My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:34:37 AM
Creation date
11/29/2004 9:42:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
12/02/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
161
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Community Development Director Frolik advised there are some underlying drainage and utility <br />easements from the original plat of Ramsey Town Center that will have to be vacated as a part of <br />this platting process. Council introduced the ordinance to vacate these easements on July 27th; <br />the ordinance is on this agenda for final adoption. There are some additional storln sewer costs <br />associated ~vith vacating the easement, which is reflected.in the proposed resolution. This final <br />plat will be contingent and will not be considered final until all of the contingencies are met. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich indicated revised motions were drafted at his request that they re-enforce <br />the language within the motions that because we do not have certain things done, and have not <br />negotiated fully, these are preliminary approvals that will be accomplished once the development <br />agreement is finalized and signed. The developer wanted to keep moving, and staff thought 'this <br />was appropriate and in the City's and the developer's best interest. <br /> <br />Colmnunity Developrnent Director Frolik stated the proposed development contract has not been <br />completed. Staff is recommending that the draft of the proposed development contract be placed <br />on the October 26t~' agenda for review and approval in order to allow the applicant sufficient time <br />to review the document. One contingency has been added to the resolution that the final plkt <br />approval is also contingent on the underlying easement l~eing vacated. <br /> <br />Councitmember Zimmennan inquired if the developer is comfortable with this. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich indicated there are certain issues with the amendment of the master <br />development a~eement. The amendments to that are crucial to working on the secondary <br />development a~eement. This cannot be drafted until there is final resolution on what is or is not <br />to be included in the master development agreement. They have learned today that they will <br />include all the things in the final secondary agreement at this time that are required in the master <br />development agreement. <br /> <br />A representative of Shingobee Development stated currently there is a master development <br />agreement in place and they understand that agreement. Their purchase agreement with RTC <br />addresses that, and they understand that and have to move forward. They have to go forward <br />with the agreement that is in place at this time, and if another agreement comes up they will deal <br />with that. They just want to be sure they can still discuss things within the secondary <br />development a~eement. He stated this final plat approval states that the developer will be <br />required to construct Zeolite Street. This is one of the options, but a little bit of the problem is <br />the assessment procedure, which gets a little more complicated. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson replied the master development agreement does not <br />obligate the City to go forward with any construction of'any Phase 2 roadway until 43 million <br />dollars of commercial value has been built into the project. Zeolite Street is a Phase 2 roadway, <br />which will eventually be a City obligation, but without the amendment to the master <br />development a~'eement they do not have the ability to go forward with the assessment procedure <br />fight now. It will ultimately be the Council's decision to determine the extent of a payback if <br />there is one, for the construction of Zeolite Street. <br /> <br />P34 <br /> <br />Cit3, Council/October 12, 2004 <br /> Page 20 of 30 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.