04/12/2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12, 2004 APPROVED 1 were supposed to look at the fees annually, and specifically the park dedication fee. She stated that • 2 she and Councilmember Dahl have been repeatedly asking for this to be reviewed, and that it had not 3 been reviewed since 2001. 4 5 Councilmember Carlson asked City Planner Smyser whether staff's position was the same as the City 6 Attorney's position regarding the park dedication, and he answered that it was. 7 8 Councilmember Reinert stated that typically it is land or dollars or a combination of both, and what 9 they've ended up with is land this time. He stated he didn't see a problem with that. 10 11 Councilmember Carlson stated that they had moved away from the 10 percent to the formula of 12 $1,665 per unit. 13 14 Councilmember Reinert asked Councilmember Carlson why this issue hadn't been raised at the work 15 session. Councilmember Carlson replied that she hadn't received this information until she walked in 16 tonight. Councilmember Carlson stated if he wanted to send this back to a work sessions for further 17 discussion, she would be happy to do so. 18 19 Community Development Director Grochala gave an overview of the three methods of park 20 dedication. He stated the proposed land dedication satisfied the requirements within the city 21 subdivision ordinance of 10 percent, and that the $1,665 did not apply in this case. Community 22 Development Director Grochala also stated that in addition to the 8.1 acres, there were trails going 23 through the development that are being paid for by the developer, so that there was some overage in 24 that dedication requirement. • 25 26 Councilmember Dahl stated she had been fighting desperately for the park dedication to take place 27 per unit, and she stated they strongly need to look at the Woodbury park dedication ordinance which 28 states it's not limited to land or per unit, that it might be both, and it is up to the Council. She stated 29 it is definitely in need of revising to include something like that. She stated Woodbury has never 30 been challenged on it. 31 32 Councilmember Dahl asked when the existing house would be thrown in, whether it would be in 2004 33 with the lot inventory, or in 2005. City Planner Smyser stated that is yet to be determined. 34 Councilmember Dahl asked if they were approving that tonight, and City Planner Smyser said no, the 35 only thing they were approving is the final plat tonight. 36 37 Councilmember Dahl asked to be updated on the contribution toward a signal. 38 39 Community Development Director Grochala stated that issue predates the development that is being 40 discussed. He stated originally there was an estimate put together for the signal improvements of 41 approximately $91,000. The developer had put in place a letter of credit to cover that amount. While 42 he had secured 100 percent of the costs, there had been ongoing discussions about how much the 43 actual costs would be. He stated Mr. Uhde had offered the amount of $25,500 for those 44 improvements at that time, and that offer is still on the table. He also stated Mr. Uhde has 45 acknowledged that he is still willing to pay that amount towards the signals, and staff feels that is an 46 acceptable offer and request that the City Council accept that amount in fulfilling those original 47 obligations. • 48