Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews street standards: opposition to cul‑de‑sac-style knuckles, asks for water main stub requirements and swale preference
Summary
Public works and planning staff urged revisions to the draft public‑streets standards to prohibit cul‑de‑sacs/knuckles, require water mains to extend to property ends, and to prefer swales over curb-and-gutter to reduce MS4 stormwater permitting burdens.
Public works and planning staff urged Planning and Zoning to tighten street design language in the draft ordinance, specifically to limit cul‑de‑sac‑type designs (including so‑called knuckles), require water mains to be extended to the end of subdivision property lines, and to consider swales instead of curb and gutter to reduce stormwater permitting burdens.
Kirk, speaking for public works, said cul‑de‑sac variants cause safety and maintenance problems and make winter plowing and snow storage harder. “When you talk to any public works director in any city, they just do not like them,” Kirk said, noting snow plowing, vehicle maneuverability and long‑term maintenance as concerns.
Kirk also described a recent subdivision where the water main stopped before the cul‑de‑sac, creating complications for later connections and leading to disputes about who bears extension costs. To avoid repeating that situation, he said the city should require developers to take the main to the end of their property line and provide a stub beyond the asphalt so future connections do not require tearing up existing pavement.
On drainage, commissioners and staff discussed the advantages of swales (bioswales) compared with curb and gutter. Staff noted that the EPAs MS4 permitting regime and Bear River watershed concerns make swales appealing because they allow infiltration and reduce concentrated runoff. “If we can avoid doing that [curb and gutter], we can. Curb and gutter just puts us closer to that,” one planning member said, noting MS4 sampling obligations and long‑term costs.
The meeting also covered pavement preservation. Kirk recounted a recent chip‑and‑seal project and described cleanup costs after application, including a one‑time $8,700 invoice to vacuum rock from curb lines. He said chip‑and‑seal can be appropriate on roads without curb and gutter but that he generally dislikes chip‑and‑seal in subdivision settings.
Staff recommended adding explicit prohibitions on cul‑de‑sacs/knuckles/bulbs to Public Streets section 7.22, clarifying that water mains must be extended to the end of the subdividers property line, and adding language encouraging swales where practicable. Planning staff said they will draft language reflecting those preferences for the commission to review.
Ending: Staff will prepare proposed ordinance language and design‑standard text for future Planning and Zoning consideration; no final regulatory change was adopted at the meeting.
