Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Culver noted that, since the City of Roseville was mostly a fully -developed <br />community versus an undeveloped community, the need for land use as the key <br />component of what the transportation system has to support, this update wasn't as <br />inter -related as that process would need to be. While there is still interaction <br />between the two (e.g. density, commercial areas, impacts to localized <br />intersections), this transportation plan update didn't require building any new <br />freeways or east/west corridors through Roseville, but would instead be focusing <br />on intersections and existing safety concerns or bottlenecks throughout the <br />community. <br />Chair Cihacek asked if it didn't cost the city more to hire two consultants, or require <br />a higher front-end cost if the two were not integrated into one contract. Chair <br />Cihacek opined that it seemed that there would have been a lower impact and higher <br />cost in using the Best Value Procurement method for the whole project, providing <br />a stronger specialty subset. Even though Roseville was not seeing any major <br />changes in its transportation system, Chair Cihacek suggested that the Arden Hills' <br />development of the Rice Creek Commons (former TCAAP site) should be taken <br />into consideration for regional transportation issues as part of the comprehensive <br />plan update. <br />Mr. Culver assured the PWETC that the update process would look to the <br />Metropolitan Council's regional documents for those changes in land use in Arden <br />Hills, with the Rice Creek Commons development trickling down into city, county <br />and state roadways. <br />Member Thurnau sought clarification as to why the Pathway Master Plan remained <br />a separate document versus becoming part of the overall comprehensive plan <br />document. <br />Mr. Culver advised that he was unclear as to the rationale, but reported that the <br />Transportation Plan and Pathway Master Plan would remain as two separate <br />documents, by reference, to the comprehensive plan, similar to that of the Water <br />Surface Plan and other appendices to the comprehensive plan. Mr. Culver <br />suggested it may be to retain separation of those plans from the comprehensive plan <br />itself to avoid it needing to be subject to review and comment by the Metropolitan <br />Council if and when revised, with each of those documents remaining living <br />documents, allowing the city to retain more control over than a once every ten year <br />update as mandated by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Culver reiterated that these <br />two components were considered planning documents, and it had apparently <br />proven beneficial during the history of the community to retain them as separate <br />documents. <br />At the request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Freihammer reiterated that the last update <br />of these plans was done enmass with the overall update, even though a separate <br />subconsultant had worked on the transportation aspects. However, Mr. <br />Page 8 of 17 <br />