10-22-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO REGULAR COOliCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 3, 1990 PARK COmiSION COMMENTS CONTINUED see if a {.ark dedication fee has already been paid. It also requires that the fair market value of the property ba determined not at the time the building permit is issued bur rather at the time the subdivision occurred. This means possibly going back 20 years in records. The City Attorney has expressed concerns over the legality of the ordinance. The State Statute under which the park dedication fee is adopted provides that a_t the time of subdivision land or money can be taken for park purposes. The Commission is recommending that this provision be deleted. Staff also feels the revenue lost will not be substantial since most property in Oronc has had a park dedication fee paid with it or will have at the time of subdivision. PARK DEDICATION PEES ORDINANCE #89, 2ND SERIES It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Peterson, to adopt the amendment to Ordinance #82, to eliminate Section 2 (F) relating to the development of land previously platted. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS CONTINUED The question of how to value a property that has an existing structure on it is another matter in respect to the park dedication fee schedule. The value of the existing structure should not be taken into account. Should the value of the lot on which that structure is located also be excluded? More knowledge of previous actions is required before the Park Commission can make a recommendation. 4. Bike/Hike Trail. This was a high priority by most residents in the Parks Survey of Orono residents a year ago. The Park Commission had hoped to "piggyback" on work being done by the County to construct a bike path at the time the County improves roads within the City. This is more difficult than originally envisioned. John Gerhardson, Dick Flint, Tad Jude and Pat Murphy, the Director of Public Works for the County, met to discuss County Road 6. The County is requesting a wider right- of-way. Could there be a place to work in a bike path? The rural roads require a ditch, thus making a total of 80' needed for the road. One option would be to use the shoulder of the road and mark it as a bike path. This would be unsatisfactory for children going to school as there would be traffic on one side and the ditch on the other. The other option would be to give the County a wider right-of-way, however the County could just forget about the bike path and use the extra footage for a wider road, etc. The Park Commission has concluded it would be better to have control over the bike path outside of the ditch area. This can be done by asking for a fee interest at the time of the development or by asking for an easement at the time of development.