CC 07-30-1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Village Council Minutes -9- July 30, 1973 Herrick stated that the Ramsey County Open Space Program Is behind schedule, but he said he was not aware that Ramsey County w~s wait- ing for Arden Hills' action on the ~Stonegaten development before proceeding with the acquisition of land: Arden Hills has already accepted the turn-over to "open space". Herrick stated that he is concerned about the Arden Hills natural ~Iklng trail, which will be apparently obliterated. . Answer - This easement can be re-Iocated, at the request of the property owner, given six month's notice. Gustafson said they propose to relocate the trail along a portion of Stonegate Drive and to construct an asphalt path from there to the Perry Park area. Herrick said that he would like to verity with the Parks and Recreation Committee, that they had agreed to the elimination of the recreation building when agreeing to the 3.4 acres of land plus $55,000 for park dedication. Answer - Gustafson said he had felt that an agreement had been reached. Olmen veri fled thai' the developer proposes to dedicate the collector street, "Stone gate Drive~, loop and CUl-de-sac serving the slngle- family lots; all private roads to be maintained by the Home Owners Assoc!aiion, as well as the ponds. Olmen asked about the 10% slope of the sewer easement road. Answer - Gustafson said that they are not proposing a grade change, Just improving the access by black- topping the existing road. Crichton stated that he desires to see a good development on the site, but feels his vote must be negative unless certain points can be recti fled: I. Development includes land which is saleable to Ramsey County. 2. Density i~ gr.at~~ than permitted by ordinance. 3. Length of units exceed 150' m~xlmum length permitted by ordinance. 4. Private roads, as proposed, are heavy In traffic expecta- tions; therefore, should be dedicated. Herrick stated he would like suhstantlal evidence of the valuation of the property: this Information, todate, has not been available fro~ Pamsey County. . Hollenhorst stated that significant changes in the Planning Commission and Council memberships since the original Partridge proposal was given concept approval, and the opinions have changed regarding develop- ment of this site. He said, In his opinion, the present proposal does not meet the quality of development proposed by Mr. Partridge and suggested that the matter be returned to the Planning Commission for a firm vote, asking that the developer resolve the points outlined by that date (Aupust 7, 1973). After.conslderable discussion regarding the points outlined, the developer saId they would exclude the ~penlnsula" of construction which involver, the Ramsey County Open Space boundary; he feels most of the problems can be resolved, but it Is not feasible to reduce the dens.i ty be even 5%, nor ca~ he conce I ve how the deve lopment can be considered "sho~dy". Mr. Gustafson said that the Village Planner had led them to believe that the 14,000 square feet of lot ~rea/unit, provided for in the Zoning Ordinance, did not apply to Planned Unit Developments. -9-