Laserfiche WebLink
he final plat requirements. He <br />discussed with him. He also <br />om the City was based on his <br />i lots on the property, with the <br />Melamed Subdivision Park Dedication Fee <br />July 8. 1994 <br />Page 2 <br />Staffs report to the Planning Commission of April 18, 1994 and memo to the Council of May <br />9, 1994 regarding the preliminary subdivision application both refer to the park dedication fee <br />requirement. Mr. Melamed did not attend either the Planning Commission meeting or the <br />Council meeting regarding the preliminary subdivision application. Neither did he question staff <br />regarding the park dedication fee during the preliminary subdivision review process. <br />The final plat resolution reflects staffs recommendation that the park dedication fee be charged <br />to this subdivision as it is charged to othei >ubdivisions. <br />lid give him the right to develop <br />lly subdividing the property were <br />costs of the subdivision. One of <br />ing the staffs position. <br />mrchase of the lot based on a <br />rive years. This offer placed Mr. <br />tark dedication fee if he chose to <br />ear period. <br />ed’s offer, he requested that he be <br />irs. During these negotiations the <br />it property to create the one 4 acre <br />iS initiated prior to the conclusion <br />uction of Mr. Melamed’s home. <br />led was allowed to create two lots, <br />itiate the subdivision application to <br />med requested that the City follow <br />ecause a reapplication would have <br />, a delay in the construction of his <br />ivision to create two lots for Mr <br />ubdivider, and Mr. Melamed would <br />)n fee. He also would not have been <br />: has incurred. However, when Mr. <br />ition of the second lot until after the <br />ibdivider, responsible for the park