Laserfiche WebLink
• Stronger recreation corridor – more emphasis, more aesthetically pleasing, add enhancements or <br />allow for these along trail corridor <br />• Better connectivity on west side of 61 – RR property has reduced access. Seen as negative for vehicle <br />operations, seen as positive for continuous trail corridor (fewer intersections) <br />• Desire for buildings to have zero set back from 61 ROW on east side with parking in back <br />o Opportunity to shift road ROW as far west as possible to provide more space for <br />development on east side <br />• Manage transportation corridor as one (road, trail, and transit) <br />• Might have curves (can these be added in?), pleasant intimate feel <br />• Feel most similar to St. Peter and Frenchman Road (like planted medians) <br />• Least feel like Hwy 55 in Minneapolis, 61 if Forest Lake – don’t want wide pedestrian crossings <br />• Consider grade of trail – rail bed creates challenging sight lines <br />• Overall looking for “tighter frame” – will already look better, then can address elevation of rail <br />corridor (open viewshed) and add aesthetic elements <br />• If traffic analysis is showing three-lane north and south of downtown, can we plan to 4-lane and <br />intensify our land uses? Seems like we have more capacity than previously thought… <br /> <br />Open Discussion <br />• Consider future of e-bikes – becoming more and more common place and viable transportation <br />mode, what are impacts to recreation corridor. Wider trail, multiple trails? <br />• Potential for pull-off parking areas off 61? <br />• Speeds through downtown are terrible <br />• Center median needs to be well planned to provide access where needed <br />• Forest Lake Downtown Plan – what is their vision for transit corridor? Need to understand <br />neighboring community approaches