Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 10/12/1989

Home

Case #2: Issue Of Outiot B; Countryside Estates Addition: Mr. Goodrich recalled that over thc years a lot of confusion regarding Outlm B, Countryside Estates, resulted in that park lot being declared builfablc, sold and developed on. The title company, developer, Anoka Count), and Ramsey share in the responsibility for this error and the City v`,ill attempt to collect damages for property lost. The citizens in Countryside Estates are interested in having thc park lot replaced. City Staff has bccn researching replacement property and one option is a lot in Windsorwoods which will be due for tax forfeit in October of 1989. A second option is a 3.5 acre site owned by Sundberg and he is asking $10,000/acre. Mr. Goodrich summarized the City's options: }-lold off on thc parcel in Windsorwoods until October; b) Make an offer on the parcel Windsorwoods nov,'; c) Make an offer on the Sundberg property. Mr. Fults noted that if the lot in Windsorwoods is buildable, the owner will surely find a way to pa,',, the $1500 in back taxes before the October deadline. The general consensus was City Staff should make an offer for the lot in Windsorwoods; Councilmember DeLuca suggested that the useability of the lot in Windsorwoods be compared to the lot ov,,ned by l,&. Otto Sundberg prior to making any offers. Case #I: Comprehensive Park Dedication Agreement For Entire Northfork P.U.D.: Mr. Goodrich referredto the Development A~eement for Northfork 2nd Addition which included Exhibit F to address park dedication requirements for the entire Nonhfork P.U.D. Exhibit F states that park dedication for Northfork 1 will be a cash payment; park dedication for Northfork 2nd will be 35 acres of land comprised of 2,4 acres of park area and 10 acres of mails with a vehicle access from the cul-de-sac; park dedication ,,,,,est of Andrie would be a one acre play lot and the remainder in cash; park dedication south of 153rd was not really addressed because development plans were not lmown at the time. Peck noted that this meeting is a result of the Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns with the proposal for trail corr/dors reviewed at the time of Northfork 3rd Addition sketch plan. Commissioner Hendriksen stated that the Park Dedication A~eement entered into with Northfork 2nd Addition final plat approval differs substantially from what was presented to the Planning and Zoning and Park and Recreation Commissions. Commissioner HencMksen inquired if the modifications to the park deddcation ag'reement were inititated by CiD, Council. Mr. Peck proceeded to read excerpts from City Council meeting minutes regarding park dedication discussions for Northfork. Mr. Peck stated that it seems the City lacks commuication between it's groups and it has resulted in a Northfork Park Dedication Agreement that is materially different from what was proposed and discussed at commission meetings. Commissioner Shumway noted that the present n-ail proposal in Northfork is designed as a CiD, Council/Planning & Zoning/Park & Recreation/Econon'zic Development Page 2 of 4/March 2, 1989