Laserfiche WebLink
126 July 9a' they did add a component to the constellation connections which did <br />127 enhance some of the scoring for those park connections to level the playing field a <br />128 little bit between the transit and the park. The Parks have their own Master Plan <br />129 which does include some additional trail connections within parks for a more <br />130 recreational perspective whereas this document is really focusing in on it from a <br />131 transportation network and serving that multi-purpose. <br />132 <br />133 Member Wozniak indicated he understood that, but he also knew part of the <br />134 Pathway Masterplan focuses on parks and it seems it down plays them a little bit. <br />135 The only scoring they have for parks is item six, connecting high density residential <br />136 to transit parks. Mr. Freihammer stated item one also indicates it connects multiple <br />137 destinations so if it is a park or an open space it is an additional point. <br />138 <br />139 Member Wozniak stated with respect to item six, it is only high density and does <br />140 not include single family and only goes to two. It stated it is only two points for <br />141 every hundred units. It seems to him that is downplays residential connections to <br />142 parks which he thought was important. It is one thing to have the Parks Master <br />143 Plan to address trails within a park, but he thought they want to get people to the <br />144 parks and in some cases, they need trails to do that. <br />145 <br />146 Chair Cihacek asked if Member Wozniak had any comments on the two items that <br />147 were presented. Member Wozniak replied he was leaning towards a point for more <br />148 school connections than what they have now. He thought there was a movement <br />149 underway to try to get school children to take amore active role in getting to school. <br />150 Less bussing, more biking and walking. <br />151 <br />152 Member Kruse thought it was good that the policy allows for flexibility and looks <br />153 for opportunities. He thought it was a good thing to have that flexibility. <br />154 <br />155 Chair Cihacek thought no additional points are needed for schools or for the other <br />156 criteria, so when those come up they have the opportunity to get more financing for <br />157 school pathways and other pathways which means they have an opportunity to <br />158 connect them. He also thought it was fine to make a policy change to state it is <br />159 their priority to put at least one side as a pathway. He did not think they need to <br />160 make a change towards that. In the future when they bring this back up, five or <br />161 seven years, there might be something more to evaluate based on the information <br />162 at that time. The same is true for looking at this from a different perspective in <br />163 parks or other sort of elements based upon what occurs between now and then <br />164 because they are adding more parks and what the environment and geography will <br />165 look like as a City in five years. Some adjustments will need to be made to account <br />166 for that. <br />167 <br />168 Member Misra asked for clarification on what is planned for the green highlighted <br />169 segments. Mr. Freihammer replied those were highlighted to show which arterial <br />170 routes do not currently have a sidewalk on either side. Offhand, nothing right now <br />171 is planned but based on their proposal they would highlight that. If the Commission <br />Page 4 of 16 <br />