Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates trail design on Lundeen property as staff seeks direction to finalize easement
Summary
City staff briefed the council on negotiations to secure development rights on the Lundeen property; the central dispute is whether the trail will allow broad public access or use restricted angler-style crossings. Staff said the city wants fenced buffers and gates so the trail remains open without exposing users to livestock; landowners prefer limited access. Council asked staff to revise language and return the agreement for approval.
City staff reported progress Wednesday on acquiring development rights to the Lundeen property and asked the council for direction on a remaining dispute over the design of a public access trail.
Corbin, representing city negotiators, told the council the parties have been negotiating for two years and that the city's long-standing position is that any trail acquired with public funds must remain a public trail and cannot be blocked in a way that prevents use with a stroller, wheelchair or bicycle. "The city's position on that is that in order to be a public trail, it can't be blocked in any way," Corbin said.
The landowners proposed an "angler" or step-over access that would effectively restrict some users. Corbin said the city's proposal would instead place fencing along both sides of the trail and gates at the north and south ends so animals can be moved without people and livestock interacting: "That way, the people on the trail... would never be interacting with the cattle," he said.
Several council members raised concerns about the operational impact on farming if the trail bisects pastureland. One council member with farming experience said the proposal felt like "dissecting a field with two fences," and worried about how frequently gates would need to be opened and closed for livestock movement. That councilmember asked if alternatives such as a bridge or underpass had been considered; staff replied they had not had capacity to vet those options during the current, time-sensitive negotiations.
Staff said the county and other partners had reviewed the gate concepts and that a compromise design (an S-curve walking gate and locked crash gates for vehicle/emergency access) has emerged in recent discussions. Corbin said he would edit the easement language to reflect the agreed gate design and circulate the updated documents to council and the landowners with a view toward placing the item on the next council agenda for formal approval.
No formal action was taken at Wednesday's meeting; staff sought a council 'thumbs up' to proceed with final edits and to return the item for a vote. Corbin said the landowners were eager to close quickly and indicated they had conditionally agreed to the proposed gate arrangement.
Next steps: staff will revise the easement exhibits and fence/gate language and return to the council for final approval and formal action at a subsequent meeting.
