03-21-1991 PTRC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PROP'D PUBLIC Attorney r� USE DIDICAZZONY Filla reviewed his letter dated 2-27-91, relative to the proposed Ordinanc whi e (PARK) ORDINANCE the changes to the CitY's public � °rporates provisions. He use dedication 1( Ordinance was initiated due is recent negotiationse explained review of the current 3 �~ park dedication and during the review process it was noted • incorporated into the Ordinance. new State legislation had not been The Attorney explained the proposed revisions se previously considered together as paste two issues which were streets/utilities/storm water Fart of the negotiating process; the det�� Portion of the dedication is deleted prior to g the percentage of dedication. He noted the method for establishing the "fail market value" of the land is the negotiating process and the cost forana�� to provide more flexibility during the developer, rather than the City. ppraisal of the land is reimbursed by Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, 3-6-91 Page 6 ORD. (Cont'd) Filla also discussed the reduction of the time-frame • for installment payments of the dedication fees. Commission questioned if the proposal is consistent with other ccm minities. Filla advised the proposed amendments are consistent with other communities and may be somewhat more liberal, in certain areas, than other conmainities. Commission questioned the procedure for calculating fees in conjunction with minor subdivisions/lot splits. Filla stated the City has taken the average per lot dedication from recent residential developments and imposed those fees when required in conjunction with a minor subdivision. The Attorney stated the intent is to make the process more standardized and eliminate the lengthy negotiation process. Commission discussed the percentages listed on page 2, under Item (5) , and suggested the word lqlAximumll be deleted from the language; each situation would be reviewed and merit given for other site amenities offered by the developer. Commission questioned if it would be reasonable to require all dedication fees be Paid by the developer prior to issuance of a building permit. Filla and Bergly noted that other amities request all fees be paid in this manner and it would not be an unreasonable request. • Piotrowski moved, seconded by Winiecki, to recommend to Council approval of the proposed Public Use Dedication Ordinance, with the following amendments: eliminate the word "MaxiYmm',, under Section 22.-9. (1) , page 2 and under item (5) delete the time frame for payment of the fees and incorporate language which specifies fees must be paid in full prior to issuance of a building permit. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0)