Laserfiche WebLink
Caps “• Because of the demand lj oarks is not necessarily fully a <br />Tuition of the value of the property, the City could look at <br />placing a cap on the amount of development in any unit would <br />necessarily contribute. Currently in the proposed ordinance <br />there is a provision that the minimum has to be contributed. <br />ALTERNATIVES - <br />Issue #1 - Public Hearing <br />1. Hold. <br />2. Conclude. <br />3. Continue. <br />Issue #2 - Ordinance Amendment <br />1. Adopt. <br />2. Amend and adopt. <br />3. Table. <br />4. Take no action. <br />RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the language presented is <br />acceptable for an 8% of the land assessment of a preliminary <br />plat. The concern is however, that each and every subdivision <br />needs to be evaluated separately to determine the actual <br />"valuation basis" and several of these in the future will <br />probably be discussed at Council level. As an alternative staff <br />still recommends taking an average value lot in each catagory an <br />applying 8% to be used as the ^.er unit lot figure for the <br />following year. (The catagories would be the 5 acre, 2 acre, 1 <br />acre and then gearing the multiple dev»: ':>ment to percentage at <br />75% of the single family 1 acre.) Addi*-' nally it is recommended <br />that the Park Commission be directed to - .e forward with methods <br />for doing the appropriate Park Development Capital Plan. Once <br />the Council has adopted the new park dedication ordinance, <br />language to amend the fee ordiance will be submitted. <br />PROPOSED MOTION - Moved b> seconded by ,