|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, July 24, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Jan Vanderwall called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Jan Vanderwall; and Members Jim DeBenedet; Joan Felice; Steve
Gjerdingen; and Dwayne Stenlund
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; and City Engineer
Debra Bloom
2.
Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
3.
Approval of June 26, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the June 26, 2012, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 1, Line 32 (DeBenedet)
Correct to read
County Road “C-2” (May 22, 2012 Minutes as well)
·
Page 14, Line 610 (DeBenedet)
Correct to read “constantly,”
rather than “consistently.
·
Page 15, Lines 653 and 654 (DeBenedet and Gjerdingen)
Correct “fences” to “fenced” and
“wee” to “were.”
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz noted that 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
July 24, 2012.
Mr. Schwartz and City Engineer
Debra Bloom responded to specific questions regarding the Rice Street/Ramsey
County project delays due to project funding and preferred pathway locations
as the project proceeds; Phase II of the Fairview Pathway Project defined;
and safety concerns of several heavily-trafficked intersections for
pedestrian traffic and possible resolution.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City Council recently adopted the Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy as
recommended by the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission
(PWETC), and that they had asked that he relay their appreciation to the
PWETC for their valuable work on this policy.
Mr. Schwartz also advised that
the City Council had approved the Final Plat for the proposed Wal-Mart
Development in Twin Lakes at their meeting last night, and a draft
Development Agreement providing for additional conditions for the project to
proceed. Mr. Schwartz advised that all indications are that the project most
likely will move forward, prompting additional infrastructure improvements at
County Road C, Cleveland Avenue and Twin Lakes Parkway, as well as a portion
of the I-35W ramp.
Chair Vanderwall expressed
interest for the PWETC to see the drawings of the ramp when they become
available.
Member Stenlund suggested, as
part of a post-construction Capstone project for the County Road C-2
connection, that staff contact the U of MN to determine their interest in
this as a student project; volunteering to write a study proposal and serve
with students on such a collaborative mentoring project for the Cleveland
intersection and pathways.
5.
Pathway Master Plan
Mr. Schwartz noted that,
following past PWETC discussions, staff had provided an updated map showing
the Pathway Master Plan and the Parks Master Plan pathway priorities. Mr.
Schwartz advised that these revisions are up-to-date with projects
constructed since the plan was adopted in 2008, and provided as a foundation
for tonight’s discussion. Mr. Schwartz noted that Member Gjerdingen’s
comments had been included on the maps as well.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the original Pathway Committee had done the scoring
and ranking, and were intended to provide background information for the
PWETC. Mr. Schwartz noted that the Parks Master Plan priority list had been
provided by their Trails and Natural Resources Subcommittee; and recommended
that the PWETC meet with Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke to
discuss their build-out plan. To-date, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had
not spent too much time on this endeavor, but following tonight’s discussion,
would follow the direction of the PWETC as to the process, ranking, criteria
and other components to proceed.
Ms. Bloom noted that 4.6 miles of
pathway had been added since 2008, a considerable amount given the limited
funding available for such projects. At the request of Chair Vanderwall, Ms.
Bloom pointed out the new areas since 2008; with Mr. Schwartz noting that
they were constructed basically using MSA or grant dollars for their
respective construction, since no dedicated, tax-supported funding had been
provided since 2002 for new pathway construction.
Member Felice expressed her
concern with safety in crossing Snelling at Roselawn, based on the timing of
the lights. Member Felice opined that the lights seemed to be timed more for
night, but during the day, the timing was very short, causing pedestrians to
push through quickly. Member Felice asked staff to address this area of safety
to Ramsey County.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff
would bring it to the attention of Ramsey County and MnDOT to see if they
could make any adjustments; however, she noted that the entire Snelling
Avenue corridor was a challenge, with many other safety concerns along it as
well.
