## Public Works, Environment and Transportation ## Commission Agenda Tuesday, April 28, 2026 ## 6:30 PM ## City Council Chambers In accordance with Minnesota Statutes §13D.02 and City policy, Council and Commission members may attend meetings remotely up to three times per calendar year. (Times listed are approximate – please note that items may be earlier or later than listed on the agenda) 6:30 p.m. 1. Swearing in of New Commission Members a. Swearing in of New Commissioners 6:35 p.m. 2. Roll Call 6:37 p.m. 3. Approve Agenda 6:38 p.m. 4. Election of Officers a. Election of Officers 6:40 p.m. 5. Receive Public Comment 6:45 p.m. 6. Business Items 6:45 p.m. a. Communication Items 6:55 p.m. b. Approve Bike Plan ## 7:30 p.m. c. Pathway Master Plan - Continued Segment Review ## 8:20 p.m. 7. Commission Direction on Member Initiated Agenda Items ## a. Commission Direction on Member Initiated Agenda Items 8:28 p.m. 8. Approval of Meeting Minutes ## a. Approve March Minutes 8:30 p.m. 9. Adjourn Page 1 of 165 ## Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission ## Agenda Item DATE: April 28, 2026 ITEM: 1.a. ## ITEM DESCRIPTION: Swearing in of New Commissioners ## Background The City Council appointed Luke Sandstrom and Charles Tedder to the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission on March 2, 2026 and April 6, 2026, respectively. We welcome Luke and Charles to the commission. ## Recommendation The Commission Chair will swear in Mr. Sandstrom and Mr. Tedder as a Commission members. ## Attachments ## 1. Luke Sandstrom Commissioner Oath ## 2. Charles Tedder Commissioner Oath Page 2 of 165 -Rl'SEVILLE ## OFFICIAL OATH for ## Luke Sandstrom ## Public Works, Environment, and Transportation ## Commission I, Luke Sandstrom, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and that I will faithfully, justly, and impartially discharge the duties of the Public Works, ## Environment, and Transportation Commission for the City of Roseville, Minnesota, to the best of my judgment and ability. ## Luke Sandstrom Subscribed and sworn to before me this twenty-eighth day of April 2026. ## Jesse Freiheimer, Public Works Director Attachment 1 Page 3 of 165 ## OFFICIAL OATH for ## Charles Tedder ## Public Works, Environment, and Transportation ## Commission I, Charles Tedder, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and that I will faithfully, justly, and impartially discharge the duties of the Public Works, ## Environment, and Transportation Commission for the City of Roseville, Minnesota, to the best of my judgment and ability. ## Charles Tedder Subscribed and sworn to before me this twenty-eighth day of April 2026. ## Jesse Freihammer, Public Works Director Attachment 2 Page 4 of 165 ## Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission ## Agenda Item DATE: April 28, 2026 ITEM: 4.a. ## ITEM DESCRIPTION: Election of Officers ## Background As required by City Code, 201.06.A, at the last meeting preceding the end of regular terms of appointment, each advisory commission shall elect a chair and vice-chair from among its appointed members for a term of one year and appoint a member to serve on the Ethics Commission. Since this should have been completed at the March meeting, the two new PWET commissioners cannot vote or be elected as chair, vice-chair or serve on the ethics committee. For reference, attached is the City Code as it pertains to advisory commissions, the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission and the Ethics Commission. ## Recommendation Elect a chair, vice-chair and a member to serve on the Ethics Commission. ## Attachments ## 1. PWET Commission, Ethics Commission Page 5 of 165 ## CHAPTER 201 ## ADVISORY COMMISSIONS ## SECTION: 201.01: Establishment 201.02: Purpose 201.03: Membership 201.04: Terms 201.05: Compensation 201.06: Organization 201.07: Meetings and Reports ## 201.01: ESTABLISHMENT: A.All permanent standing advisory commissions to the City shall be established by adoption of an ordinance under this Title, and shall be governed by the provisions of this Chapter. B.From time to time, the City Council may elect to establish other advisory groups by adoption of a resolution establishing, among other things, the purpose, membership, organization, duties and term of service for such advisory groups. ## 201.02: PURPOSE: Advisory Commissions are established to provide a method for citizen input and are advisory to the City Council. No advisory commission shall have decision-making authority for the City, except as expressly established by this Code or State Statutes. ## 201.03: MEMBERSHIP: A.All members of advisory commissions shall be residents of the City, and shall be appointed by majority vote of the City Council. B.In addition to the regular commission members, the City Council may appoint up to two additional residents of the city who are the age of 18 or under and enrolled in high school to serve one-year terms on a commission as ex-officio youth commissioners. ## 201.04: TERMS: A.Term Length: Members shall serve terms of three years, except for youth members and the first members appointed following the creation of the commission. First members shall be appointed as follows: At least one third of members shall be appointed for three-year terms, up to one third of the members shall be appointed for two-year terms, and the balance of the members shall serve a one-year term. Term length for any member will be established by the Council at the time of the appointment. B. Oath of Office: Every appointed member, before beginning his or her duties shall take an oath stating that he or she will faithfully discharge of the duties of the commission to which he or she was appointed. Individual commissioners are expected to understand and adhere to the Roseville Ethics Code and attend the annual ethics training. C. Expiration of Terms: A member’s term shall expire on March 31 of the year of the expiration Attachment 1 Page 6 of 165 of the term, or at such time as a successor is appointed. Youth commissioner terms expire on July 31 of each year. D. Term Limits: Members are eligible to serve two consecutive full terms on a commission in addition to any partial term served to complete an unexpired term resulting from a vacancy or an initial term upon creation of a commission. When members of an existing commission are transferred by the City Council to a new commission, term limits apply to the combined time on both commissions. Youth commissioners may serve up to three consecutive terms. Youth commissioners may not be appointed or re-appointed to a term during which they will turn 19 years of age. Upon completion of service on one commission, residents can be eligible for appointment to another commission, or after a period of at least one year, for appointment to the same commission on which they have previously served. E. Vacancies: Vacancies during a term shall be filled by the City Council for the unexpired portion of a term. A vacancy occurs in any of the following circumstances: resignation, residence outside the city, removal or death. The City Council reserves the right to defer filling commission vacancies for any length of time deemed necessary. F. Attendance: It is the expectation that Commissioners attend all meetings of the commission. An absence is considered the same whether it is excused or unexcused. If a commissioner is absent three consecutive meetings and/or misses a total of 30% or more of commission meetings in a rolling 12 month period, the staff liaison or commission chair will forward the information to the City Council. G. Removal: Members may be removed by the City Council without cause. A member’s removal shall be by majority vote of the City Council. In addition: 1. If a member fails to comply with the Roseville Ethics Code, the member may be removed by the City Council. 2. If a member has absences from more than three consecutive commission meetings, or is absent from more than 30% of the meetings in any rolling 12 month period, the member may be removed by the City Council. ## 201.05: COMPENSATION: Members of all advisory commissions shall serve without compensation. ## 201.06: ORGANIZATION: A. Election of Officers: At the last meeting preceding the end of regular terms of appointment, or at such other time as required by State Statutes, each advisory commission shall elect a chair and vice-chair from among its appointed members for a term of one-year and appoint a member to serve on the Ethics Commission as described in Chapter 207 of this code. B. Governing Documents: City Code and State Statutes will govern commission activities. A commission shall not adopt separate by-laws or rules to govern commission duties or activities. C. Committees, Subcommittees and Task Forces: Commissions may by majority vote appoint committees or subcommittees of their own members from time to time as required for the conduct of their business. The formation of any other committees, task forces and/or alternate workgroups would be subject to the provisions of this Chapter and shall be created only after approval of the City Council. Subcommittees shall report on work underway and completed on a regular basis to the full commission. Page 7 of 165 D. Logo and Materials: To reflect the official nature of the commission and to preserve consistency of the City’s brand, only the official city logo or a Council-approved derivative of the logo, that contains the words “City of Roseville,” shall be used on commission materials. E. Accessibility: Commission members will be available to residents of the city by providing a preferred phone number or email address that can be used on the city website and/or on print materials. F. Staff Liaison: Each commission will be served by a staff liaison to assist in meeting planning and commission processes and serve as a conduit to city staff and the City Council. G. New Commissioner Training: New commission members will receive both general and commission-specific training from the staff liaison and commission chair before beginning their term. (Ord. 1498, 4/11/2016) (Ord. 1528, 6/5/2017) ## 201.07: MEETINGS AND REPORTS: A. Meeting Schedule: Prior to the start of each calendar year, each commission shall adopt a regular meeting schedule for the coming year. Commissions may amend their regular meeting schedule, cancel meetings, or call special meetings as needed by majority vote at a regular commission meeting. Commissions shall meet at least quarterly, except as otherwise required by this Code or State Statutes. A special meeting of a commission may be called by the commission chair and/or the City Manager between regular meetings after consultation and approval of both parties. B. Joint Meeting with City Council: At least once a year, each commission shall meet with the City Council to report on the previous year’s work and to discuss work plans and pending issues for the upcoming year. Commissions may request additional joint meetings with the City Council whenever necessary to share information or seek guidance. A staff liaison is assigned to assist each commission and will work with the City Manager to schedule any joint meetings. C. Open Meeting Law and Data Practices: All meetings of a quorum of a commission need to be properly noticed and shall be subject to the requirements of State Statutes section 13D, as applicable. Individual commissioners are expected to understand and adhere to applicable state laws and statutes. When a vacancy exists on a commission, a quorum shall consist of a majority of the commission’s non-vacant seats. D. Rules of Order: All commissions shall be subject to the same Rules of Order as are adopted annually by the City Council. E. Meetings: Commission meetings shall be held in a public place and the time, date, and location of the meeting shall be publicly noticed. Commission must allow time for public comment on each agenda item and at a Public Comment portion of the agenda at the beginning of each meeting. All meetings shall be televised and recorded for future reference. External site tours by a Commission shall be exempt from being televised, but such tours shall be publicly noticed as all other Commission meetings. F. Minutes and Reports: Commissions are required to keep a record of its meetings and actions available through the City, as well as other recommendations, reports, studies and other documents created or performed by or for a commission. Minutes of the meeting shall be detailed in the same way as the City Council minutes are written. (Ord. 1481, 07-20-2015) (Ord. 1498, 4/11/2016) Page 8 of 165 ## CHAPTER 206 ## PUBLIC WORKS, ENVIRONMENT, AND ## TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ## SECTION: 206.01: Establishment and Membership ## 206.02: Scope, Duties and Functions ## 206.01: ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBERSHIP: There is established a public works, environment, and transportation commission of the city which shall consist of seven members appointed by the City Council and which shall be subject to Chapter 201 of the City Code. (Ord. 1260, 4-15-2002) (Ord. 1313, 12-6-2004) ## 206.02: SCOPE, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS: The duties and functions of the commission shall be as follows: A. Serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council, City Manager and Director of Public Works on public works, environmental, and transportation matters. (Ord. 1313, 12-6- 2004) B. Maintain an interest in and an understanding of the functions and operations of the Public Works Department. C. Maintain an interest in and an understanding of federal, state, county, regional and other public works, environmental, and transportation services that impact City services. (Ord. 1313, 12-6-2004) D. Perform other duties and functions or conduct studies and investigations as specifically directed or delegated by the city. (Ord. 1260, 4-15-2002) (Ord. 1481, 07-20-2015) Page 9 of 165 ## CHAPTER 207 ## ETHICS COMMISSION ## SECTION: 207.01: Establishment and Membership ## 207.02: Scope, Duties and Functions ## 207.01: ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBERSHIP: There is established an ethics commission of the City which shall consist of one member from each City Advisory commission and which shall be subject to Chapter 201 of the City Code. (Ord. 1498, 4/11/2016) The ethics commission shall hold an annual meeting and otherwise meet on an as-needed basis or when an ethics complaint is filed. ## 207.02: SCOPE, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS: The duties and functions of the Commission shall be as follows: A. Serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council on matters involving any ethics code adopted by the City Council. B. Administer any ethics code adopted by the City Council. C. Perform other duties and functions or conduct studies as specifically directed or delegated by the City Council. (Ord. 1338, 6-12-2006) (Ord. 1481, 07-20-2015) Page 10 of 165 ## Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission ## Agenda Item DATE: April 28, 2026 ITEM: 6.a. ## ITEM DESCRIPTION: Communication Items ## Background At each commission meeting, City staff provides updates on City activities and projects ongoing within the city that pertain to public works activities. ## Recommendation Receive report and provide feedback. ## Attachments ## 1. Communications Memo ## 2. 2026 Roseville Project Map ## 3. April Development Activity Report Page 11 of 165 ## Public Works Department ## Memo ## To: P ## ublic Works Environmental and Transportation Commission Members ## From: Jennifer Lowry, City Engineer Date: April 23, 2026 ## Re: Communications Items The following are updates to projects and other activities happening in Roseville since the last commission meeting. Note that links to most planned or active construction projects can be found on our construction projects website. http://www.cityofroseville.com/697/Construction-Projects ## R oseville Public Works project updates: •Maintenance Operation Center (MOC) / License & Passport Centers / Dance Studio (LPCDS) oMOC - City staff from Public Works and Parks met with the consulting teams for a design charette on March 26 to discuss layout options. Those options have had several iterations while the consultants draft a Program and Conceptual Design Report. That report will be shared with this commission and seek Council approval once complete. oLPCDS – the concept planning for the building is further along that the MOC but will also require Council action prior to detail design of construction plans. •Lexington Avenue Pathway - County Road B to TH 36 oConstruction anticipated to start week of April 27 and be substantially complete by end of May. Lexington Avenue will have lane shifts, but remain open to traffic. •Hamline Avenue – County Road C to Snelling Avenue oBid opening on April 29. ## •2026 PMP Project oNearly 6 miles of roads are planned for rehabilitation in 2026. Bid opening on May 7. ## •Twin Lakes Trail Phase 2 oEasement needs to be negotiated with property owner. Plans complete, likely a 2027 construction due to tree removal needs. •Wagner/Western Pathway oEasement being negotiated with Ramsey County, construction optimistically anticipated late 2026. ## •2026 Sewer Cleaning & Lining oAwarded. Preconstruction meeting will be scheduled for early May. ## •Booster Station Phase 4 Improvements oBuilding improvements to occur in coordination with the solar install in 2026. •Lift Stations oCohansey Lift Station upgrade with construction anticipated summer 2026. oLift station assessment to establish 10-year work plan has been received from consultant and is under review by staff. The last major study was completed in 2014. •Wayfinding Signage oSign installations to begin again in spring. Attachment 1 Page 12 of 165 ## PWET Communications Memo Page 2 ## • Willow Pond o Dredging of Willow Pond is planned for the winter of 2026/27 or the summer of 2027, depending on the contractor. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will be reviewed by City Council on June 8. ## • Keya Park Pathway along Pascal Street o Council gave staff direction to build a path along the Pascal Street hill, but not to move the curbs. This will be completed with the 2026 PMP project. • Lighting o Intersection lighting in eastern Roseville planned for 2026. o Owasso Hills to decide standard vs enhanced lighting. Other agency project updates: ## • Ramsey County o County Road C 4:3 Conversion from Lexington Avenue to Little Canada Road and bridge over railroad  Roadway scheduled for bidding this spring and construction this summer/fall and bridge construction in 2027. Utility work ahead of project is underway. ## o Fairview from Larpenteur Avenue to County Road B2  Bids open April 30 for resurfacing and signal work, at County Road B and Gluek Lane. Work can begin after May 10, hard closure can’t occur until June 11. ## o County Road D from Fairview Avenue to Cleveland Avenue  Design in process for 2027 project to include resurfacing and construction of a path on the south side. o Victoria Street Path from County Road C to Harriet Avenue  Design in process for 2028 project.  Public Open House scheduled for May 20 from 5-87PM at the Roseville Skating Center. ## o Rice from Wheelock Parkway to County Road B  Design in process for 2028 project. ## o Larpenteur Corridor Study  RFP to be released soon for study of entire corridor. • MnDOT ## o Snelling Avenue from TH 36 to Grey Fox Road  Construction begins April 27. Expect lane closures and short-term closures of side streets when there is work nearby. Anticipate two weekend directional closures with detours. Construction to be complete by State Fair.  Resurfacing and road repairs also include new off-road pathway west of Snelling Avenue from Lydia Avenue to Old Snelling. o TH 280 from Wabash Avenue in St. Paul to I35 W  Resurfacing and bridge work underway. Northbound is currently closed and southbound anticipated to close April 29. Reopening lanes prior to State Fair.  Note that I-94 has another closure anticipated 10pm May 30- 5am June 1. Closure from 35E to 35W eastbound and to Dale Street westbound.  Public question or complaints about 280, including things like increased traffic on Cleveland Avenue or Snelling Avenue, can be shared with MnDOT at 612-254- 7776 or info@hwy280construction.com. Page 13 of 165 ## PWET Communications Memo Page 3 ## o Gateway Bridge Project  Interagency meeting kickoff held for the 2031 project on I35W, TH 36 and 12-14 bridges from Fairview Avenue to the east. • Other ## o G Line (Metro Transit)  Construction 2026-2028. ## o Private Utilities  Xcel is inspecting and replacing poles around town throughout the year. They are also undergounding lines in seven small areas where damage to lines is reoccurring and problematic.  Lumen is placing new fiber on Transit Avenue from Rice Street to Western Avenue. ## Engineering Updates: • Roseville has remaining water efficiency rebates to use until June 30. An application has been submitted for the 2026-2028 grant cycle. ## Environmental & Sustainability Updates: • Climate Equity Action Plan Draft is available for review on the City website thru June 6. http://www.cityofroseville.com/4004/Climate-Equity-Action-Plan • DeVonte Roberts is this year’s Sustainability Intern and has started part time until going full time this summer. • The second Native Plant Sale with MNL will open for orders thru May 14, for pickup May 30. Both residents of Roseville and non-residents can place orders at http://www.cityofroseville.com/3979/Roseville-Native-Plant-Sale • The EAW was submitted to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor on March 24 and is also posted on our website for public comment thru April 30. The EAW will be discussed at the May PWET meeting. http://www.cityofroseville.com/willowpond • The annual stormwater update, to fulfill MS4 permit requirements, is scheduled for May 19 during the PWET meeting. • Clean Up Day is April 25, 2026, from 8am to 1pm, at the Dale St. Soccer Fields (2555 Dale St. Roseville, MN). Open to Roseville residents only. • Shredding Day is May 16, 2026, from 9am to noon, held in the parking lot of City Hall (2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN). Open to Roseville residents only. ## Maintenance Updates: • Street and Storm o Early Spring Street sweeping of roads/parking lots completed (400 yards of material). o Checking/clearing all catch basins to clean out the backs of debris. o Fifth compost turning of 2025 fall leaves completed. o Begin pathway patching problem areas. o Grinding trip hazards on concrete sidewalks. o Spring restoration of water break repairs in the roadway. o Seasonal equipment changeover from winter to summer. o Ongoing storm sewer and sign maintenance. o Earth day trash pickup events by Hawkins and University of Northwestern. o Spring turf restorations/mailbox repairs from winter maintenance operations. o Spring stormwater sump cleaning and mosquito control. Page 14 of 165 ## PWET Communications Memo Page 4 ## • Water and Sanitary Sewer o Continued inspections for water service line inventory. o St. Croix storm lift station metal repairs. o Continued locates, weekly lift station inspections/repairs, collection of water samples. o Responded to and repair water main breaks, water gate valves and sewer backups. ## Council Updates: • Below is a highlight of items recently presented to and/or acted on by the City Council. More information can be found in the agenda packets and minutes for the referenced Council meetings: o March 23  Discussed: Appointment process of Roseville resident to Falcon Heights's Les ## Bolstad Golf Course Redevelopment Community Advisory Committee o April 6 ##  Received: Presentation on Draft Climate Equity Action Plan ##  Approved: Award Contract for Rosebrook General Park Improvements  Approved: Appointment of Roseville Resident Jewelie Grape to Falcon Heights' ## Les Bolstad Golf Course Redevelopment Community Advisory Committee ##  Approved: Final Payment for 2025 Pavement Management Project 25-04  Adjourned to Closed Session to discuss a potential offer to VFW o April 13 ##  Approved: Adopt Resolution Awarding Construction Contract for 2026 Sanitary ## Sewer Lining Project (26-06) o April 20 (public, but not on camera) ##  Discussed: 2027 Budget and Implementation of City’s Strategic Plan Page 15 of 165 0700100020003000 ## Feet ## DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 651-792-7044. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. ## AllProjects2026 ## Lake Josephine ## Park ## Lake ## McCarrons ## County Park ## Ramsey County ## Open Space (Ramsey County) ## Lake Josephine ## Beach Park ## Park ## Lake ## Langton ## Sandcastle ## Park ## Lake ## Park ## Oasis ## Central ## Park ## Acorn ## Park ## Central ## Park ## Central ## Park ## Park ## Villa ## Park ## Keya ## Park ## Park ## Tamarack ## Park ## Reservoir Woods ## Reservoir Woods ## Rosebrook ## Langton ## Park ## Park ## Autumn ## Grove ## Park ## Park ## Cottontail ## Veterans ## Park ## Howard ## Johnson ## Park ## Willow Pond ## Cedarholm ## Golf Course ## Evergreen ## Park ## Keller ## Mayflower ## Park ## Lexington ## Park ## Bruce ## Russell ## Park ## Pioneer ## Park ## Concordia ## Park ## Materion ## Park ## Central ## Park North ## Owasso ## Ballfields ## Valley ## Park ## Owasso ## Hills ## Park ## Ladyslipper ## Park ## Mapleview ## Park ## Woodhill ## Park ## Applewood ## Park ## Applewood ## Overlook ## Memorial ## Park ## Midland ## Gardens ## Park ## Unity ## Park ## Sunset ## Park ## Lake ## Josephine ## Lake ## Owasso ## McCarrons ## Lake ## Lake ## Bennett ## Pond ## Willow ## Zimmerman ## Lake ## Oasis Pond ## Lake ## Johanna ## Lake ## Langton ## Walsh ## Lake ## BRENNER ## ST ## LYDIA ## AVE ## LYDIA ## CT ## P ## A ## T ## T ## O ## N ## RD ## HIGHCREST ## RD ## M ## IL ## L ## W ## O ## O ## D ## ST ## BRENNER ## CT ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## STANBRIDGE ## ST ## MANSON ## ST ## MAPLE ## LN ## OLD ## HIGHWAY 8 ## TROSETH ## RD ## COUNTY HIGHWAY 88 ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## RD ## PARTRIDGE ## ROAD C2 ## CENTRE ## POINTE ## DR ## AVE ## INTERSTATE 35W ## ROAD C ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## CLEVELAND ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## PATTON ## RD ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## WILDER ## ST ## MOUNT ## RD ## RIDGE ## EVELYN ## ST ## BRENNER ## AVE ## PRIOR ## CIR ## ST ## ARTHUR ## DR ## AVE ## MILDRED ## ST ## S ## H ## O ## R ## E ## W ## O ## O ## D ## AVE ## BRENNER ## LYDIA ## ARTHUR ## PL ## MILDRED ## DR ## STANBRIDGE ## MILLWOOD ## MAPLE ## ST ## WHEELER ## WHEELER ## SHORE ## CURV ## WOOD ## LN ## LN ## ST ## ALDINE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## L ## I ## N ## C ## O ## L ## N ## DR ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## AVE ## COUNTY ## RD C2 ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## CENTENNIAL ## DR ## DR ## TERRACE ## LINCOLN ## DR ## SNELLING ## FAIRVIEW ## ST ## ARTHUR ## ROAD C ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## PRIOR ## AVE ## COUNTY ## ASBURY ## RIDGEWOOD ## ST ## RD ## GLEN HILL ## RD ## AVE ## AVE ## WOODLYNN ## CLARMAR ## BRENNER ## AVE ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## AVE ## DR ## AVE ## LYDIA ## ASBURY ## ARONA ## SIMPSON ## PASCAL ## AVE ## WOOD ## MILL ## ST ## ST ## ALBERT ## ALBERT ## SHELDON ## ST ## JOSEPHINE ## E SNELLING ## COUNTY ## RD C2 ## RD ## AVE ## MERRILL ## ST ## BELAIR ## CIR ## ST ## FERNWOOD ## LEXINGTON ## RD C2 ## DR ## DR ## TERRACE ## ROAD C ## TERRACE ## DR ## AVE ## DR ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## GRIGGS ## ST ## CIV ## IC ## C ## E ## NT ## E ## R DR ## LEXINGTON ## HAMLINE ## AVE ## JUDITH ## RD ## RAMBLER ## PRIMROSE ## CURV ## TALISMAN ## C ## U ## R ## V ## SHELDON ## ST ## JUDITH ## WOODHILL ## HURON ## FERN ## MERRILL ## DELL ## WOOD ## WOOD ## COUNTY ## E SNELLING ## DR ## ST ## AVE ## WHEATON ## HEINEL ## DR ## CIR ## HEINEL ## DR ## TERRACE ## ST ## DALE ## ST. ## ALBANS ## ST ## IONA ## LN ## HEINEL ## S OWASSO ## ROAD C ## AVE ## ST ## CHURCHILL ## OXFORD ## ST ## AGLEN ## AVE ## AVE ## LAKEVIEW ## AVE ## JUDITH ## WOODHILL ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## ST ## DR ## KENT ## BLVD ## SANDY HOOK ## DR ## RD ## SANDY HOOK ## DR ## LITTLE BAY ## TURNSTONE CT (Private) ## S OWASSO ## BLVD ## LYNN AVE ## WOOD- ## HI ## G ## H ## P ## OIN ## T ## E ## CURV ## OWASSO ## HILLS ## DR ## N ## H ## IL ## LS ## C ## O ## U ## R ## TE ## W ## HILLSVIEW ## HILLSVIEW ## E ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## G ## AL ## TI ## E ## R ## ST ## M ## A ## T ## I ## L ## D ## A ## ST ## MAPLE ## LN ## RD C2 ## AVE ## DR ## LN ## IONA ## CIR ## IRENE ## CIR ## RAMBLER ## CT ## TERRACE ## DR ## JUDITH ## AVE ## CENTENNIAL ## DR ## WESTERN ## AVE ## ROAD C ## AVE ## VIRGINIA ## ST ## FARRINGTON ## ST ## MATILDA ## ST ## GALTIER ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## OAKCREST ## AVE ## LN ## OAKCREST ## BROOKS ## CIR ## ROSE PL ## COHANSEY ## CIR ## AVE ## AVE ## MATILDA ## ST ## GALTIER ## ST ## RD B2 ## ST ## WEWERS ## RD ## CIR ## GALTIER ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## ST ## WESTERN ## AVE ## AVE ## TOP HILL ## CIR ## DR ## SOUTHHILL ## ST ## SANDHURST ## RICE ## AVE ## HAND ## AVE ## AUERBACH ## MATILDA ## DR ## CENTENNIAL ## PASCAL ## PASCAL ## ST ## ST ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## CHURCHILL ## CHATSWORTH ## ST ## ST ## WOODLYNN ## BRENNER ## AVE ## LYDIA ## MILLWOOD ## ST ## OXFORD ## LYDIA ## DR ## DR ## LYDIA ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## ST ## MILTON ## ST ## BRENNER ## AVE ## MILLWOOD ## AVE ## ST ## AVON ## W OWASSO ## BLVD ## RD C2 ## ORCHARD ## LN ## CIR ## STANBRIDGE ## HIGH- ## COURTE ## MAPLE LANE ## CT ## COUNTY ## FARRINGTON ## MILLWOOD ## ST ## WESTERN ## AVE ## BLVD ## S ## O ## W ## A ## S ## S ## O ## WOODLYNN ## AVE ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## NORTHVIEW ## ST ## RICE ## LN ## IONA ## ST ## RICE ## CT ## TER ## R ## A ## C ## E ## H ## I ## L ## L ## S ## C ## O ## UR ## T ## E ## S ## COUNTY ## WOODHILL ## IONA ## MACKUBIN ## ST ## KENT ## ST ## ST ## MACKUBIN ## ST ## DALE ## AVE ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## COUNTY ## AVE ## ST ## IRENE ## ST ## IRENE ## ST ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## CT ## IRENE ## CIR ## VIRGINIA ## CIR ## FARRINGTON ## MATILDA ## BROOKS ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## ST ## ROAD B ## ST ## MINNESOTA ## LOVELL ## LOVELL ## AVE ## GRAND- ## VIEW ## COHANSEY ## SA ## N ## D ## H ## U ## R ## S ## T ## DR ## BLVD ## COUNTY ## VICTORIA ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## BROOKS ## TRANSIT ## ST ## BLVD ## ST ## ALBEMARLE ## ST ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## WOODBRIDGE ## ST ## MCCARRON ## ST ## AVE ## WESTERN ## AVE ## FARRINGTON ## ST ## AVE ## ROMA ## AVE ## DIONNE ## GALTIER ## GRANDVIEW ## AVE ## MINNESOTA ## AVE ## W ## O ## O ## D ## B ## R ## I ## D ## G ## E ## S ## T ## CIR ## CAPITOL ## MARION ## VIEW ## VIEW ## CAPITOL ## VIEW ## CAPITOL ## CIR ## ST ## DR ## BOS ## S ## A ## R ## D ## ST ## IRENE ## AVE ## OXFORD ## CHURCHILL ## AGLEN ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## COUNTY ## ROSE ## OAKCREST ## FISK ## ST ## GROTTO ## ST ## AVE ## RD B2 ## PL ## AVE ## ST ## ALADDIN ## CT ## R ## O ## S ## E ## T ## O ## WN ## DR ## OVERLOOK ## ST ## ST ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## PL ## NANCY ## AVE ## VICTORIA ## LOVELL ## GRANDVIEW ## COPE ## GROT ## ST. ## ALBA ## NS ## TO ## ST ## ST ## ST ## NANCY ## PL ## AVE ## SANDHURST ## MILTON ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## SANDHURST ## DR ## ROAD B ## ST ## GROTTO ## ST ## SHERREN ## ST ## OXFORD ## GRANDVIEW ## ST ## ST ## LOVELL ## LOVELL LN (Private) ## SHERREN ## COUNTY ## AVE ## CURV ## SNELLING ## ROSE ## PL ## PASCAL ## ST ## ST ## S ## I ## M ## P ## S ## O ## N ## AVE ## BROOKS ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## ST ## A ## R ## O ## N ## A ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## ST ## HOLTON ## ST ## ALBERT ## ST ## SHELDON ## COUNTY ## OAKCREST ## ROSE ## PL ## WILLOW ## CIR ## DEL ## LW ## O ## O ## D ## CIR ## CHRISTY ## RD B2 ## AVE ## WILLOW ## BROOKS ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## LN ## PL ## ROSE ## ST ## DUNLAP ## ST ## ST ## F ## E ## R ## N ## W ## O ## O ## D ## DUNLAP ## ST ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## COLONIAL ## DR (Private) ## ST ## ALBERT ## ST ## DR ## SANDHURST ## AVE ## ST ## DELLWOOD ## DELLWOOD ## ST ## MERRILL ## ST ## ROAD B ## ST ## FERNWOOD ## SHERREN ## ST ## RD ## LAURIE ## DR ## SANDHURST ## LEXINGTON ## AVE ## AVE ## COMMERCE ## COUNTY ## ST ## PASCAL ## OAKCREST ## AVE ## AVE ## ROSE ## ROSE ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## ST ## ST ## SAMUEL (Private) ## LN ## S RIDGEWOOD ## N RIDGEWOOD ## LN ## LN ## MID OAKS ## MID OAKS ## RD ## AVE ## BURKE ## ELDRIDGE ## BELMONT ## RYAN ## SHRYER ## SKILLMAN ## PL ## OAKCREST ## BEACON ## ST ## WHEELER ## AVE ## ST ## HERSCHEL ## RD B2 ## COUNTY ## CLEVELAND ## CLE ## VE ## LA ## N ## D ## A ## VE ## AVE ## COUNTY ## AVE ## AVE ## PL ## AVE ## ST ## ALDINE ## ST ## CHARLOTTE ## ST ## FRY ## SNELLING ## RD B2 ## PERIMETER ## DR ## FAIRVIEW ## N GLUEK LN ## S GLUEK LN ## LN ## ROAD B ## AVE ## HERSCHEL ## RD ## MIDLOTHIAN ## RD ## HADDINGTON ## RD ## LAURIE ## N HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## S HIGHWAY 36 ## SERVICE DR ## PRIOR ## F ## E ## R ## R ## IS ## FERRIS LN ## G ## L ## U ## E ## K ## COUNTY ## WEST ## WALNUT ## ST ## ROSE ## PL ## TERMINAL ## ST ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## RD ## RD ## TERMINAL ## ST ## ST. CROIX ## ST. CROIX ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST. STEPHEN ## ST ## FULHAM ## LAURIE ## RD ## MA ## RI ## O ## N ## RD ## ACORN ## RD ## N HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## S HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## WALNUT ## INTERSTATE ## 35W ## EUSTIS ## ST (Private) ## FULHAM ## COUNTY ## FAIRWAYS ## LN ## FULHAM ## ST ## LAKE ST ## MIDLAND ## HILLS ## RD ## ROAD B ## N ROSEWOOD ## LN ## LN ## S ROSEWOOD ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## DRAPER ## HYTHE ## DR ## CIR ## ST ## ROSELAWN ## AVE ## CLEVELAND ## AVE ## AVE ## PRIOR ## SHARONDALE ## AVE ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## WILDER ST ## ELDRIDGE ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## EVERGREEN ## CT ## AVE ## AVE ## SHRYER ## RYAN ## L ## O ## R ## E ## N ## RD ## AU ## T ## U ## M ## N ## PL ## ROSELAWN ## TATUM ## ST ## DR ## DRAPER ## FAIRVIEW ## BEACON ## HERSCHEL ## WHEELER ## ST ## ST ## ST ## SHRYER ## RYAN ## ELDRIDGE ## SKILLMAN ## ALDINE ## ST ## AVE ## AVE ## SNELLING ## AVE ## AVE ## FRY ## MIDLOTHIAN ## RD ## ROSELAWN ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## LN ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## ASBURY ## ST ## ST ## ARONA ## ST ## SIMPSON ## ST ## PASCAL ## SHRYER ## ELDRIDGE ## BURKE ## RYAN ## DRAPER ## ROSELAWN ## DELL ## WOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## LN ## SKILLMAN ## BELMONT ## AVE ## ST ## DELLWOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## WOOD ## FERN ## ST ## AVE ## LINDY ## KARYL ## PL ## LEXINGTON ## AVE ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## LARPENTEUR ## GARDEN ## AVE ## LEXINGTON ## AUTUMN ## ST ## SUMMER ## ST ## RUGGLES ## ST ## ST ## RUGGLES ## AVE ## HURON ## MERRILL ## DELLWOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## ROMA ## FERNWOOD ## ST ## DUNLAP ## LINDY ## AVE ## DIONNE ## ST ## AVE ## AVE ## BURKE ## PARKER ## SHRYER ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## DRAPER ## HARRIET LN (Private) ## OXFORD ## ST ## ST ## CHATSWORTH ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## ROSELAWN ## PARKER ## AVE ## AVON ## ALAMEDA ## ST ## ST ## AVE ## E ## L ## D ## R ## ID ## G ## E ## LN ## BELMONT ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## SHRYER ## DALE ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## RD ## ST ## ALAMEDA ## STUBER ## ROMA ## ST ## ST. ALBANS ## AVE ## RIDGE ## EMERALD ## CT ## PINEVIEW ## DR ## ALTA VISTA ## CT ## DALE ## DALE ## ST ## LARPENTEUR ## ST ## RUGGLES ## ST ## ROMA ## AVE ## DIONNE ## ST ## CHATSWORTH ## ST ## ST ## ST ## OXFORD ## AGLEN ## C ## O ## H ## A ## NSEY ## SHRYER ## AVE ## AVE ## MOUNDSVIEW ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## C ## R ## E ## S ## C ## E ## N ## T ## LN ## COHANSEY ## BLVD ## ST ## IRENE ## WESTERN ## HAND ## AVE ## AVE ## FARRINGTON ## BURKE ## BLVD ## N MCCARRONS ## DR ## N MCCARRONS ## ELMER ## ST ## GIES- ## MANN ## AVE ## ST ## WILLIAM ## ST ## MARION ## CT ## ALBEMARLE ## WILLIAM ## ST ## BLVD ## CT ## WOODBRIDGE ## MARION ## ST ## RICE ## PL ## WAGENER ## SHADY ## AVE ## BEACH ## CENTER ## ST ## HILLTOP ## AVE ## GLENWOOD ## AVE ## WAGNER ## ST ## AVE ## KENT ## ST ## AVE ## ROSELAWN ## BAYVIEW ## AVON ## ST ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## ROSEGATE ## RO ## S ## E ## G ## AT ## E ## DR ## STATE HIGHWAY 280 ## ROSE- ## DALE ## WEST- ## WOOD ## LYDIA ## AVE ## W SNELLING ## DR ## W SNELLING ## DR ## ROSE VISTA ## CT (Private) ## FERNWOOD ## CT ## FERN- ## WOOD ## ST ## DUNLAP ## ST ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## F ## A ## RR ## IN ## G ## TO ## N ## CT ## COHAN- ## SEY CIR ## AVE ## WOOD- ## BRIDGE ## S HIGHWAY 36 ## SERVICE DR ## FARRING- ## TON ## KENT ## ST ## CHANDLER ## AVE (Private) (Private) ## SAND- ## HURST ## CIR (Private) (Private) ## LN (Private) ## MIDLAND ## VIEW CT ## ST ## ARONA ## CT ## APPLEWOOD ## TERRACE ## DR ## NATURE ## VIEW CT (Priv) ## E SNELLING ## SVC DR ## C ## L ## E ## V ## E ## LA ## N ## D ## S ## E ## R ## VI ## C ## E ## D ## R ## S COUNTY C SERVICE DR ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## CT ## W ## O ## O ## D ## R ## U ## F ## F ## S ## M ## CC ## A ## R ## R ## O ## N ## S ## RESERVOIR ## WOODS CIR ## AMERICAN ST ## MOUNT RIDGE RD ## IONA LN ## TWIN ## L ## A ## N ## G ## T ## O ## N LAKE ## MAPLE LN ## DUNLAP ## ST ## DUNLAP ## CIR (Private) ## MILTON ## CT ## A ## SB ## U ## R ## Y ## S ## T ## PKWY ## DR ## TWIN LAKES ## PKWY ## LAKES ## MCCARRONS PL (Priv) ## LEXINGTON (Priv) ## HERSCHEL ST (Priv) ## PL ## LAURIE CT (Priv) ## Lake Josephine ## Park ## Lake ## McCarrons ## County Park ## Ramsey County ## Open Space (Ramsey County) ## Lake Josephine ## Beach Park ## Park ## Lake ## Langton ## Sandcastle ## Park ## Lake ## Park ## Oasis ## Central ## Park ## Acorn ## Park ## Central ## Park ## Central ## Park ## Park ## Villa ## Park ## Keya ## Park ## Park ## Tamarack ## Park ## Reservoir Woods ## Reservoir Woods ## Rosebrook ## Langton ## Park ## Park ## Autumn ## Grove ## Park ## Park ## Cottontail ## Veterans ## Park ## Howard ## Johnson ## Park ## Willow Pond ## Cedarholm ## Golf Course ## Evergreen ## Park ## Keller ## Mayflower ## Park ## Lexington ## Park ## Bruce ## Russell ## Park ## Pioneer ## Park ## Concordia ## Park ## Materion ## Park ## Central ## Park North ## Owasso ## Ballfields ## Valley ## Park ## Owasso ## Hills ## Park ## Ladyslipper ## Park ## Mapleview ## Park ## Woodhill ## Park ## Applewood ## Park ## Applewood ## Overlook ## Memorial ## Park ## Midland ## Gardens ## Park ## Unity ## Park ## Sunset ## Park ## Lake ## Josephine ## Lake ## Owasso ## McCarrons ## Lake ## Lake ## Bennett ## Pond ## Willow ## Zimmerman ## Lake ## Oasis Pond ## Lake ## Johanna ## Lake ## Langton ## Walsh ## Lake ## BRENNER ## ST ## LYDIA ## AVE ## LYDIA ## CT ## P ## A ## T ## T ## O ## N ## RD ## HIGHCREST ## RD ## M ## IL ## L ## W ## O ## O ## D ## ST ## BRENNER ## CT ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## STANBRIDGE ## ST ## MANSON ## ST ## MAPLE ## LN ## OLD ## HIGHWAY 8 ## TROSETH ## RD ## COUNTY HIGHWAY 88 ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## RD ## PARTRIDGE ## ROAD C2 ## CENTRE ## POINTE ## DR ## AVE ## INTERSTATE 35W ## ROAD C ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## CLEVELAND ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## PATTON ## RD ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## WILDER ## ST ## MOUNT ## RD ## RIDGE ## EVELYN ## ST ## BRENNER ## AVE ## PRIOR ## CIR ## ST ## ARTHUR ## DR ## AVE ## MILDRED ## ST ## S ## H ## O ## R ## E ## W ## O ## O ## D ## AVE ## BRENNER ## LYDIA ## ARTHUR ## PL ## MILDRED ## DR ## STANBRIDGE ## MILLWOOD ## MAPLE ## ST ## WHEELER ## WHEELER ## SHORE ## CURV ## WOOD ## LN ## LN ## ST ## ALDINE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## L ## I ## N ## C ## O ## L ## N ## DR ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## AVE ## COUNTY ## RD C2 ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## CENTENNIAL ## DR ## DR ## TERRACE ## LINCOLN ## DR ## SNELLING ## FAIRVIEW ## ST ## ARTHUR ## ROAD C ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## PRIOR ## AVE ## COUNTY ## ASBURY ## RIDGEWOOD ## ST ## RD ## GLEN HILL ## RD ## AVE ## AVE ## WOODLYNN ## CLARMAR ## BRENNER ## AVE ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## AVE ## DR ## AVE ## LYDIA ## ASBURY ## ARONA ## SIMPSON ## PASCAL ## AVE ## WOOD ## MILL ## ST ## ST ## ALBERT ## ALBERT ## SHELDON ## ST ## JOSEPHINE ## E SNELLING ## COUNTY ## RD C2 ## RD ## AVE ## MERRILL ## ST ## BELAIR ## CIR ## ST ## FERNWOOD ## LEXINGTON ## RD C2 ## DR ## DR ## TERRACE ## ROAD C ## TERRACE ## DR ## AVE ## DR ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## GRIGGS ## ST ## CIV ## IC ## C ## E ## NT ## E ## R DR ## LEXINGTON ## HAMLINE ## AVE ## JUDITH ## RD ## RAMBLER ## PRIMROSE ## CURV ## TALISMAN ## C ## U ## R ## V ## SHELDON ## ST ## JUDITH ## WOODHILL ## HURON ## FERN ## MERRILL ## DELL ## WOOD ## WOOD ## COUNTY ## E SNELLING ## DR ## ST ## AVE ## WHEATON ## HEINEL ## DR ## CIR ## HEINEL ## DR ## TERRACE ## ST ## DALE ## ST. ## ALBANS ## ST ## IONA ## LN ## HEINEL ## S OWASSO ## ROAD C ## AVE ## ST ## CHURCHILL ## OXFORD ## ST ## AGLEN ## AVE ## AVE ## LAKEVIEW ## AVE ## JUDITH ## WOODHILL ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## ST ## DR ## KENT ## BLVD ## SANDY HOOK ## DR ## RD ## SANDY HOOK ## DR ## LITTLE BAY ## TURNSTONE CT (Private) ## S OWASSO ## BLVD ## LYNN AVE ## WOOD- ## HI ## G ## H ## P ## OIN ## T ## E ## CURV ## OWASSO ## HILLS ## DR ## N ## H ## IL ## LS ## C ## O ## U ## R ## TE ## W ## HILLSVIEW ## HILLSVIEW ## E ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## G ## AL ## TI ## E ## R ## ST ## M ## A ## T ## I ## L ## D ## A ## ST ## MAPLE ## LN ## RD C2 ## AVE ## DR ## LN ## IONA ## CIR ## IRENE ## CIR ## RAMBLER ## CT ## TERRACE ## DR ## JUDITH ## AVE ## CENTENNIAL ## DR ## WESTERN ## AVE ## ROAD C ## AVE ## VIRGINIA ## ST ## FARRINGTON ## ST ## MATILDA ## ST ## GALTIER ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## OAKCREST ## AVE ## LN ## OAKCREST ## BROOKS ## CIR ## ROSE PL ## COHANSEY ## CIR ## AVE ## AVE ## MATILDA ## ST ## GALTIER ## ST ## RD B2 ## ST ## WEWERS ## RD ## CIR ## GALTIER ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## ST ## WESTERN ## AVE ## AVE ## TOP HILL ## CIR ## DR ## SOUTHHILL ## ST ## SANDHURST ## RICE ## AVE ## HAND ## AVE ## AUERBACH ## MATILDA ## DR ## CENTENNIAL ## PASCAL ## PASCAL ## ST ## ST ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## CHURCHILL ## CHATSWORTH ## ST ## ST ## WOODLYNN ## BRENNER ## AVE ## LYDIA ## MILLWOOD ## ST ## OXFORD ## LYDIA ## DR ## DR ## LYDIA ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## ST ## MILTON ## ST ## BRENNER ## AVE ## MILLWOOD ## AVE ## ST ## AVON ## W OWASSO ## BLVD ## RD C2 ## ORCHARD ## LN ## CIR ## STANBRIDGE ## HIGH- ## COURTE ## MAPLE LANE ## CT ## COUNTY ## FARRINGTON ## MILLWOOD ## ST ## WESTERN ## AVE ## BLVD ## S ## O ## W ## A ## S ## S ## O ## WOODLYNN ## AVE ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## NORTHVIEW ## ST ## RICE ## LN ## IONA ## ST ## RICE ## CT ## TER ## R ## A ## C ## E ## H ## I ## L ## L ## S ## C ## O ## UR ## T ## E ## S ## COUNTY ## WOODHILL ## IONA ## MACKUBIN ## ST ## KENT ## ST ## ST ## MACKUBIN ## ST ## DALE ## AVE ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## COUNTY ## AVE ## ST ## IRENE ## ST ## IRENE ## ST ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## CT ## IRENE ## CIR ## VIRGINIA ## CIR ## FARRINGTON ## MATILDA ## BROOKS ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## ST ## ROAD B ## ST ## MINNESOTA ## LOVELL ## LOVELL ## AVE ## GRAND- ## VIEW ## COHANSEY ## SA ## N ## D ## H ## U ## R ## S ## T ## DR ## BLVD ## COUNTY ## VICTORIA ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## BROOKS ## TRANSIT ## ST ## BLVD ## ST ## ALBEMARLE ## ST ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## WOODBRIDGE ## ST ## MCCARRON ## ST ## AVE ## WESTERN ## AVE ## FARRINGTON ## ST ## AVE ## ROMA ## AVE ## DIONNE ## GALTIER ## GRANDVIEW ## AVE ## MINNESOTA ## AVE ## W ## O ## O ## D ## B ## R ## I ## D ## G ## E ## S ## T ## CIR ## CAPITOL ## MARION ## VIEW ## VIEW ## CAPITOL ## VIEW ## CAPITOL ## CIR ## ST ## DR ## BOS ## S ## A ## R ## D ## ST ## IRENE ## AVE ## OXFORD ## CHURCHILL ## AGLEN ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## COUNTY ## ROSE ## OAKCREST ## FISK ## ST ## GROTTO ## ST ## AVE ## RD B2 ## PL ## AVE ## ST ## ALADDIN ## CT ## R ## O ## S ## E ## T ## O ## WN ## DR ## OVERLOOK ## ST ## ST ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## PL ## NANCY ## AVE ## VICTORIA ## LOVELL ## GRANDVIEW ## COPE ## GROT ## ST. ## ALBA ## NS ## TO ## ST ## ST ## ST ## NANCY ## PL ## AVE ## SANDHURST ## MILTON ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## SANDHURST ## DR ## ROAD B ## ST ## GROTTO ## ST ## SHERREN ## ST ## OXFORD ## GRANDVIEW ## ST ## ST ## LOVELL ## LOVELL LN (Private) ## SHERREN ## COUNTY ## AVE ## CURV ## SNELLING ## ROSE ## PL ## PASCAL ## ST ## ST ## S ## I ## M ## P ## S ## O ## N ## AVE ## BROOKS ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## ST ## A ## R ## O ## N ## A ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## ST ## HOLTON ## ST ## ALBERT ## ST ## SHELDON ## COUNTY ## OAKCREST ## ROSE ## PL ## WILLOW ## CIR ## DEL ## LW ## O ## O ## D ## CIR ## CHRISTY ## RD B2 ## AVE ## WILLOW ## BROOKS ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## LN ## PL ## ROSE ## ST ## DUNLAP ## ST ## ST ## F ## E ## R ## N ## W ## O ## O ## D ## DUNLAP ## ST ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## COLONIAL ## DR (Private) ## ST ## ALBERT ## ST ## DR ## SANDHURST ## AVE ## ST ## DELLWOOD ## DELLWOOD ## ST ## MERRILL ## ST ## ROAD B ## ST ## FERNWOOD ## SHERREN ## ST ## RD ## LAURIE ## DR ## SANDHURST ## LEXINGTON ## AVE ## AVE ## COMMERCE ## COUNTY ## ST ## PASCAL ## OAKCREST ## AVE ## AVE ## ROSE ## ROSE ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## ST ## ST ## SAMUEL (Private) ## LN ## S RIDGEWOOD ## N RIDGEWOOD ## LN ## LN ## MID OAKS ## MID OAKS ## RD ## AVE ## BURKE ## ELDRIDGE ## BELMONT ## RYAN ## SHRYER ## SKILLMAN ## PL ## OAKCREST ## BEACON ## ST ## WHEELER ## AVE ## ST ## HERSCHEL ## RD B2 ## COUNTY ## CLEVELAND ## CLE ## VE ## LA ## N ## D ## A ## VE ## AVE ## COUNTY ## AVE ## AVE ## PL ## AVE ## ST ## ALDINE ## ST ## CHARLOTTE ## ST ## FRY ## SNELLING ## RD B2 ## PERIMETER ## DR ## FAIRVIEW ## N GLUEK LN ## S GLUEK LN ## LN ## ROAD B ## AVE ## HERSCHEL ## RD ## MIDLOTHIAN ## RD ## HADDINGTON ## RD ## LAURIE ## N HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## S HIGHWAY 36 ## SERVICE DR ## PRIOR ## F ## E ## R ## R ## IS ## FERRIS LN ## G ## L ## U ## E ## K ## COUNTY ## WEST ## WALNUT ## ST ## ROSE ## PL ## TERMINAL ## ST ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## RD ## RD ## TERMINAL ## ST ## ST. CROIX ## ST. CROIX ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST. STEPHEN ## ST ## FULHAM ## LAURIE ## RD ## MA ## RI ## O ## N ## RD ## ACORN ## RD ## N HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## S HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## WALNUT ## INTERSTATE ## 35W ## EUSTIS ## ST (Private) ## FULHAM ## COUNTY ## FAIRWAYS ## LN ## FULHAM ## ST ## LAKE ST ## MIDLAND ## HILLS ## RD ## ROAD B ## N ROSEWOOD ## LN ## LN ## S ROSEWOOD ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## DRAPER ## HYTHE ## DR ## CIR ## ST ## ROSELAWN ## AVE ## CLEVELAND ## AVE ## AVE ## PRIOR ## SHARONDALE ## AVE ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## WILDER ST ## ELDRIDGE ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## EVERGREEN ## CT ## AVE ## AVE ## SHRYER ## RYAN ## L ## O ## R ## E ## N ## RD ## AU ## T ## U ## M ## N ## PL ## ROSELAWN ## TATUM ## ST ## DR ## DRAPER ## FAIRVIEW ## BEACON ## HERSCHEL ## WHEELER ## ST ## ST ## ST ## SHRYER ## RYAN ## ELDRIDGE ## SKILLMAN ## ALDINE ## ST ## AVE ## AVE ## SNELLING ## AVE ## AVE ## FRY ## MIDLOTHIAN ## RD ## ROSELAWN ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## LN ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## ASBURY ## ST ## ST ## ARONA ## ST ## SIMPSON ## ST ## PASCAL ## SHRYER ## ELDRIDGE ## BURKE ## RYAN ## DRAPER ## ROSELAWN ## DELL ## WOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## LN ## SKILLMAN ## BELMONT ## AVE ## ST ## DELLWOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## WOOD ## FERN ## ST ## AVE ## LINDY ## KARYL ## PL ## LEXINGTON ## AVE ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## LARPENTEUR ## GARDEN ## AVE ## LEXINGTON ## AUTUMN ## ST ## SUMMER ## ST ## RUGGLES ## ST ## ST ## RUGGLES ## AVE ## HURON ## MERRILL ## DELLWOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## ROMA ## FERNWOOD ## ST ## DUNLAP ## LINDY ## AVE ## DIONNE ## ST ## AVE ## AVE ## BURKE ## PARKER ## SHRYER ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## DRAPER ## HARRIET LN (Private) ## OXFORD ## ST ## ST ## CHATSWORTH ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## ROSELAWN ## PARKER ## AVE ## AVON ## ALAMEDA ## ST ## ST ## AVE ## E ## L ## D ## R ## ID ## G ## E ## LN ## BELMONT ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## SHRYER ## DALE ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## RD ## ST ## ALAMEDA ## STUBER ## ROMA ## ST ## ST. ALBANS ## AVE ## RIDGE ## EMERALD ## CT ## PINEVIEW ## DR ## ALTA VISTA ## CT ## DALE ## DALE ## ST ## LARPENTEUR ## ST ## RUGGLES ## ST ## ROMA ## AVE ## DIONNE ## ST ## CHATSWORTH ## ST ## ST ## ST ## OXFORD ## AGLEN ## C ## O ## H ## A ## NSEY ## SHRYER ## AVE ## AVE ## MOUNDSVIEW ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## C ## R ## E ## S ## C ## E ## N ## T ## LN ## COHANSEY ## BLVD ## ST ## IRENE ## WESTERN ## HAND ## AVE ## AVE ## FARRINGTON ## BURKE ## BLVD ## N MCCARRONS ## DR ## N MCCARRONS ## ELMER ## ST ## GIES- ## MANN ## AVE ## ST ## WILLIAM ## ST ## MARION ## CT ## ALBEMARLE ## WILLIAM ## ST ## BLVD ## CT ## WOODBRIDGE ## MARION ## ST ## RICE ## PL ## WAGENER ## SHADY ## AVE ## BEACH ## CENTER ## ST ## HILLTOP ## AVE ## GLENWOOD ## AVE ## WAGNER ## ST ## AVE ## KENT ## ST ## AVE ## ROSELAWN ## BAYVIEW ## AVON ## ST ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## ROSEGATE ## RO ## S ## E ## G ## AT ## E ## DR ## STATE HIGHWAY 280 ## ROSE- ## DALE ## WEST- ## WOOD ## LYDIA ## AVE ## W SNELLING ## DR ## W SNELLING ## DR ## ROSE VISTA ## CT (Private) ## FERNWOOD ## CT ## FERN- ## WOOD ## ST ## DUNLAP ## ST ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## F ## A ## RR ## IN ## G ## TO ## N ## CT ## COHAN- ## SEY CIR ## AVE ## WOOD- ## BRIDGE ## S HIGHWAY 36 ## SERVICE DR ## FARRING- ## TON ## KENT ## ST ## CHANDLER ## AVE (Private) (Private) ## SAND- ## HURST ## CIR (Private) (Private) ## LN (Private) ## MIDLAND ## VIEW CT ## ST ## ARONA ## CT ## APPLEWOOD ## TERRACE ## DR ## NATURE ## VIEW CT (Priv) ## E SNELLING ## SVC DR ## C ## L ## E ## V ## E ## LA ## N ## D ## S ## E ## R ## VI ## C ## E ## D ## R ## S COUNTY C SERVICE DR ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## CT ## W ## O ## O ## D ## R ## U ## F ## F ## S ## M ## CC ## A ## R ## R ## O ## N ## S ## RESERVOIR ## WOODS CIR ## AMERICAN ST ## MOUNT RIDGE RD ## IONA LN ## TWIN ## L ## A ## N ## G ## T ## O ## N LAKE ## MAPLE LN ## DUNLAP ## ST ## DUNLAP ## CIR (Private) ## MILTON ## CT ## A ## SB ## U ## R ## Y ## S ## T ## PKWY ## DR ## TWIN LAKES ## PKWY ## LAKES ## MCCARRONS PL (Priv) ## LEXINGTON (Priv) ## HERSCHEL ST (Priv) ## PL ## LAURIE CT (Priv) ## D ## D ## D ## DDDDDDDDDDDDDD ## DD ## D ## D ## D ## D ## D ## DDDD ## DDD ## DDDD ## D ## D ## D ## D ## D ## D ## D ## D ## D ## D ## D ## DD ## D ## DDDDDD ## D ## DDDDDDDDDDD ' ­ ' ­ ' ­ ! ( ! ( " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ## L ## Data Sources ## * Ramsey County GIS (2/14/2026) ## * City of Roseville Community Development ## * City of Roseville Finance Department ## Prepared by: Engineering Department 2/27/2026 ## 2026 All Projects ## MnDOT Roadway ## Ramsey County Roadway ## City Roadway Reconstruction ## City Roadway Reclaim ## DDD ## City Roadway Mill & Overlay ## Pathway Construction ## Pathway Maintenance ## Watermain Project ## Storm Project ' ­ ## Sanitary Pipe Lining (TBD) ## Sanitary Project and Lift Station Project ## Signal Project ! ( ## Intersection Streetlight Installation " ) ## Non-Metered Streetlight Replacement ! ( ## Booster Station ProjectCity Campus Project ## Storm Pump Project ## New Streetlight Installation Attachment 2 Page 16 of 165 ## Lake ## Josephine ## Lake ## Owasso ## McCarrons ## Lake ## Lake ## Bennett ## Pond ## Willow ## Zimmerman ## Lake ## Oasis Pond ## Lake ## Johanna ## Lake ## Langton ## Walsh ## Lake ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Arden Hills ## Falcon ## Heights ## Lauderdale ## Little Canada ## Maplewood ## New Brighton ## St. Anthony ## St. Paul ## Shoreview ## Minneapolis ## The Enclave ## Rosedale Center (multiple, see reverse) ## MnDOT ## Waters ## Edge Villas of ## Reservoir ## Woods New home New home ## New Home Temple of ## Hmongism New home New home ## Hand in Hand ## Montessori ## Von Maur ramp ## Presbyterian ## Homes New home New home ## Horton Inc ## Hamline ## Automotive ## Ding ## Tea ## Eaglecrest ## Twin Lakes ## Buildings ## A & B ## FedEx ## Old Dutch ## Blastoff ## Play Park ## Pottery Barn ## Adapt Health ## Omni Health ## Former Dept of Education ## Lake ## Josephine ## Lake ## Owasso ## McCarrons ## Lake ## Lake ## Bennett ## Pond ## Willow ## Zimmerman ## Lake ## Oasis Pond ## Lake ## Johanna ## Lake ## Langton ## Walsh ## Lake ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Æ ## Arden Hills ## Falcon ## Heights ## Lauderdale ## Little Canada ## Maplewood ## New Brighton ## St. Anthony ## St. Paul ## Shoreview ## Minneapolis ## The Enclave ## Rosedale Center (multiple, see reverse) ## MnDOT ## Waters ## Edge Villas of ## Reservoir ## Woods New home New home ## New Home Temple of ## Hmongism New home New home ## Hand in Hand ## Montessori ## Von Maur ramp ## Presbyterian ## Homes New home New home ## Horton Inc ## Hamline ## Automotive ## Ding ## Tea ## Eaglecrest ## Twin Lakes ## Buildings ## A & B ## FedEx ## Old Dutch ## Blastoff ## Play Park ## Pottery Barn ## Adapt Health ## Omni Health ## Former Dept of Education Prepared by: ## Community Development Department April 14, 2026 ## Sources ## Ramsey County GIS (3/4/2026) ## Community Development Department 0 1,0002,0003,000 ## Feet ## L ## See Reverse For Project Details ## Æ ## Residential ## Æ ## Retail ## Æ ## Office / Non-Retail ## Æ ## Industrial ## Æ ## Public / Institutional ## Development Projects: April 2026 Attachment 3 Page 17 of 165 Updated:[Type here] [Type here] [Type here] ## ROSEVILLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT ## UPDATED: 4/14/2026 ## Project Name Address Project Description Applicant/Owner Information Starting ## RESIDENTIAL The Enclave 201-261 McCarrons Pl 20 detached townhomes (12 completed-8 lots remain) Multiple Summer 2021 Residential New Construction 2164 Eustis St New single family home Mike Torkelson Development Winter 2024 Residential New Construction 2976 West Owasso Blvd New single family home TJB Homes Winter 2026 Residential New Construction 2050 Eldridge New single family home Lee Homes Winter 2026 Residential New Construction 649 Heinel Dr New single family home Croix Custom Homes Summer 2025 Residential New Construction 595 Heinel Dr New single family home Lee Homes Winter 2026 Residential New Construction 1928 South Gluek Ln New two family dwelling Cara Builders Spring 2025 Residential New Construction 560 Ryan Ave New single family home Structural Buildings of MN Summer 2025 Villas of Reservoir Woods new homes 699/707 Shryer Ave, 692/700/708 Skillman Ave New single family home Cara Builders LLC Summer 2025 ## RETAIL Abercrombie & Fitch 1595 Highway 36 #400 Interior Alteration TBD (In plan review) Spring 2026 Pottery Barn 1595 Highway 36 #1600 New façade and interior alteration McGough Construction (In plan review) Spring 2026 Apple Store Breakroom Shell Space 1595 Highway 36 #130 Shell space for new breakroom P.R.M. Contracting Summer 2025 Blastoff Play Park 2325 Prior Ave Indoor playground, arcade, restaurant and bar Chan Consulting LLC Spring 2026 Vacant Tenant 1595 Highway 36 #170 Tenant Remodel P.R.M. Contracting Fall 2025 Ding Tea 2401 Fairview Ave Interior Alteration Tran Construction and Remodeling Fall 2025 Twin Lakes Building A 2033 Twin Lakes Pkwy New Construction Shell Building Sherburne Slater Construction (In plan review) Fall 2025 Twin Lakes Building B 2037 Twin Lakes Pkwy New Construction Shell Building Sherburne Slater Construction (In plan review) Spring 2026 Von Maur Ramp 1595 Highway 36 Ramp Repair Cy-Con Inc Fall 2025 ## NON-RETAIL/OFFICE MnDOT Waters Edge 1500 County Road B2 Mechanical upgrades Versacon Inc Fall 2023 ## Eaglecrest 2945 Lincoln Dr Interior Alteration MRI, Inc Spring 2026 Adapt Health 2215 Highway 36 Interior Alteration The Bainey Group Construction Spring 2026 Horton Inc. 2565 Walnut St Interior Alteration Bauer Design Build (In plan review) Summer 2025 Hamline Automotive 2150 Hamline Ave Addition Sherburne Slater Construction (In plan review) Spring 2026 Former Dept of Education building 1500 Highway 36 Full demolition JE Dunn Construction Spring 2026 Old Dutch 2375 Terminal Rd Solar panels Blue Horizon Energy Spring 2026 Omni Health 1970 Oakcrest Ave Interior Alteration – Mental Health Clinic Fixed Assets, Inc Spring 2026 FedEx 2323 Terminal Rd Full demolition Veit and Companies Spring 2026 Temple of Hmongism 2381 Rice St Interior Remodel E11even Construction MN Summer 2025 Hand in Hand Montessori 211 North McCarrons Blvd Greenhouse/Shed Install Vanguard Builders Inc Summer 2025 Presbyterian Homes & Services 2925 Lincoln Dr Interior Remodel Maintenance Repairs & Installations Fall 2025 Page 18 of 165 ## Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission ## Agenda Item DATE: April 28, 2026 ITEM: 6.b. ## ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approve Bike Plan ## Background Roseville was awarded an Active Transportation Planning Assistance grant from MnDOT that Roseville used to create a bike plan to complement our existing Pathway Master Plan. The Bike Plan was produced with the assistance of a MnDOT consultant team and reviewed by the Bike Plan Committee, consisting of representatives from various City departments and commissions, Roseville Public Schools, Ramsey County, and a Roseville resident. Public engagement during the development of the Plan is noted in the Plan’s appendices. The Plan was first introduced to PWET on March 26, 2024, with updates in April and June of 2024, and March and September of 2025. In addition, it was shared with the Parks & Recreation Commission in October 2025. The draft Plan is posted on the City website and public comments were solicited from October 10 – November 30, 2025. Attached is the updated draft Bike Plan with appendices for your review and discussion. Staff will make a short presentation at the meeting and seek Commission feedback and a recommendation to City Council. The Plan will also be brought back to the Parks & Recreation Commission, then the City Council. ## Recommendation Receive update and recommend City Council approve The Bike Plan. ## Attachments ## 1. Bike Plan Page 19 of 165 ## Establishing Roseville’s Bicycling Network D R A F T ( V e r 1 . 2 ) F O R A P P R O V A L ## A P R I L 2 0 2 6 Attachment 1 Page 20 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 2 ## Acknowledgement ## Bike Plan Committee: 2 This Plan was funded through the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) ## Active Transportation Program and developed with the technical assistance of MnDOT and its consultants. Learn more: www.dot.state.mn.us/active- transportation-program ## Jennifer Lowry, PE ## City of Roseville – City Engineer ## Noelle Bakken ## City of Roseville – Sustainability ## Specialist Matthew Johnson, M Ed. ## City of Roseville – Parks & Recreation ## Director ## Jesse Freihammer, PE ## City of Roseville – Public Works ## Director ## Thomas Paschke ## City of Roseville – City Planner ## Antonio Montez ## City of Roseville – Organizational ## Development Manager ## Jacob Swanson ## City of Roseville – Police, Towards ## Zero Death Coordinator ## Nick Boulton ## Roseville Parks and Recreation ## Commission Member ## Bryant Ficek, PE ## Roseville Public Works, Environment ## & Transportation Commission Chair ## Bob Bierscheid ## Roseville Resident ## Kou Xiong ## Roseville Area Schools Representative ## Connie Bernardy ## Ramsey County Representative Page 21 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 3 ## Executive Summary This Bike Plan is the result of a collaboration in 2024 and 2025. A local Bike Plan Committee comprised of city, county, and school district staff and a resident, came together to set direction, co-create strategy and engagement which included bicycle audits, hands-on network planning workshop, and hosted an online interactive mapping tool and survey to collect broader input. This Plan serves as a living guide. The Plan builds on existing plans, engagement with residents, lessons learned from other cities, and observation and coordination with city staff to establish a Priority Bike Network for Roseville, along with a preliminary prioritization framework, and next steps for moving the plan forward. 3 Page 22 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 4 What’s in the Plan? 4 ## Bicycle Terminology The Plan uses the terms bicycling, bike, biking and bicyclist broadly to refer to people of all abilities riding bicycles both human-powered and electric-assisted, including devices adapted for use by people with disabilities. The terms bikeway, bike facility and bike infrastructure refers to a bicycle lane, bicycle path, bicycle boulevard, shared use path, or similar bicycle facility, regardless of whether it is designed for the exclusive use of bicycles or for shared use with other transportation modes. See Appendix A for more information on different types of bikeways, routes, facilities and infrastructure. Introduction | Section 1: Discusses the purpose of the Plan, the benefits of biking and why the City of Roseville values biking and the benefits it brings to the community. ## Our Streets Today | Section 2: Highlights existing conditions, policy and plans that support this plan and data and insights from the engagement process. It presents the physical and geographical barriers to a connected network, how to overcome them and how different agencies and partners should work together to create a seamless experience for people biking. ## Bikeways for All, Bike Network Framework | Section 3: Focuses on who bikes, why people bike (or might not) and the approach the city will take to getting more people on bikes. It introduces a framework for how the city’s bike network and its bikeways can be categorized and the types of facilities that support people biking of all abilities. ## Building the Network | Section 4: Presents Roseville’s Priority Bike Network developed during this plan, the different types of bikeways that make up the Network, and Core Concepts to provide examples for how Roseville can implement their Bike Network. ## Setting Our Wheels In Motion | Section 5: Discusses the opportunities and processes for getting the Bike Network implemented, including funding, planning, prioritization and maintenance of projects. It explains how a network can be supported through other initiatives and programs to grow a culture of biking in Roseville. Moving Forward | Section 6: A call to action to join Roseville’s steps towards becoming a more bike-friendly city! This is Roseville’s first Bike Plan and is meant to establish a solid start for defining and building a more robust bike network in Roseville. This Plan shares the purpose, vision, and goals that drove the planning efforts to date. It includes the benefits of biking and why the City of Roseville values biking and the benefits it brings to the community. The Plan highlights how existing policies and plans, existing biking condition, crash data, and public engagement helped inform the proposed Priority Bike Network. Additionally, it introduces a framework for how the bike network and its bikeways can be categorized and suggests next steps for how Roseville can implement a robust bike network for all abilities to use. To make the plan more accessible to the public and usable by staff, the body of the Bike Plan was intentionally made to be a summary of the data, efforts, resources, and input that went into its creation. The appendices include nearly 80 pages of additional information. ## Appendix A – Research & Resources ## Appendix B – Community Engagement ## Appendix C – Existing Network and Draft Prioritization ## Appendix D – Demonstration Project ## Appendix E – Policy, Practice, and Program Recommendations Protected bike lane (curb-level)Protected bike lane (bollard-protected) Shared-use path (In Roseville) Shared-use path Painted bike lane Painted buffered bike lane Shared-use street (bicycle boulevard) Neighborhood greenway Painted bike lane Protected bike lane (curb-level) Shared-use path Neighborhood greenway Page 23 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 5 Why a Bike Plan? ## PURPOSE Bicycling is a sustainable transportation option that contributes to a vibrant, equitable and sustainable city. The Plan builds from, and is supported by, the ## city’s Complete Streets Policy, 2040 Roseville ## Comprehensive Plan, 2021 Pathways Master Plan and community goals. The primary purpose of this Plan is to develop a network of bikeways that creates opportunities for people of all abilities to safely and comfortably ride bicycles for both recreational and functional trips: daily errands, to get to work, a friend’s house, school, or to enjoy Roseville’s great parks. This is a network-level planning document that identifies specific corridors (bikeways) for future investment in bike infrastructure. The recommended bike network policies and programs in this Plan serve as a roadmap and should be used to guide next steps and other planning efforts that impact biking. A bicycle network that is safe, comfortable and accessible for riders of all abilities, especially for people experiencing systemic barriers and inequities, to use confidently. ## V I S I O N ## G O A L S Safe Streets: Create a safer, comfortable and convenient network that prioritizes people of all abilities bicycling, improving community access and safety for all. Health & Well-Being: Encourage a healthy, active lifestyle for all, improving community health outcomes. Transportation Choice: Make bicycling an efficient way to get around the community, reach neighboring cities and connect to transit, increasing bicycle trips and reducing automobile trips. Page 24 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 6 ## How the Plan was Developed 6 The Bike Plan is the result of a collaborative process led by Roseville’s Bike Plan Committee. The committee came together to host and participate in: •Bicycle audits to assess existing conditions •Network mapping workshop to define bikeways and connections •Online engagement using an interactive mapping tool and survey to collect broader community input •Plan review through virtual meetings with city champions who participated in the network mapping workshop •Implementation of a demonstration project on Hamline from B to B2 The Plan builds on existing plans and policies, community and committee participation and evidence-based state and national best practices to identify a bicycle network and action steps to guide future investments in making bicycling safer and more accessible for all. The City of Roseville received planning assistance to develop this Plan, funded by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Active ## Transportation Program. The Active Transportation Program aims to increase the number of people walking and biking to destinations. ## (Delineator) Protected Bike Lane Network Mapping Workshop ## Bike Audit Page 25 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 7 ## SOCIAL CONNECTION "Humans are social creatures—we live in community.Individual health and wellbeing is intricately tied to the health of our communities and our interactions with others.“ Bicycling provides us more opportunity to interact with our friends, neighbors and community. ## HAPPINESS Researchers at the University of Minnesota have found bicycling to be the happiest form of transportation. ## HEALTH & WELLBEING Bicycling as part of everyday travel is as effective as structured workouts for improving health. Active commuting is associated with a 11% reduction in cardiovascular risk. ## WhyBicycling Matters ## University of Minnesota. (2018, August 20). The happiest mode of transportation? That would be cycling. University of Minnesota. https://twin- cities.umn.edu/news-events/happiest-mode- transportation-would-be-cycling ## Taking Charge of Your Health & Wellbeing. (n.d.). How do our social networks affect wellbeing? University of Minnesota. https://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/how- do-our-social-networks-affect-wellbeing ## American Public Health Association. (2010). The hidden health costs of transportation. https://www.apha.org/- /media/files/pdf/topics/transport/apha_active_tran sportation_fact_sheet_2010.pdf Page 26 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 8 ## EQUITY 7.4% percent of Roseville households do not have access to a vehicle and 36.7% percent have just one. Owning a new car costs roughly $12,182 per year (AAA, 2023). This is a sharp increase from 2022 when the average yearly cost was $10,728. Car ownership should not be a requirement for getting around safely and efficiently. ## ENVIRONMENT The city supports Minnesota’s goal of an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) by 2050. Vehicle travel is the second leading source (42%) of GHG emissions in the City of Roseville. Bike networks reduce dependence on driving to get around. Less driving provides two-fold benefit – cleaner air and reduced impact on our climate. ## ECONOMY Bicycling means business: it stimulates local economies through job creation, tourism and business development. People biking make more frequent trips than people driving, spending more money at local businesses. ## WhyBicycling Matters Schmitt, A. (2012, December 5). Cyclists and pedestrians can end up spending more each month than drivers. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-05/cyclists-and- pedestrians-can-end-up-spending-more-each-month-than-drivers ## Minnesota Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Minnesota Walks: Statewide Pedestrian System Plan. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/minnesotawalks/index.html 2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimate, table B08201 AAA Newsroom. (2023, August 30). Annual new car ownership costs boil over $12K. AAA. https://newsroom.aaa.com/2023/08/annual- new-car-ownership-costs-boil-over-12k/ Page 27 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 9 ## Why Bicycling Matters | Safer Streets for All 9 Lyndale Ave in Richfield before (above) and after (below) the installation of modern roundabouts at multiple intersections, which allowed lane space to be reallocated for protected bike lanes (cycle tracks). Traffic-related crashes that killand severely injure people are a serious transportation equity and public health concern. Minnesota is seeing a rising share of crashes involving people biking that result in fatal and serious injuries. ## Ramsey County’s 2015 County-wide Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan estimated that Ramsey County has the second highest serious injury rate of bicyclists relative to the rest of the state. In Ramsey County, three-percent of all crash fatalities are bicyclists which is one-and-half times the state average. Streets with higher numbers of bike crashes tend to be in St. Paul; in Roseville, up to six bicycle crashes were reported on nearly all major roads. In Roseville, over 130 people walking or biking were involved in a crash in the last 10 years, 5 of them lost their lives, and 25 sustained life-changing injuries. Of the crashes involving people walking and biking in the past 10 years, nearly 20% occurred on Roseville city streets (vs County or State-owned streets). One of the top reasons people cite for not biking is concern about safety (both traffic safety and personal security). People who bike (and walk) are the most vulnerable transportation system users. National and state data show American ## Indian/Alaskan Native, Black/African American and Hispanic people and low-income individuals are at greater risk of being severely injured or killed due to a motor vehicle related crash while biking. Streets that are safer for people biking (and walking) reduce the frequency and severity of crashes and minimize conflicts between all transportation users. Safety, both real and perceived, is essential to increasing the number of people who bike. Page 28 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 10 ## Policy Framework, ## Existing Plans & Policies Recent plans and policies have made efforts to improve biking in Roseville. Plans have established comprehensive standards for the development and maintenance of bikeways, creating safe and accessible travel for pedestrians, cyclists and other wheeled users. Additionally, they collectively support a vision of growth of a well- connected bike network, enhancing safety and connectivity while promoting physical activity and community interaction. This bike plan seeks to build from the Pathways Master Plan by: •Reaffirming proposed pathway segments identified in 2021 that continue to be priorities for bicycling upgrades today •Identifying new bikeways to add to the bicycle network in Roseville. See page 6 for bikeway definition •Identifying the types of bike facility upgrades appropriate for these bikeways •Providing a clearer vision for implementation of bikeways when opportunities arise ## COMMUN IT Y SNAPSHOT Roseville’s Bike Plan supports and is informed by the following existing plans and policies: Pathway Master Plan (2021 Update) – This plan provides policies and standards for the community’s pathway facilities including planning, design, construction, and maintenance. The goal is to have safe travel for pedestrians, cyclists, and other wheeled users ( e.g., in-line skaters) on every street. Pathways are intended to connect residents to schools, retail, residential, parks and other destinations inside and outside the city. Roseville 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2020) – The Comprehensive Plan provides a vision for growth and development. It analyzes and sets policies and goals regarding land use, housing, economic development, transportation, utilities, parks and trails and more. The plan is guided by several goals including providing access to destinations through a reliable, affordable and efficient multi-modal transportation system and encourages the use of non-motorized transportation by providing and supporting development of a high-quality network of both off- road and on-road pathways. Complete Streets Policy (2019) – This policy states Roseville will create a safe and sustainable transportation network for motorized and non-motorized [active] transportation users. The policy encourages the use of active transportation through the development of a high-quality network of both off-road and on-road facilities to ensure that bikeways and pedestrian routes are safe, efficient and attractive. Ramsey County Wide Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan – This plan envisions that walking and bicycling is an integral part of daily life in Ramsey County for people of all abilities, allowing them to move freely across the integrated system. An annual inventory is conducted by individual jurisdictions, typically municipalities, to identify the types and miles of various active transportation facilities. A new Ramsey County All-Abilities 2050 Transportation Plan was being developed in 2023-2025 and will be also considered and coordinated with moving forward. “Roseville’s streets enhance neighborhood character, encourage human interaction and physical activity, and facilitate engagement in the community and local commerce. City policies and transportation projects incorporate principles of sustainability and environmental stewardship, reflecting the value of natural spaces and clean air and water for the ## community.” – Roseville’s Complete Streets Policy Page 29 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 11 ## Existing Bike Network The existing network of bikeways in Roseville is comprised of striped shoulders, sidewalks, and shared-use paths that are mostly located on Ramsey County roads. Shared-use paths in Roseville city parks also contribute to the existing network. There are very few on-road bike lanes that are relatively new (i.e. the delineator protected bike lane on Hamline Avenue from County Road B to B2 installed as a demonstration project associated with this planning effort). Sidewalks comprise nearly 50% of existing bikeways in Roseville. While city ordinance allows biking on sidewalks, sidewalks are not a long-term solution for cycling in Roseville as sidewalks are not designed for people to bike; they are narrow, which creates conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians, and drivers do not expect to see cyclists on sidewalks. The map on the following page shows pathways proposed in Roseville’s 2021 Pathway Master Plan update overlaid on the existing bike network. The map also shows the progress the City has made on since 2021, with nine recently completed pathway segments and six near term pathways programmed for completion in the upcoming year. ## Bikeway Type ## Existing ## Mileage Sidewalks: 5-6 feet wide along busy roads, bicycling allowed, but not ideal. 47 Shared-use path: 8-10 feet wide along busy roads, shared by people walking and biking. 37 ## Striped Shoulders: street-level paved shoulders often shared with parking and marked with a white line. 18 ## Total102 ## Striped Shoulders on Western Ave ## Shared-use Path on County Road C ## Sidewalk on County Road B2 Page 30 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 12 ## Pathways Progress in Roseville Page 31 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 13 How the Community Was Engaged See Appendices B & D. ## Roseville Bike Plan Survey Open from April 18 th to July 1 st , 2024. There were 370 responses to the survey. ## Networking Mapping Workshop ## Audit Team for Rosedale Mall Area Bike-ability ## Roseville Bike Plan Interactive Comment Map Open from April 10 th to June 30 th , 2024. There were 324 visitors who left 378 comments. ## Walk and Bike Audits Three audits that took place on June 10 th and June 11th, 2024. City staff, project staff, committee members and residents were present. ## Network Mapping Workshop The in-person mapping workshop took place on June 11th, 2024. City staff, committee members and residents worked together to identifying a priority bicycle network for Roseville. ## Demonstration Project A delineator protected bike lane was installed on Hamline Avenue from County Road B to B2 in May 2025; public feedback was received Oct 10-Nov 30, 2025 from 181 respondents via an online survey, email and phone calls. ## Demonstration on Hamline Avenue Page 32 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 14 ## Overarching Findings from Engagement ## Need for Improved Comfort and Safety ## on Major Roads There are significant concerns about biking safety and comfort on major roads like Snelling Avenue, County Road B, Rice Street and Fairview Avenue. ## Lack of Dedicated Bike Infrastructure Bikeways separated from vehicle traffic were expressed as a desire to enhance safety and comfort, especially for families and commuters. ## Challenging Bikeways in Key Areas Several areas were noted for having inadequate or uncomfortable bike paths, but issues vary depending on the area. People biking in Central Park experience conflicts with pedestrians while there are not bike facilities for people biking to Rosedale Center on Co Rd B2. ## High Traffic Volume High traffic volumes and are major concerns. Locations like County Road C east of Lexington Ave and the ## intersection of County Road B and Hamline Ave are areas where traffic conditions make biking intimidating. ## Complex Intersections Bike audit and interactive comment map results frequently showed that large, complex intersections in Roseville are uncomfortable for bicyclists of all abilities. ## Improved Amenities and Maintenance There is a notable concern about the lack of bike racks at key destinations, poor maintenance of existing bike paths and the need for better infrastructure support. Page 33 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 15 ## Priority Bike Network The Priority Bike Network provided on the next page was developed through the planning efforts previously described. This proposed Priority Bike Networks helps Roseville be strategic about investments and implementation, especially in partnership with Ramsey County and MnDOT. It will inform the selection of bikeway facility types by showing where higher quality facilities are needed to best support all abilities bicyclists (“interested but concerned” type of bicyclist). If a project is planned on a roadway that is shown on the bike network, project development should prioritize including the appropriate bike infrastructure. The Priority Bike Network map identifies two different types of bikeways: The Priority Bike Network identified through development of this plan is extensive. To help the city identify projects to move forward in the near-term a draft prioritization is provided in Appendix C. In addition, the city will not always have the opportunity to implement a street’s preferred or highest quality bikeway in the short term. Facilities like protected bike lanes or shared-use pathways often require full street reconstruction. The city should be prepared to implement interim bikeway facilities as the streets are maintained. For example, restriping projects can narrow vehicle travel lanes to stripe bike lanes or use pavement markings and signage to convert “bikeable shoulders” that exist today to dedicated bike lanes. Shared-use street (bicycle boulevard) Painted buffered bike lane •All Abilities Bikeways – these bikeways focus on the half-mile major road grid in Roseville where vehicle volumes and speeds are high enough that complete separation of bike facilities from vehicle traffic is required for bicyclists of all abilities to feel comfortable. These routes are located on city, county, and state roads. Along with separation from vehicle traffic, improving the complex intersections and barrier crossings along these bikeways will be essential to making them available to all abilities of cyclists. •Traffic-Calmed Local Street Bikeways – these bikeways focus on city streets where traffic volumes and speeds might be low enough for bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, and shared-use street treatments to provide a comfortable environment for users of all abilities and complete separation of bike facilities from vehicle traffic may not be required. Intersections where these bikeways cross major roads will also need improvement. Page 34 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 16 ## Roseville’s Priority ## Bike Network Refer to Appendix C for additional details on each numbered bikeway Page 35 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 17 Next Steps See Appendices C & E for more details. Conduct additional engagement. A public comment period and focused engagement with underserved communities are wanted to collect additional input and finalize this plan. The City has identified these as critical steps to successful implementation of this plan. •Conduct focused engagement with underserved communities and update this plan based on feedback. •Develop a shorter, two-page summary of this plan to make public review more accessible. •Collect broad public comment on this plan and update this plan based on feedback. Identify a network of Traffic- ## Calmed Local Streets ## Traffic-Calmed Local Streets provide an alternative and redundant route to the all-abilities routes on the arterial streets and can be implemented using less costly, temporary materials. This plan identifies three Traffic- ## Calmed Local Street bikeways, but the City will work to identify additional of these local routes to add to the Priority Bike Network. These bikeways can include painted bike lanes and/or traffic calming treatments to achieve a low-speed, low-volume environment for bicyclists to share the street with drivers. ## Identify Priority Intersections and ## Barrier Crossings for ## Improvement ## Given that Roseville’s ## Priority Bike Network is comprised of the half- mile grid of major roads, plus additional Traffic- ## Calmed Local Streets, there are many intersections and barriers in the network that require improvement. Use engagement data collected for this Plan and crash data to prioritize intersections for improvements. ## Finalize Prioritization This plan provides a preliminary prioritization framework to start planning and implementing projects. The City should add to and finalize this prioritization by considering: •Bike crash history and trends •Critical gaps in existing pathway network •Implementability •Priorities from the ## Pathways Master Plan Page 36 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 18 Next Steps See Appendices C &E for more details. Coordinate and advocate for this Plan •Bring the plan to City Council for consideration. •Share it with partners. •Continue to coordinate ## with Ramsey County, MnDOT, and other agencies to further corridor and street design in support of biking. •Study and report lessons learned from the demonstration project on ## Hamline Avenue from ## County Road B to B2 Put the plan into action! •Actively use this plan as a living guide and start to program studies and update practices to advance Roseville’s Priority Bike Network. •Explore and identify funding opportunities listed in Appendix A of this plan and identify appropriate projects •Build momentum and participation by doing low-cost, quick build projects or events to raise awareness.Taking incremental steps to demonstrate change helps projects get realized faster.Examples include: •Consider paint or temporary devices to test curb extensions to slow turning motorists and shorten crossing distances. Or test narrower travel lanes to paint a buffered bike lanes, providing more visual separation between people biking and driving. •Sign and use pavement markings to mark on-street bike lanes. ## Periodically review Plan Periodically review this plan to confirm remaining steps needed, add new bikeways, and reprioritize. 