My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3.1. PCSR 09-28-2021
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2021-2030
>
2021
>
09-28-2021
>
3.1. PCSR 09-28-2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2021 8:46:17 AM
Creation date
9/24/2021 8:46:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCSR
date
9/28/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 Page 7 <br /> August 24,2021 <br /> ----------------------------- <br /> surrounding communities. He noted the last year and a half showed the need for <br /> spaces to gather and found those spaces in empty parking lots. <br /> Chair Larson-Vito felt there is a real problem with having outdoor space available for <br /> gatherings, especially for teenagers. She stated it wouldn't have to be in all <br /> commercial districts either and it could be a recommendation in location. <br /> Mr. Carlton stated it could be part of the PUD process and sets up that framework <br /> or policy discussion. He stated this keeps the goals transparent to the developers and <br /> shows the expectations. <br /> Commissioner Keisling asked why there was a different approach in Chapter 4 and 5 <br /> about the framework for reduction of fees for rede do Tent of homes versus <br /> spurring business development. <br /> Mr. Carlton explained the fee structure for the residential redevelopment and funding <br /> sources versus commercial development and stated there were funding sources for <br /> business redevelopment and improvements. <br /> Commissioner Rydberg discussed the inhibition of high fees that homeowners and <br /> business owners face and felt that should be reviewed. <br /> Mr. Carlton stated an action step could be added to review the fee structure for the <br /> commercial development process, showing comparison with peer cities, and have it <br /> reviewed by the city council. He stated sewer and water fees could also be discussed. <br /> It was the consensus of the commission to add to the Economic Development <br /> Implementation. coon matric to review the fee structure for commercial <br /> development. ' <br /> Chair Larson-Vito asked about the possibility of reduction of park dedication fees if <br /> implementing the "third places" concept. She felt it would eliminate the financial cost <br /> for developers. <br /> Mr. Carlton stated they could craft the ordinance or policy language to work towards <br /> that. <br /> Mr. Nolin stated it might be welcomed by developers because of the current trend in <br /> retail with the market shift. <br /> It was the consensus of the commission to ensure "third places"language is softened <br /> to not take a hard line on requirements versus incentives; add potential strategy of <br /> reduction in park dedication requirement as a potential incentive for including"third <br /> place" amenities and include in Implementation Action matrix. <br /> The commission reviewed Chapters 6 and 7 and had no recommendations for <br /> changes. During discussion it was noted the trail connections as outlined in the Trails <br /> P <br /> }� <br /> � agwEeEo er <br /> A AfURE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.