My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/02/2001 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1999-2020 Park Board Packets
>
2001 Park Board Packets
>
04/02/2001 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2014 2:58:33 PM
Creation date
7/23/2014 9:37:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
04/02/2001
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.
/
30
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
Park Board Meeting - March 5, 2001 <br />Minutes <br />• Rick stated that is the whole purpose of the study. The City <br />needs good data to support the park dedication fee. Developers <br />could conduct their own park dedication study if they do not <br />agree with the City's findings. He noted there has not been a <br />lot of case law relating to this issue. <br />Paul noted the developer will not pay for the park dedication <br />fee. It will be passed along to the homeowner. <br />Rick advised the intent is that future property owners do not pay <br />for existing parks. The development of existing parks needs to <br />come from other funding sources. <br />Pat stated the City should discuss what the park values are to <br />commercial /industrial development. <br />Paul stated that with no park dedication <br />development, the parks will not benefit <br />commercial /industrial development. T <br />between the value of parks and commer <br />It was the consensus of the Park <br />• fair and equitable park dedicati <br />development within the City. <br />• <br />Pat asked what other commun <br />commercial /industrial park <br />communities have a certai <br />residential fee. <br />y o relating to <br />tion fees. Rick advised other <br />age that is comparable to the <br />hat type of <br />a correlation <br />ndustrial development. <br />d t at there needs to be a <br />for commercial /industrial <br />REVIEW OUTDOOR RECREA <br />CLEARWATER CREEK PARK: <br />Rick referred to a dra coy of the narrative section of the <br />Outdoor Recreation Grant Application for Development of <br />Clearwater Creek Park. <br />APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF <br />Rick asked for comments and suggestions from Park Board members <br />noting he will be finalizing the entire grant application <br />submittal over the next few weeks. The application deadline is <br />March 31, 2001. <br />Bill asked if the City was able to leverage off of anyone else's <br />application. Rick advised he is not aware of the City leveraging <br />off of another community's application. He noted that the <br />support from the community has been very positive. There were <br />approximately 50 residents at the public hearing and a petition <br />was submitted with over 100 signatures. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.