|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Vice Chair Jan Vanderwall called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Vice Chair Jan Vanderwall; and Members Dwayne Stenlund;
Joan Felice; and Steve Gjerdingen
Members
Excused: Chair Jim DeBenedet
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz and City Engineer
Debra Bloom
2.
Election of Chair for 2012/2013
At the request of Vice Chair
Vanderwall, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz briefly reviewed the terms
of office for Members of the PWETC, running annually through March under the
terms of the ordinance creating the PWETC, and election by the body of a
Chair and Vice Chair to serve in those respective capacities annually.
Recognizing previous discussions
with Chair DeBenedet and his request to step down from his role as Commission
Chairperson, and with no further nominations coming forward, Member Stenlund
nominated, and Member Felice seconded, the nomination of Member Jan
Vanderwall, with his agreement, to serve as Chair of the PWET Commission.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Member Duane Stenlund volunteered
to serve as Vice Chair; with no other nominations coming forth and at the
ruling of the Chair, nominations ceased, with approval of the appointment of
Member Stenlund as Vice Chair of the PWETC.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
3.
Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
4.
Approval of March 27, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the March 27, 2012, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 1, Line 16 (Recording Secretary Stowell)
Delete entire line Page 8, Line
350 (Member Gjerdingen)
·
Page 8, Line 350 (Member Gjerdingen)
·
Page 9, Line 376 (Member Gjerdingen)
Correct “discussion” to
“discuss”
·
13, Line 566 (Member Gjerdingen)
Correct “500 ADT” to “5000 ADT”
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
5.
Communication Items
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and Wal-Mart Preliminary/Final Plat
consideration by the City Council had been delayed due to receipt of a
citizens’ petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and
determination on the validity of that petition. Mr. Schwartz advised that,
at this time, the Wal-Mart Planning Case had been rescheduled for the May 21,
2012 City Council meeting. At the request of Chair Vanderwall, City Engineer
Debra Bloom advised that the review would involve 30-60 days for comparison
of questions asked in the petition with those addressed in the AUAR for this
redevelopment area.
At the request of Public Works
Director Duane Schwartz, Ms. Bloom provided a project update; and noted that
more detailed information and updates on various construction projects were
included in tonight’s meeting packet or available on-line at the City’s
website at www.cityofroseville.com/projects, and as detailed in the staff
report dated April 24, 2012.
Discussion included coordination
of school bus routes in construction areas (e.g. Josephine Lift Station; and
Valley Paving PMP projects); review by Mr. Schwartz of Phase II of the Rice
Street project due to funding challenges and rights-of-way acquisition issues
that may delay the project schedule; bike and pedestrian pathway plans as
part of the Phase II construction on the Rice Street corridor; and
reconstruction costs for water main replacement versus lining based on
increased trends.
Member Gjerdingen sought
clarification on the Josephine Woods pathway related to type of construction
(e.g. bituminous and/or concrete), with Ms. Bloom advising that staff was
coordinating with the developer, as directed by the City Council, for
concrete sidewalk from Dunlap Street to Lexington Avenue. At the request of
Member Gjerdingen regarding grading in the area of the cul-de-sac, Ms. Bloom
advised that the area had recently been graded, and that she was unaware of a
“mound” based on her inspections of the site; and further advised that that
segment would be an eight foot (8’) wide bituminous pathway connecting to Josephine
Road.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Ms. Bloom verified that the acquisition marker stakes at the
northwest corner of County Road B-2 and Fairview Avenue belonged to Ramsey
County for the pending project and their negotiations with Wells Fargo for an
easement. Ms. Bloom advised that she would remind Ramsey County staff that
the stakes were still in place.
At the request of Member
Stenlund, Ms. Bloom reviewed safety concerns expressed by Member Stenlund in
the construction area of Maple Lane at the Dunlap Avenue curve were being
addressed and/or monitored.
Member Stenlund expressed his
frustration with underground utility work in the community (e.g. County Road
C, Dale Street, etc.) and their ongoing lack of stabilization for those
construction areas in stabilizing potential areas of runoff, and installing perimeter
controls, as well as restoring those areas in a more timely fashion.
Ms. Bloom advised Members that
she would alert Ramsey County of these concerns, as these were Ramsey
County-permitted projects.
6.
LED Street Lighting
Mr. Schwartz advised that he had
heard from Xcel Energy yesterday that they would be unable to attend
tonight’s meeting; and that he had therefore, tentatively put them on the May
2012 PWETC Agenda.
Member Stenlund spoke in support
of pursuing this lighting option to realize overall return on the investment
financially as well as in energy use.
