Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />GENERAL STREET DESIGN <br /> <br />Rcview Group Recommendations: <br /> <br />The Review Group members agree and acknowledge that the City has a responsibility to <br />maintain existing roadways. The Review Group recognizes that it is the desire of the City <br />and Council to deal with entire "neighborhoods" as opposcd to only ccrtain streets within a <br />neighborhood in tbe various PMP projects. However, each roadway within a PMP should <br />be reviewed and the PMP proposal sbould not merely incorporate rigid standards for every <br />roadway within the project, The review should include, but not be limited to, the purpose <br />of the roadways; the amount of traffic ou the roadways; the current condition of each <br />roadway within the project; the needs of the City; the needs and desires of the affected <br />community/neighborhood; the end effect of the project on the neighborhood; the value of <br />any project to the neighborhood; the cnd effect of the project on any water quality issues; <br />etc. <br /> <br />For example, both Fernwood Court and Ingerson Court only provide access to two (2) <br />homes each whereas the remaining roadways within the Ingerson Project provide multiple <br />vehicle access. Fernwood Court was repaved in the 90s and is in excellent shape. However, <br />Ingerson Court has not been repaved lately and is not in good shape. The Review Group <br />does not believe that Fernwood Court should be included within the Ingerson Project <br />and/or held to the same standards and designs as Ingerson Court. In other words, each <br />roadway within a PMP project must be reviewed to determine how it "fits" within the <br />project. <br /> <br />The Review Group recognizes and acknowledges that eventually all roadways within a City must <br />undergo some type of maintenance. However, there is a major distinction between roadway <br />improvement and neighborhood redesign. It is the belief of some Review Group members that <br />the original feasibility report prepared by BRW is too intrusive, broad and invasive. As stated by <br />the American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and The Urban <br />Land Institute: <br /> <br />Residential streets should provide not only safe, efficient circulation for vehicles and <br />pedeshians but should create positive aesthetic qualities for the users. The "character" of <br />a residential street is influenced to a great extent by the paving width, horizontal and <br />vertical alignments, and the landscape treatment of the street edges. Residential streets <br />are commwlity spaces that should convey an image and scale appropriate to the <br />neighborhood.4.5 <br /> <br />4 Residential Streets, Second Edition, 1990, American Society of Civil Engineers, National <br />Association of Home Builders, The Urban land Institute. <br />S References to published articles herein are based upon research conducted principally by Linda <br />Swanson, Chairperson. The Review Group as a whole did not undertake exhaustive research of <br />available authorities. Copies of articles cited are not attached to this report. If the Council <br />desires copies of all or any of the cited articles they should contact Linda Swanson. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />August 17, 2000 <br />