My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2018-10-23_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
2018-10-23_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/29/2018 10:09:56 AM
Creation date
11/29/2018 10:09:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/23/2018
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.
/
15
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
something was not or was not done within the project. He stated it builds a little <br />accountability for the public when the City does projects. <br />Member Joyce asked what the specifications were for a width on a pathway. <br />Mr. Freihammer stated Roseville defines a pathway as an off-street sidewalk or <br />trail. A bicycle trail standard is typically eight feet with at least a two -foot clear <br />zone on either side of the trail. If bituminous is used the trails is eight feet wide, <br />if next to a curb the width is ten feet. <br />Member Joyce stated when he looked at some of the pathways in the City he <br />wondered if it was worth installing them because of all of the alterations needed <br />to put it in such as removing trees. <br />Mr. Freihammer stated that would be another factor to determine because <br />sometimes adding a pathway could negatively affect an area. <br />Chair Cihacek asked if other communities have similar policies and if so, how <br />would the policy in Roseville harmonize or connect with adjoining cities policies. <br />He stated his concern is Roseville does not own a lot of the City major roadways, <br />a lot is County roads or other jurisdictions so if this policy does not go along with <br />other programs there might be an issue. <br />Mr. Freihammer did not think Ramsey County had a complete streets policy, but <br />the County has shifted a lot more into looking at something similar. <br />Member Wozniak did not want Ramsey County's lack of a complete streets <br />policy stop Roseville from adopting their own. <br />Chair Cihacek indicated it would be easier though if there was no conflict. <br />Mr. Sandstrom stated the plans are vague enough to leave enough wiggle room to <br />make changes. <br />Mr. Freihammer referred the Commission to the second full paragraph on the <br />second page of Attachment A. He stated the policy will apply to City streets and <br />any such variance or exception would be the primary street jurisdiction or other <br />entity. He thought the City could help persuade the County. <br />Member Wozniak stated there are a couple things he liked about the policy. It <br />integrates complete streets with the pavement management plan which the City <br />already knows is a successful approach to maintaining City roadways. This <br />policy also lays out procedures with a diagram and was well laid out on how it <br />would work. <br />Page 12 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.