|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 6:30 p.m.
1. Introduction
/ Roll Call
Chair Cihacek
called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30
p.m. and at his request, Public Works Director Marc Culver called the roll.
Present: Chair Brian Cihacek; Vice Chair Joe Wozniak; and
Members Thomas Trainor, John Heimerl, Duane Seigler, Nancy Misra and Kody
Thurnau
Staff Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver and City
Engineer Jesse Freihammer
2. Public
Comments
Idelle
Peterson, 2700 Oxford Street North
Ms. Peterson
thanked Members for hosting the Comprehensive Plan workshop on June 1, 2017.
3. Approval
of June 27, 2017 Meeting Minutes
Comments
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by PWETC commissioners
prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions incorporated into the draft
presented in meeting materials.
Public Works
Director Culver commented that Member Heimerl submitted minor changes to the
minutes prior to the meeting.
Motion
Member Wozniak
moved, Member Trainor seconded, approval of the June 27, 2017 meeting minutes
as amended.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
4. Communication
Items
Public Works
Director Culver and City Engineer Freihammer provided additional comments and
a brief review and update on projects, maintenance activities, and City
Council actions listed in the staff report dated July 25, 2017.
Member Trainor
commented on how his neighbors did not know anything about Comcast doing work
in his neighborhood. He inquired how the City notifies residents of potential
work in their neighborhood.
Mr. Freihammer
responded the project areas with Comcast and CenturyLink are on the City website,
but they do not typically send out individual notifications for each permit.
It is listed under Public Works and the 2017 Private Utility Projects, and
includes a link to the project area map.
Director of
Public Works Culver stated it is not on the main page because the
Communications Department likes to put more recent things there. It is
uncommon to require companies to provide notification to residents, but they
may consider it in the future for large projects.
Member Trainor
commented they should provide more information to residents with the scale of
these projects and additional contact information other than calling Comcast
and having to wait on hold for a long time.
Mr. Culver
advised the City’s Right of Way Coordinator, Dana Stevens, processes the
permits, performs inspections, and deals with complaints. He encouraged
people to call the City if they have concerns with the utility or restoration
work being done.
Member Wozniak
provided an update on organics collection in Ramsey County. He reported the
City of Arden Hills approved a CUP to allow organics collection at the Arden
Hills yard waste site. He has also discussed with staff about having a
potential drop off site at Larpenteur Avenue and Kent Street and will
continue to work with them to see what options are available.
Mr. Culver
stated they will need to see what type of approval process is needed to
operate that site within the City.
Member Wozniak
stated County staff may contact Ryan Johnson or Mr. Culver to further discuss
this site as an option. Two drawbacks to the location is it is on the
outskirts of Roseville and fairly close to the Como Park organics drop off
site. He has also looked at the County Library parking lot as a potential
site, but everything is used up by rain gardens.
Mr. Culver
commented they library requires a lot of parking and is unsure if they would
be able to provide a drop off area.
Chair Cihacek
requested an update on where the Parks Department is at with organics drop
off sites.
Mr. Culver
responded there have been some discussions with Parks staff and they are
doing research on their own. They are also working with the University of
Minnesota on one of their environmental policy classes that is looking for
capstone projects. One of the proposed projects is investigating organics,
doing more research on potential sites, and what could be available for
curbside. This information should be available from the students in
November, which should then help them with a location that could be installed
next year.
Chair Cihacek
inquired if they were able to get more information from the Metropolitan
Council regarding modeling traffic patterns that was requested at the last
meeting.
Mr. Culver
responded they have a teleconference scheduled with the Metropolitan Council
tomorrow.
5. Pathway
Master Plan Update
Mr. Culver outlined
the discussion for the Pathway Master Plan update.
Anita
Reutiman, 2499 Holton Street
Ms. Reutiman
commented she is a bike commuter. She inquired about the prioritization in
completing the segment to connect Roseville to the Minneapolis Diagonal
Trail, which connects to the Minneapolis trail system. She also inquired
about improving the safety for bikers at intersections and on existing
trails. She referenced County Road C and stated there is no signage for the
trail, it can be dangerous to bike through, and she has been hit at that
intersection. Ms. Reutiman also inquired if the plans include improving biker
safety to schools and if bike lanes, not bike pathways, are included in the
discussion.
