My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-03-27_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
2012-03-27_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2012 12:07:54 PM
Creation date
4/26/2012 12:07:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/27/2012
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Member Vanderwall opined that politics have always ruled why the City didn't <br /> assess for sidewalks, thus the current policy or lack thereof, as well as the lack of <br /> pedestrian amenities. <br /> Ms. Bloom suggested that, on road reconstruction projects, a sidewalk installation <br /> could be a strict policy, also assessable. <br /> Member Vanderwall concurred that this would be applicable when originally <br /> installed; however, he questioned how to fund when repair, replacement, or <br /> upgrade of the sidewalk was required. While there was no historical precedent for <br /> new installations, Member Vanderwall noted that once installed, the value of the <br /> sidewalk was a given and would be supportive of the need for it as part of <br /> reconstruction in their neighborhood. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that one consideration for sidewalks was their high ranking in <br /> value by the community as most recently confirmed through the Parks Master <br /> Plan process and community surveys. Given that, Mr. Schwartz noted that one of <br /> the most difficult projects was sighting a sidewalk or pathway project due to the <br /> impacts on adjacent properties; and opined that assessing for pathways or <br /> sidewalks would only further complicate that process. <br /> Chair DeBenedet concurred with Mr. Schwartz's observation. However, for <br /> commercial properties, Chair DeBenedet noted that this was a different situation, <br /> with pathways and sidewalks providing access and benefit to those commercial <br /> properties; as well as allowing their employees to have more walkability in that <br /> area. <br /> Chair DeBenedet advised that he was still unsure of the MDR and HDR zoning <br /> districts and how to apply assessments for sidewalks and/or pathways in those <br /> districts, unless reliance on the Parks Master Plan supported their installation. <br /> Chair DeBenedet spoke in support of a policy for other commercial mixed-use <br /> and other districts for sidewalk assessments; opining that he would be swayed <br /> either way for LDR and HDR districts; however, he expressed his preference for <br /> assessments for HDR where more pedestrian and bicycle traffic would be evident. <br /> Member Vanderwall noted examples of several HDR communities with residents <br /> of those communities having fewer assets but a stronger reliance in using other <br /> transit options to access the community; as well as some of the City's roads being <br /> too narrow to accommodate pedestrian and/or bicycle use in a safe manner. <br /> At the suggestion of Member Gjerdingen to research pathway assessments of <br /> other communities, Member Vanderwall suggested that Member Gjerdingen <br /> volunteer to research that and alert staff to what he found. <br /> Ms. Bloom asked that PWET Commissioners think about street light assessments <br /> for the next discussion. <br /> Page 10 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.