HomeMy WebLinkAbout030501S CC Min
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION
MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2001
MUNICIPAL BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM
3800 UNIVERSITY BLVD.
5:30 P.M.
The City Council convened in Special Session in the Municipal Building Conference
Room (3800 University Blvd.) on March 5, 2001, with the following members present:
Mayor Lewis presiding, Council Members Ballanfant, Bertini, Grubb and May. The City
Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, Police Captain, Fire Chief and Public Works
Director were also present.
The notice for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Texas Government Code,
nd
Chapter 551, on the 2 day of March 2001 at 12:30 p.m.
Sidewalk policy statement and street width.
Matters related to a sidewalk policy statement; sidewalk map; and reducing the street
width for certain streets in Priority Area 7A and 7B.
Mayor Lewis stated that the Traffic Task Force was requested to meet and provide advice
to Council on traffic and safety-related issues related to traffic regarding the proposal
under consideration for Area K.
The Chair of the Traffic Task Force Joe Studlick presented the thoughts of the Traffic
Task Force on the proposed narrowed streets and installation of sidewalks.
City Manager Sherman Yehl presented the following report:
At the City Council meeting of February 26, 2001, several questions were raised by
Council Member Bertini regarding the proposed reduction from the planned 27? width of
Mercer, Sewanee, Westchester, and Rutgers Streets generally in the area between
University and Bissonnet. Residents have also requested that sidewalks be installed only
on one side of the street.
The requests to reduce the street width have been resident driven. It is staff?s
understanding that at least one meeting was held by the residents of corner lots in Areas
7A/7B and two meetings were held with representatives from these areas and were
facilitated by the City and included Mayor Lewis and Council Member Ballanfant. These
were not meetings of (nor was the selection of participants made to
governmental bodies
avoid such designation) and therefore not subject to the Open Meetings Act. The
meetings were held to informally discuss both resident and staff concerns to see if it
would be possible to develop a consensus recommendation to be presented to the full
City Council for formal action.
City Council Special Session, March 5, 2001
On January 8, 2001, the City Council received Memorandum 01-03 regarding
Criteria
. The purpose of this document, which was
and Conditions for Sidewalk Installation
designated a preliminary draft, was to provide guidance to the City?s consulting engineers
in designing sidewalk standards. As noted in the Basic Project Criteria, the project would
involve
many different design solutions depending upon the multitude of different site
. It was anticipated that a refinement of criteria would
conditions encounteredoccur
. In the
throughout the design process to accommodate the myriad of site conditions
instant case, a group of residents have presented to the City and staff a case for the
elimination of sidewalks from one side of the street. This request does not appear
inconsistent with these criteria. A subsequent report issued on January 22, 2001 regarding
infrastructure tree removal remains accurate to the extent that the proposed roadway and
sidewalk remains within the original 27? design. No additional trees would be removed as
a result of this proposal. However, providing sidewalks on both sides of the street
probably places more trees at risk.
The plan that has been presented takes the proposed 27? wide street footprint and reduces
the roadbed to 21? back to back and incorporates a four-foot wide sidewalk within the
original footprint.
A 21? wide roadway was selected as a reasonable, minimum street width to allow for one
eight-foot parking lane and a 12? travel lane. This width was based on design
considerations and took into account needs by the Fire Department. Since the start of the
City?s infrastructure program, the engineer?s have, in most places, used a 27? wide design
that is typical for curb and gutter West U streets. While the 21? wide street is not an
optimum width, staff believes that safety concerns have been addressed by eliminating
parking on one side of the street and transitioning to the 21? width from the storm inlet.
On Mercer, which has been designated a minor collector, staff recommends that parking
be prohibited on both sides of the street. Because of the volume of traffic on the streets
and the limited use of these streets for parking, there should be few vehicular conflicts.
Based on data collected by the Police Department, traffic volumes are relatively low
(504-755 vehicles per 24 hours) and even peak times rarely exceed one vehicle per
minute (see attached).
The width of residential streets continues to be an issue between traffic engineers and
urban planners. However, the most recent literature, including the
Green Book, A Policy
(1994) published by the American
on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials recognize that today?s
emphasis is on and
joint use of transportation corridorssufficient flexibility is permitted
. Regarding the width
to encourage independent designs tailored to particular situations
of roadways, the states:
Green Book
Where feasible [street lanes] should be 3.3m (10.83?) wide?Where needed and
where limitations exist in residential areas, a parallel parking lane at least 2.2m
(7.22?) should be provided on one or both sides as the conditions of lot size and
intensity of development may require.
