My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2008_0616
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2008
>
CC_Minutes_2008_0616
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/22/2008 12:35:50 PM
Creation date
7/22/2008 12:34:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/16/2008
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
<br />~i <br />Public Works DepartmentlEngineering <br />Memo <br />To: Roseville City Council <br />FYom: Duane Schwartz, Public Works Director <br />Date: 6/16/2008 <br />Re: Rice Street Design Comments from Technical Advisory Committee Members and <br />Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission <br />Jim DeBenedet, Chair of the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission, asked that <br />the Council be provided with a summary of comments from Roseville Technical Advisory Committee <br />members and from the PWETC members regarding the Rice Street planning process. The TAC <br />members representing Roseville are Jim Schwalbach, North Heights Hardware Hank, Jim DeBenedet, <br />Roseville PWETC, Jim Mulder, resident, and Duane Schwartz, representing Roseville staff. The <br />following summarizes the comments from these groups to date: <br />TAC Members Comments <br />Rice Street has limited right- of- way and the existence of residential and business properties. It is <br />critical that Rice Street is planned for reconstruction recognizing the impacts on these properties, as <br />well as the needs of the transportation system. <br />Pedestrians and commuter bicyclets must be accommodated within the new design. <br />• 6-ft Sidewalks with 5- to 6-ft boulevards on both sides of street should be assumed. <br />• Minimum 4foot-wide shoulders on both sides of the street for commuter bicyclists. <br />Traffic forecasts should be supported by a study modeling traffic patterns based on land use plans <br />along the corridor. We do not support an over~iesigned road that encourages pass-through traffic and <br />discourages neighborhood development in the corridor. <br />• Encourage cities to work with the County on consolidated accesses. <br />• Support reducing the number of parking lot driveways where possible. <br />• Support limiting access from minor City Streets. (RI/RO or cul- de-sac) <br />• Construct medians only where there is adequate ROW and where necessary to contribute to <br />traffic operations due to ROW constraints and impacts to access. <br />• Support a 3-lane design at this time with additional lanes to improve intersection geometrics. <br />• A 5-lane design should be considered between County Road B and County Road B-2 to <br />accommodate higher traffic volumes feeding onto HWY 36. <br />• Page 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.