2017-02-28_PWETCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6, January 24, 2017 229 230 6. Transportation Plan Update RFP 231 Mr. Freihammer reported that, as part of the overall 2040 Comprehensive Plan 232 Update currently underway, the Transportation Plan, and Master Pathway Plan 233 will also be updated. Mr. Freihammer noted that the current Transportation Plan 234 (Attachment B) had last been updated in 2009; and the Pathway Master Plan 235 (Attachment C) in 2007/2008. Mr. Freihammer briefly summarized the process 236 as it related to and impacted the remainder of the comprehensive plan update and 237 process, proposed for completion by year-end 2017 for submission to the 238 Metropolitan Council. Mr. Freihammer reviewed the sco of transportation plan 239 elements, with the Request for Proposals (RFP) for a c t with that specific 240 expertise selected through the Best Value Procureme ocess. 241 242 Mr. Culver expanded on Mr. Freihammer's su ary, e sizing that the city 243 considered this an update to the existing p therefo s not seeking or 244 anticipating any extensive changes fro that plan and wh addressed or 245 recommended. Mr. Culver noted that to see ' g a consultan e update, 246 staff had been able to check off some is c eted since t last update 247 (e.g. Twin Lakes Parkway and several si links for the Pathway Master 248 Plan). Mr. Culver advised t t the goal was age the public in the update 249 process to hear their overall c s about mot o andnon-motorized transit 250 in and around Roseville. Mr. ferenced us comments received 251 from PWETC Member Lenz re din goin oncerns with the level of 252 mass transit operations in Rosevi we as se voiced by others in and 253 around Rosevi ally with /west rout s and connections. Therefore, 254 Mr. Culver r rted th ose conce as well as potential options, will be well - 255 document oft ransportatio ate. 256 257 Spe ' e Pat a r. Culver noted that the previously -seated 258 P roug rocess in 2013 attempting to update prioritization of 259 gments initi anke 8. However, Mr. Culver advised that the City 260 cil had exp ed co rn with their overall process and inconsistency in 261 ho ey applied teria for their ranking. Therefore, Mr. Culver noted the 262 pre to seek ader public comment on the ranking, especially given the 263 continu edbac received from and concerns expressed by residents on the 264 apparent approach in completing segments and connections. Mr. 265 Culver repo that the city was in receipt of one petition to -date from a 266 neighborhoo group seeking a sidewalk in their area. However, Mr. Culver noted 267 the need to re-examine the entire city and hear from residents in a broader sense, 268 causing excitement among staff to hear their perspectives. 269 270 With Chair Cihacek noting the responsibility in deciding on those priorities for 271 the next ten years, Mr. Culver reminded commissioners that nothing would be set 272 in stone, and only used as a planning document, and identifying deficiencies in 273 the current transportation network, including safety concerns and ways to address 274 them. Mr. Culver noted that, as projects come up and funding becomes available,