10-15-1990 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes October 15, 1990 Page 6 e commercial and industrial lots and that a list was provided to the Council which indicated that this was typical in other suburban communities. He stated that the City has been behind in this area of park acti vi ties and is trying to get in line with other communities provide and, in order to do this, the City must look at all available finances for park and recreation activities. Mike O'Brien, Park and Recreation Commissioner, stated that the Park and Recreation Commission is opposed to any change in the fee structure. He indicated that the City is trying to catch up in the area of parks and recreation and feels that the present fees being charged are not unreasonable. Mayor Tralle stated that this fee could deter businesses from locating in Elk River. Councilmember Kropuenske agreed that the park and recreation needs funding, but indicated that the City is competing with other communi ties and if it starts charging industrial and commercial business for park fees, it will not be competitive. The City Administrator suggested charging park dedication fees for commercial business, but to eliminate the fee for industrial business. Councilmember Holmgren concurred with the City Administrator. e There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Tralle closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 90-42, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY ELK RIVER, SECTIONS 900.38 AND 1008.04, RELATING TO THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 90-55, A RESOLUTION ELIMINATING INDUSTRIAL PARK DEDICATION FEES. COUNCILMEMBER KROPUENSKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The Building and Zoning Administrator questioned whether a formal policy should be set regarding lot splits with road right-ot-way requiring Planning Commis~ion review. Discussion was held by the Council regarding the number of lots required for an administrative subdivision as opposed to requiring a plat. It was the consensus of the Council to have the Planning Commission review the section of the ordinance referring to administrative subdivisions. The Council requested that staff research other communi ties as to the number of lots required for an administrative subdivision and time requirement for allowing a second administrative subdivision within the same original lot. e COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN MOVED TO REFER THE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE REFERRING TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION OF LAND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.