My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-02-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-02-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2011 3:00:25 PM
Creation date
2/23/2011 2:31:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/22/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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 Felice suggested that during Member review of the websites, there might <br />be obvious criteria to facilitate further discussion and consideration. <br />9. <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that such information on those websites, included <br />application for traffic management, specific criteria from their Traffic <br />Management Policies; certain treatments; and funding resources. <br />Member Vanderwall noted that the most obvious area of concern was on County <br />Road B -2 due to the number of children; and referenced the Rochester website <br />that provided a map of streets with traffic concerns, based on complaint- driven <br />data. Member Vanderwall noted that for longer -term analysis, radar trailers <br />gathered statistics as well as reading the speeds to oncoming traffic. <br />In an effort to involve the public in this discussion at the ,PV ET Commission <br />level, Member Vanderwall suggested that a follow -up to tonight's discussion be <br />summarized as an article for the Roseville Review, announcing further discussion <br />would be held at a future date, as a way to initially alert those members of the <br />public having any interest. Member Felice concurred, opining that it should be of <br />vital interest to bikers and walkers at a minimum. <br />Mr. Schwartz suggested that, prior to inviting the public to a meeting the <br />Commission should have further discussion in order to focus their message. <br />Member Vanderwall suggested`': <br />assist the Commission on how b <br />tives could be consulted to <br />Member Stenlund spoke in support of moving forward to develop a policy for <br />traffic management to be delivered as part of future construction projects, further <br />streamlining costs for various types of management and simplifying the process. <br />Members concurred for both traffic calming and Complete Street concepts. <br />Additional discussion included philosophical differences between communities <br />and their emphasis on Pedestrians, vehicles, or all users; the need to address long- <br />term traffic management, not just for certain residents petitioning and after some <br />years determining they were ineffective; new and promising technologies for lane <br />guidance such as LED reflectors; Complete Street presentations; and taking a step <br />forward following the Randy Neprash presentation and what traffic calming <br />means to Roseville. <br />Other Future Topics Discussion <br />Commissioners discussed long -range agenda items beyond the next month's <br />meeting agenda. <br />Items included modifications to the City's Erosion Control Ordinance; concerns <br />of City Manager Malinen that the current Assessment Policy was insufficient to <br />Page 9 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.