Board debates parks and open‑space zoning map and use table; Indian Gardens, disc golf and impervious limits draw scrutiny

The board considered a major policy discussion on zoning for parks and open space at its June 18 meeting, evaluating recommendations from the Parks & Recreation Board and the Planning & Zoning Commission.

Director Siren presented the proposed framework, which divides green assets into community parks (Big Ballpark, Ble Park, Harrington and Indian Gardens), neighborhood parks (Turtle Park, Patriots Park), Swan Pond as a separate category and open space. The Parks & Recreation Board favored a flexible, broader active‑use boundary to enable future park amenities; the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended a more conservative approach that preserves riverside open space, limits active recreation to existing facilities and requires public review for substantive changes.

Trustees debated the Indian Gardens boundary in detail. Planning & Zoning recommended keeping much of the riverfront as open space (partly because it lies in the floodway and to preserve trees and habitat), while Parks & Recreation recommended a larger civic‑park designation that would allow more active uses to be permitted. Several trustees expressed concern about speculative zoning and preferred preserving the riverfront and routing future expansions through a public hearing process.

Other questions included which parkway triangles should be separately zoned (the board discussed a size‑threshold approach and recommended staff identify more significant triangles such as Scotswood and Evelyn Triangle) and whether Swan Pond should have its own category; trustees generally agreed Swan Pond is actively used and may warrant special classification. The board also reviewed use‑table differences (permitted vs. special use) for neighborhood parks; Planning & Zoning tended to be more restrictive for neighborhood parks because of proximity to residences.

On development‑rule questions, Planning & Zoning suggested site‑plan review for park improvements that involve new pathways or other ground‑disturbing work; trustees generally favored keeping major review for items that materially change a park and using case‑by‑case referrals instead of a blanket mandatory review for all permitted improvements. Planning & Zoning also recommended establishing park‑specific impervious‑surface and building‑coverage baselines (set slightly above current estimated coverage) so that any substantial increase would require public review; trustees supported this approach with the caveat that increases should go through a public hearing (special use or variation) and that staff should account for projects already in the CIP when preparing the numbers.

Next steps: staff will refine maps and use tables, return items to Parks & Recreation and Landscape Advisory for review, compile tree‑canopy and GIS data requested by trustees, and proceed with a public‑hearing schedule later in the year.