2
City Council Special Session, March 5, 2001
The policy also only requires one unobstructed moving lane for local roads and streets.
It is not our intent, should the streets be narrowed, to abandon public right-of way. There
appears to be some encroachments that, over a period of time, have developed.
Enforcement action and/or lease of this right-of-way can address these encroachments in
the future.
The question remains,
Is public safety met?
It is staff?s opinion that the answer to this question is a qualified yes. For example, to our
knowledge the reduction will have no effect on the City?s ISO rating. While response
time to emergencies could be reduced in the scenario described in the correspondence
dated March 5, 2001 from Claunch & Miller, Inc., it is unlikely based on current traffic
volumes and parking requirements for these streets. We have tested the turning radius and
transition from the 27? width to 21? width and the Fire Chief finds them to be acceptable.
Our review of the current literature on street width shows a variety of standards that are
used. Furthermore while no apparent problems with speed exist on these four streets now,
that is probably attributable to their current width and condition. Should the streets be
paved at the 27? width it is expected that speeds would increase. The narrowing may
provide the added benefit of traffic calming.
The proposal to narrow street widths to 21? is estimated to reduce construction costs in
Priority Areas 7A/7B by approximately $200,000. Eliminating sidewalks on one side of
the street in this same area would reduce estimated sidewalk expenses by $250,000.
Redesign costs are estimated at approximately $25,000-$50,000.
Based on our review of street widths within an urban environment, it is staff?s
recommendation that this request can be accommodated, with conditions:
As long as Mercer remains designated as a minor collector, parking should be
prohibited at all times (however, a review of this designation should be
considered);
Parking on Sewanee, Westchester, and Rutgers would be permitted on one side
(to be determined);
Sidewalks should be installed on the east side of Mercer, Westchester and Rutgers
and on the west side of Sewanee (recommendation provided by the West U
Preservation Society);
Adequate transition from 27? to 21? be designed to facilitate the use of the street
by emergency vehicles.
Should the Council desire to reduce the width of the streets, two options are apparent:
3
City Council Special Session, March 5, 2001
Redesign using one existing curb design and relocating the other curb depending
on location of sidewalk, requiring a 45? transition from the inlet to the 21? width;
or
Redesign by reducing the original curb lines from 27? b/b to 25? curb and
sidewalk line, minimizing impacts on both sides of the street by one foot and
requiring a 22.5? transition from the inlet to the 21? width.
Both considerations have added design costs with the single curb design estimated to be
$20-25,000 and both curbs estimated at between $45-50,000. Contractor down time, if
any in Area 7A, would amount to $10,000 per day.
Staff also recommends the adoption of the Sidewalk Policy Statement and Sidewalk Map
that identifies locations that would have sidewalks installed on one side of the street only.
The City Council reviewed the above report and asked numerous questions regarding
safety issues and parking.
A motion was made by Council Member Grubb, seconded by Council Member Bertini, to
adopt a 21 foot curb to curb street width, with a 20 foot driving surface, that sidewalks be
installed on one side with a 4 foot width, to adopt a 2 foot separation between the street
and sidewalk where possible, and that the decreased distance be taken from both sides,
and that parking would be prohibited unless at a later date the city administrator
recommends that the City allow parking.
The City Council address parking restrictions in the area.
An amended motion was made by Council Member Grubb to adopt a 21 foot curb to curb
street width, with a 20 foot driving surface, that sidewalks be installed on one side with a
4 foot width, to adopt a 2 foot separation between the street and sidewalk where possible,
and that the decreased distance be taken from both sides, and that parking would be
prohibited unless recommended at a later date by a Traffic Engineer and then on such
terms and conditions as recommended.
Council Member Bertini seconded the amended motion.
A vote was taken on the amended motion with the following result:
Voting Aye: Mayor Lewis, Council Members Ballanfant, Bertini, Grubb
and May
Voting Nay: None
Absent: None
4
City Council Special Session, March 5, 2001
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business to come before the City Council at this time, a motion was made
by Council Member May, seconded by Council Member Ballanfant, to adjourn. The
Special Session adjourned at 6:27 p.m.
5