Laserfiche WebLink
CASE #2 <br /> <br />REVIEW SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE OF THE PARK AND RECREATION <br />COMMISSION AND DISCUSSION OF PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS. <br />by; Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Coordinator <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />All of you are familiar with your Commission role. The attached duties and responsibilities are from the <br />City Code and are for information only. <br /> <br />It will be helpful, though to review in detail the park dedication requirements. Particular attention <br />should be paid to Chapter 9.50.37, Subdivision 9. "Required Improvements" City Code states clearly <br />(or at least tome) that required improvements are not necessarily included in the 7, 10 or whatever <br />percent of park dedication. Several things come to mind: <br /> <br />Should the City require these improvements within that subdivision when an improvement design <br />or locatiog is known? (i.e. trails or screening, tot lot grading, backstop placement, etc.) <br /> <br />When improvement needs are known, wouldn't requiring these improvements at the time of <br />subdivisi~m development be the most economical way to accomplish them? For instance, a <br />developer will have his/her equipment and labor force on site. In the cases of rough grading or <br />bituminous trail, the money saved should be substantial. <br /> <br />Given the shortage of time and money to accomplish improvements, wouldn't it be fair to the <br />prospectik, e property owner or nearby resident to have a start on the recreational needs this new <br />subdivision will impose? <br /> <br />In reference to Chapter 9.50.37, Subdivision 8., "In appropriate plats", up to 25% park dedication <br />credit has been given for scenic easements even if the scenic easement or open space has been private. <br /> <br />Is the verbiage in Chapter 9.50.37, Subdivision 8. "dedicate to the public" consistent with <br />allowing scenic easement park dedication credit for private open space? <br /> <br />Especially in the case of allowing partial credit for wetland open space, does this really mitigate the <br />need for parks or trust fund dollars? <br /> <br />And possibly,related to park dedication, would a logical place for palliating the effects of tree removal <br />for roads and building site development be in parks, trails and boulevards? If this were the case, <br />should some sort of ratio be allowed for park dedication credit, or should it be one of the required <br />improvements? <br /> <br />Commission Action: <br /> <br />1. Discuss park dedication and develop a consensus regarding required improvements. <br /> <br />2. Determine under what conditions it is in the interest of the City to credit surplus open space or <br /> scenic easements to park dedications. <br /> <br />3. In the above instm~ce should private open space or scenic easements also be eligible for credit? <br /> <br />Enclosed for your review: <br /> <br />Review Checklist: <br /> <br />City Code definition of Park and Recreation Commission scope and <br />objectives <br />City Code requirements for park dedication <br /> <br />City Administrator <br />City Engineer <br />Zoning Administrator <br />Parks/Utilities Coordinator <br /> <br />P&R: 10/10/91 <br /> <br /> <br />