Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1983 -3- <br />6. JANE ROAD N. FEASIBILITY HEARING - CONTINUED: <br />-Davidson - estimate that 6" of existing gravel are available, <br />but, present road does not follow the dedicated r-o-w so some <br />additional base material will have to be used in relocating <br />the road. In response to question on double gutters, the <br />Engineer recommended against single side gutters taking all <br />the water because all the water is then outletted on one side <br />and is more difficult to control. <br />-Stevenson - agreed with the comments previously made by Mr. Schneider <br />-Davidson - explained that a 32' roadway allowed for two way <br />traffic and staggered on -street parking. A 24' roadway could <br />be designed, but this would not permit two-way traffic and <br />would prohibit any on -street parking at all times, Recommends <br />32" as the minimum standard. <br />-Weyer - asked if any calculations have been done on the run-off <br />difference between a 321, 22', 24'road and:the present roadway. <br />-Davidson - no, this ,only looked at in preliminary way --the <br />proposed ponding will handle a 100 yr, storm. A 32' vs a 22' <br />road would have a minimum impact in increasing the run-off. <br />Re:question on VB approval - street run-off is calculated when <br />plats are approved - additional approval is not required for <br />Jane Rd. N. improvement, <br />-Bill Brass, 8930 Jane Rd. N. - pipe to drainage pond is on his <br />property - told this would not fall within drainage - asked <br />if anything could be done to cover the pipe and make the area <br />look more attractive. <br />-Davidson - pipe will be extended into the ponding area and <br />covered with material from the lot to the drainage area. <br />No additional contouring of the existing pond will be done - <br />it is presently an existing developed pond, ' <br />COMMENTS ON DESIRABILITY OF PROJECT: <br />- Alice Stolpe - have been fighting to resolve this road <br />problem for years - requested township to take it over but were <br />refused. Feel those who are planning to develop nearby should <br />bear the brunt of the cost for this improvement, Concerned <br />about the future of the area - unfair to expect each property <br />owner to pay a share of the improvement for the benefit of <br />future developers. <br />-Marjanne VanDemmeltraadt, 9406 Jane Road N. -sneaking for residents or <br />south end of Jane Rd, N. - concerned that if this portion of <br />Jane Rd. N. is 32' wide the existing paved Jane Rd, N. will also <br />be widened to 32'. Residents want the existing road to stay as <br />it is - residents moved to the area to be on a rural road - <br />a wider road will just promote speeding. <br />-Wyn John - been involved in feasibility of the improvement - <br />concerned with the cost and the width when the remainder of Jane <br />Rd, N. is 22'. Also conserned about the snow storage area <br />at the "T" turn -around. <br />-Bill Stevenson - objects to the cost - residents would rather <br />continue to maintain the road themselves - cannot afford <br />-Bill Brass - no comment <br />-Tony Maistrovich - Favors the improvement at the 22' width - <br />believes the new road will improve both the water and safety <br />problems. <br />-Weyer - agrees with Stevenson - prefers the gravel road. 32' <br />wide road does not make sense. Concerned about additional <br />water run-off - no parking restriction would not be a problem <br />with the residents - opposes a 32' wide road, <br />