Laserfiche WebLink
Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated this is not something Staff is recommending. He said <br />Staff had suggested several ways to provide recreational areas, and at the time, they were not <br />aware the developer was providing recreational areas and open space. He suggested discussion <br />take place regarding the developer's proposal for the private space. <br />Mr. Peterson explained they will put passive type amenities in there such as picnic areas, and <br />benches. He said they would be agreeable to commit to an upgrade of the common areas with <br />picnic tables, and possibly a shelter if plans allow. He suggested these upgrades could be traded <br />for the trail in the back. He summarized his proposal to provide a Park Dedication fee, the trail <br />along Alpine Drive, Trail Fee, and a passive recreational area in the open space, which would be <br />re -submitted to the Parks and Recreation Commission if desired. <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos questioned if the developer will be requesting preliminary plat <br />approval at the Planning Commission in May. <br />Mr. Peterson confirmed he will. He added the Planning Commission will approve this before the <br />Park and Recreation Commission reviews it again. <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos suggested some amenities be shown in detail for the next Park <br />and Recreation Commission meeting in May. <br />Mr. Peterson responded he would rather not lose a month, and proposed the Commission <br />approve the changes as discussed in this meeting as conditions on the motion, and he will present <br />a plan in May that has been worked through with Staff and shows changes to the common areas. <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated it would seem acceptable to have the Planning <br />Commission recommend plat approval on May 2, and this Commission would consider the <br />revised proposal on May 9. This plan could be forwarded for Council approval on May 14. Mr. <br />Peterson agreed to this timeline. <br />Discussion took place regarding the provision of internal trails when a sidewalk is provided and <br />general consensus was the internal trails would not be necessary. <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos raised the concern that often there is less resident participation in <br />maintenance when there is a homeowners' association for townhome projects. He asked if Mr. <br />Peterson had suggestions to inspire homeowners to show an investment in the landscape plan. <br />Mr. Peterson responded this does take several years. He advised a sufficient landscape plan be <br />proposed. <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos questioned as an example, how a per capita charge of $10 for <br />landscaping improvements would affect the site in the future. He asked Mr. Peterson's opinion <br />on this proposal. <br />Mr. Peterson said the Association should be able to decide on their own what kind of plantings <br />they want. He felt it would be seen as an intrusion to have someone dictate this. He said he <br />hasn't heard of this idea, and would rather not implement it into his Homeowners' documents. <br />Park and Recreation Commission/April 11, 2002 <br />Page 6 of 14 <br />