Laserfiche WebLink
263 <br />264 Member Wozniak suggested they define this in the Pathway Master Plan. <br />265 <br />266 Chair Cihacek stated item Nos. 3, 4, and 5 could be taken out of this policy section <br />267 and become part of the Parks plan. <br />268 <br />269 Member Seigler agreed and inquired if they need to split the Pathways Master Plan <br />270 for those who are using arterial roads and going long distances, and what is <br />271 acceptable for residential streets. <br />272 <br />273 Member Misra commented originally, they were looking for a way to be flexible, <br />274 and allow adjustment to the plan as priorities change and funding becomes <br />275 available. Now they are looking for definitions that are going to guide more of how <br />276 the directions should go. If there is a need for more commuter access to larger <br />277 arterial bikeways, that should be made clear. <br />278 <br />279 Mr. Hingeveld noted on the proposed Pathways Master Plan, it calls out both <br />280 existing and potential options, along with the type of trails they are. <br />281 <br />282 Member Seigler inquired if bikes were considered appropriate for sidewalks and <br />283 would like that to be defined in the categories listed under item No. 2.4. <br />284 <br />285 Mr. Culver responded according to State law, bicycles are allowed to use sidewalks <br />286 in non -business districts. He also noted they should probably review the design <br />287 standards in the policy. <br />288 <br />289 In the interest of time, Chair Cihacek advised Members to review the Policies and <br />290 Standards document on their own, to be discussed at a future meeting. <br />291 <br />292 Mr. Hingeveld directed Members to the series of maps in the meeting packet and <br />293 explained they have been updated to reflect added pathway segments have been <br />294 completed since 2008. They also show the 2017 projects currently underway, or <br />295 scheduled to be completed in within the year. Since 2008, there have been 10 <br />296 additional miles of completed pathway facility segments. <br />297 <br />298 Mr. Hingeveld referred to the 2008 Project Prioritization Ranking Criteria provided <br />299 on page 36 in the meeting packet and requested feedback from Members. <br />300 <br />301 Chair Cihacek inquired how valuable it is to provide a rank to these items in relation <br />302 to the project. <br />303 <br />304 Mr. Culver responded the rankings themselves are generally helpful. They are <br />305 going to build segments as larger projects come up and they are able to coordinate <br />306 them. However, there is a large push for complete streets and it is likely there will <br />307 be specific, dedicated funding for these types of projects in the future. Having a <br />308 ranking and being able to provide it within an application for funds shows they are <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />