My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 06/18/2001
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Public Works Committee
>
2000 - 2009
>
2001
>
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 06/18/2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 1:46:58 PM
Creation date
9/5/2003 10:10:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
06/18/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ever~een trees or tree clumps show approximately 40 evergreens, primarily red cedar, along this <br />section of the highway. A count shows that 20 of these cedars remain following the highway <br />project. The landscaping done as a part of the project planted eight trees along this area, <br />including spruce and deciduous trees. <br /> <br />Observation: <br /> <br />A six-foot high screening wall would cost $370 per foot to build, based on the unit price of the <br />previous construction. The cost of constructing the wall from Sunwood to the south edge of the <br />wetland would be $181,500. The cost of constructing it continuous to the existing wall would be <br />$307,000. <br /> <br />It should also be noted that the residences on the west side of T.H. #47 between 149th Lane and <br />152nd Avenue have a similar exposure to the highway as the petitioners. The cost of extending <br />the screening wall to this area would be an additional $303,600. <br /> <br />The existing screening wall was constructed atop a three-foot earthen berm, .thus providing a <br />visual screen of nine feet. This is sufficient to prevent visual screening of the first floors, and in <br />many cases, even the second floor of the homes from the highway traffic. The petitioner's <br />section of the highway has no curb, but falls at a steep grade from the highway. Because the <br />base of the wall would be lower than the roadway, it would PrOvide significantly less screening <br />than the existing wall. A wall in this location would also interfere with drainage as flow would <br />come off the road and into the wail. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />Based upon the significant costs, limited screening, and other technical factors, staff would <br />recommend working with the neighbors with enhanced landscaping as an alternative to a <br />screening wall. <br /> <br />Committee Action: <br /> <br />Based upon discussion. <br /> <br />Reviewed by: <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski <br />Director of Public Works <br />Public Works Supervisor <br /> <br />PW: 06/18/01 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.