CCP 07212025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

been created by this process. I get it's complicated and the easy answer is to just vacate the ROW and move on, but this trail is one of the things that makes this neighborhood special and stand out from any other neighborhood in town. Below I have a handful of thoughts and ideas I'd like you to consider and direct staff to bring back for discussion. The City needs to conduct a survey of this ROW. Where is the path, where are the fences, sheds, big trees, etc.? That's the first step to make a decision about the future of this path. The comment at the meeting after both votes failed was that status quo remains. But that's not the case because the western portion of this trail is more than likely on private property as the western 20ft of ROW were given back to the properties to the west. Now you have residents knowingly or unknowingly walking on private property along this trail. The status quo for the past 50 years is most likely gone. Again, a survey should be conducted. The western 20ft of ROW that never was is peculiar. Clearly a mistake by the forefathers of the City. Mistakes happen. The City never did the correct title work and installed city infrastructure under private property. The only way for the City to remedy that is to pursue a prescriptive easement and to pay the market rate for that easement after an appraisal. I believe when you are pursuing this acquisition, you could do the same for the trail and pay for the path to remain on private property through that easement. The public has been using this path, similar to the infrastructure underground, for over 50 years and likely has a legal right to continue to use the path. Shouldn't be too heavy of lift since the City will already be pursuing this for the underground infrastructure. If the City does pursue this, I'd suggest they adequately delineate the path to ensure people don't walk on private property. A low split rail fence should be sufficient. The other option is to reroute a path on the 30ft ROW. I think you have a willing group of volunteers that would clear buckthorn, weed trees, etc. to make a new path. This is my assumption. I'm sure the neighbors would take any help the City public works staff would give them as well. A day or two by them would clear it pretty quick. Prime the clearing with a week or two of goat munching perhaps??? Scapegoat Farms is one I'm familiar with. But the problem with a new path is the fenced yard along Roselawn.... and by association, the fence at the intersection of Ryan/Aldine off the corner Mid Oaks property. The fenced yard is a problem. It's been there for 20+ years. How was it permitted in ROW? Was it permitted? I believe the City should ask the property owner to move the fence onto private property. If the City did in fact permit this fence, the City should pay to move the fence back to private property. Right this wrong. I understand the path used to travel through the fenced area before the fence was installed. Lastly, so much was made about this path being ADA and needing to be concrete or asphalt to do so.... and in turn destroying the trees to make the room. Liabilty concerns were thrown around loosely which needed clarity on it's accuracy. Is this ADA requirement a city policy? If so, does the Pathways Master Plan contradict that policy. The plan states, "Non-paved pathways will be limited in use (walking, hiking, etc.)." Limited is not the same as never. Regardless, city policies can always be tweaked by the will of the City Council. The neighborhood DOES NOT want a paved or concrete path. The abutting neighbors don't want that either. I believe I heard many abutting neighbors say they only supported the vacation because they didn't want an asphalt path thatdestroys the trees. One abutting neighbor said he would be ok if the path just remained as is. This focus by the City that the path needs to be paved and ADA is Qbhf!:9!pg!429