Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2017 01 11

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes December 14th 2016 Page 6 of 7 be continued to be accessible by all. Helen asked whether OSAB should just weigh in on the plan after the lawyers get their chance to review it. Allan said that City staff supports the proposal. He listed some potential Pros for the City: a constructive use of a difficult piece of land, an aesthetic improvement, the formalization of the spur trail to the south connecting to the Coal Creek Trail, and the potential for the proposed detention pond to include some areas to the north. He also listed some potential Cons: the benefit to the public is rather limited, and the proposed landscaping maintenance may cease if the HOA disappears, making upkeep default to the City. Linda asked whether the land could ever be made into some sort of a Park. Joe answered that it was very highly unlikely. Chris asked whether the development plan had changed at all since the last time OSAB reviewed it. Eric said no. Alan walked the board through the staff’s five recommendations they are asking of the developers, asking the board to comment and vote on each one (see the packet for precise language). 1) The developer would need to perform an appraisal of the land and improve the land according to its market value. OSAB voted YES unanimously. 2) The HOA will be responsible for its maintenance in perpetuity. The board expressed concern about the actual perpetuity of the maintenance obligation. OSAB voted YES unanimously. 3) The spur trail to Coal Creek Trail would need to be included in the development. Mike asked whether the proposed Coal Creek Trail connection would serve anyone other than the residents of the new Clementine development. He was told that there is another housing development (Sunnyside) to the north and those residents would also use the trail. Spencer commented that merely having this neglected sliver of land be maintained would be enough for him. Chris asked whether the housing density of the development could or would change. Rob and Eric answered that the exact density calculation is being negotiated and wouldn’t change, even if the Park land request isn’t granted (the detention would then be placed below ground). OSAB voted YES unanimously. 4) Parks initially recommended the developer pay to widen the sidewalk on the west wide of East St. north to Pine St. Public Works felt this burden was too great on the developers and did not recommend this. Rob pointed out that if the land is appraised to be worth more that the proposed improvements, this project could be used to make up some of that worth, so locking it out of the arrangement may be a mistake. Joe countered that any make-up money could just as easily be put into an escrow account. Joe said that for him the bottom line is that the discussed sidewalk should be 5 ft wide, not 3-4 ft like it is currently, no matter who pays for it, but maybe the burden could be shared. The board voted to support the idea that the pedestrian walk along the west side of East Street should be improved. 5) If the developer cannot abide by these conditions, they should not use the land or look into buying it outright. OSAB voted unanimous YES. Chris made the comment that increased housing density is coming to this area regardless, and those residents will eventually want that land to be cleaned up or made into some sort of facility and they’ll want the City to do it. XII. Discussions Items for the Next Meeting on Wednesday, January 11st- A. 2016 Accomplishments & 2017 Goals B. Elections C. Continue discussion about acquisition strategy and target properties 8