New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
Golden Gardens
COE
>
PW
>
POS_PWM
>
Parks
>
Specific Parks
>
Golden Gardens
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2014 1:57:06 PM
Creation date
7/30/2014 1:56:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Correspondence
PW_Division
Parks and Open Space
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
127
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
•. <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> June 25, 1992 <br /> TO: Mayor and City Council <br /> FROM: Lee Beyer, Planning & Development <br /> John Etter, Public Works Maintenance - -Parks Planning <br /> SUBJECT: Response to questions from Councilor Boles on the proposal for <br /> golf course development at the Golden Gardens Park site <br /> The-following responds to Councilor Boles questions that were discussed at <br /> Wednesday's City Council meeting. Answering some of the questions would <br /> require specific knowledge of the development which staff does not have nor, <br /> at this point, do the land owners since they have not entered into an agree- <br /> ment with a golf course developer. <br /> 1. QUESTION: How can we guarantee public access to the golf course in <br /> perpetuity? <br /> According to the City Attorney the best way to guarantee continued public <br /> access would be through a form of deed covenant. While there are different <br /> forms this could take, generally, the effect would be to have the land revert <br /> to the City if the purchaser closed public access. Another method would be <br /> to lease the land to the developer rather than sell it. While these two <br /> forms are the best protection of continued public access, they may not be <br /> desirable or workable for the land owner and subsequent developer. Having <br /> restricted title to the property could make it difficult for a developer to <br /> obtain commercial financing for the project. As a practical matter, looking <br /> at the current marketplace, it is unlikely that a new local golf course could <br /> be anything other than a public course. There is not sufficient demand to <br /> support another private country club. <br /> 2. QUESTION: How do System Development Charges (SDC) apply to this devel- <br /> opment? <br /> Since this project is outside the UGB and in the County, City SDCs would not <br /> be assessed against the project. <br /> 3. QUESTION: Did staff consider other options for this land? As an exam- <br /> ple, Councilor Boles suggested an SDC credit for the full purchase <br /> price. <br /> Staff has not considered other options for two reasons. First, the Parks and <br /> Recreational Plan specifies the policy for creating a park and public golf <br /> course in this part of the City. Secondly, the staff is responding to an <br /> unsolicited proposal and seeking Council's direction. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.