7.2.B. PRSR 10-12-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2006 Page 8 Mr. Clark noted there is a disagreement between the applicant and staff's recommendation in regards to the park dedication requirements. He stated staff is requesting park dedication fees for the entire 17.671ot. He stated the two outlou w,71 require pazk dedication fees be paid when they are platted. He stated this was reviewed by the city attorney. Commissioner Stevens stated he supported staffs recommendation and it is fair. Steve Rohff, Ford representative-Stated the city is interpreting the requiremenu incorrectly. He stated park dedication fees should be charged on the four newly created lou (two oudots) and the land being added to the dealership (fomrer Red Carpet Inn site). He stated it would be approximately $80,000 in fees. He stated the existing dealership should not pay pazk dedication fees as consistent with Section 30-327 of the Ciry Code, which states that park dedication fees apply to undeveloped property. He stated the city is confusing undeveloped with tmplatted. He stated the existing dealership has been developed for over 30 years. He stated the property is not being subdivided but being combined. He stated the only reason they are platting the property is because it is a condition to secure a building permit. He stated his interpretation of the park dedication fees is consistent with how it was handled in the past. He stated Ford has been supplying jobs and a tax base in Elk River for over 30 years. He stated they are asking to be treated reasonably. He stated to charge in excess of $100,000 to a business trying to expand and create more jobs is unreasonable. He stated there isn't anything in the ordinance that states you have to charge the maximum fee. Commissioner Stevens questioned the city's policy for pazk dedication requirements. He questioned if Elk River Ford, when originally platted, paid a park dedication fee. Mr. Clark stated if the property is residential it will be charged for new units; if the property is commercial it will be charged for acreage and any further replan would not be charged park dedication fees. Mr. Clark stated Elk River Ford was never platted Commissioner Westgaazd stated Section 30-327 discussed platting and replatting but not undeveloped land. He questioned whether a compromise could be reached. Commissioner Anderson stated this issue is a decision for the City Council. Commissioner Scott stated he would like to see the motion amended to state that the 8 acres currently being used only pay half of the pazk dedication fees. Commissioner Offem~art concurred with Commissioner Scott. He stated the applicant made a good point in that the dry gives 'TIF' money to new companies but often doesn't recognize or give consideration to existing businesses that have been in Elk River for a long time employing people and paying taxes. Comnussioner Anderson questioned how and why 50% was detemvned as a compromise on the fees. He stated it is not the role of this Commission to determine the percentage. He stated a vote needs to betaken on the current motion. Commission Offemtan stated it is not an unreasonable request as the city gave Wal-Mart TIF money and also funding for the downtown project. Commissioner Westgaazd asked to reconsider the motion.