My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.5. SR 10-02-1995
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1995
>
10-02-1995
>
5.5. SR 10-02-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/30/2010 8:45:40 AM
Creation date
4/30/2010 8:45:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
10/2/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />• September 27, 1995 <br />Page Two <br />2. We have proposed a 10-foot wide, 16-foot long bituminous turnaround. We have <br />shown its location up near the garage because of the relatively flat area located <br />there. The Kedrowskis have asked for the turnaround to be moved further toward <br />the street, have it widened to 12 feet, and lengthened to 24 feet. In addition, they <br />have asked for landscaping and a retaining wall around the perimeter. I would <br />suggest that the turnaround be located wherever the Kedrowskis prefer it. Although <br />I believe 10 feet in width is adequate, I am not opposed to widening it to the 12 feet <br />that they request. However, the additional length from 16 feet to 24 feet does not <br />add any functional capability to the turnaround. I would also suggest that the <br />turnaround should be built on the natural slope and not surrounded by landscaping <br />and a retaining wall. <br />3. I have met with Mike Kedrowski and indicated to him how we envision the <br />retaining wall blending into the front bank of his property. I have also indicated <br />how we will slope the remaining yard down to meet the driveway, all of which will <br />be restored with black dirt and sod. I believe that this is sufficient and will leave <br />their property in as good a condition as when we started the project. Therefore, I <br />would recommend against the additional retaining wall, landscape rock, and ground <br />• cover materials. <br />4. The Kedrowskis indicated in their presentation that the existing width of their <br />driveway is 25 feet. Our plans indicate building a 22-foot wide driveway. I believe <br />the difference here is that the Kedrowskis measured their driveway at the street <br />opening and have included the radius width as total width of the driveway. We <br />have measured the driveway further up and found that its average width was 22 feet <br />and plan to restore it to that width. We have constructed a 26-foot wide opening <br />in the curb so there will be plenty of room for radii. I would suggest that a 22-foot <br />wide driveway is restoring the property as we have found it. Therefore, I would <br />recommend against widening the driveway to 25 feet. <br />I will be available at Monday evening's City Council meeting to discuss any of the specific <br />issues regarding this item. <br />Sincerely, <br />MSA, CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br />• Terry J. surer, P.E. <br />TJM:tw <br />246-2708.sep <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.