Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Subd. 2. Alternative. ... the City Council may authorize the execution of a <br />contract between the City and the subdivider requiring the subdivider to <br />furnish and to construct the improvements at the sole cost of the <br />subdivider, in accordance with plans and specifications and usual contract <br />conditions approved by the Council, which shall include provision for <br />supervision of details of construction by the city engineer, and grant to the <br />engineer authority to correlate the work to be done under the contract with <br />other improvements in the subdivision which may be constructed by the <br />City under contract with others. The subdivider as contractor shall furnish <br />a surety bond with penalty equal to 1.25 times the cost of the <br />improvements to be made under the contract as estimated by the city <br />engineer, which bond will be in form required by statute for public <br />contractors bonds and will identify the improvements and the time <br />schedule for their completion. <br /> <br /> <br />The developer will be taking on the responsibility of installing all road, utility, <br />and drainage/stormwater work. As noted, the City Attorney is working with the <br />developer to draft a developer agreement, which will outline the technical <br />requirements. The agreement is subject to City Council approval. <br /> <br />3. Rice Creek Watershed District. <br /> <br />The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is charged with reviewing and approving the <br />drainage plan. The review application was submitted on May 3,2007, to RCWD. Since the <br />City's and RCWD's review period overlap, it is not uncommon for applications to obtain <br />RCWD after the City review process. Executing the final plat will be subject to RCWD <br />approval. If RCWD requires any changes to the layout of the lots in the subdivision, a <br />revised application would be brought back to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />4. Additional Plan Review <br /> <br />The City Attorney, the Building Official, the Fire Marshal, and the City Engineer have <br />reviewed the subdivision and variance proposal. The City Attorney did not have any <br />comments regarding the design ofthe proposal. <br /> <br />The Building Official did not have any comments impacting the overall design of the <br />proposal. He did note that the 33 foot wide pipeline easement shown on Lot 7 Block I may <br />have been vacated. If it has been vacated, it is unlikely that the vacated easement would <br />impact the design of the subdivision. <br /> <br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for June 6, 2007 <br /> <br />IlMetro-inet.uslardenhi//slPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007107-014 Hazelnut Subdivision 3 Preliminary Plat - Final Plat - Variance <br />(PENDING)\051807 - PC Report - Haze/nut Park 3 - Plat and Variance.doc <br />Page 9 of IS <br />