My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017_09-26_PWETCpacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2017
>
2017_09-26_PWETCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2017 12:10:59 PM
Creation date
12/8/2017 11:43:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/26/2017
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.
/
83
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
Attachment D <br />From: John Heimerl [mailto:ilheimerl(cDyahoo.coml <br />Sent: Thursday, September 14, 201712:56 <br />To: Jesse Freihammer <Jesse. Frei ham mer@cityofroseviIle. com>; John Heimerl <Ilheimerl@yahoo.com> <br />Subject: Re: Pathway Policies <br />Thank you Jesse for all your hard work. <br />Please see my feedback below: <br />1.1 I think "Use shared rights-of-way second" should be formatted as 1.2 <br />If that change is made than 1.2 and 1.3 would also be formatted as 1.3 and 1.4. <br />I was wondering ifADT could be defined so that it.is clear this refers to Average Daily Traffic. <br />I am just curious what streets we have that are 45 mph or greater besides Snelling and County <br />Road C. <br />I was wondering if 6.1 is feasible. Do we know that 1/4 mile is possible or is 1/3 mile or 1/2 mile <br />more realistic? <br />I suggest a wording change for 12.2 from will be consulted to will have the opportunity to <br />provide feedback. <br />I was wondering if the checklist mentioned in 16.2 should be an addendum to this document <br />Suggest adding wording to 21.3 to make it clear this only applies to mailboxes on roads under <br />city jurisdiction. <br />I was wondering if 22 and 22.2 should identify the actual frequency (like every 5 -years or <br />annually) instead of regularly. I do not know the frequency of regularly. <br />Suggest adding words "as feasible" at the end of the statement on 23.4. Highest standards might <br />be cost prohibitive to meet. <br />Thank you for soliciting my input. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns <br />about my feedback. <br />John Heimerl <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.