Laserfiche WebLink
Page 3 of 11 <br />B.2: Mike Nill presented the results of the feedback form question on Red Oak Drive parking <br />to the committee. The width of Red Oak functions on the parking, 57% of the responses are <br />for no parking, 33% are for parking on one side, and 10% are for parking on both sides. There <br />is no clear majority opinion on parking for Red Oak with a slight majority, 57% favoring no <br />parking and 43% wanting parking on the street. <br />B.4: Mike Nill next presented the results of the feedback form question for Red Oak Drive <br />pedestrian accommodations. There was an almost even split between the options of no <br />corridor, shared use (parking and pedestrian/bike), and dedicated pedestrian/bike corridor. No <br />respondent wanted a separate sidewalk. Mr. Nill pointed out that Red Oak is currently a <br />shared use street with two 11-foot lanes and approximately 4 feet of shoulder on each side. <br />Committee member Amundsen pointed out that if you add up the two pedestrian totals of the <br />feedback forms, 29% for shared use and 33% for dedicated use, that means 62% of the <br />respondents wanted some form of on-street pedestrian corridor. <br />Some committee members believe there is a contradiction in the feedback form responses <br />because 57% want no parking and 62% want a pedestrian corridor. Committee member <br />Urbanski believes the results show that the residents want the pedestrian corridor without cars <br />parking on the street. <br />Committee member Rynders said that the city plans call for Red Oak to be part of the city <br />trail-ways and feels that having the pedestrian/bike corridor is important. Committee member <br />Kavanaugh agreed. <br />Acting chair Battin said that the mood of the citizens at the Saturday meeting was that people <br />view traffic and speed as the most important issues. Keeping the street as narrow as possible <br />with traffic calming should be the paramount goal of the design. <br />Committee member Kavanaugh lives in the area and spoke to 44 residents on Red Oak. <br />Mr. Kavanaugh found 7 residents that did want a sidewalk. However, the majority of residents <br />were adamantly opposed to sidewalks. <br />The committee discussed several possible configurations for Red Oak. Mike Nill said that <br />choosing the parking option would determine the configuration of Red Oak. The committee felt <br />it was important to provide a pedestrian/bike corridor and do as much as possible for traffic <br />calming. <br />Administrator Ericson said that if parking were eliminated on Red Oak, the city would not issue <br />parking exceptions. Mr. Ericson said that County H was narrowed to 26 feet with the goal of <br />traffic calming and that did not work. In addition, there is a perception that County H is unsafe <br />because it is narrow. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Rynders / Amundsen. Red Oak Drive should be reconstructed at a 32 foot <br />width, curb face to curb face, with an 8-foot shared use pedestrian/bike corridor, and chokers <br />used for traffic calming.