09/01/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REVII~,~W~ OF CASE #5 RAMSEY CITY CODE SECTIONS 9.50.37 TO 9.50.59 By: Ryan Sehroeder, City Administrator Background: Since 1991, the!Ci ~ has entered into development agreements for Chestnut Pond, Chestnut Hills, Cedar Hills, W~im!~mere Woods, Wood Pond Hills, Sunny Ponds and now Rivenwick in our urban area. A! tli~ same time, there have been several subdivisions in the rural area of the community as Qeli!, 'r Because of this level of activity, we have become aware that there is need for minor revtsion~ in i~he design standards relative to public improvements and financing of those public improve~ellfs. Attached for your review is a draft of the suggested changes with additions noted in bold i~p~! tbold) and deletions (ahd. stion.~) being crossed out. In addition to minor typographical; ~n.i~tic and format changes, the draft in front of you proposes several additional changes which ~: w~] summarize: · 9.50.37iSalXtivision 1 deals with intent of park and open space dedication and states that the bri,n~ipal intent is to develop the neighborhood within which the park dedication is gaine~,.: ~e intent here is not necessarily to develop a park in that subdivision but to provid¢~th:i~ each district within the community is assured, over time, equal benefit from:th~ p~k and open space system. { . [ · 9.50.371Subdivision 2. We have suggested a minor change within the table relative to land :d¢¢~c~{~on. We reviewed the subdivision standards for all of our neighboring commu~iti~.4. The suggested change in our table reflects that which is currently in place for Blai~e,!',¢oon Rapids, Anoka, Andover and Dayton. · 9.50.37fSu~ivision 6. It is suggested that the table relative to park dedication cash equival~nc~.ibe removed and that when this ordinance is finally passed by the Council, that atih~ !amc time, the Council adopt a resolution which sets the current park dedieat~om'~ [I believe that it was the original intent of this section of the ordinance to affeot e~ha~ges in park dedication by resolution. Therefore, this amendment for the most Pm c-~i-gstitutes a format change. · 9.50.37[Su,,bdivision 9 d. This subsection more specifically gives developers direction as to w~at i~ required for park boundary monumentation. · 9.50.37isubitivision 10. It is suggested that the language which states that a developer is not: r6qU.}~'ed to provide part of the trail system within the Mississippi River Trail Corridc~' b~eleted. Within the Rivenwick development, Anoka County is apparently going t45 .~?requiring the developers to provide a 1000' trail as part of the land swap occurriOg ~tween the County and the developer. I would like to suggest that similar instana~s ~ay occur and therefore, I would prefer to see it eliminated. · 9.50,3~i S' tbdivision 11. Under the current ordinance it states that agreements regarding ] ,~rk dedication will occur at time of preliminary plat. The way the process has beer ~ rking the past two years, while there is concept approval at the preliminary plat,~ thb :si .ration invariably changes between that time and when the development agreern~n~ i~ finally signed by the two parties. During negotiation of the Rivenwick DevelOpm ',tat Agreement, the developers constantly referenced conversations that occurrefd !,~ 1989 in order to afford them the opportunity to have a reduced park