Agenda - Council - 08/11/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE RIVENWICK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT By: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Backgrounds At the last council[meeting, Council approved the final plat for the Rivenwick development (a.k.a. Faye Addition). Eficlosed for your review is a copy of the draft development agreement. It should be noted that On Monday, August 10, 1992, Staff is meeting with the developers to iron out the particulars of t, he a~..cement and, therefore, there may be changes from the draft that is included herein. En¢10 ~,~ed ~ith the development agreement is a letter from Mr. Bill Chapman, representing one of the oWr~ers~;0f the plat, regarding construction of Riverdale Drive N.W. within the plat. The issues in negotiating this development agreement have been as follows: l) The water and sewer utilities must be extended by six parcels of property through 137th AvenUe N~W., east of the plat, in order to provide utility service to the Rivenwick housing subdi'vlsiom 2) Them is a disagreement as to the park dedication requirements. 3) There iS a disagreement as to the policy the City has been following on funding of MSA street cOnstruction. Regarding the extqnsion of the utilities, it has been agreed by the developer of the Rivenwick housing subdivisiort that he will be providing an extension of those utilities pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the developmeh,t agreement. Regarding park dedication, the Staff position is that the park dedication within the entire parcel is $18,801.84 pUgsua/~t to Exhibit B of the development agreement. The portion allocated against Phase I of thc ~esidential plat is $4,149.36. The Rivenwick developer is also adding $20,000 in park and trai! imp~vements. In return for the utility extension and park improvements, the City will be crediting RiVenwick in the amount of $58,000 towards future City mandated project costs. Regarding construction of the MSA street known as Riverdale Drive N.W., representatives of Ivan Schwartzm.a,n and ~aye Construction, the current fee owners of the parcel, have asserted in effect that our pollcy'fihotfld result in 75% payment by the City of the pavement, curb and gutter and storm sewer ptlrsmint to Bill Chapman's letter of August 6, 1992. In support of this assertion, Mr. Chapman ~as iflcluded Resolution//85-89 regarding municipal contribution for MSA streets. We have ine!udedi ~vith this packet, a page from the Ramsey City Code which states that street projects withinneW subdivisions will be paid for by the developer. It should be noted that our recent pracfi~eis t¢ require developers to pay for an MSA street as if it were a normal street. Therefore, whoever street would normally occur in that plat to service that subdivision should be paid for by the ~leve!oper. Any additional street costs incurred by the developer, due to the fact that it is an MSA St~eelg ~ill be funded by the City. We followed that format for the Wood Pond Hills development and f~r the Sunny Ponds development. Therefore, what is proposed within this development agn'eoment is that the developer pay for the first 36' width of commercial street that would be reqi~ilred b.y the City regardless of MSA status and that the City pay the balance of the street width chrrent!y estimated at nine additional feet. Staff feels strongly that this policy is fair. It follows our recetat policy in the past two development agreements and recognizes that the development .should not experience any undue advantage due only to the fact that the funding source the Citylutiliges to pay its portion of any street construction and future maintenance is the MSA fund asOpp~ed to other funds the City might access for various street improvements and other maintenance 1~ .,ms.