Discussion ensued regarding areas
throughout the community where a grade separation or a pedestrian bridge
would provide greater pedestrian safety; however Members noted that something
needed to be done in the interim.
Mr. Schwartz noted that there
were approximately twenty-six (26) miles of off-road facilities still
proposed on the maps as presented; with Ms. Bloom estimating a cost of
approximately $400,000 per mile, excluding storm water, right-of-way,
landscaping, and other amenities, with the construction cost alone totaling
approximately $10.1 million.
One area, identified by the
Pathway Committee, provided for a recommended grade separation at County Road
C-2 at I-35W; with Ms. Bloom noting that County Road C-2 provided a great
east/west route for bicycles and pedestrians because of the location of parks
along that route; but due to the grade changes, lends itself for an ADA
bridge.
Ms. Bloom noted the considerable
need but difficulty of getting a pedestrian facility built along Snelling due
to numerous loops and ramps, with a preferred option to build a bridge across
Highway 36, but stymied due to the costs and limited rights-of-way available.
Member Gjerdingen suggested a
cost-benefit analysis for locating a pedestrian bridge across Highway 36,
specifically in the areas of Herschel St, along the Snelling Avenue
right-of-way, and taking into consideration other various crossing areas.
Chair Vanderwall suggested that a
location further east, near the Rosedale Mall transit hub may prove more
beneficial.
Member Stenlund opined that
another ramp or parking facility (on the other side of County Road B) would
be needed once the Rosedale parking was no longer available. Member Stenlund
noted the need to include the School Districts in the discussions to ensure
any future pathway system adequately got children to and from schools.
Chair Vanderwall noted the
difficulties in addressing school needs without a County Road B-2 pathway,
since that alone affected four (4) different public and two (2) private
schools in the community. Chair Vanderwall noted the great benefit to
Brimhall School from the Fairview Pathways.
Ms. Bloom noted that a County
Road B-2 pathway had been identified by the Parks Master Plan Implementation
group as their priority for 2013-2016, for a section from Lexington Avenue to
Rice Street. Mr. Schwartz noted that, to-date, most of the planning
discussions had been internal; however, some park connections needed to be
included as part of the discussion as well.
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the MN Supreme Court had chosen to
not take up the appeal for the Port Authority bond issue, which should allow
more determined planning on proposed projects to proceed.
At the request of Member
DeBenedet, Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bloom noted that the Parks Master Plan
process had been coordinated using the original 2008 Pathway Master Plan
allowing for coordination of the two; in addition to the other information
received during the Parks Master Plan process itself. Ms. Bloom advised that
this was represented on Attachment D in tonight’s meeting packet, identifying
four (4) priority projects under discussion by the Parks Pathway and Natural
Resource Committee. Ms. Bloom noted that she had met with their group
numerous times as they developed their priorities; with $2 million of the
total $19 million bonds designated for the Parks Implementation Program
specifically for pathways.
Discussion included the condition
and lack of funding for roads prior to being acceptable to the City for
turnback potential from Ramsey County; current traffic with the closed access
on County Road B to Highway 280, but the limitations for pedestrian and/or
bicycle facilities along this ¾ mile strip even with traffic counts lowered
by approximately 1/3.
Member DeBenedet opined that, an
alternative from his perspective for a bicycle lane from County Road B to the
northern city limits would be on Victoria from County Road C, noting the
considerable pedestrian safety concerns and excessive vehicle speed along
that stretch.
Ms. Bloom noted that the Victoria
route is a significant challenge for off-road access, given the deep ditches
along it.
However, Member DeBenedet opined
that based on safety interests alone, this had to become a priority.
Mr. Schwartz noted that another
consideration was a reasonable timeframe for build-out based on funding, and
the complexities of some of the projects, with roughly twenty-six (26) miles
remaining, and whether a ten (10) or twenty (20) year plan was more feasible.
