Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />Park Board Meeting - August 4, 2003 <br />Minutes <br />stated that redesigning the park area at this point would be very <br />difficult. He stated he would prefer to move forward with the <br />preliminary plat as previously submitted. <br />Rick asked how someone would access the park area without <br />utilizing someone's private yard. <br />Mr. John Johnson, Engineer for Bruggeman Homes, referred to the <br />drawing of the plan and indicated the public park and corridor <br />can be extended. The ponding area can also be modified for <br />access. There would be two access points to the public right -of- <br />way. The question is if the City wants to consider deeming the <br />park area public. He stated he believes that making the park <br />area public will solve some of the problems with the park <br />credits. The City would then maintain the park area to City <br />standards. <br />Paul stated he likes the idea of the park area being public if <br />the two accesses were larger. He stated he does like the trail <br />system. The big issue is with the dollars. A cash dedication of <br />$82,000 is too low. <br />Rick advised the first question is whether to pursue the park as <br />public or private. Based on that answer, the park dedication <br />fees and /or park credits need to be determined. The third option <br />is to keep the park area private and recommend a percentage of <br />park credit that should be given to the developer. <br />Paul indicated he would like to keep the park area private. <br />Katie indicated she would like the park area private also. Bill <br />advised he would like to see the park area public. Acting Chair <br />Taschuk indicated she would like the park area to remain private. <br />The majority of the Park Board determined the park area should <br />remain private. <br />Rick reviewed the park dedication dollars based on the proposed <br />plan with a private park area. He stated the Park Board should <br />determine what percentage of credit should be given to the <br />developer. <br />Paul stated he does not believe 100% credit should be given to <br />the developer. The amenities in the park increase the value of <br />the development. He stated a 40% credit is adequate. <br />Mr. Schlenk stated the plan does meet the City's recreation <br />needs. He stated he believes that 100% credit is justified. He <br />stated that he could also build more for the dollars so the City <br />is getting more for their money. <br />3 <br />