My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 06/11/1992
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
1992
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 06/11/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 11:20:06 AM
Creation date
2/26/2004 2:04:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
06/11/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
STRATEGY FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT <br />by: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator and <br />Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Coordinator <br /> <br />Case #2 <br /> <br />Background: <br />Earl,y in !9t 9 the City of Ramsey adopted Ordinance #89-17 amending the Subdivision <br />pornon o~' ti ~ City Code. This amendment resulted in Chapter 9, Section 9.50 entitled, <br />"park an~ ( :fen Space Dedication". This remains the existing criteria for determining <br />minimu~ p 'k dedication requirements. The Park and Recreation Commission intends to <br />review ~P~i iedication each year in order to assure that the dedication is meeting the <br />intcnde~i ~u )ose. The annual review will primarily deal with the cash or percentage rates <br />of park ~, :'ation in order to propose any modifications of rates to City Council for <br />considera~io~ )efore Council's annual rate determination resolution. <br /> <br />While th~. park dedication rates may need periodic revision in order to remain competitive <br />with infla~o~ and our peer communities, the purpose portion should be perennial. <br /> f ' <br />The funct~.on!~f this case is to examine park and open space dedication to determine if what <br />is contai~ ~Within it addresses the presumed needs of the City. City Staff is currently <br />rcviewitil~ t~6 subdivision requirements including park dedication. Staff poses thc <br />following!qu~ations to assist in examining the effectiveness of the subdivision ordinance: <br /> <br />When sh0uldlne~ghborhood parks be developed? <br /> <br /> A~ -Concurrent with subdivision development (Stage I) <br /> B ~ Through time as dollars somehow become otherwise available [read as <br /> i "probably not in our lifetime"] <br /> C ~ In some fixed priority fashion with the goal of development and then <br /> redevelopment of "X" number of parks/trails each year <br /> D. i i At such time as Rarnsey achieves a certain density <br /> E.~ I n one fell swoop with a bond issue if passed by the citizenry <br /> <br />If we cauSe~velopment of neighborhood parks as a Stage I improvement, <br /> <br />What is th~ <br /> A. <br /> <br /> D.i <br /> E. <br /> F. <br /> <br /> Do we use all of the subdivision dedication dollars to whatever extent <br /> iavailable from the subdivision? <br /> Do we levy extra assessments such as in Wood Pond Projects to whatever <br /> ,extent necessary beyond dedication fees to ensure complete development? <br /> ,,Do we limit development in a more Spartan-like fashion to ensure dedication <br /> ~fees are available for community park facilities? <br /> <br />~ority of various types of park development? <br /> <br /> Neighborhood in new subdivisions <br /> :Neighborhood in existing subdivisions <br /> ·ralls between neighborhood parks <br /> Trails to community parks from various types of land use <br /> Community parks <br /> Multi-jurisdictional [read county, school district or regional] parks <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.