My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9.B.3. PRSR 06-14-2000
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
P&R Packets
>
1993-2000
>
2000
>
06-14-2000
>
9.B.3. PRSR 06-14-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/22/2014 4:49:35 PM
Creation date
7/22/2014 4:49:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PRSR
date
6/14/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
FILE No.223 05/26 '00 14:13 ID:FACSIMILE FAX:952 837 8010 PAGE 2i 3 <br /> BROOKS 10N1,INC. <br /> • y3tr/Vkziple_ <br /> 7400 Metro Blvd.,Suite 212 <br /> Edina,Minnesota 55439 <br /> Friday,May 26, 2000 62,837.9167 phone <br /> 612,837,8010 fax <br /> Ms. Michele McPherson <br /> Director of Planning <br /> City of Elk River <br /> 13065 Orono Parkway <br /> PO Box 490 <br /> Elk River,Minnesota 55330 <br /> Dear Michele: <br /> I am writing with reference to your transmittal dated May 12, 2000 regarding the Development <br /> Agreement for the Elk River Business Park together with the letter dated May 16, 2000, from <br /> Debbie Heubner, planning secretary, regarding conditions attached to final plat approval. While <br /> we have continued to enthusiastically move forward on implementing both the land development <br /> component of this project and the first 50,000 square foot building, we need to resolve some <br /> • issues that came out from the above referenced correspondence before we can start grading and <br /> the first building. <br /> From past notes of meetings with various city staff members,other correspondence and from our <br /> discussions we are requesting reconsideration of the following matters: <br /> 1. The requirement for a Letter of Credit. This did come up in discussions, particularly with <br /> former City Development Director, Paul Steiman, as well as Peter Beck and we had agreed <br /> that no Letter of Credit would he required. I believe it was initially part of the preliminary <br /> planning commission plat resolution but was clearly to have been eliminated for the <br /> reason that the public improvements were all being installed by the City and assessed to <br /> the property. While you indicated that there are some improvements we will be <br /> installing, I believe the only thing we have responsibility for is the mass grading, which is <br /> also reimbursed from the City. <br /> 2. With regard to the surface water management fee,we are in agreement that we have some <br /> responsibility in this regard. However,in our meeting of May 12, 1999,when we requested <br /> information on a comprehensive list of fees related to this project, it was indicated that <br /> the surface water management fee would be $136 per acre. This is less than shown in the <br /> draft Development Agreement. <br /> 3. We are in agreement that we are responsible for the seal coating fee and it was indicated <br /> • that this would be $0.40 per square foot of asphalted road area. I believe a preliminary <br /> estimate of that was only several thousand dollars. We would request clarification on <br /> this. <br /> MG A I cerwTe *111 nfr.DV etf.tit-cc IA I./L'L r,.ACA 11' APt 111 f-kCt,[I/\t.AACk.T <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.