Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Park Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates Marchstone developer’s proposed 6‑acre park and on‑ground reservoir; accessibility concerns raised
Summary
Staff reviewed a developer concept for a 6‑acre park and an on‑ground water reservoir located at high elevation in the Marchstone subdivision. Residents and committee members expressed concern the site would be inaccessible to many phase‑1 households and suggested alternatives such as smaller nearer parks or fees‑in‑lieu.
Committee members reviewed a developer concept plan for the Marchstone subdivision that would dedicate roughly six acres for a park at a high elevation and place a water reservoir on that site. Staff said the village board prefers a reservoir rather than a water tower and that a water‑agreement item would be on the village board agenda; staff also indicated the reservoir likely must be in place before further development occurs.
Multiple residents and committee members raised accessibility and equity concerns: the proposed park site sits in phase‑2 land atop a steep area, roughly a half‑mile from many phase‑1 homes, and could be difficult for people with limited mobility to reach. Members suggested any dedication of steep, hard‑to‑develop land should be weighed against alternatives such as reducing the acreage, dedicating smaller nearby parks, or accepting fees‑in‑lieu of land so funds could instead be used to improve parks and build a pool nearer existing neighborhoods.
Committee members asked staff to gather more information on topography and the developer’s schedule; staff said the developer requested an earlier start to infrastructure work (March 23) though the village ordinance would prohibit major disturbance before May 1 unless the board grants permission. No formal recommendation was forwarded to the village board at this meeting; staff said they will relay committee feedback and the village board will decide whether to allow early disturbance and how to treat park dedication versus fees.
The committee emphasized that dedicated parkland that cannot be used by nearby residents offers limited community benefit and asked staff to explore alternatives and cost implications.
