Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks annexation for 496-unit project; city staff detail required public improvements and funding responsibilities
Summary
City staff reviewed an annexation and development agreement for land along County Highway M that proposes 496 multifamily units and roughly 99,267 square feet of commercial space and summarized developer obligations for public improvements, timelines and cost shares for traffic signals.
City staff told the Verona City Council they are reviewing an annexation and development agreement that would allow construction of 496 multifamily units and about 99,267 square feet of commercial space along County Highway M.
The city staff member presenting the item said the annexation agreement, which the presenter said the common council previously approved in part on Feb. 13, 2023, requires the developer to complete public sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, streets, sidewalks, stormwater management and other public improvements within 18 months of executing the agreement.
The staff member said the developer — identified in the presentation as Cascade Development — would also be required to construct traffic signals and related geometric improvements at Morningside Boulevard and County Highway M and to pay 27.8% of the soft costs and construction costs for the traffic signal work, subject to a later final cost adjustment. The presentation said the developer must provide a letter of credit to secure performance and a maintenance agreement.
The staff member outlined additional developer responsibilities noted in the agreement: payment of municipal fees, MMSD fees, water-impact and sanitation connection fees, and other permit and allocation fees.
Why it matters: If the annexation and development proceed as described in the city’s packet, the project would add a large number of housing units and commercial space and place the near-term responsibility for key public improvements and a share of traffic-signal costs on the developer rather than the city.
Council discussion focused on the scope of public improvements, cost-sharing percentages and timing for completing required work. City staff described the requirements as part of the annexation agreement and noted the developer’s contractual obligations to the city for performance security and completion timelines.
No formal motion or council vote on final annexation approval appeared in the reviewed transcript excerpt; the presentation described the agreement terms and the city obligations and developer responsibilities noted above.
