2014_08_06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 3 parking can be achieved with available off-street parking and removed from the sidewalk 98 area and freeing the street for vehicular traffic. 99 Mr. Gjerdingen responded that the advantage of on-street parking would be for creation 100 of a pedestrian buffer between the drive lanes and sidewalk, and used the example of 101 University Avenue after the light rail transit construction, where pedestrians found 102 themselves unpleasantly walking adjacent to where cars were moving at 30 mph or more. 103 Mr. Gjerdingen noted that, in Roseville, Rosedale Center was another example, as well 104 as County Road B-2, opining that it was more than safety, but just the ability to hold a 105 conversation with someone while walking, and without additional tensions without a 106 buffer. Mr. Gjerdingen also opined that another advantage to on-street parking was to 107 provide better frontage for developments, with no big parking lots separating buildings 108 from streets, with more walkable by having a bike lane sidewalks closer to front doors. 109 When Member Murphy raised his concern with the potential for bicycles or pedestrians 110 getting hit by car doors, or vise versa, Mr. Gjerdingen admitted that it would require 111 vehicles to drive slower, and if the on-street parking lane was 10’-11’, there should be 112 plenty of space, even though vehicles pulling out of parking spaces would need to be 113 alert for bicycles, they should become fairly used to it after time. Having become familiar 114 with similar bicycle lanes in Minneapolis and St. Paul with on-street parking, Mr. 115 Gjerdingen admitted that it may take some time to get used to. 116 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Gjerdingen confirmed that his vision was for a 117 change to urban design in the way commercial developments were placed with on-street 118 parking in closer proximity to the destination. 119 For clarification, Member Murphy asked and Mr. Gjerdingen clarified that these were his 120 personal views and not those of the PWETC. 121 Member Boguszewski opined that it seemed that the goal of increasing pedestrian 122 buffers via Mr. Gjerdingen’s suggested mechanism seemed at odds with the planned and 123 stated intent to “de-autophy” roads, making the new development areas visually less 124 jagged and less a random vehicular environment; and the goal to move cars closer to 125 businesses and removing them from roads and out-of-the way. Member Boguszewski 126 further opined that the roadways into the Twin lakes area and/or Rosedale Center are at 127 higher speeds than those in St. Paul proper; and questioned what mechanism was in 128 place to curtail speed limits. Member Boguszewski concurred with Member Murphy’s 129 comments, that it seemed to him much less safe for on-street parked vehicles with 130 parking at a posted 40 mph, anticipating that vehicles may or should go slower, opining 131 that he didn’t see that happening. While appreciating Mr. Gjerdingen bringing this 132 suggestion forward, Member Boguszewski opined that safety considerations in a suburb 133 like Roseville compared to Grand or Summit Avenues were appreciably different. 134 Community Development Director Paul Bilotta noted that a lot of this design 135 consideration was handled in a “Complete Streets” process. Mr. Bilotta further noted that 136 when the City’s Zoning Code was updated in 2010, businesses were credited with 137 providing off-street versus on-street parking, allowing for building mass built directly 138 adjacent to the street. Recognizing the difference between Roseville and the City of St. 139 Paul, and addressing concerns in protection pedestrians, Mr. Bilotta noted that sidewalks 140 could be placed adjacent to curbs or back, with widths adjusted, which could also provide 141 a traffic calming incentive. Mr. Bilotta suggested that residential neighborhoods could use 142 such efforts to allow on-street parking versus vehicles backing out of garages that would 143 work to slow traffic. 144 Member Boguszewski opined that it may slow traffic, but it made for more ugly 145 aesthetics. 146 Regarding the parking versus bicycle conflict experience with on-street parking, Mr. 147 Bilotta noted that some cities were using reverse angle parking to avoid those car door 148 issues, while allowing bicycle traffic to proceed, and when vehicles exited a space, they 149 could readily see bicycles. Mr. Bilotta pointed out another option was for a cycle track 150