Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Freihammer explained that the off -road pathway on the north side had <br />originally been proposed but was removed from the project by the Council. <br />However, it remains in the pathway master plan for potential future <br />consideration. He indicated that the Commission could choose to retain the off - <br />road segment and clarify that it would be located on the north side, where no <br />pathway currently exists, since there is already one on the south side. He also <br />noted that the Commission could consider removing it entirely if desired. <br />Member Fergus noted significant pushback from residents on that segment. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that residents had petitioned to remove the segment, <br />and the Council acted on that feedback. He noted that while some residents <br />supported the project, a larger number expressed opposition during the process. <br />Member Fergus recalled that the Council chose not to pursue the project at that <br />time, but kept it in the pathway master plan for future consideration and asked <br />for confirmation. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that the Council considered removing the segment <br />from the pathway master plan but ultimately chose to keep it on the list for <br />future consideration. <br />Member Luongo asked when the Commission would have another opportunity <br />to review or revisit this segment, expressing concern that they might otherwise <br />miss the chance to weigh in. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that the opportunity to include the segment in the <br />current project had passed. He noted that while the right-of-way still exists, any <br />future construction would likely depend on a cost -share policy and would not <br />occur in the near term. <br />Mr. Freihammer indicated that it could be 10 or more years before the project <br />is reconsidered, and that future opportunities would depend on available <br />funding and stronger community support. He added that while the segment may <br />still rank highly, it would be evaluated based on timing and feasibility, and the <br />Commission could choose to keep it for future consideration or remove it if it <br />is not expected to move forward. <br />Chair Ficek expressed support for keeping the segment in the pathway master <br />plan. He noted disagreement with the prior decision to remove it from the <br />project, stating that the pathway had been planned for many years. He added <br />that having facilities on both sides of the roadway improves usability by <br />reducing the need for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the street multiple times. <br />He acknowledged that the project is unlikely to occur in the near term but <br />supported retaining it for future consideration. <br />Page 11 of 28 <br />