Laserfiche WebLink
county or local; established streets versus newly-constructed streets; and current <br /> practice for Roseville to "push the minimum" of eleven foot (11')wide lanes. <br /> Ms. Bloom noted the need for consistent, city-wide established criteria for <br /> requests, including those to close or open roads, and based on functional <br /> classification, traffic patterns, number of vehicles and their speeds, whether <br /> someone could request a cul-de-sac and what criteria would determine approval <br /> of such a request; and the overall goal to assist staff in providing better customer <br /> service through a traffic management policy. <br /> For the benefit of Member Gjerdingen's comments, and as part of the City's <br /> Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Bloom advised that Roseville has a functional <br /> classification grid for road types and how they're laid out at 1-2 or 1-4 mile <br /> sections. Mr. Schwartz noted that spacing guidelines were beyond the scope of <br /> this policy, and that those types of streets would not even be considered, but <br /> would be related to neighborhood streets. <br /> Member Stenlund suggested separate criteria for stop signs, based on various <br /> scenarios. <br /> Member Felice noted the City of Kent, WA model providing a disclaimer for such <br /> a policy or program, and suggested it be incorporated into the Roseville model. <br /> Ms. Bloom noted the need to have this policy as part of the tool box to provide <br /> rankings but not set expectations. <br /> Further discussion of items to include in the Roseville model policy included <br /> multiple and specific illustrations to provide sufficient understanding for the <br /> public; aerials of various types of road or similar situations to those requests being <br /> considered; costs associated with each physical improvement or conversion; and <br /> consideration of trial or temporary applications before permanent changes are <br /> installed. <br /> Additional discussion included reactionary changes versus permanent changes as <br /> part of a reconstruction project and cost considerations for each; human factors <br /> and 3-6 months to obtain a consistent and typical reaction to changes <br /> implemented; whether priority ranking should be given to areas slated for <br /> reconstruction; maintenance challenges (e.g. snow removal in parking bays) for <br /> certain traffic calming measures; additional lead time for reconstruction projects <br /> that would allow temporary installations to determine if they should be included <br /> as a permanent installation upon reconstruction; and cost share between the City <br /> and residents for certain traffic management items and how criteria would be <br /> established for such a cost-share. <br /> Discussion ensued related to staffing to meet demand; traffic engineer versus city <br /> engineer expertise; funding to cover those additional costs (e.g. 25% of <br /> Page 6 of 11 <br />