My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Parks and Recreation Commission - 09/11/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2003
>
Minutes - Parks and Recreation Commission - 09/11/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 11:12:38 AM
Creation date
11/6/2003 1:56:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
09/11/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
$1,121,000. As for the commercial, the cash due (if there is no land credit) @ $2.00 per square <br />foot is $445,052 and the Trail Fee due would be ~ $100 per acre is $10,217. <br /> <br />Mr. Brian Olson explained they have been negotiating this agreement for months and the exhibit <br />they received was nothing more than a trail through the site and it is nothing they expected. They <br />have agreed to agree in the development agreement. They will take another run at it and see what <br />they come up with. They know there will be park dedication credit as part of the development. <br />They will see how the negotiations go tomorrow and they hope to see something relatively soon. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olds asked if they would end up doing a cash payout. <br /> <br />Mr. Olson indicated they need to take a stronger stance because a cash payout will not result in <br />what they want done. The developer t old him t hat h e w ill b e putting a 1 ot m ore i n t he p ark <br />development than what is on paper but they want to see a park plan and things change on a daily <br />basis. They need to see something before they made a final decision. <br /> <br />Chairperson Johns stated she thought they gave good priorities and something should be coming <br />out of that. <br /> <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Riverblood concurred with Chairperson Johns. He advised that they <br />needed to set up a meeting to assign numbers to the priorities and look at the numbers and <br />projects and scheduling of things. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olds noted that part of the problems with the Commission is they have ideas but <br />they do not have any idea what the cost will be. <br /> <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor R iverblood stated t hat collecting t he information for costs is staff's <br />job. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ostrum noted if the developer thinks they have stuff they want to put in there, the <br />Commissions priorities c an b e worked into that along with what the normal process is. The <br />developer needs to know the Commission is willing to work with him on this project. <br /> <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Riverblood asked Commissioner Ostrum if he was proposing a <br />meeting to prioritize what they want in the park. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ostrum indicated he was. <br /> <br />Chairperson Johns inquired if they needed to have another meeting sooner than later in order to <br />get the developer going on this. <br /> <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Riverblood advised that he thought they needed to do this but the <br />Commission needed to prioritize first on what fits there and what the costs will be. Not assign <br />priorities on the cost but on what is needed there. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ostrum explained he found it hard to believe that the developer would leave the <br />land vacant and that they will need to develop this. <br /> <br />Park and Recreation Commission/September 11, 2003 <br /> Page 3 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.