5) Build momentum and participation by doing low-cost, quick build projects or events to raise awareness. Taking incremental steps to demonstrate change helps projects get realized much faster than the typical street design process allows. This saves money and time in the long run and builds momentum and public appetite for permanent change. •Use paint or temporary devices! When and where possible test curb extensions to tighten curb radii to slow turning motorists and shorten crossing distances. Or test narrower travel lanes (10-feet) to paint a buffered bike lanes, providing more visual separation between people biking and driving. •Sign and use pavement markings to mark on-street bike lanes. •Identify a priority project from this plan that is a candidate for a demonstration project. Work with community members to further test and refine ideas. Page 37 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 19 ## RESEARCH & RESOURCES ## Appendix A Page 38 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 20 ## Who are We Designing For? People. Pedal. Power. ## A B IKE NET WOR K FOR A LL A B ILIT IES, Y EA R ROUND To become a premier bike-friendly city, Roseville’s bicycle network must accommodate people biking of all levels, ages, abilities and preferences, and prioritize less confident and more vulnerable people (e.g., children). The network must also accommodate people in all seasons. People bike for different trip purposes. Transportation-related trips are categorized as trips to work, school, for errands (such as groceries) or connecting to transit. Recreational trips are considered trips for physical activity or leisure. Depending on trip purpose, people have different preferences. For example, people bikingto the grocery store or work often prioritize directness as time is important, whereas people out for a recreational bike ride value attractiveness and comfort more than a direct route. Regardless of trip type, safety is critical for all people, especially when ensuring children have safe routes to school, parks and other places.In addition, people’s preferences and comfort for biking may change by time of day, who they are traveling with (e.g., children), weather or other factors. Understanding the diversity and nuance of trip purpose and bicyclists’ preferences is an important part of planning for bikeways throughout Roseville. This Plan intentionally avoids designating a bikeway for a particular trip purpose. Often, the same bikeway network is used for both transportation and recreational trips. To make all forms of bike trips a real option for more people, the Plan establishes the need, and incremental steps, to prioritize the “interested but concerned” type of bicyclist who want to bike more, but do not currently feel safe or comfortable doing so. Meeting the needs of this cross section in bike network and facility design will create a low stress, all abilities network that is inviting for the majority of the community. ## Transportation Equity Policy, design and practices in our transportation system have led to inequities, disproportionately affecting low-income, people with disabilities, Black, Indigenous and People of Color, women and children. Advancing transportation equity requires a shift in transportation system design and decision-making processes. For example, it might mean more investment in areas that have been historically underserved. It also requires underserved users and communities to share in the power of decision-making through engagement and design processes. Page 39 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 21 ## Safer Streets By Design 21 Street design and allocation of street space play a large part in managing vehicle speeds, which are directly correlated to injury and mortality outcomes in crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians. For example, narrowing and/or removing travel lanes allows space to be reallocated for bike lanes, buffered bike lanes or fully separated or protected bike lanes (also called cycle tracks). Striping bike lanes on a street visually narrows the street, which can reduce the speed of drivers and provide greater comfort to people walking. Installing intersection treatments like modern roundabouts, a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Proven Safety Countermeasure, reduce drivers’ speeds and decrease the distance people walking and biking need to cross at intersections. In addition, they increase vehicle capacity at intersections without the need to add vehicle lanes, allowing street space to be reallocated for protected bike lanes or shared use paths. Designing streets that are safer and more comfortable for people biking benefits the safety of other users, creating a positive feedback loop. Streets that are complete put people first and become even greater community assets. They are places where people want to bike,rather than places where people can bike if they must. In turn, more people choose to bike. ## Toward an All Abilities Bike Network A high-quality bicycle network can significantly impact community access, convenience, well-being and environmental and economic resiliency. A safer, more connected and balanced network will encourage and promote bicycling for everyday trips, giving people more transportation choice. Plus, biking is a fun way to enjoy Roseville! Page 40 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 22 The significance of each principle may vary from bikeway to bikeway and from person to person. For example: Commute or Errand Trips: People commuting or running errands value directness and safety. ## Recreational or Leisurely Trips: For recreational trip-goers the biggest shift is in directness and attractiveness. School Trips: This refers to elementary aged school children. This is the hardest group to design for as safety is vital, but all characteristics are important. The route is only as strong as the weakest link, so safety at intersections is also critical. To provide transportation choice and encouragebiking trips, bikewaysmustbe: ## SAFE Does the route minimize risk of injury and danger (both traffic and personal safety)? ## COMFORTABLE Does the route appeal to a broad range of age and ability levels and are there user amenities (e.g., places to sit, bike racks, protection from the weather)? ## COHERENT How easy is it to understand where to go? How to navigate a crossing or an intersection? How connected is the network? ## DIRECT Does the route provide direct and convenient access to destinations? ## ATTRACTIVE Is the route green, well-maintained and celebrate local identity? ## Bike Network Principles Page 41 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 23 ## Bicyclist User Types 5-9% 4-7% 51-56% ## Low Stress Tolerance ## High Stress Tolerance ## INT ER EST ED B UT CONC ER NED ## E N T H U S E D & ## S O M E W H AT C O N F I D E N T ## H IG H LY ## CONF ID ENT People in this group would like to bike more, but do not feel safe on busy streets with fast moving traffic nearby. Biking on streets with fewer and slower-moving cars or in a space separated from vehicles would help them feel more comfortable. National and state research finds, on average, over half of the population are interested in bicycling more often but are concerned about having to share the road with motor vehicles. They would like lower stress street environments to bike. People who will ride regardless of roadway conditions and bicycle facility. Highly confident riders represent the smallest category of people willing to bike. ## NO WAY ## NO H OW 33% People will not bike out of disinterest or inability to do so. People who currently bike for transportation. Sometimes they are comfortable sharing the street with drivers but would prefer to ride on streets with bike lanes or separated paths. Graphic adapted from AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Page 42 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 24 ## Comfort Types of Bicyclists ## Low Stress ToleranceHigh Stress Tolerance ## INT ER EST ED B UT CONC ER NED ## H IG H LY ## CONF ID ENT ## WHAT IS TRAFFIC STRESS? Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a way to evaluate the stress a person bicycling may feel when they ride on a road close to traffic. It assigns a stress level to streets and bikeways based on factors such as: •Traffic speed •Number of travel lanes •Number of vehicles •Frequency of on-street parking turnover •Ease of intersection crossings •Presence of bike lanes •Presence of physical barrier to bike lane ## LTS 1 ## LTS 2 ## LTS 3 ## LTS 4 Most children will feel safe bicycling on these streets. The “interested but concerned” adult population will feel safe bicycling on these streets. Streets that are tolerable to “enthused and somewhat confident” riders who still prefer having their own dedicated space. High stress streets with high-speed limits, multiple travel lanes and limited or non-existent marked bikeways. ## E N T H U S E D & ## S O M E W H AT C O N F I D E N T Page 43 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 25 ## LTS ## LEVEL ## DESCRIPTION ## HIGHLY ## CONFIDENT ## BICYCLIST ## WILL RIDE ## ENTHUSED & ## SOMEWHAT ## CONFIDENT ## BICYCLIST ## WILL RIDE ## INTERESTED BUT ## CONCERNED ## BICYCLIST WILL RIDE ## LTS 1 ## YESYESYES ## LTS 2 ## YESYES Inviting to most adults, but demands more attention than might be expected from children ## LTS 3 ## YES Often, but more variability in level of comfort ## NO ## LTS 4 ## YESNONO ## Chart adapted from MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Guide Neighborhood street Bike and pedestrian path separated by paint Off-street bike path Off-street bike and pedestrian path On-street bike lane with painted buffer On-street bike lane with physical barrier Neighborhood street On-street bike lane On-street bike lane Shared-use collector or arterial street Page 44 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 26 ## Best Practices The bike network presented in thisPlan, and associated bikeway recommendations, are based on state and national evidence-based bestpractices in bikeway design.​ Use, adopt or endorse the following design guides to support decisions about design that will be made during later stages of bikeway planning and implementation. ## Bicycle Facility Design ## Manual ## Minnesota Depart of Transportation (MnDOT) ## Urban Street Design ## Guide ## National Association of City ## Transportation Officials ## (NACTO) ## Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 3 rd ## Edition ## National Association of City ## Transportation Officials ## (NACTO) ## Bikeway Selection Guide ## Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guide for the ## Development of Bicycle Facilities, 5 th ## Edition ## American Association of State ## Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) The city can also refer to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways issued by FHWA for guidance on traffic control, pavement markings, and signing related to bikeways. Page 45 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 27 ## Complete Streets Complete Streets is an approach that integrates people and place in the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of streets. A Complete Streets policy helps ensure a comprehensive and connected multimodal transportation system that prioritizes safety over speed, more equitably balances the needs of different modes and supports local land uses, economies, cultures and natural environments. Complete Streets look different from street to street. There is no “standard,” rather a holistic and context sensitive approach is taken to address the unique needs of users and characteristics of place. For example, to make biking safer, more accessible and inviting, a “collector” or “arterial” street might include buffered or protected bike lanes to account for higher traffic speeds and volumes. On a residential street, people biking and driving might share the lane and mix due to the low traffic speeds and volumes. ## Roseville’s Complete Streets Policy “Roseville’s transportation system is robust and complex, providing facilities for vehicles, freight, walking, bicycling, and transit, and prioritizing connectivity between essential community hubs such as neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, and parks. All modes of transportation are equally safe and accessible, facilitating the mobility of all community members and especially vulnerable populations.” ## MnDOT Complete Streets Policy “MnDOT must follow a complete streets approach in all phases of planning, project development, operation and maintenance activities.” One of the four policy goals is to “increase bicycling and walking as a percentage of all trips.” The policy states higher priority should be given to address identified user needs on projects that: •Equity: Have a higher proportion of people with disabilities, people of color, older adults, children or low-income •Mode Shift: Have a higher probability of increasing the number of people walking, biking or taking transit •Safety: Addresses a significant safety issue for vulnerable users •Connectivity: Addresses a gap or barrier created by prior transportation investments •Plan Alignment: Are identified in a local or regional plan ## Ramsey County All-Abilities Transportation Network ## Ramsey County All-Abilities Transportation Network resolution (2016) to advance the county vision: “A vibrant community in which all are valued and thrive.” Public works uses an evaluation checklist for road, trail and transit projects to ensure the resolution is put into practice. Page 46 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 28 ## Safe System Approach The Safe System Approach is the U.S. DOT’s guiding paradigm for traffic safety. More communities and agencies, including MnDOT are following the Safe System Approach to traffic safety, which aims to eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road users, including the most vulnerable users – people walking, bicycling and rolling. The Safe System Approach focuses roadway safety efforts on ways to effectively: 1.Design for the people in the system 2.Manage vehicle speeds by design 3.Employ proactive tools to manage risks across an entire roadway network, especially for the most vulnerable users 4.Foster integrated, collaborative and coordinated action [MnDOT] can prevent traumatic life-altering, costly crashes by focusing on creating low-speed environments in population centers and around other destinations where people are likely to walk [and bike]." ## - Statewide Pedestrian System Plan ## Learn more about the Safe System Approach: https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS/SafeSystem Page 47 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 29 ## Safe System: When to Mix, When to Separate ## BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE The chart (left) was developed by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and used by MnDOT in the Bicycle Facility Design Manual. It is considered a best practice when selecting the best bikeway for a street. A key aspect to ensure safer roads by design is separating users in the street space. The greater the vehicle speed and the higher the vehicle volume, thegreater the physical separation needs to be between people driving and people biking. Separate and protect people from moving traffic when vehicle speeds are above 20 mph. This can be done visually with painted bike lanes or buffered bike lanes or physically with bikeways fully separated by curbs, street trees, on- street parking and more. A shared streetenvironment, where users are mixed, can be createdfor people biking and driving when speeds are at or below 20mph and vehicle volumes are relatively low. This is a common environment on neighborhood residential streets. Traffic calming tools, such as neighborhood traffic circles, chicanes, pinch-points and curb extensions can be used to further mange and achieve 20 mph speeds on residential or low volume streets. Chart adapted from Federal Highway Administration Bicycle Selection Guide (2019). Note: Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ,operating speed should be used rather than posted speed. Page 48 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 30 ## How to Select Bike Facility Type There are many different types of bike facilities. These facilities are all different in the way they interact and operate with other users of the street. The range of bicycle facility types is also always evolving. Determining how each bikeway will function requires detailed examination of each corridor, using several interrelated concepts and approaches. As the city implements bikeways, they should consider the following elements: •Context Sensitive: Balance the community’s economic, social and environmental needs and values alongside the corridor’s operational needs. This includes considering existing and future land use, origins and destinations along the facility, and how the type of facility might vary along a given route. Given that streets in Roseville are already built out, full reconstruction projects provide the most opportunity to reallocate street space for people biking. However, interim improvements achieved through restriping, mill and overlay projects, or with temporary materials are important as Roseville works towards its full vision. •Complete Streets: Evaluate streets during any stage of a street project (e.g., planning, design, maintenance) to provide safe, comfortable and inviting facilities for all transportation users, especially the most vulnerable. •Safe System Approach: Prioritizes safety over speed. Focus on efforts to effectively design for all transportation users’ safety by managing vehicle speeds through design. This is a proactive approach that provides guidance on how to select bike facilities and other proven safety treatments based on traffic speeds and volumes. •Engagement: Thoughtful engagement with the community living or working along the bikeway and those using the bikeway. Page 49 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 31 ## Bikeway Facility Types The bikeway routes and facility types discussed in this Plan are defined as: •Protected bike lanes: Bikeways on busy streets that are physically separated from moving vehicle traffic either using landscaping, bollards or other vertical features such as flexible delineator posts or curb. Protected bike lanes can be at the same level as the street or at curb-level. Protected bike lanes may be one-way or two-way and are only intended for people biking or using similar modes. •Shared-use path: Bikeways shared by bicyclists and pedestrians for bi- directional travel, which are typically 10-feet-wide or more. Shared- use paths include paths at curb-level along a busy street or paths farther from the street, like through a park. •Painted bike lanes or painted buffered bike lanes: Bike lanes marked on the roadway with white paint. As space allows, a painted buffer space can be added to provide visual separation between the bike lane and moving traffic, parked cars or both. •Traffic-calmed local streets: Low-speed, low traffic volume streets where bikes share the street space with vehicles. Shared-use streets include both neighborhood greenways or bicycle boulevards (streets that prioritize bike travel). Shared lane pavement markings may be used to reinforce the bike route. Traffic-calmed local streets would apply to a subset of Roseville’s local city street network. Protected bike lane (curb-level)Protected bike lane (bollard-protected) Shared-use path (In Roseville) Shared-use path Painted bike lane Painted buffered bike lane Shared-use street (bicycle boulevard) Neighborhood greenway Page 50 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 32 ## A SAFER CHOICE BY DESIGN Modern roundabouts, including mini or compact roundabouts, are a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Proven Safety Countermeasure, creating a safer intersection for all users: •90% reduction in fatal crashes •75% reduction in injury crashes •30-40% reduction in pedestrian crashes •10% reduction in bicycle crashes •30-50% increase in traffic capacity A single-lane modern roundabout can handle up to 25,000 vehicles per day (a compact roundabout slightly less); a double-lane roundabout can handle up to 43,000 vehicles per day. When designed properly, roundabouts ensure motorist speeds of 15-23 mph, which increases drivers' ability to judge and react to other people driving, walking and biking. Roundabouts also create gateway treatments, providing space for landscaping, local art and signage. Photos (top to bottom right): •Domed mini or compact roundabout with curb extensions in winter. (Detroit ## Lakes, MN) •Compact roundabout with a painted rainbow creates a sense of arrival and welcome. (Richfield, MN) •Single lane roundabouts have fewer vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points and vehicle-to-person conflict points than a signalized intersection. •Massachusetts DOT diagram showing guidance for roundabouts with protected bike lanes and crossings. ## Core Concepts ## M O D E R N R O U N D A B O U T S Page 51 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 33 ## Core Concepts ## DEDICATED SPACE FOR EACH MODE Protected intersections provide dedicated space for each mode of travel: walking, biking and driving. They can be implemented at stop-controlled or signalized intersections and are most often used with separated bike lanes, but may be used with conventional bike lanes, paved shoulders or even shared lanes. A variation on the standard protected intersection can also be designed for two-way bicycle traffic on one side of the road. ## P R O T E C T E D I N T E R S E C T I O N S •People using a protected bike intersection. (Davis, CA) •Graphic illustrates key features: a corner island, bicycle queueing area, driver yield zone and pedestrian refuge ## median. Source: MnDOT Bicycle Facility ## Design Manual Graphic illustrating alternative design with two- way bicycle traffic on one side of the road. ## Source: NACTO, “Don’t Give Up at the ## Intersection” National Association of City ## Transportation Officials (nacto.org) ## Truck Movements: Protected intersections would be most appropriate for bikeways on roads comprising the ½ mile arterial grid in Roseville (primarily County roads). For this reason, protected intersections would need to accommodate truck turning movements and the concept designs shown on this page would need to be adapted. However, there are examples in the Twin Cities metro where protected intersection elements have been implemented on County roads that accommodate truck turns. Protected intersection benefits: •Provide clear right-of-way assignment between modes •Maintain physical separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles through an intersection •Place queued bicyclists in front of and in clear view of drivers •Improve visibility of bicyclists for motorists while turning •Clearly define pedestrian and bicycle operating spaces •Reduce pedestrian and bicycle crossing distance •Reduce motor vehicle turning speed Elements of protected intersections can be implemented without reconstruction using paint and bollards. See NACTO’s Don’t Give Up at the Intersection (2019). Source: MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual, 5-37 and 5-38. Page 52 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 34 Photo (above): Main Street in Hamburg, NY is a major state truck route carrying 12,000 vehicles per day. The town of Hamburg and NYDOT replaced four intersections with single-lane modern roundabouts, removed two travel lanes and narrowed the remaining lanes to 10-feet, allowing wider sidewalks, park assist lanes and additional street trees. 10-ft travel lane “park assist” lane Parking / curb zone ## Core Concepts ## R I G H T-S I Z I N G S T R E E T S More communities are prioritizing a people-first approach to street design. To make streets safer for people walking, biking and driving, street spaces is being reallocated by reducing vehicle lane widths and removing lanes altogether. The gained space is reallocated towards wider sidewalks, bike lanes, separated bike lanes (also known as protected bike lanes or cycle tracks), street trees, on-street parking and more. Right-sizing 5- or 4-lane streets to 3- or 2-lane streets works best on streets that have daily traffic volumes of 8,000 to 20,000 vehicles. As streets reach the higher traffic volumes additional intersection treatments, such as the modern roundabout, might be needed to more effectively manage vehicle traffic. Page 53 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 35 •Travel lanes could be as narrow as 10 feet. Narrower lanes and narrower street width are associated with fewer crashes.” •MnDOT Technical Memorandum No. 17-12-TS-05 and No. 18-09-TS-06 Context Sensitive: AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, commonly referred to as the “Green Book,” provides flexibility to use 10- foot-wide travel lanes in a variety of situations depending on operating speeds, volumes, traffic mix, design vehicle, horizontal curvature, use of on-street parking and land use context. Minnesota State Aid Standards (Part 8820.9941) note minimum lane width of 10 feet may be allowed on streets with bike lanes when design speeds are less than 35 mph and when all street factors are considered (e.g., bus route, traffic mix, land use). It also notes engineering judgment should be used. Travel Lane Width: Narrowing lanes can reduce the operating speed of traffic while also providing the additional space needed for bikeways. Ten-foot-wide lanes have a positive impact on a street’s safety without impacting traffic operations. To support vulnerable users like pedestrians and bicyclists, streets should maximize buffer space and work to manage safe speeds for all by design. ## National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO): https://nacto.org/publication/urban- street-design-guide/street-design-elements/lane-width/ ## Core Concepts ## R I G H T-S I Z I N G S T R E E T S •“Ten-foot lanes do not result in an increase in crashes or reduce vehicle capacity on roads with speeds of 45 mph or less. Narrower lane widths can contribute to lower vehicle operating speeds, which can increase safety for all roadway users.” ## •FHWA Bicycle Selection Guide, 2019 Page 54 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 36 ## Core Concepts ## SAFER STREETS FOR ALL Cities investing in bicycling infrastructure—from bike lanes to fully separated or protected bike lanes (or cycle tracks)– achieve environmental and safety advantages through the increase of bicycle use. Bike lanes are one of FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures. Conventional bike lanes designate an exclusive space for people biking with pavement markings and signage. Many benefits of bike lanes go beyond the bicyclist: •Creates visual separation between people biking and driving •Increases predictability of bicyclist and motorist positioning and interaction •Visually reminds motorists of bicyclists’ right to the street •Improves comfort for pedestrians by providing additional buffer space to the sidewalk •Improves emergency response by providing space for motorists to pull over •Supports more compact intersections as bike lanes provide an effective turning radius for large vehicles, allowing for other tools such as curb extensions to support people on foot ## B I K E L A N E S ## BIKE LANE SAFETY BENEFITS 49% in total crashes decreased on 4-lane undivided collectors and local roads due to marked space and lane reduction. 30% in total crashes decreased on 2-lane undivided collectors and local roads due to marked space. ## Sources: https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/bicycle-lanes https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bike-lanes/ https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/livable-communities/livable- documents/documents-2014/Livability%20Fact%20Sheets/Bicycling-Fact-Sheet.pdf Buffered bike lanes are almost always higher comfort than conventional bike lanes. Fully separated bicycle lanes provide further safety benefits and are more comfortable to people of all abilities due to the greater separation between people biking and driving. Page 55 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 37 ## Core Concepts ## PRIORITIZE NEIGHBORHOOD BIKEWAYS Bicycle boulevards (also called neighborways or neighborhood greenways) arelow-volumeandlow-speed residential streets that prioritize people walkingandbicycling anddiscourage motor vehicle through traffic.Street design elements are mixed and matched along the corridor to: •Reduce or maintain low motor vehicle volumes •Reduce or maintain low motor vehicle speeds •Create a direct, coherent (logical) and continuous bikeways •Create access to key community destinations •Create comfortable and safe intersection crossings •Give priority to people walking and biking, reducing delay Combined, these treatments create anattractive, convenient andcomfortable shared street environmentthat is welcoming to people of allages and abilities. ## B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D ## PRIORITIZE ## PEDESTRIAN & ## BICYCLIST ## TRAVEL ## TRAFFIC ## REDUCTION ## WAYFINDING PAVEMENT ## MARKINGS & SIGNAGE ## INTERSECTION ## CROSSING ## TREATMENTS ## TRAFFIC ## CALMING ## B I C YC L E B O U L E VA R D S : A M I X O F D E S I G N ## E L E M E N T S ## Adapted from Portland Bicycle Boulevard Guide: ## PortlandBicycleBoulevardGuidebook.pdf Page 56 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 38 ## Core Concepts ## SLOWER IS BETTER ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS Traffic circles (also called mini-circles) work to reduce vehicle speeds in a few ways. First, they interrupt the “straightaway” feel of many residential streets that can signal to drivers to go a faster speed than the posted speed. Second, traffic circles narrow the intersection, slowing drivers’ through and turning movements. Slower intersection speeds increases motorists’ yielding behavior to people walking and biking. Traffic circles are a proven safety treatment, reducing all types of intersection crashes by 90% and injury crashes by 97% (Seattle Department of Transportation). They are most effective when installed as a series at multiple intersections along a corridor and are often suitable for replacing stop-controlled intersections. ## N E I G H B O R H O O D T R A F F I C C I R C L E Traffic circles help achieve neighborhood-friendly speeds of 15-20 mph by design. ## (Saint Paul, MN) Traffic circles can be tested using low- cost materials. They keep people safely in motion, which is beneficial to people biking. (Edgewater, CO) Street trees in traffic circles adds to the traffic calming effect while also helping to better manage stormwater. (Seattle, WA) Traffic circles can be designed to create gateways into key neighborhoods or districts, like downtown, with features such as sculptures or artwork. (Holland, MI) Page 57 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 39 ## Core Concepts ## SLOWER IS BETTER ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS Chicanes slow vehicle traffic and can add space for greening and stormwater management. They can also be implemented quickly with just paint and temporary bollards. Chicanes are curb extensions that create a serpentine, horizontal shifting, effect. This shifting eliminates long stretches of straight streetway where motorists can pick up speed by requiring drivers to drive more slowly due to the lateral shift. They are often paired with median islands to further manage motorist speeds. Chicanes can be created with parking stalls, sidewalk extensions, or green infrastructure curb bump outs that allow for planting of native vegetation and rain gardens. Chicanes also create space for street furniture or public art. ## C H I C A N E S Chicanes provide space for native vegetation as seen on Grand Avenue in Minneapolis, MN. A designated space outside of the chicane element helps bicyclists avoid having to merge into traffic at a narrow pinch point, and creates a route for people walking, especially when no sidewalks exist. (Source: ## NACTO.org) Page 58 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 40 ## Core Concepts ## PRIORITIZE NEIGHBORHOOD BIKEWAYS FOR PEOPLE BIKING Median refuges that extend through the intersection where a bike boulevard crosses a busy street improve the crossing experience for people walking and biking, especially at major intersections by shortening the crossing distance into two separate sections with a place to stop in the middle. They also reduce vehicle traffic volumes on the bicycle boulevard by restricting vehicle turning movements onto and off the busy street. Traffic analysis is needed to assess potential impact of diversion onto nearby streets and to consider additional traffic calming measures needed to mitigate any traffic impacts. Coordination would be needed with Ramsey County or MnDOT if the diverter is on their roadway. Impacts to emergency responders should be considered before implementation; some treatments may be designed to allow emergency vehicle access. Median refuges with vehicle closure are only one method to keep traffic volume low on local streets. Roseville should consult the guides listed in this appendix for additional traffic reduction strategies for Bicycle Boulevards. M E D I A N R E F U G E-V e h i c l e C l o s u r e Motorists can only take a right off the 40th ## Street Bicycle Boulevard at this traffic diverter while cyclists can continue through. (Cedar Ave. ## Minneapolis, ## MN) Motorists can make a right turn onto and off of the Charles Ave ## Bicycle Boulevard at ## Lexington Pkwy while cyclists can continue in any direction. ## (St. Paul, MN) Page 59 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 41 ## State, Federal and County Funding for Active Transportation (1 of 3) In addition to local Capital Improvement Program funds, local jurisdictions may seek state and federal funding to assist with development of the active transportation network. Most programs involve applying through one of these agencies: •Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) •Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) ## •Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ## (MNDNR) ## •Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission (GMRPTC) •Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) Grants are sometimes also available through organizations that support economic development and tourism, public health, and conservation and the natural environment. Private donations are popular for projects that support community recreation and well-being. ## SourceFundsPurpose ## FHWASafe Streets and Roads for All ## (SS4A) ## funds Comprehensive Safety Action Plans (and demo projects) and infrastructure projects that are recommended as a result of a SS4A plan ## FHWA Reconnecting ## Communities Pilot ## Reconnecting Communities Pilot ## (RCP) Creating connections across highways disconnected or destroyed by highway development ## MnDOT Active ## Transportation Program ## Infrastructure Grants, Planning ## Assistance, Quick ## Build/Demonstration Projects Support active transportation capacity building and facilities ## MnDOT Safe Routes to ## School ## Planning Assistance and Boost grants Support current SRTS plans and programs ## MnDOT Safe Routes to ## School Infrastructure FundsConstruct sidewalks; improve crossings MnDOT (Federal funding)Transportation Alternatives ## (TAP) New pedestrian and bike facilities ## MnDOTState Aid for Local Transportation (SALT) Highway projects Page 60 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 42 ## State, Federal and County Funding for Active Transportation (2 of 3) ## SourceFundsPurpose Metropolitan CouncilRegional SolicitationMulti-modal infrastructure projects that focus on outcomes like moving people more effectively, managing congestion, safer streets for people walking and biking and improving air quality MN DNRRegional Trail GrantMotorized, non-motorized and joint trail usage for trails that are regionally significant MN DNROutdoor Recreation Grant ProgramMatching grant for the cost of acquisition, development, and/or redevelopment of local parks and recreation area. Trail must be internal to a park MN DNRLocal Trail Connections ProgramSupports acquisition and development of trail linkages for small train connections that are not regional MN DNR (Federal funding)Federal Recreational Trail ProgramNew trails, trail maintenance and trailhead construction ## Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails ## Commission Parks and Trails Legacy Grant Program“Regionally Designated” parks and trails can be funded ## Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) ## Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF) Activities that protect, conserve, preserve and enhances Minnesota's air, water, land, fish, wildlife and other natural resources Page 61 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 43 ## State, Federal and County Funding for Active Transportation (3 of 3) ## SourceFundsPurpose Active Living Ramsey CommunitiesBe Active! Be Green! Bench InitiativeThe goal of the Be Active! Be Green! Bench Initiative is to have benches placed often enough that when people sit on one bench, they're able to see the next one — with the thought that seniors, people with disabilities, or small children can more easily make it to the next bench. Ramsey County Active Transportation FundingContact County Public Works for more details on funding opportunities for municipalities to make active transportation improvements on County roads. Ramsey County Economic Development Critical Corridors ProgramsRamsey County's Critical Corridors programs offer assistance to qualifying public, private and nonprofit organizations for place- based investments along major transportation, commercial and cultural corridors. The programs are fully funded by the Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) levy. Eligible projects or activities seeking funding must align with the county's Economic ## Competitiveness & Inclusion Plan and Equitable Development Framework. ## Saint Paul Ramsey County Public Health ## Department Community Innovation GrantsSaint Paul – Ramsey County Public Health (SPRCPH) is offering grants to support activities, programs and initiatives that improve public health issues in the community. They must be related to building capacity, planning, developing, implementing or evaluating work designed to address our Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) priorities. Page 62 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 44 ## COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ## Appendix B Page 63 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 45 ## How the Community Was Engaged ## Roseville Bike Plan Survey Open from April 18 th to July 1 st , 2024. There were 370 responses to the survey. ## Networking Mapping Workshop ## Audit Team for Rosedale Mall Area Bike-ability ## Roseville Bike Plan Interactive Comment Map Open from April 10 th to June 30 th , 2024. There were 324 visitors who left 378 comments. ## Walk and Bike Audits Three audits that took place on June 10 th and June 11th, 2024. City staff, project staff, committee members and residents were present. ## Network Mapping Workshop The in-person mapping workshop took place on June 11th, 2024. City staff, committee members and residents worked together to identifying a priority bicycle network for Roseville. Page 64 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 46 How Is Roseville Moving Today? 1.7% Walk In Roseville, 1.7 percent of commuters walk to work compared to 2.2 percent statewide. 1 1.6% Bike In Roseville, 1.6 percent of commuters bike to work compared to 1.7 percent statewide. 1 1.5% Transit In Roseville, 1.5 percent of commuters take transit to work compared to 1.5 percent statewide. 1 ## C O M M U T E T Y P E I N R O S E V I L L E ## WalkBikeTransitCar/Carpool 1 American Community Survey, 2022 5-yearestimates. The American Community Survey is an ongoing survey administered by the U.S. Census Bureau that provides vital information on a yearly basis about our nation and its people. Page 65 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 47 11.1% Directness 66.8% Safety 6.4% Comfort 5.0% Attractiveness Of the 361 Roseville Bike Plan survey respondents, 241 prioritize safety above all other principles, indicating that most people value safety regardless of their biking confidence level or reason for biking. Definitions of the Bike Network Principles are provided on the previous page. ## Key Principles of Bikeability| Bike Plan Survey Results ## I M P O R T A N C E O F K E Y B I K E ## N E T W O R K P R I N C I P L E S 10.8% Coherence Page 66 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 48 ## Bike Travel in Roseville| Bike Plan Survey Results 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 ## Responses ## Types of Bike Trips ## B I K E T R A V E L I N R O S E V I L L E 89% Of survey respondents said they bike for exercise and leisure Out of the 360 respondents who answered the question about their reasons for biking in Roseville, 323 indicated they bike for exercise or leisure, 163 for shopping or errands, 118 for commuting to school or work, and 29 selected other reasons. It’s no surprise most people bike for recreational trips given the many high-quality parks and trails in Roseville. There is opportunity to increase transportation-related trips with the future bikeway network. Page 67 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 49 What Type of Bicyclist Are You? | Bike Plan Survey Results ## 3.3% No Way, No How ## 18.9% Highly Confident ## 39.5% Enthused and Somewhat Confident 39.4% Interested but Concerned Of the 365 Roseville Bike Plan survey respondents, nearly 80% identified themselves as either enthused and somewhat confident or interested but concerned, indicating they would bike more with improved infrastructure. ## T Y P E S O F B I C Y C L I S T S I N R O S E V I L L E Page 68 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 50 ## What We Heard, Observed, Learned ## The Roseville Bike Plan Interactive Comment Map allowed community members to place pins on a map based on four categories: •Destinations (places people currently bike or wish to bike to) •Safe/Comfortable Biking •Unsafe/Uncomfortable Biking •Ideas/Requests (bike facility suggestions) The map was open from April 10th to June 30 th , 2024 and had 324 visitors who left 378 comments “I would love for our city to be more bike friendly. We have plenty of businesses that are fairly close but they're inaccessible without a car. Adding bike lanes would be amazing.” – Community Member 50 ## Destinations Biking is currently safe/comfortable Biking is currently unsafe/uncomfortable ## Ideas/requests ## Legend: Page 69 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 51 ## What We Heard | Specific Issues and Opportunities “There is a nice bike path that just ends at Industrial Blvd, but a bridge would connect the two cities for safer riding than Larpenteur or Fairview.” “Cycling along Victoria is considered one of the "safer" routes for crossing Highway 36, but heading southbound on this stretch can be perilous. I've had close calls with cars nearly brushing past me because the shoulder is so narrow.” “My teen wants to bike here with friends, but the theater/mall might as well have a moat around it. It's unclear how people on bikes are supposed to navigate to the mall or on its grounds/lots/routes.” “Cycling to Harmar/Target is currently unfeasible unless you are willing to bike in trafficked lanes.” “Central Park has shared bike/ped trails and separate trails. Better markings are needed to let those new to the trails know and remind all others of these trails.” “Cleveland south of the off road bikeway and down to Hwy 36 is very uncomfortable with not even a shoulder to ride on.” Page 70 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 52 ## Interactive Comment Map •There is a desire for better bike infrastructure on Hamline Ave N. Users would like to see marked bike lanes and eventual conversion to protected bike lanes. •Snelling Ave N is perceived as dangerous and unsafe. Several comments indicated a desire for a bike and pedestrian bridge near County Rd C for an east to west connection. •Fairview Ave N in front of Rosedale Center is stressful for cyclists because of high traffic speeds, congestion and high number of intersections. •Users say they will not bike to Rosedale Center because they feel it is unsafe even though there are plenty of amenities they’d like to bike to like shopping, restaurants and a movie theatre. •There is a desire for improvements to Central Park biking paths like updating signage, improving bumpy areas of the paths and creating separate paths for walkers and bikers. •Users find the County Rd C and Dale St N intersection dangerous, with frequent stop sign violations. They request better traffic control and support the planned 3- to 4-lane conversion on County Rd C. •Users say they avoid riding on Rice St because it has a lot of traffic. They use alternate routes on local streets when possible. •The north section of Victoria St N is undesirable and unsafe for bikers. Although it is used by confident bicyclists, there are no sidewalks, and the shoulder width is narrow. The majority of comments received on the interactive map related to places where biking is currently unsafe or uncomfortable. Those comments are summarized here: Page 71 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 53 ## Interactive Comment Map •Users would like to bike to Rosedale Center and the transit center that is nearby. •Users would like to see bike facilities on Lexington Ave so that there is a safe connection to Como Park. •Bike parking is essential and requested by bicyclists at stores and restaurants including Cub Foods and Dairy Queen. •Har Mar Mall is near residential areas and users want connections from those residential areas to the commercial businesses like Cub Foods and Target. •Users love the Diagonal Trail and appreciate the connection that it provides to Minneapolis. •Central Park is well used and loved by the community, but they would like more connections from residential areas. •Residents want their children to have the option to bike to schools like, Roseville Area High School and Central Park Elementary, safely. The remainder of comments received on the comment map were related to places where biking is currently safe or comfortable, destinations, and ideas. Those comments are summarized here: Page 72 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 54 ## Bike Audits ## Members of the Roseville Bike Plan Committee were joined by residents for three bike audits on June 10 th and 11 th , 2024. The groups who participated in the audits are shown starting from lower left: Rosedale Center, Acorn Park, and Lake McCarron’s County Park. Page 73 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 55 ## Bike Audits ## Members of the Roseville Bike Plan Committee were joined by residents for three bike audits on June 10 th and 11 th , 2024. The audits were held ## starting from Rosedale Center, Lake McCarron’s ## County Park (southeast Roseville), and Acorn Park (northeast Roseville). Key observations and takeaways from these audits are summarized in the following pages. Bike audits are powerful tools for engagement, bringing together people with diverse perspectives and experiences—from city staff and elected leaders to community members—to: •Observe and deepen understanding of how active transportation users experience a street •Tap into people’s knowledge of place •Learn from the physical built environment •Engage in meaningful dialogue Bike audit route in southeast Roseville Bike audit route in northeast Roseville Bike-focused walk audit route near Rosedale Center Page 74 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 56 ## What We Heard | Bike and Walk Audit Comments “Relative transit rich area and you get dumped into a sea of parking.” “It is much more comfortable to ride on neighborhood streets like Western, than it is riding on Rice.” “There are a variety of different types of riders in Roseville, but all riders prioritize safety.” “It is hard to relax when cycling in an urban environment. If there were trails or sidewalks, they had debris or weren’t maintained very well.” “Right now, it is calm, but parent drop off can be scary and chaotic” “It is uncomfortable to walk here in a group of people and a neon vest, I can’t imagine trying to bike.” Page 75 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 57 ## Key Observations: Bike-Focused Walk Audit Biking around Rosedale Center and adjacent commercial and retail destinations presents challenges due to the lack of bike lanes on County Rd B2, forcing cyclists onto narrow sidewalks where they may come into conflict with pedestrians. While Fairview Ave has a recently constructed trail on the east side of the road, access to the business entrances are lacking for people biking and conflicts with motorists at driveways still pose a problem. High traffic speeds in the area contribute to a noisy environment, making sidewalks feel uncomfortable for people walking or biking, especially where sidewalks are immediately adjacent to the curb (no landscape buffer to separate people walking from the motorist travel lane). Despite being a well-served transit area, connections to transit are unclear and indirect. ## WALK AUDIT – Rosedale Center ## Heavy Traffic and Speeds ## Reduce Bicyclist Comfort To create a comfortable environment for all, tools are needed to address loud, fast traffic near pedestrian and cyclist facilities. Implementing traffic calming measures and dedicated bike lanes can enhance safety and comfort. ## Potential Conflicts Between ## Pedestrians and Bicyclists Without bike lanes, most cyclists resort to riding on the sidewalk. This can create conflicts with pedestrians and compromise safety for both groups. ## KEY FINDINGS Page 76 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 58 ## Key Observations: Bike-Focused Walk Audit ## Sidewalk and Road Geometry Sidewalk and road geometry can be challenging for cyclists near Rosedale Center, especially 90-degree turns. These sharp turns make navigation across intersections difficult due to lack of space for a rider’s bike and can compromise safety. ## Long Distances Between ## Crosswalks Long blocks can lead to pedestrians crossing midblock using the median. This behavior indicates a need for more crossing points. ## Access Challenges At Rosedale Center, navigation for cyclists can be challenging due to limited direct paths to building entrances. Sidewalks often lead in the opposite direction of the mall. Additionally, bike parking is limited and it’s difficult for walkers and cyclists to reach the transit center. ## Corners and Curb Ramps While there is a new shared-use path on ## Fairview Ave near Rosedale Center, the group observed that the corners still provide little space for a cyclist to turn their bike to stop and wait to cross Fairview Ave. ## WALK AUDIT KEY FINDINGS, CONTINUED Page 77 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 59 ## Key Observations: Bike Audits In addition to the Bike-Focused Walk Audit at the Rosedale Center area, the Roseville Bike Plan committee and residents convened for two bike audits. Participants got on their bikes and experienced Roseville’s streets and bike facilities for themselves. Bike audits started from McCarron’s County Park and Acorn Park and were 3- to- 4-mile loops covering a variety of existing biking conditions and facilities in Roseville. The key observations from these audits are summarized on this and the following page. ## BIKE AUDITS – McCarron’s County Park and Acorn ## Park ## The Comfort of Quiet Roads Bike facilities on quieter roads, with less traffic and lower speeds, like Western Ave, rather than busy ones like Rice St, create a more comfortable environment for cyclists. ## Complexities in Navigation The group discussed that wayfinding for cyclists is complex and can be a barrier for people not familiar with the area. Logical and coherent routes, aided by signs and wayfinding would be very helpful to cyclists in Roseville. ## KEY FINDINGS Page 78 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 60 ## Key Observations: Bike Audits ## Rice Street Rice Street is heavily trafficked, so cyclists prefer riding on the sidewalk. Where shoulders exist, they are often dropped and merged with the right turn lane. The left turn from Rice St onto Co Rd B2 is awkward and uncomfortable, requiring either a risky maneuver across multiple lanes of traffic or a two-stage left turn. Youth are a Priority Safe travel to school, parks and other places youth like to access is critical to their health and independence. To make cycling a safe option for youth, dedicated bike lanes, safe crossings and bike-friendly policies are crucial. ## Overgrown Vegetation The audit group observed that there are comfortable shared-use trails in Roseville parks that can be used for bike commuting, but trees and bushes over-growing into the paths make it hard for cyclists to share these facilities with people walking. ## Bike Lanes Benefit All Having dedicated bike space separate from the sidewalk is beneficial for both the cyclist and the pedestrian. Bike lanes put vehicle travel lanes farther away from traffic. ## BIKING AUDIT KEY FINDINGS, CONTINUED Page 79 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 61 ## Network Mapping Workshop Eme rgi n g Pr i o r i t y B i keways Id e nt i f i e d D u r i n g t h e Wo r ks h o p The half-mile arterial road grid emerged as a priority during the workshop as these roads provide direct and continuous bikeways through the city, which are important features for cyclists. Some specific bikeways in the half-mile arterial road grid that emerged as priorities during the workshop were Fairview Ave, Hamline Ave, County Rd C – connection to the Diagonal Trail, and Roselawn Ave as a connection to St. Paul and Victoria St. Workshop participants were also visionary in their thinking about future bikeways in Roseville, suggesting dedicated routes for cyclists that cross the city without using the existing street grid. The Diagonal Trail in Minneapolis is an example of this and is a bikeway that cyclists in Roseville would like to connect to and wish existed in Roseville itself. Documentation of the “diagonal” bikeways identified during the workshop are provided on the next page. After the walk and bike audits were complete, a network mapping workshop was held where community members and city staff applied their observations to start identifying priority bikeways in Roseville. Approximately 20 Roseville residents and other stakeholders participated. The workshop began with an overview of active transportation principles and established what kind of bikeway facility types are most convenient and comfortable for different types of cyclists. Participants then used large maps of Roseville to identify important trip origins and destinations. Next, participants drew connections between trip origins and destinations and identified what improvements were needed along these bikeways to make them safe and comfortable for all cyclists. At the end of the session, small groups shared out the bikeways they identified, and the group discussed the priority network that was starting to emerge. The results of the Network Mapping Workshop formed the basis of the Priority Bike Network presented in this plan. ## Drafting the Priority Bike Network Page 80 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 62 ## Network Mapping Workshop Maps Page 81 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 63 63 ## EXISTING NETWORK & ## DRAFT PRIORITIZATION ## Appendix C Page 82 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 64 ## Pathway Master Plan What is a Pathway? Any facility that serves non-motorized users commonly within the public right-of-way. They can be paved shoulders and bike lanes to sidewalks, trails, and footpaths. ## Building from the Pathway Master ## Plan ## The 2021 Pathway Master Plan is comprehensive and holistic, incorporating a “constellation” (park service areas) concept to connect residents to parks within park service areas and between park service areas. The Master Plan also used a detailed scoring criteria to prioritize pathway projects. ## Given that the Pathway Master Plan was designed to address the needs of all non- motorized users, not just cyclists, it lacks specifics on how a proposed pathway can specifically address the needs of cyclists. ## This Bike Plan builds from the Pathway ## Master Plan by: 1. Reaffirming proposed pathway segments identified in 2021 that continue to be priorities for bicycling upgrades today 2. Identifying new bikeways to add to the bicycle network in Roseville. 3. Identifying the types of bike facility upgrades appropriate for these bikeways 4. Providing a clearer vision for implementation of bikeways when opportunities arise The Pathway Master Plan, updated in 2021, presented the existing pathway network in Roseville and identified additions and upgrades to the existing pathway network for people walking, biking and skating. The proposed pathway segments from the Master Plan are shown on the map above, along with existing pathways. The Pathway Master Plan is adopted by reference in the City's Comprehensive Plan and serves as a planning tool to assist the City on decisions regarding pathway issues. Page 83 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 65 ## Bike Network ## Existing Network & Pathways Progress in Roseville The map on the next page shows proposed pathways identified in Roseville’s 2021 Pathway Master plan update overlaid on the existing bike network. The map also shows the progress the City has made on the Pathway Master plan since 2021, with nine recently completed pathway segments and six near term pathways programmed for completion in the next few years. ## Priority Bike Network – New & Reaffirmed Bikeways The second map shows priority bikeways identified through the development of this bike plan. It also identifies pathways that were identified in the 2021 Pathway Master Plan and were again identified during development of this bike plan. These bikeways are highlighted in orange on the following map and labeled as “reaffirmed priority bike network segments” to illustrate where this bike plan overlaps with the 2021 Pathways Master Plan and where new priority bikeways have been identified. Page 84 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 66 ## Roseville’s Existing ## Bike Network Page 85 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 67 ## The Priority Bike Network and 2021 ## Pathways Page 86 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 68 ## Draft Prioritization Roseville can expand on this preliminary prioritization framework by adding in additional metrics: •Safety: Perform a city-wide traffic safety analysis to determine intersections or street segments that have a history of being dangerous for people on bike. •Implementability: Based on city and county programmed street projects and relative cost of appropriate improvements for the route (e.g., mini traffic circles vs full reconstruction) the city can make a qualitative determination of which bikeways are most implementable and achieve those in the next 3-5 years. •Re-affirmed Bikeways: Review results of the Pathways Master Plan and consider giving segments or bikeways in the Bike Network extra priority if they were identified again during development of this Plan. Note: This is a draft prioritization list. The table and map that follows is a comprehensive list of routes and segments that have been identified through engagement with the community and collaboration with city staff. The City of Roseville will need to continue to refine and finalize this network and prioritization of bikeways and projects. Page 87 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 69 ## Draft Prioritization To get started, Roseville will need to create an implementation schedule for Priority Bike Network bikeways to determine what to program and to share their priorities with Ramsey County. This plan provides a draft prioritization framework on the following pages. Routes were prioritized using the following criteria and the results are summarized in this appendix. The criteria listed below are not ranked or weighted, though Roseville could consider doing so when finalizing the prioritization: •Equity: MnDOT’s Active Transportation Equity score tool was used for this criteria. MnDOT’s Active Transportation Equity score divides the state into small polygons and considers multiple demographic, public health, and existing infrastructure factors to assign an equity score to each polygon. Roseville’s Priority Bike Network was overlayed with these polygons, and each route was assigned a high, medium, or low equity priority based on the polygons they intersect. Bike Network bikeways intersecting with equity polygons with a score of 0-5 were assigned low equity priority, 4-10 were assigned medium equity priority, and 11-15 were assigned high equity priority. See the map on next page. •Transit: Connections to transit was a priority for the city when embarking on this bike planning process. Location and frequency of planned transit routes were compared with the Priority Bike Network and network bikeways were assigned a transit connectivity score based on their interaction with planned transit routes. Metro Transit’s Network Next and Network Now were used to identify planned transit routes in Roseville. See the second map. •Connections to Neighboring Bike Networks: As a first-ring suburb, Roseville’s bike network plays an important role in regional connectivity for cyclists. Additionally, engagement results indicated a strong desire for Roseville residents to be able to connect to neighboring cities by bike. Neighboring cities’ existing and planned bikeways were identified, and Roseville’s Priority Bike Network bikeways were scored based on their connectivity to these bikeways. See the second map. •Connections to School: The ability of children to safely and comfortable use a cycling network speaks to its all-abilities nature. Prioritizing connections to school will help Roseville take the first steps to providing safe and comfortable biking conditions for this key group of bikers. Bikeways in the Priority Bike Network were compared to locations of schools and given a qualitative score based on their proximity or connection to schools in Roseville. See the second map. Page 88 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 70 ## Roseville’s Priority Bike ## Network and Equity Page 89 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 71 ## Roseville’s Priority Bike ## Network and Transit Page 90 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 72 ## Route # (See ## Map) ## Route/Segment ## Equity – MnDOT ## Active ## Transportation ## Equity Score ## Transit Connectivity ## Connects to Neighboring ## Network ## Connects to School 1 ## County Rd C Between ## Long Lake Rd and ## Cleveland Ave MediumLow – connects to medium and low frequency bus routes Medium – does not connect directly to neighboring network but completes bikeway to the Diagonal Trail in ## Minneapolis Low – no schools nearby 2 ## County Rd C – Central ## Park to Rice St MediumHigh – connects to future high frequency transit route on Rice St. Low – does not connect directly to neighboring network Medium – schools within ~1/2 mile 3 ## Fairview Ave – North- ## South Artery MediumHigh – completes connection to future high frequency transit route High – connects directly to neighboring networks Low – no schools nearby 4 ## Roselawn Ave across town from Reservoir ## Woods to Lauderdale MediumHigh – intersects existing and future high frequency transit High – connects directly to neighboring network Medium – schools within ~1/2 mile 5 ## Hamline Ave N MediumMedium – connects to low and medium frequency future transit routes High – connects directly to neighboring network High – connects directly, or almost ## directly, to Roseville Area High School ## Bicycle Priority Network Prioritization This framework represents a starting point for prioritization that the City can build upon and ultimately finalize based on public input, alignment with the Pathways Master Plan, and feedback from other stakeholders. Route numbers do not indicate priority ranking. Page 91 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 73 ## Route # (See ## Map) ## Route/Segment ## Equity – MnDOT ## Active ## Transportation ## Equity Score ## Transit Connectivity ## Connects to Neighboring ## Network ## Connects to School 6 ## Victoria Ave from ## Reservoir Woods to Co Rd ## D HighMedium – connects to low and medium frequency future transit routes Medium – Does not connect to neighboring network but gets close Medium – school within ~1/2 mile 7 ## Snelling Ave – Arden Hills ## to Roselawn Ave HighHigh – connects to high frequency future transit routes High – connects directly to neighboring network Medium – school within ~1/2 mile 8 ## Fernwood Ave MediumMedium – connects to medium-frequency future transit routes High – connects directly to neighboring network Low – no schools nearby 9 ## Dale St from Larpenteur ## Ave to Owasso Blvd (Crossing Hwy 36) MediumMedium – Connects to and overlaps with medium-frequency future transit routes High – connects directly to neighboring network High – connects directly, or almost directly, to two schools 10 Crossing over Hwy 280 to ## Minneapolis MediumMedium – would provide connection to Minneapolis and additional transit opportunities but does not directly connect to transit within Roseville High – Does not connect directly to neighboring facility but provides connection to extensive bike network in Minneapolis Low – no schools nearby ## Bicycle Priority Network Prioritization Page 92 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 74 ## Route # (See ## Map) ## Route/Segment ## Equity – MnDOT ## Active ## Transportation ## Equity Score ## Transit Connectivity ## Connects to Neighboring ## Network ## Connects to School 11 ## Northwest Roseville ## Connections MediumLow – connects to low- frequency future transit routes High – connects directly to neighboring network Low – no schools nearby 12 ## Western Ave – Owasso to ## McCarron’s HighHigh – connects to high- frequency future transit routes Low – does not connect directly to neighboring network Medium – school within ~1/2 mile 13 ## Co Rd B2 from Long Lake ## Blvd to Rice St MediumHigh – connects to multiple future high- frequency transit routes and medium-frequency routes Medium – does not connect directly to neighboring network but gets close High – 13b connects directly to school 14 ## Fairview Ave - Oakcrest ## Ave to Co Rd B2 MediumHigh – connects to and overlaps with future high- frequency transit routes Low – does not connect directly to neighboring network Low – no schools nearby 15 ## Co Rd C2 HighLow – connects to low- frequency future transit routes Low – does not connect directly to neighboring network Low – no schools nearby ## Bicycle Priority Network Prioritization Page 93 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 75 ## Route # (See ## Map) ## Route/Segment ## Equity – MnDOT ## Active ## Transportation ## Equity Score ## Transit Connectivity ## Connection to Neighboring ## Network ## Connects to School 16 ## Rice St HighHigh – overlaps with future high-frequency transit route High – connects directly to neighboring network Low – no schools nearby 17 ## Brimhall Elementary ## School to Reservoir ## Woods Park MediumMedium – connects to future high- and medium- frequency transit routes Medium – does not connect directly to neighboring network but gets close High – connects directly to school 18 ## Co Rd B – Snelling Ave to ## Rice St MediumHigh – connects multiple high- and medium- frequency future (and existing) transit routes Medium – does not connect directly to neighboring network but gets close High – connects directly, or nearly directly, to school 19 ## Cleveland Ave – Co Rd C2 ## to Roselawn Ave MediumMedium – connects to future medium- and low- frequency transit routes High – connects directly to neighboring network Medium – school within ~1/2 mile 20 ## Connection from Co Rd C ## to Diagonal Trail MediumMedium – connects to future medium- and low- frequency transit routes High – connects directly to neighboring network Low – no schools nearby 21 ## Minnesota Ave/Lovell Ave ## from Rice St to Dale St MediumHigh – connects to future high-frequency transit routes Low – does not connect directly to neighboring network High – connects directly to Concordia ## Academy and King of Kings Lutheran ## School ## Bicycle Priority Network Prioritization Page 94 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 76 ## DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ## Appendix D Page 95 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 77 ## Hamline Avenue The City of Roseville, in partnership with ## Ramsey County and MnDOT Metro District, right-sized a half-mile section of ## Hamline Avenue between County Road B and County Road B2 to improve the safety and comfort for people biking. Travel lanes were narrowed to add painted buffered bike lanes. ## Project Snapshot Initial install cost for demonstration project: $46,000* *$17k paid by MnDOT grant & $10k paid by County Page 96 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 78 ## Pre- vs Post-Demonstration Conditions Pre-demo roadway cross section •12’ center left turn lane •12’ driving lane •6’ shoulders ## Curb-to-Curb ## Width 80 feet ## Posted Speed35 MPH ## Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 6,875 vehicles Post-demo roadway cross section •11’ center left turn lane •10.5’ driving lanes •2’ buffer zone •6’ bike lane **18-ft lane represents an implied 12-ft travel lane with a 6-ft shoulder Page 97 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 79 Driver’s Speed – How did the project impact motorists’ speeds? Before Demo. ## Project After Demo. ## Project Posted Speed35 mph35 mph Average Speed38 mph36 mph 85 th Percentile Speed42 mph39 mph Radar gun was used to collect speed data from the corner of Colonial Drive and Hamline Avenue. Pre-install data was collected 4/16/2025 and post-install data was collected 11/6/2025. Data was collected by the Ramsey County and analyzed by the MnDOT planning assistance consultant team. 2 mph decrease in average motorist speed ## Findings •Fewer drivers traveling at the fastest speeds. The share of vehicles traveling 41-45 mph decreased 13% •More drivers traveling near the posted speed. After installation, a larger share of vehicles shifted into the 31-35 mph range 3 mph decrease in 85 th percentile motorist speed Page 98 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 80 Bicycle Use – What changes were observed in biking activity? Before Demo. ## Project After Demo. ## Project Bicycle Counts120 bicyclists134 bicyclists Video camera was placed at Hamline and Commerce intersection to record bikers during peak hour periods: •7 AM to 9 AM •2 PM to 4 PM •4 PM to 6 PM Pre-install data was collected on Tuesday 5/13/2025 and Wednesday 5/14/2025. Post-install data was collected on Tuesday 9/30/2025 and Wednesday 10/1/2025. Bikers were recorded by City of Roseville when entering either side of the intersections. Data was analyzed in 15-minute intervals by the MnDOT planning assistance consultant team. ~12% (11.7%) increase in people biking ## Findings Data shows a positive trend. It is worth noting that the shorter count durations (1.5 days for each pre- and post-install data collection) may not represent typical weekly conditions. Additionally, seasonal and weather conditions may have influenced bicycle volumes, particularly as pre-install counts occurred in early May. Page 99 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 81 ## SUCCESS STORY The project increased biking activity and slowed vehicle speeds along the corridor. Bicycle counts rose by 12%, while average driving speeds dropped by 2 miles per hour (mph)(from 38 to 36 mph) and high- end speeders slowed by 3 mph, moving closer to the 35 mph posted speed limit. An added benefit of the bike lanes is that they increased separation between people walking and driving, improving the safety and comfort for all active transportation users. Page 100 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 82 ## Public Feedback 181 people provided comments via email, phone call or online survey. The percentage of submittals that were supportive of the demonstration, critical of all or some elements of the demonstration, or neutral on it are shown here. An online survey regarding the demonstration project was open from Oct 10-Nov 30, 2025. Below are some themes resulting from the online survey’s 160 respondents: ## Travel Mode Themes •People who biked (63 respondents) or walked (15) emphasized how the project increased comfort over Highway 36, especially for families. Many commented that the presence of protection meaningfully shaped their route choice. •People who drove (79) were more likely to express concerns about lane width, turn-lane removal, plowing feasibility, and nighttime visibility. A subset acknowledged traffic calming as a benefit. •People who did not visit the site (3) frequently questioned usage levels or the prioritization of cycling improvements. ## Gender-Based Themes •Female respondents (79) frequently described safety benefits— especially when biking with children—and cited greater comfort crossing Highway 36. As drivers, many expressed difficulty navigating tight lanes and right-turn movements. •Male respondents (68) often emphasized operational concerns as drivers (lane width, plowing, emergency pull-over). Those who bike regularly voiced strong support for protected lanes and network expansion. ## Relationship to Hamline & Roseville •Residents living on Hamline Avenue (11 respondents) submitted the most detailed comments related to operations—turning difficulty, backups at key intersections, and winter maintenance concerns —reflecting daily exposure to the corridor. •Residents who live, work, or travel through Roseville showed a range of views: multimodal users were mostly positive about safety and visibility improvements, while driver-only respondents reported confusion at intersections and visual clutter. ## Age-Based Themes •Ages 26–39 (27 respondents) tended to express strong support for protected infrastructure and requested corridor extensions. Many felt comfortable adjusting to changes when driving and reported increased confidence biking over Highway 36. •Ages 40–54 (50) provided mixed feedback: those who walk or bike were positive about perceived safety improvements, while driver-only respondents raised concerns regarding narrowed lanes, removal of turn lanes, and nighttime visibility. •Ages 55–74 and 75+ (77) were more likely to describe stress as drivers, citing narrow lanes, difficult turns, and concerns about bollard durability and emergency vehicle access. Page 101 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 83 ## LESSONS LEARNED Some delineators were moved after the initial 2025 install to address concerns related to mailbox access. Despite designing for large vehicle turning radii, some delineators were often hit, but remained in place. The number and spacing of delineators was both visually overwhelming to some. All delineators were removed for the 2025-2026 winter due to concerns about snow clearing. In Spring 2026 the delineators will be placed in the corridor again, with modified spacing, and with the intent to keep them in place throughout the winter. City and County staff will continue to learn from this demonstration project and use lessons learned to improve this segment of road and other future installations. Page 102 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 84 ## POLICY, PRACTICE, & ## PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ## Appendix E Page 103 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 85 ## Promote All Abilities Bikeways on All Roads in the Half-Mile ## Arterial Grid Ramsey County roads create most of the half-mile arterial grid within the city, making them critical to the city’s bike network. ## The County’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (2015) Bicycle Network Deficiency Analysis identifies those streets that are most and least suitable for traveling by users of all abilities as determined by the level of traffic stress. Many of the county roads in Roseville are classified as high to extreme stress due to high vehicle speeds and volumes, multi- lane conditions and minimal to no bikeway facilities, such as portions of Larpenteur Ave, Hamline Ave, Rice St and County Road C, B and B2. Continue to partner with Ramsey County to improve safety for bicyclists on the county’s high-speed, high-volume arterial streets by coordinating efforts and pooling resources to ensure protected bike lanes or shared-use pathways continue to get built. While local streets are often considered low stress, the county’s analysis classifies most local streets in Roseville as moderate stress because the city’s default posted speed limit is 30 mph, which is too high for users of all abilities to ride in mixed traffic. ## Ramsey County Bicycle Network Deficiency Analysis Page 104 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 86 ## Promote All Abilities Bikeways on All Roads in the Half-Mile ## Arterial Grid (cont.) Several next steps include: Keep the momentum going on these joint projects: ## •Hamline Ave Bike Lane Demonstration Project ## •County Road C 4-3 Lane Conversion Continue involvement in the planning process for a longer-term re- visioning of Rice Street. ## Share this Plan and collaborate with Ramsey County, Hennepin County, Met Council, and MnDOT. Seek funding: By jointly applying for regional, state or federal grants, the city and county can secure funding for infrastructure upgrades, like protected bike lanes and safer intersections. This collaboration ensures a unified approach to road safety that addresses both local needs and county goals to create a more comprehensive, sustainable and bike- friendly transportation network. ## Supplemental Opportunity: Identify Opportunities for ## Diagonal Connections The Network Mapping Workshop conducted with local stakeholders during development of this plan identified a network of “diagonal” bikeways as a visionary future desire for cycling in the City. “Diagonal” bikeways refer to bikeways that traverse the city without adhering to the existing street network and would be for exclusive use of people riding bikes, walking, or rolling. Achieving such facilities in Roseville is challenging as the road network and land uses are already substantially built out and acquisition of the land necessary to construct significant segments of a diagonal trail network could be cost prohibitive. While the priorities of this plan are to develop a bikeway network in Roseville relying on the existing roadway network, the City can take steps towards implementing Diagonal Connections as part of their priority bike network: 1.Trail Connection to Local Roads: The City can take steps towards making the existing street network more “diagonal” by identify opportunities to close small gaps from local roads to parks, businesses, and other frequently traveled places. These gaps will be identified when redevelopment or other activities occur. Examples opportunities for these connections include the trail by Applewood Overlook to Pescal Street, Dionne Street to Cub parking lot, and Hillscourte South to Mackubin Street. 