CC_Minutes_2016_0613 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, June 13, 2016 Page 11 opined that this potential purchase addressed the general concept of such a pocket park. Councilmember Etten noted that the city could move forward over time as such parcels became available, and noted that the sites currently under considera- tion were accessible from sidewalks on the east and south sides, as well as from the new sidewalk along County Road B west of Cleveland Avenue. Councilmember Laliberte stated her agreement_with her colleagues for_the most -- -- --- part, while questioning the accuracy of some-of the comments without further re- search and related to acquisition of the 2025 parcel and apparent lack of interest by the Parks & Recreation staff or their level of interest. However, Coun- cilmember Laliberte stated she was not interested in paying developer-level pric- ing for the 2025 parcel, but couldn't comment further without knowing more in- formation on the asking or appraisal prices. Councihnember Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Etten's comments that this property and the engagement process is a result of the Master Plan discussion updates, and opined that was a good thing. Councilinember Laliberte opined that anytime the city went back out into the community for additional feedback that was good public process. When the city asks residents what they'd like their neighborhood park to be, and if that feedback comes back that they can't envision any use for the land, Councilmem- ber Laliberte agreed that the parcels could be resold and other opportunities seized at that time. Councilmeinber Laliberte stated she would support the motion, since it provided an opportunity that was available now for the city, and didn't preclude further consideration in the fiiture to pursue other opportunities. Councilmember Laliberte opined it would be good to get more information as to what other par- cels may be available to the city for acquisition. Mayor Roe stated he had no information about another potential buyer for the Ze- ro Cleveland parcels, nor did he have information that the Parks Department was not interested in the 2025 County Road B parcel. However, Mayor Roe noted that he did know that there had been a land use application before the city for the 2025 parcel for redevelopment, and opined it would have been extremely inappropriate for the city to attempt an offer on the parcel when at the same time being asked to consider a development proposal, creating an obvious ethical issue with the city appearing to have a vested interested in not approving a proposal because it want- ed to acquire the parcel for park use. Mayor Roe suggested that may have been staff's rationale in expressing a lack of interest in the parcel at the time they were asked to avoid putting the city in a position to appear interested in a property be- fore them for redevelopment, again creating a strong appearance of conflict of in- terest. City Manager Trudgeon confirmed staff's response rationale as noted by Mayor Roe. As stated by Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte, Councilmember Willmus reit- erated that this purchase in no way precluded the city from looking at the 2025