My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/04/1991 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1991 Park Board Packets
>
02/04/1991 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2021 10:03:48 AM
Creation date
7/23/2021 3:23:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
02/04/1991
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.
/
78
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
Well that shows a modest increase. Let's look at Sunrise Meadows. Even though its <br />already developed it should be a good test for the formula. <br />00IN /1" 30*' <br />(10,000) (.10) (42) _ $407. <br />103 <br />Hmmm. Some improvement over the current $400. but not too much. Let's try <br />Woodridge Estates. <br />(10,000) (.10) (38) _ $542. <br />70 <br />OK. Now the pattern emerges. Development with lower densities pay higher rates <br />with the formula. Here all the R-1X developments will pay more if the park board asks <br />for cash. Subdivisions in R-1 areas will pay lesser amounts. <br />Now there are two ways of looking at this. First it can be argued that the bigger lots <br />are more valuable and a higher dedication is fair. And it can also be argued that large <br />lots cover a greater land area so they should pay more; you know, closer to the ten <br />per cent rule. <br />The other way of arguing this is that residential areas with greater densities need more <br />park facilities because each lot is smaller. Hence, the cash dedication should be <br />greater. There are after all more people to serve in an R-1 area vis-a-vis an R-1X <br />11-1s, district. <br />Let's go back to some analysis. Using the draft formula a residential development <br />with a density of 25 homes per acre (about average) would pay $400. per lot - <br />exactly what the current rate is. With the draft formula any density greater than 25 <br />homes per acre actually would pay less than the current amount. For example three <br />lots per acre would provide a fee of only $333. each. A development with two <br />homes per acre would pay $500. for each lot. <br />Here's my recommendation. Recommend approval of the formula but just as there <br />is a minimum land value there should be a minimum park fee. The city should <br />increase that fee to $450. per lot. If the formula produces a greater amount then fine. <br />But if not the developer would pay the $450. fee. <br />Recommended Action: Motion to recommend to the city council adoption of an <br />ordinance amendment setting the park fee for minor subdivision at $500. and <br />establishing a formula for determining other park fees but with the addition of a $450. <br />minimum fee for each lot in a major subdivision. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.