Mr. Schwartz concurred that the
City was aware of a relatively short payback, with technology allowing for
minimal costs and efforts for retrofitting LED lighting into standard
fixtures. Mr. Schwartz advised that the majority of the street lights in
Roseville are Xcel Energy-owned. Mr. Schwartz further advised that Xcel
Energy had recently done a presentation and demonstration in West St. Paul;
and appeared to be moving closer to supporting LED lighting; however, the
process and what Xcel Energy was allowed to charge cities was heavily
regulated by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), with the PUC preferring
that they provide lower costs and shorter payback times.
7.
Assessment Policy Discussion
Ms. Bloom advised that she had
incorporated the feedback from Members at last month’s meeting into the
revised red-lined and updated document currently before the PWETC, with most
of those revisions on pages 1-2.
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall, Ms. Bloom summarized those revisions, with comment and feedback
from Members as follows:
Page 1, Section 1, Line 4
(Vanderwall)
Insert “roadway” to clarify
that the policy applies to all “roadway reconstructions projects” in the
City.
Page 1, Sections 1.a and b
Member Gjerdingen expressed some
concern regarding the rationale in assessments for R-1 and R-2 zoning,
basically the 25% assessment for a 7-ton, 32’ wide pavement versus concerns
expressed at previous meetings on negative impacts in assessing neighborhood
businesses in those residential districts at a higher percentage rate.
Ms. Bloom clarified that the
rationale was related to the purpose for the width of a roadway width for a
single-family property owner, not needing to be on a busy street to be successful.
Ms. Bloom advised that the historical Roseville philosophy was that, no
matter the type of road, everyone needed a road to access their homes and/or
businesses, and the City’s standard road was a 7-ton, 32’ wide road. Ms.
Bloom advised hat, depending on the type of road and its location, some of
those roads would have more or less traffic; however, it was the City’s
intent that all properties be treated alike in relationship to its fixed
assessment rate for residential properties. Obviously, Ms. Bloom noted, if
your property was in a higher density residential or a commercial/retail area
(e.g. Rosedale Shopping Center), the road would be busier and generate more
traffic, thus requiring more road.
Chair Vanderwall noted that there
were two (2) types of neighborhood businesses, and suggested there were other
mechanisms to assist them; opining that given the lack of frequency in road
reconstruction projects, the assessment policy may not be an applicable
mechanism to assist them.
Member Gjerdingen noted, from an
economic standpoint for business survival, it was preferable to help out
little establishments in neighborhoods, whether having a larger road or not.
Ms. Bloom advised that the
assessment policy addressed traffic: the number of trips generated per day,
accessibility and usage; with the idea that a 32’ wide street is sufficient
for residential properties. In considering the neighborhood business, Ms.
Bloom advised that staff was cognizant that those businesses may be in a
residential or a commercial area. However, Ms. Bloom advised that the idea
was to establish a threshold; and since commercial property was valued higher
than residential properties per square foot, the concept of an appraisal
became critical.
Discussion ensued regarding
examples of types of neighborhood businesses that could be located on a
residential street; whether those businesses were seeking additional traffic
and the justification for properties not zoned R-1 and R-2 to be assessed up
to 50% of the project cost versus 25% based on traffic generation, unlike a
typical home business; with the consensus of Members being that most
commercial businesses, with few exceptions, could be found on major roadways.
Chair Vanderwall spoke in support
of the 50% assessment level for properties zoned other than R-1 or R-2.
Chair Vanderwall noted that assessments specific to a commercial property
(e.g. stoplight at intersection into Rosedale) would be billed directly to
that business at 100% if specific to that business; but the City wouldn’t
want that to apply to smaller businesses.
Ms. Bloom advised that part of
the planning philosophy was for a higher density and intensity of uses on
major streets, and lower intensity on local streets. Ms. Bloom reminded
Members that the 25% and 50% were to serve as a threshold.
Section 1.e
Using past development as an
example, discussion ensued on the various assessment rates, or lack thereof,
at Har Mar Mall and the signal at Victoria Street and Larpenteur Avenue, and
applicable cost if any to the City.
Section 2
Ms. Bloom reviewed the formulas,
and their rationale, for various zoning breakdowns, corner lots, and the
philosophy for addressing the short/long sides of lots as applicable without
consideration of access points; and commercially-zoned lot calculations and
the rationale for those as well. Ms. Bloom noted that the current assessment
policy had been revised in 2001, compiling prior, but separate, ordinances.
Section 2.b
Chair Vanderwall noted that he
did not see the actual reference to short or long sides in the language of
the policy, with Ms. Bloom concurring, and noting that she would revise
language to include it.
Chair Vanderwall asked that
staff come prepared to the next meeting with pictures providing examples of
irregular-shaped lots.
Ms. Bloom noted that most of
those items shown as deleted in this version were actually moved elsewhere in
the document.
Page 2, Section 2.f
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall related to property thresholds, Ms. Bloom reviewed the
stipulations of Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 429 regarding assessments,
that all properties be treated alike and no assessments beyond a provable
benefit to a parcel, thus the application of a threshold and appraisal to
determine that benefit threshold.
As the next draft comes
forward, Chair Vanderwall requested that staff clarify language in this
section for better understanding by a layperson to specify that the property
benefit threshold was arising from a project with that benefit provable by
the City.
Page 2, Section 3
Ms. Bloom explained the intent
for this section in addressing routine versus required drainage, with storm
drainage no longer an option, but a standard part of any new construction
project. However, Ms. Bloom clarified that the routine versus required
addressed the “but for” test with the storm drainage work not done if not for
a road improvement project.
Page 2, Section 4
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall, Ms. Bloom clarified the intent of this section, using the
Skillman project as an example, when using the Storm Water Utility Fund as a
funding source for a stand-alone project to fix an ongoing problem. An
example of a storm water improvement not intended “but for” the roadway being
rebuilt (e.g. County Road C-2), Ms. Bloom clarified that such an example was
part of the price of doing businesses, and for cost and infrastructure
efficiencies, it was good practice to make those improvements at the same
time.
Discussion ensued regarding the
demonstrable benefit to homes in the Skillman area and initiation of the
storm water project due to the underlying condition of the area. Ms. Bloom
noted the intent of the Storm Water Utility Fund, into which everyone
city-wide pays and including street sweeping and catch basin maintenance, of
benefit to all taxpayers. Ms. Bloom noted that an argument could be made as
to whether the entire City – through using the Storm Water Utility Fund –
should pay for the Skillman flooding issue or for installation of catch
basins not immediately adjacent to their property as an overall benefit. Ms.
Bloom advised that the City Council’s rationale was that Capital Improvement
Plan projects (CIP) addressed flooding issues city-side and were of benefit
to the entire community.
Chair Vanderwall spoke in support
of that philosophy; however, he questioned how priorities for which projects
on which to spend money would be initiated or determined.
Discussion ensued regarding whether
to include this section, even though it was added in the 2001 version, or
whether it was more applicable in a separate storm water document; staff’s
concurrence that, whether the language was included or not, the City could
assess for public improvements; with Chair Vanderwall and Member Felice
supporting the language remaining in the new policy.
Ms. Bloom reviewed the intent of
the statement remaining in the policy based on if and when a project was
assessable; current watershed district requirements today versus those when
this policy was originally developed in 2001 or in documents preceding that
policy; and when only a portion of a project was assessable to meet
requirements and additional improvements to mitigate or improve other issues
in a reconstruction project area.
Ms. Bloom advised that she would
further clarify the section based on this discussion.
Member Stenlund suggested more
positive language for this, such as: “There shall be special assessments if
required by watershed permits;” to bring something up to standard or code.
Mr. Schwartz suggested language such as: “Storm sewer costs required for road
construction permits shall be included in roadway assessments.”
As discussed further, Ms.
Bloom suggested removing the language entirely, since the definition section
would address “required drainage” in three different areas. Members
concurred to remove Section 4 in its entirety.
Remainder of Document
Ms. Bloom advised that the
remainder of the document had few changes other than formatting; since it
seemed consistent with previous discussions of PWETC members.
Page 4, Section 8.d
Chair Vanderwall questioned the
twenty-five (25 year maintenance evaluation for “enhanced street light”
areas; whether the assessment period actually exceeded the benefit.
Ms. Bloom advised that Xcel
Energy charged for twenty-five (25) years, thus the City’s twenty-five (25)
year assessment, basically a transfer of costs for installation of ornamental
street lights. Ms. Bloom concurred that this was an interesting discussion
point for staff with Xcel Energy staff.
Sidewalk Assessment Research
Member Gjerdingen reported on his
research on the sidewalk assessment policies of other metropolitan
communities (e.g. Cities of Minneapolis, Excelsior, Robbinsdale, St. Louis
Park, Maplewood) including funding options such as a pool, partial or full
assessments, and use of tax levy funds; repairs versus new installation;
differentiation of trails and sidewalks; and language of State Statute,
Chapter 435 regarding assessments for sidewalks based on benefit to
properties.
Mr. Schwartz questioned, as part
of that research, if sidewalks were required in front of every property in
those communities.
Ms. Bloom questioned, as part of
that research, how successful or unsuccessful those sidewalk assessment
policies were in the respective communities.
Member Gjerdingen advised that
his research to-date did not provide answers to those questions.
Discussion among PWETC members
and staff included property value increases from a sidewalk and thus
benefiting a property; potential for Special Assessment Districts where 100%
assessments could be applicable; and the level interest of property owners in
having a sidewalk depending on whether they were installed at no cost to the
property owner or if they were assessable; and the need to address city-wide
access, safety and connectivity needs from an equitable and standard system.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
City’s Pathway Master Plan addressed the entire city-wide system, addressing
everyone equitably, with the entire network intended to benefit and affecting
all.
Member Gjerdingen opined that he
saw no problem assessing both sides of a road for a pathway or sidewalk if
the roadway couldn’t accommodate it.
Ms. Bloom, from her perspective
as a facilitator, opined that sidewalk and pathway projects were one of the
hardest she dealt with, whether on a road, boulevard, or on private
property. Ms. Bloom further opined that, while everyone at this meeting was
supportive of non-motorized transportation needs now and in the future, it
was not as clear to every citizen of Roseville. Ms. Bloom opined that, if
the Fairview Pathway Project had been assessed, it would not have happened,
based on the concerns of property owners fielded by staff. Ms. Bloom used
the proposed sidewalk along County Road B-2 as another example that
eventually went away for a variety of reasons, including when assessments
were brought up as a funding source. Ms. Bloom noted the need to consider
the benefits and who was being served. Ms. Bloom advised that the
perspective of many residents – not all of whom are elderly – was that they
moved to Roseville for a more “country” atmosphere and if they wanted the
“urban” atmosphere, they would move to Minneapolis or St. Paul proper. Ms.
Bloom advised that from staff’s perspective, it was very difficult to sell
the concept of assessing for sidewalks.
Chair Vanderwall concurred,
noting that it came down to the political reality of assessing for sidewalks
in Roseville. If there was no cost, residents were basically neutral;
however, if there was a cost to them, it was not a plus and they would be
against sidewalks. Chair Vanderwall opined that he was a believer that a
system was needed to be built that worked and allowed access throughout the
community for various uses (e.g. business, education, recreation); and spoke
in support of the policy remaining as is for the time being.
Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bloom
concurred, based on their experience and previous discussions.
Member Gjerdingen questioned why
sidewalks were not a requirement for new road projects or reconstruction
projects.
Ms. Bloom responded that, if a
pathway or trail had been recommended as part of the Pathway Master Plan,
staff proposes it as part of any reconstruction project however, she advised
that it was not a requirement for a “mill and overlay” project. Ms. Bloom
clarified that the City Council was ultimately the decision-maker for what is
required, with staff providing the plans and making recommendations, but the
City Council deciding what is possible or required. Ms. Bloom, in response
to Member Gjerdingen on a lack of requirement to install sidewalks, opined
that the Pathway Master Plan addressed areas where a sidewalk would be most
useful or most needed, rather than requiring their installation on every
street arbitrarily. While recognizing that many cities may do so, Ms. Bloom
questioned the success of such policies in those communities.
With Member Gjerdingen opining
that “pathway” had implications, Ms. Bloom offered to revise the wording to
“off-road.”
Discussion ensued regarding the
next steps for the policy, with consensus to include it for one last brief
review and action to recommend the revised policy to the City Council.
Member Stenlund questioned how
the revised Assessment Policy affected the future use of “Complete Streets;”
with roads, ponds, trees and other amenities all being part of the storm
water management system and infrastructure as one piece, even while appearing
to be separate components of future designs
Ms. Bloom opined that the more flexible terminology of the revisions should
address those concerns.
Member Stenlund sought assurance
that the “Complete Streets” concept was not deleted.
Ms. Bloom advised that it
could be included in the “Definitions Section” by noting that drainage
necessary due to road construction could be addressed via many options.
8.
Overhead Electric / Underground Policy
Based on previous discussions of
the PWETC, Mr. Schwartz reviewed revisions made in this draft of the Overhead
Electric / Underground Policy, including additional language to Criteria 5
related to emergency first responders; and an additional Criteria 8
addressing entry corridor aesthetics. Mr. Schwartz noted that addition of
Section a related to funding of projects that would not prohibit
neighborhood-initiated requests if alternate funding was available.
