My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06/04/1990 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1990 - 1998 Park Board Packets
>
1990 Park Board Packets
>
06/04/1990 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2021 3:03:01 PM
Creation date
6/11/2021 1:03:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
06/04/1990
Park Bd Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
116
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
-7- <br /> cities with a cash dedication equal to $ 154 per unit. In addition to Vadnais <br /> Heights, Arden Hills, Little Canada, Roseville, and Shoreview all have <br /> dedication formulas which are perfectly equitable in terms of taking the same <br /> amount of land. Some local governments, Vadnais Heights included, may require <br /> an additional expenditure by requiring the multi family housing developer to <br /> construct a small playlot on the same site. In nearly all the cities examined in <br /> this study, multi-family developments contribute less cash on a per unit basis <br /> than single family residences. Therefore it may be argued that this approach is <br /> not equitable in the sense that the single family homeowner has paid a much <br /> higher park fee even though both families (single & multi family) may equally <br /> use a park. Two pieces of information seem to ameliorate this concern. First, <br /> the alternative approach of requiring the construction of a playlot as part of <br /> the proposed multi family development is a reasonable additional expense. <br /> Secondly, having a reduced unit fee for multi family developments as many of the <br /> cities in the upper half of Table IV require seems to be logical from a resident <br /> and developer perspective, but may not be entirely equitable. <br /> Example No. 3 <br /> This a commercial/industrial development consisting of a light manufacturing <br /> building of 24, 644 square feet (S. F.) on 1. 9 acres. It is this landuse in <br /> which there is the greatest difference among cities in how cash dedication is <br /> handled. Two thirds of the cities require a percentage of the land in equivalent <br /> cash value on the order of 3 - 10 %. Other cities have required a fee based <br /> upon a per acre or square footage of development. The former example seems to be <br /> logical in that it equates the value of the dedication with the value of a <br /> similar amount of land which could be taken. In the case of Vadnais Heights, it <br /> would appear to be impossible to take a land dedication when the land value is <br /> $ 16, 553 but the required cash dedication is only $ 1,200. Conversely, white <br /> Bear Township could take either land or cash as they would be equivalent. The <br /> requirement for any land or cash dedication for commercial/industrial landuse <br /> arises occasionally and should be discussed. First, it would seem that many <br /> cities have been requiring a substantial cash dedication for some time with no <br /> problems with respect to development (Roseville, Arden Hills) . Second, a <br /> commercial or industrial enterprize has no direct need for parks and recreation <br /> in contrast to the more obvious police, fire and public works services a local <br /> government provides. Indirectly however, its workers may choose to relocate to a <br /> city whoose park system is adequate and well maintained. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.