2003-01-06 P&R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

· To: City of Centerville From: Wayne LeBlanc Subject: Buckbee Property Development 12/19/02 A developer will try to maxilYijze profit for the short term. It is up to our city Council to represent the people and consider what is best for the community for the long term. A "miracle" in community feedback has occurred. Almost everyone around the development has been contacted and they have signed a statement stating they .. Do not want Twin Homes because they do not fit the character of the n~ighborhood I) Do want a park. No Twin Homes People in the cOill'l1unity seem most concerned about the Twin Homes and high-density development. It seems the City should have zoning ordinances that di~)tinguish better between single-family homes and T'vin Homes. Park :Need There are no parks in the northw'st part of the city. When the first development near my home went we were told there would be a perk. None ever appeared. Kids in our area tend to play on the street. Also, if a lane roads divides the city, it will be important to have more park resources to the r~)t~l of Main St as park resources areurrently concentratec; inihe south end of the city at Lamotte Park. There is a school in the center cfbe sity, it's not for toddlers and it is not 3s<:l11abJe during school hours. This school is not a complete substitute for a rIe. the yc:h of the city eni:Jbasizcd to the Minnf:sota Design that t~ ;rc was ,-,thing fer them to do in the city. \Vith no park in this Dart (;'tl,e city, youth and child!8n wouldn't even able to play an infcrrmaI game of footbnll or soccer or llastic ball. Circle Pines has 120 acres ill park, Ct:ntervi11e has about 30 acres. Circle Pines ha~) about 26 acres per thousard people, ar:J Ccnterville has a1;(;ut 10 acres per thou,:nd a.nd,wilh th.. trend, is headed for 6 acre'; per thousand. There's also sometbing to be:' d for pride in a local neighborhood community. At A.com Creek, neighbors gel toget;}cr,.nJ designed their park and many helped put it aU together. A similar opportunity for neighbors iI' ,he new development should be available, otherwise, neighborhoods tend to be sterile and the people isolated in their own private sp8.ce. In recent developments, money was taken instfad of land because parks and open space were not an issue. In The Shores, there will be a tm and Anoka COllt)' Park is next door. For Hunters Cnssing, Lamotte park W:J.S next door and there is a trail directly to tll:' parle In Pheasant Mar;h, there is a trail nd a proposed rark toward the east part of the phase.; 2 develop1T~;nt. For this development, there are no nearby parks and the l:cn81'y is maximized. LAND should be taken instead of money. Park and Recreation :.Fi nJances I have checked and rechecked Park finances. Our city fmance e~:pert confirms my numbers. She ,. 1YS we wlll have $161,190 in park dcdicatiun fees (this does not include maintenance and other park .funds). /.s of 9/3/02, the total cost for priority "A" items listed for capital improvements was $28,300. Not prioritizcd in the list, bEt considered important is to rC;lOvate the warming house with a cost of$19,700 for a total of$48,000. Paving a parking lot was also listed for $50,000, but, in my npinion, this paving is low priority and besides, a more environmentally frie,jdly non-impervious surface for at least part of the lot should be co,;sidered. With $50,000 more frum the Buckbee property, Park & Rec would have $211 ,190 available for a $48,000 planned expenditure. That's $163,000 to spare! Park and Rec should take the LAND, not the money. The LAND is a far 1110re valuable resource to the ci~y and community than $50,000 (paving a parking lot). Summary The Council should listen to the people and do what's best for the community in the long term. NO TWIN HOMES. Take LAND instead of money for a PARK.