12/14/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

park .dE-cic.ation. Currently, the h..rk Con;n:in;ionsna ('co cHId Randy E1 of s on C:c not q:rpE' OD \o.'tc.: p~rL CEcic~tiC'ILShoulc COJ:f~f: cr. bCiSCC C'1: thE ordinancE iDeffect <::he tir:.e of thesGl'ci,-isic'r: 2r-i::ce:i0n, tt,e Fed: Comu::.issicn recomwenGE:d acc;uirinr a 46 1c,ot right-cf-".c.~: ElonE tLe sm:tf: si.de of Front Street for the proposed muti-use tr2il systen:; the other option under the ordinance in effect at tbat time ",'ould be to require a cash payment of appro,.iatntely $3800 which would not begin to cover the cost of right-of-way 8cquisitionforthe trail system. The rlofson's "'ere not agreeable and noted that earlier this year they ""ere told the trail system could be accommodated in the road right-,.of-way. 'ThE Park Commission tabled the issue until other options could be researched. 'The r-lternative options rresented in MerlandOtto'slE-tter .of September 29 "'erE- also unacctptable to the qofsons. On October 20, the Park Commission u::.€t 2nd recommended acquiring a 35 foot ",'ide easeIDent for the trail corridor; findings relating to that recommendation have been drafted. Mr. Otto stc.ted that a 35 foot ,,'idth is the minimum the City should be considering acquiring if the City is intending to provide .8 trail experience; ifthe>Citydesir~st o. pr.ovide a sidewalk experience, it could require the developer to provide a sidewalk in the form of a trail. ~r. .ToddElofson statedthatr oadal ignmen t s "'ere. n egot iat edd ur in g acquisitionofright-of-,,'ay for Front Street; requiring an additional 35 feet of right-of-wayy,'ill be a detriment to Riverview Estates lot sizes; if hehadheenawareoft:heamountofpr opertythat~ou Idev€' ntually be required for the trail, he woulciheve designed Front Street closer to H""y. ~.;1 o in Riverview Estates. Mr. Elofson stated that he waS8w.sre there ""as a trail planned through the area but it was indicated to him in a letter <iatecJuly 7,1988, tbatthe Front Street right-of-way coul.d accommodate the trail and he ,,'ouldbe required to make a cash payment to satisfy park dedication requirements. Councilmember Pearson stated that there seems to be a lot of public opposition to tbetrail and questioned ,,'hether the City should pursue acquiring right-:-of-y.'ayfor same. Hr. OttO replied thc.t alon.g the Mississippi River, there is no cboice otber than the type."f experience that~ill be offered; incications from Metro Council and EQB is that they will not sign off aD plats until a trail alignment is. indicated. Mr. Otto reviewed with Council the reasons why sucna tdde amount of area to.tidth is necessary. for developing a trail and that the city would probal-ly havetc commit to maintenance of the trail right-of-way until it is developed and the County asSt::I;l€S maintenance of it. Mr. EIofson indicatedtbst he would be agreeable to dedicating an additional 3 . feetef right-ot-way. to be used:f ortbe trail system and making a cash payment inacccrcancetdth park dedicatien requirements in effects: the time of his subdivision application. Mr. Otto suggested that the City also require Mi. Elofson to construct an 8 foot wide sidewalk. City Council/Octoher 25, 1988 ?age12 of 18