|
Case #2: Issue Of Outiot B; Countryside Estates Addition:
<br />
<br />Mr. Goodrich recalled that over the years a lot of confusion regarding Outlot B,
<br />Coun~'sid¢ Estates, resulted in that park lot being declared buildable, sold and developed
<br />on. The title company, developer, Anoka Count>' and Ramsey share in the responsibility
<br />for this error and the City will attempt to collect damages for properly lost. The citizens in
<br />Count:ryside Estates are interested in having the park lot replaced. City Staff has been
<br />researching replacement property and one option is a lot in Windsorwoods 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 summarized the City's options: a)
<br />Hold off on the parcel in Windsom, oods until Octo~r; b) Ix'lake an offer on the parcel in
<br />Windsom,oods nov,'; c) ]','lake an offer on the Sund~rg properly.
<br />
<br />/,,'Ir. Fults noted that if the lot in Windsorwoods is buildable, thu owner will sure]>' find a
<br />way to pay the $1500 in back taxes before the October deadline.
<br />
<br />The general consensus ,,,,'as City Staff should make an offer for the 1o~ in \Vindsom'oods;
<br />Councilmember DeLuca suggested that the useability of the lot in Windsorwoods be
<br />compared to the lot owned by Mr. Otto Sundberg prior to making any offers.
<br />
<br />Case #1: Comprehensive Park Dedication Agreement For Entire
<br /> Northfork P.U.D.:
<br />
<br />Mr. Goo&ich referredto the Development A~eement for Nonhfork 2nd Addition which
<br />included Exhibit F to address park dedication requirements for the entire No,~hfork P.U.D.
<br />Exhibit F states that park dedication for Northfork 1 ,,,,'ill bsa cash pr:yment; park
<br />dedication for Northfork 2nd ',,,'ill be 35 acres of land comp:-ised of 24 acres of park area
<br />and 10 acres of trails with a vehicle access from the cul-de-sac; park dedication wes?. of
<br />Andrie would be a one acre play lot and the remainder in cash; pm-k dedication south of
<br />153rd was not really addressed because development plans were not kmown at the time.
<br />
<br />Mr. Peck noted that this meeting is a result of the Planning and Zoning Commission's
<br />conce:'ns with the proposal for trail corridors reviewed at the time of Northfork 3rd
<br />Addition sketch plan.
<br />
<br />Com,'rfissioner Hen~4ksen stated that the Park Dedication A~eement entered into with
<br />No:-thfork 2nd Addition final plat approval differs substanfi~!y from what was presented to
<br />the Planning and Zoning and Pazk and Recreation Commissions. Commissioner
<br />Hen~'ikser. inquired if the modk'ications to the park deAicafion a~eement were ~nifitate~ by
<br />CiD' Council.
<br />
<br />.hit. Peck procee..d~ to read excerpts from Cit,,' Council m~o'i*,~'~.,.~. manures re~ardin~ ~ ¢~k.
<br />de,ica:ion ~iscussions for Noxhfork. Mr. ~e:k stated that it seems tie City lacks
<br />co..,.,,~,o~ ~,~ ~,, it's ~ra,,~ and ~t has result~ in a No,~,,~o.k' -~r .. Park D~,~,on
<br />A ....m~n. that is ,~ '
<br /> ma ....all,. different from what was proposed and discussed ~,
<br />
<br />Com.m.issioner Shumv,'ay noted that the. r~resent ~--'eJ.1 proposal in Northfork is a,.s..=,.,..,; ''~ ~,'~,"": as a
<br />
<br />Ci~' Council...'?lann[n.~ & Zonin ~ark & R~"r~fi.~ n,.....con,.x'nic D,.', ,.lop
<br /> Pa~,e '~ of 4/'Mar'ch 2, 1989
<br />
<br />
<br />
|