Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2015 04 08

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes March 11th 2015 Page 7 of 8 adhere as closely as possible to the bike commuting standards presented in the wayfinding materials. She would rather have the trail be 8 feet wide, concrete, and bike - commutable rather than meandering. Laura commented that this small section of trail is completely vital as a trail network connection, though of low value as an "open space" destination. Therefore we should concentrate on making it bike commuter - friendly. The board felt that meandering the trail as staff suggested was pleasant, but not a high priority. Missy commented that the developer and Planning should be sure to tie into the wayfinding initiative carefully. She felt that the current plan doesn't tie into the bike commuting value of the area. She asked for clarification about the "bike path connection" marked on the map to the south of the property. Allan explained that this is very preliminary, and that path was unplanned. Christopher asked how soon would the Hwy. 42 underpass and the railroad underpass would come to pass. Allan thought it would be soon, but didn't know any dates. Christopher said that without knowing about the underpasses, he wouldn't want to comment on the best alignment for the trail, since it won't connect to anything yet. The board in general wanted to hear updates on the status of the underpasses. Helen asked Allan what staff recommends. Allan commented that he might suggest taking cash -in -lieu rather than the pocket park offered by the developer. The board was concerned that they adhere to the bike -able standards. The board was also concerned about the dog -leg alignment of the trail at the southern connection to the Bullhead Gulch Trail. Ember asked the board whether the north -south connection labeled "bike path" should be designated a sidewalk or a trail. The board said if it doesn't connect to the trail network, then it should be called a sidewalk. Laura expressed some frustration about this entire exercise. She asked that, if future meeting packets include difficult -to- decipher maps or plans like this one, they could also include some small amount of documentation explaining their purpose, context, and what was being asked of the board, so that she and other board members could come to the meeting better prepared. In the past staff recommendations have been provided in the materials so that board members can vote on the items. The last few Development Review topics have provided no such information. X. Discussion Item: Discussion Item: Trails Capital Improvement Projects Ember presented a master list of trail planning, a combination of trails from the trails open house, the OSAB recommendations, the wayfinding trail recommendations, and trails being built by other entities. The list includes cost estimates from Allan and the wayfinding consultants. Ember looked for how projects could be combined (based on locations) or removed. Joe reminded the board that the cost estimates listed here are only preliminary and that they would be pursuing grants for many of these. The board asked various questions about individual trails and their phasing. Ember emphasized that some of the phasing has to do with how best to bundle the work. Tom would like to see number 16 moved up in priority to 2016 (the Powerline Trail to Coal Creek Trail connection). He feels like this is a common social trail and a crossing hazard. Helen was in favor of taking advantage of Urban Drainage's work on Harney Lastoka to do as much synergistic work there as possible, such as getting a bridge on the eastern edge of the property to Lafayette. Christopher asked that in the future that we have better instructions in the board packets, so we know what to do to prepare for the meeting. 8