Laserfiche WebLink
like it re-addressed that the residents were not necessarily very adamant about having a walking <br />path behind their yard. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated the developer is not required to put in the trail now because the <br />Council negotiated with the residents that did not want it in their back yard. This developer was <br />very open and allowed many meetings for the residents to come and speak. The citizens then felt <br />they had control about what happens on the property and because of that had a large turnout that <br />did not want the trails on two sides of the property. From his point of view they should have,just <br />said it would be there, and either way they would have disappointed residents. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson explained the Council's action tonight would authorize <br />staff to release this for the advertisement of bids. The contractor will review the plans and make <br />a bid, and the next step would be for the Council to award the contract. If this is not the plan the <br />Council wants to complete it should not be sent out for bids. <br /> <br />Mr. Stallick stated he was part of the meetings with the developer and once some of the <br />neighbors started agreeing with what was going on they started thinking they could not ask for <br />anything better than this development. The $365,000 houses back there will raise the value of <br />his house and they appreciate the developer getting the citizen input. He stated they were not <br />notified of any other meetings, the only other discussion he has heard about a walking path was a <br />petition that came around. If the Council or Park and Recreation Board acted on the impression <br />there was a representation of the north side of 145th Lane, he would disagree with that. The best <br />case scenario for him would be not to have the trail or the sidewalk, but he would rather see a <br />trail behind his house. He would, however, like to know where that trail would be before they <br />start ripping up the trees, as that was designated as a tree preserve. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson stated there was a public hearing and everyone adjacent <br />to the development was notified. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated there was a good argument as to why the trail should not be in the back <br />yards. They have gone through this several times, and the trails and sidewalks are keeping kids <br />off of the streets. <br /> <br />Councihnember Strommen commented she thinks the goal when dealing with this development <br />was to create a loop, which is a reasonable goal. They then got hung up on where that loop <br />would be. Based on the input the decision was a preference of the sidewalk in the front. She <br />explained she has experienced finding out about a project when a contractor is going through the <br />yard and the City has to watch this. It really leaves a bad taste in people's mouths for the whole <br />contract and they need to get notification out. She understands staff wanting to wait for bids, but <br />there are not that many houses and they should notify people early so they do not find out from a <br />private contractor. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated he would like to state for the record that he fought tooth and nail for <br />the trails. He brought up the sidewalk as an alternative but voted against it. The sidewalk is <br />where they are in the plans now. <br /> <br />City Council/February 24, 2004 <br /> Page 24 of 31 <br /> <br /> <br />