Agenda - Council - 05/24/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # APPROV~ PARK PLAN AND BUDGET FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IN THE CITY'S PRAIRIE PARK DISTRICT ~ By: Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Supervisor Background: r Coinciding with rqcent, rapid subdivision growth, the City Code has been mended to provide for park developmentlconcurring with that area's development. In general terms, this means that the park serving the n~ighborhood(s) should be functional (to the extent that funds allow) about the same time the hoOes are occupied or as soon thereafter as possible. The City has defined these neighborhoods as ~ark districts. The 17 districts are geographical areas where we would: · Expect to f'md at least one recreational resource. · Eventually ~aave a park that functions as a neighborhood park. · Have, as it~, boundaries, a feature such as a road, street or stream where it is not reasonable for young l:~e. ople to cross alone in their pursuit of recreation. The undeveloped neighborhood park being discussed in this case is contained in the Prairie District; the bound~tries of which are 153rd Avenue N.W. on the north side, County Road #5 to the west and State Hig away #47 to the east. This pie-shaped district currently has $35,075 from park dedications availa] ,lc for development. The 1994 Capital Improvements Program did project development of thi: park as proposed. At the time of CIP preparation, revenues into the fund were at $29,177. This h~'s now increased to the $35,075 level. The only recreational property dedicated to date to serve the e residents is the undeveloped parcel provided with the platting of the Ramsey Meadows and Suni y Ponds subdivisions platted in 1992. To begin developrr~nt for this neighborhood park, Staff embarked on a slightly different planning process. Rather than Staff preparing a draft plan, the residents were given approximate costs related to various Ol~tions for the park and were asked to provide a recommendation to the Park and Recreation Commilsion. Some of these options are presented in the attached Park and Recreation Commission Case (~Attachment C). The citizens recommendations were nearly unanimous and all pos~nve. The Con~m~ss~on approved the resident s suggesnons for the park and recommended City Council approve the Park Plan Budget and officially name the park Solstice Park. On Monday, May !6, 1994, Commissioners Henn and Johns met with the residents to receive specific details rel~ive to their desires for the playground components. Using this information, Staff will request p~.oposals for the play structures, similar to that of Emerald Pond Park. A play equipment selectionicommittee will include the residents. Most of what is shown on the park plan is do-able as Phase I of the park's development. It is expected that futur~development to the east of Solstice Park will provide for a ballfield and other opportunities. One ~ncouraging aspect of this neighborhood is the resident's continuing request to use volunteer laboff to "buy down" the cost of certain improvements, like the shelter. These opportunities are re~resented in the proposed park budget. Future development in the Prairie Park District may see an gdditional $50,000 or more in park dedications. These dollars may need to be directed to recreation associated with the 30-acre Municipal Center campus, trail connections or /¢1