Member DeBenedet opined that he
would like to see a maximum ten (10) year build-out for the entire Plan,
noting his original service on the Pathway Committee thirty (30) years ago,
suggesting a twenty (20) year build-out at that time, with little progress
to-date on that Master Plan.
Member Felice noted, as someone
benefiting from the recent Fairview Pathway improvements, what a huge
difference it made and opined that it was well worth working toward.
If the City considered one (1)
mile of pathway per year, Member Stenlund noted it would take twenty-six (26
years to completed; and questioned if that was reasonable, or if it was more
reasonable to expect two (2) miles annually. Member Stenlund noted that it
all came down to available funding and commitment to the overall project.
Chair Vanderwall opined that,
whether reasonable or not, a two (2) mile per year milestone seemed
appropriate to accomplish this community-wide goal, of significant interest
to the entire community as frequently voiced.
If Chair Vanderwall’s two (2)
year milestone was to be achieved, Member Stenlund noted the need to identify
funding sources to accomplish that goal.
Member Gjerdingen opined that it
was not unreasonable to attempt this accomplishment over a ten (10) year
period, comparing other proposed park improvements being considered.
Chair Vanderwall cautioned that
all of the Parks Implementation Program projects are good projects for the
community, not just the pathway portion; and should not be viewed as
competing for dollars or priority. Chair Vanderwall noted the need to work
in partnership, and continue the great job of public involvement achieved by
the Parks and Recreation Commission throughout the Master Plan process.
Chair Vanderwall opined that the entire $19 million was absolutely worth it
to the community, and would provide benefit back to the public overall.
Ms. Bloom and Mr. Schwartz
defined that, of the twenty-six (26) total pathway miles yet to be
constructed, and the total $13 million estimated dollar amount, the initial
bond funds of $2 million designated for pathway construction as prioritized,
would leave $11 million remaining unfunded over the next ten (10) years, if
that was the timeframe determined by the PWETC. In reviewing the table
included in the staff report, Member DeBenedet noted that in review of
build-out and ranking criteria for those of 100 or higher, it was
approximately half of the total projects. Member DeBenedet opined that it
would a great accomplishment if that half could be built in the next seven
(7) to eight (8) years.
Staff noted that they had only
provided rough estimates of some of the proposed build-outs, without more
detailed calculations done yet.
Member DeBenedet opined that it
would be interesting to know the total length of those projects up to the 100
ranking; and have another column for the length of projects not included in
the Parks Master Plan, further defining those remaining. Member DeBenedet
noted his interest in aggressively convincing Ramsey County that they include
the pathway priorities in the Rice Street corridor planning for their
“Context Sensitive Design.”
Mr. Schwartz noted that Ramsey
County had discussed it in theory as part of their revised transportation
program, to cost-share 50% of actual sidewalk or trail construction.
Member DeBenedet opined that it
only made sense that various jurisdictions support public transportation;
address how pedestrians accessed bus route areas in the winter months without
fighting vehicular traffic and snow banks; and to provide a safe place for
pedestrians in the winter. Member DeBenedet suggested a further and more
refined review by the PWETC of this list to determine a realistic cost using
city tax dollars; and how those figures could be used to convince the City
Council that this is not only beneficial, but affordable.
Mr. Schwartz suggested that, as
this discussion proceeded, this was an exercise for staff to look at lengths
and specific construction complexities; and provide the PWETC with a better
cost estimate; with Ms. Bloom suggesting a feasibility ranking for those easy
to pursue and those more complex.
Chair Vanderwall suggested that
staff proceed with that exercise, without expending too much time and effort;
but providing a better picture of those areas that would be easier to
consider initially.
Further discussion included
challenges for crossing Highway280 at Larpenteur Avenue and rights of the
City versus rights of the railroad company for their tracks, as well as various
jurisdictions involved, with a portion in Minneapolis, and the City’s
existing right-of-way on the west side of the road.
