After compromise, Elkader’s Carter Street Project approved
By Willis Patenaude, Times-Register
It’s been a long, complicated and sometimes, controversial few years for Elkader’s Carter Street project, but the issue appears to have come to a conclusion. During a spirited city council meeting Monday night, all sides discussed and defended their stances regarding the remaining concerns about street width, tree loss, public safety, parking and the devaluation of property.
On the table for discussion was a resolution that would reduce the width of the road from 31 feet to 26 feet and the sidewalk from five feet to four feet.
Project engineers Nichole Sungren and Jake Huck from MSA Professional Services started with a presentation that went into greater detail about how all choices were considered. The most pressing two issues have been the widening of the street to 31 feet and the fact that it will come almost entirely from the north side.
Regarding the former, the 31 feet is a design standard established by the statewide urban design and specifications, and it affects Carter Street because it is classified as a minor collector roadway by the Iowa Department of Transportation. It also falls within the acceptable range for on-street parking, which was a justification for the project in the first place.
While it has been stated that on-street parking is not possible unless the road is widened to 31 feet, that may not be entirely accurate. According to Huck, while allowing parking on Carter Street at less that 31 feet wide goes against standards, it is a local jurisdiction issue, which the city council can decide.
As for the latter and where all of that extra road width is coming from, there are several design factors at play that went into the decision, such as grading restraints and already steep driveways on the south side, drainage efficiency, placement of public utilities and tree removal.
When the floor was open for comments, council member Daryl Koehn worried about the encroachment onto people’s property.
While the entire idea behind the project was to improve the street, council member Bob Hendrickson flatly stated people living on the north side “don’t see this as making it better.”
As far as council member Peggy Lane was concerned, nothing about the project is “making it worse” for north side residents, and it is still “making the road better,” which was the original intent.
However, residents of Carter Street who were in attendance debated the issue of property values, tree removal and what they saw as the unfairness of a project that takes from the north side but essentially leaves the south side unscathed.
This prompted one resident to say, “It affects us. We’re the people. Make everybody suffer.”
One resident even went so far as to suggest the city council was “seeing a problem where there isn’t one.”
Previous council meetings have addressed this issue, noting that the sewer and storm sewer, among other issues, are necessary fixes. You can either spend the money to do the road completely after all the construction, or you can take the more costly route of rehabbing it every few years. This council, as well as previous ones, decided to do the full job the first time.
Still, some of the concerns are valid. According to one resident in attendance with experience in real estate, it is estimated that trees increase property value between 15 to 20 percent.
There is also an aesthetic issue involved and the history and charm associated with the trees. If you simply remove them all, what prevents Elkader from losing some of its distinct appeal? As one resident put it, “I think you’re underestimating the importance of trees to the town.”
Regardless of how wide the road is made, the vast majority of the trees along the route will need to be removed. This is because newer construction methods necessitate it. Due to the clearance required for the paver, they also cannot be salvaged.
With Ed Josten not in attendance, Bob Hendrickson and Randy Henning voted in favor of the resolution, while Daryl Koehn and Peggy Lane voted “no,” so the resolution failed.
However, immediately following his “no” vote, Koehn said, “There has to be a way to fix this,” and started asking the residents in attendance what they thought was a fair compromise.
After a brief discussion about acceptable width, the loss of trees and whether or not the city council could vote on the same resolution twice in the same night, Koehn brought forth a motion to make the road width 28 feet with a four-foot sidewalk. Hendrickson quickly seconded it, and once again the council voted. This time, the vote was unanimous, approving the resolution.
