Laserfiche WebLink
4) PARK DEDICATION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION – TWIN LAKES STATION; <br />1743 COUNTY RD. C W. <br />Staff provided a brief overview of Park Dedication, including information on the purpose and <br />process. Staff discussed the location for a proposed subdivision at 1742 County Rd. C Westthat <br />qualifies for Park Dedication. The proposal includes 5 lots on 7.99 acres. The cash amount would be <br />10% of the Ramsey County assessed value of $4,311,200 or $431,120. The land amount would be <br />10% of 7.99 acres or .79 acre. <br /> <br />The development team had proposed two potential hybrid land/cash dedication scenarios within the <br />commercial development area for consideration. The proposed park areas are located in pedestrian <br />focused spaces and also adjacent to the recently constructed city trail immediately west of the <br />development site. <br /> <br />This area is located in Constellation B. There are no specific plans identified in the Parks and <br />Recreation System Master Plan for parkland in this area, however staff noted that this area has <br />changed significantly since that plan was created. <br /> <br />Dan Regan with Launch Properties was present at the meeting to answer any questions the <br />Commission may have about the development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lenhart asked staff to clarify the Master Plan Goal related to new development. Staff <br />clarified that the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Goal 3, policy 3.4 of the Parks and Recreation <br />System Master Plan encourages the use of Park Dedication to acquire appropriate land as <br />redevelopment in areas occurs. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Dahlstrom relayed that he did not feel that option 1 was viable as the land wasn’t <br />useable. He was more interested in option 2 but was disappointed with the amount of useable <br />parkland. <br /> <br />The developer offered that their preference would be to pay the cash in lieu of land, rather than <br />increasing the parkland that is defined in their two proposals. <br /> <br />The commissioners noted how the area could be a good location for a park, but then discussed how <br />neither of the two proposals from the developer seemed to be usable parkland. <br /> <br />The commission discussed the possibility of other locations on the development where a full .79 <br />acres of land could be dedicated, but the developer stated that the overall site plan allocated those <br />areas for future community amenities. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />