PRECM 03-03-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 3, 1981 park ;Board Minutes Page 3 ` • Hogan agreed with the others. He wouldn't care to have to 'enter there but it is an option. Johnson stated he was not excited abuut subdividing, the land.. Buildings could be put close. to the park.- Some portions of the buildings would be very visible. There is not much, room for buildings:. in a subdivision like that.- Olson commented that it•is an option but it is not really.. desirable. She feels Johnson's comment taas a good one. Solberg asked if the development abutted our side or Ramsey County's.. Anderson said both Ramsey County and New .Brighton property abuts the development. • •~ Johnson asked if it is"subdivided now, would you lose the possibility of PUD? 1~rcher said that the street is Crucial. If it serves•the City park, we would benefit. The adjacent property owners are. the only ones that benefit now. Until there is formal application, the property .owner doesn't have to make a decision. • Van Hatten said he would like to see access in the original develop- ment that the City could use if it had to: It definitely could be -done 'in a way that if the :City doen't need, it could be returned. ~underman asked if tae would save travel. within the dark by have more. than one entrance. Anderson said the less. entrances the better. If we: had one good one ~that''s ail we need. - Gunde`rma~ felt- there was some advantage to Y}aving an, access in .the winter.Would like to see. access. Feels~it•is~very critical unless we are going with Ramsey County. Van Hatten feels a turn-around is needed. It could. be right ne~ct to the property. All you need to do is open it up .. B. Lone Lake Park` Resolution Staff told the Park Board that it had been directed by the Council to prepare a resolution. on Long Lake for Metro Council's consideration.. Ramsey County bias not responded to th'e August 1980 resolution; they " have deferred action because they have a legislative proposal they, want to make for the •s even county area. However, the; proposal has nat yet been issued and chances`, that.i~ twill be in 1981 are slim. • Staff feels it will be late ..1982 before the,legisla,ture will even make a.decision. It is possible ~hat,.they may come. up with some ;~~,y sort`of tax to make rnoney`'available". `'Staff said the Council. has re- vewed the resolution-and the only change was that the last paragraph of the resolution be deleted because the Council felt it was too strong.