CCMinutes - 04/12/04 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

housing was for families living at 50 to 60 percent of the median income of the area. He felt parks were important, but that having a roof over one's head was also important. He supported the original proposal which would utilize three acres of the land for low-income housing and five acres for a park. He opposed the motion. Mr. Taylor stressed the importance of acting on the One-Year Action Plan before May 15. He said the adoption of Councilor Poling's action would leave the $400,000 allocation for land bank acquisition within the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), but it would not be consistent with the staff recom- mendation. He added that either motion would work within the requirements. He felt that, should the council vote for the staff recommendation, it would still allow the City to buy the land back from the CDBG funds. He stated that, should the three acres not be included in the acquisition, the current policy on parks would dictate that the City would purchase the five-acre parcel and the three-acre parcel would remain for the school district or others to consider. Councilor Pap~ conveyed his appreciation for the intent of Councilor Poling's motion. He felt that sort of planning for parks and open space could monopolize council time. He averred such planning was well- executed by the Parks and Open Space Division. Noting he was the City representative on the HPB, he related the board had given the proposed acquisition a unanimous vote of support. He said the land could be traded for another parcel, should it be purchased. He opposed the motion, but would support giving direction to the City Manager to return with a plan to purchase both parcels simultaneously. Councilor Bettman commented that she had been pleased to see the plan for both low-income housing and a five-acre park. She opined the council could not have everything it wanted. She concurred with Councilor Poling regarding the neighborhood's need and desire for more park area. She thought a five-acre park was ample. She noted the issue mirrored the Westmoreland School site park issue, in which the neighborhood had asked for one acre and had been denied it. In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Taylor said there was no guarantee that the City was purchasing the parcels, but there was a presumption that the 4J School District would negotiate with the City first. Councilor Taylor remarked it was unfortunate to lose any open space the City had. She opined that school grounds were some of the best open spaces the City had left. She asked if the five-acre parcel would provide adequate playing fields for the need. Mr. Taylor felt it might not address the larger need for playing fields citywide, but it would provide good practice fields. He said it would be acquired with park systems development charges (SDCs). Mayor Torrey averred that, though this parcel was not park-like necessarily, the playing fields were well- used and needed to be protected. He thought the plan from staff did in fact do so. He felt the need for playing fields was a growing problem as the City had not done anything to replace the fields that were going to be lost at Cal Young Middle School and Washington Elementary School. He believed the City would be better-served by going across Beltline Road and developing the eight-acre parcel the City owned there into playing fields. Councilor Poling said, in response to Councilor Solomon, the negotiation for the sale of the land had yet to begin. He stated that a public hearing on the proposal for the Willakenzie site would be held on May 12 and the school district would decide whether to sell it or not on May 26. Councilor Pap~ asked what the soonest date a Request for Proposals (RFP) for development of the three acres would be issued. Mr. Taylor responded that it would be a long time. He added that, should the staff motion be adopted and all eight acres were acquired, there would still be an opportunity to discuss the