Laserfiche WebLink
lanes. They can be used to create a false sense of security. She said she doesn't agree with <br />having only one bike lane. They need to be on both sides. Safety shows bikes should ride with <br />traffic, which lends to having lanes on both sides. With the density of housing, she said she is <br />not sure dedicated lanes are warranted at this time. <br />Councilmember Riley pointed out this entire process has been an effort to make everyone happy. <br />Compromises were made to put in a bike lane, though after the first public meeting, people didn't <br />like that idea. Staff made changes and those changes were not liked. He asked Mr. Westby to <br />explain how the roadcould be built but used; however, it is necessary. <br />City Engineer Westby explained the State Aid system requires roads to be built to their <br />standards. The City receives allocations for building to MSA's standards. After the road is <br />constructed, the state comes out and drives the road once. After it is approved, the state does not <br />monitor the use, nor the signage. Once the road is built, and approved, the City maintains it. <br />Councilmember Riley clarified if the 32-foot road that is proposed with parking on one side was <br />built and approved, the parking lane would not be enforced to be used solely as a parking lane. It <br />could be used as people see fit. <br />City Engineer Westby confirmed. He stated if staff were directed to go that route, he would <br />want to know if the lane should be striped to delineate the parking lane. Safety and speeding is <br />the concern of the residents. Right now, the road is 30 feet. The stripe affects how the road is <br />used. He noted staff would have to work with the police department for signage per MSA. <br />Councilmember Shryock noted the big concern is the parking and bike lane makes the road so <br />much wider. She questioned if the road could be kept at 30 feet and not restrict parking. <br />City Engineer Westby replied the road could be built as a 32' wide road, with parking on one side <br />and none on the other. The narrowest the road could be is 30' with no parking. <br />Councilmember Kuzma inquired if the other proposals would still be on the table at the January <br />26th meeting if this proposal were adopted tonight. <br />City Engineer Westby suggested both options could be left open, and both designs could be <br />addressed at the next meeting. He noted there is only 8000 square feet difference of bituminous <br />paving between the two options and the cost difference is negligible. <br />Motion by Councilmember Kuzma, seconded by Councilmember Shryock to adopt Resolution <br />#16-01-003 accepting this Feasibility Report, with minor modifications to include the 32 foot <br />wide road as an option, that can be incorporated before the Public Hearing, and ordering the <br />Public Hearing for January 26, 2016. <br />Further discussion: City Attorney Langel confirmed the modification requested would not <br />change the ability to hold the meeting on January 26. Discussion took place regarding the <br />difficulty of finding a consensus. Some of the comments included in the agenda packet <br />contradicted previous comments by the same person. Mayor Strommen stated she would support <br />City Council / January 11, 2016 <br />Page 9 of 11 <br />