My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 10/19/2021
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Public Works Committee
>
2021
>
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 10/19/2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 11:35:01 AM
Creation date
5/23/2024 10:46:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
10/19/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
224
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
Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that MnDOT is not going to allow two access points <br /> that close together and if that cul-de-sac is not provided,the $1,250,000 grant will not be provided <br /> from MnDQT. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove asked if the road could be stubbed rather than a cul-de-sac. <br /> City Engineer Westby commented that a shared driveway or something of that nature could be <br /> considered but that comes with other issues. <br /> Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that a second connection to Bowers Drive was already <br /> foregone and therefore he would find it hard to believe that public works and public safety would <br /> agree to less than a cul-de-sac. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff asked the density for the County parcel. <br /> Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that currently the parcel is zoned R-2, medium density <br /> residential. He stated that part of this exercise would be to determine the highest and best use of <br /> the parcel adjacent to the solar farm. <br /> Chairperson Riley stated that it appears that everyone agrees to the one third split for the <br /> framework as presented and reviewed some of the other assumptions. He stated that it appears the <br /> consensus is to continue to look for outside funds for tree preservation purchase. He stated that <br /> underwriting is often done for the EDA but was unsure if that was typically done for public works. <br /> Deputy City Administrator Gladhill confirmed that it would be at the discretion of the City as to <br /> whether to require that underwriting. He stated that the underwriting does not have to be done and <br /> was provided as a tool. <br /> Chairperson Riley stated that two uses of funds were identified that could remove the underwriting <br /> recommendation. <br /> Mr. Bakritges stated that the mention of underwriting is new. He stated that the dollars for the <br /> approved framework and this framework are essentially the same and therefore he does not see a <br /> need for underwriting. He stated that the County parcel was not part of the framework before and <br /> now it is, and they agree that if funds are received the City can use them in that way. He stated <br /> that they do not see any additional enrichment of dollars to the developer which would Justify <br /> underwriting. <br /> Mr. Bona stated that Capstone would never open their books for private development. He stated <br /> that the seven acres of tree preservation is something the City asked them to do. He stated that <br /> Riverdale is a collector road and traditionally both the City and developers contribute. He stated <br /> that they are not asking for public assistance that would justify underwriting. <br /> Chairperson Riley stated that underwriting is typically done for the EDA and it would essentially <br /> be the same idea but recognized that it is not typically done. <br /> Public Works Committee 1 January 19,2021 <br /> Page 6 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.