2012-07-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Felice, specific to the Highway 280/Larpenteur Avenue area, suggested a pro-active approach recognizing the importance for safety in this area, and that it be kept as a high priority during the planning process. Mr. Schwartz advised that another option could be a north/south parallel to Highway 280 through partnering with Midland Hills Golf Course to achieve a connection; all discussed during the Parks Master Plan process. Members were of a consensus that this would be an important connection. From a safety perspective, Ms. Bloom noted that there was no question this presented a barrier, opining that a grade differentiation would have been great, but didn't see it on the radar. Ms. Bloom advised that the entire NE Diagonal area came up for discussion on a weekly basis, and would provide a huge benefit for a significant portion of the pathway system, with Walnut providing a great connection. However, Ms. Bloom noted that furthering this was a significant challenge in the southwest area of the community. At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Ms. Bloom reviewed some of the constraints, including the railroad not allowing pathways within fifty feet (50') of their tracks, and the current right- of-way only being fifty feet (50')wide. Ms. Bloom noted that Ramsey County was in agreement with the City to move ahead. Mr. Schwartz noted that an upcoming project was to resurface County Rd C from Long Lake Road west with concrete; with Ms. Bloom advising that this was a definite area of interest for the City partnering with Ramsey County, given its location on the priority list. Ms. Bloom noted that the City had partnered with the County on a past grant application, which had subsequently failed to be awarded. Chair Vanderwall noted the pieces that are regional, not local, in nature, and questioned why there was not more interest from Ramsey County in pursuing those projects. Ms. Bloom advised that the original alignment of the northeast diagonal pathway was proposed along the railroad tracks, and the railroad would not work with the City on such a project. Ms. Bloom advised that the City didn't consider easements from adjacent property owners at that time to route a pathway down the south side; however, opined that this might be an easier option than attempting to secure railroad rights-of-way. Mr. Schwartz questioned the PWETC on how and when they wanted to discuss the pathway system with the Parks and Recreation Commission or their pathway subcommittee. Mr. Schwartz questioned if the PWETC was interested in inviting representatives of either group to their August meeting. Mr. Schwartz noted Mr. Brokke's strong interest in participation in this conversation with the PWETC. Page 7 of 16