Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/10/2002

Home

Chairperson Cook suggested this may be a good time to discuss the possibility of an ordinance for multi-family dwellings to have tot lots, or some way to address adult/senior recreational needs. He advised that could be in the form of game or party rooms. He said that possibly it should be the developer's initiative to inform the Commission of-their target population and suggest ways in which they will meet that group's recreational needs. Apartments will have larger needs. He suggested this be addressed on a case by case basis. Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated he was supportive of identifying the green space and linking that to recreation. He said if he were a builder, he would ask what the difference is between this development and Birch Hill. Commissioner Johns pointed out that the difference is in the proximity. There are no parks or recreational outlets around this development. Commissioner Rolfe added that it is a different situation if the development is providing for an existing park to be expanded. Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos summarized that the direction is to bring back a landscaping plan that shows improvement to the sedimentation pond; identify who will Iive in the townhomes; and identify what they might request as far as recreational needs. Case #4: Recommend Park Dedication for River Pines 5"' Addition . Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos explained that on December 11', 2001 City Council will have acted on a request for Sketch Plan approval for River Pines 54. Addition. On November 5~, 2001 the Planning Commission recommended the applicant proceed to Preliminary Plat approval. It should be noted that until recently, the City had been requiring the dedication of a 40' foot wide corridor on the west side of T.H.#47 for a service road in this vicinity. This had occurred to the south, with the platting of Apple Ridge. The 40' was intended to accommodate a trail in addition to the service road. This trail will provide direct connection to Elmcrest Park as well as provide a safe north/south pedestrian route in the neighborhood. Vehicle transportation in the area suggests a more westerly north/south route is better than a frontage road. Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending that only the space necessary for a trail is warranted. While the City owned outlot to the south is 40' feet in width, staff is recommending that the trail routing along River Pines 5at Addition occur in a trail easement 20' feet in width. The primary reason is that the minimum standard width for trail corridors in the urban area is 35' feet, and this dimension would interfere with the rear yard property line setbacks to the existing house and building. Commissioner Johns asked if there could be an easement along T.H. #47 for the first phase. Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos responded there could be. He added that the City Council will discuss this plan at their December 11 meeting, and this will go to the Planning Commission in January. Park and Recreation Commission/December 13, 2001 Page 6 of 10