My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 10/03/2013
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2013
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 10/03/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 3:33:39 PM
Creation date
11/8/2013 9:03:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
10/03/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
Tim Gladhill <br />From: Joseph Neufeld <josephneufeld@comcast.net> <br />Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 11:49 AM <br />To: Tim Gladhill <br />Subject: Brookfield Development <br />Hello, <br />I am a resident in the Brookfield development, and built here in early 2008. Obviously, a lot of things have happened <br />since then, the housing collapse and following recession. These all impacted what was suppose to be a very nice <br />development with an association maintaining common areas, including a "lake," playground/park, planting beds near <br />the front entrance and the grass along county 5. The association fell on hard times with not enough residents to pay <br />dues. My understanding is that the while the association has been inactive, it still exists under the law. There is <br />encouragement that the HOA can get going again. I further understand that Capstone homes is planning to build 70+ <br />homes in the 4th addition, and does not want this to be part of the association, and wants to use part of the pond/"lake" <br />for required holding pond. The current additions are being built up now that things are improving. I feel that the fourth <br />addition should be part of our HOA, and that with this addition, the HOA may finally be able to provide the <br />playground/park and other things that were planned, but never happened. It certainly does not make sense for a <br />development to be divided, half on an HOA and half not, because the entire neighborhood will, no doubt, use or enjoy <br />the common areas maintained by the HOA. It would be unfair for only part of the residents to have paid for these <br />things. I strongly encourage the city to require Capstone's development in our neighborhood be under the <br />neighborhood HOA, or at least have an HOA of it's own, that perhaps the rest of the neighborhood could join. The city <br />also has an interest in the HOA being successful, as the HOA will maintain areas along County 5, and keep things looking <br />good. I think it will also benefit Capstone, especially if the HOA can get the playground/park in place, as this would <br />attract buyers, most people moving/building here now have small children. <br />Thank you for your time. <br />Joseph Neufeld <br />7224 167 Terrace <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.