Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> I <br /> i <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />On Monday, May 14, Mark Banwart, Ron Hetlund and I met with several <br />of the affected property owners to view the property and discuss <br />any alternatives to the proposed options. It should be noted that <br />the homeowners expressed that they do not want the trail in their <br />backyards. Among the possible alternatives which could be explored <br />are: <br /> <br />1) Move the trail treadways as far as practical to the west <br />within the easement and maintain a large buffer between the homes~ <br />and the trial treadways. <br /> <br />2) Depress the trail and screen the east side. <br /> <br />3) Work with Anoka County to determine whether a portion of the <br />Co. Rd. 83 ROW may be used for trail on the southerly end (Lot 1, <br />Block 3 and portion of Lot 1, Block 1). <br /> <br />4) Develop an alignment utilizing a combination of road ROW, <br />screening using westerly portion of easement and/or possible <br />acquisition of additional land iramediately west of this plat. <br /> <br />It was agreed that we would review construction plans for 83 and <br />contact the County to explore ROW use and that we would seek the <br />City attorney's advice regarding a possible meeting among the <br />homeowners, developer and staff to attempt to arrive at an <br />agreeable plan. As of this writing, we have not yet set up a <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />Several peripheral concerns arise from this situation: <br /> <br />1) If the City acquired the easement in fee, the affected <br />homeowners would need to receive assurance that the lots would not <br />be considered substandard or nonconforming since they would be less <br />than 2.5, acres in size. <br /> <br />2) Acquisition of a trial easement over the drainage and utility <br />easement would be significantly lower than acquiring a similar <br />property interest over adjacent land. <br /> <br />3) If the park land dedication is given up in favor of the <br />landowners, the developer will not have met the required park <br />dedication requirements. <br /> <br />4) Are any other plats recorded in a similar manner? Staff is <br />searching the files to determine whether this is the case. <br />Development agreements are now recorded with plats. This <br />procedural change should alleviate future problems of a similar <br />nature. <br /> <br /> <br />