2.Opportunities for Right-of-Way Acquisition: Through redevelopment or other activities, the City can look for opportunities to purchase the right- of-way necessary to construct larger segments of diagonal bikeways. Page 105 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 87 ## Address Complex Intersections and Barrier Crossings ## Complex Intersections A bikeway is only as strong as its weakest intersection or crossing. Intersections are the place where many vehicle-bike conflicts occur. Many intersections in Roseville are highly complex with multiple vehicle lanes, wide travel lanes, long crossing distances and overly wide turn radii which encourage drivers to make fast, sweeping turns. These auto-oriented designs increase exposure and risk for people biking (and walking), reduce safety and comfort of the bike network and can discourage bicycling altogether. As Roseville works to make streets safer and more welcoming for bicyclists of all abilities, intersection design is key – don’t drop bicyclists at the intersection. As a next step, consider doing a city-wide or corridor specific intersection and crossing safety analysis to prioritize intersections and crossings and start to identify safety countermeasures and treatments. Remember: just because people are not observed biking at an intersection does not mean they do not want to bike through that intersection. Be proactive - observed bicycle traffic should not be a major input when deciding to build safer intersections. Page 106 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 88 ## Address Complex Intersections and Barrier Crossings (cont.) ## Barrier Crossings A key takeaway from the network mapping workshop conducted during the development of this plan was the presence of major barriers throughout the city, namely Hwy 36, I-35W, and Hwy 280 as well as associated interchanges and on and off ramps. These freeways prevent low-traffic, low-volume local streets from being viable bikeways for cyclists as these local streets do not connect over these barriers, forcing cyclists on to high-volume, high-speed arterial streets. The continuity of this half-mile arterial street network is why an all-abilities bikeway network should be implemented on these streets, but safe and comfortable crossings of barriers are essential to making the network truly all-abilities. Part of improving barrier crossings for people biking will be improvements to traffic signal operation and timing – things like leading pedestrian intervals, shorter signal phases, no right turn on red, and bike specific signal heads can improve the experience for cyclists crossing complex intersections. Since Roseville does not operate any traffic signals, the City will need to coordinate with agency partners to consider these changes. MnDOT’s on-going Highway 36 study, of which Roseville has been a key partner, is an important component to start addressing crossings over Hwy 36 for bicyclists in Roseville. The study started in 2023 and concluded in April 2025 and extends from Cleveland Ave to the west to the Bruce Vento Trail in Maplewood to the east. The study describes ideas the study team analyzed to meet the project’s purpose and need, including ideas for improving safety and comfort for people crossing over Hwy 36 by bike or foot. These ideas could include closing ramp access, adding protected or buffered bike lanes, setting a target speed of 30 mph on streets that cross Hwy 36, intersection treatments designed to slow driver speeds to less than 10 mph at crossings, and restricting right turns during red lights. “Snelling Ave is downright dangerous on a bike but the only remotely viable options (Hamline and Fairview) are also dangerous and incredibly dilapidated. Could probably say the same regarding Hwy 61, using English or Edgerton as alternatives, these roads/crossings were not designed with cyclists in mind.” - Comment from MnDOT’s Highway 36 study survey In addition to Hwy 36, other barriers were identified as missing or in need of improvement during development of this Bike Plan: •Hwy 280 in the southwest corner of the city ## •Co Rd C2 over I-35W Page 107 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 89 ## Fill Gaps in Existing Shared-Use Path Network Roseville has been building shared-use paths through its parks and in partnership with Ramsey County on several county roads, including County Road C. A large section of County Road C west of Lexington Ave includes a shared-use path. A gap exists in this path ## between Cleveland Ave and Long Lake Rd. During the engagement process of this Plan, many people shared the desire for this gap to be closed. Additionally, a gaps in the shared-use path on Fairview Ave exist as well. Filling in shorter, missing segments of shared-use path along already existing bikeways is one step towards creating a network of all-abilities bikeways through the city to connect more people to important destinations like ## Rosedale Center (Fairview Ave) and the Diagonal Trail in Minneapolis (County Road C). Shared-use paths and driveways: As shared-use path gaps are closed and new shared use paths are built, ensure where the path crosses driveways that the path cross slope is maintained (does not dip down). This prioritizes bicyclists’ safety and through movement at minor crossings such as driveways. It slows motorists turning movements, increases motorists yielding behavior, and reduces conflicts between people driving and bicycling. As an added benefit, communities find snow removal of paths that do not dip down at driveways work better for snowplow equipment. During a bike audit along Rice St the group noted that the numerous driveways along the existing shared-use path created a bumpy ride. Maintaining a relatively flat cross slope where a shared-use path crosses a driveway creates a more comfortable bikeway for bicyclists. Page 108 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 90 Continue identifying and start improving a network of Traffic- ## Calmed Local Streets Roseville’s local street network (city-owned streets) feature limited direct, continuous bikeways for bicyclists. Routes using local streets are winding, have dead-ends or are super blocks (long blocks with limited to no connectivity due to large parks, schools, shopping centers or other land use decisions). However, local streets are currently some of the only alternatives to roads like Snelling Ave and Co Rd C, and many cyclists in Roseville take advantage of local streets to supplement their bikeways. This means bicyclists ride in mixed traffic or on a shoulder that is shared with pedestrians and/or parked vehicles. Some local streets are posted at 30 mph or higher. For example, parts of Victoria Ave are posted at 35 mph. The higher vehicle speeds reduce the safety and comfort for bicyclists, and most people who fall into the “interested but concerned” bicyclist category are likely not to bike. While the local street network works for some bicyclists, it does not work for everyone. There is an opportunity to strengthen a subset of Roseville’s local streets to create a Traffic-Calmed Local Streets network for riders of all abilities. This network can be achieved through incremental, cost-effective approaches. ## Identify the Network Traffic-Calmed Local Streets can supplement, be an alternative to, or provide connection to the All-Abilities Bikeways identified in the ## Priority Bike Network. A Traffic-Calmed Local Street network is especially important as All Abilities bikeways might take longer to implement given the need for reconstruction and coordination with other agencies to complete these routes. This plan has identified three local bikeways (routes #8, #17, and #21 in the Priority Bike Network) to become Traffic-Calmed Local Streets, but the City should work to identify additional bikeways to add to this network that supplement and connect to the All Abilities routes by: •Reviewing local network links identified in the 2021 Pathways plan •Identifying continuous local street bikeways •Reviewing public engagement collected for this Plan •Conducting additional engagement on additional streets to add to the ## Traffic-Calmed Local Streets network •Aiming for one east-west and one north-south traffic-calmed local street within each ½ mile quadrant Page 109 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 91 Continue identifying and start improving a network of Traffic- ## Calmed Local Streets (cont.) ## Use Paint Once the city has identified the Traffic-Calmed Local Street network, paint can be used to implement some routes. This approach allows for the city to take a context sensitive and Safe System Approach to Complete Streets. By narrowing travel lanes and reallocating space for painted bike lanes or painted buffered bike lanes, Roseville can create a clear visual separation between people biking and driving. Painted bike lanes also help slow motorists’ speeds and serve as a visible reminder to drivers to be mindful of people biking, promoting a more cautious and considerate driving culture. Importantly, using paint provides a more flexible solution, allowing cities to test the effectiveness of new traffic patterns and adjust as needed. By reallocating space in this way, cities demonstrate a commitment to making streets safer and more accessible for all road users. See Core Concepts in Appendix A. ## Target Speed and Posted Speed The default speed limit on Roseville’s local streets is 30 mph, which is too high for cyclists of all abilities to feel comfortable sharing space with vehicle traffic. To start slowing driver operating speeds and improving safety for all users on Traffic-Calmed Local Streets, the city should consider establishment of a 20-25 mph target speed for local streets within the Traffic-Calmed Local Street Network. This slower target speed cannot be achieved solely through changing the posted speed. Achieving operating speeds that align with the target speed is primarily accomplished through geometric changes designed with the target speed in mind such as traffic calming elements and on-road buffered bike lanes. City staff should work with City Council to develop a program that allows reduction of speed limits on Traffic-Calmed Local Streets once an agreed upon set of traffic calming tools or elements have been implemented or are planned to be implemented. Page 110 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 92 ## 4. Identify and Improve a Network of Traffic-Calmed Local ## Streets ## Bicycle Boulevards: Some bikeways in the Traffic-Calmed Local Street network might be low-speed and low-volume enough that painted bike lanes are not necessary and elements design to calm traffic and alert drivers to presence of cyclists at key locations are appropriate. Many of these bikeways simply require the city to sign and use pavement markings to mark these as shared use streets or “bicycle boulevards.” In some cases, additional traffic calming tools should be considered to encourage motorists go 20 mph and vehicle volumes stay low. These traffic calming tools can include neighborhood traffic circles, chicanes, or median refuges with vehicle closure. Roseville should consult the guides listed in Appendix A of this plan for additional treatments to consider for Bicycle Boulevards. How these treatments work together to form a Bicycle Boulevard is described in Appendix A. In general, additional analysis will be require to determine which tools are necessary to support slower speeds, as it may be more than simple paint and signage. See the discussion of target speed and posted speed on the prior page for additional context. ## Safe Routes to School Prioritizing bikeways to schools is a crucial first step in building a city’s bike network because it encourages active transportation for children and promotes healthy habits from a young age. Ensuring safe routes for students also addresses concerns about road safety, giving parents more confidence to allow their children to bike to school. By focusing on schools, Roseville can establish a core network of bikeways that connect key neighborhoods, laying the foundation for a more extensive, citywide bike infrastructure. The minimum allowable speed limit in a Minnesota school zone is 15 mph but lowering city street speed limits around schools to 20 mph may also address road safety. Improving biking conditions on a network of Traffic-Calmed Local Streets will provide a more comfortable parallel bikeways to high- volume, high-speed major roads and can be implemented faster than improvements to major roads (many of which are county roads). In addition to calming traffic, these treatments also act as wayfinding for cyclists, alerting them that they are on a route intended for them. Page 111 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 93 ## Policy ## Recommendation: What is being suggested? Description: What is the policy? Action Step: What is a next step(s) to take? ## Toward Zero ## Deaths Make an official and public commitment to a ## Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) goal to achieve zero traffic fatalities or severe injuries among all road users within a set timeframe. Toward Zero Deaths is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries. A local policy lays out goals, timeline, stakeholders and a commitment to multi-disciplinary cooperation and collaboration, community engagement, transparency and equitable outcomes. Establishing a Toward Zero Deaths goal can help justify other changes in how streets are designed, maintained and operated which improves safety for all. Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) is a program and network to support local and statewide traffic fatalities or severe injury reduction goals. Learn more and join the Minnesota TZD network. ❑Establish the city’s own TZD goal in collaboration with the mayor, city council and city manager. ❑Continue participation in ## County and City of St Paul TZD efforts ## Safer Vehicle ## Operating ## Speeds Take advantage of reconstruction projects to change street design to support slower operating speeds. Roseville acknowledges that posted speed limits are less effective than roadway design at managing driver speeds. The city would like to begin pursuing changes in their street design process that prioritize slower vehicle operating speeds. This could look like establishing a target speed (the speed you want drivers to go) for different street types (e.g., 20 mph for Traffic- Calmed Local Streets) and establishing design standards to be used during redesign and reconstruction of these streets. ❑Establish a “Target Speed” street design policy that states street elements should be designed to the desired operating speed, rather than the speed drivers are already going. ❑Establish target speeds for different street types in the city. ## Policy Recommendations The following are policy recommendations that support bicycling. Page 112 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 94 ## Policy ## Recommendation: What is being suggested? Description: What is the policy? Action Step: What is a next step(s) to take? ## Land Use, ## Development ## Code/ ## Ordinance Ensure current land use code and ordinances support compact, mixed-use practices to help encourage bicycling trips. Retail and commercial sites are important local and regional destinations in Roseville. Land use is a big factor in supporting active trips. Retail and commercial development has historically prioritized the car with strip-style development which creates unclear and indirect access to business entrances for people arriving on foot or bike. As development and redevelopment of retail sites in Roseville continues, the city has an opportunity to influence the built form through development ordinance and design review. Compact, mixed-use development with short blocks, pedestrian and bike-only links or trails, buildings that front the street, ample bike parking and reducing or eliminating off-street parking requirements for vehicles allows active transportation (including transit) to work more effectively. Higher housing density located in and near retail or mixed-use commercial districts is key to addressing local housing needs and mode shift, as well. Density can be done well. For example, many cities are incentivizing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on residential, single family zoned, properties by eliminating off-street parking requirements to support this incremental development strategy. ❑Review and revise land use development code/ ordinances to help promote bicycle trips ## Policy Recommendations The following are policy recommendations that support bicycling. Page 113 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 95 ## Policy ## Recommendation: What is being suggested? Description: What is the policy? Action Step: What is a next step(s) to take? ## Bike Parking in ## Private ## Development Update parking ordinances to ensure bike parking is required in future development projects. Secure, well located and highly accessible bike parking is necessary for biking to be a viable transportation option. It is a relatively compact and cost-effective parking strategy. Many cities have minimum ordinances for bike parking and bike racks. These requirements can include the number of spaces needed, where to locate them, availability of short- and long-term options and how to install. To encourage installation of bike parking ordinances often apply to new developments, counting toward vehicle parking ## requirements. Resource: Essentials of Bike Parking, Association of ## Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals ❑Review current parking and land-use/development ordinances to evaluate bike parking requirements and develop recommendations to increase bike parking. ❑Develop a grant program to support private property owners who want to add bike parking. ## Equitable Enforcement of ## Cyclist Behavior Revise existing city policies related to disparities in traffic enforcement to include cyclists. Roseville Police Department currently has policies in place to address the disparities communities of color experienced related to traffic enforcement. Currently, the policies only refer to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The current policy stresses a focus on moving violations versus equipment violations. ❑Review and revise city policies related to disparities in traffic enforcement to include bicyclists. ❑As is also referenced in the TZD practice recommendation in this Plan, consider use of TZD grant funds for additional driver and cyclists education efforts on bicycling laws and cyclist right of way. ## Policy Recommendations The following are policy recommendations that support bicycling. Page 114 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 96 ## Practice ## Recommendation: What is being suggested? Description: What is the practice? Action Step: What is a next step(s) to take? ## Complete ## Streets ## Checklist ## Revise Complete Streets checklist to be used by public works and planning. Roseville currently has a Complete Streets checklist, but it should be revisited and updated. Complete Streets checklists are used to help put Complete Streets Policies into practice. Checklists are used at the start of any project to summarize data and information about the street and surrounding land use, record details of the project and identify specific improvements that can be incorporated. See an example of a Complete Streets Checklist. ❑Review and revise the ## existing Complete Streets Checklist using current standards and examples to use in support of Complete Streets Policy. ## Design ## Guidance Adopt or endorse national or state street design guides. Rewriting street design guides can be time intensive and cost prohibitive for many communities. To support implementation of Complete Streets and this Plan, adopt or endorse state and national design guides to enable the use of best practices and design flexibility. Such as: ## •National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) ## Urban Street Design Guide ## •NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and Designing for Small Things with Wheels (guidance on e-bikes) ## •Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Small Town and Rural ## Multimodal Networks ## •MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual ## •American Association of State Highway and Transportation ## Officials (AASHTO) Comprehensive Bike Guide ❑Review and adopt or endorse design guide(s) to be used by city staff and consultants on street projects. ## Practice Recommendations The following are practice or agency procedure recommendations that support bicycling. Page 115 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 97 ## Practice ## Recommendation: What is being suggested? Description: What is the practice? Action Step: What is a next step(s) to take? ## Bike Parking in ## Street Projects Update bicycle parking practices to expand bicycle racks in the right of way to accommodate the diversity of bike types (e.g., adaptive and cargo bikes, e-bikes, scooters). Cities have been providing on-street parking, often for free, for vehicles for decades. To help encourage and achieve local mode shift goals and ensure biking is a viable transportation option, future capital street projects should include an approach to reserving curbside or furnishing zone of sidewalks for bike racks. These spaces should include covered, weather protected, options, support electric charging needs and accommodate larger bikes (e.g., cargo or adaptive). Bike racks can be customized to reflect the character of the community and serve as a public art element. ❑Complete a citywide evaluation of bike rack installations and develop a process to identify locations to add bike racks across the city. ❑Install bicycle parking with all capital street projects. ## Maintenance ## Procedures Ensure annual budget provides for regular maintenance and minor repairs of active transportation facilities. Shared use paths, on-street bicycle facilities and sidewalks require regular maintenance. People walking and biking are more susceptible than motor vehicles to pavement irregularities such as cracks, potholes, broken glass and gravel. Establishing an annual process for assessing conditions and determining where repairs are needed, including addressing ADA compliance is an important practice to maintaining active transportation network. ❑Complete a condition inventory of sidewalks, multi-use trails or paths and ADA compliance. ❑Establish and prioritize repair locations using a data driven approach based on inventory data. ## Practice Recommendations The following are practice or agency procedure recommendations that support bicycling. Page 116 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 98 ## Practice ## Recommendation: What is being suggested? Description: What is the practice? Action Step: What is a next step(s) to take? ## Winter ## Maintenance Ensure that bikeways and walkways are cleared from snow in a timely manner. Maintaining winter access for people walking and biking in the city is critically important. Winter maintenance often requires many people and institutions throughout the city help ensure paths are kept clear and passable. Currently, the city is responsible for clearing all shared-use paths within the city within 24 hours after snow has quit falling and after a minimum of 2” of accumulated snowfall. Additionally, the city does not allow parking on city streets after two or more inches of continuous snowfall until streets have been plowed curb to curb. ❑Expand education and awareness efforts for residents and businesses on city’s bikeway snow and ice removal ordinance, related standards and responsibilities. ❑Establish a city-run corner and transit clearing program. ❑Determine best way to ensure existing and future on-street bike lanes and bicycle boulevards have the same quality of snow and ice clearance as protected bike lanes and shared use paths. ## Practice Recommendations The following are practice or agency procedure recommendations that support bicycling. Page 117 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 99 ## Practice ## Recommendation: What is being suggested? Description: What is the practice? Action Step: What is a next step(s) to take? ## Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) ## Continue TZD program efforts through participation in County- wide program facilitated ## by the Saint Paul Police Department. Toward Zero Deaths is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries. A local policy lays out goals, timeline, stakeholders and a commitment to multi- disciplinary cooperation and collaboration, community engagement, transparency and equitable outcomes. Establishing a Toward Zero Deaths goal can help justify other changes in how streets are designed, maintained and operated which improves safety for all. Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) is a program and network to support local and statewide traffic fatalities or severe injury reduction goals. Learn more and join the Minnesota TZD network. Roseville currently partners with the Saint Paul Police Department for a county-wide TZD grant provided through MnDOT. ❑Continue, and explore expanding, the city’s role in county-wide TZD efforts coordinated by the Saint Paul Police Department. ❑Explore using funds available through TZD program participation towards driver and cyclist education on bicycling laws and rights of way. ## Practice Recommendations The following are practice or agency procedure recommendations that support bicycling. Page 118 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 100 ## Program Recommendations The following are program recommendations that support bicycling. ## Program ## Recommendation: What is being suggested? Description: What is the program? Action Step: What is a next step(s) to take? ## Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Continue to support local ## Safe Routes to School program efforts. Safe Routes to School programs improve safety, reduce traffic and improve air quality near schools through a multidisciplinary approach that is structured around the “6 Es.” These are evaluation, education, encouragement, equity, engagement and engineering. Cities can continue to support by leading engineering efforts by prioritizing active transportation investments along key routes to school. Related to education, in 2023 state legislation was passed that requires all public-school students receive instruction in safe walking and bicycling skills at the beginning of the school year. Resource: Walk and Bike Safety ## Education for K-8 Students, MnDOT ❑Work with school partners to apply for MnDOT planning, boost or infrastructure grants to enact this Plan and a SRTS ## Plan. See MnDOT’s Safe ## Routes to School Grant Funding page for opportunities. ## School Streets and Park & ## Walk ## Programs ## Pilot School Streets and/or Park & Walk in partnership with neighborhood schools. School Streets are temporary car-free zones adjacent to or leading up to a school. School Streets help manage traffic and improve safety during school arrival and dismissal by eliminating vehicle congestion in front of schools. This creates an environment that encourages children and caregivers to walk, bike, roll, play and learn before, during and after school. Often School Streets are paired with Park & Walk zones where school buses and/or caregivers drop students at an established location(s) a few blocks from school. School staff, parents and other volunteers walk the kids to/from school. ❑Collaborate with school partners and neighborhood residents on a School ## Street pilot. See Minnesota ## Safe Routes to School Guide ## on School Streets and Park & Walk and learn from ## Seattle Department of ## Transportation School Streets. Page 119 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 101 ## Program Recommendations The following are program recommendations that support bicycling. ## Program ## Recommendation: What is being suggested? Description: What is the program? Action Step: What is a next step(s) to take? ## Bicycle Rack and Corral ## Cost Share ## Program Develop a bike rack and corral cost share program. Cities are instituting bike rack programs that allows businesses and other eligible organizations to request bike racks for the public right of way in front of their property. This includes bike corrals that can store 10-12 bikes , including covered, placed in an on-street parking stall. Minneapolis allows eligible businesses to be reimbursed up to 50% of the bicycle rack or corral cost and 50% of the installation cost. Schools, libraries, parks and other eligible public facilities can request to receive racks at no cost. ❑Assess current bike parking availability and develop recommendations to increase bike parking through a cost share bike rack and corral program. ## E-bike Rebate ## Program Develop and pilot a local E-bike rebate program, and promote existing rebate opportunities To encourage more people to bicycle and make bicycling more accessible, the City can establish its own e-bike rebate program and promote existing opportunities such as the Minnesota State E-bike Rebate Program. ❑Research how other cities have established rebate programs. ## Wayfinding ## Program Continue developing a wayfinding program for cyclists Help existing and new bicyclists identify bikeways they can use, either now or as the Priority Network is implemented. Wayfinding can consist of virtual or print maps, signage and pavement markings. ❑Continue developing a wayfinding program for cyclists ❑Develop a plan to update the wayfinding program annually as projects are completed and based on public feedback Page 120 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 102 ## Program Recommendations The following are program recommendations that support bicycling. ## Program ## Recommendation: What is being suggested? Description: What is the program? Action Step: What is a next step(s) to take? ## Monitoring and Reporting Develop a program to collect metrics related to cyclist comfort and safety. While an annual monitoring and reporting program for bike improvements in the city is likely not within current staff capacity, the City could still explore establishing a bicycle improvement monitoring program focusing on key metrics and in coordination with the County such as: Level of Traffic Stress, for both roadway segments and intersections, length of improvements completed on the Connected Ramsey Community Network and Design Flag Analysis at intersections. ❑Collect baseline data related to cyclist safety and comfort in Roseville in the next 1-2 years. Page 121 of 165 ## B I C Y C L E P L A N ## Roseville, MN 103 ## Next Steps for Collaboration with Ramsey County ## Next StepDescription 1 Apply for the Ramsey County Active Living Ramsey Communities Be Active! Be Green! Bench Program and create more bench corridors throughout Roseville. 2 Continue participating in the Active Living Ramsey Communities Coalition. Active Living Ramsey Communities Mission: Active Living Ramsey Communities improves health through community engagement. We promote and create environments that make it safe and easy for everyone to integrate physical activity into their daily routine. 3 Continue to update Roseville's Pedestrian and Bicycle inventory and plans in the Ramsey Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle GIS Clearinghouse through Active Living Ramsey Communities GIS Clearinghouse—Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a collaborative mapping tool that can represent spatial and geographic data. It is used to map, visualize, analyze and interpret data to better understand relationships, patterns and trends between local government jurisdictions in Ramsey County. Pedestrian and bicycle data is collected annually from Ramsey County communities by Ramsey County. An updated set of current bicycle and pedestrian related data for the whole county in maintained by Ramsey County. This collaborative works helps make applying for funding easier. 4 Collaborate, support and update the Ramsey Countywide Connect Ramsey Communities Bicycle Network and continue to include it in the Roseville Comprehensive Plan. Roseville has included the Connect Ramsey Communities Bicycle Network in its planning documents for the past two decades and will continue to do so in the future. Page 122 of 165 ## Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission ## Agenda Item DATE: April 28, 2026 ITEM: 6.c. ## ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pathway Master Plan - Continued Segment Review ## Background The City of Roseville last updated the Pathway Master Plan in 2021. That update was relatively minor in the sense that the only part of the plan that was reviewed was the segments. Pathway segments that had been completed were removed and six new segments were added and ranked on the preference list. The last major upgrade to the plan was in 2018 in conjunction with the Transportation Plan which was a requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. During that update, the entire plan was looked at including goals, objectives, changing from a priority list to a preference list, and adding/removing pathway segments. Once again, since the 2021 plan was adopted, there have been many changes to the system. New pathways have been added and there have been additional requests for additional pathway segments to be added to the Pathway Master Plan. Similar to the last update, staff would use the Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission as a working group to update the plan. In addition to looking to add/remove segments, staff would also like to look at the plan to make it clearer and more concise and easier to understand for the public. There have been additional corridor studies completed since the 2018 plan update including the TH 36 study, Victoria Pathway Study, County Road B/Snelling Study, etc., and many changes in land use, including new parks and new housing. We would also like to tie in the draft Bike Plan. The goal is to bring the final draft of the Bike Plan to the commission in September for final recommendation. Staff would also like to review if the current preference list is using the correct criteria to rank the segments. Staff would use this PWETC meeting to review the current plan and highlight areas of the plan that will be looked at. Staff would like feedback on the process and what information the commission will need. The overall update will likely be done over a series of meetings. Similar to the 2021 update, we would hold public hearings for segments that are being considered to be added. Residents near and adjacent to the segments would be invited to the meeting. Below is a draft task list of items to be updated or incorporated into the new plan. Additionally, they are in a proposed order for the commission to address. We can use the meeting to further refine which items the commission would like to review and discuss. ## • Existing Plan Review • Should any segments be added to the pathway master plan? o Should any Parks & Recreation Constellation Plan segments be pathway master plan segments? • Bike plan incorporation ## • Preference List Ranking o Modify the Criteria • Provide recommendations to the 5-year CIP The commission began this review at the November 2025 meeting and continued at the March 2026 meeting. This is a continuation of that discussion and includes an update (Attachment 3) which includes additional segments to consider. Attachment 5 now includes updated notes from both meetings. Page 123 of 165 ## Recommendation Review existing segments and provide feedback and recommendations. Review existing constellation plan and provide feedback and recommendations if any of these segments should be added to the pathway master plan. Review possible pathway segments to add and provide feedback and recommendations. ## Attachments ## 1. Existing Pathway Master Plan ## 2. Existing Constellation Plan ## 3. Possible Pathway Master Plan Segments to Add ## 4. Existing Pathway CIP ## 5. Pathway Master Plan Segment List Page 124 of 165 ## City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan Page 45 Attachment 1 Page 125 of 165 ## City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan Page 46 Page 126 of 165 ## City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan Page 47 Page 127 of 165 ## City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan Page 48 Page 128 of 165 ## City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan Page 52 Attachment 2 Page 129 of 165 0700100020003000 ## Feet ## DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 651-792-7044. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. ## PotentialPathwayMasterPlanSegments ## Lake Josephine ## Park ## Lake ## McCarrons ## County Park ## Ramsey County ## Open Space (Ramsey County) ## Lake Josephine ## Beach Park ## Park ## Lake ## Langton ## Sandcastle ## Park ## Lake ## Park ## Oasis ## Central ## Park ## Acorn ## Park ## Central ## Park ## Central ## Park ## Park ## Villa ## Park ## Keya ## Park ## Park ## Tamarack ## Park ## Reservoir Woods ## Reservoir Woods ## Rosebrook ## Langton ## Park ## Park ## Autumn ## Grove ## Park ## Park ## Cottontail ## Veterans ## Park ## Howard ## Johnson ## Park ## Willow Pond ## Cedarholm ## Golf Course ## Evergreen ## Park ## Keller ## Mayflower ## Park ## Lexington ## Park ## Bruce ## Russell ## Park ## Pioneer ## Park ## Concordia ## Park ## Materion ## Park ## Central ## Park North ## Owasso ## Ballfields ## Valley ## Park ## Owasso ## Hills ## Park ## Ladyslipper ## Park ## Mapleview ## Park ## Woodhill ## Park ## Applewood ## Park ## Applewood ## Overlook ## Memorial ## Park ## Midland ## Gardens ## Park ## Unity ## Park ## Sunset ## Park ## Lake ## Josephine ## Lake ## Owasso ## McCarrons ## Lake ## Lake ## Bennett ## Pond ## Willow ## Zimmerman ## Lake ## Oasis Pond ## Lake ## Johanna ## Lake ## Langton ## Walsh ## Lake ## BRENNER ## ST ## LYDIA ## AVE ## LYDIA ## CT ## P ## A ## T ## T ## O ## N ## RD ## HIGHCREST ## RD ## M ## IL ## L ## W ## O ## O ## D ## ST ## BRENNER ## CT ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## STANBRIDGE ## ST ## MANSON ## ST ## MAPLE ## LN ## OLD ## HIGHWAY 8 ## TROSETH ## RD ## COUNTY HIGHWAY 88 ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## RD ## PARTRIDGE ## ROAD C2 ## CENTRE ## POINTE ## DR ## AVE ## INTERSTATE 35W ## ROAD C ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## CLEVELAND ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## PATTON ## RD ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## WILDER ## ST ## MOUNT ## RD ## RIDGE ## EVELYN ## ST ## BRENNER ## AVE ## PRIOR ## CIR ## ST ## ARTHUR ## DR ## AVE ## MILDRED ## ST ## S ## H ## O ## R ## E ## W ## O ## O ## D ## AVE ## BRENNER ## LYDIA ## ARTHUR ## PL ## MILDRED ## DR ## STANBRIDGE ## MILLWOOD ## MAPLE ## ST ## WHEELER ## WHEELER ## SHORE ## CURV ## WOOD ## LN ## LN ## ST ## ALDINE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## L ## I ## N ## C ## O ## L ## N ## DR ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## AVE ## COUNTY ## RD C2 ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## CENTENNIAL ## DR ## DR ## TERRACE ## LINCOLN ## DR ## SNELLING ## FAIRVIEW ## ST ## ARTHUR ## ROAD C ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## PRIOR ## AVE ## COUNTY ## ASBURY ## RIDGEWOOD ## ST ## RD ## GLEN HILL ## RD ## AVE ## AVE ## WOODLYNN ## CLARMAR ## BRENNER ## AVE ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## AVE ## DR ## AVE ## LYDIA ## ASBURY ## ARONA ## SIMPSON ## PASCAL ## AVE ## WOOD ## MILL ## ST ## ST ## ALBERT ## ALBERT ## SHELDON ## ST ## JOSEPHINE ## E SNELLING ## COUNTY ## RD C2 ## RD ## AVE ## MERRILL ## ST ## BELAIR ## CIR ## ST ## FERNWOOD ## LEXINGTON ## RD C2 ## DR ## DR ## TERRACE ## ROAD C ## TERRACE ## DR ## AVE ## DR ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## GRIGGS ## ST ## CIV ## IC ## C ## E ## NT ## E ## R DR ## LEXINGTON ## HAMLINE ## AVE ## JUDITH ## RD ## RAMBLER ## PRIMROSE ## CURV ## TALISMAN ## C ## U ## R ## V ## SHELDON ## ST ## JUDITH ## WOODHILL ## HURON ## FERN ## MERRILL ## DELL ## WOOD ## WOOD ## COUNTY ## E SNELLING ## DR ## ST ## AVE ## WHEATON ## HEINEL ## DR ## CIR ## HEINEL ## DR ## TERRACE ## ST ## DALE ## ST. ## ALBANS ## ST ## IONA ## LN ## HEINEL ## S OWASSO ## ROAD C ## AVE ## ST ## CHURCHILL ## OXFORD ## ST ## AGLEN ## AVE ## AVE ## LAKEVIEW ## AVE ## JUDITH ## WOODHILL ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## ST ## DR ## KENT ## BLVD ## SANDY HOOK ## DR ## RD ## SANDY HOOK ## DR ## LITTLE BAY ## TURNSTONE CT (Private) ## S OWASSO ## BLVD ## LYNN AVE ## WOOD- ## HI ## G ## H ## P ## OIN ## T ## E ## CURV ## OWASSO ## HILLS ## DR ## N ## H ## IL ## LS ## C ## O ## U ## R ## TE ## W ## HILLSVIEW ## HILLSVIEW ## E ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## G ## AL ## TI ## E ## R ## ST ## M ## A ## T ## I ## L ## D ## A ## ST ## MAPLE ## LN ## RD C2 ## AVE ## DR ## LN ## IONA ## CIR ## IRENE ## CIR ## RAMBLER ## CT ## TERRACE ## DR ## JUDITH ## AVE ## CENTENNIAL ## DR ## WESTERN ## AVE ## ROAD C ## AVE ## VIRGINIA ## ST ## FARRINGTON ## ST ## MATILDA ## ST ## GALTIER ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## OAKCREST ## AVE ## LN ## OAKCREST ## BROOKS ## CIR ## ROSE PL ## COHANSEY ## CIR ## AVE ## AVE ## MATILDA ## ST ## GALTIER ## ST ## RD B2 ## ST ## WEWERS ## RD ## CIR ## GALTIER ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## ST ## WESTERN ## AVE ## AVE ## TOP HILL ## CIR ## DR ## SOUTHHILL ## ST ## SANDHURST ## RICE ## AVE ## HAND ## AVE ## AUERBACH ## MATILDA ## DR ## CENTENNIAL ## PASCAL ## PASCAL ## ST ## ST ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## CHURCHILL ## CHATSWORTH ## ST ## ST ## WOODLYNN ## BRENNER ## AVE ## LYDIA ## MILLWOOD ## ST ## OXFORD ## LYDIA ## DR ## DR ## LYDIA ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## ST ## MILTON ## ST ## BRENNER ## AVE ## MILLWOOD ## AVE ## ST ## AVON ## W OWASSO ## BLVD ## RD C2 ## ORCHARD ## LN ## CIR ## STANBRIDGE ## HIGH- ## COURTE ## MAPLE LANE ## CT ## COUNTY ## FARRINGTON ## MILLWOOD ## ST ## WESTERN ## AVE ## BLVD ## S ## O ## W ## A ## S ## S ## O ## WOODLYNN ## AVE ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## NORTHVIEW ## ST ## RICE ## LN ## IONA ## ST ## RICE ## CT ## TER ## R ## A ## C ## E ## H ## I ## L ## L ## S ## C ## O ## UR ## T ## E ## S ## COUNTY ## WOODHILL ## IONA ## MACKUBIN ## ST ## KENT ## ST ## ST ## MACKUBIN ## ST ## DALE ## AVE ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## COUNTY ## AVE ## ST ## IRENE ## ST ## IRENE ## ST ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## CT ## IRENE ## CIR ## VIRGINIA ## CIR ## FARRINGTON ## MATILDA ## BROOKS ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## ST ## ROAD B ## ST ## MINNESOTA ## LOVELL ## LOVELL ## AVE ## GRAND- ## VIEW ## COHANSEY ## SA ## N ## D ## H ## U ## R ## S ## T ## DR ## BLVD ## COUNTY ## VICTORIA ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## BROOKS ## TRANSIT ## ST ## BLVD ## ST ## ALBEMARLE ## ST ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## WOODBRIDGE ## ST ## MCCARRON ## ST ## AVE ## WESTERN ## AVE ## FARRINGTON ## ST ## AVE ## ROMA ## AVE ## DIONNE ## GALTIER ## GRANDVIEW ## AVE ## MINNESOTA ## AVE ## W ## O ## O ## D ## B ## R ## I ## D ## G ## E ## S ## T ## CIR ## CAPITOL ## MARION ## VIEW ## VIEW ## CAPITOL ## VIEW ## CAPITOL ## CIR ## ST ## DR ## BOS ## S ## A ## R ## D ## ST ## IRENE ## AVE ## OXFORD ## CHURCHILL ## AGLEN ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## COUNTY ## ROSE ## OAKCREST ## FISK ## ST ## GROTTO ## ST ## AVE ## RD B2 ## PL ## AVE ## ST ## ALADDIN ## CT ## R ## O ## S ## E ## T ## O ## WN ## DR ## OVERLOOK ## ST ## ST ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## PL ## NANCY ## AVE ## VICTORIA ## LOVELL ## GRANDVIEW ## COPE ## GROT ## ST. ## ALBA ## NS ## TO ## ST ## ST ## ST ## NANCY ## PL ## AVE ## SANDHURST ## MILTON ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## SANDHURST ## DR ## ROAD B ## ST ## GROTTO ## ST ## SHERREN ## ST ## OXFORD ## GRANDVIEW ## ST ## ST ## LOVELL ## LOVELL LN (Private) ## SHERREN ## COUNTY ## AVE ## CURV ## SNELLING ## ROSE ## PL ## PASCAL ## ST ## ST ## S ## I ## M ## P ## S ## O ## N ## AVE ## BROOKS ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## ST ## A ## R ## O ## N ## A ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## ST ## HOLTON ## ST ## ALBERT ## ST ## SHELDON ## COUNTY ## OAKCREST ## ROSE ## PL ## WILLOW ## CIR ## DEL ## LW ## O ## O ## D ## CIR ## CHRISTY ## RD B2 ## AVE ## WILLOW ## BROOKS ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## LN ## PL ## ROSE ## ST ## DUNLAP ## ST ## ST ## F ## E ## R ## N ## W ## O ## O ## D ## DUNLAP ## ST ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## COLONIAL ## DR (Private) ## ST ## ALBERT ## ST ## DR ## SANDHURST ## AVE ## ST ## DELLWOOD ## DELLWOOD ## ST ## MERRILL ## ST ## ROAD B ## ST ## FERNWOOD ## SHERREN ## ST ## RD ## LAURIE ## DR ## SANDHURST ## LEXINGTON ## AVE ## AVE ## COMMERCE ## COUNTY ## ST ## PASCAL ## OAKCREST ## AVE ## AVE ## ROSE ## ROSE ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## ST ## ST ## SAMUEL (Private) ## LN ## S RIDGEWOOD ## N RIDGEWOOD ## LN ## LN ## MID OAKS ## MID OAKS ## RD ## AVE ## BURKE ## ELDRIDGE ## BELMONT ## RYAN ## SHRYER ## SKILLMAN ## PL ## OAKCREST ## BEACON ## ST ## WHEELER ## AVE ## ST ## HERSCHEL ## RD B2 ## COUNTY ## CLEVELAND ## CLE ## VE ## LA ## N ## D ## A ## VE ## AVE ## COUNTY ## AVE ## AVE ## PL ## AVE ## ST ## ALDINE ## ST ## CHARLOTTE ## ST ## FRY ## SNELLING ## RD B2 ## PERIMETER ## DR ## FAIRVIEW ## N GLUEK LN ## S GLUEK LN ## LN ## ROAD B ## AVE ## HERSCHEL ## RD ## MIDLOTHIAN ## RD ## HADDINGTON ## RD ## LAURIE ## N HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## S HIGHWAY 36 ## SERVICE DR ## PRIOR ## F ## E ## R ## R ## IS ## FERRIS LN ## G ## L ## U ## E ## K ## COUNTY ## WEST ## WALNUT ## ST ## ROSE ## PL ## TERMINAL ## ST ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## RD ## RD ## TERMINAL ## ST ## ST. CROIX ## ST. CROIX ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST. STEPHEN ## ST ## FULHAM ## LAURIE ## RD ## MA ## RI ## O ## N ## RD ## ACORN ## RD ## N HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## S HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## WALNUT ## INTERSTATE ## 35W ## EUSTIS ## ST (Private) ## FULHAM ## COUNTY ## FAIRWAYS ## LN ## FULHAM ## ST ## LAKE ST ## MIDLAND ## HILLS ## RD ## ROAD B ## N ROSEWOOD ## LN ## LN ## S ROSEWOOD ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## DRAPER ## HYTHE ## DR ## CIR ## ST ## ROSELAWN ## AVE ## CLEVELAND ## AVE ## AVE ## PRIOR ## SHARONDALE ## AVE ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## WILDER ST ## ELDRIDGE ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## EVERGREEN ## CT ## AVE ## AVE ## SHRYER ## RYAN ## L ## O ## R ## E ## N ## RD ## AU ## T ## U ## M ## N ## PL ## ROSELAWN ## TATUM ## ST ## DR ## DRAPER ## FAIRVIEW ## BEACON ## HERSCHEL ## WHEELER ## ST ## ST ## ST ## SHRYER ## RYAN ## ELDRIDGE ## SKILLMAN ## ALDINE ## ST ## AVE ## AVE ## SNELLING ## AVE ## AVE ## FRY ## MIDLOTHIAN ## RD ## ROSELAWN ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## LN ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## ASBURY ## ST ## ST ## ARONA ## ST ## SIMPSON ## ST ## PASCAL ## SHRYER ## ELDRIDGE ## BURKE ## RYAN ## DRAPER ## ROSELAWN ## DELL ## WOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## LN ## SKILLMAN ## BELMONT ## AVE ## ST ## DELLWOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## WOOD ## FERN ## ST ## AVE ## LINDY ## KARYL ## PL ## LEXINGTON ## AVE ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## LARPENTEUR ## GARDEN ## AVE ## LEXINGTON ## AUTUMN ## ST ## SUMMER ## ST ## RUGGLES ## ST ## ST ## RUGGLES ## AVE ## HURON ## MERRILL ## DELLWOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## ROMA ## FERNWOOD ## ST ## DUNLAP ## LINDY ## AVE ## DIONNE ## ST ## AVE ## AVE ## BURKE ## PARKER ## SHRYER ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## DRAPER ## HARRIET LN (Private) ## OXFORD ## ST ## ST ## CHATSWORTH ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## ROSELAWN ## PARKER ## AVE ## AVON ## ALAMEDA ## ST ## ST ## AVE ## E ## L ## D ## R ## ID ## G ## E ## LN ## BELMONT ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## SHRYER ## DALE ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## RD ## ST ## ALAMEDA ## STUBER ## ROMA ## ST ## ST. ALBANS ## AVE ## RIDGE ## EMERALD ## CT ## PINEVIEW ## DR ## ALTA VISTA ## CT ## DALE ## DALE ## ST ## LARPENTEUR ## ST ## RUGGLES ## ST ## ROMA ## AVE ## DIONNE ## ST ## CHATSWORTH ## ST ## ST ## ST ## OXFORD ## AGLEN ## C ## O ## H ## A ## NSEY ## SHRYER ## AVE ## AVE ## MOUNDSVIEW ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## C ## R ## E ## S ## C ## E ## N ## T ## LN ## COHANSEY ## BLVD ## ST ## IRENE ## WESTERN ## HAND ## AVE ## AVE ## FARRINGTON ## BURKE ## BLVD ## N MCCARRONS ## DR ## N MCCARRONS ## ELMER ## ST ## GIES- ## MANN ## AVE ## ST ## WILLIAM ## ST ## MARION ## CT ## ALBEMARLE ## WILLIAM ## ST ## BLVD ## CT ## WOODBRIDGE ## MARION ## ST ## RICE ## PL ## WAGENER ## SHADY ## AVE ## BEACH ## CENTER ## ST ## HILLTOP ## AVE ## GLENWOOD ## AVE ## WAGNER ## ST ## AVE ## KENT ## ST ## AVE ## ROSELAWN ## BAYVIEW ## AVON ## ST ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## ROSEGATE ## RO ## S ## E ## G ## AT ## E ## DR ## STATE HIGHWAY 280 ## ROSE- ## DALE ## WEST- ## WOOD ## LYDIA ## AVE ## W SNELLING ## DR ## W SNELLING ## DR ## ROSE VISTA ## CT (Private) ## FERNWOOD ## CT ## FERN- ## WOOD ## ST ## DUNLAP ## ST ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## F ## A ## RR ## IN ## G ## TO ## N ## CT ## COHAN- ## SEY CIR ## AVE ## WOOD- ## BRIDGE ## S HIGHWAY 36 ## SERVICE DR ## FARRING- ## TON ## KENT ## ST ## CHANDLER ## AVE (Private) (Private) ## SAND- ## HURST ## CIR (Private) (Private) ## LN (Private) ## MIDLAND ## VIEW CT ## ST ## ARONA ## CT ## APPLEWOOD ## TERRACE ## DR ## NATURE ## VIEW CT (Priv) ## E SNELLING ## SVC DR ## C ## L ## E ## V ## E ## LA ## N ## D ## S ## E ## R ## VI ## C ## E ## D ## R ## S COUNTY C SERVICE DR ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## CT ## W ## O ## O ## D ## R ## U ## F ## F ## S ## M ## CC ## A ## R ## R ## O ## N ## S ## RESERVOIR ## WOODS CIR ## AMERICAN ST ## MOUNT RIDGE RD ## IONA LN ## TWIN ## L ## A ## N ## G ## T ## O ## N LAKE ## MAPLE LN ## DUNLAP ## ST ## DUNLAP ## CIR (Private) ## MILTON ## CT ## A ## SB ## U ## R ## Y ## S ## T ## PKWY ## DR ## TWIN LAKES ## PKWY ## LAKES ## MCCARRONS PL (Priv) ## LEXINGTON (Priv) ## HERSCHEL ST (Priv) ## PL ## LAURIE CT (Priv) ## Lake Josephine ## Park ## Lake ## McCarrons ## County Park ## Ramsey County ## Open Space (Ramsey County) ## Lake Josephine ## Beach Park ## Park ## Lake ## Langton ## Sandcastle ## Park ## Lake ## Park ## Oasis ## Central ## Park ## Acorn ## Park ## Central ## Park ## Central ## Park ## Park ## Villa ## Park ## Keya ## Park ## Park ## Tamarack ## Park ## Reservoir Woods ## Reservoir Woods ## Rosebrook ## Langton ## Park ## Park ## Autumn ## Grove ## Park ## Park ## Cottontail ## Veterans ## Park ## Howard ## Johnson ## Park ## Willow Pond ## Cedarholm ## Golf Course ## Evergreen ## Park ## Keller ## Mayflower ## Park ## Lexington ## Park ## Bruce ## Russell ## Park ## Pioneer ## Park ## Concordia ## Park ## Materion ## Park ## Central ## Park North ## Owasso ## Ballfields ## Valley ## Park ## Owasso ## Hills ## Park ## Ladyslipper ## Park ## Mapleview ## Park ## Woodhill ## Park ## Applewood ## Park ## Applewood ## Overlook ## Memorial ## Park ## Midland ## Gardens ## Park ## Unity ## Park ## Sunset ## Park ## Lake ## Josephine ## Lake ## Owasso ## McCarrons ## Lake ## Lake ## Bennett ## Pond ## Willow ## Zimmerman ## Lake ## Oasis Pond ## Lake ## Johanna ## Lake ## Langton ## Walsh ## Lake ## BRENNER ## ST ## LYDIA ## AVE ## LYDIA ## CT ## P ## A ## T ## T ## O ## N ## RD ## HIGHCREST ## RD ## M ## IL ## L ## W ## O ## O ## D ## ST ## BRENNER ## CT ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## STANBRIDGE ## ST ## MANSON ## ST ## MAPLE ## LN ## OLD ## HIGHWAY 8 ## TROSETH ## RD ## COUNTY HIGHWAY 88 ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## RD ## PARTRIDGE ## ROAD C2 ## CENTRE ## POINTE ## DR ## AVE ## INTERSTATE 35W ## ROAD C ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## CLEVELAND ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## PATTON ## RD ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## WILDER ## ST ## MOUNT ## RD ## RIDGE ## EVELYN ## ST ## BRENNER ## AVE ## PRIOR ## CIR ## ST ## ARTHUR ## DR ## AVE ## MILDRED ## ST ## S ## H ## O ## R ## E ## W ## O ## O ## D ## AVE ## BRENNER ## LYDIA ## ARTHUR ## PL ## MILDRED ## DR ## STANBRIDGE ## MILLWOOD ## MAPLE ## ST ## WHEELER ## WHEELER ## SHORE ## CURV ## WOOD ## LN ## LN ## ST ## ALDINE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## L ## I ## N ## C ## O ## L ## N ## DR ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## AVE ## COUNTY ## RD C2 ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## CENTENNIAL ## DR ## DR ## TERRACE ## LINCOLN ## DR ## SNELLING ## FAIRVIEW ## ST ## ARTHUR ## ROAD C ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## PRIOR ## AVE ## COUNTY ## ASBURY ## RIDGEWOOD ## ST ## RD ## GLEN HILL ## RD ## AVE ## AVE ## WOODLYNN ## CLARMAR ## BRENNER ## AVE ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## AVE ## DR ## AVE ## LYDIA ## ASBURY ## ARONA ## SIMPSON ## PASCAL ## AVE ## WOOD ## MILL ## ST ## ST ## ALBERT ## ALBERT ## SHELDON ## ST ## JOSEPHINE ## E SNELLING ## COUNTY ## RD C2 ## RD ## AVE ## MERRILL ## ST ## BELAIR ## CIR ## ST ## FERNWOOD ## LEXINGTON ## RD C2 ## DR ## DR ## TERRACE ## ROAD C ## TERRACE ## DR ## AVE ## DR ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## GRIGGS ## ST ## CIV ## IC ## C ## E ## NT ## E ## R DR ## LEXINGTON ## HAMLINE ## AVE ## JUDITH ## RD ## RAMBLER ## PRIMROSE ## CURV ## TALISMAN ## C ## U ## R ## V ## SHELDON ## ST ## JUDITH ## WOODHILL ## HURON ## FERN ## MERRILL ## DELL ## WOOD ## WOOD ## COUNTY ## E SNELLING ## DR ## ST ## AVE ## WHEATON ## HEINEL ## DR ## CIR ## HEINEL ## DR ## TERRACE ## ST ## DALE ## ST. ## ALBANS ## ST ## IONA ## LN ## HEINEL ## S OWASSO ## ROAD C ## AVE ## ST ## CHURCHILL ## OXFORD ## ST ## AGLEN ## AVE ## AVE ## LAKEVIEW ## AVE ## JUDITH ## WOODHILL ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## ST ## DR ## KENT ## BLVD ## SANDY HOOK ## DR ## RD ## SANDY HOOK ## DR ## LITTLE BAY ## TURNSTONE CT (Private) ## S OWASSO ## BLVD ## LYNN AVE ## WOOD- ## HI ## G ## H ## P ## OIN ## T ## E ## CURV ## OWASSO ## HILLS ## DR ## N ## H ## IL ## LS ## C ## O ## U ## R ## TE ## W ## HILLSVIEW ## HILLSVIEW ## E ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## G ## AL ## TI ## E ## R ## ST ## M ## A ## T ## I ## L ## D ## A ## ST ## MAPLE ## LN ## RD C2 ## AVE ## DR ## LN ## IONA ## CIR ## IRENE ## CIR ## RAMBLER ## CT ## TERRACE ## DR ## JUDITH ## AVE ## CENTENNIAL ## DR ## WESTERN ## AVE ## ROAD C ## AVE ## VIRGINIA ## ST ## FARRINGTON ## ST ## MATILDA ## ST ## GALTIER ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## OAKCREST ## AVE ## LN ## OAKCREST ## BROOKS ## CIR ## ROSE PL ## COHANSEY ## CIR ## AVE ## AVE ## MATILDA ## ST ## GALTIER ## ST ## RD B2 ## ST ## WEWERS ## RD ## CIR ## GALTIER ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## ST ## WESTERN ## AVE ## AVE ## TOP HILL ## CIR ## DR ## SOUTHHILL ## ST ## SANDHURST ## RICE ## AVE ## HAND ## AVE ## AUERBACH ## MATILDA ## DR ## CENTENNIAL ## PASCAL ## PASCAL ## ST ## ST ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## CHURCHILL ## CHATSWORTH ## ST ## ST ## WOODLYNN ## BRENNER ## AVE ## LYDIA ## MILLWOOD ## ST ## OXFORD ## LYDIA ## DR ## DR ## LYDIA ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## ST ## MILTON ## ST ## BRENNER ## AVE ## MILLWOOD ## AVE ## ST ## AVON ## W OWASSO ## BLVD ## RD C2 ## ORCHARD ## LN ## CIR ## STANBRIDGE ## HIGH- ## COURTE ## MAPLE LANE ## CT ## COUNTY ## FARRINGTON ## MILLWOOD ## ST ## WESTERN ## AVE ## BLVD ## S ## O ## W ## A ## S ## S ## O ## WOODLYNN ## AVE ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## NORTHVIEW ## ST ## RICE ## LN ## IONA ## ST ## RICE ## CT ## TER ## R ## A ## C ## E ## H ## I ## L ## L ## S ## C ## O ## UR ## T ## E ## S ## COUNTY ## WOODHILL ## IONA ## MACKUBIN ## ST ## KENT ## ST ## ST ## MACKUBIN ## ST ## DALE ## AVE ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## COUNTY ## AVE ## ST ## IRENE ## ST ## IRENE ## ST ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## CT ## IRENE ## CIR ## VIRGINIA ## CIR ## FARRINGTON ## MATILDA ## BROOKS ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## ST ## ROAD B ## ST ## MINNESOTA ## LOVELL ## LOVELL ## AVE ## GRAND- ## VIEW ## COHANSEY ## SA ## N ## D ## H ## U ## R ## S ## T ## DR ## BLVD ## COUNTY ## VICTORIA ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## BROOKS ## TRANSIT ## ST ## BLVD ## ST ## ALBEMARLE ## ST ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## WOODBRIDGE ## ST ## MCCARRON ## ST ## AVE ## WESTERN ## AVE ## FARRINGTON ## ST ## AVE ## ROMA ## AVE ## DIONNE ## GALTIER ## GRANDVIEW ## AVE ## MINNESOTA ## AVE ## W ## O ## O ## D ## B ## R ## I ## D ## G ## E ## S ## T ## CIR ## CAPITOL ## MARION ## VIEW ## VIEW ## CAPITOL ## VIEW ## CAPITOL ## CIR ## ST ## DR ## BOS ## S ## A ## R ## D ## ST ## IRENE ## AVE ## OXFORD ## CHURCHILL ## AGLEN ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## COUNTY ## ROSE ## OAKCREST ## FISK ## ST ## GROTTO ## ST ## AVE ## RD B2 ## PL ## AVE ## ST ## ALADDIN ## CT ## R ## O ## S ## E ## T ## O ## WN ## DR ## OVERLOOK ## ST ## ST ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## PL ## NANCY ## AVE ## VICTORIA ## LOVELL ## GRANDVIEW ## COPE ## GROT ## ST. ## ALBA ## NS ## TO ## ST ## ST ## ST ## NANCY ## PL ## AVE ## SANDHURST ## MILTON ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## SANDHURST ## DR ## ROAD B ## ST ## GROTTO ## ST ## SHERREN ## ST ## OXFORD ## GRANDVIEW ## ST ## ST ## LOVELL ## LOVELL LN (Private) ## SHERREN ## COUNTY ## AVE ## CURV ## SNELLING ## ROSE ## PL ## PASCAL ## ST ## ST ## S ## I ## M ## P ## S ## O ## N ## AVE ## BROOKS ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## ST ## A ## R ## O ## N ## A ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## ST ## HOLTON ## ST ## ALBERT ## ST ## SHELDON ## COUNTY ## OAKCREST ## ROSE ## PL ## WILLOW ## CIR ## DEL ## LW ## O ## O ## D ## CIR ## CHRISTY ## RD B2 ## AVE ## WILLOW ## BROOKS ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## LN ## PL ## ROSE ## ST ## DUNLAP ## ST ## ST ## F ## E ## R ## N ## W ## O ## O ## D ## DUNLAP ## ST ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## COLONIAL ## DR (Private) ## ST ## ALBERT ## ST ## DR ## SANDHURST ## AVE ## ST ## DELLWOOD ## DELLWOOD ## ST ## MERRILL ## ST ## ROAD B ## ST ## FERNWOOD ## SHERREN ## ST ## RD ## LAURIE ## DR ## SANDHURST ## LEXINGTON ## AVE ## AVE ## COMMERCE ## COUNTY ## ST ## PASCAL ## OAKCREST ## AVE ## AVE ## ROSE ## ROSE ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## ST ## ST ## SAMUEL (Private) ## LN ## S RIDGEWOOD ## N RIDGEWOOD ## LN ## LN ## MID OAKS ## MID OAKS ## RD ## AVE ## BURKE ## ELDRIDGE ## BELMONT ## RYAN ## SHRYER ## SKILLMAN ## PL ## OAKCREST ## BEACON ## ST ## WHEELER ## AVE ## ST ## HERSCHEL ## RD B2 ## COUNTY ## CLEVELAND ## CLE ## VE ## LA ## N ## D ## A ## VE ## AVE ## COUNTY ## AVE ## AVE ## PL ## AVE ## ST ## ALDINE ## ST ## CHARLOTTE ## ST ## FRY ## SNELLING ## RD B2 ## PERIMETER ## DR ## FAIRVIEW ## N GLUEK LN ## S GLUEK LN ## LN ## ROAD B ## AVE ## HERSCHEL ## RD ## MIDLOTHIAN ## RD ## HADDINGTON ## RD ## LAURIE ## N HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## S HIGHWAY 36 ## SERVICE DR ## PRIOR ## F ## E ## R ## R ## IS ## FERRIS LN ## G ## L ## U ## E ## K ## COUNTY ## WEST ## WALNUT ## ST ## ROSE ## PL ## TERMINAL ## ST ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## RD ## RD ## TERMINAL ## ST ## ST. CROIX ## ST. CROIX ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST. STEPHEN ## ST ## FULHAM ## LAURIE ## RD ## MA ## RI ## O ## N ## RD ## ACORN ## RD ## N HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## S HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## WALNUT ## INTERSTATE ## 35W ## EUSTIS ## ST (Private) ## FULHAM ## COUNTY ## FAIRWAYS ## LN ## FULHAM ## ST ## LAKE ST ## MIDLAND ## HILLS ## RD ## ROAD B ## N ROSEWOOD ## LN ## LN ## S ROSEWOOD ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## DRAPER ## HYTHE ## DR ## CIR ## ST ## ROSELAWN ## AVE ## CLEVELAND ## AVE ## AVE ## PRIOR ## SHARONDALE ## AVE ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## WILDER ST ## ELDRIDGE ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## EVERGREEN ## CT ## AVE ## AVE ## SHRYER ## RYAN ## L ## O ## R ## E ## N ## RD ## AU ## T ## U ## M ## N ## PL ## ROSELAWN ## TATUM ## ST ## DR ## DRAPER ## FAIRVIEW ## BEACON ## HERSCHEL ## WHEELER ## ST ## ST ## ST ## SHRYER ## RYAN ## ELDRIDGE ## SKILLMAN ## ALDINE ## ST ## AVE ## AVE ## SNELLING ## AVE ## AVE ## FRY ## MIDLOTHIAN ## RD ## ROSELAWN ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## LN ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## ASBURY ## ST ## ST ## ARONA ## ST ## SIMPSON ## ST ## PASCAL ## SHRYER ## ELDRIDGE ## BURKE ## RYAN ## DRAPER ## ROSELAWN ## DELL ## WOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## LN ## SKILLMAN ## BELMONT ## AVE ## ST ## DELLWOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## WOOD ## FERN ## ST ## AVE ## LINDY ## KARYL ## PL ## LEXINGTON ## AVE ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## LARPENTEUR ## GARDEN ## AVE ## LEXINGTON ## AUTUMN ## ST ## SUMMER ## ST ## RUGGLES ## ST ## ST ## RUGGLES ## AVE ## HURON ## MERRILL ## DELLWOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## ROMA ## FERNWOOD ## ST ## DUNLAP ## LINDY ## AVE ## DIONNE ## ST ## AVE ## AVE ## BURKE ## PARKER ## SHRYER ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## DRAPER ## HARRIET LN (Private) ## OXFORD ## ST ## ST ## CHATSWORTH ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## ROSELAWN ## PARKER ## AVE ## AVON ## ALAMEDA ## ST ## ST ## AVE ## E ## L ## D ## R ## ID ## G ## E ## LN ## BELMONT ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## SHRYER ## DALE ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## RD ## ST ## ALAMEDA ## STUBER ## ROMA ## ST ## ST. ALBANS ## AVE ## RIDGE ## EMERALD ## CT ## PINEVIEW ## DR ## ALTA VISTA ## CT ## DALE ## DALE ## ST ## LARPENTEUR ## ST ## RUGGLES ## ST ## ROMA ## AVE ## DIONNE ## ST ## CHATSWORTH ## ST ## ST ## ST ## OXFORD ## AGLEN ## C ## O ## H ## A ## NSEY ## SHRYER ## AVE ## AVE ## MOUNDSVIEW ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## C ## R ## E ## S ## C ## E ## N ## T ## LN ## COHANSEY ## BLVD ## ST ## IRENE ## WESTERN ## HAND ## AVE ## AVE ## FARRINGTON ## BURKE ## BLVD ## N MCCARRONS ## DR ## N MCCARRONS ## ELMER ## ST ## GIES- ## MANN ## AVE ## ST ## WILLIAM ## ST ## MARION ## CT ## ALBEMARLE ## WILLIAM ## ST ## BLVD ## CT ## WOODBRIDGE ## MARION ## ST ## RICE ## PL ## WAGENER ## SHADY ## AVE ## BEACH ## CENTER ## ST ## HILLTOP ## AVE ## GLENWOOD ## AVE ## WAGNER ## ST ## AVE ## KENT ## ST ## AVE ## ROSELAWN ## BAYVIEW ## AVON ## ST ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## ROSEGATE ## RO ## S ## E ## G ## AT ## E ## DR ## STATE HIGHWAY 280 ## ROSE- ## DALE ## WEST- ## WOOD ## LYDIA ## AVE ## W SNELLING ## DR ## W SNELLING ## DR ## ROSE VISTA ## CT (Private) ## FERNWOOD ## CT ## FERN- ## WOOD ## ST ## DUNLAP ## ST ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## F ## A ## RR ## IN ## G ## TO ## N ## CT ## COHAN- ## SEY CIR ## AVE ## WOOD- ## BRIDGE ## S HIGHWAY 36 ## SERVICE DR ## FARRING- ## TON ## KENT ## ST ## CHANDLER ## AVE (Private) (Private) ## SAND- ## HURST ## CIR (Private) (Private) ## LN (Private) ## MIDLAND ## VIEW CT ## ST ## ARONA ## CT ## APPLEWOOD ## TERRACE ## DR ## NATURE ## VIEW CT (Priv) ## E SNELLING ## SVC DR ## C ## L ## E ## V ## E ## LA ## N ## D ## S ## E ## R ## VI ## C ## E ## D ## R ## S COUNTY C SERVICE DR ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## CT ## W ## O ## O ## D ## R ## U ## F ## F ## S ## M ## CC ## A ## R ## R ## O ## N ## S ## RESERVOIR ## WOODS CIR ## AMERICAN ST ## MOUNT RIDGE RD ## IONA LN ## TWIN ## L ## A ## N ## G ## T ## O ## N LAKE ## MAPLE LN ## DUNLAP ## ST ## DUNLAP ## CIR (Private) ## MILTON ## CT ## A ## SB ## U ## R ## Y ## S ## T ## PKWY ## DR ## TWIN LAKES ## PKWY ## LAKES ## MCCARRONS PL (Priv) ## LEXINGTON (Priv) ## HERSCHEL ST (Priv) ## PL ## LAURIE CT (Priv) ## D ## L ## E ## A ## H ## B ## J ## I ## F ## K ## G ## C ## P ## M ## N ## O ## School ## School ## School ## School ## School ## School ## School ## School ## School ## School ## School ## School 6 7 28 5 35 1 10 2 8 9 11 13 17 24 37 ## 3B ## 25B ## 12C ## 3A ## 12A ## 12B ## 12B 14 36 33 23 30 ## 25A ## 25A 21 22 34 32 27 31 29 18 20 19 40 2 2 2 ## 12C ## L ## Data Sources ## * Ramsey County GIS (2/14/2026) ## * City of Roseville Community Development ## * City of Roseville Finance Department ## Prepared by: Engineering Department 3/17/2026 ## Potential Pathway Master Plan Segments ## Park ## Golf Course ## School ## Pathway Master Plan Segments (16.5 miles) Existing Trail (37.3 miles) Existing Sidewalk (47.2 miles) Existing Footpath (1.1 miles) Boardwalk- 0.6 miles ## Proposed Planned Master Plan Segments (4.2 miles) Attachment 3 Page 130 of 165 0700100020003000 ## Feet ## DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 651-792-7075. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. 2026_NewPathway_CIP ## Lake Josephine ## Park ## Lake ## McCarrons ## County Park ## Ramsey County ## Open Space (Ramsey County) ## Lake Josephine ## Beach Park ## Park ## Lake ## Langton ## Sandcastle ## Park ## Lake ## Park ## Oasis ## Central ## Park ## Acorn ## Park ## Central ## Park ## Central ## Park ## Park ## Villa ## Park ## Keya ## Park ## Park ## Tamarack ## Park ## Reservoir Woods ## Reservoir Woods ## Rosebrook ## Langton ## Park ## Park ## Autumn ## Grove ## Park ## Park ## Cottontail ## Veterans ## Park ## Howard ## Johnson ## Park ## Willow Pond ## Cedarholm ## Golf Course ## Evergreen ## Park ## Keller ## Mayflower ## Park ## Lexington ## Park ## Bruce ## Russell ## Park ## Pioneer ## Park ## Concordia ## Park ## Materion ## Park ## Central ## Park North ## Owasso ## Ballfields ## Valley ## Park ## Owasso ## Hills ## Park ## Ladyslipper ## Park ## Mapleview ## Park ## Woodhill ## Park ## Applewood ## Park ## Applewood ## Overlook ## Memorial ## Park ## Midland ## Gardens ## Park ## Unity ## Park ## Sunset ## Park ## Lake ## Josephine ## Lake ## Owasso ## McCarrons ## Lake ## Lake ## Bennett ## Pond ## Willow ## Zimmerman ## Lake ## Oasis Pond ## Lake ## Johanna ## Lake ## Langton ## Walsh ## Lake ## BRENNER ## ST ## LYDIA ## AVE ## LYDIA ## CT ## PATT ## ON ## RD ## HIGHCREST ## RD ## MILLW ## OOD ## ST ## BRENNER ## CT ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## STANBRIDGE ## ST ## MANSON ## ST ## MAPLE ## LN ## OLD ## HIGHWAY 8 ## TROSETH ## RD ## COUNTY HIGHWAY 88 ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## RD ## PARTRIDGEROAD C2 ## CENTRE ## POINTE ## DR ## AVE ## INTERSTATE 35W ## ROAD C ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## CLEVELAND ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## PATTON ## RD ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## WILDER ## ST ## MOUNT ## RD ## RIDGE ## EVELYN ## ST ## BRENNER ## AVE ## PRIOR ## CIR ## ST ## ARTHUR ## DR ## AVE ## MILDRED ## ST ## SH ## OREW ## OOD ## AVE ## BRENNER ## LYDIA ## ARTHUR ## PL ## MILDRED ## DR ## STANBRIDGE ## MILLWOOD ## MAPLE ## ST ## WHEELER ## WHEELER ## SHORE ## CURV ## WOOD ## LN ## LN ## ST ## ALDINE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## LI ## NC ## OLN ## DR ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## AVE ## COUNTY ## RD C2 ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## CENTENNIAL ## DR ## DR ## TERRACE ## LINCOLN ## DR ## SNELLING ## FAIRVIEW ## ST ## ARTHUR ## ROAD C ## RD C2 ## COUNTY ## PRIOR ## AVE ## COUNTY ## ASBURY ## RIDGEWOOD ## ST ## RD ## GLEN HILL ## RD ## AVE ## AVE ## WOODLYNN ## CLARMAR ## BRENNER ## AVE ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## AVE ## DR ## AVE ## LYDIA ## ASBURY ## ARONA ## SIMPSON ## PASCAL ## AVE ## WOOD ## MILL ## ST ## ST ## ALBERT ## ALBERT ## SHELDON ## ST ## JOSEPHINE ## E SNELLING ## COUNTY ## RD C2 ## RD ## AVE ## MERRILL ## ST ## BELAIR ## CIR ## ST ## FERNWOOD ## LEXINGTON ## RD C2 ## DR ## DR ## TERRACE ## ROAD C ## TERRACE ## DR ## AVE ## DR ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## GRIGGS ## ST ## CIVIC CE ## NTER D ## R ## LEXINGTON ## HAMLINE ## AVE ## JUDITH ## RD ## RAMBLER ## PRIMROSE ## CURV ## TALISMAN ## CUR ## V ## SHELDON ## ST ## JUDITH ## WOODHILL ## HURON ## FERN ## MERRILL ## DELL ## WOOD ## WOOD ## COUNTY ## E SNELLING ## DR ## ST ## AVEWHEATON ## HEINEL ## DR ## CIR ## HEINEL ## DR ## TERRACE ## ST ## DALE ## ST. ## ALBANS ## ST ## IONA ## LN ## HEINEL ## S OWASSO ## ROAD C ## AVE ## ST ## CHURCHILL ## OXFORD ## ST ## AGLEN ## AVE ## AVE ## LAKEVIEW ## AVE ## JUDITH ## WOODHILL ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## ST ## DR ## KENT ## BLVD ## SANDY HOOK ## DR ## RD ## SANDY HOOK ## DR ## LITTLE BAY ## TURNSTONE CT (Private) ## S OWASSO ## BLVD ## LYNN AVE ## WOOD- ## HIGH ## POINTE ## CURV ## OWASSO ## HILLS ## DR ## N ## HILLSC ## OURTE ## W ## HILLSVIEW ## HILLSVIEW ## E ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## GALTIE ## R ## ST ## MAT ## ILD ## A ## ST ## MAPLE ## LN ## RD C2 ## AVE ## DR ## LN ## IONA ## CIR ## IRENE ## CIR ## RAMBLER ## CT ## TERRACE ## DR ## JUDITH ## AVE ## CENTENNIAL ## DR ## WESTERN ## AVE ## ROAD C ## AVE ## VIRGINIA ## ST ## FARRINGTON ## ST ## MATILDA ## ST ## GALTIER ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## OAKCREST ## AVE ## LN ## OAKCREST ## BROOKS ## CIR ## ROSE PL ## COHANSEY ## CIR ## AVE ## AVE ## MATILDA ## ST ## GALTIER ## ST ## RD B2 ## ST ## WEWERS ## RD ## CIR ## GALTIER ## ST ## MARION ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## ST ## WESTERN ## AVE ## AVE ## TOP HILL ## CIR ## DR ## SOUTHHILL ## ST ## SANDHURST ## RICE ## AVE ## HAND ## AVE ## AUERBACH ## MATILDA ## DR ## CENTENNIAL ## PASCAL ## PASCAL ## ST ## ST ## COUNTY ## COUNTY ## ROAD D ## CHURCHILL ## CHATSWORTH ## ST ## ST ## WOODLYNN ## BRENNER ## AVE ## LYDIA ## MILLWOOD ## ST ## OXFORD ## LYDIA ## DR ## DR ## LYDIA ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## ST ## MILTON ## ST ## BRENNER ## AVE ## MILLWOOD ## AVE ## ST ## AVON ## W OWASSO ## BLVD ## RD C2 ## ORCHARD ## LN ## CIR ## STANBRIDGE ## HIGH- ## COURTE ## MAPLE LANE ## CT ## COUNTY ## FARRINGTON ## MILLWOOD ## ST ## WESTERN ## AVE ## BLVD ## S OW ## ASSO ## WOODLYNN ## AVE ## ST ## WOODBRIDGE ## NORTHVIEW ## ST ## RICE ## LN ## IONA ## ST ## RICE ## CT ## TERR ## ACE ## HILL ## SCO ## URTE ## S ## COUNTY ## WOODHILL ## IONA ## MACKUBIN ## ST ## KENT ## ST ## ST ## MACKUBIN ## ST ## DALE ## AVE ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## COUNTY ## AVE ## ST ## IRENE ## ST ## IRENE ## ST ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## CT ## IRENE ## CIR ## VIRGINIA ## CIR ## FARRINGTON ## MATILDA ## BROOKS ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## ST ## ROAD B ## ST ## MINNESOTA ## LOVELL ## LOVELL ## AVE ## GRAND- ## VIEW ## COHANSEY ## SAN ## DHU ## RST ## DR ## BLVD ## COUNTY ## VICTORIA ## SEXTANTAVE ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## BROOKS ## TRANSIT ## ST ## BLVD ## ST ## ALBEMARLE ## ST ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## WOODBRIDGE ## ST ## MCCARRON ## ST ## AVE ## WESTERN ## AVE ## FARRINGTON ## ST ## AVE ## ROMA ## AVE ## DIONNE ## GALTIER ## GRANDVIEW ## AVE ## MINNESOTA ## AVE ## WOODB ## RID ## GE ## S ## T ## CIR ## CAPITOL ## MARION ## VIEW ## VIEW ## CAPITOL ## VIEW ## CAPITOL ## CIR ## ST ## DR ## BOSS ## AR ## D ## ST ## IRENE ## AVE ## OXFORD ## CHURCHILL ## AGLEN ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST ## COUNTY ## ROSE ## OAKCREST ## FISK ## ST ## GROTTO ## ST ## LOVELL LN N ## AVE ## RD B2 ## PL ## AVE ## ST ## ALADDIN ## CT ## ROSE ## TOWN ## DR ## OVERLOOK ## ST ## ST ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## PL ## NANCY ## AVE ## VICTORIA ## LOVELL ## GRANDVIEW ## COPE ## GROT ## ST. ## ALBA ## NS ## TO ## ST ## ST ## ST ## NANCY ## PL ## AVE ## SANDHURST ## MILTON ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## SANDHURST ## DR ## ROAD B ## ST ## GROTTO ## ST ## SHERREN ## ST ## OXFORD ## GRANDVIEW ## ST ## ST ## LOVELL ## LOVELL LN S ## LOVELL LN (Private) ## SHERREN ## COUNTY ## AVE ## CURV ## SNELLING ## ROSE ## PL ## PASCAL ## ST ## ST ## SIMP ## S ## ON ## AVE ## BROOKS ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## ST ## ARO ## NA ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## ST ## HOLTON ## ST ## ALBERT ## ST ## SHELDON ## COUNTY ## OAKCREST ## ROSE ## PL ## WILLOW ## CIR ## DELLW ## OOD ## CIR ## CHRISTY ## RD B2 ## AVE ## WILLOW ## BROOKS ## AVE ## TRANSIT ## AVE ## SEXTANT ## AVE ## LN ## PL ## ROSE ## ST ## DUNLAP ## ST ## ST ## FERN ## WOOD ## DUNLAP ## ST ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## COLONIALDR (Private) ## ST ## ALBERT ## ST ## DR ## SANDHURST ## AVE ## ST ## DELLWOOD ## DELLWOOD ## ST ## MERRILL ## ST ## ROAD B ## ST ## FERNWOOD ## SHERREN ## ST ## RD ## LAURIE ## DR ## SANDHURST ## LEXINGTON ## AVE ## AVE ## COMMERCE ## COUNTY ## ST ## PASCAL ## OAKCREST ## AVE ## AVE ## ROSE ## ROSE ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## ST ## ST ## SAMUEL (Private) ## LN ## S RIDGEWOOD ## N RIDGEWOOD ## LN ## LN ## MID OAKS ## MID OAKS ## RD ## AVE ## BURKE ## ELDRIDGE ## BELMONT ## RYAN ## SHRYER ## SKILLMAN ## PL ## OAKCREST ## BEACON ## ST ## WHEELER ## AVE ## ST ## HERSCHEL ## RD B2 ## COUNTY ## CLEVELAND ## CLEVELA ## ND ## AVE ## AVE ## COUNTY ## AVE ## AVE ## PL ## AVE ## ST ## ALDINE ## ST ## CHARLOTTE ## ST ## FRY ## SNELLING ## RD B2 ## PERIMETER ## DR ## FAIRVIEW ## N GLUEK LN ## S GLUEK LN ## LN ## ROAD B ## AVE ## HERSCHEL ## RD ## MIDLOTHIAN ## RDHADDINGTON ## RD ## LAURIE ## N HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## S HIGHWAY 36 ## SERVICE DR ## PRIOR ## FERRIS ## FERRIS LN ## GLU ## EK ## COUNTY ## WEST ## WALNUT ## ST ## ROSE ## PL ## TERMINAL ## ST ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## RD ## RD ## TERMINAL ## ST ## ST. CROIX ## ST. CROIX ## ST ## ST ## ST ## ST. STEPHEN ## ST ## FULHAM ## LAURIE ## RD ## MARIO ## N ## RD ## ACORN ## RD ## N HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## S HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR ## WALNUT ## INTERSTATE ## 35W ## EUSTIS ## ST (Private) ## FULHAM ## COUNTY ## FAIRWAYS ## LN ## FULHAM ## ST ## LAKE ST ## MIDLAND ## HILLS ## RD ## ROAD B ## N ROSEWOOD ## LN ## LN ## S ROSEWOOD ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## DRAPER ## HYTHE ## DR ## CIR ## ST ## ROSELAWN ## AVE ## CLEVELAND ## AVE ## AVE ## PRIOR ## SHARONDALE ## AVE ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## WILDER ST ## ELDRIDGE ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## EVERGREEN ## CT ## AVE ## AVE ## SHRYER ## RYAN ## LO ## RE ## N ## RD ## AUT ## U ## MN ## PL ## ROSELAWN ## TATUM ## ST ## DR ## DRAPER ## FAIRVIEW ## BEACON ## HERSCHEL ## WHEELER ## ST ## ST ## ST ## SHRYER ## RYAN ## ELDRIDGE ## SKILLMAN ## ALDINE ## ST ## AVE ## AVE ## SNELLING ## AVE ## AVE ## FRY ## MIDLOTHIAN ## RD ## ROSELAWN ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## LN ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## ASBURY ## ST ## ST ## ARONA ## ST ## SIMPSON ## ST ## PASCAL ## SHRYER ## ELDRIDGE ## BURKE ## RYAN ## DRAPER ## ROSELAWN ## DELL ## WOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## LN ## SKILLMAN ## BELMONT ## AVE ## ST ## DELLWOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## AVE ## WOOD ## FERN ## ST ## AVE ## LINDY ## KARYL ## PL ## LEXINGTON ## AVE ## AVE ## HAMLINE ## LARPENTEUR ## GARDEN ## AVE ## LEXINGTON ## AUTUMN ## ST ## SUMMER ## ST ## RUGGLES ## ST ## ST ## RUGGLES ## AVE ## HURON ## MERRILL ## DELLWOOD ## AVE ## AVE ## ROMA ## FERNWOOD ## ST ## DUNLAP ## LINDY ## AVE ## DIONNE ## ST ## AVE ## AVE ## BURKE ## PARKER ## SHRYER ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## DRAPER ## HARRIET LN (Private) ## OXFORD ## ST ## ST ## CHATSWORTH ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## ROSELAWN ## PARKER ## AVE ## AVON ## ALAMEDA ## ST ## ST ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## LN ## BELMONT ## AVE ## SKILLMAN ## AVE ## SHRYER ## DALE ## VICTORIA ## AVE ## RD ## ST ## ALAMEDA ## STUBER ## ROMA ## ST ## ST. ALBANS ## AVE ## RIDGE ## EMERALD ## CT ## PINEVIEW ## DR ## ALTA VISTA ## CT ## DALE ## DALE ## ST ## LARPENTEUR ## ST ## RUGGLES ## ST ## ROMA ## AVE ## DIONNE ## ST ## CHATSWORTH ## ST ## ST ## ST ## OXFORD ## AGLEN ## COH ## ANSEY ## SHRYER ## AVE ## AVE ## MOUNDSVIEW ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## RYAN ## AVE ## ELDRIDGE ## CRE ## SC ## ENT ## LN ## COHANSEY ## BLVD ## ST ## IRENE ## WESTERN ## HAND ## AVE ## AVE ## FARRINGTON ## BURKE ## BLVD ## N MCCARRONS ## DR ## N MCCARRONS ## ELMER ## ST ## GIES- ## MANN ## AVE ## ST ## WILLIAM ## ST ## MARION ## CT ## ALBEMARLE ## WILLIAM ## ST ## BLVD ## CT ## WOODBRIDGE ## MARION ## ST ## RICE ## PL ## WAGENER ## SHADY ## AVE ## BEACH ## CENTER ## ST ## HILLTOP ## AVE ## GLENWOOD ## AVE ## WAGNER ## ST ## AVE ## KENT ## ST ## AVE ## ROSELAWN ## BAYVIEW ## AVON ## ST ## LONG ## LAKE ## RD ## ROSEGATE ## ROSEG ## ATE ## DR ## STATE HIGHWAY 280 ## ROSE- ## DALE ## WEST- ## WOOD ## LYDIA ## AVE ## W SNELLING ## DR ## W SNELLING ## DR ## ROSE VISTA ## CT (Private) ## FERNWOOD ## CT ## FERN- ## WOOD ## ST ## DUNLAP ## ST ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## FARRING ## TON CT ## COHAN- ## SEY CIR ## AVE ## WOOD- ## BRIDGE ## S HIGHWAY 36 ## SERVICE DR ## FARRING- ## TON ## KENT ## ST ## CHANDLER ## AVE (Private) (Private) ## SAND- ## HURST ## CIR (Private) (Private) ## LN (Private) ## MIDLAND ## VIEW CT ## ST ## ARONA ## CT ## APPLEWOOD ## TERRACE ## DR ## NATURE ## VIEW CT (Priv) ## E SNELLING ## SVC DR ## CLEVE ## LAND S ## ERVIC ## E DR ## S COUNTY C SERVICE DR ## CHATS- ## WORTH ## CT ## WOOD ## RUFF ## S MCCA ## RRONS ## RESERVOIR ## WOODS CIR ## AMERICAN ST ## MOUNT RIDGE RD ## IONA LN ## TWIN ## LAN ## GT ## ON LAKE ## MAPLE LN ## DUNLAP ## ST ## DUNLAP ## CIR (Private) ## MILTON ## CT ## ASBUR ## Y ST ## PKWY ## DR ## TWIN LAKES ## PKWY ## LAKES ## MCCARRONS PL (Priv) ## LEXINGTON (Priv) ## HERSCHEL ST (Priv) ## PL ## LAURIE CT (Priv) ## L ## Data Sources ## * Ramsey County GIS (10/3/2025) ## * City of Roseville Community Development ## * City of Roseville Finance Department ## Prepared by: Engineering Department 11/20/2025 ## 2026- New Pathway 5 Year CIP ## Existing City Pathways and Parking Lots ## 2028 New Pathway ## 2027 New Pathway ## 2026 New Pathway Attachment 4 Page 131 of 165 ## Map Ref. Project NameDescriptionTYPENOTES ## Total ## Points ## Pathway Master Plan ## and Parks Constellation ## Plan Rank ## PWET ## Comments 28 ## Snelling Avenue* Develop off road pathway between County Road B and County Road C ## Trail/Sidewalk251 ## Keep 4ACounty Road C (A) Construct an on-road pathway from Lexington Avenue to Victoria St. ## On Road2026 Project232 ## Remove 9Snelling Avenue South of Highway 36 Complete pathway along east side of Snelling Avenue for improved access to A-BRT transit stations. ## Trail/Sidewalk223 Modify - "east" 16Rosedale to HarMar Connection A pedestrian bridge across Highway 36 and pathway connection between Rosedale and HarMar Mall. ## Trail/Sidewalk ## TH 36 Study - Snelling Bridge 2030223 ## Remove 12CLexington Avenue ( C) Complete off-road pathway on the east side of Lexington Avenue from County Road C2 to County Road D. ## Trail Only C2-Cty D is missing - ## Modify223 ## Modify 12ALexington Avenue (A) Complete off-road pathway on the east side of Lexington Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to Roselawn ## Avenue County Road B ## Sidewalk ## Only Larpentuer to Roselawn is Missing - ## Modify216 ## Modify 12BLexington Avenue (B) Complete off-road pathway on the east side of Lexington Avenue from County Road B2 to County Road C. ## Trail/Sidewalk 2026 project. After 2026 only missing B2-C - ## Modify197 ## Modify 4BCounty Road C (B) Construct an on-road pathway from Victoria St to Dale St. ## On Road 2026 Project for on road - Modify?197 ## Remove 3ACounty Road C-2 (A) Complete both on- and off-road pathways within the County Road C-2 alignment from Snelling Avenue to ## Hamline Ave ## On Road & Trail/SidewalkShould we do both?189 ## Keep 4CCounty Road C (C) Construct an on-road pathway from Dale St to Western Ave. ## On Road 2026 Project for on road - Modify?189 ## Remove 4DCounty Road C (D) Complete off-road pathway on northside of County Road C from Western Ave to Rice St. ## Trail/Sidewalk 2026 Project for on road - Modify?189 ## Delete 6 ## Cleveland Avenue Complete off-road pathway segments between County Road C and County Road D. ## Trail/Sidewalk Partial completed - ## Modify1712 ## Modify 13Rice Street Complete an off-road pathway from County Road C to C2. ## Trail/SidewalkMissing C-C21712 ## Modify ## 25AHamline Avenue A An off-road trail from County Road C to County Road C-2. ## Trail 2026 Project - Can ## Remove1712 ## Remove 10 ## Victoria Street (north of C) Develop an on- road and off-road pathway from County Road C to County Road D. ## Trail/Sidewalk2028 Project - Modify1615 ## Keep ## CC-3 ## Constellation Link C3 Develop a constellation link pathway along Woodhill Drive between Hamline Avenue and Civic Center ## Drive to connect to Howard Johnson Park ## Trail/SidewalkPotential Add1615 ## Reference E 36 ## Snelling Service Dr E Develop an off road pathway along the east side of the East Snelling Service Drivet, C2 to Lydia ## Trail/Sidewalk1615 ## Modify ## 2County Road C-2 West of Snelling Develop on-and/or off-road pathways on County Road C-2 from Old8 to Long Lake Road/Partridge ## On Road & ## Trail/Sidewalk1518 ## Modify 8 TH 51 connection to Old Snelling (Arden Hills) Work with Arden Hills to develop a regional pathway connection along Snelling Avenue to Old Snelling Avenue in Arden Hills connecting Roseville to Mounds View High School, Valentine Hills Elementary School, Bethel College, Lake Johanna Park and County Road E2 commercial businesses. ## Trail MnDOT 2026 Project - ## Can Remove1518 ## Remove ## 25BHamline Avenue B An off-road trail from County Road C-2 to County Road D. ## Trail 2026 Project - Can ## Remove1518 ## Remove Pathway Master Plan Segment on Arterial Roadway with more than 4,000 ADT, with no pathway on either side of the roadway. ## Parks and Recreation Master Plan Constellation Link ## Project Preference List Page 1 of 4 Attachment 5 Page 132 of 165 ## Map Ref. Project NameDescriptionTYPENOTES ## Total ## Points ## Pathway Master Plan ## and Parks Constellation ## Plan Rank ## PWET ## Comments Pathway Master Plan Segment on Arterial Roadway with more than 4,000 ADT, with no pathway on either side of the roadway. ## Parks and Recreation Master Plan Constellation Link ## Project Preference List 3BCounty Road C-2 (B) Complete an off-road pathway on County Road C-2 from Lexington Ave to Victoria St. ## Trail/Sidewalk1518 ## Modifty ## CD-1 ## Constellation Link D1 Develop a constellation link pathway along Oxford Street between Woodhill Avenue pathway and County Road C2. 1518 Remove from ## Pathway Plan 27 ## Tamarack Park Connection*# Install a pathway connection from South McCarron’s Blvd to Tamarack Park. ## Trail1423 Remove from ## From Plan ## CC-2 ## Constellation Link C2 Develop a constellation link pathway along Griggs Street beween Veterans Park and County Road C2. 1423 ## Remove ## CK-2 ## Constellation Link K2 Develop a constellation link pathway along Aldine Street/Midlothian Road between Roselawn Pathways and County Road B pathways. 1423 Leave for now 35 ## Fairview Ave, west side B2 to C2 Develop an off road pathway along the west side of Fairview Avenue from County Road B2 - C2 ## Trail/Sidewalk1423 ## Keep 29 ## Commerce Street* Develop a pathway connection on the south side between State Farm Rd and Hamline Ave ## Trail/Sidewalk1327 ## Modify ## CF-3 ## Constellation Link F3 Develop a constellation link pathway along Minnesota Avenue between Lovell Avenue pathways and Materion Park. 1327 ## F &H ADD ## CI-1 ## Constellation Link I1 Develop a constellation link pathway along Oakcrest Avenue between Fairview Avenue pathways and Rosebrook Park. 1327 ## Don’t Add 37 ## Lydia Avenue Develop and off road pathway on Lydia Avenue between Snelling Avenue and Hamline Avenue ## Trail/Sidewalk1327 ## Keep ## 5County Road C Sidewalk Construct a sidewalk on the north side of County Road C from Western to Rice Street. SidewalkNot part of 2026 project1231 ## Keep 7Fairview Avenue C (north of B-2) Development of off-road pathways between County Road C2 and County Road D. ## Trail/Sidewalk1231 ## Keep 31 ## Pascal Street* Develop a pathway connection between County Road B and Commerce Street ## Trail/Sidewalk1231 ## CC-1 ## Constellation Link C1 Develop a constellation link pathway along Arona/Lydia between County Road C2 and Autumn Grove Park. 1231 ## CF-2 ## Constellation Link F2 Develop a constellation link pathway along Galtier Street and Matilda Street to connect County Road B2 pathways to Acorn Park. 1231 18 ## Judith to Iona Connection# Develop a pathway connection between Judith Ave and Iona Lane. ## Trail/Sidewalk1136 ## CA-1 ## Constellation Link A1 Develop a constellation link pathway along Maple Lane between Highcrest Road pathway and Old Hwy 8 pathway. 1136 ## CH-1 ## Constellation Link H1 Develop a constellation link pathway along Oakcrest Avenue and Fernwood Street between Hamline Avenue pathways and Willow Pond Park pathways. 1136 ## CHI ## Constellation Connection H to I Develop a constellation connection between Consellation H and I across Snelling Avenue between County Road B2 and County Road C. 1136 ## CN-1 ## Constellation Link N1 Develop a constellation link pathway along William Street between the pathway on N McCarrons Boulevard and the pathway along County Road B. 1136 1 ## County Road D Develop pathway facilities, both on- and off-road, between Cleveland and Fairview Avenue. ## Trail/Sidewalk2027 Project1041 ## 11Dale Street South The construction of an off-street pathway from Reservoir Woods Park to Larpenteur Avenue. ## Trail/Sidewalk1041 19 ## Lovell to Minnesota Connection Develop a pathway connection between Lovell Ave and Minnesota Street. ## Trail/Sidewalk1041 21 ## Millwood to County Road C2 Link Develop a pathway connection that creates a link between the corner of Millwood and Chatsworth through the Ramsey County open space to County Road C2. ## Trail/Sidewalk1041 Page 2 of 4 Page 133 of 165 ## Map Ref. Project NameDescriptionTYPENOTES ## Total ## Points ## Pathway Master Plan ## and Parks Constellation ## Plan Rank ## PWET ## Comments Pathway Master Plan Segment on Arterial Roadway with more than 4,000 ADT, with no pathway on either side of the roadway. ## Parks and Recreation Master Plan Constellation Link ## Project Preference List 24 ## Alta Vista Drive Develop a pathway connection along Alta Vista Drive between Larpenteur Avenue and Reservoir Woods Park. ## Trail/Sidewalk1041 30 ## Albert Street* Develop a pathway connection between County Road B and Commerce Street ## Sidewalk Partial completed - ## Modify1041 ## CB-2 ## Constellation Link B2 Develop a constellation link pathway along Aldine St between Oasis Park and Lydia Avenue pathway. 1041 ## CG-1 ## Constellation Link G1 Develop a constellation link pathway along Rose Place and Aladdin Street to connect Fisk Street with ## Central Park (Dale Street Soccer Fields) 1041 ## CG-2 ## Constellation Link G2 Develop a constellation link pathway along Oxford Street between County Road B2 pathways and Central Park pathway off Brooks Street. 1041 ## CH-2 ## Constellation Link H2 Develop a constellation link pathway along Pascal Street between County Road B2 pathways to Pocahontas Park. 1041 ## CL-1 ## Constellation Link L1 Develop a constellation link pathway along Shryer Avenue and the east side of the Har Mar Mall to connect the pathway on Hamline to the pathway of County Road B. 1041 ## CL-3 ## Constellation Link L3 Develop a constellation link pathway along Ryan Avenue and Fernwood Street to connect Bruce Russell Park to Keller Mayflower Park. 1041 ## CM-2 ## Constellation Link M2 Develop a constellation link pathway along Chatsworth Street between Roselawn and Shryer to connect to Pioneer Park. 1041 ## CM-4 ## Constellation Link M4 Develop a constellation link pathway along Alameda Street between Resevoir Woods and the pathways on County Road B. 1041 ## CN-3 ## Constellation Link N2 Develop a constellation link pathway along Dionne Avenue and Galtier Street to connect Tamarack Park to the pathway on South McCarrons Boulevard. 1041 34 ## Marion Street Develop an off road pathway along Marion Street from Larpentuer Avenue to the cul-de-sac SidewalkCompleted 20231041 23 ## Cohansey St to HANC Connection Develop a pathway connection between Cohansey Street and HANC. ## Trail/Sidewalk957 ## CA-2 ## Constellation Link A2 Develop a constellation link pathway along Lydia Avenue between Highcrest pathway and Brenner Street. 957 ## CB-1 ## Constellation Link B1 Develop a constellation link pathway along County Road C2 beween Langton Lake Park and Fairview Avenue pathway. 957 ## CE-3 ## Constellation Link E3 Develop a constellation link pathway along Mackubin Street and Woodhill Drive to connect pathways to Owasso Hills Park to Woodhill Park. 957 ## CG-3 ## Constellation Link G3 Develop a constellation link pathway along Grotto Street between County Road B2 pathways and Central Park Pathways at Sextant Avenue. 957 ## CK-1 ## Constellation Link K1 Develop a constellation link pathway along Prior Avenue between Roselawn pathway and County Road B pathway/Fairview Community Center. 957 ## CL-4 ## Constellation Link L4 Develop a constellation link pathway along Fernwood Street and Roselawn Avenue to connect Garden Avenue pathways to Bruce Russell Park. 957 ## CM-1 ## Constellation Link M1 Develop a constellation link pathway along Shryer Avenue to connect Lexington Park pathways to Pioneer Park. 957 ## CM-3 ## Constellation Link M3 Develop a constellation link pathway along Chatsworth Street, Roma Avenue, Aglen Street, Ruggles Street and Oxford Street to connect the pathway on Victoria Street to the pathway on Roselawn Avenue. 957 Page 3 of 4 Page 134 of 165 ## Map Ref. Project NameDescriptionTYPENOTES ## Total ## Points ## Pathway Master Plan ## and Parks Constellation ## Plan Rank ## PWET ## Comments Pathway Master Plan Segment on Arterial Roadway with more than 4,000 ADT, with no pathway on either side of the roadway. ## Parks and Recreation Master Plan Constellation Link ## Project Preference List 33 ## Tamarack Park ## Develep a pathway from Western Avenue into Tamarack Park ## Trail Completed 2025 - ## Remove957 20 ## Villa Park Connections Develop a pathway connection from Shryer Ave and from Ryan Ave into Villa Park. ## Trail/Sidewalk867 ## CF-1 ## Constellation Link F1 Develop a constellation link pathway along Oakcrest Avenue between Cohansey Street and Western Avenue pathway. 867 ## CF-4 ## Constellation Link F4 Develop a constellation link pathway along Matilda Street to connec to Materion Park with County Road B2 pathways. 867 ## CL-2 ## Constellation Link L2 Develop a constellation link pathway along Fernwood Street and Eldridge Avenue to connect Keller Mayflower Park to Lexington Park. 867 17 ## Heinel Drive Connection Develop a pathway connection between S. Owasso Blvd and County Road C along Heinel Drive. ## Trail/Sidewalk771 ## CE-2 ## Constellation Link E2 Develop a constellation link pathway along Iona Street and Matilda Street to connect Woodhill Park to Mapleview Park. 771 ## CJ-1 ## Constellation Link J1 Develop a constellation link pathway through Midland Hills Golf Course between Roselawn Avenue and County Road B pathway. 771 32 ## Eustis Street Develop an off road pathway along Eustis Street between County Road B and the cul-de-sac TrailCompleted 2023771 14 ## Langton Lake Loop Develop a pathway that goes around all of Langton Lake. ## Trail/Sidewalk675 22 ## Eustis to St. Croix Connection Develop a pathway connection between Eustis Street and St. Croix Street. ## Trail675 ## CE-1 ## Constellation Link E1 Develop a constellation link pathway along Matilda Street to connect Mapleview Park to S Owasso Boulevard pathway. 675 ## CA-3 ## Constellation Link A3 Develop a constellation link pathway along Brenner Street/Patton Road between Highcrest Road pathway and Sandcastle Park. 578 ## CD-2 ## Constellation Link D2 Develop a constellation link pathway along Millwood Avenue and Brennue Avenue to connect Valley Park to West Owasso Boulevard pathway. 578 ## A ## Long Lake Road Trail/Sidewalk on west side from County Road C - County Road C2 ## Trail/SidewalkPotential Add ## B ## Long Lake Road Trail/Sidewalk on east side from Terminal - County Road C ## Trail/SidewalkPotential Add ## C ## Cleveland Avenue Sidewalk connection on east side of road from RR tracks to County Road C ## SidewalkPotential Add DSnelling AvenueTrail - County Road C to Lydia Ave (West Side) ## TrailPotential Add ## EWoodhill Dr ## Trail - Hamline to Lexington Avenue (South Side) ## Trail/SidewalkPotential Add ## FMinnesota AvenueSidewalk/Trail from Lovel to Western ## Trail/SidewalkPotential Add ## Add ## G ## Western Avenue Sidewalk/Trail on east side from Minnesota to Lovell Avenue ## Trail/SidewalkPotential Add ## Add ## HMinnesota AvenueSidewalk/Trail from Western to Rice St ## Trail/SidewalkPotential Add ## IAldine St ROWSidewalk/Trail from Roselawn Ave to Ryan Ave ## Trail/SidewalkPotential Add ## J ## County Road B Sidewalk on the south side of County Road B between Avon St and Dale St ## SidewalkPotential Add KTerminal RdLong Lake Rd to Clevelend Ave (North Side) Updgrade Sidewalk to Trail on Bridge ## TrailPotential Add ## LSkillman AveFairview Ave to Snelling Ave ## Trail/SidewalkPotential Add MCentral ParkPathway connection west of Victoria St to pathway around frog pond ## Trail/SidewalkPotential Add ## N ## Rose Place ## Trail connection between Dunlap St and Roseplace Cul-de-sac ## Trail/SidewalkPotential Add ## OJudith Ave ExtensionConnection from Griggs to Veterans Park ## Trail/SidewalkPotential Add ## Add POxford StConnection from Centrail Park across RR tracks to Cty Rd C ## SidewalkPotential Add Page 4 of 4 Page 135 of 165 ## Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission ## Agenda Item DATE: April 28, 2026 ITEM: 7.a. ## ITEM DESCRIPTION: Commission Direction on Member Initiated Agenda Items ## Background ## Suggested Items: • May 19 ## o WM Recycling Update ## o MS4/Stormwater Update • June 23 ## o Prep for Joint Council Meeting ## o Recommend Approval of Climate Equity Action Plan ## o Leaf Site Recommendations ## Looking Ahead: • Future ## o MnDOT Safe Systems Approach ## o Pavement Funding ## o Speed Limits ## Recommendation Approve future agenda. ## Attachments ## None Page 136 of 165 ## Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission ## Agenda Item DATE: April 28, 2026 ITEM: 8.a. ## ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approve March Minutes ## Background Attached are the minutes from the March 24, 2026 meeting. ## Recommendation Motion approving the minutes of March 24, 2026, subject to any necessary corrections or revision. ## Attachments ## 1. Draft March Minutes Page 137 of 165 ## Page 1 of 28 ## Roseville Public Works, Environment ## and Transportation Commission ## Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 24, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. ## City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive ## Roseville, Minnesota 55113 1. ## Introduction / Roll Call 1 Chair Ficek called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and at his 2 request, Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer called the roll. 3 4 Present: Chair Bryant Ficek, Vice Chair Edwin Hodder, and Members Daniel 5 ## Fergus, Allison Luongo, and Katie Brokaw Palalay 6 7 ## Youth Commissioners: Carsten Bauer, and Alexis Jendro 8 9 ## Absent: Members Jarrod Cicha and Des Mueller (Excused) 10 11 ## Staff Present: Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer 12 13 2.Approve Agenda14 15 ## Motion16 Member Fergus moved, Member Luongo seconded, approval of the March 24,17 2026 Agenda as presented.18 19 Ayes: 720 Nays: 021 Motion carried.22 23 3.Public Comments24 25 Vice Chair Hodder explained that he wanted to draw attention to a Star Tribune26 article on large data centers and noted that residents were now expressing concerns27 about smaller facilities. He asked whether the City currently had any data centers.28 29 Public Works Director Freihammer responded that they were not aware of any data30 centers in the city. It was noted that such facilities are typically constructed on31 larger parcels of land, which are limited within the city, although smaller-scale32 versions could exist. He indicated that none were currently known.33 Attachment 1 Page 138 of 165 Page 2 of 28 34 4. Business Items 35 a. Communication Items 36 Mr. Freihammer provided an update on upcoming construction and 37 maintenance activities in the city. 38 Mr. Freihammer explained that construction season is expected to be busy, 39 with several projects starting in the coming months. He reported that the 40 Lexington pathway project is expected to begin in early May. The Hamline 41 project remains under review with state aid and is likely to start after July, 42 potentially extending into a two-year project. The PMP project is expected to 43 go out for bid soon and begin in June. Sewer lining work was scheduled for 44 award at the April 20 Council meeting. Lift station work is entering the 45 bidding phase, and a related study will be completed soon to support the 46 City’s capital improvement plan. 47 Mr. Freihammer noted that wayfinding signage installation would resume in 48 the coming weeks after ground thawing. The Willow Pond project remains in 49 planning, with work expected in late 2026 or later. He said the environmental 50 review would be submitted for public comment, and neighbors within 500 feet 51 would be notified. Lighting upgrades will continue at intersections and along 52 the Lincoln corridor and parts of Long Lake Road. He added that the Owasso 53 Hills neighborhood project is under review and may return later in the year 54 pending a benefit assessment and possible policy changes. 55 Mr. Freihammer reported on county projects, noting that County Road C plans 56 were complete and expected to be bid soon, with construction planned for the 57 summer and bridge work in 2027. The Fairview project would include a mill 58 and overlay as well as reconstruction of the intersection at County Road B, 59 which would be turned into a four-way stop. Other county projects are in 60 design, including corridors on County Road D, Fairview Avenue, Cleveland 61 Avenue, Victoria Street path, Rice Street, and the Larpenteur Avenue corridor 62 study. 63 Mr. Freihammer indicated MnDOT projects would include work on Snelling 64 Avenue starting in mid to late April and continuing through the State Fair, 65 with traffic reduced to one lane in each direction. Highway 280 is expected to 66 be closed for most of the summer, with full closures beginning in mid-April. 67 Mr. Freihammer announced that extra water efficiency grant funding had been 68 approved and would be available to residents. The climate equity action plan 69 will return to the Council on April 6. A native plant sale will run from 70 April 13 to May 14. 71 Mr. Freihammer finished with maintenance updates, mentioning that staff had 72 been busy with compost operations and planned to open the leaf site in early 73 Page 139 of 165 Page 3 of 28 April for about four weeks. He reported that crews responded to several water 74 main breaks and pump failures during the week and had also completed snow 75 removal after a significant storm. He noted that while snowfall totals were 76 lower than expected, it was still one of the season's largest storms and 77 required multiple plow operations. 78 Member Brokaw Palalay asked whether the Snelling paving project and the 79 Hamline Avenue project would overlap, noting that the Snelling project was 80 outside the Commission’s direct purview but related to overall construction 81 timing. 82 83 Mr. Freihammer said there would be some overlap between the Snelling paving 84 project and the Hamline Avenue project, noting that the extent of the overlap 85 was not yet known. He explained that if the state project began in April and the 86 City project started after July, the timelines would intersect. He added that the 87 City project limits might not cover the full length of Hamline Avenue. He noted 88 there was a tie-in point at the north end of the project where MnDOT would be 89 completing ramp work, including curb ramps. 90 91 Member Brokaw Palalay commented that for connecting streets such as Lydia 92 Avenue and County Road C, there should be consideration of additional signage 93 or traffic-calming measures during construction. He expressed concern that 94 drivers may use those routes as cut-throughs when traffic on Snelling Avenue 95 is reduced to one lane in each direction, particularly at intersections with 96 signals, which could experience increased traffic volumes. 97 98 Mr. Freihammer indicated staff would look into the concern regarding 99 additional signage on connecting streets. He noted that staff was already 100 coordinating with MnDOT on the Highway 280 corridor to add signage, 101 particularly in areas where drivers often become confused during closures. 102 103 Mr. Freihammer explained that additional signage would be installed in the 104 County Road B neighborhood west of Cleveland Avenue, where drivers 105 sometimes attempt to use disconnected routes during the Highway 280 106 shutdown. He added that the county was also working with MnDOT to install 107 signage along Cleveland Avenue, as it was expected to serve as a primary 108 detour route. He confirmed that staff would continue working with MnDOT to 109 add signage as needed. 110 111 Member Brokaw Palalay expressed concern about speeding along County Road 112 C2, noting that it was already an issue and that the area lacked sidewalks. He 113 said increased cut-through traffic during construction could further impact 114 safety and emphasized concern for pedestrians during the summer months. 115 116 Mr. Freihammer explained that dredging at Willow Pond could occur during 117 the winter, depending on the method selected. He noted that contractors had 118 Page 140 of 165 Page 4 of 28 indicated a preference for working with higher water levels so equipment could 119 operate from barges rather than creating excessive mud conditions. 120 121 Mr. Freihammer noted that another option would be winter dredging, in which 122 ice could be removed and excavation completed under frozen conditions. He 123 added that staff may allow contractors to propose either approach, depending 124 on what is most effective for a pond of that size. 125 126 Mr. Freihammer said it was uncertain whether Willow Pond would freeze 127 completely because of its large drainage area and continuous water flow. 128 However, he noted that it would need to freeze solid for certain construction 129 methods. He indicated that additional information would be available once 130 plans were finalized. 131 132 Mr. Freihammer added that Ryan would be present at the May meeting and 133 could provide a more detailed update on the Willow Pond project. 134 135 Member Luongo asked about the amount of road construction planned for the 136 summer, noting that there may be more activity than usual on major city roads. 137 He acknowledged that road construction is typical during the summer months 138 but expressed that this season appeared especially active. 139 140 Mr. Freihammer said this construction season would be busier than normal. He 141 explained that several projects had been delayed in prior years, resulting in 142 multiple carryover projects occurring in the same season. He noted that projects 143 such as Twin Lakes, Lexington, and Hamline were all carryovers, contributing 144 to the increased activity. 145 146 Mr. Freihammer added that there was also some overlap of larger corridor 147 projects, including County Road C, which further contributed to the higher level 148 of construction. He said the city would also be bidding on two separate 149 pavement projects, including the pavement management project and a 150 reconstruction project in the Walnut and Terminal Road industrial area. He 151 noted that the latter project would take place later in the year and primarily 152 impact businesses in that corridor. 153 154 Member Luongo asked whether information about the upcoming construction 155 projects could be included in the city newsletter, noting that staff may already 156 be doing so, but wanted to confirm. 157 158 Mr. Freihammer explained that staff already share construction information 159 through city communication channels, including the newsletter, and would 160 continue to provide updates to residents. He indicated that staff make efforts to 161 inform the public about project timing, impacts, and detours so residents can 162 plan accordingly. 163 164 Page 141 of 165 Page 5 of 28 Member Luongo asked whether the city could create a dedicated webpage for 165 summer 2026 road construction projects that would compile all projects in one 166 place for residents to review. 167 168 Mr. Freihammer explained that the city already provides construction 169 information on its website, including a dedicated projects page and an 170 interactive GIS map that allows users to zoom in and select individual projects 171 for more details. 172 173 Mr. Freihammer explained that residents can sign up for construction alerts 174 through the city, which are typically distributed on Fridays and include updates 175 on city, county, and MnDOT projects. He added that residents can also 176 subscribe to Ramsey County alerts, which are generally sent later on Fridays, 177 as well as MnDOT alerts, where users can choose to receive updates on specific 178 projects. 179 180 Chair Ficek asked about the leaf site, specifically whether staff would monitor 181 activity and observe operations once it opens. 182 183 Mr. Freihammer noted that staff would be monitoring activity at the leaf site 184 and collecting data, explaining that the spring season can be more challenging 185 for gathering information due to lower usage compared to fall. He reported that 186 staff planned to use cameras again to assist with monitoring. 187 188 Mr. Freihammer explained that staff had received a high number of calls from 189 residents due to incorrect information online identifying the site as a yard waste 190 facility. He indicated that staff were working to correct the information so 191 residents would not attempt to bring materials that are not accepted. 192 193 Mr. Freihammer reported that staff would bring the topic back to the 194 Commission in June for further discussion, with the goal of allowing the 195 Council to make a decision in July. He added that any changes or updates would 196 then be communicated in the fall newsletter to prepare residents for the 197 upcoming season. 198 199 ## b. Civic Campus Project Update 200 Mr. Freihammer reported that there were no major updates at this time, noting 201 that a stakeholder meeting had not yet occurred, but work on the project 202 continued. He explained that both the license passport dance studio and the 203 maintenance operations center remained in the concept design phase. He 204 indicated that the concept for the license passport facility was nearing 205 completion, although negotiations with the VFW were still ongoing. 206 Mr. Freihammer explained that staff had revisited programming for the 207 maintenance operations center over the past month to refine space needs and 208 sizing. He noted that a design charrette was scheduled for later in the week, 209 Page 142 of 165 Page 6 of 28 where layout options would be evaluated and refined based on concepts 210 prepared by the architects. He indicated that this exercise would help move 211 the project forward. 212 Mr. Freihammer reported that more detailed updates were expected at the next 213 meeting and that a stakeholder meeting was anticipated in April to gather 214 additional feedback, particularly regarding the north side of the site. He added 215 that significant progress was expected over the next few months, with more 216 substantial updates anticipated in April and May. 217 ## c. Pathway Master Plan 218 Mr. Freihammer explained that the discussion would continue the pathway 219 review process previously started in November. He noted that the goal was to 220 work through as much of the material as possible during the meeting, potentially 221 completing a substantial portion in one session rather than spreading it across 222 multiple meetings. 223 224 Mr. Freihammer reported that the materials had been updated to correct minor 225 errors and include additional maps. He explained that the map identified 226 segments by number, with additional lettered segments representing potential 227 additions to the plan. He noted that several segments had already been reviewed 228 and generally supported for further consideration, and that additional segments 229 not previously discussed would be reviewed at the end. 230 231 Mr. Freihammer explained that staff would provide a brief overview of each 232 segment, after which the Commission could determine whether to keep, 233 modify, or remove it from consideration. He clarified that adding a segment at 234 this stage would not formally include it in the pathway master plan, but would 235 move it forward for further evaluation. 236 237 Mr. Freihammer outlined that the next step would involve neighborhood 238 engagement, including a public meeting, followed by Commission review and 239 potential recommendation to the Council for final consideration. He noted that 240 the proposed segments had originated from input by the Mayor, 241 Councilmembers, staff observations, and resident feedback. 242 243 Chair Ficek clarified that the term "segment" did not specify whether the 244 connection would be a sidewalk or a trail; rather, it indicated a general 245 connection. 246 247 Mr. Freihammer explained that segments in the pathway master plan can 248 include either sidewalks or trails, depending on existing conditions and 249 available space. He noted that while some segments are identified specifically 250 as sidewalk or trail, many are listed more generally because the exact facility 251 type has not yet been determined. 252 253 Page 143 of 165 Page 7 of 28 Mr. Freihammer indicated that when filling gaps in existing infrastructure, staff 254 would typically match what is already in place, such as continuing a sidewalk 255 or trail on the same side of the street. He added that in some cases the plan may 256 specify a particular side, such as north or south, when there is an existing facility 257 on one side and a need to extend it. 258 259 Mr. Freihammer noted that, for the proposed segments under consideration, the 260 focus at this stage is on whether the connection should be included at all, rather 261 than on determining the exact placement or facility type. 262 263 Member Fergus asked what the difference was between a trail and a sidewalk. 264 265 Mr. Freihammer explained that all connections are considered pathways within 266 the pathway master plan, with distinctions between trails and sidewalks based 267 on design and use. He noted that trails are typically eight to ten feet wide, 268 constructed of bituminous material, and designed to accommodate biking and 269 walking with additional clear space. 270 271 Mr. Freihammer indicated that sidewalks are generally six feet wide, 272 constructed of concrete, and primarily intended for pedestrian use, although 273 biking is permitted. He added that trails are better suited to multi-use activities, 274 including both biking and walking. 275 276 Mr. Freihammer explained that sidewalks are generally intended for walking, 277 although children may also use them for biking. He noted that the standard 278 sidewalk width is typically six feet to allow two people to walk side by side 279 comfortably, although widths may vary in some cases. 280 281 Mr. Freihammer then transitioned to the pathway segment review, noting that 282 the Commission would continue working through the listed segments in order. 283 He explained that the meeting materials included the original pathway master 284 plan, a map with labeled segments for proposed additions, and a spreadsheet 285 with descriptions of existing segments for reference and potential modification. 286 287 Mr. Freihammer reported that the Commission had previously reviewed 288 segments 9 and 16 and would begin with segment 12C. He described the 289 segment as Lexington Avenue, currently identified as completing an off-road 290 pathway on the east side from County Road C to County Road D. He noted that 291 a pathway already exists from County Road C to County Road C2 and 292 suggested that the description could be modified to reflect a connection from 293 ## County Road C2 to County Road D. 294 295 Mr. Freihammer explained that the segment would pass through an area that 296 includes open space, nearby apartments, and commercial uses. He indicated that 297 staff would recommend a trail for this segment, consistent with existing 298 conditions along much of the corridor. He noted that the Commission could 299 Page 144 of 165 Page 8 of 28 choose to keep, modify, or remove the segment and that discussion would guide 300 any updates rather than formal motions at this stage. 301 302 Member Brokaw Palalay recommended keeping the segment, noting that the 303 existing pathway was already busy and that maintaining the planned connection 304 was supported. 305 306 Mr. Freihammer asked whether the Commission wanted to modify the segment 307 description to reflect that the connection would be from County Road C2 to 308 County Road D, noting that the segment between County Road C and County 309 Road C2 had already been constructed in recent years. 310 311 Member Fergus recommended modifying the segment, noting that the portion 312 from County Road C to County Road C2 had already been completed. 313 314 Mr. Freihammer explained that portions of the pathway had already been 315 constructed as part of recent development. He noted that the apartment and 316 senior housing developments installed segments of sidewalk or pathways as 317 part of their projects, and that the city completed additional connections around 318 the same time, approximately five years ago. 319 320 Member Fergus asked whether the segment being discussed included the large 321 wetland area. 322 323 Mr. Freihammer confirmed that the segment included the wetland area, noting 324 that it is part of Ramsey County land associated with Lake Johanna and 325 Josephine Park. He indicated that staff would modify the segment description 326 to reflect the connection from County Road C2 to County Road D. 327 328 Mr. Freihammer then introduced the next segment, 12A on Lexington Avenue, 329 described as completing an off-road pathway on the east side from Larpenteur 330 Avenue to County Road B. He noted that the missing portion is only between 331 Larpenteur Avenue and Roselawn Avenue, as a sidewalk has already been 332 constructed north of Roselawn. He indicated that the description could be 333 modified accordingly. 334 335 Member Fergus clarified that there is a sidewalk north of Roselawn and asked 336 whether the proposed segment would be an on-road trail or pathway. 337 338 Mr. Freihammer clarified that the segment would be an off-road pathway. 339 340 Chair Ficek noted that the segment was intended to recognize a gap in the 341 system and acknowledged that it represented a missing connection. 342 343 Page 145 of 165 Page 9 of 28 Mr. Freihammer confirmed that the segment represented a gap and 344 recommended modifying the description to reflect the portion from Larpenteur 345 ## Avenue to Roselawn Avenue. 346 347 Mr. Freihammer then introduced segment 12B on Lexington Avenue, described 348 as an off-road pathway on the east side between County Road B and County 349 Road C. He noted that a portion of this segment would be completed as part of 350 the 2026 project beginning in May, leaving only the section from County Road 351 B2 to County Road C as the remaining gap. 352 353 Mr. Freihammer explained that this segment runs from the high school area to 354 the north end of Central Park. He noted that while there are some informal 355 connections into the park from nearby streets, this segment would provide a 356 more direct connection along Lexington Avenue. He added that the area 357 includes residential properties and landscaping within the city-maintained right-358 of-way. 359 360 Member Fergus asked whether there is a sidewalk on the west side of Lexington 361 Avenue. 362 363 Mr. Freihammer confirmed that there is a pathway on the west side of 364 Lexington Avenue and crosswalks in the area. He explained that on the east 365 side, the connection near Central Park is incomplete, noting that users traveling 366 from the south are left without a clear continuation at County Road B2. 367 368 Mr. Freihammer indicated that while there is some access to Central Park via 369 Brooks Avenue, completing the full segment from County Road B2 to County 370 Road C would provide a continuous north-south connection. He noted that a 371 portion of the segment would be constructed as part of an upcoming project, 372 leaving approximately a half-mile gap. 373 374 Mr. Freihammer recommended modifying the segment description to reflect 375 completion of the remaining portion, and the Commission expressed support 376 for finishing the connection. 377 378 Mr. Freihammer explained that the segments were being reviewed in the order 379 of the current priority list, noting that higher traffic corridors appeared first and 380 that later segments may require more discussion. 381 382 Mr. Freihammer then introduced segment 4B on County Road C, described as 383 the construction of an on-road pathway from Victoria Street to Dale Street. He 384 explained that this improvement, in the form of a bike lane, is already scheduled 385 as part of a 2026 county project associated with roadway reconfiguration. 386 387 Mr. Freihammer recommended removing the segment from the plan, noting that 388 it is expected to be completed by the time the review process is finalized. 389 Page 146 of 165 Page 10 of 28 390 Mr. Freihammer clarified that segment 4B on County Road C includes on-road 391 pathways in the form of bike lanes from Victoria Street to Dale Street, which 392 will be incorporated into the County Road C project. 393 394 Chair Ficek clarified that the segment referred specifically to bike lanes along 395 County Road C and acknowledged that the improvement would be completed 396 as part of the upcoming construction project. 397 398 Mr. Freihammer confirmed that segment 4B was already planned as part of the 399 County Road C project and, with the Commission's agreement, recommended 400 removing it from the pathway master plan. 401 402 Mr. Freihammer then introduced the next segment on County Road C, described 403 as the completion of both on- and off-road pathways from Snelling Avenue to 404 Hamline Avenue. He explained that this segment originated from an earlier 405 concept in the pathway master plan that envisioned a continuous bike corridor 406 along County Road C2, including a potential overpass over Interstate 35. He 407 noted that the overpass concept had since been removed and that County Road 408 C had become the primary corridor for connectivity. 409 410 Mr. Freihammer indicated that the segment description differs from others due 411 to its historical context and broader scope. He noted that the Commission could 412 choose to simplify the description to a general pathway if preferred. He also 413 explained that the corridor currently lacks dedicated pedestrian facilities, with 414 only a shoulder used for parking, and that the area serves both residential 415 neighborhoods and nearby businesses. 416 417 Mr. Freihammer asked whether the Commission preferred to keep the segment 418 as currently written, including both on and off-road pathways, or modify it to 419 specify only an off-road pathway. He noted that the bike plan recommendations 420 for the corridor were not immediately recalled and suggested the Commission 421 could leave the description as is for now and refine it later if needed. 422 423 Chair Ficek indicated he was ok with leaving it as written. 424 425 Mr. Freihammer introduced the next segment on County Road C, described as 426 the construction of an on-road pathway from Dale Street to Western Avenue. 427 He explained that this improvement would be completed as part of the 2026 428 project and recommended removing the segment from the pathway master plan, 429 with the Commission's agreement. 430 431 Mr. Freihammer then presented another County Road C segment, described as 432 completing both on-road and off-road pathways from Western Avenue to Rice 433 Street. He noted that the on-road component would be constructed as part of the 434 upcoming project, while the off-road pathway would not be included. 435 Page 147 of 165 Page 11 of 28 436 Mr. Freihammer explained that the off-road pathway on the north side had 437 originally been proposed but was removed from the project by the Council. 438 However, it remains in the pathway master plan for potential future 439 consideration. He indicated that the Commission could choose to retain the off-440 road segment and clarify that it would be located on the north side, where no 441 pathway currently exists, since there is already one on the south side. He also 442 noted that the Commission could consider removing it entirely if desired. 443 444 Member Fergus noted significant pushback from residents on that segment. 445 446 Mr. Freihammer explained that residents had petitioned to remove the segment, 447 and the Council acted on that feedback. He noted that while some residents 448 supported the project, a larger number expressed opposition during the process. 449 450 Member Fergus recalled that the Council chose not to pursue the project at that 451 time, but kept it in the pathway master plan for future consideration and asked 452 for confirmation. 453 454 Mr. Freihammer explained that the Council considered removing the segment 455 from the pathway master plan but ultimately chose to keep it on the list for 456 future consideration. 457 458 Member Luongo asked when the Commission would have another opportunity 459 to review or revisit this segment, expressing concern that they might otherwise 460 miss the chance to weigh in. 461 462 Mr. Freihammer explained that the opportunity to include the segment in the 463 current project had passed. He noted that while the right-of-way still exists, any 464 future construction would likely depend on a cost-share policy and would not 465 occur in the near term. 466 467 Mr. Freihammer indicated that it could be 10 or more years before the project 468 is reconsidered, and that future opportunities would depend on available 469 funding and stronger community support. He added that while the segment may 470 still rank highly, it would be evaluated based on timing and feasibility, and the 471 Commission could choose to keep it for future consideration or remove it if it 472 is not expected to move forward. 473 474 Chair Ficek expressed support for keeping the segment in the pathway master 475 plan. He noted disagreement with the prior decision to remove it from the 476 project, stating that the pathway had been planned for many years. He added 477 that having facilities on both sides of the roadway improves usability by 478 reducing the need for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the street multiple times. 479 He acknowledged that the project is unlikely to occur in the near term but 480 supported retaining it for future consideration. 481 Page 148 of 165 Page 12 of 28 482 Member Luongo expressed support for keeping the segment in the pathway 483 master plan. He noted that master plans often remain in place for many years 484 and that community perspectives may change over time, making the segment a 485 viable option for future consideration. 486 487 Mr. Freihammer asked whether the Commission preferred to modify the 488 segment description to specify the completion of an off-road pathway on the 489 north side of County Road C from Western Avenue to Rice Street. 490 491 The commission agreed to the change. 492 493 Mr. Freihammer indicated that he would describe the segment generally as a 494 pathway rather than specifying a trail or sidewalk. He then introduced segment 495 6 on Cleveland Avenue, described as the development of an off-road pathway 496 between County Road C and County Road D. He noted that the segment was 497 somewhat disjointed and would be reviewed in more detail. 498 499 Mr. Freihammer explained that the Cleveland Avenue segment from County 500 Road C to County Road D is largely completed, though in a split configuration. 501 He noted that a sidewalk exists on the east side from County Road C to County 502 Road C2, while a pathway continues on the west side from County Road C2 to 503 ## County Road D. 504 505 Mr. Freihammer indicated that this creates a continuous corridor, but with a 506 mid-segment shift from east to west. He explained that the Commission could 507 consider the segment complete as is, or modify it to create a continuous facility 508 on one side. He noted that completing the corridor on the east side would likely 509 require extending a sidewalk, whereas completing it on the west side would be 510 less desirable due to freeway ramps. 