Laserfiche WebLink
REVIEW <br /> <br /> CASE #1 <br /> <br />AND CONFIRM INTERPRETATION OF PARK DEDICATION <br /> REQUIREMENTS <br /> by: Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Coordinator <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />Review of the City's park dedication requirements was tabled at the October 10, 1991 <br />Commission meeting because of time constraints and also to allow for proper digestion of <br />the City Code material presented. <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />Obviously: each development is different and the Commission and City Council need to <br />explore all :park dedication possibilities to act on the best long term interest of the citizenry; <br />however, the questions posed in this case are important in that City Staff and especially <br />developers need to know what is expected of them' beyond an3, minimum park dedication <br />requirements. The questions then, remain ...... <br /> <br />Please pay particular attention to Chapter 9.50.37, Subdivision 9, "Required <br />Improvements". City Code states clearly (or at least to me) that required improvements are <br />not necessarily included in the 7, 10 or whatever percent of park dedication. Several things <br />come to mind: <br /> <br />Should the City require these improvements within that subdivision when an <br />improvement design or location is -known (i.e. trails or screening, tot lot grading, <br />backstop placement, etc.)? <br /> <br />When improvement needs are 'known, wouldn't requiring these improvements at the <br />time of subdivision development be the most economical way to accomplish them? <br />For instance, a developer will have his/her equipment and labor force on site. In the <br />cases of rough ~ading or bituminous trail, the money saved should be substantial. <br /> <br />Giventhe shortage of rime and monev to accomplish improvements, wouldn't it be fair <br />to the prospective property owner or nearby resident to have a start on the recreational <br />needs this new subdivision will impose? <br /> <br />In reference to Chapter 9.50.37, Subdivision 8, "In appropriate plats", up to 25% park <br />dedication credit has been ~ven for scenic easements even if the scenic easement or open <br />space has been private. <br /> <br />Is the verbiage in Chapter 9.50.37, Subdivision 8, "dedicate to the public" consistent <br />with allowing scenic easement park dedication credit for private open space? <br /> <br />Especi_,j!y in the case of allowing partial credit for wetland open space, does this really <br />mitigate the need for parks or trust fund dollars? <br /> <br />And possibly related to park dedication, would a io~cal place for palliating the effects of <br />tree removal for roads and building site development be in parks, trails and boulevards? If <br />this were the case. should some son of ratio be allowed for park dedication credit, or <br />should it be one of the required improvements? <br /> <br /> <br />