Chair Vanderwall noted a
typographical correction in that last sentence from “…”of” to “for”
undergrounding…
Member Gjerdingen spoke in
support of the criteria; however, he questioned whether the policy implied
that undergrounding could be undertaken without being part of an actual
construction project. Member Gjerdingen expressed his concern that there
needed to be some guidelines in place of minimum criteria established for
undergrounding that would not become a burden for taxpayers.
Chair Vanderwall concurred that
the City certainly didn’t want to apply the policy frivolously; however, he
was unsure how to identify criteria establishing a minimum without
compromising a project that may have merit. Chair Vanderwall noted that the
City Council had to approve each project before it could proceed, and
rationalized that this provided some control or priorities in place.
Member Felice opined that, as
currently written, nothing frivolous would rise high enough in the criteria
listed to reach the level of a priority.
Member Gjerdingen questioned if
members saw any goal in a requirement that all lines be undergrounded as part
of every street reconstruction project over the next fifty (50) years.
Chair Vanderwall opined that in
the past he may have been agreement with such a goal; however, based on past
experience, and potential levels of discomfort from that experience, he could
no longer support that goal. Chair Vanderwall noted his preference for
undergrounding, using the improved aesthetics along the Rice Street Corridor,
and especially supporting it at corners; he realized it wasn’t always the
least expensive option, as well as safety issues to consider as previously
discussed. Chair Vanderwall opined that the criteria were good as written in
this draft.
Member Gjerdingen questioned
whether the policy should include provision to allow undergrounding just on
its own merits, such as if neighbors didn’t like the looks of overhead lines.
Chair Vanderwall noted that this
concern was addressed for neighborhood-initiated projects in the final
paragraphs of the policy under “Funding of Projects.”
Member Gjerdingen opined that he
was in agreement with that.
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall to staff regarding the next steps, Mr. Schwartz noted that the
PWETC had previously requested a map showing coverage areas prior to making a
recommendation to the City Council. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that Xcel
had proven reluctant to share their maps since they considered them to be
in-house, and advised that staff would therefore need to research and
generate such a map.
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall as to whether the PWETC was willing to move ahead without benefit
of reviewing the maps, the majority was willing to do so.
Member Felice moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, approval of recommending the Underground Conversion of
Overhead Electric Utility Lines Policy,” with typographical correction as
noted, to the City Council for their review and consideration.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 1 (Gjerdingen)
Motion carried.
9.
Review of Design Standards for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment
Area
Mr.
Schwartz briefly reviewed the design standards for the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area guiding documents and the recent creation of the Twin
Lakes Overlay Map specific by ordinance to the Twin Lakes area and addressing
setbacks and landscaping. Mr. Schwartz advised that the materials are
provided for discussion, if further information was requested by the PWETC,
he recommended that Community Development Department staff be invited to a
future meeting to address questions.
Member
Felice opined that she liked the design standards, especially for that area,
and as Roseville became more densely-populated and open spaces became more
valuable.
Chair
Vanderwall concurred, noting that his previous concerns about accessibility
for non-motorized traffic from roadways had been addressed through his review
of the design standards.
Member
Gjerdingen noted that, if these guidelines and standards had been applied
with past developments in Roseville, they certainly would have looked
different, but in a good way than they do now. Member Gjerdingen expressed
his frustration that the PWETC still didn’t have any more input related to
transportation-related design standards. As an example, Member Gjerdingen
noted primary streets and access points were not better defined or addressing
where pedestrian traffic would be better. From his perspective, Member
Gjerdingen opined that the language was weak (Section 1005.04) for developers
seeming to have the option of providing pedestrian connections or
“encouraged” to do so, without making it an actual requirement.
Chair
Vanderwall noted that the “Statement of Purpose” provided that preference.
Chair Vanderwall noted the balance of getting businesses to locate in
Roseville versus getting them to pay for amenities.
Mr.
Schwartz opined that it was a valid comment that strict requirements were not
in place, but generally encouraged, with Mr. Schwartz noting that this was
addressed between applicants and staff during negotiations.
Regarding
Section 1005.02.a, Member Gjerdingen questioned the corner placement in
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning Districts, using Wal-Mart as an example and
their implication for two (2) potential businesses; however, Member
Gjerdingen opined that a developer should be required to fill in every corner
before developing a site, not doing so piece meal.
