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