Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />December 27, 1989 <br />Fahey pointed out the issue of a park charge for <br />subdivision of property. However, noted that Code <br />allows the City to make allowances in this matter since <br />there are recreational uses being made of the land. <br />Scalze stated that it was her recollection if the <br />subdivision resulted in properties over five acres in <br />size, the property was not subject to a park charge. <br />The City Attorney stated that he did not recall the <br />content of the Ordinance on this matter. <br />Scalze was concerned with a higher demand for parking <br />at the Capital View site and asked where additional <br />parking would be developed. <br />Flynn replied that to his knowledge there is no future <br />parking planned on the recreational facilities, and <br />pointed out that the 916 facility would be for special <br />education, and students to the school would be bussed. <br />Blesener pointed out that additional parking would be <br />added in the soccer field area. <br />Flynn replied that that was his understanding. <br />Fahey asked if the City Planner recommended that the <br />school districts file with the City their cross-use <br />easements. <br />Flynn stated that the school districts have not <br />anticipated that the property would be tied to these <br />easements forever. <br />LaValle was concerned about future sale of the property <br />to another user. <br />Collova pointed out that the property is zoned Public, <br />thus giving the City control over the future use of the <br />site. <br />Blesener pointed out that the intent of the lot split <br />is to keep the recreational facilities with School <br />District #623, and the City had previously made that <br />request of the school district. <br />Fahey asked why the City needed the easements. <br />Page 11 <br />