Laserfiche WebLink
Rolfe. Votin~None. Absent: Comm~fahl and Ostrum. <br /> <br /> '1) City C~~mber 23,1999 ' <br /> 2) City C~s dated December I4, 1999 <br /> 3) City C~ial meeting min'~ed December 21,1999~ <br />~,~zli~SSiON BUSlN $S.. 'x~ ' *--· <br /> Case #1: Receive Developers Comment on Proposed Trad/SidewaIk Ordinance <br /> <br /> Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated that the purpose of the case was to barite public comment~ <br /> on the proposed sidewalk/trail ordinance that has been discussed by the Commission for the pas~ <br /> few months. On Tuesday, February I, 2000, the Planning commission recommended the <br /> language below: I <br /> <br /> "All subdivisions within the urba~ service area shall have a mini_mm eight-foot wide bituminous <br /> <br /> safe two-way pedestrian traffic. The only urban subdivision streets that may not be required <br /> to~ <br /> have these trails are residential cul-de-sacs with no probability as a through street. The trail shall._ <br /> be constructed as a Stage 1 improvement. The cost will be borne by the developer and <br /> eligible for credit against park and trail dedication fees. The design must meet current standards: <br /> of the City, comply with the ADA act and be shown on the preliminary plat for approval."I <br /> <br /> Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos explained that the language is different from what the Park and <br /> Recreation Commission reviewed only in that it states that cul-de-sacs may not receive thel <br /> sidewalks, regardless of the number of nn~ts on that street. It is important to note that <br /> language is permissive relating to cul-de-sacs. For instance, if there was a destination on that <br /> dead-end street, (i.e., trail, park, retail center, or connection to another cul-de-sac) than the CityI <br /> may require a walkway on the street. , <br /> · , '~, ,- . .,'Y.. ' .'. . . : '. ' . . ii ' '" "~ . . <br /> John Aune, Orrin Thompson Homes, stated that they have a couple concerns with the proposedI <br /> ordinance. He questioned what would classify a new. urban residential development since theLr~ <br /> current development is being completed in phases. <br /> <br /> Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos replied that the phases that Orrin Thompson Homes has in Rive <br /> Pines have all received preliminary plat approval, so he is not sure what autho~ty City Council1 <br /> may have to require that the sidewalks be constructed. He added that he doesnt for see anyone1 <br /> recommending changes to what was previously approved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Aune stated that developers a/ready pay $I00 per unit for a trail fee and questioned why aI <br /> developer would then also be required to pay for the construction of the sidewalks within the <br /> development. <br /> <br /> Park and Recreation Commission/February I0, 2000 <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />