My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08/11/2004 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2004
>
08/11/2004 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2014 11:00:09 AM
Creation date
6/17/2014 8:47:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
08/11/2004
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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
• <br />• <br />Marshan Townhomes 2"d Addn. <br />page 7 <br />adopted with Ordinance 05 -91.) A density of 3 to 5 units per acre required a park <br />dedication of 12% of the land. Twelve percent of 29.9 acres is 3.6 acres. The developer <br />dedicated a 3.0 acre park and a trail corridor of 0.6 acres, for a total of 3.6 acres. <br />Current park dedication is $1665 per unit when land is not needed. For the 23 units <br />currently proposed, this would total $38,295. <br />The developer maintains that he should not be charged dedication for the 1.5 acres <br />"future commercial" area or for the area where the five units didn't get built. <br />It is reasonable to give credit for the five units that did not get built, and staff <br />recommends doing so. This reduces the dedication by 5 x $1665 = $8,325 . <br />However, it is not appropriate simply to give credit for the 1.5 acres by completely <br />eliminating it from any new dedication. There were no units shown in that area on the <br />1995 plan. Though the land was included in the calculations for the original project, the <br />additional units were not. Removing the 1.5 acres from consideration for additional <br />dedication would be like not charging park dedication for new units being built in the <br />spaces between the existing buildings. <br />(There are 11 units in that area on the new proposal. Had there been another 11 or 12 <br />units there, it would have raised the density of the 1995 project to 5+ units /acre, which <br />would have required a 14% park dedication (139 + 11 = 150 and 150/29.9 acres = 5.02 <br />u/a). This would have required a dedication of 29.9 acres x 14% = 4.19 acres. Since 3.6 <br />acres was dedicated, there would have been a shortage of 0.59 acres of park dedication.) <br />It is appropriate to get additional park dedication since the additional units generate <br />additional demand for park services. It also is reasonable to consider giving some credit <br />for the past park dedication on the 1995 project. <br />The ordinance at the time included an equation for calculating cash dedication. It used a <br />land value of $10,000 per acre. This seems reasonable. The project density fell into the <br />12% park dedication category. Applying this to that land value yields 1.5 acre x $10,000 <br />= $15,000. $15,000 x 12% = $1800. This is a reasonable credit for the past dedication. <br />Summarized, this all results in the following: <br />23 new units x $1665 = $38,295 <br />less credit for 5 units: 5 x $1665 = ($8,325) <br />less credit for past dedication on 1.5 acres = ($1,800) <br />total new park dedication $28,170 <br />Staff recommends a park dedication of $28,170 for the new project. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.