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
where layout options would be evaluated and refined based on concepts <br />prepared by the architects. He indicated that this exercise would help move <br />the project forward. <br />Mr. Freihammer reported that more detailed updates were expected at the next <br />meeting and that a stakeholder meeting was anticipated in April to gather <br />additional feedback, particularly regarding the north side of the site. He added <br />that significant progress was expected over the next few months, with more <br />substantial updates anticipated in April and May. <br />c. Pathway Master Plan <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that the discussion would continue the pathway <br />review process previously started in November. He noted that the goal was to <br />work through as much of the material as possible during the meeting, potentially <br />completing a substantial portion in one session rather than spreading it across <br />multiple meetings. <br />Mr. Freihammer reported that the materials had been updated to correct minor <br />errors and include additional maps. He explained that the map identified <br />segments by number, with additional lettered segments representing potential <br />additions to the plan. He noted that several segments had already been reviewed <br />and generally supported for further consideration, and that additional segments <br />not previously discussed would be reviewed at the end. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that staff would provide a brief overview of each <br />segment, after which the Commission could determine whether to keep, <br />modify, or remove it from consideration. He clarified that adding a segment at <br />this stage would not formally include it in the pathway master plan, but would <br />move it forward for further evaluation. <br />Mr. Freihammer outlined that the next step would involve neighborhood <br />engagement, including a public meeting, followed by Commission review and <br />potential recommendation to the Council for final consideration. He noted that <br />the proposed segments had originated from input by the Mayor, <br />Councilmembers, staff observations, and resident feedback. <br />Chair Ficek clarified that the term "segment" did not specify whether the <br />connection would be a sidewalk or a trail; rather, it indicated a general <br />connection. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that segments in the pathway master plan can <br />include either sidewalks or trails, depending on existing conditions and <br />available space. He noted that while some segments are identified specifically <br />as sidewalk or trail, many are listed more generally because the exact facility <br />type has not yet been determined. <br />Page 6 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.