Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chairman Mahern stated that voters need to be aware that if 80% of the 7,000 acres of Ridgelands <br />is left to open space that someone has to pay for that maintenance. She indicated that neither the <br />City nor the Park District would be able to do that. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh suggested that a cost-effective method might be for the current landowner to <br />sell their density transfer credit and keep using their land as they had in the past; therefore, they <br />will pay taxes to the City and in essence, do their own range management themselves. However, <br />they would need additional police and fire protection. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti commented that some of the remarks tonight indicated they are preserving <br />80% of the Ridgelands and they are only able to build on 16%. She felt that is what they had to <br />begin with: what has to be preserved is the 16%, not the 80%. The committee had tried to make it <br />equitable for the landowners so that they could develop some of their land. <br /> <br />Chairman Mahern summarized these points: She felt the Committees had done a good job of <br />determining what the land uses are for the Ridgelands. However, she felt the following <br />information was still needed: <br /> <br />1. A detailed analysis of the buildable area and the assigned density so the actual density <br />and the amount that can be transferred could be determined; <br /> <br />2. An updated financial feasibility study on the cost of infrastructure and the effects on the <br />environment; <br /> <br />3. A detailed service analysis; <br /> <br />4. Determine whether the Committee's proposal means 2,900 acres or is it really only 850 <br />developable acres; <br /> <br />5. Find out how many property owners actually want to participate in density transfer, and <br />the cost involved for those people who do not want to participate in the transfer; and if those <br />costs are included in the overall cost of the program; <br /> <br />6. A detailed infrastructure analysis; <br /> <br />7. An updated environmental summary; <br /> <br />8. Should know if a road on the face of the Ridge is proposed; where the road is; what kind <br />of grading there will be; how many lanes it would be; what kind of visual impact it will <br />have; if putting the road in would have an adverse impact on where the parks would be; <br /> <br />9. The location of the quasi-public park areas; <br /> <br />Minutes Planning Commission <br />July 24, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 14 <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />. <br />