Laserfiche WebLink
Member Luongo expressed support for keeping the segment in the pathway <br />master plan. She noted that master plans often remain in place for many years <br />and that community perspectives may change over time, making the segment a <br />viable option for future consideration. <br />Mr. Freihammer asked whether the Commission preferred to modify the <br />segment description to specify the completion of an off -road pathway on the <br />north side of County Road C from Western Avenue to Rice Street. <br />The commission agreed to the change. <br />Mr. Freihammer indicated that he would describe the segment generally as a <br />pathway rather than specifying a trail or sidewalk. He then introduced segment <br />6 on Cleveland Avenue, described as the development of an off -road pathway <br />between County Road C and County Road D. He noted that the segment was <br />somewhat disjointed and would be reviewed in more detail. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that the Cleveland Avenue segment from County <br />Road C to County Road D is largely completed, though in a split configuration. <br />He noted that a sidewalk exists on the east side from County Road C to County <br />Road C2, while a pathway continues on the west side from County Road C2 to <br />County Road D. <br />Mr. Freihammer indicated that this creates a continuous corridor, but with a <br />mid -segment shift from east to west. He explained that the Commission could <br />consider the segment complete as is, or modify it to create a continuous facility <br />on one side. He noted that completing the corridor on the east side would likely <br />require extending a sidewalk, whereas completing it on the west side would be <br />less desirable due to freeway ramps. <br />Mr. Freihammer added that the corridor includes a mix of commercial, <br />industrial, residential, and park uses, including access to Langton Park and <br />nearby senior housing. He noted that while Cleveland Avenue is a busy <br />roadway, it is not classified as a full arterial, which may influence whether <br />facilities on both sides are prioritized. He indicated that the Commission could <br />choose to remove the segment or modify it based on priorities. <br />Chair Ficek asked whether, for the segment from County Road C to County <br />Road C2, where there is no facility on the west side, the city would consider <br />adding a pathway on that side in the future if an opportunity arose, despite the <br />presence of the ramp entrance. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that adding a pathway on the west side between <br />County Road C and County Road C2 could be considered. However, it would <br />depend on county priorities and future ranking evaluations. He noted that <br />Page 12 of 28 <br />