Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING <br /> ruL Y 26, 2005 Page 6 of7 <br /> . He noted that if the road is urbanized they could bring in curbing as a barrier versus a ditch and <br /> reviewed. He stated that if they do a curb the drainage issues would also have to be address <br /> noting that this could all be packaged into one request for T21. He urged the PTRC to <br /> communicate their ideas and suggestions to the City. <br /> Community Development Director Clark noted that the PTRC should take some form of action <br /> this evening if they want to get something in front of Council for consideration, as the Council <br /> plans to discuss this item at their first meeting in August. <br /> City Engineer Brown asked if it is key for the trail to be 8-feet or 6-feet. Chair Henry stated that <br /> if they are going to do the trail they should do it at 8-feet. <br /> Commissioner Zimmerman suggested putting together a packet that identifies each priority <br /> within the project and its associated costs. He explained that this would provide an avenue to <br /> include everything they want adding that it could end up that all or a portion of the project would <br /> be approved. <br /> Commissioner Sand elarified with City Engineer Brown that his figures are assuming an <br /> eitherlor option. City Engineer Brown confirmed and suggested that they either decide to do one <br /> side at a time or do both sides at the same time. <br /> . Chair Henry asked City Engineer Brown ifit would make more sense to focus on one side first. <br /> City Engineer Brown stated that either way, the project would be expensive. He stated that he is <br /> leaning towards the decision to pick one spot, near County Road E2, design a connection that is <br /> as safe as possible and them move south. <br /> Motion by Committee Member McClung, Second by Committee Member Zilmer, to <br /> recommend, as high priority, that the City Council investigate a trail from County Road E <br /> through the Bridge to Highway 96 and to direct staff to determine funding options. Motion <br /> carried unanimously. <br /> The Planning Commissioners agreed with and supports the recommendation and motion made by <br /> the PTRC. <br /> B. Gateway Signs <br /> Mr. Moore stated that the Council has directed Staff to come up with designs for the Gateway <br /> signage. He stated that he has three design options for the Committee to review. <br /> Committee Member Hames stated that the City Council has approved one location for the <br /> gateway sign at County Road D and Cleveland. He explained that the sign couldn't be larger <br /> than four feet. He reviewed each option with the Committee noting that all utilize the Kasota <br /> stone in various ways. He noted that the examples are drawn to scale adding that Option 2 meets <br /> all of the requirements for the gateway sign. He explained that the width of the sign could vary <br /> . depending on the proportions noting that the design they choose would be used at all locations. <br /> He reviewed the materials noting that all signs would be a colored cement or stucco finish with <br />