Laserfiche WebLink
for an off-street pathway on Galtier or Matilda She noted that traffic volumes <br />are low, making it comfortable to walk in the street, and added that the nearby <br />park access point does not generate significant vehicle demand. While she <br />acknowledged occasional busier periods, such as when disc golfers are present, <br />she emphasized that overall usage does not justify additional infrastructure and <br />suggested that, if anything, Transit Street might be a more logical location for <br />improvements. <br />Mr. Freihammer added that no pathway segments are currently planned along <br />Transit Street and noted that some existing sidewalks in the area were installed <br />to meet past development requirements rather than as part of a coordinated <br />long-term connectivity plan. He explained that many commercial properties <br />were historically required to install sidewalks adjacent to their parcels, which is <br />why some segments appear disconnected today. <br />Based on Member Luongo's input and the broader discussion about consistency <br />and need, Mr. Freihammer agreed that the proposed segment would be difficult <br />to justify and supported removing it from the plan, a decision the group <br />ultimately agreed to. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that this segment follows a partially platted but <br />unused right-of-way that was originally intended for a roadway connection that <br />was never completed. He noted the corridor could potentially serve as a <br />pathway connection and help break up a long half -mile gap between streets, but <br />it has remained a conceptual line on the plan with no recent public input or clear <br />origin. <br />The discussion among commission members centered on balancing long-term <br />connectivity goals with consistency, practicality, and community impact when <br />evaluating pathway segments. <br />Member Fergus generally emphasized apractical, resident -focused perspective, <br />often questioning whether new pathways were truly necessary in low -traffic <br />residential areas where walking in the street is already comfortable. He <br />highlighted the importance of consistency with past decisions, noting that <br />similar residential streets had not been prioritized, and supported removing <br />segments that did not clearly improve safety or access. <br />Chair Ficek reinforced this consistency lens, reminding the group that while <br />exceptions can be made, the commission has historically been cautious about <br />adding pathways on local residential streets unless there is a clear need, such as <br />higher traffic volumes or safety concerns. He also clarified that even conceptual <br />segments can raise concerns among residents, particularly when they affect <br />trees, yards, or perceived changes to neighborhood character. <br />Page 9 of 11 <br />