Laserfiche WebLink
� � <br /> Mr. Lee Ashenbeck from the Long Lake Park Commission then <br /> appeared and made some brief comments concerning Long Lake boat <br /> access monitoring. <br /> - A short discussion fol. lowed concerning jet skis. It <br /> appeared that both the City of Long Lake and the City of Orono <br /> would have to approve any joint ordinances for that I.ake because <br /> the lake is in both jurisdictions. Once that is done, the DNR <br /> woul.d al.so have to approve any final. ordinances for use on that <br /> I.ake. More information is going to be obtained, including the <br /> Long Lake ordinance , which is a�ready drafted and can be <br /> reviewed. Dick F�int asked that John Gerhardson get a copy of <br /> that ordinance for our review before the next meeting. <br /> 3 . PARR DEDICATION FEE ORDINANCE. <br /> There was a discussion concerning the recently adopted park <br /> dedication fee ordinance. Jim Gilbert and Dick Fl.int met as a <br /> subcommittee meeting last week to discuss the concerns of one of <br /> the devel.opers in Orono, and al.so the opinion of the City <br /> Attorney of Orono. There was also a discussion about the <br /> vaxuation process used by the current agpraiser. <br /> First of a1Y , in regard to Ordinance Section 11.62 , subd. 2 <br /> (f), which reYates to previously subdivided property not having <br /> previously paid a fee, there was a recommendation for amendment. <br /> The ordinance, as drafted, recommended that if one lot previousYy <br /> subdivided had not previously paid a park dedication fee, upon <br /> the apgYication for a buil.ding permit, they wouZd then be call.ed <br /> upon to pay the new fee in effect based on the value of the <br /> property at the time of the initial subdivision. This provision <br /> was used in two other municipal. ordinances, name3.y the cities of <br /> Greenfiel.d and Minnetrista. However, the City Attorney fe7.t that <br /> there was not appropriate authority for this provision, pursuant <br /> Minn. Stat. 462.358. That statute appears to al.I.ow a city to <br /> impose dedication requirements on proposed subdivisions. It is <br /> not a retroactive situation and, if one was grandfathered in <br /> before, the City apparently does not have authority to impose the <br /> new fees at this point in time. <br /> Accordingl.y, upon motion by James Gilbert, seconded by Dick <br /> Flint, it was unanimousl.y approved to recommend that Section <br /> 11.62 , subd. 2 (f ) be deleted from the Ordinances by the City <br /> Council. <br /> Additional. po�.icy guidelines wil.� be addressed at the next <br /> commission meeting for recommendations to be sent to the City <br /> Council.. <br /> 2 <br />