7D, Planning Case 08-005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The City would typically require an eight foot wide pathway; however, the topography of the site would make it impossible to construct an eight foot wide pathway unless retaining walls are used. Not only would retaining walls add significant cost, they would become the City's responsibility to maintain and replace along with the sidewalk in the future. Therefore, upon review of the topographic data, the sidewalk width requirement has been reduced to six feet. The final construction plans are still subject to Staff approval. Although the City would own and maintain the integrity of the pathway, CMK or subsequent property owners would be responsible for snow and ice removal. The preliminary development agreement includes a provision that if environmental contamination is found in the City right-of-way during sidewalk construction, the City and CMK would need to renegotiate that portion of the park dedication requirement (the on-site improvements would not be impacted). This provision was requested by CMK because soil contamination was present on their property, which has since been remediated. If soil contamination was found, remediation to continue construction could add significant cost to the project. Staff made a request to URS to review the construction records for Gateway Boulevard. According to the records, the land adjacent to Gateway Boulevard was graded in preparation for a future pathway, and there were no indication of contamination in the pathway location. The estimated cost of the pathway is $126,600 (this price includes grading and restoration), which has been reviewed by the City Engineer. Since construction may not start in 2008, the preliminary development agreement includes a provision that requires the pathway to be completed even if the cost increases above $126,600. Total Park Dedication Proposal Value The estimated value of all proposed improvements for the park dedication requirement is $280,000. The PTRC reviewed the proposal in April, and they are in support of the pathway along Gateway Boulevard. The PTRC does not have an objection to the private on-site improveme~ts. It is important that CMK sufficiently offset the park and recreational needs created by their development; however, based on the City's regulations, State Statutes, and comments from the City Attorney, Staff is agreeable with the CMK proposal. It is important to note that the City cannot deny the plat if there is not agreement on the park dedication proposal. If an agreement cannot be reached, the City can set the requirement with the plat approval, and CMK must deposit the value of the improvements into an escrow. CMK would then appeal the City's decision to district court. Preliminary Development A!!reement & An Additional Condition City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for July 14, 2008 \ \Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2008\08-005 Traverse Preliminary & Final Plat and Vacation (PC Approved) \071408 - CC Report - Traverse Plat. doc Page 4 of8