Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 PRESENT: <br />6 ASSENT: <br />8 <br />10 <br />11 <br />13 <br />14 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />�Q <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />Z7 <br />28 <br />29 <br />31 <br />32 <br />STAFF: <br />ROSEVILLE PARI�S AND RECREATION COMMISSION <br />DRAFT MEETING MINUTES FOR <br />November 1, 2016 <br />6:30pm <br />Becker-Finn,, Bole, Diedricic, Gelbach, Newby, O'Brien, Stoner, Warzecha <br />Heildcila notified staff they were not able to attend ineeting <br />Brokke, Anfang, Lalce Johnson <br />1. INTRODUCTIONS <br />2. ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT <br />No public in attendance comment. <br />3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 6, 2016 MEETING <br />September 6th minutes approved unanimously. <br />4. PARK DEDICATION: 1935 COUNTY ROAD B2 WEST <br />Brokke briefed the Commission on property location and park dedication options. In this instance, the land <br />dedication would total .072 acres and the total cash in lieu of land allotment would be approximately <br />$60,000 (7% of the FMV). <br />Commissioners aslced for additional clarifications as to location and connection°to Master Plan. Brokke <br />explained this area is not identified in the Master Plan as needing additional park space and the developer <br />suggested the cash option because of the small nature of the land dedication. Brokke also mentioned how <br />the cash dedication goes into a separate'park dedication fund and can be used for future land purchases or <br />development within the parlc system. <br />Commission Recommendation: <br />Commissioner O'Brien moved to recommend to the City Council that cash in lieu of land be accepted for <br />park dedication at 1935 <br />5. PARK DEDICATION <br />;ounty Road B2 West. Second by Commissioner Diedricic. Passed Unanimously. <br />�1VNiJAL RATE REVIEW <br />33 Brolcke explained how park dedication considerations are triggered whenever a developer is subdividing, <br />34 replatting or building new. The Commission annually reviews park dedication rates and makes <br />35 recommendation to'the Council (Council annually sets fees, by resolution, for the upcoming year prior to <br />36 finalizing the budget). <br />37 • Residential park dedication fees `were last increased in 2011 and Commercial park dedication fees <br />38 were increased from 5% fmv to 7% fmv in 2012. <br />39 • Staff prepared comparative data detailing parlc dedication fees for surrounding and like communities <br />40 for Commission infonnation and review. <br />41 Commission discussion followed: <br />42 • Commissioners inquired into why we needed to compare to others & what might drive consideration <br />43 to change the park dedication rates. <br />44 o Brolcke responded that the comparison provides a good perspective on the industry and how <br />45 Roseville aligns with others. Broklce also spolce on how community needs drive the park <br />46 dedication rates. <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />• Commissioners discussed how aligning with like communities provides for opportunities as potential <br />locations for future development. <br />• Commissioner Stoner suggested recominending the residential rate be increased to $4500/unit and <br />the commercial rate increase to 10% fmv for discussion purposes. Stoners reasoning for making this <br />recommendation was that Roseville residents consistently value the excellent park system and we <br />favorably compare to neighboring communities with higher park dedication fees. <br />o Stoner also added that his recommendation correlates to Roseville's position to relation to the <br />average of the comparative data provided. <br />