511 512 Mr. Freihammer added that the corridor includes a mix of commercial, 513 industrial, residential, and park uses, including access to Langton Park and 514 nearby senior housing. He noted that while Cleveland Avenue is a busy 515 roadway, it is not classified as a full arterial, which may influence whether 516 facilities on both sides are prioritized. He indicated that the Commission could 517 choose to remove the segment or modify it based on priorities. 518 519 Chair Ficek asked whether, for the segment from County Road C to County 520 Road C2, where there is no facility on the west side, the city would consider 521 adding a pathway on that side in the future if an opportunity arose, despite the 522 presence of the ramp entrance. 523 524 Mr. Freihammer explained that adding a pathway on the west side between 525 County Road C and County Road C2 could be considered. However, it would 526 depend on county priorities and future ranking evaluations. He noted that 527 Page 149 of 165 Page 13 of 28 because there are no adjacent businesses along that stretch, the city would likely 528 be responsible for winter maintenance, thereby increasing operational costs. 529 530 Mr. Freihammer added that the corridor has inconsistencies in bicycle 531 infrastructure, with on-street bike lanes present north of Iona but not south of 532 it, where traffic volumes are higher. He noted that this creates a connectivity 533 gap, particularly in a busy area near Twin Lakes. 534 535 Chair Ficek suggested splitting the segment into two parts, identifying a 536 pathway on the west side from County Road C to County Road C2 and a 537 pathway on the east side from County Road C2 to County Road D. He indicated 538 that the Commission would then need to determine whether both segments 539 should be included. 540 541 Mr. Freihammer indicated that the segment is currently listed as one, but noted 542 that it could be divided into two separate segments if the Commission preferred, 543 and acknowledged that splitting it may provide clearer direction. 544 545 Member Brokaw Palalay expressed support for splitting the segment into two 546 if that approach would provide greater clarity. He also asked for additional 547 clarification on pathway conditions further south along Cleveland Avenue. 548 549 Mr. Freihammer explained that, farther south along Cleveland Avenue, there is 550 generally a sidewalk on the east side, extending down to County Road B2. He 551 noted that on the west side, there is a sidewalk in certain areas due to terrain 552 challenges, including a steep hill. 553 554 Mr. Freihammer identified a short gap in the system, approximately 400 feet 555 long, that is difficult and costly to complete. He explained that the gap currently 556 requires pedestrians to cross mid-block, creating an awkward and less safe 557 condition. He added that there are only a few properties on the west side in that 558 area, and overall, the corridor functions primarily along an east-side alignment. 559 560 Member Fergus described traveling north along the corridor, then transitioning 561 to the west-side sidewalk, and sought clarification on the connection. 562 563 Mr. Freihammer explained that pedestrians traveling north and using the west-564 side sidewalk must cross back due to a gap created by a steep hill in the corridor. 565 He noted that addressing the gap would require significant improvements, such 566 as constructing a retaining wall or narrowing the roadway, which would be 567 costly and complex. He indicated that the current configuration reflects a 568 simpler approach that directs pedestrians to cross mid-block. 569 570 Member Brokaw Palalay noted that although there are few residents in that area, 571 several bus stops still generate pedestrian activity. 572 573 Page 150 of 165 Page 14 of 28 Mr. Freihammer explained that the corridor includes hotels and pedestrian 574 activity, including people walking to nearby destinations such as Walmart. He 575 noted that the segment from County Road C to County Road C2 is primarily 576 commercial, while areas north of Langton Park include residential properties, 577 particularly on the east side. 578 579 Mr. Freihammer added that there is an existing pathway connection between 580 residential lots that provides direct access to Langton Lake, allowing 581 neighborhood residents to reach the park without traveling along Cleveland 582 Avenue, except for those directly adjacent to the corridor. 583 584 Chair Ficek summarized the discussion and indicated support for including a 585 segment on the east side from County Road C2 to County Road D. He then 586 raised the question of whether to include a west side segment from County Road 587 C to County Road C2, or remove it if it is not necessary. He also asked whether 588 that segment should be identified specifically as a sidewalk or more generally 589 as a pathway, noting that no facility currently exists there. 590 591 Member Fergus confirmed that there is currently no facility in that area and 592 asked whether County Road C2 is where the hotels are located. 593 594 Mr. Freihammer explained that County Road C2, or Center Point, is where the 595 hotels are located. He clarified that a portion of the pathway on the west side 596 has already been constructed as part of the Center Point development. 597 598 Mr. Freihammer explained that the remaining gap is relatively short, beginning 599 around Iona and extending approximately 400 feet north. He indicated that 600 completing a pathway in that section would fill the remaining connection 601 between County Road C and the existing infrastructure. 602 603 Chair Ficek noted that there is currently no pathway on the west side, but 604 explained that adding one would provide additional connectivity options. He 605 indicated that a west-side pathway could allow users to travel south to the 606 signalized crossing at the ramp or continue north without unnecessarily crossing 607 the road. He emphasized that while access is limited today, adding a pathway 608 would improve overall flexibility and connectivity for users along the corridor. 609 610 Member Brokaw Palalay expressed support for adding the west side segment 611 and noted that its priority could be evaluated during the future prioritization 612 process. 613 614 Chair Ficek agreed that the west side segment would likely rank low in priority, 615 noting that the area is primarily stormwater ponds. 616 617 Mr. Freihammer noted that the area includes a stormwater pond on the north 618 side, with the remainder consisting of wetlands owned by MnDOT. 619 Page 151 of 165 Page 15 of 28 620 Member Luongo asked whether there may be political viability with the county 621 to extend on-street bike lanes from Iona further south, as an alternative 622 approach. 623 624 Mr. Freihammer explained that extending the street bike lanes in that area 625 would be challenging due to traffic conditions at the intersection. He noted that 626 the corridor includes double left-turn lanes and multiple through lanes as part 627 of a relatively recent project, which would make modifications more difficult, 628 though not impossible. 629 630 Member Luongo expressed interest in finding a way to continue dedicated bike 631 facilities through the corridor. 632 633 Mr. Freihammer noted that extending bike lanes to County Road C would be 634 beneficial but would require significant rework. He indicated that adding 635 southbound bike lanes may be more feasible, whereas northbound 636 improvements would be more challenging given existing roadway conditions. 637 638 Chair Ficek suggested that if on-street bike lanes are not feasible, the segment 639 could instead be designated as a trail to accommodate bicycle use better. He 640 noted that this approach could provide a dedicated corridor for bikes and 641 pedestrians, particularly since the east side already includes a sidewalk, and 642 indicated support for describing the segment more generally as a pathway or 643 trail. 644 645 Mr. Freihammer summarized the discussion, indicating that the segment would 646 be split into two parts. He confirmed that one segment would include 647 completing a sidewalk on the east side from County Road C2 to County Road 648 ## D. 649 650 Mr. Freihammer noted that the second segment would include constructing a 651 trail on the west side from County Road C to just north of Iona, connecting to 652 existing facilities. He clarified that the trail would be designed as a wider, multi-653 use facility. 654 655 Mr. Freihammer indicated that the segments would be labeled separately for 656 clarity and that the exact naming convention would be determined as part of the 657 plan updates. 658 659 Member Fergus asked whether the trails located around and behind the hotel 660 are maintained by the city. 661 662 Mr. Freihammer confirmed that the trails around and behind the hotel are city 663 trails. He explained that while the city owns and maintains them, winter 664 maintenance is performed by adjacent property owners due to their proximity 665 Page 152 of 165 Page 16 of 28 to commercial properties. He noted that the trails were reconstructed 666 approximately four to five years ago, having originally been built to a 667 substandard six feet wide, and were widened to eight feet. He added that the 668 trails are well used, particularly by nearby apartment residents, hotel guests, and 669 employees, with many using them to access Langton Park. 670 671 Mr. Freihammer then introduced the next segment on Rice Street, described as 672 completing an on and off-road pathway from County Road C to the north city 673 boundary. He noted that the portion from County Road C2 to the north 674 boundary has already been constructed, leaving only the segment from County 675 Road C to County Road C2 as the remaining gap. He explained that this area 676 serves primarily residential uses, including a church and a large apartment 677 complex on the west side. 678 679 Member Luongo expressed concern about safety in the area, noting that people 680 frequently walk in the street, including older adults and individuals using 681 mobility scooters, creating a dangerous situation. 682 683 Mr. Freihammer indicated that the Rice Street segment description would be 684 modified to reflect the remaining portion from County Road C to County Road 685 C2. He noted that the county has a project planned within the next five to six 686 years and that the city has communicated interest in coordinating improvements 687 with that effort. 688 689 Mr. Freihammer then introduced the next segment on Hamline Avenue, 690 described as an off-road trail from County Road C to County Road C2, and 691 recommended removing it since the city will be constructing that segment 692 within the next year. 693 694 Mr. Freihammer then presented the Victoria Street segment north of County 695 Road C, described as developing both on road and off road pathways from 696 County Road C to County Road D. He noted that a portion from County Road 697 C to Woodhill has already been constructed as a sidewalk, while the county is 698 beginning design for a future project, tentatively scheduled for 2028, which may 699 include a trail instead. He recommended keeping the segment as currently 700 written in the pathway master plan, noting that final decisions on facility type 701 and location would be determined through the county’s design process. 702 703 Member Luongo recommended keeping the segment in the pathway master 704 plan until the project is fully confirmed and constructed. 705 706 Mr. Freihammer introduced the concept of constellation links, explaining that 707 they are intended to connect parks and represent preferred routes for traveling 708 between park locations. He noted that these links were added to the pathway 709 master plan during a previous update without extensive discussion, which has 710 led to some confusion. 711 Page 153 of 165 Page 17 of 28 712 Mr. Freihammer explained that some of the proposed links follow low-volume 713 neighborhood streets, raising questions about whether additional pathways are 714 necessary when pedestrians can already use the roadway. He indicated that the 715 concept differs from traditional pathway planning, as it focuses on suggested 716 routes rather than required infrastructure. 717 718 Mr. Freihammer noted that while some constellation links may align with 719 existing or planned pathways, others may not be practical or necessary. He 720 added that people often choose their own routes and may not regularly travel 721 directly between parks, instead starting from their homes. He provided this 722 context to guide the Commission’s review of the upcoming segment. 723 724 Member Luongo asked whether an actual pathway could be constructed instead 725 of relying on a designated constellation link route. 726 727 Mr. Freihammer explained that a constellation link can be converted into a 728 formal pathway if the Commission prefers, but noted that doing so would 729 require a clear designation. He indicated that labeling something as a 730 constellation link can create confusion, as it is unclear whether it represents a 731 suggested connection or a planned, constructed facility. 732 733 Mr. Freihammer emphasized that if the intent is to build a pathway, it should 734 be identified as such in the plan rather than remaining a constellation link. He 735 noted that this distinction had not been clearly defined in previous updates to 736 the pathway master plan. 737 738 Mr. Freihammer then introduced constellation link C3, described as a 739 connection along Woodhill Drive between Hamline Avenue and Civic Center 740 Drive, providing access to Howard Johnson. 741 742 Member Luongo recommended designating the connection as a formal pathway 743 rather than a constellation link, noting that it would be more appropriate given 744 anticipated future conditions. 745 746 Mr. Freihammer noted that designating the connection as a pathway could 747 address both the constellation link concept and previously identified needs for 748 a trail connection in the area. He explained that similar requests had come from 749 both engineering and parks staff, and combining them into a single pathway 750 designation would streamline the plan. 751 752 Mr. Freihammer indicated that with upcoming projects, including the Hamline 753 Avenue work in 2026 and the Civic campus project anticipated around 2028, 754 much of the corridor would likely be completed, leaving only a short gap 755 between Civic Center Drive and Hamline Avenue. He recommended keeping 756 the full corridor in the plan to ensure long-term continuity. 757 Page 154 of 165 Page 18 of 28 758 Chair Ficek expressed support for converting the segment to a pathway and 759 noted that the current gap is relatively small. 760 761 Chair Ficek asked whether the identified gap should be defined as extending 762 from the existing sidewalk connection to Hamline Avenue. 763 764 Mr. Freihammer recommended defining the segment to extend to Lexington 765 Avenue, noting that the full corridor should remain in the plan. He explained 766 that the Civic campus project would likely include pathway construction on 767 both sides, supporting a continuous connection through the area. 768 769 Chair Ficek expressed concern about adding the pathway, only to end up with 770 a partial connection, noting a preference to avoid creating an incomplete 771 segment. 772 773 Mr. Freihammer explained that staff had proposed a similar connection as 774 segment E, which would include a trail from Hamline Avenue to Lexington 775 Avenue on the south side. He indicated that if the Commission supports that 776 approach, segment E could be added and would effectively replace the 777 constellation link. 778 779 Member Luongo asked whether a trail within Veterans Park would be included 780 in the Civic campus plan or handled separately through parks planning. 781 782 Mr. Freihammer explained that a trail within Veterans Park would likely be 783 included in the Civic campus and park redesign project. He noted that adding a 784 walking path is one of the concepts under consideration and that additional 785 discussion would occur as planning progresses. 786 787 Mr. Freihammer then introduced segment 36 on the east side of the Snelling 788 service drive, described as the development of an off-road pathway. He noted 789 that this segment had been previously discussed and referenced the map for its 790 general limits. 791 792 Mr. Freihammer recalled that the segment had been previously discussed and 793 clarified that it extends from County Road C2 to Lydia Avenue along the east 794 side of the Snelling service drive. He noted that the segment runs in front of 795 several apartment buildings. 796 797 Mr. Freihammer explained that this segment was added in 2021 at the request 798 of residents and had already gone through the full review process at that time. 799 800 Member Brokaw Palalay recommended modifying the segment description to 801 specify developing an off-road pathway along the east side of the east Snelling 802 service drive from County Road C2 to Lydia Avenue. 803 Page 155 of 165 Page 19 of 28 804 Mr. Freihammer introduced the next segment on County Road C2 west of 805 Snelling Avenue, described as the development of both on- and off-road 806 pathways from the west city boundary to Snelling Avenue, including a proposed 807 pedestrian bridge over Interstate 35W. 808 809 Mr. Freihammer explained that this segment originated from an earlier, more 810 ambitious concept intended to create a continuous east-west pedestrian corridor. 811 He noted that existing conditions include partial sidewalk connections, 812 pathways through Langton Park, and segments with wide shoulders but no 813 dedicated pedestrian or bicycle facilities. He added that the corridor passes 814 through wetlands, residential areas, parkland, and industrial areas with limited 815 pedestrian demand. 816 817 Mr. Freihammer indicated that the proposed pedestrian bridge was a key 818 component of the original concept, intended to provide an alternative crossing 819 to the County Road C corridor. However, he noted that without the bridge, the 820 corridor would not function as a continuous route. He questioned whether 821 constructing a bridge at this location aligns with current priorities and whether 822 it is a worthwhile long-term investment. 823 824 Member Luongo expressed concern about the feasibility of funding a pedestrian 825 bridge, noting uncertainty about the funding source. 826 827 Member Brokaw Palalay expressed concern about the value of the proposed 828 corridor, noting uncertainty about how many people would use it. He indicated 829 that without a broader regional connection, such as a continuous greenway 830 linking multiple cities, the segment may have limited usefulness. 831 832 Chair Ficek noted that broader considerations regarding regional bike 833 connections would be more appropriate to discuss in the future bike plan. 834 835 Member Luongo noted that while the connection could be beneficial for linking 836 to the northeast, it was unclear whether there would be significant demand to 837 travel into the city's residential areas from that direction. 838 839 Mr. Freihammer explained that the current primary connection for pedestrians 840 and bicyclists runs along the diagonal trail and County Road C corridor, which 841 has been improved with a pathway on the south side that connects to the city’s 842 trail system. He noted that this infrastructure did not exist when the County 843 Road C2 concept was originally developed in the early 2000s. 844 845 Mr. Freihammer indicated that additional improvements on the County Road D 846 corridor, planned for a future project, will further enhance connectivity, 847 reducing the need for a separate C2 corridor. He explained that these newer 848 corridors provide viable alternatives that were not previously available. 849 Page 156 of 165 Page 20 of 28 850 Mr. Freihammer suggested that the Commission could consider removing the 851 pedestrian bridge component if it is no longer feasible. He also noted that the 852 segment could be modified or broken into smaller portions, such as focusing on 853 a shorter stretch of County Road C2, rather than maintaining the full original 854 concept, particularly since parts of the corridor do not currently exist. 855 856 Member Luongo suggested that it may be beneficial to include a sidewalk on 857 the west side of County Road C2 to provide nearby residents with a safe place 858 to walk and improved local connectivity. 859 860 Chair Ficek suggested starting the discussion with the proposed bridge over 861 Interstate 35W. He noted that while pedestrian-only facilities can be appealing, 862 the location may limit their usefulness, since they do not connect to a major 863 regional trail and are somewhat out of the way. 864 865 Chair Ficek summarized that there was consensus to remove the bridge 866 component from the segment. He explained that the remaining portions of the 867 corridor could be considered separately on each side of Interstate 35W. 868 869 Mr. Freihammer recommended breaking the west side into two segments, one 870 from Highway 8 to Highway 88 and another from Highway 88 to Long Lake 871 Road, to allow for more targeted evaluation. He noted that this approach would 872 align with prior discussions about potential improvements along Long Lake 873 Road. 874 875 Chair Ficek and Mr. Freihammer discussed focusing on the west side of County 876 Road C2. They noted that a pathway already exists along much of Long Lake 877 Road, allowing for a potential connection from Long Lake to Old Highway 8, 878 which also has a sidewalk. They discussed whether to formalize improvements 879 as on-street bike lanes or maintain flexibility. 880 881 Mr. Freihammer recommended keeping the description broad as an on- and off-882 road pathway to allow for future design decisions, including potential bike lanes 883 or trail development. Chair Ficek supported maintaining flexibility, and the 884 group agreed to use “and or” language to preserve multiple options. 885 886 Mr. Freihammer suggested defining the segment from Old Highway 8 to Long 887 Lake Road and noted that it could be split into two segments, Old Highway 8 888 to Highway 88 and Highway 88 to Long Lake Road, to allow for phased 889 implementation. Chair Ficek acknowledged that keeping segments flexible 890 would not prevent phased construction, and the group agreed on the general 891 approach before moving on to discuss the east side. 892 893 Mr. Freihammer discussed the east side of the County Road C2 corridor, noting 894 that a connection already exists into Langton Park. He indicated that additional 895 Page 157 of 165 Page 21 of 28 improvements on the east side may be limited, but suggested that a potential 896 connection between Langton Park and Oasis Park could be considered. 897 898 Mr. Freihammer explained that this would involve a short connection through 899 a primarily residential area near Fairview Avenue, where parks are located on 900 either side. He noted that this concept aligns with what had previously been 901 identified as a constellation link. However, it was not labeled separately because 902 the broader C2 corridor was already included in the pathway master plan. 903 904 Member Luongo expressed uncertainty about the need for a separate pathway 905 in that area, noting that it is a low-volume, contained residential corridor and 906 may not justify the investment. He indicated openness to including it if there 907 has been resident interest, but did not strongly support it. 908 909 Chair Ficek noted that the connection appearing in multiple planning 910 documents created some uncertainty. He expressed hesitation about prioritizing 911 a pathway in this case, explaining that the corridor is a low-volume local road 912 where pedestrians can already walk safely without additional infrastructure. 913 914 Mr. Freihammer noted that the area consists of very low-volume streets serving 915 small, isolated neighborhoods. He explained that there is no through traffic and 916 that vehicles in the area are typically limited to residents accessing their homes 917 or visitors traveling to the nearby parks. 918 919 Chair Ficek indicated he could support either option for the segment, noting 920 that it would likely be a low priority regardless. 921 922 Chair Ficek and Mr. Freihammer noted that the connection between Langton 923 Park and Oasis Park would likely be a low construction priority and would most 924 realistically be completed in coordination with another project rather than as a 925 standalone improvement. It was noted that while it could score well on planning 926 metrics due to its proximity to Fairview Avenue and its park connectivity, it 927 would likely be an opportunistic project. 928 929 Mr. Freihammer indicated that if included, the segment should be clarified as a 930 general pathway connection between the two parks, without pursuing additional 931 expansion beyond that scope. The Commission agreed to retain the segment in 932 a limited, flexible form. 933 934 Mr. Freihammer then introduced the next segment, a Trunk Highway 51 935 connection to Old Snelling. He recommended removing it since MnDOT is 936 constructing the pathway on the west side this year, completing the connection 937 with prior improvements by Arden Hills. 938 939 Page 158 of 165 Page 22 of 28 Mr. Freihammer next presented a Hamline Avenue segment between County 940 Road C2 and County Road D and recommended removing it as it is planned for 941 construction in 2026. 942 943 Mr. Freihammer then returned to the County Road C2 corridor, introducing a 944 segment between Lexington Avenue and Victoria Street. He described the 945 corridor as primarily residential with moderate traffic and noted nearby open 946 space and informal walking trails. He recommended modifying the description 947 to specify completing an off-road pathway along County Road C2 from 948 Lexington to Victoria. He added that the 2028 Victoria Street improvements 949 would include pathways on both sides, further enhancing connectivity. The 950 Commission agreed to retain the segment with the modified description. 951 952 Member Brokaw Palalay asked about a remaining gap along County Road C2 953 near Oasis Pond, noting that most of the corridor had already been discussed. 954 955 Mr. Freihammer clarified that the area was part of the previously discussed 956 segment west of Snelling and explained that the Twin Lakes Phase Two project 957 would include pathway connections through that area. He noted that the project 958 would provide a connection, though not a direct one due to wetland constraints, 959 and could potentially be constructed as early as this year. 960 961 Member Brokaw Palalay acknowledged the clarification and indicated that it 962 addressed the remaining concern. 963 964 Mr. Freihammer then introduced another constellation link, identified as D1 965 along Oxford Street between Woodhill Drive and County Road C2. He 966 explained that the intent was to connect neighborhood areas to nearby parks. 967 He noted that the area is a low-volume residential neighborhood and suggested 968 that people already have multiple routes to access the parks via existing streets. 969 970 Member Luongo indicated that he did not see a clear benefit to the proposed 971 connection. 972 973 Mr. Freihammer expressed uncertainty about selecting Oxford Street as the 974 preferred connection, noting that similar access could be achieved from 975 multiple nearby streets. He added that both parks are natural areas rather than 976 destination playgrounds, so there may be limited demand for direct travel 977 between them. 978 979 Chair Ficek asked whether the east-west connection at the bottom of the map 980 has already been constructed. 981 982 Mr. Freihammer confirmed that there is a sidewalk on the south side of 983 Woodhill Drive, providing the east-west connection. 984 985 Page 159 of 165 Page 23 of 28 Member Fergus questioned whether Oxford Street was selected because it 986 already had a sidewalk connection. 987 988 Mr. Freihammer explained that Oxford Street likely appeared in the plan 989 because it is centrally located in the neighborhood and may have been identified 990 as a logical connection at the time. He noted that a sidewalk now exists south 991 of Woodhill Drive along Oxford and suggested that the constellation link may 992 have been created before that sidewalk was constructed, which may reduce the 993 need for the proposed connection. 994 995 Chair Ficek, Member Luongo, and Mr. Freihammer discussed the east-west 996 connection and clarified that the sidewalk along the south side of Woodhill 997 Drive already provides a continuous connection from Lexington Avenue to 998 ## Victoria Street. 999 1000 Mr. Freihammer explained that the remaining portion under consideration was 1001 the north-south Oxford Street connection, originally identified as part of a 1002 constellation link. He noted that because the east-west connection is already 1003 complete and local streets provide adequate access, additional infrastructure 1004 may not be necessary. 1005 1006 The Commission agreed that the Oxford Street connection did not warrant 1007 inclusion as a formal pathway and supported its removal from the pathway 1008 master plan, while allowing it to remain as a conceptual constellation link 1009 within parks planning. 1010 1011 Mr. Freihammer then introduced segment 27, a Tamarack Park connection from 1012 South McCarrons Boulevard. He explained that the area is served by low-1013 volume local streets and already has informal access into the park. The 1014 Commission applied consistent reasoning used for similar segments and 1015 supported removing both segment 27 and a related segment due to the limited 1016 need for additional infrastructure on local roads. 1017 1018 Mr. Freihammer next presented a constellation link along Gregg Street 1019 connecting Veterans Park to County Road C2. The discussion shifted to a 1020 related proposed segment that would provide a direct connection to Veterans 1021 Park from the north. The Commission expressed support for advancing that 1022 proposed segment for further study and neighborhood engagement, while 1023 removing the Gregg Street constellation link. 1024 1025 Mr. Freihammer then introduced a segment along Aldine Street near Roselawn 1026 Avenue, noting that it has been the subject of recent resident input and is 1027 currently under review by the Council and Parks Department. He explained that 1028 a feasibility study is underway to evaluate a potential nature style pathway. 1029 Given ongoing discussions and mixed resident feedback, the Commission 1030 Page 160 of 165 Page 24 of 28 considered leaving the segment unchanged in the plan pending further 1031 direction. 1032 1033 Member Luongo asked how removing the segment from the pathway master 1034 plan would interact with the ongoing Council process and resident input. 1035 1036 Mr. Freihammer explained that the segment is already under active review, 1037 including multiple Council discussions and a pending report related to a 1038 potential vacation. He noted that there has been significant resident 1039 involvement, including petitions both for and against the proposal. 1040 1041 Mr. Freihammer indicated that Council will likely act on the report before the 1042 updated pathway master plan returns for approval. He explained that removing 1043 the segment now would not prevent Council from proceeding with a project if 1044 they choose to do so, and conversely, Council could also decide to remove it 1045 independently. He noted that the pathway master plan update is likely at least a 1046 year away from Council consideration. 1047 1048 Chair Ficek and Mr. Freihammer discussed how to handle the Aldine segment 1049 given the ongoing Council review. They agreed it would be best to leave the 1050 segment as is for now rather than making changes prematurely. 1051 1052 Chair Ficek noted support for the concept of a connection, while Mr. 1053 Freihammer indicated staff would revisit it after Council action and update the 1054 plan accordingly, either removing it if constructed or if not pursued. 1055 1056 Mr. Freihammer then introduced segment 35 on Fairview Avenue, described as 1057 developing an off-road pathway on the west side from County Road B2 to 1058 County Road C2. He clarified that a continuous pathway already exists on the 1059 east side, while the west side has partial segments with gaps. 1060 1061 Mr. Freihammer explained that this segment intends to fill the remaining gaps 1062 on the west side, particularly given the higher traffic volumes on Fairview 1063 Avenue south of County Road C2. He noted that recent improvements have 1064 addressed portions of the corridor, but several gaps remain that would improve 1065 overall connectivity. 1066 1067 Member Brokaw Palalay noted that this Fairview Avenue segment reflects 1068 earlier concerns about safety, particularly with people using scooters and 1069 walking in the roadway, and pointed out the presence of bus stops that increase 1070 pedestrian activity. 1071 1072 Mr. Freihammer confirmed those conditions, and the Commission expressed 1073 support for completing the west side gaps. 1074 1075 Page 161 of 165 Page 25 of 28 Mr. Freihammer then introduced the Commerce Street segment, described as 1076 developing a pathway connection between Albert Street and Hamline Avenue. 1077 He explained that the area includes a high concentration of apartments and key 1078 destinations such as the library, high school, and nearby retail, including Target. 1079 He noted that a portion of the pathway has already been constructed by recent 1080 apartment development. 1081 1082 Mr. Freihammer indicated that completing the connection would improve 1083 pedestrian access throughout the corridor. He suggested that a road diet on the 1084 four-lane street could make it feasible to add the remaining sidewalk or 1085 pathway. 1086 1087 Chair Ficek recommended extending the Commerce Street segment west to 1088 State Farm Road, noting that pedestrians regularly use that corridor to access 1089 nearby destinations such as Target. 1090 1091 Mr. Freihammer confirmed that the upcoming development, including the State 1092 Patrol site, may incorporate sidewalk improvements in that area. The 1093 Commission supported modifying the segment to develop a pathway on the 1094 south side of Commerce Street from State Farm Road to Hamline Avenue. 1095 1096 Mr. Freihammer then clarified that the Minnesota Avenue constellation link 1097 was a duplicate of a previously discussed segment. He noted that the 1098 Commission had already supported adding a pathway along Minnesota Avenue 1099 from Lovell Avenue through Western Avenue and continuing east, effectively 1100 covering the entire corridor. 1101 1102 Mr. Freihammer next introduced the constellation link I1 along Oakcrest 1103 Avenue between Fairview Avenue and Rosebrook Park. He explained that the 1104 connection would provide access from a residential neighborhood into the park 1105 system, with broader links to other parks in the area. He noted that Oakcrest 1106 Avenue is a low-volume residential street with limited traffic and that existing 1107 pathways are available along Fairview Avenue and within the park. 1108 1109 Member Luongo asked whether there had been any resident feedback regarding 1110 the Oakcrest Avenue connection. 1111 1112 Mr. Freihammer indicated there had not been notable input and explained that 1113 the roadway now functions as a low-volume local street due to limited access 1114 at Snelling Avenue. 1115 1116 The Commission agreed the segment did not warrant inclusion as a formal 1117 pathway and supported leaving it as a constellation link rather than adding it to 1118 the pathway master plan. 1119 1120 Page 162 of 165 Page 26 of 28 Mr. Freihammer then introduced the Lydia Avenue segment, described as the 1121 development of an off-road pathway between Snelling Avenue and Hamline 1122 Avenue along the north side of Autumn Grove Park. He noted that this segment 1123 was added during the 2021 pathway master plan update at the request of 1124 residents and had already gone through neighborhood engagement and Council 1125 approval. He added that a portion of the pathway along Hamline Avenue is 1126 expected to be constructed this year. 1127 1128 Member Luongo expressed support for retaining the Lydia Avenue segment, 1129 noting that it provides a direct connection to Northwestern and serves students 1130 living in the neighborhood's eastern portion. 1131 1132 Chair Ficek confirmed that Lydia functions as a collector roadway, reinforcing 1133 the need for pedestrian infrastructure. 1134 1135 Member Brokaw Palalay also supported the segment, and the Commission 1136 agreed it addresses a clear need. 1137 1138 Mr. Freihammer noted that the segment was originally requested by residents 1139 and had received general support during prior engagement, with only limited 1140 opposition. He added that implementation could include a road diet to improve 1141 safety and accommodate the pathway. 1142 1143 The Commission agreed to keep the segment. 1144 1145 Mr. Freihammer then revisited a County Road C segment related to 1146 constructing a sidewalk on the north side between Western Avenue and Rice 1147 Street. He noted that this overlapped with a previously discussed segment and 1148 recommended keeping the updated version and removing the duplicate. 1149 1150 The Commission agreed. 1151 1152 Mr. Freihammer introduced segment 7 on Fairview Avenue, north of County 1153 Road B2, described as the development of an off-road pathway between County 1154 Road C2 and County Road D. He noted that the corridor currently lacks 1155 pedestrian facilities and functions more like a rural roadway with wide 1156 shoulders. 1157 1158 The Commission agreed that, given traffic levels and the need for connectivity, 1159 the segment should be retained. 1160 1161 Mr. Freihammer concluded by noting significant progress in reviewing the 1162 segments. 1163 1164 Chair Ficek suggested pausing at that point. 1165 1166 Page 163 of 165 Page 27 of 28 Mr. Freihammer noted that the Commission reviewed approximately 28 to 30 1167 segments and indicated that the next discussion would likely occur in July or 1168 August due to a full meeting schedule. He encouraged members to submit 1169 additional segment ideas if they believe anything is missing, explaining that 1170 staff can add them for review and initiate the standard neighborhood 1171 engagement process before bringing recommendations forward to the 1172 Commission and Council. 1173 1174 Chair Ficek asked whether there are other right-of-way corridors in the city, 1175 similar to Aldine, that could be considered for future pathway connections. 1176 1177 Mr. Freihammer explained that Aldine is a unique case, as most right-of-way 1178 corridors have already been evaluated through a prior process that identified 1179 potential vacations. He noted that some corridors were short or disconnected 1180 and therefore not suitable for connecting pathways. He added that several 1181 existing pathway connections into parks, such as Tamarack and Mattern, were 1182 created using former right-of-way corridors. 1183 1184 Mr. Freihammer indicated that only a limited number of additional 1185 opportunities remain, with a few still identified in the pathway master plan, 1186 including some in the Owasso Hills area that may be reviewed in future 1187 discussions. 1188 1189 ## 5. Commission Direction on Member-Initiated Agenda Items 1190 Mr. Freihammer provided an overview of upcoming Commission activities and 1191 meeting topics. 1192 1193 Mr. Freihammer reported that a new Commission member, Luke Sandstrom, would 1194 be sworn in at a future meeting and noted that he has prior city experience and 1195 familiarity with the pathway master plan. He indicated that ethics training would 1196 likely occur in early April. 1197 1198 Mr. Freihammer outlined upcoming agenda items, including the adoption of the 1199 bike plan, a potential discussion of streetlight policy, continued review of the 1200 pathway master plan, a Waste Management presentation in May, stormwater 1201 updates, and preparation for the Joint Council meeting. He noted that the June 1202 meeting would likely include a discussion on the climate equity action plan and a 1203 leaf site recommendation, which may generate public interest. 1204 1205 Chair Ficek asked whether additional meetings would be needed to complete the 1206 pathway master plan review. 1207 1208 Mr. Freihammer indicated there is no strict deadline and explained that the current 1209 effort is intended to prepare for a larger transportation plan update expected to begin 1210 in 2027. He noted that the Commission is making steady progress and could 1211 continue at the current pace, with the option to add a special meeting if needed. 1212 Page 164 of 165 Page 28 of 28 1213 Chair Ficek also asked about the Joint Council meeting timeline and encouraged 1214 members to begin thinking about topics they may want to discuss. 1215 1216 Mr. Freihammer indicated the meeting is typically held in July and suggested 1217 further discussion at an upcoming meeting to coordinate participation and 1218 messaging. 1219 1220 6. Approval of February 24, 2026, Meeting Minutes 1221 Comments and corrections to the draft minutes had been submitted by PWETC 1222 commissioners prior to tonight’s meeting, and those revisions were incorporated 1223 into the draft presented in the meeting materials. 1224 1225 Motion 1226 Vice Chair Hodder moved, Member Fergus seconded, approval of the 1227 February 24, 2026, meeting minutes as presented. 1228 1229 Ayes: 5 1230 Nays: 0 1231 Abstain: 2 (Luongo, and Brokaw Palalay) 1232 Motion carried. 1233 1234 7. Adjourn 1235 1236 Motion 1237 Member Luongo moved, Member Fergus seconded, and the meeting 1238 adjourned at approximately 8:28 p.m. 1239 1240 Ayes: 7 1241 Nays: 0 1242 Motion carried. 1243 Page 165 of 165