07/14/2004 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Marshan Townhomes 2nd Addn. page 7 The 1995 project included 29.9 acres. A total of 139 units were approved for the project. The density then was 139/29.9 = 4.65 u/a. Part of the site included an area of 1.5 acres labeled "future commercial" in which no dwelling units were shown. One 5 -unit building did not get built, as it was on land not ultimately platted as part of the project. Both of these areas are within the four -acre site of the current proposal. At the time, the subdivision ordinance included a progressive scale: the percentage of land for park dedication increased as the density of a project increased. (This was adopted with Ordinance 05 -91.) A density of 3 to 5 units per acre required a park dedication of 12% of the land. Twelve percent of 29.9 acres is 3.6 acres. The developer dedicated a 3.0 acre park and a trail corridor of 0.6 acres, for a total of 3.6 acres. Current park dedication is $1665 per unit when land is not needed. For the 23 units currently proposed, this would total $38,295. The developer maintains that he should not be charged dedication for the 1.5 acres "future commercial" area or for the area where the five units didn't get built. It is reasonable to give credit for the five units that did not get built, and staff recommends doing so. This reduces the dedication by 5 x $1665 = $8,325 . However, it is not appropriate simply to give credit for the 1.5 acres by completely eliminating it from any new dedication. There were no units shown in that area on the 1995 plan. Though the land was included in the calculations for the original project, the additional units were not. Removing the 1.5 acres from consideration for additional dedication would be like not charging park dedication for new units being built in the spaces between the existing buildings. (There are 11 units in that area on the new proposal. Had there been another 11 or 12 units there, it would have raised the density of the 1995 project to 5+ units /acre, which would have required a 14% park dedication (139 + 11 = 150 and 150/29.9 acres = 5.02 u/a). This would have required a dedication of 29.9 acres x 14% = 4.19 acres. Since 3.6 acres was dedicated, there would have been a shortage of 0.59 acres of park dedication.) It is appropriate to get additional park dedication since the additional units generate additional demand for park services. It also is reasonable to consider giving some credit for the past park dedication on the 1995 project. The ordinance at the time included an equation for calculating cash dedication. It used a land value of $10,000 per acre. This seems reasonable. The project density fell into the 12% park dedication category. Applying this to that land value yields $10,000 x 12% = $1200. This is a reasonable credit for the past dedication. Summarized, this all results in the following: