2011-06-28_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

construction/installation costs); criteria for whether a feasibility study or traffic study was required before approval of certain installations; and realistic cost-share based on whether the problem was related to cut-through traffic or neighborhood traffic. Ms. Bloom noted that both the Comprehensive Plan and Imagine Roseville 2025 documents addressed preferred strategies for traffic plans that discouraged cut- through traffic in the community. Vice Chair Vanderwall noted the need for established priorities or criteria to move the community toward acceptance of such a strategy; and noted the efforts by the City of Minneapolis in their diverters and discouragement of cut-through traffic in various neighborhoods. Ms. Bloom cautioned that diverters should not be installed in a vacuum to avoid simply shifting problems from one neighborhood or street to another. Member Stenlund suggested, and Vice Chair Vanderwall concurred, combining criteria from other models with the Blaine model as a Roseville model was developed. Vice Chair Vanderwall expressed interest in included school districts in the discussion (Step 5 of the Blaine model) and other internal government agencies (e.g. police and emergency responders); and providing provisions that if a request was beyond the City's available expertise, a process and criteria would be in place for funding outside expertise/consultants. Vice Chair Vanderwall also noted the need for a junction between city and county/state domain and how that could be better defined beyond the Blaine model when streets came together, and to provide guidance or education for the public's consideration. Member Stenlund suggested that would also provide information for other jurisdictions such as the county if Roseville had a policy in place, encouraging the county to match the intent of the city; however, if there was no policy, they had no standards to coordinate. Ms. Bloom advised that the city had used the Pathway Master Plan in such a manner; however, in considering the focus of a Transportation Management Policy, she noted that there were few things being discussed (e.g. calming, management, signs) that the county would support on their CSAH roads, but that they were receptive to working with the city for pedestrian crossing issues and designs as well as center medians or facilitating pedestrian crossings on multi- lane roads. Member Gjerdingen noted the need for the policy to be revised in the future as it was practically applied. Page 7 of 11