10/09/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I Motion by Gouncil~ber Sorteberg and seoonded by G~mcil~ber Schlueter to amend the development agreement existing between Ru~ River Hills, R~ River Meac:l~s and the City of Ramsey to include: ]. It be demonstrated, to a hydrological certainty, that this area is capable of ponding the water to acc~m~nx~te a 100 year storm. Prcwiding a performanoe bond guaranteeing construction of that pond within one year of October 1, 1985 in an ~ount to be established by the City Engi~er. I I I I ! I I I I I I ~hat a clause be imposed in the restrictive covenance that requires those lots to consent to future asses~ents fn the e~ent the City needs to maintain that pond. Further Discussion: Comcil~ber Reimann noted that there is a 40 year limit on the covenanoe and inquired if the covm c~n be renewed. Mr. Dom replied that lxivate restrictions cannot be imposed beyond 40 years; if the owners agree to it, the covenance can be renewed. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Heitman, Gouncil~bers Sorteberg, (]ox, Reimann and Schlueter. Voting No: None. Tax Increment Financing.' A. Discussion Of Funding_ ~or Proposed Tax Incr~t District: Ms. Norris stated that she met with ~ensen-Dodge, Inc. to discuss M&S Develoi~ent's request for financial assim for site improwm~=_nts through tax incr~ent financing. Mr. Burrgraaff recommended that R~sey enter into a develoI~ent agreement to reimburse M&S for costs incurred for site impr~ents; the City can reimburse M&S either through a bond sale or through tax incr~ent ~nies when they are received; payback frc~ tax incr~ent funds is the best way to go. O~uncilma~ber Gox stated that there has been s~e o~ncern expressed regarding that the play area and porzling area be fenced frc~ ~y. ~47; would the developer be agreeable to increasing the ~ount of the financial assistance requested in order to p~cNide for fencing the perimeter of the site? Leonard McLaughlin - Stated that pr~iding fencing puts a great impact on the developer and investor; fencing gives false security and presumes that the developer and investor are assu~ing liability; screening is more successful than fencing. Mr. Schnelle stated that the issue of fencing and screening can be addressed at the time of Site and Design Plan. I I I Ms. Norris noted that Go~cil is being asked to modify the T~x Incr~ent Plan in manner that would allc~ site improv~ents to be eligible expenses within that Plan. Mr. Sc~m~elle stated that the City should have a lxocess in place by which Septet-bet 24, 1985