05-21-13 PTRC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes April 16, 2013 Page 2 work that was previously done in 2011. He stated that feedback from the Planning Commission has been incorporated. Committee Development Intern Bachler indicated further points of discussion include whether any types of uses or facilities should be permitted that are not currently listed in the draft ordinances, do they contain enough guidance to effectively evaluate potential conditional uses and their potential impact on park and open space land, and any special regulations that might be appropriate. Previously, the Planning Commission had requested that staff include a provision in the Parks and Open Space Ordinance that would require the City to replace any converted or transferred park space with an equivalent amount of park land within city limits. Upon further research staff found that such an ordinance already existed in the City Code. In such cases where the City is looking to transfer park and recreation land to a private entity that would use that land for a different use the proposal would be brought to the PTRC. If the PTRC supported the proposal a public hearing would be held by the City Council and the City Council would need to approve such an agreement by a majority vote. At that point there would need to be a commitment of resources to acquire substitute recreational land so that in the end a substitute amount of land would replace the land that was taken. He reported the existing ordinance adequately addresses this issue. Committee Member Michaelson questioned if a publicly owned golf course would qualify under the permitted uses for either of these areas. Mr. Bachler stated he believed that Attachment C - City Owned Park Facilities and Recreational Facilities under the parks and open space district could be interpreted to include a publicly owned golf course. Committee Member Kramlinger stated he did not feel an owner of privately held land would want the value of the land controlled by the City. Mr. Bachler indicated the City is not proposing that staff retroactively rezone privately held land as parks and open space land use because that would directly diminish the value of that land. Ms. Beekman indicated if the City wanted to dispose of a City owned park or open space they could not just do that but would need to follow the process in place. She stated, the park preserve, however, is owned by the Army and if they want to rezone it, the City has no authority over that land. Committee Member Kramlinger asked whether land is gifted to the City when a new development is made. Ms. Beekman stated the way that park dedication works is the City gets a percentage of the land or value of the land and the City is statutorily required to use that toward the creation of new trails or park connections. Committee Member Michaelson questioned whether the City would have some control over uses if the Army decided to sell some of the land. Ms. Beekman indicated since the land is owned by the Federal Government, if the Army wanted to do something with the land, the City would not have much say in the matter.