North bend debates responsibility of mini-parks
July 17, 2008
By Ed Farrell
As the city of North Bend grows nearer to lifting its decade-long moratorium on most new development in the city, work on updating the vital municipal code chapters designed to provide orderly guidelines is moving forward.
On July 10, the city’s Planning Commission gave its approval to final drafts of updates on code chapters dictating design standards, zoning districts, residential recreation and common open space requirements and development types.
While most of the approved changes were minor, and more of a housekeeping nature, the commissioners did engage in some debate as to whether city-required “mini parks” would be the responsibility of the general public or individual homeowners associations.
Chapter 17.25 of the code requires that new housing developments construct the small play areas – the number depending on how large the development – and equip them with such amenities as slides, balance features, swings “or other enjoyable elements.”
Projects on less than 10 acres with fewer than 40 residential units are required to pay the city an in-lieu fee towards dedication of parkland and equipment.
Developments of greater than 40 units, however, are expected to provide one .25-acre mini park. Projects with more than 80 units must provide two such parks and those with between 121 and 200 units three mini parks.
Developments proposed for more than 200 units will be required to provide one park of at least 2.5 acres in size.
In each case, according to the code, the parks will remain the property, and responsibility, of each development’s homeowner’s association.
The code does allow, however, for the city, at its discretion, to accept conveyance and responsibility for the parks.
Gina Estep, director of community and economic development, said the city is currently unable to assume the burden of providing maintenance to all of the tiny play areas, but that in some cases would likely exercise its authority to seek conveyance.
Commissioner Rob McFarland, however, urged the panel to place all such mini parks under city ownership.
“All parks should be public parks,” he said, adding the city “stands a better chance to maintain those parks if they are in the public realm.”
McFarland said he was also concerned about such parks denying access to neighborhood children who did not reside in the subdivision.
Other commissioners, however, said the homeowners themselves would be motivated to provide the upkeep to enhance the value of their own properties.
When a formal vote on passing the updated chapters to the full city council was held, McFarland voted with the majority, even though he attempted to amend the motion to require public ownership.
Commissioner Charles Zeder, who moved to accept the amended chapter requiring private upkeep, refused to accept McFarland’s “friendly” amendment.
“I don’t think it’s right,” Zeder said.
After making his vote, McFarland said he had no intention of opposing the requirement to provide such facilities, but just “wanted to get it on the record” that he supported public funding.
Comments
Got something to say?
Before you comment, please note:
- These comments are moderated.
- Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
- Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
- This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.