Member Felice, specific to the
Highway 280/Larpenteur Avenue area, suggested a pro-active approach
recognizing the importance for safety in this area, and that it be kept as a
high priority during the planning process.
Mr. Schwartz advised that another
option could be a north/south parallel to Highway 280 through partnering with
Midland Hills Golf Course to achieve a connection; all discussed during the
Parks Master Plan process.
Members were of a consensus that
this would be an important connection.
From a safety perspective, Ms.
Bloom noted that there was no question this presented a barrier, opining that
a grade differentiation would have been great, but didn’t see it on the
radar. Ms. Bloom advised that the entire NE Diagonal area came up for
discussion on a weekly basis, and would provide a huge benefit for a
significant portion of the pathway system, with Walnut providing a great
connection. However, Ms. Bloom noted that furthering this was a significant
challenge in the southwest area of the community. At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Ms. Bloom reviewed some of the constraints, including the
railroad not allowing pathways within fifty feet (50’) of their tracks, and
the current right-of-way only being fifty feet (50’) wide. Ms. Bloom noted
that Ramsey County was in agreement with the City to move ahead.
Mr. Schwartz noted that an
upcoming project was to resurface County Rd C from Long Lake Road west with
concrete; with Ms. Bloom advising that this was a definite area of interest
for the City partnering with Ramsey County, given its location on the
priority list. Ms. Bloom noted that the City had partnered with the County
on a past grant application, which had subsequently failed to be awarded.
Chair Vanderwall noted the pieces
that are regional, not local, in nature, and questioned why there was not
more interest from Ramsey County in pursuing those projects.
Ms. Bloom advised that the
original alignment of the northeast diagonal pathway was proposed along the
railroad tracks, and the railroad would not work with the City on such a
project. Ms. Bloom advised that the City didn’t consider easements from
adjacent property owners at that time to route a pathway down the south side;
however, opined that this might be an easier option than attempting to secure
railroad rights-of-way.
Mr. Schwartz questioned the PWETC
on how and when they wanted to discuss the pathway system with the Parks and
Recreation Commission or their pathway subcommittee. Mr. Schwartz questioned
if the PWETC was interested in inviting representatives of either group to
their August meeting. Mr. Schwartz noted Mr. Brokke’s strong interest in
participation in this conversation with the PWETC.
Chair Vanderwall noted that, once
the PWETC had more information to work with, as discussed during this
discussion, they would have more pieces from which to develop a sense of
priorities. Prior to hearing from the Parks and Recreation Commission, Chair
Vanderwall suggested that the Sierra Club and other organizations and
agencies with off-road interests be approached. Chair Vanderwall opined that
they, as stronger users of the system, could provide additional input for the
PWETC to consider before discussions went further. Chair Vanderwall
suggested that some brief (e.g. ½ hour) discussions with those groups could
be held, in addition to other business before the PWETC before a joint
meeting with other City commissions or committees, but accomplished within
the next few months.
Member Gjerdingen suggested
pathway reconstruction projects be categorized separately from new
construction to consider different funding sources.
Ms. Bloom noted the request of
Member DeBenedet for staff to provide a column for estimated length, and a
funding source column. Ms. Bloom suggested a column indicating “funded” to
identify a dedicated source of funds, otherwise to leave the column blank.
Chair Vanderwall suggested the
“criteria” column be collapsed, since it no longer needed to be part of the
discussion as the ranking had already been done, just leaving the actual
score itself.
Members were of a consensus that
the criteria column be deleted.
Chair Vanderwall suggested, for
future discussion, a column providing total scores for judging purposes of
the PWETC, and for reference, a brief description for the total weight
column.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Ms. Bloom advised that the Oasis connection on County Road C-2
had received a lower priority than some, based on Parks priorities
established from community discussions and those things that fit with other
areas of the park implementation improvements. Ms. Bloom noted that, while
County Road C-2 is a major east/west connection for non-motorized connections
in Roseville, Oasis Park was a barrier to that connection. Ms. Bloom noted
that the City actually owned the land; however, a pond was in the way,
originally a maintenance road, but now having vegetation on it, and subject
to funding for completion of a pathway connection, basically to get over the
ditch.
