My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2018_1008
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
CC_Minutes_2018_1008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/25/2018 11:05:04 AM
Creation date
10/25/2018 11:04:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/8/2018
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, October 8, 2018 <br /> Page 12 <br /> Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Jesse Freihammer briefly high- <br /> lighted this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated October 8, <br /> 2018. <br /> Mayor Roe stated he had an issue on 18B, the reference to City Code 407.03 is <br /> probably correct but the City no longer has an R-1 or R-2 zone in the Zoning <br /> Code so staff may want to adjust the wording of that to match the City Zoning <br /> Code better. It may require the City to look at the wording of 407.03 also if it has <br /> outdated zoning code references in it. He noted once this is published staff needs <br /> to make sure all of the references are correct. <br /> Councilmember McGehee asked why the City has a Parks Constellation list and <br /> the main list. She would like to see those merged so there is one list for the entire <br /> City because these are all paths that are connected and not unique. <br /> Mr. Freihammer stated staff did keep the two separate lists. The main goal of the <br /> Constellation list is to provide connectivity between the parks on a local level and <br /> a more regional park level. The overall list provides other connections to adjacent <br /> cities, local trails, to business districts and things like that. Staff did add it in but <br /> since the two lists serve different purposes, these are on separate lists. <br /> Councilmember McGehee did not understand why and did not believe the two <br /> lists serve different purposes. These are all transportation routes and all routes for <br /> health and wellness and all one group. As the City is thought of as one unit, if <br /> those are part of the Master Plan and the trails are laid in, then those should just <br /> be in the one document so the Council is not moving back and forth between two <br /> documents for information. She did not find that very helpful and did not under- <br /> stand it from either a policy or philosophical standpoint because these are all <br /> trails, all the same size, and serving the same purpose. She stated if the Parks De- <br /> partment wants to keep the two lists, the Parks Department can but she did not <br /> think the general public thinks about this as two independent systems. It is one <br /> system in one City and one goal the City has to be connected. <br /> Mr. Freihammer stated there is some overlap of segments,but the paths are a little <br /> different. A lot of the pathway segments the City has are on higher volume roads <br /> making larger connections instead of connections between local neighborhood <br /> parks. Some of the park's connections may not be as big of a pathway connection <br /> as the Pathway Master list is. <br /> Mayor Roe thought there should be Council discussion about how the documenta- <br /> tion should be provided. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte stated previously the Council and staff had a discussion <br /> regarding deducting and adding points for a section that might have a sidewalk al- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.