Agenda - Council - 09/11/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-50- DRAFT City Engineer Jankowski stated that the June 18, 2001 Public Works Committee meeting, a petition was received from seven residents of the Amber Ridge subdivision north of Sunwood Drive (149~h Avenue) requesting that the road screening wall be extended north of Sunwood Drive to become continuous with the wall in the Willow Ridge subdivision to the north. The screening wall was not installed in this location because there was no change in the grade of the highway, unlike the section to the south of Sunwood Drive. The cost of the screening wall in areas where there was a significant grade change was funded 80 percent with federal grant money as an eligible portion of the highway project. Staff was directed to inquire whether 80 percent funding might be available on this portion of the project. He presented the Committee with the letter from MnDOT dated August 3, 2001 declining the request. The alternative of extending this screening wall would be financially prohibitive at a cost of over $300,000. This cost could double if residents on the west side of T.H. #47 also requested a like screening wall. There would also be some technical problems associated with placing a screening wall through the requested area. These problems would be associated with the failing grade from the roadway and drainage flowing from the roadway into the wall. The petitioners did correctly point out that approximately half of the pre-existing trees, mostly eastern red cedar, were removed as a consequence of the project. Eight trees have been replanted in this area. Staff recommended that additional trees be planted in this area to enhance the screening for the affected residences. Carol Nielsen, 14950 Argon Street, Ramsey, noted that there are only four pine trees and two deciduous trees buffering their homes from T.H. #47. She stated that she would agree that the sound wall would probably not be beneficial in their area, but that does not alleviate the concerns she has with the homes being located so close to the road. Her neighbor had a tire hit the back'of his house recently. When T.H. #47 was improved several large trees were removed and only six were replanted, which are much smaller than what previously existed. Shamila Sorenson, 5260 149t~' Lane, Ramsey, stated that part of her property extends to T.H. #47 and she is very concerned with the close proximity of the roads to the houses and the increase in noise since the largesix_inchtrees were removed.feetShetall.expressedThe conCemrelocateOVer the safetYthat the° f people using the bike path in that area. With the trees that use to be in the area she was unable to see T.H. #47 and know that is all she sees. Councilmember Hendriksen inquired as to what size trees could be planted in that area and what would the cost be. City Engineer Olson stated that staff did research that information and found that it would be possible to place trees up to ten cost to a tree City already has would be approximately $200. [f trees had to be located and transplanted the cost would be $500 to $800 per tree. Mr. Olson noted that one difficulty with spruce trees is that the closer they get to the road they take a hit from the road spray, in the winter so the further away fi'om the road the better. He explained that one of the property owners recently had their property surveyed and there is little to no room between the bike path and their property. Another concern with transplanting large trees is that they need to have a lot of water so staff would like some assurance from property owners that they would assist with 9atering the trees. Public Works Committee/August 21, 2001 Page 2 of 11 ! !