04-28-10 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL APRIL 28, 2010 The City Administrator reported that City staff has approached this issue from a policy standpoint and what makes sense for the City as a whole. He noted that the City's Street Assessment Policy was initially adopted in 1993. That Policy sets pavement widths at 32 feet for heavily traveled streets and 30 feet for local streets. Pavement widths for streets with trips of less than 250 per day were set at 28 feet. The City Administrator summarized the research he did on the issue of pavement widths, citing several studies, results of a survey of neighboring communities, and a review of the existing City streets where the policy may come into play. Recommended pavements widths vary depending on traffic volumes and whether or not on-street parking is allowed. The Administrator also pointed out that when Boss Road was constructed, the City allowed a 24 foot pavement width given the street was a cul-de-sac street, had development on only one side, and the potential for the maximum of 2 homes. When the City reconstructed Condit Street, a 24 foot pavement width was allowed given there was access from only one side of the street as well as limited traffic on the street. The Administrator also discussed the issue of limiting on-street parking, pointing out that property owners have atr expectation of being able to use the street for on- street parking when the need exists. The Administrator also reported that a change in policy would likely impact 25 streets (streets with 3 to 15 lots). Of these 25 streets, only 8 have not been reconstructed to urban standards, and 2 will be improved this year (Bryan Street and Iona Lane). The City Administrator then reviewed staff s recommendation. He noted that staff is not comfortable with a street width that requires parking limitations. He noted that based on the survey of neighboring communities, any street 24 feet wide or less should have parking limited to one side. The Administrator reported this issue could be viewed in two ways. The first would be for a street width with two 10-foot driving lane and one eight-foot parking lane, for a total of a 28 foot street width. The second would be for one ten-foot driving lane and two eight-foot parking lanes for a total of a 26 foot street width. The Administrator noted that an argument could be made that a 26 foot pavement width is not appropriate especially during winter months when streets tend to narrow given snow storage. The Administrator felt that either a 26 foot or a 28 foot pavement width would work with unrestricted parking. He noted that there are uo absolute standards, and it comes down to the needs and expectations of the community. The Administrator felt that the issue Domes down to what is appropriate for the neighborhood. The Administrator again pointed out that the neighborhood has petitioned fora 24 foot pavement width; therefore, a width of 26 or 28 feet will not meet their desires. The Administrator also 14