Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR P'IEETING OF THE ORONO COiJrICIL, FEBRUI�RY 13, 1979 Page 11 <br /> 2lavor Van Nest moved, Butler seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION �995 <br /> Resolution #995, Additions To The City Of Orono Park Fee Schedule <br /> -,. Fee Schedule For 1979. PTotion, Ayes (3) - Plays (0) . (Continued) <br /> tir. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the RE�'UND - PARK FEES <br /> � record the rec�uest for a refund of Park dedication Glenn Upton <br /> fees paid by Glenn C. Upton, dated October 16 , 1978, <br /> which states: <br /> The attached notice is a request for refund of a . <br /> $1, 000 park dedication fee paid with buildinc� perriit <br /> #3721 on l�iarch 13, 1978. The house has been <br /> cor.lpleted and was issued a Certificate of Occupancy <br /> on� July 24, 1978. This notice is the first word <br /> we have had concerning the question of a refund. <br /> The perr►it was issued pursuant to receipt of a <br /> variance for lot area and lot width (Case No. 301) <br /> issued on Septeriber 26 , 1977. There was a prior <br /> house on the site which burned several years <br /> previously. There is no record of any park fee <br /> being paid except with this building per-rtit. <br /> The staff has been charging park fees based upon <br /> the authority of Ordinance No. 184. Park fees <br /> have been charc�ed at the tine of final subdivision <br /> �.3 approval or, on previoulsy platted lots, at the <br /> � tir.ie of a building permit. <br /> I think there are two areas for policy decisions <br /> and/or possible ordinance revisions: <br /> 1. The practice of charging fees with subdivisions <br /> on the lot or lots which have existing dwellings. <br /> _ I suggest charging fees only on the new building <br /> sites. <br /> . 2. The practice of charging fees with building <br /> pernits on previously platted lots. I suggest <br /> that if any fee is charged, it be the riinimum <br /> fee (r.iaybe $100) . Either would be some <br /> contribution but would not be out of line with <br /> the reriaining part of the permit fee. <br /> 3. A separate issue is establishing some type of <br /> fee for comr_iercial or industrial developr�ent. ' <br /> Staff Update - January 30, 1979 <br /> �IY�en the new park dedication fee schedule is adopted, <br /> I would recommend refunding to t3r. Upton the <br /> , difference between the $1,000 he paid on 24arch 13, <br /> ' 1978 and the new fee for existing lots. � <br /> (Continued) <br />