HomeMy WebLinkAboutA004 - Minutes from August 8, 2006 City Council Meeting regarding Shared-Use Paths r SHARED-USE PATHS: Assistant City Manager Bob Kindred, Acting Planning and Housing
Director,cited Land Use Policy Plan Goals and Transportation Master Plan Goals to clarify the
City's existing policies regarding shared-use path(includes bicycle paths,bikeways, and other
multi-purpose paths and trails) locations. The current policies that staff utilizes to determine
the location of shared-use paths were detailed by Planner Seana Perkins.
Ms.Perkins advised that the Planning and Housing Department has received a Preliminary Plat
application for a 24-lot subdivision located on the Cochrane Estate at 500 South Dakota
Avenue. Through the Preliminary Plat process for The Estates of Nature's Crossing, staff
identified a preferred shared-use path location north of College Creek to align with the proposed
shared-use path in the South Fork Subdivision, directly east of the site. The developer prefers
to locate the shared-use path on the southern side of College Creek,however, to do so would
require easements to be obtained from the property owners to the south for a portion of the path,
and after meeting with same, it was evident that they were not interested in providing
easements. The developer is now proposing a revised alignment that provides a connection to
Christopher Gartner Park, across the northern property line of the proposed subdivision, then
turning south along the easternmost property line and connecting to the approved shared-use
path in the South Fork Subdivision. This connection has not been budgeted for by the City and
is not within its five-year plan. Mr.Kindred advised that it was important to note-that the most
recent Ames Area MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan identifies this shared-use path
connection as being made to the north and east of the subject site through previously developed
properties.
Council Member Goodman said that he did not believe that the policy was clear enough to be
voted on at this time. Mr. Schainker summarized the existing shared use path policy followed
by staff,i.e.,locations for these paths for both planned/future developments and for pre-existing
development occurs on a case-by-case basis. Council Member Mahayni emphasized that staff
was really referring to the implementation of various policies, i.e., the LUPP, the
Transportation Plan,Zoning Ordinance,and Subdivision Ordinance,to make the determination
on the location of shared-use paths.
Keith Arneson, 2426 Yorkshire Circle, Ames, explained that he had filed an application for
Preliminary Plat approval. He believed that the important issue is if the development in
question is in a priority area. Mr. Arneson pointed out that the parcel is identified as a growth
area by the City in its LUPP, it's zoned Low-Density Residential, and represents an infill area
that is,landlocked on the north and south by development and on the west by South Dakota
Avenue. His hope is that there can be a balance between the public good and the interest of
development in locations of the City identified as priority areas.
Mr. Arneson pointed out that what staff is proposing would mean that the shared-use path
would traverse down the very center of all the lots in the southern portion of the proposed
subdivision. He views these lots as the most-desirable lots in the subdivision and does not
believe that it is fair or right to diminish property values to place the path in that location. Mr.
Arneson believes that there are six alternatives for the location of the shared-use paths. He
summarized three possible routes for a shared-use path through the development. Trail Plan
#1 links with the existing path through Gartner Park, and Trail Plan#2 shows the path running
along the northern boundary of the proposed subdivision in a tree canopy. Mr. Arneson thinks
that his options are preferable as they would get the pedestrians and/or bicyclists off of South
Dakota.
Mr.Kindred explained that,for the remainder of the path,staffhad been successful in following
the greenbelt along the Creek. He acknowledged that part of that path would have to be on
South Dakota.
5
Council Member Goodman pointed out that there is already a path built on South Dakota, and
the Citywouldbe duplicating it explicitly because the developer is requesting it,if Plan#2 were
chosen; that cost cannot be justified. He feels that it is not unfair for the City to request the
developer to pay that cost when the route is being duplicated.
Mayor Campbell advised that it was not the Council's mission tonight to determine where the
bike path would be located; staff will bring that back at a later date. City Manager Schainker
asked for some direction on cases such as what is being proposed by the developer in this case.
Mr.Arneson indicated that he was opposed to the path route being proposed bythe staffbecause
the backyards of the lots would not only be separated from the back property lines,but those
yards would also be split from the most desirable feature of the entire subdivision,i.e., College
Creek.
Moved by Rice, seconded by Doll,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 06-325 affirming the existing
policies and directing staff to continue to utilize such policies on a case-by-case-basis.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these minutes.
Mr.Arneson indicated that he would be willing to pay for the connection from the northern edge
of the development up to the existing trail through Christopher Gartner Park (Plan#2).
Council Member Goodman pointed out that the City Council attempts to follow the adopted
Transportation Plan, which calls for a greenbelt bike path. He does not believe that there are
good reasons to deviate from that Plan. Mr. Goodman stressed that every investor is concerned
about return on their investments and there are always regulations that cost them money and
decrease that return; this case is one of many. He feels that just because there will be some
impact on the developer, it doesn't mean that exceptions to the Plan should be granted. Mr.
Arneson agreed with that, however, pointed out that he had presented six alternatives, and it
would be his hope that a win-win situation could be negotiated. He is not asking for this based
solely on the financial implications. Mr.Arneson believes that reasonable parties should be able
to reach a compromise.
Council Member Rice asked how difficult it would be to modify the existing environmental
easement and be allowed to build on it;that would require negotiation with the Cochrane Estate
and the City. He believes that it would be in the developer's best interest to lobby for a change
to the existing Greenbelt Conservation Easement.
Council Member Doll commented that there is loss of value in either plan,but cutting through
Lots 22 and 24 does bother him. He believes,however, that the Transportation Plan has been
adopted and the paths should follow the greenbelt.
It was asked by Council Member Mahayni if the Conservation Easement would allow for
lowering the path and provide more backyard space. Mr. Arneson advised that if the Cochrane
family were to permit the Easement to be modified to allow a pathway, it would make the
backyards larger on those lots.
Moved by Rice, seconded by Goodman,to approve the City's proposal (Trail Plan#3) for the
shared-use path with the easement "hugging the Creek" to allow maximum usage of the
properties that it abuts.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting aye: Doll, Goodman, Mahayni, Popken, Rice. Voting nay:
Hamilton. Motion declared carried.
6