Laserfiche WebLink
194 <br />195 <br />196 <br />197 <br />198 <br />199 <br />200 <br />201 <br />202 <br />203 <br />204 <br />205 <br />At the request of Mr. Grefenberg, both Members DeBenedet and Gjerdingen <br />clarified and reiterated that there had been no exclusion of County Road B. <br />Member DeBenedet noted that, if at least a portion of the pathway on County <br />Road B on the west end, it would be a benefit and a step in the right direction, and <br />prove satisfactory, recognizing other community -wide needs. <br />kr.GrefenMerg oted that the County Road B segment had mentioned more than <br />es during the 18 -month process of the landscape planning in the Parks <br />an process; however, with a history of over 30 years of neglect, any <br />from one resident should not reflect broader neighborhood concerns. <br />206 <br />Mr. Grefenberg expressed confidence that the PWETC process would serve to <br />207 <br />clarify, to some extent, what the neighborhood would like to see for a non - <br />208 <br />motorized pathway. If any project was approved, Mr. Grefenberg opined that the <br />209 <br />County Road B pathway was as eligible as any. <br />210 <br />211 <br />County Road B Pathway Discussion <br />212 <br />Chair Vanderwall recognized Public Works Director Schwartz and asked him for <br />213 <br />a summary of last night's City Council meeting presentation and discussion <br />214 <br />specifically related to County Road B to address concerns expressed by residents. <br />215 <br />216 <br />Mr. Schwartz began with reviewing the existing conditions and realities of <br />217 <br />County Road B: <br />Page 5 of 18 <br />