Agenda - Council - 05/09/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I Developmen~ Policies Since 1991, t~e Council has approved dozens of development agreements and development permits. Mlany of these come before City Commissions (either Planning, Park and Recreation ~ Economic Development Commission). Over this period of time we have received recommendations from these Commissions, primarily Park and Recreation, for items that sllould be included in either the process or the development agreement itself. These recorhmendations have then been forwarded to the Council as part of the developmen~ agreement. It has recently been brought to the attention of Council and Staff that many of[these policies haven't received formal Council adoption. We have als? received criticism that different developers have been treated differently through the cJevelopment process. First, I must state that if the City has a financial interest in the projec~ such as a TIF Industrial project, our contribution allows us to require more than the mi~mum improvements. For instance, our current zoning allows for industrial post and be~m construction. Staff, however, has put the developers on notice that in Ramsey's Industrial Park (where we own the land) we will not allow any construction other than blOck, brick or concrete panels. Further, that the exterior treatments must be of a certain quali~y even though ordinance' requirements may be less. Second, even in a residential project, we attempt to suggest to a developer how to improve his project. For instance with River's Bend 4th, we recommended that Outlot E be platted as residentia~ lots in order to improve the quality of the housing in that cul-de-sac. The developer di//1 not agree and we didn't push it. Was that appropriate? I think so. Could we have mandated it? Probably not. Even so, I think it was fair to have the discussion. In any case, ~e will attempt to gain formal Council approval of these informal policies as quickly as v~e can. At this point I expect at least some of these to be on this Council agenda. Environmen~l Learning Area (ELA) The ELA ha/s become a sensitive community issue as it relates to public infrastructure adjacent to iI. You will recall that we proposed a sewer easement that could potentially impact this ~ea. At this point, I am told that the sewer line has been moved to a location acceptable ~o all parties. However, I have yet to see anything more than a sketch alignment. We have continued discussions with the District Office and Architects as well as the Ramsay School Administration. They all seem satisfied. We'll keep you informed. I think this ohe may work out. As an aside~ the DNR has suggested a mitigation plan for approval of Sunwood Drive. One suggestion is to provide wetland damming at the Krypton Street culvert. This would raise the watgr level of the wetland and would flood the ELA. We have informed the DNR of our oppos!tion to this recommendation. Fox Knoll/Haubrich Addil;iorl I won't go brough all the background here but originally Fox Knoll was proposed as a rural subdivision within the urban transition area. As such, pursuant to the attached 10/25/94 Co,hncil minutes, Staff had proposed a preliminary plat at urban densities with a final plat at ,~'ural densities. This would have been somewhat similar to the platting of Pondvale Esjates many years ago (ghost plat) or Haubrich Addition (wherein a sketch plan was provided_showing urbanization of the existing plat). Council direr;ted that Staff work the issue out. On November 3, 1994, Staff met with Mr. Mark Kleck~er who was the developer at the time. At that meeting, Mr. Kleckner requested ia delay of further consideration until he could review the advantages/disadvantages of urban versus rural platting/development. On December 20, 1994, I wrot~ the attached letter confrrming the 11/3/94 discussion.