Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parks committee debates two park sites as road plans and growth-boundary rules complicate Pershall, Elkhorn options
Summary
Redmond Parks Committee weighed trade-offs between Pershall (36 acres already inside the urban growth boundary) and Elkhorn (22 acres outside the boundary), with staff outlining annexation steps, likely transportation impacts and the substantial process to expand the urban growth boundary for Elkhorn.
The Redmond Parks Committee spent much of its meeting weighing two prospective park sites — Pershall and Elkhorn — and the land-use steps that would be needed to make either one a city park. Planning Director Kyle Roberts told the committee Pershall is roughly 36 acres, sits inside the city’s urban growth boundary and is contiguous to city limits, while Elkhorn is about 22 acres outside the growth boundary and currently in county exclusive farm-use zoning.
Kyle Roberts, the city planning director, said Pershall’s location makes annexation straightforward when there is a development plan: “It’s about 36 acres in size. It is within our urban growth boundary, but outside the city limits ... To actually annex that piece of property is actually quite simple. It’s simply a resolution that city council needs to approve.”
By contrast, Roberts told the committee Elkhorn would require a formal urban growth boundary amendment before annexation is possible: “Because it is outside the urban growth boundary, it’s not eligible for annexation. Properties can only be annexed if they’re within the urban growth boundary,” he said, outlining the multi-step process that includes planning‑commission hearings, council actions, county review and final acknowledgment by the state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).
Committee members raised concerns about a proposed arterial alignment in the city’s transportation system plan that would extend Northwest Pershall Way through the Pershall parcel. Members noted the plan shows a future connection intended to move significant volumes of traffic and that an arterial of that type could bisect a large park. Roberts and staff said the alignment in the system plan is illustrative and that detailed routing, topography and environmental and cultural assessments have not been completed.
Members pressed staff on options to reduce impacts, including routing adjustments, developer‑funded construction of segments, and park design measures to soften a road’s effect, such as tree buffers, separated bike lanes and multi‑use paths. Maria (staff) told the committee there would be public participation during park development and that the parks committee would have opportunity to influence the road’s design as part of that process.
On prioritization, staff said Elkhorn currently appears in the capital improvement program (CIP) for 2028 but could be moved forward if the committee prioritizes it and if staff can assemble the necessary justification in the parks master plan and CIP. Maria said staff and consultants will prepare cost simulations and recommended CIP schedules for the committee to review before committing funds.
The committee did not vote on a final site at the meeting. Members asked staff for further analysis, public‑engagement steps and a CIP simulation showing the tradeoffs between advancing Elkhorn and projects such as Diamond Bar.
What happens next: staff will review the parks master plan and prepare materials for the committee and the upcoming CIP presentation so members can consider a recommendation on prioritization and whether to proceed with the urban growth boundary justification process for Elkhorn.
