Agenda - Council - 02/08/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Past practice has been to construct a trail along one side of State, County and MSA roads (Primary Route). Traffic on these roads has iincreased and will continue to increase. Staff has been looking at requiring trails on iboth sides in the interest of public safety. Specific guidelines sUch as Average Daily Traffic count levels have not been found to provide a basis for requiring the second trail. Factors that should be considered when adding a second trail along' a primary route? Should include number of adjacent residents, destinations connec[ed to traili traffic counts and existing crossing geometry. Providing a trail on both sides can reduce the numb'er of times users are required to cross the highway, which translates to fewer car pedestrian interactions that can result in accidents. A sidewalk or path is required on one l side of public streets townhouse developments. Discussion during Planning Commission meetings and Council meetings while reviewing these projects has focused pOtenti:ally ~equiring a path or trail on both sides of the main public street in the development.- Theijustification would be the higher density of units, residents and vehicle traffic when compared to single-family developments. In addition Trails should be placed in trail easements outside the right-of-way wherever possible, especially in new developments.~ Trails placed in the right-of-way may need to be relocated when the road is widened. City staff recommended adopting a Performance specification for bicycle paths and trials, require all new developments adjacent to Primary roUtes to provide trails along both sides. This includes residential and eommercigl properties that go through the platting process. The trail adjacent to the development shOuld be in a 14-foot trail easement inside the property line. Trails on property not under the developers control would be placed in the right-of-way. Motion to recommend that the: City Council require that a trail or sidewalk be constructed on both sides of the road on all State, County or MSA roads. Motion to recommend to the City Cou!~cil that the performance standards be accepted as recommended by City staff with the inclusion of a two foot shoulder width, the elimination of the separation from nearest lane of traffic and interval between 2 percent straight cross slope area, with the condition that theY are called transportation trails. Motion to recommend to the City Council that medium density or higher developments require sidewalks on both sides of the.main arterial public road and sidewalks on one side of the road on all secondary streetslwhether they are private or public including cul-de-sacs longer than 300 feet or if the cul-de-sac has :a trail connection to an adjacent property. Further discussion: Assistant Director of Public Works Olson expressed concern with requiring sidewalks on private driVes especially within Town Center because it makes it difficult to meet the density requirements. Councilmember Cook questioned how the City can say they are developing pedestrian friendly developments if they develop them without sidewalks. Assistant Director of Public Works Olson replied that they will still have to construct the sidewalks on both sides of the public streets. The situation he is concerned with is where a townhome develOpment fronts a public road with a sidewalk and the private streets are primarily Used for parking. Councilmember Cook agreed that in those situations it probably would not 'make sense to have a sidewalk. Chairperson Elvig