04/09/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #4: '. Determine Park Dedication for Ramsey Meadows; and Case #5: i! D~termine Park Dedication for Fleischer's 2nd Addition; Case of ~ J~ick Menkveld, North Suburban Development Company Mr. Jack MpnlcC~eld stated he is the developer of Fleischcr's 2nd Addition and his father, Mr. Gilbert Me ~.eld, is the developer of Ramsey Meadows.. With regard to Ramsey Meadows, he is proposing t~, do~ate cash for park dedication in lieu of land for the 31 lot development. With regard to Fl~sch~r's 2nd Addition, he is proposing that it be develoPed into 87 lots and an outlot be deeded td the l~ord of Life Church for additional street frontage on to Nowthen Boulevard N.W. This proposhl h~ a collector street tieing it into the property across the street. Mr. Menkveld described a ~_ark area in which a tot lot could be developed with two plats providing access to the school yard ~f°r toe older children to play. He added he would provide additional cash to make up the differen~ in dedication in the area being provided for park development. The Park an~ ReCreation Commission discussed the amount of land Mr. Menkveld was interested in dedicatin~ for it park and felt that it was not sufficient. The Commission also expressed concern about the ar~'ountir~f wetlands within the developments as it detracts from the resident's yard space, further adding to the need for a full-sized neighborhood park. A suggest~og~wa~ made that ~f the developer would consider developing a ball field, possibly the size of the p~k ~ould not be so critical. Another suggestion was that the developer could maybe collaboratei with Lord of Life Church with regard to fields and parks or a joint agreement/d~velo~ment between the City and the church. It was decid~t that Mr. Menkveld, City Administrator Schroeder, and Parks/Utilities Coordinator Boos would,Ce{with Pastor Anderson of Lord of Life Church to discuss their (the church) plans and the ability.of ~he church and the City engaging in a long-term joint development with regard to playground/~all fields. The Park a~d Re_~ereation Commission requested another meeting to discuss other options Mr. Menkveld rr~,~ght Orome up with regarding park dedication. Mr. Menkvd~d suggested the Park and Recreation Commission review for park dedication in the sketch plan gtage Of a development. Case #3: Dqtermine Park Dedication for Mississippi Heights; Case of Mr. Winslow Holasek and Ms. Lora Hamilton Parks/Utiliti{s Cobrdinator Boos explained that Mississippi Heights is an urban subdivision served by City sew{r anti water. He stated that park dedication should be satisfied with cash because of the existing .flu:ee :~eet of road right-of-way dedicated for trail along Riverdale Drive. He added that the Mississil~pi River is a resource that all residents should have access to, and an easement for purposes of~)iewt.ng the river should be given consideration. This easement or corridor may be viewed as n~gati'~ ely impacting two of the river lots; however, this should be more than made up for by way ~,fa river access to the majority of Mississippi Heights lots that would not have an opportunity ro evdn see the river but for an observation area. Discussion e%ued~ regarding how fair market value is derived at for lots given for park dedication. Assessments for ~ark developments were also discussed. Mr. Boos st~ should be co any recreatie ted that the Commission had determined that park assessments of $200.00 per lot t~sid~ed for each new subdivision and particularly when that subdivision didn't offer ml c~mponents. ~ Park & Recreation Commission/April 9, 1992 Page 3 of 5