My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-0324 PWETC Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
202x
>
2026
>
2026-0324 PWETC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2026 12:43:58 PM
Creation date
5/13/2026 12:43:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/24/2026
Commission/Committee - 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
considered leaving the segment unchanged in the plan pending further <br />direction. <br />Member Luongo asked how removing the segment from the pathway master <br />plan would interact with the ongoing Council process and resident input. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that the segment is already under active review, <br />including multiple Council discussions and a pending report related to a <br />potential vacation. He noted that there has been significant resident <br />involvement, including petitions both for and against the proposal. <br />Mr. Freihammer indicated that Council will likely act on the report before the <br />updated pathway master plan returns for approval. He explained that removing <br />the segment now would not prevent Council from proceeding with a project if <br />they choose to do so, and conversely, Council could also decide to remove it <br />independently. He noted that the pathway master plan update is likely at least a <br />year away from Council consideration. <br />Chair Ficek and Mr. Freihammer discussed how to handle the Aldine segment <br />given the ongoing Council review. They agreed it would be best to leave the <br />segment as is for now rather than making changes prematurely. <br />Chair Ficek noted support for the concept of a connection, while Mr. <br />Freihammer indicated staff would revisit it after Council action and update the <br />plan accordingly, either removing it if constructed or if not pursued. <br />Mr. Freihammer then introduced segment 35 on Fairview Avenue, described as <br />developing an off -road pathway on the west side from County Road B2 to <br />County Road C2. He clarified that a continuous pathway already exists on the <br />east side, while the west side has partial segments with gaps. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that this segment intends to fill the remaining gaps <br />on the west side, particularly given the higher traffic volumes on Fairview <br />Avenue south of County Road C2. He noted that recent improvements have <br />addressed portions of the corridor, but several gaps remain that would improve <br />overall connectivity. <br />Member Brokaw Palalay noted that this Fairview Avenue segment reflects <br />earlier concerns about safety, particularly with people using scooters and <br />walking in the roadway, and pointed out the presence of bus stops that increase <br />pedestrian activity. <br />Mr. Freihammer confirmed those conditions, and the Commission expressed <br />support for completing the west side gaps. <br />Page 24 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.