12071987 Special Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING & ZONING & CITY COUNCIL - 12/7/87 PAGE 3 ~ fashion, either by deeding the fee simpl~interest to the City or . creating various types of easements which would prevent his developing that land because the easement (conservation, scenic, etc.) would prevent him from being able to develop it. Aart Millecam asked if a land owner voluntarily initiated the TDR, on what grounds could he go back to the court a year from now and say he was not properly renumerated. Lamar Hankins responded that the law is so unwell settled in this area that the courts have never been willing to answer all the questions on this law. He stated that this provision is necessary to protect the City from being the deep pocket for development ideas. Aart Millecam stated that in Section 305, Council has the prerogative to set different densities as to what they wish to see in each transfer case. He stated that there is no magic number, noting that it is now 24 and may be more or less in the future depending on what the ground will hold without doing harm to the environment. Mr. Millecam also noted that in Part III, the Council has the prerogative to tell the applicant what the permitted uses are and what kinds of use they want to see on the land, (i.e. park, passive recreation) which was what the Commissions decided after considering that all land would not be developable as park. He continued that the Commissions had no real concern over the number of units to be transferred because with the current parking requirements, landscaping requirements, etc., there would be no more than 24 units per acre. A.C. Gonzalez stated that while by definition alot of the properties involved with this ordinance would be flood plain or steep, it is not the only type of land that could be acquired. He stated that for park development, in the future some flat, river fronting, or attractive land may be acquired through this ordinance's use. Mayor Younger asked if, with the implementation of flood control, some acquired property was no longer in the flood plain, what the potential for resale of the property by the City would be. Lamar Hankins stated that it depends on the type of dedication. He stated that if it is deeded with the proviso that it only be used as park land and it revert to them if that ever changes and if that was acceptable, that would be the circumstances. Others might want to deed it to the City and have it in the ordinance that the Council declare it as parkland, and if this was done, Council could only remove designated parkland dedication by a vote of the citizens. Mr. Hankins summarized that it will depend upon the mechanism used for the dedication and Council will have a chance to review the proposed method of dedication. Mayor Younger asked if, in all instances, the property is removed from the tax rolls. Lamar Hankins responded that if the fee simple interest is deeded to the City, the answer is yes. If some other easement mechanism is used, i.e. a conservation easement, it would significantly reduce the value of the land, but the owner could continue to be the owner and hold the fee simple interest and would present our ordinance to the appraisal district in order to get a considerably diminished tax bracket. Aart Millecam stated that the Commissions saw no benefit for the applicant to keep the property. Lamar Hankins stated that it could have been in their family for years, or some other reason. Frank Robbins noted that in the example in Section 304 for the granting zone, it should be 180 units and in the next sentence, instead of 12, it should be 8 units per acre equals 80 units. In the next section, total units allowed after transfer is 120 units plus 80 units equal 200 units.