Laserfiche WebLink
80 Mr. Freihammer explained the second area the City Council discussed was to ask <br />81 the PWETC to look at how the scoring system considers existing pathway on one <br />82 side of a road. They discussed whether segments should get a bonus for not having <br />83 any pathway currently or possibly deducting points if there was a pathway on one <br />84 side of the road. Mr. Freihammer noted since the scoring system is a project <br />85 preference list, staff felt the best way to deal with pathway scoring was to leave the <br />86 scoring as is but highlight the segments that were high volume arterial roadways <br />87 with no off-street pathways currently constructed. <br />88 <br />89 Mr. Freihammer showed the Commission the project preference list. He indicated <br />90 the list is not in order of which project will be done first. Chair Cihacek asked if <br />91 the Council considered the routes based on traffic volume. Mr. Freihammer stated <br />92 staff did this list on the trail roadways and did not look at the smaller volume roads. <br />93 He noted they decided they were only going to look at the duel sided approach on <br />94 an arterial roadway. <br />95 <br />96 Public Works Director Marc Culver stated if the Commission looks at the <br />97 functional classification system he did not think they had any collectors that are <br />98 over 4,000. They have some collectors that are between 3,000 and 4,000. He stated <br />99 Mr. Freihammer stated the list was based on 4,000 ADT which would mainly be at <br />100 an arterial level. He noted this does include all the County roadways within the <br />101 City. <br />102 <br />103 Member Trainor asked if Victoria was considered an arterial roadway. Mr. Culver <br />104 stated it is north of County Road B. From County Road B to County Road D it is <br />105 considered an arterial and is a County facility in that area. South of County Road <br />106 B, it is a City roadway and a major collector. The volumes drop percipiently <br />107 between the two. It is under 4,000 south of County Road Band over 4,000 north <br />108 of County Road B. <br />109 <br />110 Member Wozniak indicated he sent an email with corrections to the Master Plan <br />111 and noticed they were not made. Mr. Culver apologized and indicated they would <br />112 get them changed for the next presentation to the Council. He stated he did receive <br />113 the email and thought they addressed a couple of the concerns. <br />114 <br />115 Member Wozniak stated he reviewed the plan in length and his review could have <br />116 went beyond some of the topics the City Council brought up at the Joint meeting. <br />117 It occurred to him that this seems weighted toward transit and less so to City <br />118 Amenities like parks. You get up to five points if near Snelling Avenue and that is <br />119 the only category of any of the category codes up to five points. There are other <br />120 categories where they could get to five or higher by adding components that are <br />121 part of the scoring system but that is a solid five point and kind of skews some of <br />122 the scoring toward transportation network. <br />123 <br />124 Chair Cihacek asked if that is because of how transportation is extended out. Mr. <br />125 Culver stated between their last conversation with this, in the Council meeting on <br />Page 3 of 16 <br />