Minutes - Public Works Committee - 02/18/2003

Home

Councilmember Elvig replied that the Council could grant a variance in those situations. Mayor Gamec inquired as to how staff would deal with the R-1 development. Principal City Engineer Olson replied that he would rather have the standards stay at 32 feet, but if the PUD language were included in the motion it would provide a guideline for staff on street widths within a PUD development. Motion by Councilmember Kurak, seconded by Councilmember Strommen, to amend the motion to use the street standards presented by staff for PUD developments. Further discussion: Mr. Paul Kangas, Village o f Sunfish Lakes, noted t hat t he 2 O-foot width does not work for the proposed one-ways within their development. He questioned why 32 feet is adequate with parking on both sides and yet on one-way streets 20 feet is adequate with no parking. He felt that the one-way street width could be reduced without parking. Councilmember Zimmerman replied that the City needs to make sure a fire truck can get through. Principal City Engineer Olson stated that it is inevitable that at some point there will be something that will partially block the lane and will not adequately allow for emergency vehicles to come through. Councilmember Kurak requested that they focus on the policy issue and stay away from the Village of Sunfish Lake development until after the motion has been voted on so that she can step down from that discussion. Amendment carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Kurak, Strommen, Elvig, Pearson, and Zimmerman. Voting No: Councilmember Cook. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Cook, Pearson, Elvig, Kurak, Strommen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Councilmember Kurak abstained from the Village of Sunfish Lake development discussion. Principal City Engineer Olson explained that the City needs flexibility on the street width to assure that rescue vehicles can get through on a street, which is why they change the travel distance to 9 feet on a 32-foot wide street and down to 12 feet on a one-way street. Mr. Kangas stated that the 20-foot width requirement on the one-way streets is problematic. The development will have four means of access into a fairly small development. If it was a large development with only two means of access he could understand the concern. Mr. Kangas proposed a 16-foot one-way street with no parking. If they are required to go with the 20-foot width they will have to eliminate the boulevard area. Principal City Engineer Olson explained that there are two particular segments in the developments where one-way streets are being proposed. The area through the cottage homes there is a very large green way and that area should be no less than 20 feet. The other area is through the main drive. He emphasized that if there is going to be a compromise it should be on the main street with the median in the middle rather than in the private area. The private street does not have good site distance. Public Works Committee/February 18, 2003 Page 5 of 9