Agenda - Council Work Session - 02/24/2015

Home

smaller "pocket" parks to larger community parks with higher quality amenities connected through the City's pedestrian trail system. Alternatives Alternative #1. Confirm the policy direction to not include a City park within the proposed development. This alternative would allow the proposed development to move forward as presented. Park Dedication and Trail Development obligations would be satisfied by cash contribution. Alternative #2. Amend the policy direction to include a City park within the proposed development. This would require the Applicant to revise the proposed development as presented. The addition of a park in this area would reduce resources available for other future improvements already planned and would add to the City's ongoing maintenance costs. (The Park and Recreation Commission previously held that, there are adequate parks, recreation, and open spaces available to the proposed development within reasonable distance.) This alternative would reduce or eliminate the cash contribution to the Park Trust Fund to be utilized to enhance the existing, surrounding parks and trail connections. Funding Source: All costs associated with processing the Application are the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for required infrastructure costs and development fees required to serve the development. This project is subject to a Purchase Agreement between the City and N.I.K. Management, as the Subject Property is currently owned by the City. Infrastructure costs have the potential to impact the net revenue of this project pro -forma. Over the past years the City has looked at various options for the use of the property. It was decided to have a policy of not constructing pocket parks putting more focus on the community parks and trail connections to existing parks within the City. Staff recommends that the City confirm the existing Parks and Trail Master Plan and not include a new City Park within the proposed development known as Harvest Estates. Park dedication is suggested cash in lieu of land for Harvest Estates. Maintain the policy of not constructing pocket parks. Mr. Riverblood indicated the location of the property on a map. There is a great need for park improvements, as noted in the Park Improvement Plan, which reaffirms not constructing any pocket parks. The trail systems and sidewalks in the surrounding neighborhoods are complete. Soltis Park is disconnected from the trail system. The City does own a small parcel that could be used to connect the two cul-de-sacs to Soltis Park. Chair Bennett stated he does not feel the Commission has changed their mind on the policy of not creating pocket parks and in taking cash in lieu of land to support improvements in other larger parks.