Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Public Works Director Olson responded a sidewalk was not required under the MSA, but the <br />City standard was for one to be installed. <br /> <br />Mr. Embury stated when he purchased his home he realized there was a right-of-way and there <br />was always the potential for change in a right-of-way. He stated his home was not directly <br />involved in this project, but he could understand ambivalence to this change. He believed a <br />sidewalk would be greatly appreciated, however. He noted he walked the neighborhood and <br />while a lot of drivers slowed down, many did not and it was very easy to slide to one side of the <br />road with today's distractions. He indicated he used sidewalks, if they were available, so he was <br />not opposed to sidewalks, even if it made his neighbors angry with him. He saw sidewalks as an <br />improvement ~o the City. <br /> <br />Bill Kingston, 15760 Andrie Street NW, stated he has been a resident of Northfork since 1993 <br />and seen the neighborhood change from a single road with stub streets to a full development. He <br />has also seen the traffic increase dramatically and he lived in the high-end traffic area. He stated <br />he has watched over Andrie Street from his home office and seen near misses daily. He believed. <br />it was prudent to err on the side of safety when making an investment of this nature and to put in <br />the sidewalk now. He stated the City comp plan had a sidewalk, and asked why wait when it <br />would be more expensive in the future. <br /> <br />Daryl Wilke stated he was in favor of the sidewalk and asked what was the prognosis for oak <br />wilt. <br /> <br />David Tincher, 16081 Andrie Street NW, stated he has sent letters and called the <br />Councilmembers. He did not believe the bid received was accurate on the irrigation systems, <br />and there would be additional costs. Mr. Tincher stated there was no association requirement to <br />have irrigation systems. He disagreed with having sidewalks and believed there would be <br />additional costs the homeowners would have to pay not covered under the bid. <br /> <br />City Engineer Himmer responded the sprinkling heads would stay in the same locations and <br />anything on the boulevard would be stubbed out under the existing sidewalk without adding new <br />zones. <br /> <br />Chuck Haben, 9310 - 164th Lane NW, stated they had to make a decision based on common <br />sense and there was considerable opposition to the sidewalks. <br /> <br />Kurt Kettner, 16291 Royal Road NW, stated he was not affected by this, but was on the <br />Association. He stated the Board had reached out to a lot of residents in the community and they <br />did not want a sidewalk. He stated they bought into this area because of what they saw and <br />envisioned. The Board was not in favor of a sidewalk and he personally was not in favor of one <br />either. He indicated a sidewalk would need to be salted, plowed, and there was also the issue of <br />sidewalk staining. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look indicated this was first brought to the Council as an overlay, which did not <br />include a sidewalk. He stated there was a request from the citizens to upgrade the road, which <br />required a reconstruct, which then triggered the City policy for a sidewalk. He stated he <br /> <br />City Council / September 8, 2009 <br />Page 11 of23 <br />