2018-11-27_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

project impacts to existing trees and landscaping was added. A project evaluation checklist was also created and included in the appendix of the document. Member Misra stated she liked the changes made in version 4.5. She liked the language around the vegetation in the median and other wording. Knowing now that this came out of Hennepin County this might be one of those opportunities to leave bottom up. She did not see that kind of thing reflected in the checklist. Unless she was missing it, it looks like there is a section about streetscape/landscape but there is nothing really specified in there within the checklist. She thought this would be the opportunity to put the green component into this. It seems like if the Commission is looking for some specific reference to vegetation or green corridors or that sort of thing this is the place to add it. Mr. Freihammer stated it is referenced under the proposed corridor checklist. There is a list of components not including bike and bus features which are noted later. Under the existing checklist there is not any documentation of what is existing. Member Misra stated she is looking at the proposed checklist and even under the list components, intersection components where boxes can be checked to specify if the items were looked at, is what she was looking at and wondered if staff could add some boxes with some specific recommendations. She stated it seems like the checklist kind of encourages. Mr. Culver suggested expanding the greenscape/landscape area to have boxes in the checklist for items such as native landscaping, pollinators, etc. Member Misra indicated that is what she was looking for. Chair Cihacek asked if this has been read against the Pathway Master Plan or other documents to make sure there is no conflict or that these are self -reinforcing. Mr. Culver thought it reinforces the Pathway Master Plan which has a much more specific goal as far as completing specific segments in certain areas and providing that preference list. He stated this document says anytime the City is working on a street, whether it is on the Pathway Master Plan or not. Anytime a street project is looked at, these are the elements that should be considered. He thought this was complimentary and the Pathway Master Plan was more focused and specific. Member Kruse asked if Mr. Culver expected this to change things much going forward or is this more a formalization of things staff is already doing. Mr. Freihammer stated it does help to document what is out there and does formalize the process, so nothing is missed when being reviewed. Member Wozniak arrived at the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Page 5 of 10