My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-27-2004 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
10-27-2004 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2012 9:27:16 AM
Creation date
5/9/2012 9:18:54 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
118
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
� 4 o/ A 29t1/4 C aunt 4i <br />515 Little Canada Road. Little Canada. MN 55117 -1600 <br />(651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 <br />www. ci. lit tle- canac(a.mn. us <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Mayor Fahey and Members of the City Council <br />FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator <br />DATE: October 22, 2004 <br />RE: Twin Lake Driveway Issues <br />iVIAYOR <br />Michael I. Fahey <br />COUNCIL <br />Jim LaValle <br />Matt Anderson <br />Rick Montour <br />13111 Blesener <br />ADMINISTRATOR <br />Joel R. Hanson <br />Pursuant to the Council's direction at the assessment hearing for the Twin Lake Area <br />Improvement Project, I have met with the City Engineer and the Project Inspector to review <br />the questions involving the alleged differentiation in treatment of property owners regarding <br />driveway replacement. Here is what I learned: <br />3333 Twin Lake Road: <br />This property was treated appropriately based on our past policy of maintaining a reasonable <br />grade on driveways after our street improvements. Attachment 1 is the project plan sheet <br />depicting work in that area. You will note the hashed lines on the west side of Twin Lake <br />Road. This was the Engineer's grade transition line. You will note that other driveways had <br />transition work beyond the right -of -way line to restore grades to a reasonable level. In these <br />cases, we will go farther into someone's driveway to ensure a reasonable grade transition. <br />The property owner al 3333 would have had substantial driveway work done on this basis. <br />This property owner did have concrete on the upper portion of his driveway with a gravel gap <br />to where it met the old street. In a compromise worked out by the Project Inspector, we did <br />not cut as far back into the driveway (at the homeowner's request) but did fill in the gap area <br />with concrete to match the remaining driveway and the new apron we installed. The end <br />result is that we installed less material and undertook less work under this compromise than <br />we would have if we had followed the plans. There were some curves placed in the edge of <br />the driveway, but this did not add any cost and was a simple forming issue. It was necessary <br />due to trees in the area. <br />It should also be noted that additional grade correction work still remains on this property. <br />Specifically, we will need to install a retaining wall along the right -of -way line due to the <br />dramatic grade transition. This was one of the most severely impacted properties in teens of <br />grade differential. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.