My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8.2. PRSR 10-10-12
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
P&R Packets
>
2011-2020
>
2012
>
10-10-2012
>
8.2. PRSR 10-10-12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2012 11:45:26 AM
Creation date
10/11/2012 11:42:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PRSR
date
10/10/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Minutes Pages <br /> April 11,2006 <br /> Mr. Clark noted there is a disagreement between the applicant and staff's r ecornniendation <br /> in regards to the park dedication requirements.He stated staff is requesting park dedication <br /> fees for the entire 17.671ot.He stated the two outlots will require park dedication fees be <br /> paid when they are platted.He stated this was reviewed by the city attorney. <br /> Commissioner Stevens stated he supported staff's recommendation and it is fair. <br /> Steve Rohlf,Ford representative-Stated the city is interpreting the requirements incorrectly. <br /> He stated park dedication fees should be charged on the four newly created lots (two <br /> outlots) and the land being added to the dealership (former Red Carpet?nn site).He stated it <br /> would be approximately$80,000 in fees.He stated the existing dealership should not pay <br /> park dedication fees as consistent with Section 30-327 of the City Code,which states that <br /> park dedication fees apply to undeveloped property.He stated the city is confusing <br /> undeveloped with unplaned.He stated the existing dealership has been developed for over <br /> 30 years.He stated the property is not being subdivided but being combined.He stated the <br /> only reason they are platting the property is because it is a condition to secure a building <br /> permit.He stated his interpretation of the park dedication fees is consistent with how it was <br /> handled in the past.He stated Ford has been supplying jobs and a tax base in Elk River for <br /> over 30 years.He stated they are asking to be treated reasonably.He stated to charge in <br /> excess of$100,000 to a business trying to expand and create more jobs is unreasonable.He <br /> stated there isn't anything in the ordinance that states you have to charge the maximum fee. <br /> Commissioner Stevens questioned the city's policy for park dedication requirements.He <br /> questioned if Elk River Ford,when originally platted,paid a park dedication fee. <br /> Mr.Clark stated if the property is residential it will be charged for new units; if the property <br /> is commercial it will be charged for acreage and any further replats would not be charged <br /> park dedication fees.Mr.Clark stated Elk River Ford was never platted. <br /> Commissioner Westgaard stated Section 30-327 discussed platting and replatting but not <br /> undeveloped land.He questioned whether a compromise could be reached. <br /> Commissioner Anderson stated this issue is a decision for the City Council. <br /> Commissioner Scott stated he would lke to see the motion amended to state that the 8 acres <br /> currently being used only pay half of the park dedication fees. <br /> Commissioner Offerman concurred with Commissioner Scott.He stated the applicant made <br /> a good point in that the city gives 1 Lt'money to new companies but often doesn't recognize <br /> or give consideration to existing businesses that have been in Elk River for a long time <br /> employing people and paying taxes. <br /> Commissioner Anderson questioned how and why 50% was determined as a compromise on <br /> the fees.He stated it is not the role of this Commission to determine the percentage. He <br /> stated a vote needs to be taken on the current motion. <br /> Commission Offerman stated it is not an unreasonable request as the city gave Wal-Mart <br /> l It money and also funding for the downtown project. <br /> Commissioner Westgaard asked to reconsider the motion. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.