A neighborhood park is never really intended to be the only recreational outlet. But it provides that opportunity close to home.”

Parks Director Chris Jenkins

The Hastings Parks and Recreation Commission spent much of its Feb. 23 meeting reviewing how parkland should be incorporated into the proposed Pleasant Valley Farms housing development, a project that could eventually bring more than 350 new homes to the north side of the city.
Commission members were asked to weigh in on how the city should meet its park dedication requirements for the development — whether through land set aside for a park, cash paid to the city for park improvements, or a combination of both.
The Pleasant Valley Farms development is proposed on approximately 158 acres of farmland north of Hastings High School, near the intersection of 140th Street and Featherstone Road. According to city planning staff, the development concept includes about 375 housing units, including roughly 309 single-family homes and 66 townhomes.
The property is currently farmland but includes wooded areas and sloping terrain. It is also presently located in Nininger Township and would need to be annexed into Hastings before development could proceed.
City planner John Hinzman presented the proposal to the commission, explaining that the city’s subdivision ordinance requires developers to contribute parkland or fees when new residential developments are built.
Based on the number of housing units proposed in Pleasant Valley Farms, the city’s park dedication formula would typically require about 27 acres of parkland. The developer has proposed dedicating about 24 acres of land within the subdivision for a park.
Park Dedication Proposal Meeting
Commissioners were not being asked to approve a final park plan but rather to provide feedback on which dedication method they preferred.
Under city code, park dedication can take three forms: the dedication of land for a public park, payment of cash in lieu of land, or a combination of land and cash.
If the city required payment instead of land dedication, the ordinance sets a fee of about $3,600 per housing unit. With 375 units proposed, that would amount to approximately $1.35 million in park dedication fees.
Planning staff said the general location proposed for the park is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan, which identifies the need for a neighborhood park in that area of Hastings.
The development site is surrounded primarily by farmland to the north and west, with Hastings High School located to the south and existing residential neighborhoods to the east.
Existing park options in the immediate area are limited. Eagle Bluff Park sits across County Road 42, while Featherstone basin areas lie farther away.
Hinzman noted the city’s long-term park planning goal is to ensure most homes are located within about a half-mile of a park facility.
“This area has been identified in the comprehensive plan as a location for a neighborhood park,” he said.
The park could also serve future residential development if additional land west of the site is eventually annexed and developed.
Several commissioners said they believed a park should be built as part of the development rather than relying solely on park dedication fees.
“This is a big development,” one commissioner said during the discussion. “I’m not seeing any parks near this area, and it is shown in our comp plan to have a park there.”
Another commissioner agreed that the number of homes proposed would justify a neighborhood park within walking distance for families and children.
“I think a park needs to be put in,” the commissioner said. “There’s nothing close enough for kids to go play on.”
Although commissioners generally supported having a park within the development, several raised concerns about the specific land proposed for dedication.
Much of the proposed park area includes steep slopes and wooded terrain, which could make development and long-term maintenance more difficult.
Commission members said they were concerned the developer might be offering land that would be difficult for the city to use as a traditional park.
“It’s more or less unbuildable land,” one commissioner said. “Then the city has to try to maintain that land with very steep slopes.”
Parks Director Chris Jenkins said he recently visited the site and acknowledged the terrain could present challenges, but he believes workable options exist.
Jenkins said portions of the land include wooded areas and a natural low point in the terrain that could potentially accommodate park facilities.
“It’s really cool ground,” he said. “There are options available to make something work.”
Potential park features could include playground equipment, open green space, trails and possibly courts or other recreational amenities.
Jenkins suggested the city may not need to accept the full 24 acres proposed by the developer.
Instead, a smaller neighborhood park could be developed while leaving other areas as preserved woodland or homeowners association common space.
“I don’t know that the Parks Department needs 24 acres to manage,” Jenkins said.
He suggested a park in the range of five to 12 acres might be more appropriate while still meeting the city’s comprehensive plan goals.
Hastings’ comprehensive plan identifies five acres as the minimum size for a neighborhood park.
“A neighborhood park is never really intended to be the only recreational outlet,” Jenkins said. “But it provides that opportunity close to home.”
Commission members also discussed the possibility of using a combination approach — accepting a smaller piece of land for a park while collecting park dedication fees for the remaining acreage requirement.
That option could give the city funding to help construct park amenities rather than simply acquiring land.
Jenkins noted that if the city accepted the entire park dedication in land, the development would generate little or no park dedication funding to help pay for improvements such as playground equipment, parking or trail construction.
Under a combination approach, the amount of land dedicated would reduce the fee owed by the developer.
Plans for the development also include a network of trails running through the subdivision and connecting to surrounding areas.
General Sieben Drive is expected to extend through the development and connect to County Road 42, with trails planned along both sides of the road.
Commissioners also raised questions about walkability and how easily residents would be able to reach the park from throughout the neighborhood.
Planning staff said trail connections and sidewalks would help ensure residents could access the park and other parts of the development on foot.
The Parks and Recreation Commission’s discussion was intended to provide input before the Pleasant Valley Farms project continues through the city’s review process.
Commission members did not make a formal recommendation during the meeting but indicated general support for ensuring a neighborhood park is included as the project moves forward.