Laserfiche WebLink
Approved <br /> could state that the park dedication fee for that park is benefiting the commercial and <br /> industrial sites in that area,because the park will be in the middle of the east side <br /> development, which is surrounded by office/industrial sites. Fernelius replied that was <br /> correct, the outer ring sites will benefit from that park, as well as the residential <br /> development, which will also be paying for the park. <br /> O'Keefe inquired if storm water retention ponding is allowable as part of their park land <br /> dedication. Fernelius replied that most of the storm water run off will go into the large <br /> pond that is centrally located in the middle of the park; there will not be separate ponds <br /> for each commercial building. O'Keefe asked who would be maintaining the pond. <br /> Fernelius replied that is an issue that will be worked out with the developers throughout <br /> the redevelopment process <br /> Howard asked Zisla if he is opposed to the commercial and industrial development being <br /> subjected to the fee or to the ten percent fee. Zisla replied that he's opposed to the fact <br /> that the fee is arbitrary and feels that ten percent is excessive without any foundation and <br /> without any sense of demand. Howard inquired if Zisla would be more supportive if the <br /> fee was set at five percent. Zisla stated that he would be more supportive of a fee at that <br /> lower, however then they are still arbitrarily picking a number without any foundation or <br /> sense of demand. Howard replied that he supports the concept of the park dedication fee <br /> and believes that the office development would benefit from the use of the near by parks. <br /> However, he does agree with Zisla that the ten percent is excessive and would support a <br /> five percent fee. O'Keefe added that if the park will help the development meet its <br /> ponding requirements, then ten percent could be a bargain for the developers. Zisla <br /> replied that the Commission needs to keep in mind that this ordinance applies to the <br /> whole city not just the Northwest Quadrant. <br /> Schiferl suggested that the fee be negotiated into the development agreement for the <br /> Northwest Quadrant and then if a similar situation comes up in the future the commission <br /> could readdress this issue. He does not believe that there is a need for this fee at this time <br /> and feels that it needs to be thought out more. <br /> Motion by Baker, Second by Zisla to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. <br /> 7 Ayes, 0 Nays, MOTION CARRIED. <br /> Zisla stated that he agrees with Schiferl that this ordinance needs more clarification. Baker <br /> replied that the residential ordinance has been in effect for several years with no legal challenge <br /> and will support the staff recommendation. O'Brien stated that the fact that the City owns the <br /> land is a separate issue; if the land is to be developed it will be subject to the same rules no matter <br /> who owns the land. <br /> Motion by Baker, Second by O'Brien to WAIVE THE READING AND RECOMMEND THAT THE <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECT THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE ATTACHED AMENDMENT <br /> AS DRAFTED. <br /> r ,n,,,• ,,.,+� „� +r ,,, , i,,,•:,i c.rr„, .T I,r. ,,. I I.. ('II i��u l _1(_�nnR nIrnu ITI:c r��,i,,,• Page 3 of 13 <br />