My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 03/11/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2003
>
Agenda - Council - 03/11/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 3:46:03 PM
Creation date
6/23/2003 1:54:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
03/11/2003
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
329
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
,I <br />I <br /> I. <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I- <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />P.W. CASE <br /> <br /> CONSI]YER STREET WIDTHS IN NEW SUBDIYISIONS · By: Steven J. Jankowski, City Engineer <br /> <br /> Background: <br /> <br /> The Village' of Sunfish Lake PI'anned unit Development .(pUD) has.~ proposed ..street · <br /> widths ~hich fall below the City's residential street .standard... DiScussion of this proposal ' <br /> should beg~n with a review of the rational behind the .Ci~y!s current width' standards. <br /> Ideally, an urban 'residential street might provide space ,for-parking on. both sides and <br /> through traffic in both directions. A typical traffic, through lane is generally designed to. <br /> be 12 feet wide. On street parking lanes varies between :6 to 9 feet.. Figure A represents <br /> an ideal cross-section for a residential .City street and illustrates a requirement of 42 feet <br />· from back of curb to back 'of curb.. Reali. zing tha?the, ideal SectionillUstrated in Figure'A <br />does have adverse 'environmental and social impacts; the' current City standard has sealed <br />'back the width demands from this idealized section.' Figure B represents the Current. City <br />standards~ Reducing three feet from/he travel lan~s and two feet from the parking lanes <br />is a significant compression Over that of the idealized street section. This .standard <br />functions satisfactorily because of the fact that parking-on both sides 'of the .street is a <br />relatively i~requent event, and free parking'lanes give'flexibility to the Street use~ ' ' <br /> <br />With the proposal by the deVeloper to prohibit .parking on one side of each residential <br />street, Staff would be supportive of reducing the street section tO 28 feet wide as <br />illustrated in Figure· C. The difference from current City sections is the elimination of a <br />six-foot .parking lane, and an increase in one foot in each traffic lane. The increase in <br />travel lane width is deemed necessary to compensate for the loss of flexibility provided <br />by the second parking lane. During winter months snow is plowed only to the gutter line.- <br />Furthermore during snowy .periods, high snow .banks resUlt in the loss of up to several <br />feet along the pavement· edge' and vehicles tend to park farther 'into the street to allow ' <br />passengers to exit the vehicle. These conditions were observed to Some degree during the <br />recent bus trip to Liberty on the Lake in Stillwater. . <br /> <br />The developer is' also proposing to have one way streets .with parking restricted on both <br />sides. This will occur in two locations, on the main entry street and on the eastern street <br />with a large green space separating northbound and southbound traffic. Since all <br />additional lanes have been eliminated, there is no flexibility left' in'the roadway section. <br />Careful consideration must be given for emergency situations, including snow, disabled <br />vehicles, road repairs, etc.. Staff supports a road width of 20 feet, which provides a six, <br />foot area for emergencies.· ' ' <br /> <br />It shoul'd be noted that all of the s~ctions shoWn illustrates the use of surmoUntable· curb <br />which extends one 'foot beyond· the flow line of the gutter. The recommended street <br />section may be further reduced'by using straight-back Curb in place of surmountable. <br />Since the width of the curb back is Six inches for straight-back curb, a one-half foot <br />reduction may take for each curbline replaced with straight-back curb. . <br /> <br />-271-t' <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.