Laserfiche WebLink
The following ~our ~stricts not in the request deserve notation: <br /> <br />1) Ford B: ook[District received 204 points. The district does have a recently procured tiny lot <br /> suitabh f~[tot lot development, but any expenditures in this area would benefit far fewer <br /> folksll ~m:~.1~93 dollar per capita ratio average. The critical issue here is the small amount <br /> of hon es ih the district. Ford Brook itself exacerbates the situation by bisecting the <br /> district Lln)ormnately, the younger families to the east in Green Valley Estates do not have <br /> any pm l~d.. However, there exists open space in close proximity to most homes in both <br /> of Ford tr0o. k District's subdivisions, Rodeo Hills and Green Valley Estates. <br /> [ <br /> <br /> When ~e agricultural land north of Green Valley Estates is developed, it will most likely <br /> link ~hg tw~ subdivisions (future intersection of 179th Lane N.W. and Sodium Street <br /> N,W.} ~lV~g the pedestrian park accessibility problem. <br /> <br />2&3) Both :l~.~tur~ View and the Oak Districts have virtually no park property for a 1993 C.I.P. <br /> request; <br /> <br />4) Greenl~d,, ,ttills District may receive passive recreational improvements as a result of any <br /> wetlan~ rm~gation necessary for the extension of 153rd Avenue N.W. <br /> <br /> <br />