Laserfiche WebLink
582 <br />583 <br />584 <br />585 <br />586 <br />587 <br />588 <br />589 <br />590 <br />591 <br />592 <br />593 <br />594 <br />595 <br />596 <br />597 <br />598 <br />599 <br />600 <br />601 <br />602 <br />603 <br />604 <br />605 <br />606 <br />607 <br />608 <br />609 <br />610 <br />611 <br />612 <br />613 <br />614 <br />615 <br />616 <br />617 <br />618 <br />619 <br />620 <br />621 <br />622 <br />623 <br />624 <br />625 <br />626 <br />• Costs for intersections as displayed in cross section examples for <br />Cleveland Avenue, I -35W and Twin Lakes Parkway and as cost <br />breakdown of materials, engineering, labor and other costs for those proposed <br />construction projects (Gj erdingen). Member Gj erdingen stated that he was <br />curious if double left turn lanes would affect walkability depending on the <br />width of those lanes. <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that numbers were still preliminary at this stage, and <br />refined numbers would be available in the future, but not at this time, since the <br />designs were only preliminary at this stage for Phase III. Mr. Schwartz <br />recommended that this be a conversation for Fater on, as proposals for <br />professional consulting services were jus due later this week, and it would be <br />2-3 months after City Council award o ugust 11 2014, for the consultant to <br />perform their work. 4j� <br />Mr. Culver concurred, noting that the only numbers available at this time <br />would be broad estimates based on preliminary layouts. Mr. ulver noted that <br />once the consultant was hired and provided a detailed de those refined <br />numbers and cross se ons would be provided to the PWETC. <br />• Current zoning applications for parking lots (sizes and number of stalls) <br />for retail and office applications, specifically how it related to permeable <br />surfaces, storm water management, walkability, and available transit <br />(Cihacek). Member Cihacek stated that he was interested in learning about the <br />general scope of the ratio of parking to land use, and how the City's other <br />goals were accomplished, based on changing allocations for developments and <br />environmental impacts, shared parking options, and transit corridor changes, <br />all within emerging trends and how the City could support those trends <br />through its zoning qualifications. <br />Member jerdingen noted that the City of Arden Hills was looking at shared <br />arking options; and suggested part of this discussion include on -street <br />inz in Roseville as well. <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that the previous ratio for parking was five to seven <br />spaces per 1,000 square feet of building; but it had been reduced in current <br />ordinance to three to four spaces for that same square footage. Mr. Schwartz <br />noted that there were a number of issues related to parking, and suggested this <br />would be another good discussion with the Community Development <br />Department. <br />Member Cihacek noted that, his main concern was, that commercial land use <br />produced a considerable share of the City's storm water runoff, and suggested <br />looking at more ways to mitigate that through infrastructure, etc. <br />Page 14 of 15 <br />