Parks commission approves fee-in-lieu for Cameron Valley subdivision

The Parks & Recreation Commission voted to accept staff'recommended parkland fees from the Cameron Valley subdivision, allowing the developer to pay a fee-in-lieu of providing the full required acreage.

Larry Foos, the park development manager, told the commission the 17716 Stager Lane project includes roughly 206 single-family dwelling units plus 110 dwelling units in a mixed-use section and that the developer is proposing to provide portions of parkland within the floodplain and to pay fees in lieu of some acreage. Foos provided the fee calculations shown to the board: fee-in-lieu totals of $177,724.80 and $85,377.60 (which together were presented as $263,102.40) and a park development fee of $227,170, for a combined amount shown on the slide as $490,272.40.

Staff and the developer described site layout, connectivity and amenities, including a 10-foot primary trail, a secondary trail, playgrounds, sports courts and a potential pool and fitness area. A developer representative said parts of the proposed parkland run through a floodplain and that the team planned trails and passive recreation there while keeping some amenity areas private until ownership and operational arrangements are clear.

Commissioners probed how the UDC calculation is applied and where money from fees can be spent. Staff said the UDC calculation uses development acres, dwelling units and a cost-per-acre figure (currently $43,500) and that the city is updating those figures in the UDC revision. Staff described a policy approach to accept land only above a size threshold and to collect fees for smaller dedications because of operations-and-maintenance (O&M) burdens for small "pocket parks." The director and staff emphasized that fee revenue is used for nearby park improvements, trail connections and playground replacements rather than disappearing from the parks program.

A commissioner moved to approve staff'recommended fee-in-lieu and park development payments for Cameron Valley; the motion received a second and passed by voice vote, recorded in the meeting as six in favor and none opposed. The approval was a recommendation from the commission; staff said the item will next go to planning and zoning for final action under the city's development review process.

The commission also requested that staff provide slides and the updated UDC calculations at a future workshop so members can see the updated per-acre figures and any proposed thresholds for accepting land versus fees.

The commission adjourned consideration of the item after the vote; staff said they will continue to work with the developer as the project advances to planning and zoning.