My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9.1. SR 02-03-2014
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2014
>
02-03-2014
>
9.1. SR 02-03-2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/31/2014 8:53:24 AM
Creation date
1/31/2014 8:39:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
2/3/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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 Page 8 <br /> April 11,2006 <br /> --------------------------- <br /> Mr.Clark noted there is a disagreement between the applicant and staff's recommendation <br /> in regards to the park dedication requirements.He stated staff is requesting park dedication <br /> fees for the entire 17.67 lot.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 Roh1f,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 Inn 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 unplatted.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 like 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 TIF 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 /> TIF 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.