My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-11-07_PR_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Parks & Recreation
>
Parks & Recreation Commission
>
Packets
>
2013
>
2013-11-07_PR_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2013 10:02:14 AM
Creation date
11/8/2013 10:02:11 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Trails <br />53 <br />54i.Commissioner Doneen updated the Commission on discussions from the most recent <br />55NRAT meeting. <br />561.Doneen reminded the Commission of community feedback that asked for <br />57better connectivity of trails … People want to be able to walk to parks and <br />58then walk around in the parks once they arrive. <br />592.B-2Sidewalk <br />60a.Important for the community <br />61b.Will result in use of the majority of the Renewal Program trails and <br />62pathways funding <br />633.NRATShas looked at other possible connections that may be added with the <br />64remainder of the Renewal Program trails funding. The group haddecided to <br />65wait on making recommendations until the end of community dialogues for <br />66other Renewal Program projects is completed so as to have a better idea of <br />67what might be provided through other projects <br />68ii.Evenson explained the thought process used in creating the priority listing for system- <br />69wide trail projects outside of the B-2 sidewalk project. <br />701.Evenson spoke toConstellation consideration from the Master Plan along with <br />71the significance ofsupporting the Renewal Program <br />72iii.Commissioners discussion included: <br />731.D Holt suggested that future funding may better serve projects that are more <br />74park specific with personal connections to individual parks <br />752.P Gelbach asked about the signage plan for identifying projects and <br />76supportingcommunity awareness <br />77NRATS suggested amore balanced approach was needed between connections and in park <br />78trails. More work to come. <br />79 <br />Natural Resources <br />80 <br />o <br />81i.Doneen spoke to the high value our community places on Natural Resources. <br />82ii.Staff explained that the proposeddirection for Natural Resource funding is: <br />831.The management of existing situations, including; working to eliminate <br />84invasive speciesand adding environment education components to <br />85neighborhood parks <br />862.New Renewal Program Projects might includethe addition of a natural area <br />87of some sort in every park <br />883.It was pointed out how the 2001 Natural Resource Management Plan has <br />89benefited theCity in so many different ways <br />90i.Current planning efforts haveusedthe following: <br />911.Atype, size and location study ofpossible projects <br />922.Filteredprojects using current maintenance needs and <br />93processes vs. new maintenance needs <br />943.Opportunities to leverage funding through partnership grants <br />954.Sustainability <br />965.Benefits to overall the park system <br />976.Creating eco-system components in each sector with ties <br />98back to the Nature Center <br />994.Staff is working closely with Stantec on an estimated priority listing to <br />100better establish a system that will direct efforts for years to come <br />1015.Natural Resources will be a standaloneRFP within the Renewal Program. <br />102The package will be developed around outcome based performance <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.