Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/1992

Home

dedication; It would be my preference therefore, that any agreements that the City is relegated to occur with the final signing of the plat and the development agreement. 9.50.50 Subdivision 2 n. It has become a policy position within recent development agreements that the subdividers are responsible to put street lights in their subdivisions and p~y for operation and maintenance for the first three years with subsequent operatton and maintenance costs being billed to purchasers of homes within the subdi¥ision. This provision adds street lights within the ordinance as a Stage I improvement. 9.50.50 Stabdivision 3 b 2. This paragraph currently allows for a subdivision to be constrticted with the opportunity for gravel streets rather than pavement being approved by the City. I believe it is the desire of City Council to discontinue this possible waiver in that gravel streets are an ongoing maintenance concern of the public works department. 9.50.50 Su~bdivision 3 b 4 deals with storm drainage. I have added minor wording changes, the impact of which may cause developers to put storm drainage both inside and outside of their plat. The current situation in Ramsey is that we have a significant need for storm drainage improvements and effectively have made only minor steps in dealing with this need. The changes suggested herein put developers on notice that it is an issue they will have to deal with. 9.50.50 Stibdivision 3 b 9. This language states that park and trail development will occur within the neighborhood park as a Stage I improvement. 9.50.50 Subdivision 3 b 10 states that street lights will occur as a Stage I improvement. 9.50.50 Subdivision 4 a and also 9.50.50 Subdivision 5 a: In the past few development agreements City Council stated that the developer is wholly responsible for the public infrastructure which occurs within that subdivision. However, should the City require upsizing of the utilities or oversizing of the street due to the community need tliat this upsizing or oversizing meets that the subdivider should not be responsible for this inOreased cost. City Council has further taken a position that a specific formula of funding assistance is not wholly appropriate in that each development and each subdivision has its unique circumstances and may provide varying levels of improvement to the community beyond the subdivision itself. The above policy position has worked fairly well in all of the development agreements with the exception of the Rivcnwick Development Agreement. There the developers asserted that since there Was an MSA street within the subdivision, the City should provide funding for at least 50% of that street. I believe that the language proposed herein will serve to eliminate that argument (but possibly not the discussion). 9.50.50 Subdivision 4 d and e. These provisions with some minor format changes currently exist in 9.50.50 Subdivision 8 a and d. I have just suggested moving the paragrophs to Subdivision 4 in that Subdivision 4 and these two paragraphs all deal with escrow requirements. 9.50.50 Subdivision 4 f. The City formerly utilized an independent public accountant to review financial papers of developers. This has proven expensive and the result from these accounting firms has been unacceptable. Therefore, we have moved to an in- house accounting review by our Finance Department. The changes suggested herein reflect that change in practice.