At the request
of a Member, Ms. Reutiman explained a bike lane gives more awareness that
bicyclers are present than a shoulder would. A bike path separates bikers
from traffic, but provides less visibility at intersections. Bikers are more
visible if they are alongside traffic and it feels safer in some ways. On
County Road C, the bike path is only on one side of the road and if she wants
to go west, she is on the left side of the road. Motorists are less likely
to be looking for a bicyclist in that direction.
Ms. Reutiman
pointed out the Minneapolis Diagonal Trail is at County Road C and Walnut.
Chair Cihacek
inquired if she had other areas of concern and stated bike lane discussion
will also take place during the Traffic Master Plan process, which will be
ongoing through this fall.
Ms. Reutiman
responded the areas she pointed out were proximal to where she lives and she
does not bike in eastern Roseville as often.
Mr. Culver
commented they will be discussing County Road D and pathways both on and off-road
between Cleveland and Fairview Avenue. Regarding prioritization, most of the
pathways segments will be coordinated with other roadway projects to provide
the opportunity to build the pathways more efficiently. Ramsey County is
applying for federal funding to rebuild the pavement on County Road C to the
western border, which will also include a pathway on the south side that will
connect to Walnut Street. The City will then build a segment that will
connect from Walnut to the Diagonal Trail and it should all be completed in
the next couple of years.
Jim
Debenedet, 808 Millwood Avenue
Mr. Debenedet
commented the highest priority for him is on Victoria Street north of County
Road C. People walk and bike along the shoulders and at the curve south of
the connection at west Owasso Boulevard, cars going north cross center line
and cars going south go onto shoulder. Roseville residents have consistently
supported pathways and he would like to see it completed sooner rather than
later. If they are only going to build pathways in conjunction with road
projects, Victoria will probably not be reconstructed for a long time. There
is a need for a pathway update, but not a road update.
John
Kysylyczyn, 3083 Victoria Street
Mr. Kysylyczyn
commented through some research he has learned that the original pathways
committee was an unelected, non-Council appointed group that was not
representative of the City at the time it was created. They have ingrained
thinking that they must pave an extra traffic lane, 10 to 15 feet off the
street, along every County road. In 2001, the Twin Cities bicycling club
provided testimony that the most dangerous place to ride a bike were on these
pathways that paralleled busy roads and the safest place was in areas where
they are not with street cross traffic or on the street with the traffic. The
Pathways Plan seems to promote the most dangerous option offered by the Twin
Cities bicycling club. He pointed out an area just west of Victoria Street that
is government controlled where they could complete a pathway that would allow
people to ride down low volume streets to Central Park and cost significantly
less. He does not support the pathway along Victoria Street north of County
Road C.
Regarding the
speed of cars along Victoria Street, Mr. Kysylyczyn stated he has a hard time
going as fast as the posted 40 miles per hour during the day and is not
concerned with the speed along that road. However, visibility is an issue and
he encouraged the City to enforce the City ordinance that states residents
cannot have plantings in the sight triangle area.
Mr. Kysylyczyn
commented it is the school policy to bus kids kindergarten through sixth
grade to the door and that will not change. He inquired what the cost per
user was for the pathways. He inquired if it would make more sense to put
$1,000,000 into a park or into a piece of pavement, if they have an estimate
about the number of users on the pathways, and the cost per user. He
encouraged the Commission to take a bold move, step back, and look at the
bigger picture.
Andy Hingeveld,
WSB and Associates, provided an overview of the Pathways Master Plan. He
referred to page 23 of the meeting packet, titled Policies and Standards,
taken from the 2008 Pathway Master Plan. He began to read through the
standards under Location.
Member Wozniak
inquired where in the plan they discuss integrating their pathways with a
broader, regional plan.
Mr. Hingeveld responded
it does not get into that level of detail and is flexible. There are a lot of
different agencies that may own a certain pathway, and the plan helps
encourage the idea that along County roads, a pathway is supported.
Mr. Freihammer
pointed out it is one of the ranking criteria. If it is identified by the
County on their bike pathway plan, theoretically it will help a road.
However, it is up to the Commission to discuss whether it is valid.
