My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-10-25_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-10-25_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/28/2011 9:20:59 AM
Creation date
11/28/2011 9:20:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/25/2011
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
received to be reviewed by the Commission for recommendation to the City <br /> Council as applicable with staff s evaluation and assigning a timeline for those <br /> projects given consideration. <br /> General Commission consensus was the, unless there was a dispute, professional <br /> staff work with neighborhoods and not bring items to the Commission other than <br /> as information or if an appeal was filed beyond staff. <br /> Member Gjerdingen expressed his preference that the policy mention something <br /> about the Commission being made aware of requests to ensure the public didn't <br /> have a perception that some things were being fast-tracked. <br /> Step 4 —Develop/Evaluate Traffic Management Strategies (page 7) <br /> Discussion included various strategies, whether permanent or temporary and <br /> related costs (e.g. installing signage versus construction) and rationale behind <br /> those items and their effectiveness, whether perceived or actual, and what was <br /> attempting to be accomplished with those strategies. <br /> Further discussion included signage paid for by individual homeowners or blocks <br /> versus signage installed by the City, with staff advising that they would need to <br /> approve installations and perform the work to ensure other City Code and legal <br /> requirements were adhered to; how to raise awareness in neighborhoods of <br /> various situations (e.g. pedestrian crossings; deaf children, etc.); and how to break <br /> down the types of signage or traffic control devices recognizing that <br /> neighborhoods change, and the types of strategies that were permanent or those <br /> temporary. <br /> Additional discussion addressed Table 3 (page 9) and the type of implementation <br /> and projected costs and funding allocations; how to determine demonstrated or <br /> known benefits of each particular strategy; with staff asked to review this section <br /> and the various strategies again using other TMP models from other communities. <br /> Further discussion included neighborhood signage (e.g. plastic pedestrian crossing <br /> signage and/or paper signs installed in private driveways) and how neighbors and <br /> the City could work together on those types of strategies while remaining <br /> temporary; how to change human nature and cultures to recognize crosswalks and <br /> pedestrian areas; with staff asked to review this section to consider <br /> outreach/educational issues for soft solutions. <br /> Ms. Bloom suggested that such strategies may be more of a discussion for the <br /> Traffic Safety Committee rather than this body or including them in the TMP. <br /> Member Stenlund opined that staff should include information each spring in the <br /> City newsletter that the legal default speed limit in MN, if not signed, is 30 mph. <br /> Page 5 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.