A resident raised multiple concerns during open forum about the design and practicality of a planned natural trail that is part of a previously recorded easement and development agreement. Speakers and staff discussed trail alignment, tree removal, the original developer’s obligations, and how and when the city would assume maintenance.

The commenter said the trail had been promised when the land was developed and questioned how the obligation could be deferred to a future owner once lots sold. City staff replied the trail alignment was set with the plat recording and that the easement and development condition remain tied to the original development approval; any change or proposed deferment would be a legal question and would need to be attached to the same development account rather than shifted to another property owner.

Staff said the alignment generally follows floodplain and wetland buffers and was intended to be a “constructed natural trail” that may be seasonally inaccessible in high water. They described sections that run through low-quality fringe trees and sections of thicker woods where constructing and maintaining a trail would require a roughly 20-foot-wide path and removal of tree-line material; some of the trees in question were described as primarily dying ash. Staff said once the developer completes construction and the city accepts the trail, the city would mow and maintain it as a public natural trail.

Why it matters: the trail easement was created as part of a development approval and recorded with plat documents; that recorded condition creates an ongoing obligation connected to the development. Property owners, the developer, and the city have different responsibilities at different times: the developer is responsible for constructing the amenity per the development agreement, and the city would manage ongoing maintenance after acceptance.

Discussion vs. decision: the council did not make a formal decision at the meeting. Council requested a staff report and additional information; staff indicated that if the developer proposes a deferment, the change would require a legal review and would have to be attached to the development account and the recorded condition.

Clarifying details discussed during the meeting included that the alignment was chosen to minimize floodplain impacts, the easement was recorded with the plat, and certain sections of trail would require substantial clearing to allow equipment access and safe construction. Councilmembers asked for a staff report to return to a future meeting with specifics about tree impacts, alignment alternatives, and legal options regarding any requested deferment.

What’s next: Council asked staff to prepare a report (staff suggested returning on the 20th/25th — a date was requested during discussion) with detailed information about the trail alignment, tree removals, maintenance obligations, and legal options for any deferment of construction. The council did not alter the recorded easement or development condition at the meeting.