Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Jeff Schoenbauer reviewed the comments heard at the meeting last month and advised that he <br />would lead the discussion on the concept plans for the park, the neighborhood connections and <br />what additional program spaces might look like. He advised that he and staff would be meeting <br />with the City Council next week to share the progress of the project with them. He displayed a <br />diagram of the Sunfish Lake property with both existing and proposed trails and explained that <br />one couple owns much of the surrounding land. He explained that some of the trails depend on <br />negotiations with that landowner. He stated that they would like to keep in mind the <br />interconnections that the park has with other parks and neighborhoods in the area. He advised <br />that they would like to have an overpass connecting a trail with Alpine park and to have another <br />trail that connects with the school. He stated that in keeping with the idea of environmental <br />education they would like to make the trail to the school as interesting as possible. <br /> <br />Schoenbauer pointed out that the future developable property would be on top of the slope. He <br />stated that the optimal plan would be to continue a trail and green way around the lake and <br />connecting to the school. He again advised that those would be dependent on the current and <br />future landowners surrounding the park. He explained that currently only a few people are able to <br />enjoy the lake, but with the addition of the trail the whole city would be able to enjoy the area. <br />He explained that they should choose the most desirable outcome that they would like to see, but <br />also have a backup outcome in case future negotiations do not go as desired with the landowners. <br /> <br />Chairperson Johns thought that it made sense to have two outcomes as they still have to negotiate <br />with the landowners and are not certain of the outcome of that discussion. She thought that the <br />most desirable outcome would be the one with the trail going around the lake, as this would open <br />it up to the City rather than just a few people, as well as the connection to the school. <br /> <br />Jeff Schoenbauer stated that it is reasonable that some people would not want to have a trail right <br />behind their property but advised that some people would buy the property because of the trail <br />being there. <br /> <br />Chairperson Johns stated that she liked the underpass and the trail connection that it connects <br />with and thought that a homeowner would see that. as very desirable to be near their home. <br /> <br />Jeff Schoenbauer stated that scenario is very doable and advised that it would come down to <br />marketability. <br /> <br />Commissioner Shryock stated that she liked the idea of having two options and thought that they <br />needed to start discussion with those landowners. She explained that her concern with the first <br />option was that while it is wonderful to have as much lake frontage trail as they could, it may not <br />be feasible to get that much land. <br /> <br />Jeff Schoenbauer explained that one ofthe landowners was fine with having a trail along the road <br />on his property for the time being and explained that when that landowner sells his property, for <br />redevelopment, they may be able to move the trail closer to the lake <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson questioned how many homeowners option two would affect. <br /> <br />Park and Recreation Commission/ April 1 0, 2008 <br />Page 4 of 18 <br />