10/06/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I i I I I I I I I ! I I I ! I I , ' CASE # 5 REV~E¥~ OF RAMSEY CITY CODE SECTIONS 9.50.37 TO 9.50.59 By: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Background;: Since 1991, the ¢ i~ty has entered into development agreements for Chestnut Pond, Chestnut Hills, Cedar Hills~ ..WiJ demere Woods, Wood Pond Hills, Sunny Ponds and now Rivenwick in our urban area. ~t !}~e same time, there have been several subdivisions in the rural area of the community as~w¢ [1. Because of this level of activity, we have become aw~e that there is need for minor revisions i i the design stand,ds relative to public improvements and financing of those public imprO~m :fits. Attached for your review is a ~aft of the suggested changes with additions noted in bold[~tyl ~ (bold) and deletions (~) being crossed out. In addition to minor typographical~ s~ mntic and fo~at changes, the ~aft in front of you proposes several additional changes whick I V ill summ~: · 9.50:3~ $fibdivision 1 deals with intent of p~k and open space dedication and states that [h{p~pal intent is to develop the neighborh~d within which the p~k deffication is gamed. ;The intent hem is not necess~ly to develop a p~k in that subdivision but to provide tliat each disffict within the community is assured, over time, equal benefit from tile ~k and open space system. · 9.50.37 s~bdivision 2. We have suggested a minor change within the table relative to land d~dil:htion. We reviewed the subdivision standards for all of our neighboring comm~nii.~s. The suggested ch~ge in our table reflects that which is cu~ently in place for Bl~n~ ~Coon Rapids, Anoka, Andover and Dayton. · 9.50.37 S~lbdivision 6. It is suggested that the table relative to p~k dedication cash equiva~en~:ebe removed and that when ~is orffinance is finally passed by the Council, that at~thi,,[same time, the Council adopt a resolution which sets the cu~ent park dedica~io~.'~ I believe that it was the original intent of this section of the ordinance to affect qh~iges in p~k dedic[tion by resolution. Therefore, this amendment for the most pm ~ :6nsfitutes a fo~at change. · 9.50.37 Sabdivision 9 d. This subsection more specifically gives developers direction as to ~hai{i~s required for p~k ~und~ monumentation. · 9.50.3~ SUbdivision 10. It is suggested that the language which states that a developer is not :~eqg~red to provide p~t of the ~ail system within the Mississippi River Trail Co~d0r be deleted. Within the Rivenwick development, Anoka County is app~ently going ~o ~ requihng the developers to provide a 1000' ~ail as p~t of the land swap occu~ng~Between the County and the developer. I would like to suggest that similar instants ~ay occur and therefore, I would prefer to see it eliminated. · 9.50.3~ S~Ubdivision 11. Under the cu~ent ordinance it states that a~eements reg~dlhg~k dedication will occur at time of prelimin~y plat. The way the process has ~n ~Orking the past two ye~s, while there is concept approval at the preli~na~ plat, tfig situation invariably changes between that time and when the development agree~en~ is finally signed by the two pmies. During negotiation of the Rivenwick Develdpffiont Agreement, the developers constantly referenced conversations that occu~h lfi 1989 in order to afford them the opportunity to have a reduced park dedieafi°~. ~ It would be my preference therefore, that any a~eements that the City is relegat~ tO~occur with the final si~ing of the plat and the development a~eement.