My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/05/1991 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1991 Park Board Packets
>
09/05/1991 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2021 10:00:49 AM
Creation date
7/23/2021 2:44:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
09/05/1991
Park Bd Meeting Type
Regular
Park Bd Publication Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
MEMORANDUM <br />TO: All Park Board Members <br />FROM: Marty Asleson <br />DATE: August 29, 1991 <br />SUBJECT: Park Dedication Formula <br />As you may recall at the February 4, 1991 Park Board meeting, we <br />held a special work session with the Design Review Board regarding <br />the adoption of a new park dedication formula. The proposed formula <br />multiplied land cost by a density factor and again by the total <br />acreage, and then divided this number by the number of lots to give <br />a cost per lot figure. <br />(Land Cost) (Density Factor) (Total Acreage) = Dollars/Lot <br />(Number of Lots) <br />The land cost was defined as an average of $10, 000.00 per acre. The <br />argument was that the formula favored developments with higher <br />densities, (ie) developments with lower densities would pay higher <br />rates. Thus and R-1X development would pay more if the Park Board <br />were to ask for cash than R-1 subdivisions. <br />Two ways of looking at this inequality were presented to the Design <br />Review Board. First, it was argued that bigger lots are, more <br />valuable and a higher dedication would fair. These areas, it could <br />be argued, cover greater land area so that they should pay more. <br />The other argument that was used was that residential areas with <br />greater densities need more park facilities because each lot is <br />smaller. Thus the cash dedication should be greater (ie) higher <br />density/more need. <br />It was further shown that using the draft formula, a residential <br />development with a density of 25 homes per acre (average) would pay <br />$400.00 per lot (the current rate), developments with a density <br />greater than 25 homes per acre would pay less than $400.00, and a <br />development with less than 25 homes would pay more than $400.00. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.