09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff notes that trail connections will not be possible at the ends of Courts "G" and "H" in the proposed development as public access easements were not recorded on the adjacent parcels at the ends of Sandstone and Sagewood Courts. The project's trail connections were discussed at the Planning Commission hearing. The Commission determined that a single trail access at the southern end of the development was acceptable as proposed. Sometime after the Planning Commission hearing, the trail connection issue was raised in an email sent to the City Council by Dolores Bengtson (Attachment #12). Ms. Bengtson's email indicates that the project does not provide convenient trail access to the future trail along the northern boundary of the site. Ms. Bengtson's email also states that the Ad Hoc Trails Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission should have provided input on the proposed trail connection for the development. Staff agreed that the Ad Hoc Trails Committee's and the Parks and Recreation Commission's input on this matter was needed. Therefore, staff brought this item to the Ad Hoc Trails Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission for their review and recommendation. Ad Hoc Trails Committee On January 26, 2009, the Ad Hoc Trails Committee reviewed the trail connections to the proposed project. Detailed information on this meeting is provided by Attachment #13, draft excerpts of the Ad Hoc Tails Committee minutes. Pamela Hardy, Ponderosa Homes' representative, indicated that the existing in-tract trail would provide adequate access to the future trail from this development. She indicated that the market profile of the future residents in the development would be mobile, approximately 55 to 65 years old and they would be able to easily walk the extra distance to reach the future trail. She indicated that if the City really wanted the trail connection, Ponderosa could create an approximately 10-foot wide opening along the northern side of the development by making some minor adjustments to the lot widths along the north side of the development. However, she felt the narrow opening would not be very attractive or inviting. Ms. Hardy indicated that she would look at making a wider opening near Lots 41 and 42 by making one of these lots a flag lot similar to what was done at the end of Mills Court in the Ironwood development. Ms. Hardy said it was unknown when the future trail would be built and that the homeowners association would be paying to maintain the land without real benefit until the future trail was built. She also expressed security concerns, although she acknowledged that a locked gate could be installed to provide security to the residents. Two members of the public spoke at the meeting (Dolores Bengtson and John Krueger) indicating their support of providing a second trail connection on the north side of the development. Ms. Bengtson also stated that the residents in the development will be the perfect age to use the trail system and that the City should be farsighted and provide convenient trail access for the future residents in the development. After receiving public testimony, the Ad Hoc Trails Committee unanimously recommended that Ponderosa Homes explore the feasibility of installing a trail Page 9 of 13