2011-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 02, 2011 Page 8 Ms. Bloom reviewed the City’s traffic study, using existing conditions, and that of the 357 proposed residential development, in conjunction with the City’s consulting traffic 358 engineer, SRF Consulting, including review of existing turns at five (5) major 359 intersections. Ms. Bloom advised that all of the intersections were operating at a Level A 360 during a.m./p.m. peak hours; noting that anything rated above a Level C was an industry 361 accepted level, and one supported by the City of Roseville. Ms. Bloom advised that in 362 applying additional traffic, calculated at 268 trips per day, from the additional twenty-eight 363 (28) homes and their distribution along the roadway system, including anticipating their 364 most predictable flow and impacts to those identified intersections, it was determined that 365 the intersections would continue to operate overall at a Level A. Ms. Bloom noted that, if 366 there had been any indication that there would be a change or decrease in their level of 367 operation, staff would require that the developer construct mitigation steps. However, Ms. 368 Bloom advised that, in this case, staff found no need for such mitigation. In general, Ms. 369 Bloom advised that while there had been some discussion if County Road C2 should be 370 extended through at this point due to additional traffic, staff found no evidence to support 371 it as a mitigation step related to this development. 372 Ms. Bloom advised that, according to Police Department records at the major 373 intersections in the area over the last three (3) years, there was nothing to be served by 374 adding any additional signals other than perhaps aiding those County Road C2 cul-de- 375 sac residents. Ms. Bloom noted that it was difficult to turn north on Lexington Avenue; 376 however, she noted that the proposed residential development would provide an 377 additional access point for that entire area. 378 Roseville Public Works, Environment, and Transportation (PWET) Commission 379 Ms. Bloom advised that the City’s PWET Advisory Commission had reviewed the 380 Preliminary Plat at their meeting last week, and found that there were adequate 381 easements and buffers around the wetlands. 382 Ms. Bloom noted that the PWET Commission reviewed the proposed City standard street 383 widths at thirty-two foot (32’); and when asked for their recommendation on extending 384 County Road C2 at this time, were not supportive of doing so; however, they 385 recommended retaining the right-of-way. 386 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Ms. Bloom reviewed perceptions for low elevation on 387 the entire Block 1 compared to the surrounding area; and staff’s investigation for possible 388 wetland purposes, but its lack of wetland characteristics. Ms. Bloom advised that the area 389 was proposed to retain its current elevation, and that the 1-5 homes in that area were 390 proposed as walkouts., and that those driveways would have a three percent (3%) grade 391 to County Road C2. 392 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Ms. Bloom confirmed that the grade of Fernwood was 393 at a five percent (5%) grade from the hill and leveled off from that point to a 9.10 to 85. 394 Ms. Bloom clarified and reviewed street capacities and classifications for Chair Boerigter 395 that County Road C2 served as a collector street and was part of the State Aid system; 396 as well as Josephine Road and Woodhill, with Fernwood serving as a local access street 397 serving as a residential access point. 398 At the request of Member Wozniak, Ms. Bloom reviewed the varying widths of Josephine 399 Road when it was reconstructed in 2001, based on input from a property owner task 400 force, and their concerns to make it wider and impacts to property owners while including 401 a pathway. Ms. Bloom noted that past philosophy was that “wider is better,” and changes 402 in that philosophy over the last forty (40) years. Ms. Bloom noted that Josephine Road 403 was constructed at a twenty-six foot (26’) width with parking bays and at State Aid road 404 standards including parking restrictions based on roadway width. Ms. Bloom advised that 405 County Road C2 was constructed during a different era and under past philosophy in the 406 1980’s when wider roads were deemed advantageous. Ms. Bloom advised that now 407 roadways were built to the necessary standards. 408