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
Mr. Freihammer suggested that the Commission could consider removing the <br />pedestrian bridge component if it is no longer feasible. He also noted that the <br />segment could be modified or broken into smaller portions, such as focusing on <br />a shorter stretch of County Road C2, rather than maintaining the full original <br />concept, particularly since parts of the corridor do not currently exist. <br />Member Luongo suggested that it may be beneficial to include a sidewalk on <br />the west side of County Road C2 to provide nearby residents with a safe place <br />to walk and improved local connectivity. <br />Chair Ficek suggested starting the discussion with the proposed bridge over <br />Interstate 35 W. He noted that while pedestrian -only facilities can be appealing, <br />the location may limit their usefulness, since they do not connect to a major <br />regional trail and are somewhat out of the way. <br />Chair Ficek summarized that there was consensus to remove the bridge <br />component from the segment. He explained that the remaining portions of the <br />corridor could be considered separately on each side of Interstate 35 W. <br />Mr. Freihammer recommended breaking the west side into two segments, one <br />from Highway 8 to Highway 88 and another from Highway 88 to Long Lake <br />Road, to allow for more targeted evaluation. He noted that this approach would <br />align with prior discussions about potential improvements along Long Lake <br />Road. <br />Chair Ficek and Mr. Freihammer discussed focusing on the west side of County <br />Road C2. They noted that a pathway already exists along much of Long Lake <br />Road, allowing for a potential connection from Long Lake to Old Highway 8, <br />which also has a sidewalk. They discussed whether to formalize improvements <br />as on -street bike lanes or maintain flexibility. <br />Mr. Freihammer recommended keeping the description broad as an on- and off - <br />road pathway to allow for future design decisions, including potential bike lanes <br />or trail development. Chair Ficek supported maintaining flexibility, and the <br />group agreed to use "and or" language to preserve multiple options. <br />Mr. Freihammer suggested defining the segment from Old Highway 8 to Long <br />Lake Road and noted that it could be split into two segments, Old Highway 8 <br />to Highway 88 and Highway 88 to Long Lake Road, to allow for phased <br />implementation. Chair Ficek acknowledged that keeping segments flexible <br />would not prevent phased construction, and the group agreed on the general <br />approach before moving on to discuss the east side. <br />Mr. Freihammer discussed the east side of the County Road C2 corridor, noting <br />that a connection already exists into Langton Park. He indicated that additional <br />Page 20 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.