Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Preliminary Plat <br /> <br />. Park Dedication - The key discussion point relevant to the preliminary plat was park dedication. <br />The applicant is combining seven parcels (two previously occupied by a motel, three lots that the <br />existing dealership parcel is on, one house parcel on 171 sl and an industrial outlot). The end result <br />will be the creation of one main parcel for the dealership and two outlots. Staffs recommendation <br />is that since none of the properties have previously paid park dedication, all of the acreage needs <br />to be calculated in determining the final dedication amount. The applicant believes that dedication <br />should be charged only for the northern lots and not the dealership property (it was agreed upon <br />that the outlots will pay park dedication at the time that they are platted, which is standard City <br />policy). The park dedication amount is approximately $50,715 if only the northern lots (the <br />existing lots previously occupied the motel) pay dedication versus $111,699 if all lots are <br />calculated. (These figures do not include future outlot payments, assumes 2006 rates and the exact <br />acreage figures will be determined at the time of final plat.) Staff reviewed the interpretation of <br />requiring all parcels pay dedication, since none previously paid, with the City Attorney and he <br />concurred with the interpretation. The following points were discussed by the Planning <br />Commission: <br /> <br />1) A few commissioners were of the opinion that some mid-point (50% of the dedication <br />amount attributed to the current dealership site) would be an appropriate request. This <br />assumes 100% payment for the northern lots. <br />2) Some commissioners believed that it was not up to the Planning Commission to <br />randomly negotiate a park dedication amount that has always been set at a given rate. <br />Likewise, they were of the opinion that since the principle of a park dedication payment <br />is that all parcels should pay a one time fee to capitalize the City's park system, there <br />should not be an exemption for this applicant. <br />3) A commissioner stated that some reduction should be made since the applicant has not <br />requested abatement or TIF and this was a way of assisting the project. <br />4) Some commissioners expressed concern that the deviations from standard policy and the <br />introduction of mixing negotiated park dedication based on site plan considerations (e.g. <br />closing off the Highway 1 0 access) starts to create policy deviations and a basis for future <br />discussions that become unwieldy. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission voted 5 to 2 in favor of requiring full park dedication. The Planning <br />Commission minutes reflect some minority opinions and comments regarding the same. <br /> <br />Conditional Use Permit <br /> <br />. Access - The Commission discussed the location of the access from 171 sl Avenue and how it <br />might be impacted by a future interchange on Highway 10. They discussed the need to move the <br />access further east, away from Highway 10, to accommodate the possibility of a future <br />interchange. The City Engineer provided information about the IRC study and the probability <br />that any future interchange along Highway 10 would likely be to the south of 171 sl in order to <br />avoid impacting developed property. He also showed how the proposed access on 171 sl would <br />align with future access for the property on the south side of 171 st. The Commission's <br />recommendation included keeping the 171 sl access as shown on the site plan. <br /> <br />s: \PLANNING \ Case Files \2006\plal\p 06-06 Jabez \RCAP06-06CC4-17.doc <br />