My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-12-03_PR_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Parks & Recreation
>
Parks & Recreation Commission
>
Packets
>
2013
>
2013-12-03_PR_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/27/2013 4:20:38 PM
Creation date
11/27/2013 4:20:36 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION <br />1 <br />DRAFT MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 7, 2013 <br />2 <br />ROSEVILLE CITY HALL~6:30pm <br />3 <br />4 <br />PRESENT: <br />5Azer, Boehm, Diedrick, Doneen, Gelbach, D. Holt, M. Holt,Stoner, Wall <br />ABSENT: <br />6Simbecknotified staff ahead of time about beingunable to attend <br />STAFF: <br />7Anfang,Brokke, Evenson, Johnson <br />OTHERS: <br />8Gary Grefenberg, Michael Schroeder, Tim McILwain, Tim Wold <br />9 <br />10 <br />INTRODUCTIONS <br />111. <br />12 <br />ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT <br />132. <br />14Gary Grefenberg spoke on behalf of the 75 households affiliated withSWARM (SouthWest <br />15Area Roseville Monitor)in regards to Renewal Projects proposed for the Southwest quadrant <br />16of Roseville. Mr. Grefenbergmade it very clear that he was not speaking on behalf of all of <br />17Southwest Roseville, just for the SWARM association membership. <br />18Grefenberg recognized the efforts of the Commission and the Parks and Recreation <br />19department to involve our community throughout the Master Plan and Renewal <br />20Program processes and truly appreciates the level of engagement that has taken place. <br />21Grefenberg spoke of the disappointment by SWARM in the recent ranking of <br />22potential Pathway Projects by the Pathway Committee. Earlier in the planning process <br />23the County Road B Pathway was listed as a high priority, the most recent ranking <br />24places the County Road B Pathway as #40 out of 40. <br />25Grefenberg reminded the Commission that County Road Bis a major artery in <br />o <br />26Southwest Rosevilleand the most important connection in SW Roseville. <br />27There currently is no easy pedestrian access to Brimhall School, Fairview <br />o <br />28Community Center or Evergreen Park due to no pathway, no sidewalk and no <br />29striped shoulder. <br />30Residents in this area have been asking for a sidewalk along County Road B <br />o <br />31for 20 years. <br />32Grefenberg is asking the Commission to give consideration for ranking the <br />o <br />33County Road B pathwayhigher. <br />34Grefenberg also voiced concern about the level of involvement by the <br />o <br />35Pathway Committee and Public Works Commission in relation to their lack of <br />36involvement in earlier Master Plan work. <br />37Commission Chair Holt recognized and thanked Grefenberg for his efforts to <br />o <br />38share information in SW Roseville and encourage engagement among <br />39neighbors. <br />40Brokke talked briefly on how the trails and pathway Renewal Program funds <br />o <br />41will be used based on what takes places with the CountyRoad B-2 pathway <br />42and its final costs. <br />43Grefenbergspoke to the openness of the NRATS meetingsand the feeling he has had <br />44that the group is not open to all for comments and recommendations. <br />45Brokke briefed the group on the history of the NRATS (Natural Resources <br />o <br />46and Trails Subcommittee). <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.