Laserfiche WebLink
Case 4/2: Issue Of Outiot B; Countryside Estates Addition: <br /> <br />M.r. Goodrich recalled that over the 3, ears a lot of confusion regarding Outlot B, <br />Countryside Estates, resulted in that park lot being declared buildable, sold and developed <br />on. The title company, developer, Anoka County and Ramsey share in the responsibilily <br />for this error and the City will attempt to collect damages for property lost. The citizens in <br />Countryside Estates are interested in having the park lot replaced. Cit.,,' Staff has been <br />researching replacement property and one option is a lot in Windsom'oods which will be <br />due for tax forfeit in October of 1989. A second option is a 3.5 acre site owned by Otto <br />Sundberg and he is asking $10,000/acre. Mr. Goodrich sun'~marized the City's options: a) <br />Hold off on the parcel in Windsorv,,oods until Octo~r; b) Make an offer on the p:trccl in <br />Windsom'oods nov,'; c) M',~ce an offer on the Sundberg property. <br /> <br />Mr. Fults noted that if the lot in Windso,w,,oods is buildable, the owner will surely find a <br />way to pay the $1500 in back taxes before the October deadline. <br /> <br />The general consensus was City Staff should make an offer for the lot in \Vindsorwoc~ds; <br />Councilmember DeLuca suggested that the useability of the lot in Windsorv,'ooc!s bc <br />compared to the lot owned by Mr. Otto Sundberg prior to making any offers. <br /> <br />Case #l: Comprehensive Park Dedication Agreement For Entire <br /> Northfork P.U.D.: <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich referredto the Development A~eement for Northfork 2nd Addition v,'hich <br />included Exhibit F to address park dedication requirements for the entire Northfork P.U.D. <br />Exhibit F states that park dedication for Northfork 1 will be a cash payment; park <br />dedication for Northfork 2nd will be 35 acres of land comprised of 24 acres of t~ark area <br />and 10 acres of wails with a vehicle access from the cul-de-sac; park dedication west of <br />Andrie would be a one acre play lot and the remainder in cash; park dedication south of <br />153rd was not really addressed because development plans were not 'known at the time. <br /> <br />ik.k. Peck noted that this meeting is a result of the Planning and Zoning Commission's <br />concerns with the proposal for trail corridors reviewed at the time of Northfork 3rd <br />Addition sketch plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hendriksen stated that the Park Dedication A~eement entered into with <br />Northfork 2nd Addition f'mal plat approval differs substantially from what was presented to <br />the Planning and Zoning and Park and Recreation Commissions. Commissioner <br />HencLdksen inquired if the modifications to the park deal/carton a~eement were iniritated by <br />CiD' Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Peck proceeded to read excerpts from City Council meeting minutes regarding park <br />dedication discussions for Northfork. Mr. Peck stated that it seems the City lacks <br />commuication between it's ~oups and it has resulted in a Northfork Park Dedication <br />Agreement that is materially different from what was proposed and discussed at <br />con~,'rfission meetings. <br /> <br />Commissioner Shumway not~ that the present ~-~fit proposal in No,w. hfork is desired as a <br /> <br />Ci~, Counc~2/Plarming & Zonin~Park & Recreation/Economic Development <br /> Page 2 of 4/March 2, 1989 <br /> <br /> <br />