2010-04-27_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

providing that alert for drivers in addition to installation of better signage (Section 11.A.4.b). Chair DeBenedet provided a copy to staff of information from the MnDOT Traffic Fundamentals Workbook and asked staff to e-mail it to members, as it outlined impacts on marking streets and demonstrated statistics versus public demand. Further discussion included investing in a Police Officer at $90,000 annually for better crosswalk protection safety (Section S.A.S.c) versus using funds for infrastructure corrections; parallel information with the City's Police Department on their perspective and action steps related to pedestrian safety; needed city-wide traffic improvements based on traffic models and tied into specific concerns of the Roseville Citizens League (RCL) dangerous intersection priorities (Section l I .A.3.a) and the need for a thorough study by someone with expertise and interest, and potential grant funding sources; identification of segnnents of the community with poor or no connection to parks and open spaces to address the community's wellness (Section 8.B.3.a) and potential solutions and the pending Parks Master Plan process addressing those overlapping areas of interest, as well as the Pathway Master Plan; rails to trails options in the future and continuing delays in attempting to facilitate those opportunities: adding "arterial" language to that action step; pedestrian refu;~es and/or crosswalks (Section S.a. and 3) and whether additional pedestrian crosswalks in key locations were sufficiently addressed (Sections 5 and 11); potential tunnel(s) for trail access (i.e., under Dale Street) and accessibility of those amenities; the need to strategize specific main corridors for bicycle traffic and make them the best rather than attempting to facilitate too many options while unable to sufficiently maintain them and provide for their safety, and defining east/west and north/south arterials and identify those routes best for business, commuter or recreational use.; and also making streets "Roseville-fi•iendly,"identifying corridors for vehicular traffic through the community for commuters. Additional discussion included the need to focus on the future environmental health and maintenance of the community through minimum or low-impact design or development (Section 7), whether through "complete living" options versus high-density housing; rain gardens; rain barrels; various housing options clustered around green space; identification of hazardous trees and provide additional funding for those trees through a management program and addressing invasive or diseased species; and addressing preservation of the City's park system rather than "loving our parks to death," due to a lack of long-range planning and maintenance (i.e., stresses of Oak trees at the Frisbee golf course), utilizing available urban forestry programs offered by the University of MN to return soils to a healthy status, noting the impacts on the health of the community, its history, as well as current and future storm water impacts. Further discussion included how to make Roseville fun (i.e., educational environmental opportunities throughout the community's trail system, historic