5.3. SR 12-20-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Elk. River City Council Meeting . June 19 2000 Page 6 services to the plat. He further indicated he did not feel the pro receiving the maximum density bonus. ARRIED 3-1. Councilmember Motln opposed. 6.3. Reauest bv Brookstone Development to Waive Park Dedication Fees for Elk River Business Park Director of Planning Michele McPherson indicated that Brookstone. Inc" representing the limited Liaqility Partnership associated with the Elk River Business Park is requesting the council waive the park dedication fees required by the final plat In the amount of $63.940. She explained that the request to waive the fees is based on the issue that Brookstone. Inc. feels it did not receive adequate notice from the city regarding the fact that Brookstone. Inc. would be responsible for park dedication fees. Council member Farber indicated he was in favor of waiving the fees as the developer was not informed that he would have to pay park dedication fees up front. Council member Thompson suggested phasing the fees in as the fees were phased in for residential property. Richard Martens, Brookstone; Inc., representing Elk River Business Park. informed the council that they were unaware that they were responsible for park dedlcatJon fees. He further noted that he had understood that the surface water management fee would be $136 per acre. which is the residential lot fee and the industrial lot fee that is required is $876 per acre. He indicated that his company did not budget for these fees up front and requested the City Council to allow the developers to pay any required fees at time of building permit issuance. Park and Recreation Commissioner John Kuester requested that the council not waive the park dedication fees. He noted that the Park and Recreation Commission discussed this detail in length. He noted the concern is that of separoting park and recreation as an amenity from econornic development. He noted that park and recreotion is a prime factor In the marketing of economic development. Councilmember Farber indicated that because the developer was not informed of the park dedication fee, he did not feel it would be fair to require the developer to pay the fee. He further indicated that he feels a mistake was made in the surface water management fee on the developers part and felt that the developer should be responsible for this fee. Councilmember Motin indicated he was in favor of collecting at least a portion of the park dedication fee. Councilmember Thompson indicated that he was in favor of negotiating a fee. but not in favor of entirely forgiving the park dedication fee.