Laserfiche WebLink
Fraker: <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />Fraker: <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />Fraker: <br /> <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />Fraker: <br /> <br />by Public Service in fee simple? <br /> <br />Correct. <br /> <br />Is it true that there is no way you <br />can build on that property under any <br />circumstances? <br /> <br />Correct. <br /> <br />Therein lies the problem. <br />Considering that to be open space is <br />a copout. I think there is not <br />enough open space given the Public <br />Service easement that goes through <br />the property. I think what Coal <br />Creek Meadows is trying to do is buy <br />their open space by virtue of <br />clearly saying there is going to be <br />open space to the golf course. We <br />have to look at Coal Creek Meadows <br />as a "stand alone project" and it's <br />not a desirable plan. It's really <br />under what I would expect, given the <br />necessities of dealing with Public <br />Service. <br /> <br />So, you wish we would not negotiate <br />with Public Service? <br /> <br />I don't care if you negotiate with <br />Public Service. I'm saying I think <br />that Public Service is part of your <br />project and I'm saying that I agree <br />with Mr. Mayer. I think we need <br />more open space in a project of this <br />nature that is coming from the <br />developers. <br /> <br />How do you feel about a park <br />requirement that's completely built <br />out, where the improvements are made <br />completely to the park rather than <br />just having green open space that <br />has "X" number of dollar value on it <br />because it's 12% of your open space, <br />but do a park site that's completely <br />developed, going back to your <br />philosophy of having playground <br />equipment on it as part of the <br />credit (dollar value)? <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br /> <br />