Chuck,
In case the attachment doesn't send, I'm copying the comments into the e-mail.
Comments
Mulberry Residents
Mark and Susan Henderson
824 Mulberry Dr.
Option Order 1,2
I also prefer #1 as the best option of the 4. I think the island at Mulberry with the speed cushions beside the island has the best chance of keeping the speeds on Mulberry the lowest.
My 2nd choice would be #2.
____________________________________________________________________
Harvard/Grove Mulberry Corner Residents
Scott and Angela Dieker
Option order: 2,4,1,3
The drawings all look pretty good. We really like the narrowing of Folks at Mulberry and the island entrance with side plantings. That visual feeling of entering a neighborhood is huge. We like the bike lane and feel that is needed. So, we eliminate Option 3 as a choice.
We respect Mrs. McVey and the other property owners who will continue to live along Folks and Mulberry. Their input is more important than ours. As a preference, however, we prefer Option 2 with the roundabout. The more obstacles the traffic faces and the slower that traffic must travel before it reaches our neighborhood, the better.
If the roundabout encroaches too much on people-who-will-still-live-on-Folks' property, then Option 4 does seem like a good choice. I find it interesting that the City feels the offset will have no calming effect. The very first meeting we attended had the City person explaining to us that when a driver cannot see the end of a road, the driver slows down. They said that is why people speed from Harvard/Wakarusa east. The long stretch of open road is too inviting. Offsetting Folks road and planting some trees would achieve the visual disturbance the City showcased and probably slow traffic quite a bit.
Our third choice is Option 1. It provides some nice narrowing, an island, some plantings, and a bike lane. It also is the straight open road quarter-mile dragstrip that we wouldn't want any part of if we lived on the road. We understand it's fiscal appeal, but we are way beyond dollars and cents on this project. This is about neighborhood buy-in and survivability of a bunch of houses near a school and a busy road. Failure is not an option.
Good luck with the opinion gathering and thanks for your efforts. We will all benefit from your time.
_____________________________________________________________________
Harvard/Grove Mulberry Corner Residents
Jeff and Brenda Jackson
828 Mulberry
We like the island at Mulberry with the speed cushions. With Option #2, we don't like the fact that the option has the traffic circle is so far up Folks and that there is one fewer set of speed cushions on that option. In addition, the design of the traffic circle may encourage traffic into the neighborhood because traffic from Oakley must go around the circle toward Harvard in order to get back to 6th street. There is no impediment or discouragement for them to not enter the Harvard neighborhood. With Option #3, there appears to be one fewer set of speed cushions and no neighborhood landscaping or entrance treatment.
Our question is whether there will really be no effect of the offset alignment with Option #4 on speed. If there truly is no effect then either #1 or #4 would be our first options. If the offset alignment has some effect on #4, we agree with the Diekers and would support Mrs. McVey and property owners living on Folks. Otherwise #1 is fine.
I have to admit that it is ironic that we are back to the original option 1 and 2 presented by the City in October 2002. (See the attachments included below)
________________________________________________________________________
Harvard Resident:
Laura Torres-Porter
Option Order 3
Option 3: Speed cushions with neck down at Mulberry Drive
This is my vote.
_____________________________________________________________________
Harvard Resident
Mark and Judy Desetti
Option Order 1 (then 2 or 4)
Thanks for the information. My greatest concern is letting people know they are
entering a residential area and forcing them to slow immediately. I believe the
combination of the island, landscaping, and speed cushion where Folks meets
Mulberry will go a long way to doing this. Option 1 looks good to me. I defer
however to Brenda and the folks on Mulberry in particular.
I would hope the city would work with developers to consider these
"entrance treatments" in future developments and retrofit situations.
Such an idea was among our original thoughts on Harvard -- to put a similar
treatment near the Wakarusa intersection. Personally, I think entrance
treatments are a good sign that you are no longer on an arterial.
--- Brenda Jackson
--- brendajeffjackson@earthlink.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah McVey [mailto:debmac1@mindspring.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 5:37 PM
To: Dunfield, David
Subject: Folks Road alignment
Dear Commissioner Dunfield:
Last week Deb met with the project engineer from Peridian and some City
staff about several issues concerning Folks Rd including the proposed
alignment. Within a week or two this information will be before you at
a City Commission Meeting. The engineer has 4 preliminary plans for
Folks. Three of them are straight line shots and the fourth has the
road swinging to the west 12 feet. It is our understanding that City
staff will recommend plan 1, a straight street, and will do so
primarily because moving the road to the west 12 feet will cost more
money because the existing gas and electric lines will have to be
moved. When Deb made a comment that we had always assumed the
utilities would need to up moved or upgraded anyway, she did not
receive a clear response. If, regardless of the alignment of the road,
the utilities must be moved or upgraded (larger gas line, bigger
utility poles, etc.), then we ask your support in choosing plan 4,
where the road swings 12 feet to the west. This would save more of our
landscape, give us more driveway parking (there will be no on street
parking) and distance the road further from the house making the road
less intrusive.
I ask you
1. to ascertain from the utility companies if they must move or upgrade
their utility lines regardless of the road alignment,
2. to take no action on the alignment of Folks Rd until you have an
accurate and definitive answer to the above question, and
3. if one or more of the utilities must move or upgrade regardless of
the road alignment, to support plan 4 where the road moves to the west
12 feet.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Loren and Deb McVey
841 4529
612 Folks Rd
> From: Deborah McVey <debmac1@mindspring.com>
> Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:32:02 AM US/Central
> To: <mike@mikerundle.org>
> Subject: Folks Rd alignment
>
> This is information follow up to the email I sent on you on April 13
> regarding the alignment of Folks Rd. This morning I spoke to a person
> from Sunflower Cable Company who was out here looking to see how they
> would service the area with the new road going in. He told me that
> all the utility poles out here now would be torn down, replaced and
> moved. He said that all the utilities would have to be upgraded and
> moved and this would happen regardless of the alignment of the road.
>
> This being the case, I ask you to support plan 4 which moves Folks Rd
> 12 feet west as it passes by my property. I do this for the reasons
> discussed in my email of April 13.
> Thank you.
>
> Loren McVey