Agenda - Council - 04/25/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RESPONSE TO ITEMS ~IN CASE # 3 By: Ben Deemer, Planning Commissioner Ilem 1. : I don't understand wherff the figures, 16,000 and 100 came from. I don't see either as realistic or relevant to the issue. A person on Ij. orse back may travel several miles fudher than a person out for a casual stroll, Therefore, the horse trail should be farlher. See how you can bend the issue wilh slafislics and numbers. Item 2. The statement, "Trail coffidors protect and reduce these sensitive areas from the impacts of development." Not only is it poor gramrriar bul il can be made into two sentences, and nol change lhe meaning as slated. E.I. "Trail corridors prole,~l these sensitive areas from the impacts of development." And, "Trail corridors reduce these sensitive ai'eas from the impacts of developmenl." The first pad, how cae the intrusion of 16,000 potential walkers, (these are your figures) with the ensuing noise and lifter that they ~reate, protect a sensitive area? The second pad. I happen to agree with, it will reduce these sensitive areas! The statement "Sunfish L~ake remains a recreational focus of the community and the City should maintain public access to the lake!in one or more locations." There are also two issues here. The first. I was not a~vare of any Recreational focus on this lake by the City of Ramsey until this plan modification was brough~ forward. This is now a PRIVATE LAKE. The second. There ie. no PUBLIC ACCESS to this lake currently, so maintaining any is not relevant. Gaining an access m~ghlCbe. Even the alignmenl of lhe proposed Sunwood Drive will not create a public access. I can make lhis i~latement because I have seen the proposed alignment. You are buying the right-of -way from me. The developers who are ,~he current owners, (Tom and Pat Kurak, Grace Kalstead, and Ben Deemer) have told the city that they do eot want a trail in the front yards of the homes on Sunfish Lake. Lakeshore propedy is considered to!front on the lake, I think that's where the term "lakeshore frontage" comes from. It also pays higher taxes a.~d has a higher market value. Putting a trail here will greatly reduce the "Cities Tax Base", as I will certainly ~equest a reduction for not having Lakeshore Frontage. Item 3. ~ Staffs position is a whimS-out. Council should make a decision about the bridge alignment one way or the other, such as a past CoUncil did, and then let the Citizens remind you at re-election time. You should have made the decision last AOgust, but a Councilman wanted to be Mayor and denied statements he made. Item 4 The suggestion: That wording suggesting that Andover would have an equal say, or padicipation in the Bridge location was mad~ at least two limes prior to July 7, 1994, but never included in the documents. Are they finally hearing? Item 5 I don't believe the CITY Should spend money studying something so obvious, we should probably spend the money sueing the Sf¢te Highway Depadment, for their inaction on this based on the safety issue. I'll bet that would get somebody~s attention. FURTHER: ~ These cases are always ~roughl to the Council as "Staff recommends". I have never been able to figure out who staff was, as there at'e 1o many people to share the glory. In conversations with the City Administrator recently, it was mentione~ that he didn't have a position. Well his name is on the top of Your case #3 document, so He must be the "STAFF" in this case, and it sure looks like a position to me.