Agenda - Council - 03/11/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Commissioner Droegemueller referred to the land situated around City Hall and inquired about the development possibility of this land for a community park versus purchase of other land. Mr. Boos responded that currently there are no parks in the Northeast quadrant of the City. Location of the fifth community park would need to address even distribution of community parks throughout the City. Mr. Peterson provided a brief overview of the proposed subdivision. There will be a maximum density of three houses per acre of land. Apple Ridge has 36 fewer units than what is allowed. Differences of land value located in the MUSA compared to those located outside were reviewed. Mr. Peterson added a substantially larger amount of land could be purchased outside the MUSA (i.e. 60-80 acres) compared to an approximated six acres within the MUSA. Additional observations stated by Mr. Peterson were as follows: 1) It is his personal belief that parks are not generally accessible to all people. 2) Developers of Apple Ridge would prefer to develop the land versus acreage being given to the City in lieu of park dedication monies. 3) A park located within the subdivision with lighted ballfields would not be appropriate for the subdivision. 4) A small tot-lot type park poses a problem with his infrastructure accommodations and would most likely increase development costs. 5) There is concern that land intended for a park within the subdivision would remain undeveloped for some time given Commission money restraints. (Mr. Peterson acknowledged Emerald Pond Park was a well done neighborhood park.) Additional issues Mr. Peterson addressed included the prospect of 158t~ Lane NW becoming a straight speed way. Instead, developers would like to encourage traffic to move towards T.H.//47 versus/t5. Visual perceptions have been considered given that the subdivision would back up to a rural development; lots are being developed accordingly. Two key points Mr. Boos highlighted in defense of a revised subdivision layout included land valuation (highest and best use of the land being considered) and sewer and water issues (road and infrastructure development). In response to Chair Cook and Commission Ostrum, Mr. Peterson clarified potential access roads to and from the subdivision. At the current time, there are two planned access intersections to be located at 156~ and 160~'. It was noted these may be closed as other access roads become available. Two potential access roads could include a 45-foot strip which would serve as a frontage road along T.H./t47, and a road which could be developed if land acquisition was successful from a private party whose land borders the subdivision. Mr. Peterson will be presenting the City Council with a sketch plan on February 25, I997, for approval. Chair Cook inquired about a future trail system near the subdivision and corresponding easements as well as park dedication monies. Mr. Boos expressed a belief/expectation there most likely would be a trail on both sides of T.H.//47 (at least in the urban area of T.H. #47). He confirmed land for easement purposes would need to be included in the park dedication process. Mr. Peterson noted existence of a trail on the west side of T.H./~47 would be very difficult given wet land issues. He referred Commission members to a private road (southerly located) which is not currently owned by the City, but could be offered for consideration. Mr. Peterson noted that if a community park was located to the north of Apple Ridge, a trail connection could be made to 159th Park and Recreation Commission/February 13, 1997 Page $ of 7