Minutes - Parks and Recreation Commission - 04/08/2004

Home

Commissioner Olds and Commisskner Lehn~an agreed to the amended motion. Motion carried. Voting Yes: E hairperson Johns, Commissioners Olds, Lehman, LaMere, Pontius and Shryock. Voling No: i'ione. Absent: Commissioner Ostrum. Case #3: Prefiminary Plat fo:' A~pine Woods Civil Engineer II Linton explained that Alpine Woods was a 26-unit urban single-family home development. It was located in tl te Nature View recreation district. The developer was not showing any park laud dedication. The cash-only park dedication would be 26 (~$2,200 = $57,200. Thc City Code required a trail adjacent to Sunfish Lake Boulevard, which was an MSA road. This was no~ trail credit eligible. The trail dedication was 26 @ $550 = $14,300. This site was within walking distance of Allc'in¢ Park. Acceptance of cash-only park and trail dedications would provide funds for imp,'oving Alpine Park and other City parks. Chairperson Johns noted nothing v'.ra.~-; i)lanned in any of that space except trail on both sides of the road. She a:iked if that was in a school walking district. Civil Engiueer ii Imton responded it was and pointed to the school walking district on the map. Chairperson .lohns asked if cash fo,' park and trail with construction of a trail adjacent to Sunfish Lake was a stage o ne improwmmnt and if thc City would require the developer to do that. Civil Engineer il I inton resDonded ~hai was correct. Principal City Engineer Olson ~sk:c_;d. regarding the funding mechanism for Alpine Park discovery. Parks and Utilities Supervisor I4:iverblood responded the park trust fund and the capital improvements program earmarked $80,000 for the project; however, cost estimates were $123,000 as et' this week. It wo~_ld be appropriate to earmark that amount, which might be neccssm% bcc~msc of irrigation a~d landscaping needs beyond what would be discussed later regarding the Disc~.~very C-arclen. })arks and Utilities Supervisor Rivt rblood suggested the Commission might wish to examine the need fei' a sidewalk. Discussion fo lowed regarding the location of and reasons for the sidewalk. Parks and Utilities. Supervisor Riv :rbiood noted one of the homes was a duplex and there were no obstacles itl that area to prew::nl a sidewalk, which typically would be eligible for credit against trail fi:cs. ::urther discussiea :gc)llowed regarding the location. Parks and Utilities Supervisor Ri'.'erblood indicated staff's suggestion regarding the sidewalk would provide a loop for residents ,mk;ide of the subdivision with a link to Alpine Park. Park and kecreation Commission/April 8, 2004 Page 9 of 21