05-16-2006 MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved could state that the park dedication fee for that park is benefiting the commercial and industrial sites in that area, because the park will be in the middle of the east side development, which is surrounded by office/industrial sites. Fernelius replied that was correct, the outer ring sites will benefit from that park, as well as the residential development, which will also be paying for the park. O’Keefe inquired if storm water retention ponding is allowable as part of their park land dedication. Fernelius replied that most of the storm water run off will go into the large pond that is centrally located in the middle of the park; there will not be separate ponds for each commercial building. O’Keefe asked who would be maintaining the pond. Fernelius replied that is an issue that will be worked out with the developers throughout the redevelopment process Howard asked Zisla if he is opposed to the commercial and industrial development being subjected to the fee or to the ten percent fee. Zisla replied that he’s opposed to the fact that the fee is arbitrary and feels that ten percent is excessive without any foundation and without any sense of demand. Howard inquired if Zisla would be more supportive if the fee was set at five percent. Zisla stated that he would be more supportive of a fee at that lower, however then they are still arbitrarily picking a number without any foundation or sense of demand. Howard replied that he supports the concept of the park dedication fee and believes that the office development would benefit from the use of the near by parks. However, he does agree with Zisla that the ten percent is excessive and would support a five percent fee. O’Keefe added that if the park will help the development meet its ponding requirements, then ten percent could be a bargain for the developers. Zisla replied that the Commission needs to keep in mind that this ordinance applies to the whole city not just the Northwest Quadrant. Schiferl suggested that the fee be negotiated into the development agreement for the Northwest Quadrant and then if a similar situation comes up in the future the commission could readdress this issue. He does not believe that there is a need for this fee at this time and feels that it needs to be thought out more. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Motion by Baker, Second by Zisla to MOTION CARRIED. 7 Ayes, 0 Nays, Zisla stated that he agrees with Schiferl that this ordinance needs more clarification. Baker replied that the residential ordinance has been in effect for several years with no legal challenge and will support the staff recommendation. O’Brien stated that the fact that the City owns the land is a separate issue; if the land is to be developed it will be subject to the same rules no matter who owns the land. to Motion by Baker, Second by O’Brien WAIVE THE READING AND RECOMMEND THAT THE PCC LANNING OMMISSION DIRECT THE OUNCIL TO ADOPT THE ATTACHED AMENDMENT . AS DRAFTED I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\05-16-2006 MINUTES.doc Page 3 of 13