Laserfiche WebLink
agreement outlines several park improvements that will be made to Riverdale Park as pm"t of this <br />development. The developer will receive credit for the construction of the park improvements <br />upon completion and approval by the City. The City Council approved the original preliminary <br />plat with the following conditions: 1) 138th Avenue contains a sidewalk along both sides of the <br />street. 2) Provide a pedestrian connection from the condominium units (located on the south <br />side ol' 138"~ Avenue) to the bituminous trail running parallel to Riverdale Drive. 3) Include a <br />paragraph in the Development Agreement addressing sound mitigation. 4) Construct an eight <br />foot fence aloug Trunk Highway 10 and a ten foot fence in fi'ont of the units that are closest to <br />Highway 10 to address traffic noise. 5) Work with staff to determine an appropriate fence type <br />and construction. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald indicated the sidewalk will be provided on both sides of the street and <br />the bituminous will be supplied as requested. The final plat is providing for an eight foot bmzn <br />aud extensive landscaping along and adjacent to the berm. The berm and landscaping are being <br />proposed to address traffic noise generated from Highway 10. This was discussed during the <br />preli~ninary plat review. The final plat complies with City standards related to lot sizes, density, <br />and street design, and conforms to the setback deviations approved as part of the site plan and <br />preliminary plat. Staff recommends final plat approval contingent upon compliance with City <br />Staff Review letter dated June 4, 2004, and the developer entering into a Development <br />Agreement with the City. <br /> <br />Councihncmbcr Elvig inquired about the potential sprinkling requirements. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald replied the developer submitted a letter requesting language to be added <br />to thc development agreement exempting them from any ordinance that would come on the <br />books after this. The City does not put that type of language into their development agreements. <br />Staff feels it needs to be addressed as part of the ordinance the Council will be reviewing, and <br />that it is not part of the final plat approval. It is not advantageous for the City to put this <br />exemption into the development agreement. <br /> <br />Councihnember Elvig stated he agrees that the development agreement should not be changed to <br />exempt any ordinance. He noted this fire sprinkling ordinance will come back before the <br />Council in a couple of weeks. <br /> <br />Councihnember Zimmerman asked if the developer would need to comply with a change in the <br />sprinkling ordinance if they had gone through this and started to build the townhomes. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald replied it is her understanding this is based on the building permit, not <br />the final plat. It would become effective at the time of building permit submission and they <br />would be subject to the ordinance if it was in effect. The developer is requesting to be exempt <br />and staff is saying the development agreement is not the place for it; it is a building code issue, <br />not a land issue. <br /> <br />Chris Enger, representative of Ryland Group, stated Ryland Group is not opposed to the <br />sprinkling code, their only concern and issue is that they have been on a long path with the City <br /> <br />City Council/June 8, 2004 <br />Page 17 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />