Consider Master Parks Plan Guiding Policy on Balance of Community and Neighborhood Parks and Smaller Pocket/Mini Parks

At City Council work session on April 25th, 2017 Staff was directed to facilitate the examination of the policy highlighted within this topic report title.  The long-standing policy is summarized as:

"A policy of the City to favor larger, accessible neighborhood and community public parks with quality amenities and improvements, and provide trail connections between them, over smaller, pocket parks with few to no 'destination' improvements."

The request to examine the policy at this time, was a reaction to staff's request to City Council as to if, the City should consider full or partial credit for a small park-like space proposed by the Developer within the Riverstone Addition. (Please see case 2.2 of the April 25th work session for additional information.)  The first exhibit attached shows 'Outlot C' the subject of the request for full or partial Park Dedication credit. The other small, neighborhood open space is identified as 'Outlot D'. The Developer is no longer requesting Park Dedication for this space or improvement costs.

In order to facilitate the discussion between City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission on the aforementioned policy, it may be useful to look at a previous subdivision in Ramsey in comparison to the proposed Riverstone Subdivision.  Like the proposed Riverstone project, Village of Sunfish Lake (platted in 2004-5) also was served by municipal sewer and water, had smaller lots consisting of single family homes and 'villas'—and that Developer also believed that small park-like areas within the plat were warranted. 

The primary difference between the Village of Sunfish Lake and Riverstone, is that the size of the plat was approximately 40% of that of the proposed Riverstone—yet they developed the plat with a very similar combination of a small park with playground and another, more passive landscaped area.  Both 'park' areas privately developed, as well as owned and maintained by the homeowners association.  (The Developer did not request Park Dedication credit.)  In the instance of the Village of Sunfish Lake, the larger neighborhood park plan was for Sunfish Lake Park, which in effect was built using the Park Dedication proceeds from the Village of Sunfish Lake (2009).

15 minutes, based upon discussion.

This policy discussion entails the appropriation or allocation of Park Dedication as a Development Fee.

Mark Riverblood will provide an overview of the applications of Park Dedication and precedent, to facilitate the discussion between City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission.

Provide consensus direction to Staff on the following points or questions:

• Should the policy this topic discusses be revisited as part of the Master Park Plan endeavor (later in 2017)?
• Should an interim policy amendment to the existing policy be made to accommodate some or full Park Dedication credit for Outlot C in the proposed Riverstone Subdivision?
• If a interim policy is warranted for Riverstone, and the park-like space is quasi-public, should the Park Dedication credit be in the area of: 10%, 30% or 50%?
• Or, if a interim policy is warranted for Riverstone, should Outlot C be a public park with full Park Dedication credit?