Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 14, 2005 <br />Page 9 <br />Mr. Tralle stated he believed the trail would be used by residents other than the 72 people <br />in this development. He believed people on Lois Lane would also use this trail. He <br />stated if they did not install this trail properly, it would never get installed properly. He <br />indicated he wanted this to be made a public paved trail. <br />Mr. Laden stated if the developer was willing to do the trail to City standards, would this <br />then be a private trail. Mr. Tralle stated he did not want this trail exclusive to this <br />development and he wanted it to be a public trail to be used by everyone. <br />Chair Rafferty noted just because the trail was constructed, did not mean the City had the <br />means to take care of it, but he agreed the path should be a City owned path. He believed <br />the residents from Lois Lane would use the path and it would not be used exclusively by <br />this development only. He stated the question was how they could require the developer <br />to do this because he was already paying a fee for the parks. <br />Mr. Tralle replied they could determine the cost of the trail and then deduct that amount <br />from the park dedication fee. Mr. Bengston replied this trail was not on the parks and <br />trails plan the City was looking to pursue in the future and staff believed this would be a <br />minimal impact on the trail layout for the City and would not be used by all of the <br />residents. Mr. Tralle stated now was the time to start laying out trail for the north end of <br />the City and if it took money out of the park funds, this should still be done. <br />• Mr. Laden stated just because this was not on the parks and trails plan, did not mean they <br />should not put in a trail when the opportunity arose. <br />Mr. Nelson stated he believed the reason they were giving the City an Outlot was to <br />eventually tie in the trail system. <br />Mr. Hyden asked how residents who wanted to would bike to The Legacy at Woods Edge <br />development get there. Mr. Bengston replied staff believed there was sufficient road <br />connections for the residents to use to get to that development. <br />Chair Rafferty requested they add a Condition 21 to read: The Boardmembers feel very <br />strongly this should be a City paved trail with the appropriate funds being deducted from <br />the park dedication fees. <br />Mr. Root asked if the greenway Outlot would only be Outlot C. Mr. Bengston responded <br />that was correct. He believed a woodchip was not an appropriate trail for serving a <br />neighborhood such as this, even if it was a private trail. He stated he also believed this <br />should be a public trail. <br />Mr. Laden asked why did the traffic study use traffic generation numbers of 2005 and not <br />2007 when the project would be completed. Mr. Studenski replied when the traffic <br />analysis is done, they prepare it at the time the project is proposed and they do not extend <br />it out to when it was completed. He noted this was the standard practice. He stated there <br />was no guarantee that the timeframe would be 2007 either. He stated it was difficult to <br />determine the timeframe. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />