My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2014 11 18
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2014 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2014 11 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:44:36 PM
Creation date
12/3/2014 7:23:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
7D4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2014 11 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />November 18, 2014 <br />Page 5 of 16 <br />Council member Keany inquired how much the bridge's smaller opening contributed to <br />the spread and whether there would still be a spread with a larger opening. Mr. <br />Nemovitz explained the spread helped a little. He noted they will try to open up the <br />channel. <br />Public Works Director Kowar noted the railroad is the controlling factor as it backs up <br />everything. Even if water is getting through at the County Road /95th Street Bridge <br />opening, it will still pool and back up at the railroad. <br />Mr. Nemovitz reviewed the options for the proposed bridge replacement through a <br />series of slides. The proposed bridge design requires a 70 foot wide opening. This <br />opening, driven by calculations to handle 100 -year floodway flows, will also be wide <br />enough to accommodate a future pedestrian path. The proposed bridge design will <br />provide at a minimum two 11 foot vehicle travel lanes and a 4 -foot shoulder on either <br />side. The bridge design could also accommodate wider 8 -foot shoulders. In considering <br />the shoulder width, the team discussed safety for traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists. The <br />team decided a 4 -foot shoulder would be a better fit for the site. The decision points for <br />the City Council are the Bridge /Roadway Shoulder Widths of 4 -feet (recommended) or <br />8 -feet. <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS <br />Council member Loo addressed the 8 -foot shoulders and noted the rest of the road <br />does not have 8 -foot shoulders. She asked if the 8 -foot shoulders would only be for the <br />length of the bridge. Public Works Director Kowar stated the 8 -foot shoulders would <br />anticipate carrying to Bella Vista, but not south to 96th Street. <br />Council member Loo did not recall any long -term plans to widen the roadway. Public <br />Works Director Kowar stated it would be a large project to widen the roadway to 96th <br />Street and is not in any long -range plans. <br />Council member Loo stated she was not a bicyclist, but inquired whether there is a <br />benefit to having a larger bike lane. Mr. Nemovitz clarified the 8 -foot shoulder would be <br />for the full length of the bridge, but does not include Bella Vista to 96th Street. He felt <br />there was a safety benefit. He explained the vision was not for a trail or recreational <br />pathway, but for a safe roadway. <br />Council member Loo asked if there was an emergency, could a car pull over on the 8- <br />foot shoulder. Mr. Nemovitz confirmed a 4 -foot or 8 -foot shoulder could be used in <br />case of emergency. He clarified for the length of the bridge project there will be a guard <br />rail on both sides of the road. <br />Council member Loo inquired whether there are a lot of people who pull over in that <br />stretch of the road. Public Works Director Kowar did not believe the shoulders are used <br />very often for emergency purposes. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.