My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2014 02 12
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY BOARD
>
2000-2019 Open Space Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
2014 Open Space Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2014 02 12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 8:21:24 AM
Creation date
2/28/2014 2:05:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
OSABPKT 2014 02 12
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Open Space Advisory Board <br />Minutes <br />January 8, 2014 <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />2013. <br />• Laura: Inquired about the expansion of parking spaces required <br />as a result of the development. Alan: 4 additional on- street <br />parking spaces are required by formula, the developer is <br />planning for 8 additional spaces in this proposal. Laura: Noted <br />that as proposed, it seems as though the project may be <br />decreasing access to Cottonwood Park, and therefore <br />decreasing the value of Cottonwood Park to the community <br />since the public currently regularly uses the church lot for <br />overflow parking. <br />• Mike: Inquired about reconfiguring the plan to address issues <br />with Cottonwood Park. Alan: Developer will need to address <br />the 4 key issues raised in the Memorandum. Joe: The City is <br />not obligated to suggest an alternate design that addressed the <br />4 key issues, only to react to what is proposed by the <br />developer. Mike: Does the Fee's in Lieu approach allow the <br />developer to develop irresponsibly? Alan: City is only reacting <br />to the submittal proposed. Developer will need to react to the <br />City's comments and return to the City. Mike: what is the <br />developer's obligation if the acreage is not suitable for either <br />open space or a park? <br />• Tom: OSAB may entertain a recommendation to request from <br />the developer land that is contiguous to Cottonwood Park <br />rather than requesting Fee's in Lieu. <br />• Laura: Requested clarification regarding the east/west trail <br />connectivity accomplished with the requested easement. <br />• Helen: Requested confirmation that parking would not be <br />signed as "Resident's only" or similar in the future. Alan: No, <br />parking will not be designated for residents or their visitors, it is <br />first come, first served on- street parallel parking. <br />• Christopher: inquired about the formula used to determine the <br />amount of the Fee's in Lieu requested. Alan: the formula is <br />determined by Senate Bill 35. <br />Public Comment on Agenda Item: <br />Alex Bradley, 1385 Caledonia Court <br />Ms. Bradley inquired if buying the parcel as open space is an option? <br />Alan: Church still owns the property and is exploring the sale. The <br />developer is doing their due diligence to determine if development is <br />an option. OSAB has never deemed acquisition of this parcel as a <br />priority, neither has the Parks Department. Acquisition of this parcel is <br />not in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. Ms. <br />Bradley has concerns regarding the diligence of HOA maintenance as <br />well as park safety. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.