Member Stenlund questioned if any
of the pathways could be considered for construction as part of an unpaved
system that would be considered low maintenance and not plowed during the
winter months, making them seasonal pathways only, not all-season pathways.
When Ms. Bloom questioned if such
a path would be considered an ADA surface, Member Stenlund advised that MnDOT
was building some with gravel.
Chair Vanderwall opined that
seasonal trails (e.g. ski trails discussed but not included) had not been
incorporated into the original Master Plan.
Member Stenlund questioned if it
was better to have a seasonal trail, if you already owned the land or no
trail at all if funding was not available.
Ms. Bloom noted that there were
several well-beaten trails or footpaths identified on the map.
Member DeBenedet opined that
Member Stenlund’s suggestion made sense, if the public understood that
development of the pathway would be a staged process, with it graded,
aggregate applied, and compacted for a period of time until and if funding
could be found within five (5) years.
Ms. Bloom reminded the PWETC that
County Road B might be a conversation, but feedback from property owners was
needed before moving too far along.
Member Stenlund suggested another
area for “low hanging fruit” may be to consider single-track pathways, or
off-road cycling paths in more wooded areas.
Mr. Schwartz advised that this
discussion was held as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process,
with Member Gjerdingen noting that this was already happening in Reservoir
Woods.
Chair Vanderwall noted his
observation on a recent visit to Fort Wayne, IN where bike clubs were
maintaining off-road bike pathways; and suggested this made sense rather than
their maintenance becoming a city obligation; noting that bikers can be
highly-motivated to maintain those paths for their enjoyment and use.
Member Gjerdingen opined that a
metro area segment of the Minnesota Off-Road Cyclists would jump at such an
opportunity.
6.
Assessment Policy Revisions
Ms. Bloom presented a revised
Assessment Policy (Attachment A) based on discussion at the March 2012 PWETC
meeting, and incorporating those changes as well as reorganizing the policy
for easier use. Ms. Bloom reviewed and highlighted those revisions,
including added language for the Introduction Statement based on previous
discussions, based on guidance from language f the League of Minnesota Cities
(LMC) Assessment Guide (lines 1-10).
Ms. Bloom addressed special
benefit test language (e.g. appraisals); various lot configurations in
determining assessable frontage and formulas to calculate that frontage; and
clarification of the long side/short side of a lot, also added to the
“Definition” section as well. Further language addressed private driveways;
roadway new construction (page 2, line 9) and those costs (e.g. Applewood
Point and Josephine Woods); reconstruction projects for R-1 and R-2 zoning
designations, and calling out street widths based on whether or not a roadway
was an MSA street, but providing an equitable method to determine actual
costs to property owners (page 2, lines 22 – 28) and including those terms in
the definition section.
Ms. Bloom noted that the sanitary
sewer language was a new section not previously discussed by the PWETC, and
based on her and Mr. Schwartz’ review and finding it to be inconsistent as
previously written; and carried over similarly in the water section as well
(page 2, line 31 and page 3, lines 12-32). At the request of Chair
Vanderwall, Ms. Bloom reviewed new sanitary sewer and/or water main
connections for a minimal number of properties not yet connected to City
water.
Chair Vanderwall suggested that
it be made clearer what “new construction” consists of, with Ms. Bloom
suggesting “new connections.”
Ms. Bloom also reviewed upsizing
needs for larger capacity mains and how those would be assessed (page 2, line
36), above and beyond typical capacity versus actual need and examples of
such situations.
Ms. Bloom advised that she would
also further define storm sewer construction (page 3, line 9) as well as
water main cost responsibilities.
An example of upsizing needed to
prevent or correct neighborhood flooding (e.g. Woodland Hills) but not
assessed to property owners above what was typical was further reviewed by
staff.
