Agenda - Public Works Committee - 02/21/2023

Home

Councilmember Woestehoff stated that he was aware of two incidents in the past two years at Variolite Street and 161st Avenue from the reduced sightlines when vehicles are crossing. He stated that often people hit the sign on the island, but the incidents in that area are not related to the change in orientation of the roadway. Acting Chairperson Musgrove commented that she does not need staff to look into that data. She stated that she is leaning towards option one and asked for information on the street width and bike lane dimensions. Assistant City Engineer Feriancek clarified the drive lane width and bike lane. Acting Chairperson Musgrove asked if Variolite would be the same dimensions. Assistant City Engineer Feriancek replied that Variolite does not have the three-foot buffer and believed the land widths were also different. Councilmember Woestehoff stated that he has heard that residents do not like walking south of 158th or 159th because they prefer the off -road trail rather than walking on the side of the road because of the speed of traffic. He stated that he would have hesitation with on -street facilities because of that experience. He stated that he is leaning towards option three because it would be slightly cheaper and would require less acquisition. Assistant City Engineer Feriancek stated that staff did look internally at traffic calming and the best way to do so would be to narrow the road. He stated that staff would recommend 12-foot lanes with a center shared turn lane, providing examples of where that has been done on other roadways in the city. He stated that they would have to reduce the speed in order to provide a crossing. Councilmember Woestehoff stated that a crossing would be needed if they chose the north route but noted that he does not prefer the north route. Councilmember Riley asked if there is any way to include a physical barrier, such as a curb, in option one. Assistant City Engineer Feriancek replied that staff would have to bring that concept back to Bolton and Menk to gain their input. He stated that adding that type of barrier on this type of roadway would create challenges when plowing. Councilmember Riley stated that he agrees that he does not prefer the north side option as Elmcrest Park would be one of the largest considerations and therefore if a crosswalk is not feasible, he is not interested in that option. He recognized that a wetland delineation required for the south side option would slow the process. Acting Chairperson Musgrove noted that option three was her second choice. She stated that when reviewing the roadway in the CIP, it seems to have different designations. She asked if there Public Works Committee / January 17, 2023 Page 3 of 7