My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2010 03 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY BOARD
>
2000-2019 Open Space Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
2010 Open Space Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2010 03 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 8:21:22 AM
Creation date
3/8/2010 10:31:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
OSABPKT 2010 03 10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Open Space Advisory Board <br />Minutes <br />February 22,2010 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />municipalities_ Tom mentioned that narrow trail corridors do not make a good Open <br />Space dedication but may be acceptable as a public land dedication_ A trail on top of the <br />ridge would have good views_ <br /> <br />Spencer asked about the differences between commuter trails and open space traik <br /> <br />Joe talked about the differences between commuter trails and open space trails <br />Joe stated that the City is entertaining the criteria of those dedications_ <br /> <br />Linda stated that she was not comfortable with the slope on the dedication or <br />maintenance of the slope_ <br /> <br />David stated that the trail at the top of the slope will be loud and act as an amplifier <br />thereby diminishing the value of the traiL Excessive amount of trail have been dedicated <br />David would like to reduce the length/locations of trail dedications_ <br /> <br />Tom asked David what he would suggest for an alternative dedication assuming that the <br />current dedication adjacent to US36 is insufficient <br /> <br />Spencer stated that he felt the slope should not be overstated_ <br /> <br />David Waldman suggested the trail be moved adjacent to Hwy 42 and the retention <br />facility_ <br /> <br />Tom stated that he is convinced the trail adjacent to 36 on the top of the slope is the least <br />desirable portion of Conoco Phillips dedications_ <br /> <br />Tom stated that John Leary pointed out that section LMC 1728210 states that a <br />requirement can be waived only if their land use dedication is in excess of 12%_ <br /> <br />David stated that if the dedication is greater take into consideration the cost of building <br />the traik <br /> <br />Spencer asked why we are requesting excess if we don't know yet the quantity and <br />quality of the current dedication_ <br /> <br />Tom replied that this is a proper opportunity to explore the possibility_ <br /> <br />Linda stated a quality dedication would be at the northwest comer of the Conoco Phillips <br />property due to the open area, vegetation and water_ <br /> <br />Justin states that the perimeter trail corridor is not favorable due to the quality of the land <br />a more ideal dedication would be a larger parcel of land in the northeast or northwest <br />comers of the property_ Some of the land dedication is encumbered so Conoco Phillips <br />has not reached the 12% dedication_ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.