My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-09-27_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-09-27_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/27/2011 9:39:58 AM
Creation date
10/27/2011 9:39:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/27/2011
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• Addressing business and institutional uses as part of the community's quality <br /> of life <br /> • Consideration of impacts to other areas when rerouting traffic from another <br /> area to address a specific problem so as not to have unintended consequences <br /> in that other area <br /> • Balancing more pedestrian/bicycle traffic in some business areas as <br /> appropriate <br /> • Consider adding an additional bullet point addressing technology available <br /> now and in the future (e.g. BMP's, engineering practices and standards); and <br /> advantages of that ever-increasing technology as it relates to traffic <br /> management; and whether more attention should be given to "solutions," <br /> rather than intimidating people with"technology" <br /> • Determining who is the audience for the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and <br /> who is the customer, taking into consideration business and residents, property <br /> owners and/or renters, and clarifying "citizens," rather than "residents" and/or <br /> "businesses" as well as the TMP being developed for affected Roseville <br /> residents rather than commuter traffic through Roseville <br /> Section 1.1 Purpose <br /> Suggested language revisions for consideration included: <br /> • 4th line: Change to "violation of traffic laws," not"local traffic" <br /> Section 2.0 Policies <br /> • Second bullet point: define "local streets" as they relate to a livable <br /> community after business owners go home <br /> In an effort to proceed with review of the draft in a timelier manner, Chair <br /> DeBenedet suggested individual Members provide staff with their comments for <br /> their consideration and those items to incorporate into the next draft to come <br /> before the Commission. <br /> Overall, Member Stenlund spoke in support of the draft, that it was similar to the <br /> Blaine model and laid the groundwork, and choices for people to see the process <br /> for their complaints or concerns. <br /> Member Felice spoke in support of the draft, opining that it made the process <br /> clear for people. <br /> Overall, Member Gjerdingen spoke in support of the draft. <br /> Section 3.0 Traffic Management Back r' ound <br /> Member Vanderwall, from a broad overview, opined that reading through this <br /> section, the initial bulleted portion should include bicycles in addition to <br /> pedestrian strategies, and should be incorporated consistently throughout the <br /> document for pedestrian-friendly, as well as bicycle-friendly. <br /> Page 5 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.