|
M:,yor Ga~,~,~.:: ~;l:,i~,d bc believes this is a mixed concept that could work out if they plan for the
<br />righ~ thin?~s. (:,~t,ncilmember Kurak brought up a good concern about the association. The
<br />dew:loper ~,;l~(,t till I~ow lhere may be discussion about the raingardens at the final plat approval.
<br />
<br />Tom l,ine<>l:~ ,,~pi~.~<:nt~ttivc o1' URg, indicated he has been working with Ramsey Town Center
<br />LLC and D.!:i. i I(,,.?lo~l. 'Fbcy will work with staff on a plan for the rain gardens. He explained
<br />thc inl]ltr~lio~ lOo~'tion would not be heavily landscaped, the rain gardens would be the more
<br />heavily I&tll(l:g,;:lpu~i g~t-Ogt. He has seen hostas and purple coneflower type planting materials used.
<br />They will wo~tx wi ~h staff to further define this to come up with a landscape plan. Their intent is
<br />to use tills t~,::;i ,'t~a~mgement practice, which is used in many places now.
<br />
<br />Counciln~{:,~l,~ A i~m;nn an requested a reviexv of the park dedication fees.
<br />
<br />Assist~ml (ic~-,~t~ity l)evelopment Director Trudgeon explained the City is in active
<br />ncgotiatio~.~4 x~'~l~ ~:.~ms(;y Town Center LLC in regards to park dedication fees and there should
<br />bca rcsohmo~ by mid March in regards to the contribution they would provide. There may not
<br />bo at park {l~:~lic~iic~n ti~c oxvcd due to the amount of improvements the developer is doing. If that
<br />docs not l-~:tl~l~C~ lief; Cily would charge the normal park dedication fees. At the Council work
<br />session on [x,h~r{.l~ ~ there will be a more detailed update available.
<br />
<br />Motion by ( o~n,zi}mcn~ber Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Kurak, to adopt Resolution #04-
<br />02-058 al-}pY( vil¥! t}le preliminary plat of Ramsey Town Center 2nd Addition subject to
<br />complim~cu ,~qth ('ity Staff Review Letter dated January 30, 2004, Revised February 20, 2004,
<br />approval oi' 1,1~,~2 I~r..zlimi~ary site plan, and approval of amendments to the Town Center Zoning
<br />Code t¢) all{~,~v lc>~ h iveways less than 25 feet for residential units that have a front door facing a
<br />pttblic stred ~t~t <:~mlait~ rear loaded garages and to allow for a 25-foot setback for back-to-back
<br />
<br />Counci hnt:~,t',,:} K ~tt'ak inquired about the indication that moving the trail might shift the whole
<br />plal to Ibc x,,:~:;~.
<br />
<br />Assistant t't~[,li~: Works Director Olson explained as part of every development that goes in
<br />at[i scent lr-, :.~ ~'(~[~nl v Yoad thc City requires a trail to be constructed. Generally the trail is required
<br />on the ~lc'...'c;i{~l,~'~; property or at combination of right-of-way and developer property. This
<br />whole sccii(,~ ~.>1' [<a~nmey Boulevard will be reconstructed. When the Ramsey Boulevard
<br />improvcm,:~!.~; xvtz~,z bcginning to be worked through it was intended the trail be placed wholly
<br />within ihc ria,.I~i el-w:ty, l-lowever, the right-of-way was not wide enough and it needed to be
<br />sbillcd ~r) ;~llo~,x, ~t It;ssi all eight-foot boulevard between the curb and the ten-foot walkway. He
<br />explained {)~i;,,i~:ttiy lberc would have been a 14-foot offset between the right-of-way and the
<br />building p:tds, ~l~t.i it~a ten-foot walk was put in there would only be four feet. A compromise
<br />was made/hat ,td:.~,rmined four feet would be county right-of-way and six feet would be on the
<br />developer's p~',)pvt,.y. Therefore, a six-foot trail easement was needed along the eastern portion
<br />of' this pl:tt ~)~- ~,~e.4t ot- the Ramsey Boulevard right-of-way, and the developer would be
<br />rcsponsibl<: fb~ ihati. '[']~crc will bc ten feet of separation between the trail and the front stoop of
<br />the buil¢lit~!,,. ( ~,: ~ption to solve the problem would be that the whole plat would shift over if
<br />
<br />City Council/February 24, 2004
<br /> Page 16 of 31
<br />
<br />
<br />
|