Laserfiche WebLink
October 4 1993 <br /> To: Steve Sarkozy <br /> FROG Steve Catlin <br /> SUBJECT: STATUS of 'COUI T loo PATHWAY PATHWAY PROTECT <br /> The City Council held a public hearing on September 27 to discuss <br /> the County Road C pathway. At that time, presentations were made <br /> by staff and the consultant regarding the recommended design, <br /> Testimony was talon from the neighborhood regarding their thoughts <br /> on the proposal, staff and the consultant were asked to review <br /> comments made by the neighborhood and report back on October 11. <br /> At - the October 11 City Council meeting, it is suggested the <br /> council consider final action on ordering the project. <br /> The major issue for further review was the location of the <br /> pathway on the north or south side on County Road c and similarly <br /> on Fairview, between oakcrest and County Road C, whether the <br /> pathway should be on the east side or west side. <br /> A summary is attached from the consultant, BRw, regarding all of <br /> the issues at the public hearing. During this Meek, we will be <br /> developing recommendations for Council consideration on October 11 <br /> regarding all of the items listed. <br /> In general, for Fairview Avenue, the pathway would fit much easier <br /> on the west side with the exception of the intersection of County <br /> Roads. In this location railroad tracks, large power poles, and <br /> utility equipment make the location for the pathway somewhat <br /> difficult. In general, south of this location there is adequate <br /> right-of-way and physical space to construct the pathway. <br /> However, we are concerned about the crossing of Fairview Avenue <br /> n for pedestriansO It may, perhaps, be most expedient to consider a <br /> pathway on both sides of the street. The Federal Grant could be <br /> used to locate the pathway on the west side with city funding for <br /> a replacement path on the east side. It 6hould be rioted that the <br /> path on the rest side would have to be extended considerably <br /> further south than the original planned terminal point at oakcrest <br /> to link with existing facilities, or a crossing would have to be <br /> assumed at o akcrest. Again, we are concerned about the safety of <br /> a crossing of this nature. <br />