Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5.01:Recommend Park Dedication for Williams Woods (Project No. 20-138) <br /> <br />Parks & Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood stated that this is a small plat of nine <br />lots, but over a large area of land. He stated that a variance is requested for the long cul-de-sac <br />length because there is not opportunity to connect to another road because of the wetlands. He <br />provided details on the subject property, noting that this area had been included in a general search <br />area for a community park, but a low-density development of this area would not be a good fit for <br />a community park. He stated that staff recommends that Park Dedication and Trail fees be satisfied <br />in cash for this subdivision. <br /> <br />Chair Bennett agreed with the staff recommendation that it would not seem to make sense to place <br />a neighborhood park in this location and the property is outside of the core loop for trails. <br /> <br />Parks & Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood reviewed the recommended motion <br />language in that the cash amount be satisfied at the time of final plat, as the process sometimes <br />lags, and the park dedication and trail fees may differ at the time final plat eventually moves <br />forward. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Sis, seconded by Commissioner Barten, to recommend to City Council, <br />that Park Dedication and Trail Fees by satisfied in an amount calculated at the time of Final Platting <br />for Williams Woods. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Commissioner Walker stated that he is also a member of the Planning <br />Commission. He noted that there were lengthy discussions related to the cul-de-sac length and <br />advised that the road width may increase in order to satisfy the concerns of Public Safety. He <br />asked for clarification on the park dedication requirement. Parks & Assistant Public Works <br />Superintendent Riverblood explained that State statutes provide for certain development fees when <br />additional demand is placed on the community systems. He used the example of a 200-lot <br />apartment building and the impact that would have on City amenities, such as parks and facilities. <br />He explained that the existing residents should not be burdened with that additional demand and <br />therefore park dedication is charged to support the additional demand that would be placed on the <br />system. He stated that the maintenance of parks and trails is understood to be a part of the operating <br />costs of the City. He noted that similarly the City has other development fees such as stormwater, <br />street lighting, etc. Commissioner Walker referenced the number of parks in Ramsey noting that <br />there is one park for every 1,000 residents. He likened it to extorsion or blackmail, even though <br />there is State statute, as he was unsure why more parks are needed rather than maintaining the <br />existing infrastructure. Commissioner Sis stated that is part of the discussion for the next agenda <br />item. Chair Bennett stated that the policy of the City for the past ten years has been to avoid pocket <br />parks, as developers have previously followed the trend to install a pocket park in their <br />developments. He stated that the Commission has shifted away from that model to a model with <br />more regional parks that serve a broader purpose for the community. He stated that for larger <br />developments with 200 homes, it would still make sense to include a park within the development. <br />Commissioner Walker commented that he understands that intent but in the case of this <br />development these will be estate type homes that most likely will not be occupied by families and <br />therefore park dedication seems unfair. Parks & Assistant Public Works Superintendent <br />Riverblood stated that there needs to be equity in the application of City fees rather than placing <br />Park and Recreation Commission/June 10, 2021 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />