Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />Mr. Lloyd clarified that the alignment across Dale Street is not currently a formal street <br />198 <br />and serves only as an access road for Ramsey Square Condominiums. Even without that <br />199 <br />fact, Mr. Lloyd questioned what guiding regulations would be enforceable; but suspected <br />200 <br />the new right-of-way allowed the offset in that fashion. Mr. Lloyd advised that the <br />201 <br />Engineering and Public Works Departments had conveyed no concerns they had. <br />202 <br />At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Lloyd clarified that only the six lots south of the new <br />203 <br />extension of Wheaton Avenue between the proposed street and County Road C were <br />204 <br />proposed for rezoning to LDR-2. <br />205 <br />At the request of Member Gitzen specific to the Outlot being identified as LDR-2 zoning, <br />206 <br />Mr. Lloyd clarified that it was inaccurate and simply a typographical error. <br />207 <br />Member Bull asked if Planning staff had any past experience in using undulating <br />208 <br />roadways to control speed. <br />209 <br />Mr. Paschke replied affirmatively, noting that the most recent example would be the city’s <br />210 <br />reconstruction of South Owasso Boulevard east of where Western Avenue ends and <br />211 <br />South and West Owasso Boulevards begin, using traffic calmers to reduce traffic. Mr. <br />212 <br />Paschke noted there were other examples, none coming to mind at this time, but in larger <br />213 <br />developments drive lanes were engineered to meet the same goal. Mr. Paschke clarified <br />214 <br />that there weren’t many developments like this in Roseville; but did cite the recent Pulte <br />215 <br />Development project in Roseville using curvilinear roads to traverse from Josephine <br />216 <br />Road to County Road C-2. Mr. Paschke opined that this design wasn’t out of context with <br />217 <br />what the city had supported in the past and from a public works perspective. <br />218 <br />Chair Boguszewski asked if there was published data or national data to support traffic <br />219 <br />calming results, or if it had any impact in reducing speeds at all. <br />220 <br />While a representative of the Public Works Department was not available to speak to that <br />221 <br />tonight, Mr. Paschke opined that there was information to substantiate that narrow and <br />222 <br />curvilinear roads produced reduced traffic, and that statistical data and studies would <br />223 <br />serve to support it. <br />224 <br />Mr. Lloyd concurred, noting that the opposite was also true, that generously wide streets <br />225 <br />with no parking but with a posted speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour were routinely driven <br />226 <br />much faster as drivers felt safer and site lines supported them going at higher speeds <br />227 <br />accordingly. <br />228 <br />From a traffic calming standpoint, Mr. Daire note that he had worked in the field for ten <br />229 <br />years, and confirmed that curvilinear roads were shown to reduce speeds, especially if <br />230 <br />parking was included. Mr. Daire further noted examples in Roseville where drivelines <br />231 <br />reduced speed when including a bike path on the side and demonstrably reduced <br />232 <br />speeds. Mr. Daire agreed with staff that these strategies were proven to work. <br />233 <br />While requested by Member Bull, Mr. Lloyd advised that he was unable to address <br />234 <br />whether or not the city incurred additional cost with this type of road design for plowing <br />235 <br />and/or maintenance. <br />236 <br />At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the drainage and utility easements <br />237 <br />along the side and rear property boundaries and width of 12’ centered, with 6’ within the <br />238 <br />property boundaries. Mr. Lloyd noted that the easements shown are 10’ wide <br />239 <br />corresponding to side yard setbacks; and identified that as part of Condition A <br />240 <br />recommended in the staff report. <br />241 <br />At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the lot size for LDR-1 lots, at <br />242 <br />60’ wide and 6,000 square feet in area, with no depth requirement, but specifying that the <br />243 <br />lot had to be at least of that dimension and was effectively addressed by minimum area <br />244 <br />requirements. A the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the <br />245 <br />proposed six lots proposed for rezoning to LDR-2 were predominantly 60’ wide, with the <br />246 <br />corner lot at Dale Street and Wheaton Avenue 70’ wide, and the lot adjacent to County <br />247 <br />Road C at 65’ wide. <br />248 <br /> <br />