HomeMy WebLinkAboutBENNETT ROAD BUNGALOWS - PDP - 42-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY HALL (11)(3teve OIt—WCNP Park Sites Page 2
and Young's Pasture sites would be developed if and when they were ever included in a capital
improvements program.
I hope this helps.
If you have any other questions, please contact me.
LSt�.
eve�Olt W - CNP Park Sites — P
From: Ken Waido
To: Craig Foreman; Marty Heffernan; Mike Powers
Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2001 9:41 AM
Subject: WCNP Park Sites
I've been asked to provide information as to what happened at the City Council meeting on the West
Central Neighborhoods Plan regarding the three new potential neighborhood park sites included in the
plan.
Before I get to that, maybe some background information will also help
The WCNP was unique in that the research and writing of the plan was initially drafted by the residents of
the neighborhoods. From their perspective, the neighborhoods needed some additional neighborhood
parks, or pocket parks. There was also a fairly universal feeling that the neighborhoods had their fair
share of student rental housing and that the plan should minimize the areas for additional multi -family
housing development or redevelopment. Three sites were identified for potential neighborhood parks. As
you know, they were the Bennet Road site, Young's Pasture, and the CAT site (south of the Holiday Inn).
Of the three, I would say that only the Young's Pasture site was NIMBY motivated to stop additional
student oriented housing. The Bennet Road site was looked at in the view of possibly being connected to
the school playground somewhat in the same manner that Beattie School's playground and Beattie Park
are connected. To do so, of course, would require the vacation of Bennet Road and creating cul-de-sacs
at the southern end of City Park Avenue and the (new) west end of Bennett Road. Believe it or not, there
was some serious discussion regarding those ideas.
As the draft WCNP was subjected to staff review, the proposal for three new neighborhood parks became
an issue for the following two basic reasons: first, the neighborhoods, according to standards (if the CAT
site were to develop too) had sufficient park land, and second, there was no funding for the sites (except
for the CAT site). Regarding the first reason, the neighborhoods contain Rolland Moore Community Park,
Avery Neighborhood Park, and the Spring Creek Trail. Immediately adjacent to the neighborhoods are
City Park and Blevins Jr. High School and Neighborhood Park. With the eventual addition of the CAT site,
a strong case can be made that the neighborhoods have sufficient parkland. Regarding the second
reason, it was clear that future residential development in the neighborhoods would not generate sufficient
parkland fees to cover the costs to develop three new parks. So, unless other funding sources were
found, the parks (again except for the CAT site) could not be developed.
A group from the plan's citizens steering committee met with the Parks and Recreation Board in an
attempt to resolve the issues. As I recall, the results of that meeting were that the P&R Board could only
support one additional neighborhood park site (the CAT one). And, I think, a memorandum was sent from
the Board to the City Council with the Board's findings and recommendations (but I'm not sure).
The adoption draft of the WCNP continued to show the potential for three additional neighborhood parks
in the neighborhoods and the implementation section of the plan was written to indicate that the Bennett
Road and Young's Pasture sites could only develop if additional funding from a capital improvements
program (such as Choices '95 or Building Community Choices) were to include funding for the parks
within their programs.
At the Planning and Zoning Board adoption hearing, the neighborhood parks issue was discussed, but the
P&Z Board did not recommend any changes to the draft plan to the Council. I guess we could say the
P&Z Board was comfortable with the wording of the plan.
In the background material sent to Council the neighborhood park issue was identified. However, at the
Council meeting the issue over the establishment of a West Central Neighborhood Caucus was hotly
debated by the Council. This major debate consumed the Council's attention to the point where the
neighborhood park issue was not even discussed - or - the Council too was comfortable with the wording
of the plan, in that, the CAT site would eventually be developed with parkland fees and the Bennett Road