My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-0324 PWETC Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
202x
>
2026
>
2026-0324 PWETC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2026 12:43:58 PM
Creation date
5/13/2026 12:43:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/24/2026
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.
/
28
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
Member Luongo asked whether there may be political viability with the county <br />to extend on -street bike lanes from Iona further south, as an alternative <br />approach. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that extending the street bike lanes in that area <br />would be challenging due to traffic conditions at the intersection. He noted that <br />the corridor includes double left -turn lanes and multiple through lanes as part <br />of a relatively recent project, which would make modifications more difficult, <br />though not impossible. <br />Member Luongo expressed interest in finding a way to continue dedicated bike <br />facilities through the corridor. <br />Mr. Freihammer noted that extending bike lanes to County Road C would be <br />beneficial but would require significant rework. He indicated that adding <br />southbound bike lanes may be more feasible, whereas northbound <br />improvements would be more challenging given existing roadway conditions. <br />Chair Ficek suggested that if on -street bike lanes are not feasible, the segment <br />could instead be designated as a trail to accommodate bicycle use better. He <br />noted that this approach could provide a dedicated corridor for bikes and <br />pedestrians, particularly since the east side already includes a sidewalk, and <br />indicated support for describing the segment more generally as a pathway or <br />trail. <br />Mr. Freihammer summarized the discussion, indicating that the segment would <br />be split into two parts. He confirmed that one segment would include <br />completing a sidewalk on the east side from County Road C2 to County Road <br />D. <br />Mr. Freihammer noted that the second segment would include constructing a <br />trail on the west side from County Road C to just north of Iona, connecting to <br />existing facilities. He clarified that the trail would be designed as a wider, multi- <br />use facility. <br />Mr. Freihammer indicated that the segments would be labeled separately for <br />clarity and that the exact naming convention would be determined as part of the <br />plan updates. <br />Member Fergus asked whether the trails located around and behind the hotel <br />are maintained by the city. <br />Mr. Freihammer confirmed that the trails around and behind the hotel are city <br />trails. He explained that while the city owns and maintains them, winter <br />maintenance is performed by adjacent property owners due to their proximity <br />Page 15 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.