07/14/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Background~ EMERALD POND PARK DEVELOPMENT By: Ryan R. Schroeder, City Administrator CASE # [ As Council ia i .wax4e, as part of the Windemere Woods, Chestnut Ponds, Chestnut Hills and Cedar Hills projects, an i8.17 acre park was dedicated to the City. Within the feasibility studies, development gre~ements and park dedication letter agreement between developers, it is contemplated that [there will be land dedication, cash dedication and an additional assessment against 266 lols. '~ Additional to ~e a~ove is the Wood Pond Hills subdivision. A park trail, within this development, will be consli ~cted during Stage I. There will not be any additional park development with the developer d~l leafing approximately $600 per lot for the 103 lots in future phases [first phase dedicated the !nd].i The parks of ~unters Hill, Ramsey Terrace, Flintwood Hills and now "Emerald Pond" [as yet formally unn~edr~ are contained within the "district", bounded by County Roads gl 16, #57 and #5. The-Ram~y 'B.!ementary School and possibly future park space along Sunfish Lake are also within the di~ct, !Under the district concept of park development, currently under review at the the preponderance dollars received from within a district Park and Rec~fi,0.~ Commission, of park wi~in should be span~ the district on neighborhood parks and trails connecting parks. Wood Pond Hills is being t[evelpped with this in mind with construction of a trail that will eventually connect with the Ram.q~y EI~ementary School and Ramsey Terrace Park. Therefore, the general concept of park districti~ w0~uld result in funds from the new subdivisions spent in the City parks in the district and interconnecting trails. Further, however, in that the developers of Windemere Woods, Cedar Hills a~td Ghestnut Hills have agreed to an additional assessment, we must ensure herald Pond" as a first priority within the district. The end result, however, ge of park facilities available to district households within a short distance; flopment of various parks in different manners within any given district. lng Council consensus on development within the above named district. The development,~ "Et should be a fll~l ra~ hence, possibl~de4Vi Staff is recommend reasons are aa .~11o~ r We will[, be 'l~vying assessments against Phase I of the Windemere Woods, Cedar Hills and ChesmCt HiJtls subdivisions soon and should have firm development costs prior to doing SO. 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Our tm~k re~ord of park development is not as positive as one would hope. BecausO th~8 ts a TIF project, we are advantaged by asstsung ttmely build out of the lots. An exis~ng ~ark [particularly given #2 above] will assist this effort. The P~k an~ Recreation Commission has taken a position that new subdivisions should receive heig,hborhood parks as Stage I improvements. The d¢¢elop~rs have invested in a project which contemplates municipal performance in the area of gark development. Betwee0 th~ ex, sung subdiws~ons and new subdivisions in this district, there will be a greater !~ert[cre density than anywhere else in Ramsey and, therefore, the need of park deVelopl nen~is greater.