Chair
Vanderwall clarified hat development in Twin Lakes had not occurred through a
Master Plan process, but was now actually being done piece meal as the market
brings development forward. Chair Vanderwall opined that it would be
prohibitive to require everything to be built up before any development was
allowed to happen.
Member
Gjerdingen opined, again using Wal-Mart as an example, that the buildings
should provide a nice urban look up to the property line, without a huge
parking lot as part of that design until further development occurred.
Mr.
Schwartz clarified that the area identified for future development would be
retained as green space on those Outlots, not as a parking lot.
Chair
Vanderwall requested that Member Gjerdingen focus his comments on this
document, not on Wal-Mart, since that was before the City Council, not this
body.
Member
Gjerdingen noted that he had observed it elsewhere, when intention didn’t
measure up to reality, and used the Walgreens at County Road E and Lexington
in Arden Hills as another example, or the Super Target at Pascal in
Roseville. Member Gjerdingen opined that retail space continued to remain
available or vacant and often parking lot versus green space took the place
of the land not being developed immediately.
Chair
Vanderwall provided another example in Little Canada on Rice Street where a
building went up and still had only one (1) tenant, even though built with a
future intent. However, Chair Vanderwall noted that some vacancies were due
to consequences of the market.
In
Section 1004.06 (Regional Business), Section E.1, Member Gjerdingen opined
that he would prefer more on-street parking creating a buffer between the
sidewalk and street, or shared space that would prove beneficial.
Chair
Vanderwall provided another example of his recent visit to Washington, D.C.
and parking and transit options there; as well as the results of our changing
society.
In
Section 1005.07 (page 45 of the CMU Zoning Section), Member Gjerdingen noted
the many lots in Twin Lakes marked with “flexible” frontage, and opined that
CMU zoning should be comparable to the Regional Business Zoning District;
with the CMU area having more restrictions, since it appeared that the City
had given up a lot of control.
Chair
Vanderwall suggested that the flexibility may be related to the type of
businesses that was trying to be attracted, with different criteria for an
office building versus retail; as well as more flexibility for tenants and
customers or clients, based on the type of business. Chair Vanderwall
suggested that this may be part of the rationale for allowing that
flexibility, to encourage a broader range of uses, or at least to not place
undue restrictions or regulations on those uses unless applicable.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that the Zoning Districts had been developed with
significant business community input, respecting their property rights, while
at the same time achieving the long-term goals of the City for green space
and green corridors. Mr. Schwartz advised that the results of those
discussions had provided this language; and as properties developed, this
document would attempt to achieve those long-term goals.
Chair
Vanderwall thanked staff for providing the documents; opining that he
intended to keep them for future reference for PWETC-related interests and
discussions.
At
the request of Member Felice, Mr. Schwartz advised that there had been some
resistance in the City’s attempt to promote this type of development, while
also attempting to recognize the market and meet customer base concerns of
developers, through some compromises.
Member
Gjerdingen opined that the City shouldn’t have found it necessary to back off
its standards when it had installed a roadway; further opining that the
market would eventually be there.
However,
Chair Vanderwall questioned in which generation that market may occur.
Even
though probably identified on the Plat, regarding the Regulating Map, Member
Gjerdingen asked that Mr. Schwartz pass on to the Community Development
Department the need to identify public streets in the document so it was not
left up to interpretation.
Chair
Vanderwall, with Mr. Schwartz concurring, noted that it was difficult to
determine which street a development would use as their frontage until the
type of business was identified; or which pedestrian or vehicle access was
most desirable depending on that use, aesthetics, and other considerations.
10.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – May 22, 2012
Mr. Schwartz and Chair Vanderwall
identified agenda items for the next PWETC meeting:
·
Annual NDPES Public Hearing
·
Presentation/discussion by the City’s storm water plan
consultant, S.E.H.
·
Green Step Cities: Mr. Schwartz noted that U of MN students,
using Roseville as a project, had made a presentation to the City Council
last night, outlining where the City was now and what it needed to do to
achieve that status.
·
Whether to more actively pursue and adopt a “Complete Streets”
Policy, with former Chair DeBenedet requesting additional discussions at a
future PWETC meeting.
·
Xcel Energy – brief presentation and overview on LED street
lighting
·
Final review of undergrounding policy for recommendation to the
City Council
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that, based on City Council discussion and
staff research on their request for additional information, the City Council
had asked the PWETC to further review the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plan (TMP) for a funding mechanism.
11.
Adjourn
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Gjerdingen seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:35 p.m.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|