Agenda - Council - 06/26/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

NORTH FORTY ADDITION TRAIL CORRIDOR By: Merland Otto Background: As you're aware, several residents of the North Forty Addition attended the May 22, 1990 City Council meeting and expressed their concerns and opposition to the use of a drainage and utility easement for a trail corridor. At the May 22 meeting, Council directed staff to work with residents to try to develop an amicable resolution of the problem. Since the issue was drawn to our attention, I have met with the affected three property owners on three occasions. At the latest meeting (June 10, 1990) with the three homeowners, I presented an option which utilized Co. 83 right-of-way to the extent possible and which minimizes the amount of right-of-way required for trail within the drainage and utility easement. I also indicated that the City could consider vacating a portion of the easement (approximately 30') in exchange for trail passage on the remaining portion. This was unanimously rejected by the three homeowners. A second option which was previously discussed was the dedication of land for trail on theArmstrong Addition parcel i~ediately west of the North Forty. This is a minor subdivision currently being processed. Due to the low density, however, park dedication is limited to 1.3 acres all of which are required to traverse the property in an east-west direction thus leaving no acreage for a north-south corridor adjacent to the North Forty. This is not a viable option. A third option is to consider purchasing property interest either on the Armstrong Addition property or within the drainage and utility easement. I have discussed the estimated market.value of undeveloped property in this area with John Keefe, City Assessor. His estimate of fair market value for property in this area is $2,200.00/acre. Replacement of the 75' trail corridor would cost approximately $3,640 plus legal and administrative costs, assuming a willing seller. By'contrast, purchase of an additional property interest allowing right of passage over the existing drainage and utility easement is believed to be considerably less since the affected properties within the easement are already restricted from development. Purchase of either of these interests may require a condemnation action. It appears that a condemnation action would be required to provide access over Lot 1, Block 3, and a small portion of Lot 1, Block 1 in either event.