Laserfiche WebLink
park development need be acquired. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that one of the proposed changes from the existing park <br />dedication ordinance has to do with administration of the ordinance. <br />Currently, the City has the option to take land at the time of platting or <br />cash during building permit issuance. The option to take a combination of <br />land and cash adds to the complexity of administering the ordinance. <br />Therefore, it is proposed to require any cash or land due to be the <br />responsibility of the developer in the form of a one-time payment. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that there are also changes proposed to the percent of <br />land and/or cash that can be required. Under the existing ordinance, for <br />cash dedication the city required payment at the time of building permit <br />issuance and the amount was based on a percent of the value of the building <br />to be constructed. If cash park dedication payments'are going to be <br />required at the time of platting, the value of the building to be <br />constructed will not be known. Therefore, it is proposed that the cash <br />amount required be based on a percentage of the land value. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding disparities between cash and land values <br />required by the existing park dedication ordinance. <br /> <br />Chairman Lichter stated that the Park Commission will be resubmitting a <br />recommendation to City Council regarding proposed amendments to park <br />dedication requirements. <br /> <br />Case #2: Discussion Regarding Proposed Trail Corridors; <br /> <br />Mr. Otto reported that the Park Commission has been acquiring land through <br />park dedication to be used at some time in the future for a multi-use trail <br />system. Mr. Otto reviewed the proposed trail layout. <br /> <br />Ms. Schram- 6051 160th Lane - Stated that the proposed horse and <br />snowmobile trail runs along the ditch through her property; she owns the <br />land right up to the ditch; inquired as to what kind of compensation she <br />will receive for her property; who is liable for the trail; how much will <br />property taxes increase because of the trail. <br /> <br />Ms. $chram was informed that only horse and hiking trails are proposed for <br />her area. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto stated that the current policy is to require as park dedication, <br />any land necessary for the trail system as land comes forward for <br />development. When the trail is constructed, the City would be working with <br />property owners towards a mutual agreement for compensation for portions of <br />land still needed to complete the trail system. The costs to the city <br />would be in maintenance of the trails. Any property OWner entering into an <br />agreement with the City regarding the trail corridor would be protected <br />under the Minnesota liability law. <br /> <br />Ms. Schram stated that the City should have made more of an effort to <br />notify the affected property owners regarding the proposed trail system. <br /> <br />City Council-Park & Recreation Commission/June 9, 1988 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />