Laserfiche WebLink
a • <br /> MINU'T'ES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 <br /> • ZONING AMENDMENTS <br /> (#12) CITY OF ORONO CODE AMENDMENT RE: PARK DEDICATION FEE- <br /> 11:22-11:31 P.M. <br /> Gaffron referenced Moorse's memo indicating the City's intent to change the ordinance to <br /> reflect the rough proportionality and nexus requirements that have evolved concerning <br /> park dedications. Council had asked for a revision. Moorse suggested and Gaffron <br /> concurred that minimum and maximum dollar amounts for park dedication(to be <br /> established annually)were needed based on the value of park system. The park dedication <br /> ordinance was revised in 1989 to 8%of the value of the land of new subdivided lots. This <br /> did not take into account the impact per residence on parks, nor did it address <br /> proportionality. <br /> Gaffron noted the changes and additions to the code. He indicated the ordinance <br /> amendment is not in final form. <br /> Stoddard asked how the park dedication has been challenged. Gaffron explained how this <br /> has occurred. <br /> Gaffron informed Mabusth that Moorse has concluded through his analysis that the park <br /> • dedication maximum per lot should be about $4,900. This is justified based on park needs <br /> and anticipated needs for parks in the future, taking into account the existing park system <br /> value and the number of lots expected to be developed in the future. <br /> Berg noted the current ordinance did not reflect the need for park development and focus <br /> was on large lot sizes with need for trails not parks. Gaffron said the nexus shows the <br /> connection where bringing more people into the area will result in more use of parks and <br /> these people paying their fair share. <br /> Mabusth asked if the Park Commission reviewed the amendment. Gaffron said they gave <br /> some input and are not totally pleased with the result but accept the fact that the current <br /> ordinance is inadequate. <br /> Commissioners felt the amendment issue did not require further review by the <br /> Commission. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to approve the Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment <br /> subject to minor revisions and legal review prior to Council review. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays <br /> . 0. <br /> 26 <br />