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
Pas, <br /> e 2 ( Cont . ) <br /> Planning Commission <br /> there is a direct relationship of reducing user impact can public <br /> facilities , based on the types of facilities that are <br /> traditionally included in private developments . <br /> The Chamber has requested that Park Dedication Fees be accepted <br /> at the time of building permit rather than at the time of plat . <br /> The rationale for having the payment be made at the time of Mat <br /> is so the developer pays the fees up front . There is a ;rent <br /> deal of difficulty in communication beti,een the developer and <br /> the actual lot owner at the time of building permit as to who is <br /> responsible for paying the Part: Dedication Fee . In addition, <br /> when land is requested for residential development , it obviously <br /> mattes more sense to acquire the entire parcel at the time of <br /> platting rather than at the -time of building permit . <br /> In regards to the Chamber' s concern about not accepting land, the <br /> Chamber made a statement that an increasing number of cities are <br /> requiring cash only. The studies that staff have conducted do <br /> not confirm this and dedication of land is still utilized as a <br /> legitimate option for "growth and emerging" Cities to consider. <br /> Staff does not feel that this option should be completely- <br /> removed . It should be noted, that land has been accepted in very <br /> few cases in the City, and usually only when the properties are <br /> directly adjacent to an existing park or in the acquisition of a <br /> trail corridor. <br /> The City Parks and Recreation Commission is currently conducting <br /> Ia Park:s and Onen Ctiace plan wl,ich will ,•cry clearly" defiler' <br /> future park acclui sit ion will occur . It is the hone of the Part. <br /> and Recreation Commission 41-0 have a re e:en!1,7i i17 <br /> two years which would provide for acquisition of -our future park <br /> land, possibly making the issue of park land dedication a moot <br /> point . <br /> In conclusion, staff feels that the City ' s Part: Development <br /> Ordinance is consistent with the 'iinnesota State Statute and <br /> meets the Chamber ' s concern that i.e remain consistent with <br /> surrounding communities . I ' ve included a copy of a Part, <br /> Dedication Surrey that was completed in 19c9 for the Commission' s <br /> consideration . In addition , staff :ill be in attendance at <br /> Tuesday ' s meeting to respol":d to an;• specific questions _rd/or <br /> concerns you may have . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.