At a City Council luncheon March 1, heads of the planning and parks departments said a proposed amendment to the planned development north of the U.S. 60 and Hwy. 65 interchange would allow for a park to be planned along James River. It also would eliminate specific language that would require the developers,
60/65 Partnership LLC, to be wholly responsible for infrastructure.
Council members had requested city and county officials answer questions raised when the bill received its first reading Jan. 10. The bill, however, was tabled at the start of the Jan. 24 council meeting.
“Land for parks does not come frequently or inexpensively,” said Jerry Clark, chairman of the parks board, who recommended council approve the proposed amendments.
Clark and parks Director Jodie Adams said negotiations with the developers were still on the table, but a tentative agreement had been reached for the parks department to receive at least 10 acres in the James River flood plain and access to the waterway should the amendment be approved. The department could receive up to 100 acres of green space as the $40 million planned development progresses.
According to Adams, securing the property would allow a trail to run parallel to the river that could connect to Greenways and Galloway trail systems. For now, however, plans for the donated land are not progressing.
“We can’t make these types of plans until we know we have the property,” Clark said.
The amendment has been controversial among area residents because of a possible east-west arterial that could go from Farm Road 170 to the east to Republic Road to the west and access the property. Those plans are on hold pending the results of an Ozarks Transportation Organization study. Also, language in the original development plans would be changed to include possible public funding sources.
Ralph Rognstad, the city’s planning and development director, gave councilmembers a worksheet that said the amendment, if approved, would:
- allow for parks system uses on donated land;
- exempt park uses from triggering the requirement for construction of major public improvements;
- only require construction of off-site improvements necessary to serve the proposed park facilities based on the traffic study;
- allow for a temporary access road sufficient for emergency vehicles to access the park facility;
- permit the “conservation easement” requirement to be satisfied by deeding a parcel of land to the Park Board;
- remove specific language for routing of the roadway connection to the east to Farm Road 170 near J;
- remove specific language “by the developer” from some infrastructure requirements; and
- add a statement that any public improvements are the responsibility of the developer to provide utilizing any combination of public and private funds.
Rognstad said the developers are worried that funds generated through public incentives for infrastructure would go against current plans as written, though Rognstad didn’t believe that was the case.
Mayor Jim O’Neal said he felt city staff should put the amendment on the March 7 agenda, but he felt final development plans should come back to council for approval instead of to the administrative review committee, and planned to amend the measure.
“We are not signing off on this development in totality,” O’Neal said. “A number more of these types of decisions will be available for public hearings.”
Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky said she plans to propose an amendment to separate the language changes on infrastructure from the donation of land requests at the March 7 meeting.
“The last two items are unrelated to the parks,” Rushefsky said. “I have a major problem with those.”
[[In-content Ad]]