09 - Laserfiche WebLink

connection with a locked gate along the north side of the development that would access the future trail. While the Committee felt that a single, southern trail connection to the development would be convenient for the future residents living in the southern portion of the development, it felt that it would not provide convenient access for the residents living in the northern portion of the development who wanted to access the future trail to the north. The Committee also stated that while it may be several years before the future trail is constructed, it was critical to get the trail access from the development now as it would be too late after the project is developed. Parks and Recreation Commission The Ad Hoc Trails Committee's recommendation was forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Commission, which will hear this item at its February 12, 2009, hearing. Since the City Council staff report was written prior to the Parks and Recreation Commission hearing, staff will indicate the outcome of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting at the City Council hearing. Trail Options for Consideration The following are options that the Council may wish to consider and/or discuss: Option No. 1: Determine that the proposed single trail connection at the southern end of the project at Reimers Drive is acceptable for the project. This option is preferred by the applicant. Option No. 2: Determine that a second trail connection with a locked gate be provided from the north side of this project that will provide access to the future trail along the northern boundary of the site. Although the applicant prefers not to install the northerly trail connection, it has indicated that it can provide the connection if desired by the City. Option No. 3: Option 2 plus require that Ponderosa Homes install the public trail between the Mohr Avenue/Irongate Court intersection and the trail link on the Active Adult project. This option would also require the installation of new fencing and/or modification of existing fencing in the trail corridor, installation of trail signage, and other trail-related improvements. Although this option would provide the future residents in the Active Adult development with immediate and convenient access to the existing trails in the area, it could create potential issues by bringing public not living in the Active Adult development down a trail that would end at the locked gate into the Active Adult development. Ponderosa does not feel it should be required to install the public trail and notes that it has already installed several public trails as part of the Ironwood development. Option No. 4: Option 2 plus direct City staff to schedule the public trail between the Mohr Avenue/Irongate Court intersection and the trail link on the Active Adult project as a CIP project that would be installed by the City. Similar to Option 3, this option would provide Page 10 of 13