Agenda - Council - 04/22/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

16960 Nutria Street NW Ramsey, MN 55303 April 1, 2003 Ramsey City Council 15050 Armstrong Boulevard Ramsey, MN 55303 Dear Council Members: I'm writing this letter today to express my strong dissatisfaction with a proposal to acquire a 60 foot section of my wife's and my property at the above address. Current Proposal: It is my understanding from the. Community Development Director that the City Engineer has proposed that a road be brought through the South end of our property as a part of a development planned by Monarch Homes on the land that is West of our property. The stated purpose of this proposed road is to provide for more safety for the homes and residents of Autumn Meadows Addition. The reason given was that it is more desirable to have two means of access to a community so that in the event one access point is blocked, the other access can be used. Our Proposal: As a proposed solution to this matter, I have suggested that an emergency access only road be created. This solution is apparently common and acceptable in other communities. In the new Tiger Addition, the developer is proposing to extend Rabbit Street through the development to a point nearing our land. Instead of acquiring our land to extend Tiger Street to Nutria Street, we are proposing that a ten foot wide access road extend from the end of Rabbit Street Southeast across the edge of Autumn Meadows Park and then connect with Nutria Street. This would bring the access road dght by the intersection of 168th Avenue and Nutria Street. This access road would also serve as a bike path to allow the residents of the newly created Tiger Addition to have access to the park area. It would avoid traffic that would otherwise flow from one addition to the other as a result of an actual street being created, thereby ensuring greater safety for the children using the park. It should also be noted that this solution would be much cheaper. The City would not need to acquire our land and the cost of road construction would be substantially less. Finally, our proposed solution would be aesthetically more pleasing. I have presented this solution to the Community Development Director, but the Fire Chief/Public Works Director has rejected it. The stated reason was, "he is not receptive to what you suggest because it is basically an 'emergency access only'." His objection was apparently that it would be precedent setting. Unfortunately, that is not a good reason to deny this solution. If the Fire Chief/Public Works Director can factually support that this solution is a bad one, then there is something to discuss. The fact that it sets a precedent does not make it bad. Precedents can be clearly defined so that they' have guidelines for when they come into effect. In this case, we are talking about taking away land from a homeowner, namely my wife and me. The new road would also impose on an already existing community. These are two dear guidelines right there. If this involved only the new development, then the precedent would not apply and the City could require that a developer provide the desired road. If this involved an older -251-