Minutes - Public Works Committee - 10/20/2009

Home

Motion carried. V oting Yes: Chairperson Elvig, Councilmembers Dehen and McGlone. Voting No: None. Case #3: Dysprosium Street Improvements Director of Public Works/Principal City Engineer Olson reviewed two potential cross sections for Dysprosium Street. Option A would retain parking on both sides of the street. There would be a 7 foot boulevard between the curb and sidewalk which would be located on both sides of the street. Under this alternative the roadway would be concentric with the center line. Under Option B the centerline remains in the center of the 80 foot right of way, but parking is restricted on the east side of the street creating a wider distance between the sidewalk and the adjacent property lines. The previous direction was to have two 11 foot wide travel lanes; however staff recommended that these travel lanes be widened to 12 feet. State guidelines strongly encourage these wider lanes and there is a considerable volume of traffic that uses Dysprosium Street. The Committee agreed with using the wider lanes. The width of the boulevard width between the curb and the sidewalk was also discussed. The draft study proposed a 7 foot boulevard under both options. It was noted that a wider boulevard width would provide greater distance between pedestrians and traffic and allow for greater snow storage. Committee direction was to use wider 9 foot boulevards. The Committee elected to proceed with Option B which restricts parking on the east side of Dysprosium Street. Councilmember McGlone indicated that he preferred Option A which included parking on both sides of parking on both sides of the road. Chairperson Elvig wanted to discuss the assessment process. Because there is not an official assessment policy Assistant City Engineer Jankowski patterned his assessment somewhat after the proposal on the Andrie Street project. Chairperson Elvig thought this road was ready for a reconstruct, which would probably be charged as a reconstruct and Chairperson Elvig suggested showing benefitted properties the cost of reconstruct. However he thought Jankowski's approach of assessing the lesser amount associated with an overlay to be a good one. Driveway approaches will need to be revised and discussion focused on the design of a concrete driveway approach between the curb and sidewalk. Chairperson Elvig suggested doing a staff survey out there and look at a 25 ft uniform width. Assistant City Engineer Jankowski was asked for clarification of the basis for the assessment noted in the draft study His assessment was based upon the cost of an overlay applied to a standard width (32 ft) residential street having frontage of approximately 70 feet (which is the standard frontage of the benefitted lots in this case). Public Works Committee / October 20, 2009 Page 3 of 8