Laserfiche WebLink
currently in p lace. S taffalso p resented the projected traffic volumes through this same area, <br />assuming the 112 units associated with the Rivenwick townhomes are fully developed. This <br />development will add 717 daily trips, of which 70 percent are anticipated to be eastbound. It was <br />noted that the intersection of Garnet and Riverdale is the only one in the area, which is currently <br />uncontrolled. Some type of control should be considered as the townhouses and additional traffic <br />generating commercial development occurs along Riverdale. Staff recommended that as the <br />eventual traffic control scheme in this area, with Riverdale traffic being given the fight-of-way <br />and all other side streets being controlled with stop signs. While Garnet should at some point <br />yield to Rivcrdale, the traffic counts show the north-south movement between the sought leg of <br />Garnet and the northeast leg of Riverdale to be the predominant movement through the <br />intersection. To cause the predominant movement to yield to a lesser one is problematic. One <br />alternative was to keep the intersection of Garnet/Riverdale uncontrolled. It seemed quite likely <br />that citizens in the existing Rivenwick subdivision will demand some type of control at this <br />intersection. The second alternative would be to post a stop on the south leg (Garnet Street) as <br />identified in the long-term traffic control plan presented in Figure 2. This will be needed <br />eventually, however, until traffic increases with development, this control will be stopping the <br />predominant movement. A third alternative would be to post an all way stop (three way) at the <br />intersection until Riverdale becomes the predominate through movement. This alternative is <br />unlikely to meet the recommended warranty for all way stops, which is, a minimum of 200 <br />vehicles entering the intersection from all directions for a minimum of eight hours per day. A <br />second negative is that at some point in the future it would be necessary to implement a traffic <br />change to give Riverdale the right-of-way, when it previously needed to share this with Garnet. <br />Staff recommended that all of the existing yield controls on Riverdale (on Ebony and Dolomite) <br />be changed to stop controls to emphasize the rising importance of Riverdale. Staff also <br />recmmnended placing a yield sign on the south leg of Garnet, as an indication that this street is <br />secondary to Riverdale, but that it will continue to receive less control over the fight-of-way until <br />such time as traffic warrants the permanent stop condition. <br /> <br />Councihnember Elvig inquired as to why they would not install a stop sign at Garnet Street at <br />this time. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that staff assumed that they may get some opposition from the <br />neighborhood if they post a stop sign, but staff would not oppose that recommendation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig recommended that a stop sign be installed at Garnet Street as well. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook inquired if the intersection of Feldspar and Riverdale should be a three- <br />way stop as well since it is a similar intersection to Tungsten and Riverdale and traffic in the area <br />will be increasing. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that staff could look to see if the intersection of Feldspar and <br />Riverdale Drive meets the warrants for a three-way stop. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Elvig, to recommend to the City <br />Council that the yield signs on Ebony and Dolomite be replaced with stop signs, that a stop sign <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/August 26, 2003 <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />