Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Black inquired why a certain area was not included for land credit. <br /> <br />Mr. Boos replied that this area is undevelopable and perceived as a park. <br /> <br />Mr. Black pointed out that he is showing 400 feet on the other side of the pond. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johns asked if the City wants that 400 feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Black suggested that the surrounding neighborhood liked it. <br /> <br />Mr. Black stated that if we identify an area of needed trail way, then we are back on the first <br />issue of credit for land area. If it is a crucial part of the system, he would like to receive some <br />credit for land area. <br /> <br />Mr. Putnam commented that the City is basing the minimum park dedication on 87.6 acres - that <br />includes wetlands, however, staff is saying that park dedication has to be exclusive of wetlands. <br />He inquired why park dedication could not be based on the area less wetlands. The subject <br />property is 58.69 acres of upland and 20.02 acres of wetland. <br /> <br />Mr. Black commented that there has to be a correlation of the cash the City takes and the land <br />value. Based on what's in the City's ordinance, the charge for park dedication per unit is $1,300 <br />and $325 per unit for trail fee. That equals $1,625 per unit for a total of $498,875. If the City is <br />allowed to take 10%, that is almost triple what was paid for the land. He suggested that the rates <br />appear to be high. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johns stated that the Park and Recreation Commission reviews the City's fees <br />every year and they are very competitive. She added that the Commission/City chooses not to <br />take wetlands as a deduction. <br /> <br />Mr. Black assured the Commission that he has no problem not getting credit for wetland. <br /> <br />Chairperson Cook suggested that Mr. Black has come to the City to get a PUD so he could <br />develop with a higher density. <br /> <br />Mr. Black stated that is simply not true. Their land use fit the Comp Plan. He reported that he <br />had been meeting with the Council to work out what he and the Council would like to see on this <br />property. A PUD works best for them and the City because of the mixed uses. We are working <br />on this development to make it sbmething we all can be proud of. <br /> <br />Mr. Boos stated that he believed that is accurate. We do want to do this right. It is customary to <br />use the per unit charge because it is easier than coming up with land value because of the <br />differences in evaluating. He noted that in looking at the plat, there is not any area dedicated as <br />park that could be developed as buildable lots. There was neighborhood comment that there <br />should be a park there. The Park and Recreation Commission is not saying they want this nice, <br /> <br />Park & Recreation Commission - June 20, 2001 <br /> Page 4 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />