Laserfiche WebLink
RECOMMEND PARK DEDICATION CONSIDERATION FOR FOX KNOLL <br /> ~y: Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Supervisor <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />Mr. Mark Kleckner, of Fox Development Company, is requesting sketch plan review of the <br />proposed 20-acre Fox K.noll. The subdivision will be west of the Haubrich Addition across from <br />City Hall, northwest of the Elementary School, and immediately south of 153rct Avenue N.W. <br /> <br />Normally the proposed density of .1 units, per acre would require only a minor subdivision <br />process. However, Iv'ff.' Kleckner proposes the creation of two lots, necessitating the extension of <br />the 15).st Lane N.W. ~ul-de-sac, thus requiring the usual subdivision format. Park dedication for <br />this density would be $450 per dwelling unit ($900) or 7 percent of the gross area to be subdivided <br />(1.4 acres). <br /> <br />Enclosed for your inforn'mtJon: <br /> <br />Site lrY,.:ation map <br />Propos~:d sketch plan <br />City Staff review letter <br /> <br />Please note: <br /> <br />These three items a~e contained within the Planning Commission case which also provides <br />important explanations on the relation to the expected inclusion of this property within the <br />Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). <br /> <br />O bserva tions/Recommen d orions: <br /> <br />Because th_is is a revi,ew of a sketch plan, the Park and Recreation Commission and Staff do have a <br />somewhat flexible schedule to sort out the issues. <br /> <br />The Commission should bear in mind when considering park "dedication that there is, in Staffs <br />opinion, a reasonabl~probability that the 20-acre Fox Knoll will ultimately be "re-subdivided" into <br />urban lots. <br /> <br />Two recreation related issues may be important to this subdivision: <br /> <br />AcceSsibility to recreation for the potentially 20 to 30 urban lots off the end of the <br />cut-de-sac; and <br />PedeX_trion/bicyclist travel between the City's urban area and the area of 153rd <br />Avenue N.W. <br /> <br />Recreation Opportunities for two families in and of itself is not a critical concern. <br />However, toipotentially landlock a few dozen families without public open space ma3' be <br />unreasonable.. The developer should be required to demonstrate how recreation could be <br />accessed by Children it' the property were to become urbanized, wether or not he or the next <br />property owners have any interest in it. While a tot lot. may fit the bill, it would not seem <br />cost efficierit when noting the proximity of the Elementary School, with play activities <br />geared toward young people. Plus, the soon-to-be constructed trail system to the south <br />would connect to the school and to other parks. As Currently proposed, the walking <br /> <br /> <br />