Laserfiche WebLink
262 <br />Member Felice, specific to the Highway 280/Larpenteur Avenue area, suggested a <br />263 <br />pro- active approach recognizing the importance for safety in this area, and that it <br />264 <br />be kept as a high priority during the planning process. <br />265 <br />266 <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that another option could be a north/south parallel to <br />267 <br />Highway 280 through partnering with Midland Hills Golf Course to achieve a <br />268 <br />connection; all discussed during the Parks Master Plan process. <br />269 <br />270 <br />Members were of a consensus that this would be an important connection. <br />271 <br />272 <br />From a safety perspective, Ms. Bloom noted that ther as no question this <br />273 <br />presented a barrier, opining that a grade differentiation would have been great, but <br />274 <br />didn't see it on the radar. Ms. Bloom advised that the entire NE Diagonal area <br />275 <br />came up for discussion on a weekly basis, and would provide a huge benefit for a <br />276 <br />significant portion of the pathway system, with Walnut providing a great <br />277 <br />connection. However, Ms. Bloom noted that furthering this was a significant <br />278 <br />challenge in the southwest area of the community. At the request of Member <br />279 <br />Gjerdingen, Ms. Bloom reviewed some of the constraints, including the railroad <br />280 <br />not allowing pathways w' in fifty feet (50') of their tracks, and the c ent right - <br />281 <br />of -way only being fifty feet (50') wide. Ms. loom noted that Ramse County <br />282 <br />was in agreement with the City to h ea . <br />283 <br />%ve <br />284 <br />Mr. Schwartz noted that an upcoming project was to resurface with concrete Long <br />285 <br />Lake Road; with Ms. Bloom advising that this was a definite area of interest for <br />286 <br />the City partnering with Ramsey County, given its location on the priority list. <br />287 <br />Ms. Bloom noted that the City had partnered with the County on a past grant <br />288 <br />application, whi bsequently failed to be awarded. <br />289 <br />"had <br />290 <br />air Vanderwathe pieces that are regional, not local, in nature, and <br />291 <br />why there was not more interest from Ramsey County in pursuing <br />292 <br />;uestioned <br />se projects. <br />293 <br />294 <br />loom advised that the original alignment of the County Road B -2 pathway <br />295 <br />was proposed along the railroad tracks, and the railroad would not work with the <br />296 <br />City on such a project. Ms. Bloom advised that the City didn't consider <br />297 <br />easements from adjacent property owners at that time to route a pathway down <br />298 <br />the south side; however, opined that this might be an easier option than attempting <br />299 <br />to secure railroad rights -of -way. <br />300 <br />301 <br />Mr. Schwartz questioned the PWETC on how and when they wanted to discuss <br />302 <br />the pathway system with the Parks and Recreation Commission or their pathway <br />303 <br />subcommittee. Mr. Schwartz questioned if the PWETC was interested in inviting <br />304 <br />representatives of either group to their August meeting. Mr. Schwartz noted Mr. <br />305 <br />Brokke's strong interest in participation in this conversation with the PWETC. <br />306 <br />Page 7 of 16 <br />