6.5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Page 5 September 16, 1996 There being no further comments, Mayor Duitsman closed the public hearing. Mayor Duitsman indicated his support of the project, but stated that he would not vote for waiving the park dedication fee. Councilmember Farber indicated that he agrees that the park dedication should not be waived. Councilmember Scheel questioned how to ensure that the housing units woul remain Senior Citizen housing units when sold. Staff indicated that the Planned Unit Development Agreement could include language consistent with the developers request to develop the site as senior housing. Councilmember Dietz questioned the necessity of the sidewalk along Highland due to the fact that it does not lead anywhere. Dana Anderson, Park and Recreation Commission Representative, indicated that the Park and Recreation Commission feels that due to the pedestrian traffic flow along Highland, a sidewalk is necessary. Dana Anderson further commented that the Park and Recreation Commission is not in favor of waiving the Park Dedication Fees: The Council discussed the need for the sidewalk proposed along Highland Avenue. It was a concern of the Council that a sidewalk would not be effective • at this time and could possibly be put in at a later date when improvement work is done along Highland that could include a sidewalk project. Councilmember Dietz indicated that if the City does not include the sidewalk in the plat at this time, that it may be assessed to property owners when put in at a later date. Councilmember Dietz further indicated that he is not in favor of waiving the park dedication fee for the plat. He indicated that the City must be fair and consistent, and further stated that the City has not waived park dedication fees for other developers. Councilmember Dietz further stated that he is not in favor of taking land in lieu of park dedication at this time because of the park land available immediately to the west. Roger Derrick stated that he did not feel it was fair for the Council to request him to make all of the changes to the proposal with no consideration of eliminating the park dedication fees. He indicated that if the Council mandated that park dedication be paid, he would rather dedicate park land than pay cash. Following discussion of the issue with the Council and assuming that the Council would vote for the project without waiving the park dedication fee, Mr. Derrick withdrew his proposal. Councilmember Scheel indicated that the City charges too many fees to the developers. She indicated that staff does not discuss the financial burden to the developer and to the landowner during its review of developments. •