CC_Minutes_2017_0515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 15, 2017 Page 26 Councilmember McGehee questioned how Councilmember Etten could consider pathways and trails around and throughout the city not to be germane to parks. She emphasized the desire of residents to have increased connectivity as to a subdivi- sion adjacent to an area needing improved connectivity; and part of the transporta- tion and recreation plans and needs. Councilmember Laliberte agreed that connectivity is a city priority; but if not in- cluded in this subdivision code rewrite, asked if there was actually anything requir- ing this section to be updated from current language. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she found it to be an attempt to fix something that wasn't broken and over-prescribing this section versus other sections by bulking this section up. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she'd be concerned with any future develop- ment planning to provide that connectivity and using this section to cover two things with one effort. However,if the City Council and Park and Recreation Com- mission are already working together to connect any gaps, Councilmember Laliberte opined that there was no need for the level of change proposed in the new rewrite. Mayor Roe stated that this got to his point that a lot of times developments plan for a pathway along one or more streets that they pay for but the city gets the reward of since it was located in city rights-of-way. Mayor Roe stated that his only concern was that those may be used to offset park dedications; and if language could be developed similar to that current language to address technical issues and not trade- offs as a credit for the park dedication wanted by the city, then he offered his sup- port for reverting back to the original language. As noted in the RCA (page 1, section d), Mr. Lloyd advised that when a proposal came forward for a trail or open space, it was considered available to the public as a requirement by the city to consider it part of the park dedication component whether calculated as land or cash. Mayor Roe stated that was what he would argue against,but mandated in statute. City Attorney Gaughan clarified that this was not the case, and that the city could refer to their plan; with the statute simply stating that the city would give consider- ation to the fact the applicant proposes to do something on private property, with the state statute not mandating but simply asking the city to take that"into consid- eration." Mayor Roe stated that he read that as a financial consideration, with City Attorney Gaughan advising that was not his reading. Mr. Lloyd agreed with City Attorney Gaughan that it was at the city's discretion whether or not to accept a developer component as part of the park dedication re- quirement.