Member Stenlund noted (page 2,
lines 36-45) areas where upsizing downstream sections to facilitate business
or residential needs; and suggested this be addressed more clearly to address
the function of what needed to be addressed; and how to approach commercial
properties where capacity doesn’t exist and connection to a residential
system.
Ms. Bloom and Mr. Schwartz
expanded on that situation (e.g. new building on Ameritech Site) for this new
development property where an undersized main was already in place, and
assessing 10)%. Ms. Bloom concurred with Member Stenlund that further
definition and clarity was needed to make that determination.
Member Stenlund suggested separating that section for fairness factors; and
Ms. Bloom advised that staff would consider it further.
Chair Vanderwall opined that it
made sense to treat residential the same no matter where they lived; and if a
larger flow was needed, the source property of the larger flow should be
assessed, not those downstream, but with typical flow.
Other examples were reviewed
(e.g. Rainbow, lift stations with greater capacity needed); and discharge
rates taken into consideration.
Member Stenlund opined that, as
densities increased with future construction trends, or as people moved based
on the availability of transportation, this situation would only continue to
evolve.
Mr. Schwartz noted that, when
that happened, they are required to ensure the City’s system could handle
their needs, and if they were unable to demonstrate capacity exists, they
needed to pay for any upsizing.
Ms. Bloom noted that such a
development would and could not be successful without engineering for their
needs in advance.
Member DeBenedet opined that he
found several areas of potential conflict in the policy as currently drafted
that might open up a situation for their engineer and attorney to use those
inconsistencies as a solution for them. Member DeBenedet pointed out those
areas of his concern (page 2) for sanitary construction (a) and the exception
listed in subd. b, and suggested a similar exception be listed under c).
Member DeBenedet suggested this would further clarify and eliminate any
potential inconsistencies; or rephrase the language similar to that used in
the water main discussion. Member DeBenedet opined that this was more likely
the case with respect to sanitary sewer connections, as pointed out by Member
Stenlund, in overloading the sanitary sewer, but further opined that it did
happen, and in the case of a water main, it would be much less likely to
require upsizing beyond 8”. However, since larger buildings need to be
sprinklered, Member DeBenedet noted that it took less water, but provided a
higher pressure but would be much less of an issue if those changes were
made.
Regarding storm sewer
construction (page 3, line 6), questioned new development being unable to
increase peak runoff; and things that could change with on-site storage to
maintain peak runoff rates, and might serve to increase total volume and
discharge for a longer period and impact downstream storage.
Ms. Bloom noted that those
situations would be contrary to Roseville rules, as well as those for the
Capitol Region Watershed District and the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Member DeBenedet questioned if
that would be true for significant rain events, such as 6” or 9” rainfalls;
and suggested it be given further consideration by staff.
Member Stenlund opined that, even
though there are rules to follow, there could be some situations where a
variance was forced to be granted or move into a penalty fee; and further
opined that there were always exceptions to the rules, and just because
something wasn’t supposed to happen, didn’t mean it can’t happen.
Member DeBenedet strongly
encouraged that staff include something to address downstream impacts in case
of a new development.
Ms. Bloom noted the need to
include such language consistently for all three (3) utilities, which was not
done at this time.
Member DeBenedet suggested
including language, similar to that in the storm water ordinance language
requiring new development and/or redevelopment to reduce their rate of
runoff.
Ms. Bloom noted that part of the
City’s comprehensive surface water management plan would include language
specific to problem areas and their proportionate shares of the problem
areas; with Mr. Schwartz providing examples past examples (e.g. Rainbow,
Rosedale, and Har Mar Mall).
In conclusion, Ms. Bloom noted,
in the pathway area of the Assessment Policy, a new section addressed the new
TMP component for assessing on a 25/75% split for neighborhood petitions for
sidewalks that are not included in the Pathway Master Plan map.
