My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2018_07-24_PWETCpacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2018
>
2018_07-24_PWETCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2018 11:02:17 AM
Creation date
7/25/2018 10:52:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/24/2018
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
220
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
Excerpt from Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 9, 2018 <br />Page 2 <br />45 <br />Councilmember Etten noted there are 2 connections along Snelling, between the <br />46 <br />B and B-2. The #16 and #28 segments are rated very highly but seem to serve <br />47 <br />almost the same target area. <br />48 <br />49 <br />City Engineer Freihammer noted #16 was an existing connection. That goal was <br />50 <br />more of getting people between the two malls. The one along Snelling between <br />51 <br />County Road B and County Road C was an added segment, with the purpose of <br />52 <br />getting people between the intersections. <br />53 <br />54 <br />Councilmember Laliberte inquired if the scoring system to to account an ex - <br />55 <br />isting sidewalk. <br />56 <br />57 <br />City Engineer Freihammer responded the system d s t take tha ccount. <br />58 <br />59 <br />Councilmember Willmus applauded the dev pme of the scoring criteria He <br />60 <br />suggested focusing on areas with higher c co nd including traffic vol - <br />61 <br />umes as part of the scoring rubric. <br />62 <br />63 <br />Public Works Director Culver noted the mention of the goal to develop pathways <br />64 <br />on both sides of the roadway He is fairly certain the plan shows pathways on <br />65 <br />both sides of arterial roadway as Lexington and County Road C. Staff can <br />66 <br />look at the scoring to see ho o give enhanced preference to those arterial seg - <br />67 <br />ments that do not have a pathw o�itherlde currently. <br />68 <br />69 <br />Councilmember Etten asked there i a positive for something that adds the first <br />70 <br />sidewalk al o ively busy et. <br />71 <br />72 <br />Public Works Dir responded there are currently no points for that. <br />73 <br />74 <br />The Council discussed how the point system can reflect the traffic counts and how <br />75 <br />that might impact the"5riority of pathways being completed. <br />76 <br />77 <br />Commissioner Etten suggested the PWET Commission revisit this master plan <br />78 <br />and specifically focus on some of the feedback on the scoring system. <br />79 <br />AF <br />80 <br />Councilmember McGehee commented it makes sense to prioritize completing the <br />81 <br />gaps between two existing segments that lack a connection, over creating a new <br />82 <br />segment somewhere else. <br />83 <br />84 <br />Mayor Roe summarized that staff should run this by the PWET Commission one <br />85 <br />more time and bring it back to the Council. He also asked about the level of par - <br />86 <br />ticipation at the focus group and the open house. <br />87 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.