mixed feelings toward the shared driveway concept, <br />3535 and 3511 wanted separate driveways but 3517 did not. 3517 then indicated that <br />they believed thcrc was a 15 foot pcrpetual casement along all of these properties for the <br />purpose of ingress and egress which is why the shared driveway was initially built. 3535 <br />indicated that they preferred the driveway design that URS provided. 3511 preferred a <br />separate driveway but did not like the alignment that URS initially provided because it <br />spanned a slightly larger area of her front yard to the south. <br />. The City then directed URS to investigate all property infonnation to see if there were <br />cxisting driveway easements. Also, per request from 3511, the City directed URS to <br />