Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />April 11 , 2006 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />Mr. Clark noted there is a disagreement between the applicant and staffs 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 /> <br />Commissioner Stevens stated he supported staffs recommendation and it is fair. <br /> <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 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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Commissioner Anderson stated this issue is a decision for the City Council. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Commissioner Westgaard asked to reconsider the motion. <br />