Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 08/09/2001

Home

Mr. Black inquired why a certain area was not included for land credit. Mr. Boos replied that this area is undevelopable and perceived as a park. Mr. Black pointed out that he is showing 400 feet on the other side of the pond. Commissioner Johns asked if the City wants that 400 feet. Mr. Black suggested that the surrounding neighborhood liked it. Mr. Black stated that if we identify an area of needed trail way, then we are back on the first issue of credit for land area. If it is a crucial part of the system, he would like to receive some credit for land area. Mr. Putnam commented that the City is basing the minimum park dedication on 87.6 acres - that includes wetlands, however, staff is saying that park dedication has to be exclusive of wetlands. He inquired why park dedication could not be based on the area less wetlands. The subject property is 58.69 acres of upland and 20.02 acres of wetland. Mr. Black commented that there has to be a correlation of the cash the City takes and the land value. Based on what's in the City's ordinance, the charge for park dedication per unit is $1,300 and $325 per unit for trail fee. That equals $I,625 per unit for a total of $498,875. If the City is allowed to take 10%, that is almost triple what was paid for the land. He suggested that the rates appear to be high. Commissioner Johns stated that the Park and Recreation Commission reviews the City's fees every, year and they are very competitive. She added that the Commission/City chooses not to take wetlands as a deduction. Mr. Black assured the Commission that he has no problem not getting credit for wetland. Chairperson Cook suggested that Mr. Black has come to the City to get 'a PUD so he could develop with a higher density. Mr. Black stated that is simply not true. Their land use fit the Comp Plan. He reported that he had been meeting Mth the Council to work out what he and the Council would like to see on this property. A PUD works best for them and the City because of the mixed uses. We are working on this development to make it s¢mething we all can be proud of. Mr. Boos stated that he believed that is accurate. We do want to do this right. It is customary to use the per unit charge because it is easier than coming up with land value because of the differences in evaluating. He noted that in looking at the plat, there is not any area dedicated as park that could be developed as buildable lots. There,,~was neighborhood comment that there should be a park there. The Park and Recreation Corm~ission is not saying they want this nice, Park & Recreation Commission - June 20, 2001 Page 4 of 8