Agenda - Council - 04/09/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Date: March 7, 1991 MEMORANDUM To: City Engineer Jankowski From: Zoning Administrator Frolik Project Manager Jim Gromberg Park and Recreation Commission The purpose of this memo is to state my opinions regarding park dedication in the proposed plat of Echo Ridge. The plat is being processed as a minor subdivision and code states that park dedication "shall apply to the new lots being created". The staff recommendation being presented to the Park and Recreation Commission on March 7, 1991, is for no park dedication due on Echo Ridge because the minor subdivision is a replat of 3 existing metes and bounds properties into 3 platted lots and no new lots beyond the original number of 3 are being created. I feel very strongly that some park dedication is due the City at this time for the plat of Echo Ridge. Although the platting will not increase the number of lots from what currently exists, by virtue of the platting, the developer is creating a new subdivision that should be subject to park dedication. With the platting process, Lots 2 and 3 will no longer be substandard and eligible for building permits without any special variances from the city. If the City does not collect park dedication with the platting of Echo Ridge, it allows for a situation where both Lots 2 and 3 could be built on without having to contribute to park dedication. In addition, the City will not have another opportunity to collect park dedication until there is future resubdivision of the subject lots. If that future subdivision is a minor subdivision, we can only collect park dedication on the ne.___~w lots created, and again the original lots 2 and 3 would have gotten by without paying park dedication because again, they would be considered the existing lots. Considering the acreage in Lot 3, there is the potential for the next subdivision of that property to be a full subdivision but the City doesn't know that. I recommend we get one unit of park dedication on Lot 3 at this time ($350) to assure park dedication has been paid in the event one home is built on the property. If no home is built on the property and if future resubdivision of Lot 3 is a major rather than minor subdivision, then the amount of park dedication due at that time should be credited by $350.00. In support of my recommendations regarding Echo Ridge, I refer you to the minor subdivision of Morton Addition. Morton Addition was a minor subdivision which consisted of replatting two existing metes and bounds lots into 3 platted lots. Although, only one new tot was created, the park dedication required by the City was for two lots -- the two vacant lots resulting from the minor subdivision; the existing home on the third parcel was not charged park dedication. Lot 1 in Echo Ridge has an existing home on it. Most likely this lot was never charged park dedication because the City's only opportunity to obtain park dedication is during the platting process and the subject lot is a metes and bounds parcel. In researching recent minor subdivisions, i~. a~pears that even though there is an existing home that may never have paid park dedication, the City is acting in accord with Code and only requiring park dedication on the vacant lots (new lots) resulting from the minor subdivision. However, in major subdivisions, the City has required park dedication on the existing homestead in addition to the new units created because with major subdivisions, Code calls for park dedication on the gross area being subdivided. Personally, I believe metes and bounds parcels that resubdivide by metes and bounds should not be treated any differently than metes and bounds parcels that go through major subdivisions. In my opinion the City should at a minimum, collect $700.00 ($350 x 2 units) in Echo Ridge for park dedication.