Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO PARK COMMISSION <br /> HELD ON APRIL 4, 1994 <br /> (#2) CONSIDERATION OF TANDEM PROPERTIES (DICKEY PROPERTY) <br /> SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED) <br /> alternative the City Engineer recommended. Gustafson commented that because the <br /> trail segment follows a transportation route the City will be able to use MSA funds to <br /> pay for a portion of the costs, but the City will need to pay for the remainder from <br /> the park dedication funds. <br /> B. WHO WILL PAY FOR THE TRAIL? <br /> Discussion ensued regarding whether the developer should be required to pay both a <br /> park dedication fee and a trail fee. Ilse commented she felt a policy needed to be <br /> established prior to determining the requirements for a particular development. Chair <br /> Flint commented that if a developer has to pay for the cost of a road, why was he not <br /> also required to pay for the sidewalk which would run along side it. <br /> Wilson moved, McMillan seconded, to accept the staff recommendation for a general <br /> policy which would include that in the case of a development that is on the City's trail <br /> system, and is along a roadway, the developer should be required to provide the <br /> right-of-way for the trail and construct the trail without any reduction in park <br /> dedication fees. For "linear park" trails, those that go "cross-country" or in the back <br /> yards of a development, the costs should be reimbursed through a reduction in the <br /> park dedication fee. Ayes 5, nays 0. <br /> Ilse moved, McMillan seconded, to recommend to the City Council that this policy be <br /> followed in regard to the Dickey property development. Ayes 5, nays 0. <br /> C. WILL WE ACCEPT THE 3 ACRE NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED SITE <br /> AS AN OFFSET TO PARK DEDICATION FEE? <br /> Chair Flint read an excerpt from the November 1, 1993 Park Commission Minutes. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding whether the Commission needed to take any further <br /> action, and the Commission felt that they would stay with their original position on <br /> this issue. <br /> The issue of razing the existing buildings on the 3 acre site was discussed. Ilse <br /> proposed that they wait before razing the barn in case someone was interested in <br /> restoring the structure to use as an interpretive center. The costs of preservation were <br /> discussed. McMillan stated that the Council felt that the interior trails in the <br /> development should be considered public trails, and she felt the developer should <br /> receive park dedication credit for their construction. <br /> Moorse commented that the Commission needed to look at the difference between <br /> recreational trails and transportation trails and noted that interior trails are generally <br /> considered recreational trails and are paid for by the developers. In this case, the <br /> 4 <br />