03-16-10 PTRC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Parks,Trails&Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes February 23,2010 Page 5 Committee member Straumann questioned if I.1 should say"County Road E through CP Rail"instead of"E2 through CP Rail." Ms. Olson agreed and stated she would make that correction. Committee member O'Malley indicated she felt J would be a nice segment to do at the time they do the Valentine Park area. Ms. Olson indicated the trail from Old Snelling to Mounds View was very controversial in the past. Discussion ensued regarding segment � J. Committee member O'Malley indicated she feels segment J is that should be considered. Ms. Olson indicated she would put the segment as a mid-priority and will do some research on it. Committee member Hilgers questioned why M was on the list because it is already such a wide road and feels it is safe and therefore should be a low priority. Discussion ensued regarding segment M and it was agreed that M may be one to be eliminated in the future. It was brought up that because the road is very wide lines could be painted/strip ed for walking and biking. Ms. Olson indicated she would put M as a p high riorit for g Y restriping. Ms. Olson asked if Segment I, Old 10,was still a high priority. She mentioned they would need to find some kind of funding source for that since with the CP Rail improvements, it is estimated over$2.25 million. Discussion ensued about making that segment a regional trail in order to have a better chance of getting funding. g Ms. Olson asked how they felt about segment A2 since it was a priority at one time. Committee member Garretson felt it should be looked at since it is a busy road. Discussion ensued regarding this. Chair Peck indicated Elmer L. Anderson has taken some of the priority out of Cleveland Y Avenue. Ms. Olson stated she would put A, Cleveland Avenue, as a low .priority. Y Ms. Olson asked for the groups' opinion regarding K2. After further discussion regarding K1 and K2 Ms. Olson indicated she would put the segment in the mid range e g priority level. Ms. Olson asked about segment B. Chair Peck and the other members did not feel this should be a high priority because of the low speed limit. Ms. Olson stated she would put this as a low priority segment as well as segment C which would be difficult to do because of the railroad. Discussion ensued on D 1 and E l. Ms. Olson indicated El is a Ramsey County segment and is a county project that it would be very Y costl because it goes through wetlands. Ms. Olson asked if they felt El or G should be a Ms. priority. Olson stated she would leave G and G1 as an important segment pending funding. Ms. i g Olson indicated she would put segment K as a low priority because they have to resolve easement issues and segment L would be dealt with at the time of the 96 project. She felt N would have some progress if the affordable housing were to o in and put that as a . g mid-range priority. Ms. Olson indicated she would put the list in priority order for our next meeting. g