Chair Cihacek
inquired what the purpose of the plan is and if it is still advisable with
some roadways to provide pathways along them since traffic patterns and
volumes are different now than in 2008. He would like to look at traffic
volumes in relation to use and the type of pathway used.
Mr. Culver
responded the prioritization helps staff is selecting projects with limited
resources and to seek additional funding. They will look at traffic volumes
in the corridors and decide how to proceed with pathways.
Chair Cihacek stated
this section needs further consideration and seems to be outdated. He suggested
the wording for No. 2 be changed to, “Provide pathways to supplement all
roads.” This will show they are trying to change the traffic pattern or
accommodate to it. Under item No. 2.2, he inquired about the definition of
recreational corridor. Under item No. 2.3, sidewalks primarily in residential
areas may not make sense due to the diversity in types of housing, density in
the City, and they are not good for bicyclists.
Mr. Hingeveld stated
the word “pathway” is a very loose term and may be different terminology than
what is used today. It reflects supporting all users on roads and what the
best treatment is for that use.
Mr. Culver
commented they intentionally use the word “pathway” to provide flexibility of
sidewalk trail, on-road facility, shoulder, etc. Most people in Roseville agree
it is not feasible or reasonable to have a sidewalk on every street. He
referred to item No. 2.1 and stated Fairview is an arterial roadway. South of
County Road B there is a trail, wide shoulders, and south of Roselawn, bike
lanes begin. It gets tricky when there is a street with a high demand for
parking and no sidewalks. Although this scenario is rare in Roseville, it
forces pedestrians to walk in the street with parked cars and these areas may
require the installation of a sidewalk. With lower volume residential
streets, it is not unreasonable to expect people to walk along the street.
Member Wozniak
suggested they talk about what “pathway” means within the plan.
Member Seigler
stated they have two kinds of bikers. Express bikers want to go along the
busiest street and regular bikers go down residential streets with stop
signs. They need to decide if they are going to put their money into
expressways for bicyclers or into areas to connect places.
Chair Cihacek
referred to item No. 2, and suggested they replace the words “trail” and
“sidewalk” with “pathway” to allow more flexibility.
Mr. Culver
agreed the use of the word “trail” under item No. 2.2 is confusing and he is
unsure if they have an officially adopted recreational corridor. The Park
Master Plan has park constellation areas and their goal is to connect these
areas with pathways.
Mr. Freihammer
stated the Park Master Plan connections are part of a separate document, but
it can be referenced as an appendix.
Chair Cihacek
commented it will be important to consider for prioritization since the Parks
Department has different funding sources. Their plan for pathways should be
represented in this policy.
Member Wozniak
commented pathways could also include streets.
Mr. Culver
stated they could develop a bike system map that would identify a connection
between points while staying off major streets. They could review these
routes for further development, such as a striped shoulder for more
visibility.
Member Heimerl
referred to item No. 6.1 and inquired how they are providing and tracking if
they are providing an unobstructed connection no further than a quarter mile
to a pathway from any given property.
Chair Cihacek stated
the statement could be true if pathway refers to streets and all the ways to
get around the City.
Mr. Hingeveld directed
Members to the Pathway Master Plan in the meeting packet.
Mr. Culver
commented they need to determine what is considered an acceptable, on-road
pathway.
Member Wozniak
suggested they define this in the Pathway Master Plan.
Chair Cihacek
stated item Nos. 3, 4, and 5 could be taken out of this policy section and
become part of the Parks plan.
Member Seigler
agreed and inquired if they need to split the Pathways Master Plan for those
who are using arterial roads and going long distances, and what is acceptable
for residential streets.
Member Misra
commented originally, they were looking for a way to be flexible, and allow
adjustment to the plan as priorities change and funding becomes available.
Now they are looking for definitions that are going to guide more of how the
directions should go. If there is a need for more commuter access to larger
arterial bikeways, that should be made clear.
Mr. Hingeveld noted
on the proposed Pathways Master Plan, it calls out both existing and
potential options, along with the type of trails they are.
Member Seigler
inquired if bikes were considered appropriate for sidewalks and would like
that to be defined in the categories listed under item No. 2.4.
Mr. Culver
responded according to State law, bicycles are allowed to use sidewalks in
non-business districts. He also noted they should probably review the design
standards in the policy.
In the
interest of time, Chair Cihacek advised Members to review the Policies and
Standards document on their own, to be discussed at a future meeting.
Mr. Hingeveld directed
Members to the series of maps in the meeting packet and explained they have
been updated to reflect added pathway segments have been completed since
2008. They also show the 2017 projects currently underway, or scheduled to be
completed in within the year. Since 2008, there have been 10 additional miles
of completed pathway facility segments.
Mr. Hingeveld
referred to the 2008 Project Prioritization Ranking Criteria provided on page
36 in the meeting packet and requested feedback from Members.
Chair Cihacek
inquired how valuable it is to provide a rank to these items in relation to
the project.
Mr. Culver
responded the rankings themselves are generally helpful. They are going to
build segments as larger projects come up and they are able to coordinate
them. However, there is a large push for complete streets and it is likely
there will be specific, dedicated funding for these types of projects in the
future. Having a ranking and being able to provide it within an application
for funds shows they are serious about it. The weighting is not necessarily
important to staff, and is often skewed by personal opinion. The Council’s
biggest concern has been lack of consistency in prioritizing these segments.
They should discuss if they agree with the values of the weighting, or
weighting at all, and discuss what the criteria really mean.
Chair Cihacek
commented a lot of the criteria seems similar to others on the list and could
be consolidated. He suggested items B, C, D, and E could be consolidated and
cover creating safe passageways to and from an occupational place for
commuters and travelers. Items G and H regarding volume of usage and safety
concerns seem to be similar as well.
Member Seigler
stated if they weight them, each one should have a different weight.
Whatever is considered most important should have the maximum value. He
suggested they identify what the weakness is that needs to be filled.
Mr. Freihammer
commented there is a score applied to each weight. He inquired if there
should be criteria on the score, as it is currently arbitrary.
Chair Cihacek
offered another alternative to not use scoring and just present the
priorities. For example, the priority for the next 10 years could be to
complete existing connections.
Mr. Freihammer
commented all the priorities are seen as needs.
Mr. Culver
inquired how they estimate how many people want to use a pathway versus how
many people actually use it. This is also true for transit stops.
Chair Cihacek
stated neither the scoring nor the weight system addresses this. Transit
stops near a school, apartment complex, or business would indicate it is a
higher priority than a single family residential area. He commented he thinks
it is very important to complete broken segments of pathways and as a
Commission they could figure out what is important to be connected without
providing a score or weight.
Mr. Culver
suggested the Commission agree on a set of criteria and come up with rating
system based on that. For example, if a pathway does not have any connection
to transit or regional trail within a half mile, it is rated a zero. If it
has a connection to a regional system, it is rated a one. If it has
connection to transit within a half mile, it is rated a two. If it has
connection to transit and a regional trail within a half mile, it is rated a
three. If the Commission can break down the criteria into values, then staff
could apply them to the segments.
Member Thurnau
commented he did a pedestrian priority model when he lived in Duluth. It consisted
of the following three components: 1) What are the generators? (i.e. density,
lower income residents); 2) What are the detractors? (i.e. Highway 36,
Snelling Avenue); and, 3) Where to people want to go? (i.e. the mall). They
should identify the main priorities and the measurables under each one. Over
time it can be consistently applied citywide.
Member Wozniak
agreed and likes the idea of coming up with criteria that is more
standardized.
Member Trainor
stated the level of detail involved with them ranking seems absurd. They
should be providing general guidance and the staff should be putting together
the priorities.
Member Misra
agreed, and commented she finds what they are trying to accomplish vague. She
also pointed out that pathways must include ADA compliance and suggested
staff look at different areas to determine what attention they may require.
She would like to see staff make decisions, but with an overall guidance from
the Commission.
Mr. Culver
responded by law, anything they build will have to meet ADA requirements.
Member Seigler
inquired how many things could be identified regarding incomplete pathway
segments. He recommended they go through them, and identify the deficit with
a summary. This will allow them to see a theme to which they can assign
points to and come up with criteria on how to prioritize one over the other.
Mr. Freihammer
responded there are about 25 segments identified on the Pathway Master Plan.
Some of them do describe what type of treatment or facility that should be
included.
Chair Cihacek pointed
out the deficits on the list do not matter because they were scored based on
someone’s opinion of it.
Mr. Freihammer
stated the number one item on the list is Rice Street. It vaguely requests an
on or off-road pathway from Larpenteur Avenue to County Road D. Other items
on the list are more specific on where the pathway should go.
Chair Cihacek explained
if they have a list of five priorities with the capacity to do additives
(i.e. density, near a business center, etc.), it allows them to identify
current needs and allows staff to adapt that pathway plan based on changes to
the additives. It is an objective system and allows staff greater capacity to
fit the priorities into what they can feasibly do. He called it the Additive
model.
After further discussion,
all Members of the Commission agreed they are in favor of the Additive Model.
Member Wozniak inquired if they could compare the current model with the
Additive model to see how they come out. Member Trainor suggested staff spend
time summarizing the key things on what the suggested priorities should be.
Member Misra stated she would like to know from staff where good decisions
have been made with the pathway program to help guide them in identifying priorities.
Mr. Culver
referred to the model sent to him by Member Thurnau, and stated it looked at
census data, proximity to pedestrian attractors, and other things. They set
up the thresholds for each one and assigned points. They can map it and generate
the data.
Mr. Freihammer
stated at their focus group meeting, they heard good reviews on their County
Road B2 sidewalk project.
Mr. Culver explained
the County Road B2 sidewalk project was funded by park renewal bond funds. They
wanted to do a connection that met some of the park constellation connection
and it was rated number two on the Pathway Master Plan. Another example is
County Road B west of Cleveland. They kept getting interest from the
residents, it was highly ranked and low cost, so they decided to do it. With
Victoria, they have received a petition for it, there has been a lot of
discussion, and there is a demand. It was ranked number eight, but from an
implementation perspective, it is going to be very costly to build. Until
another project comes through or they identify a different source of funding,
it will be difficult to do. Based on the outcome of this process and if it is
still highly ranked, they may ask the City Council to try to find some
funding sources to apply for. With Larpenteur, they received some community
block funds for a high interest area identified by the City Council. The County
Road D segment between Lexington and Victoria was done because the roadway
was reconstructed.
6. PWETC/City
Council Joint Meeting Review
Mr. Culver
suggested they postpone discussion on the City Council Joint Meeting Review
to a future meeting. Mr. Culver stated sometime in August or September, he
would like to look at what Duluth and other cities have done with ranking and
criteria, and present the Commission with a proposal that they can further
discuss.
Chair Cihacek
commented he supports tabling the City Council Joint Meeting Review,
excluding the seal coat and lead since those are things staff can update the
City Council on.
Mr. Culver
stated they had good discussion with the lead, so he is not concerned about
that. With the seal coat, they may provide an update to the Commission on how
it is going.
Motion
Member
Misra moved, Member Trainor seconded, to table the PWETC/City Council Joint
Meeting Review to the August 22, 2017 meeting.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
7. Items
for Next Meeting – August 22, 2017
Discussion
ensued regarding the August PWETC agenda and time required for each item:
§
PWETC/City Council Joint Meeting Review with an estimated time
of 10 minutes.
§
PWETC/Planning Commission Joint Meeting with an estimated time
requirement of 30 minutes.
§
Transportation Pathway Master Plan continued discussion and
review with an estimated time of 90 minutes.
Mr. Freihammer
commented the Planning Commission would like to meet with the PWETC to
discuss the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Master Plan.
Chair Cihacek
suggested they consider forming a joint subcommittee with the Planning
Commission and Parks and Recreation to discuss some of the items brought up
at this meeting.
Member Wozniak
inquired if they could discuss sustainability, energy, and water quality with
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Culver
responded it could be one of the three topics they discuss at the joint
meeting. The Metropolitan Council requires a resilience section in the
Comprehensive Plan and they should discuss what that should be.
Chair Cihacek
encouraged Members to email Mr. Culver if they would like any additional
information included in the August meeting packet.
Mr. Culver
commented they would like to offer a walking tour of Twin Lakes Parkway and
Langton Lake to the Commission on either August 15 or August 29. They could
also drive up to the South Lake Owasso project.
The Commission
agreed to a walking tour on August 15 at 6:30 p.m.
8. Adjourn
Motion
Member Thurnau
moved, Member Heimerl seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately
8:34 p.m.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|