Laserfiche WebLink
CASE #5 <br /> <br />REVIEW OF RAMSEY CITY CODE SECTIONS 9.50.37 TO 9.50.59 <br /> By: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />Since 1991, the City has entered into development agreements for Chestnut Pond, Chestnut Hills, <br />Cedar Hills, Windemere Woods, Wood Pond Hills, Sunny Ponds and now Rivenwick in our <br />urban area. At the same time, there have been several subdivisions in the rural area of the <br />community as Me . Because of this level of activity, we have become aware that there is need for <br />minor revisions ia the design standards relative to public improvements and financing of those <br />public impro¥~me~ts. Attached for your review is a draft of the suggested changes with additions <br />noted in bold ityp$ (bold) and deletions (~) being crossed out. In addition to minor <br />typographiea!,[semantic and format changes, the draft in front of you proposes several additional <br />changes which I will summarize: <br /> <br />9.50.37 Slabdivision 1 deals with intent of park and open space dedication and states <br />that the pritncipal intent is to develop the neighborhood within which the park dedication <br />is gaine~t. The intent here is not necessarily to develop a park in that subdivision but to <br />provide that each district within the community is assured, over time, equal benefit <br />from the park and open space system. <br /> <br />9.50.37 su~bdivision 2. We have suggested a minor change within the table relative to <br />land dedication. We reviewed the subdivision standards for all of our neighboring <br />commtlnities. The suggested change in our table reflects that which is currently in place <br />for Bl~ine, Coon Rapids, Anoka, Andover and Dayton. <br /> <br />9.50.37 Subdivision 6. It is suggested that the table relative to park dedication cash <br />equivalence be removed and that when this ordinance is finally passed by the Council, <br />that at:the same time, the Council adopt a resolution which sets the current park <br />dedication; I believe that it was the original intent of this section of the ordinance to <br />affect changes in park dedication by resolution. Therefore, this amendment for the <br />most part constitutes a format change. <br /> <br />· 9.50.37 Subdivision 9 d. This subsection more specifically gives developers direction <br /> as to what is required for park boundary monumentation. <br /> <br />9.50.37 Subdivision 10. It is suggested that the language which states that a developer <br />is not required to provide part of the trail system within the Mississippi River Trail <br />CorridOr be deleted. Within the Rivenwick development, Anoka County is apparently <br />going to b~ requiring the developers to provide a 1000' trail as part of the land swap <br />occumng between the County and the developer. I would like to suggest that similar <br />instances may occur and therefore, I would prefer to see it eliminated. <br /> <br />9.50.37 Subdivision 11. Under the current ordinance it states that agreements <br />regarding park dedication will occur at time of preliminary plat. The way the process <br />has been working the past two years, while there is concept approval at the preliminary <br />plat, the si, tuation invariably changes between that time and when the development <br />agreement~is finally signed by the two parties. During negotiation of the Rivenwick <br />DevelOpment Agreement, the developers constantly referenced conversations that <br />occurred ~n 1989 in order to afford them the opportunity to have a reduced park <br /> <br /> <br />