My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 10272025
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2025
>
CCP 10272025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2025 3:33:18 PM
Creation date
10/28/2025 3:33:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
10/27/2025
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
189
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
Attachment 5 <br />Answer: At this time, there is not a crosswalk planned at Roselawn and the pathway. <br />However, Roselawn is a city street and the jurisdiction for such a crosswalk would lie jointly <br />with the City of Roseville and the City of Falcon Heights. If a pathway is constructed, <br />engineering staff will review the need for crosswalk improvements. <br />Recommendation <br />Given the complexity of this issue, staff recommend that as part of their joint meeting on <br />September 15, 2025, the Commission considers checking in with the Council and: <br />1.Provide an update on your progress to date, <br />2.Provide any recommendations that you are currently comfortable with, <br />3.Provide proposed next steps and receive feedback, <br />4.Seek any clarification that is needed from the Council. <br />To aid in the conversation, staff have broken the request into two possible levels of <br />recommendation and some additional considerations. For each, the Commission should <br />consider whether they are ready to make a recommendation currently, and if not, what <br />additional information is needed to make a recommendation. <br />POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION ONE <br />Consider whether the pathway provides value to the parks and recreation system in that it <br />provides residents access to parks and other recreation spaces or serves as a valuable <br />recreational amenity in and of itself. <br />STEP 1: Answer Yes - move to RECOMMENDATION TWO <br />If no, recommendations could be: <br />STEP 1: Answer No, Option 1: The ROW in question does not include recreational <br />benefit and the commission recommends that the Council consider vacation. <br />STEP 1: Answer No, Option 2: ROW does not include recreational benefit, but <br />could in the future – the Commission recommends that the Council retain the ROW <br />but not significantly change it at this time. <br />POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION TWO <br />If there is a parks and recreation value, the Commission may consider making a <br />recommendation on what the Council should consider for next steps. <br />STEP 2, Option 1: Recommend that the City Council direct staff to engage with a third <br />party to conduct a detailed study that includes pathway alignment options and specific <br />tree impacts before a final decision is made. <br />STEP 2, Option 2: Recommend staff begin the implementation of a non-traditional trail <br />process, including neighborhood engagement, hiring a design consultant, and pre- <br />design. <br />STEP 2, Option 3: Recommend that the City Council install a more traditional <br />“hardscape” path. <br />Qbhf!45!pg!29: <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.