At the request of Member
DeBenedet, Ms. Bloom concurred that a redevelopment clause needed to be
incorporated into the Assessment Policy language to address those areas not
included in the priority map and not a priority segment, but requested by a
neighborhood and addressing zoning code requirements.
Members concurred that, with the
changes outlined during tonight’s discussion, the Policy was close enough to
complete that the PWEC didn’t need to see another draft, and directed staff
to proceed with presentation of the Policy to the City Council once final
revisions were incorporated.
Member Gjerdingen moved, Member
DeBenedet seconded, formally recommending the revised Assessment Policy to
the Roseville City Council, amended as per tonight’s discussion to the format
presented by staff (Attachment A); as amended.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
7.
Draft Complete Streets Policy
Member DeBenedet provided, a
bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, entitled “Resolution
for Complete Streets Policy for the City of Roseville, MN.” Member DeBenedet
apologized for not getting it to the PWETC for their review prior to
tonight’s meeting; and for sending it in PDF format to staff, rather than as
a Word document to allow changes.
Recess
Chair Vanderwall briefly recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:07 p.m. for member review of the handout, and reconvened at
approximately 8:10 p.m.
Ms. Bloom noted the staff report
providing discussions to-date and links to various policies for PWETC review;
with the proposed draft Policy developed by staff (Attachment A) staff based
on one recently completed for the City of Falcon Heights. Ms. Bloom advised
that she would defer to Member DeBenedet to address his suggestions and
submitted policy.
Member DeBenedet summarized his
policy, based on an earlier presentation to the PWETC and City Council by
Green Step Minnesota, noting that the City had already accomplished a number
of required steps in adopting a Complete Streets Policy, and resulting in
development of his draft Policy. Member DeBenedet advised that he detailed
those steps already taken and well documented from other various documents
already in place and tying to such a Policy. Member DeBenedet noted that all
components be initially considered, including finance and revenue components
for initial construction and/or reconstruction.
Chair Vanderwall noted that the
Comprehensive Plan had been adopted in 2010, and asked that the date be
incorporated into Member DeBenedet’s policy.
Member DeBenedet noted his
reference to other jurisdictions and their respective policies; and hid
elimination of the “opt out” section included in staff’s proposed Policy
(page 5), opining that this would be too easy, since this policy recognizes
the need for flexibility. Member DeBenedet noted his additional language (5)
addressing that necessary flexibility.
Chair Vanderwall questioned
whether “federal” should be included as another jurisdiction in Member
DeBenedet’s new paragraph.
Member Stenlund concurred, noting
that federal jurisdiction would address the railroad and gas utilities.
While sometimes crossing gas
lines, Ms. Bloom questioned if it had ever impacted plans.
Member Stenlund opined that a
missing component was “green corridor connections;” since the gas utility
corridor forced green corridors, he felt it was part of the Complete Streets
program; and a wildlife corridor needed to be maintained to avoid increased
traffic issues with animals from a safety and traffic movement perspective –
both for animals and people (page 4, incorporate “perpetuate wildlife” as an element)
with green corridors making for healthier transportation corridors.
Chair Vanderwall opined that a
more defined element was needed and this made some sense.
Member Stenlund noted that it was
in “Context Sensitive Design” included natural pathways for how wildlife
moved, typically along water corridors.
Chair Vanderwall suggested
“wildlife corridor” would provide better language.
In the context of road
construction projects, Ms. Bloom questioned how wildlife would be taken into
consideration (e.g. Lexington Avenue reconstruction).
Member DeBenedet suggested the
addition of a bullet point (page 4) in the list of elements entitled: “environmental
corridors and wildlife movement.”
Member Stenlund concurred, noting
that this included human movement on green space, but also provided for
wildlife movement as well.
On Page 5, Member DeBenedet noted
Member Stenlund’s suggested to include “federal” as a primary
jurisdiction or public entity. Members concurred.
Member DeBenedet questioned how
to address this as a City of Roseville plan for the overall community versus
a vocal minority or one neighborhood, and how to best define overall project
costs.
Ms. Bloom agreed that this would
be a challenge, and used street lights as an example of consensus building,
and when costs are found to be excessive, but how best to define excessive.
Chair Vanderwall noted the
options available for lighting alternatives, diminishing the opinion of a
select few or one individual.
Member DeBenedet concurred,
noting that the Assessment Policy, as revised, addressed that, and if an
option was chosen they would pay applicable assessment costs.
Member DeBenedet reviewed other
bullet points (page 5) and his decision to strike out “topographic” (e.g.
Dale Street) as a cost, and natural resources included within the
environmental safety risks.
In the last sentence of page 5
regarding resources available beyond the City’s Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP), Member DeBenedet opined that this would avoid excessive, unplanned for
costs; with Chair Vanderwall concurring that this would be based on community
wants/needs and part of the context definition.
Member Gjerdingen, for public
clarity, suggested that the last sentence of the first paragraph of the
policy (page 1) be better explained as discussed tonight addressing
flexibility for incorporating Complete Street principles.
Chair Vanderwall opined that it
was sufficiently clarified at the end of the Policy, where approval by the
City Council and procedures were addressed, with exceptions specifically
addressed and identified (page 5, last sentence).
Member Gjerdingen noted Member
Stenlund’s comment (page 4) under water, and the need to modify the first
four (4) paragraphs above that, specific to transporting water, not just
people.
Member DeBenedet noted language
provided storm water drainage as an element.
After further discussion,
consensus was that additional language was not necessary, as the discussion
was at a higher level related to surface transportation for safe, accessible
and multi-model transportation networks without additional specificity needed
since those infrastructure issues were dealt with under separate policies
with some of those revisions currently underway at the staff level.
Regarding the variance
discussion, Ms. Bloom asked Member DeBenedet – for clarity purposes – how he
would look at the policy itself to be followed, under an “included, but not
limited to” perspective under that scenario of potential variances. Ms.
Bloom noted these would need to be addressed as part of a “finding of fact”
discussion and consideration of why they may not be included.
Member DeBenedet opined that some
things don’t’ need to be said, but if not included with the plan and on a
Master Plan somewhere, and if found not in compliance, those findings needed
to state why not.
Member Gjerdingen suggested in
terms of safety, the word “detailed” planning effects be included.
Member DeBenedet advised staff
that he would provide the document in a Word format for revisions to be
incorporated.
Member Gjerdingen suggested
including language (page 4) in elements for “on and off-road crossings.”
After further discussion, it was
PWETC consensus to include that language, as well as a separate bullet point
entitled “crosswalks” and “crossings.”
Chair Vanderwall moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, recommendation to the Roseville City Council to adopt the
Complete Streets Policy (DeBenedet draft; as amended.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Chair Vanderwall thanked Ms.
Bloom and Member DeBenedet for their work on the draft.
8.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – August 28, 2012
·
Comprehensive
Surface Water Management Plan Review (continued)
Mr. Schwartz advised that Ms.
Bloom would be representing staff at the August meeting, but that he would be
out-of-town.
Chair Vanderwall suggested this
be a one subject meeting, concentrating only on finalizing the Storm Water
Master Plan.
Ms. Bloom thanked members for
their great feedback provided at the last meeting, even though time ran out
before discussions were completed.
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall to keep the meeting time short, Ms. Bloom committed to providing
the latest draft to the PWETC at least one (1) week in advance of the August
meeting.
At the request of Member
DeBenedet, Mr. Schwartz updated the PWETC on street light discussions with
Xcel Energy and a potential presentation in the future to the PWETC, possibly
for their October meeting.
9.
Adjourn
Member Stenlund moved, Member
DeBenedet seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:50 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|