Laserfiche WebLink
Charles Johnson stated that his biggest concern is parks in each development. He suggested that <br />parks make a neighborhood not just a development. <br /> <br />Terry Hendriksen, 15631 Ramsey Boulevard NW, Ramsey - believed that the impression was <br />given earlier that this development would contribute to the tax base. He suggested that this <br />development would actually cost us tax dollars and will have to be subsidized with commercial <br />development. He added that residents came to the Council with solutions to take care of the <br />increased traffic from the proposed subdivision as they felt that 1,500 additional cars would be <br />unacceptable, and Council rejected their plan. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec responded that Council and staff have looked at the traffic situation, the lot sizes <br />have been changed as well as the number of lots, we are discussing parks, the lots adjacent to the <br />existing development are larger than the norm, etc. Council and staff are listening to the <br />residents. It is not possible to do everything we are asked and sometimes things have to be <br />negotiated. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated he is not suggesting a density change or lot change. <br />everything could stay the same with the removal of one section of road. <br />Halls Dover from having to endure 1,500 additional cars a day. <br /> <br />He is pointing out <br />That would remove <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding putting a chain across 157th between Hall's Dover and Apple <br />Ridge. It would still be a road but the only vehicles allowed on it would be emergency vehicles. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec reiterated he would like to see a tot lot in that subdivision. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder pointed out that the current Council policy is to provide the park experience <br />within each of the City's 17 park districts. We do not build parks in every subdivision but we do <br />identify where they will be within that neighborhood and we attempt to identify a safe access for <br />people buying homes in that subdivision. The next case on your agenda is to talk about parks <br />and we note there are not any parklands but for some wetland area within this district. The Park <br />and Recreation Commission has looked at this at two meetings and whether or not this <br />subdivision should have a neighborhood park or whether a larger park should be purchased <br />within this district in accordance with the Capital Improvements Park Plan. There are 83 acres <br />within walking distance of this subdivision. We have negotiated a purchase agreement for that <br />park and it is more costly than the park dedication that would be received from Apple Ridge but <br />we represented to Council in the case that we have sufficient funds to provide for that purchase. <br />The Park Commission recommends purchasing that 83 acres as opposed to a five-acre <br />neighborhood park within that subdivision and it was noted to the Park Commission that the <br />owner of that five acres felt the value of that five acres was sufficient that he would grant five <br />acres in lieu of$111,000 park dedication payment. The Park Commission feels that the 83 acres <br />is best for the long term park needs in the area. They did not see doing both as an option. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that there is no smaller tot lot in this area and he would like to see a 2.5 acre <br />tot lot developed. <br /> <br />City Council/June 24, 1997 <br />Page 10 of 17 <br /> <br /> <br />