Laserfiche WebLink
NaINUTL.S <br />Ci.ty Council <br />May 7.2' 19t32 <br />Yark Commission <br />(Cont.) Scalze commenCed that the ~'arks Commgsszon feels the ordanance should be <br />app]iecl across-the-board for the City, <br />~9r, k'orsberg poin4:ed ~mu.~ the person who owns Cfie oaa a~iz~ie Canada <br />Sehool zs buying it on a contract-for-deed and canttot ded'acate land <br />as a park charge. <br />Mrs. Scalze reported tha~ Che Park Co?rt~ti.€.sion i.s recommendi,ng cash <br />as a park chaxge for ~he Kroi.ss subdivasion. <br />Nir, Hanson commented that this is a subd'avisa.on of four szragle fami.ly <br />7.ots. Hanson asked 'af~ the $300 park charge for a single family home <br />would be charged a~ain aC the Cime a bu9lding permit was issued. Mrs. <br />Scalze replied that i~• would not. <br />Mrs. Scalze staCed that on the Jespersen property the Parks Gommi.ssion <br />is recommending cash because oE the curr.ent oeerall Park plan in t~ais <br />axea. <br />Mr. Forsberg ques'~ioned why $300 per 1oC was not su£ficient. <br />Mrs. Scal~oe pointed ou~ ~hat the ordi.nance provides for ~his i£ a sub- <br />div~.sion i.s °snvolved. <br />Council had some question about a 5 acre prov3.sion. P1rs. Sna7.ze replied <br />that this applied somewhere 9.n Lhe State Statute. <br />P1r, Fahey stated that it did not seem righ~ to hi.an to aharge a 516,000 <br />park ck~arge or~ the Jespersen property when the City has a$300 park <br />char~e on a single family hame. It the $300 were chargeds the par.kc <br />charge for the Jespers~n property would be $2,400. Mr. korsberg stated <br />that he fe1C ~kae $2,A00 would be snough to char~e for a park charge. <br />~1r, Hanson poixGted out that if only two lots were divided at a time it <br />vrou7.d be a simple divisi.on and not ~ subdivision. <br />htx, For.sberg fe1~ S.T. would be outrage~s,e~: €.o charge this kind o£ money <br />on the Jespersen or Kroiss property. <br />R1rs. Sca].ze suggested ~hat perhaps the City AtCOrney should check an<1 <br />see i£ the Catys ordinance conforms Co the S'tate StaPUte. <br />Mx. k'ahey commented ~hat he thought the subdi.v5.5~.on by State law only <br />app7.ied to acreage over 5 acres. AnyChing less was a divis~.ona noti a <br />5ubdiv9.sion. <br />A membex of Che audienre asked why the City charges par.k oharges. <br />~1rs. Scalze "•~~lied that ~his was a typical ord'anance. 'ihe City <br />char~es these £ees Lo developers assuming that the new residents <br />corning in due to the de.velopment wi,17. be using Ci~y parks. <br />Page -20- <br />