Laserfiche WebLink
Develop some scenarios using the schedule for cash contributions in Item B to dete,qnine <br />whether or not the urban area is contributing an amount that is consistent w/th park needs in <br />high density areas. <br /> <br />170.066 Combination Of Land Dedication And Cash Payment - <br /> <br />How far does the City want to carry dedicated funding versus flexibility in park budget? <br />Should the ordinance stipulate a certain amount of park dedication being used for park <br />improvements within that specific development. <br /> <br />170.068 Credits For Park Dedication Requirements - <br /> <br />Item A (Private Open Space) should be reviewed to determine if the City will allow <br />developers to provide private, rather than public, recreational amenities in a subidivision <br />and if those amenities can be credited towards the park dedication due on the plat. If this <br />section remains in the ordinance, it should be clearly stated that any credit allowed is not a <br />development right, but rather at the City's discretion. <br /> <br />Item A6 and A7 should be reviewed for extent of applicability, i.e. facilities like Cheap <br />Thrills, ski hill, golf course, etc. and how difficult those kinds of applications would be to <br />track. There is concern with beinf, able to maintain a consistency of acppiication in these <br />items. <br /> <br />Item B (Pond Areas) should be reviewed from a liability standpoint and either eliminated or <br />limited to natural ponds. <br /> <br />170.070 Required Improvements - <br /> <br />Are the land and improvements required in Item A equitable to what a cash donation would <br />have been. <br /> <br />170.071 Application To Minor Subdivisions - <br /> <br />Amend to explicifly spell out park land dedication requirements for minor subdivisions, <br />using ~aphics if necessary. <br /> <br />Case #3: Review Critical Rivers Corridor Ordinance: <br /> <br />3,Q'. Ha_rtley reviewed the proposed amendment to the Critical Rivers Ordinance to <br />implement a z'ail corridor system. <br /> <br />3&. Jim Martin was present and expressed concern that the trail alignment would impact his <br />future development plans for his properry. <br /> <br />.Mr. Harfley replied that the ordinance does not define a permanent a!q;gnment. <br /> <br />The consensus of those present was to subm.it the proposed ordnance to Men'o Council for <br />preapproval prior to the CiD' conducting the public hea.q..ng and adop~ng the ordinance. <br /> <br />City Council/Planning & Zoning/Park & Recreation <br />February 22, 1989 <br /> Page 5 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />