My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 05/09/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2002
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 05/09/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 9:54:00 AM
Creation date
7/8/2003 1:58:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
05/09/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Motion camed. Voting Yes: Vice Chair Johns, Commissioners LaMere, Olds, Rolfe, and <br />Shryock. Voting No: None. Absent: Chairperson Cook, Commissioner Ostrum. <br /> <br />Case #2: <br /> <br />Provide General Park Dedication RecommendatiOns for Park Dedication for <br />Sunflower Ridge Townhomes <br /> <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos explained the purpose of this case is tO confirm the <br />Commission's earlier direction and to approve both the T.H. #47 trail route, and the developer's <br />proposal for private recreational space. He said the Staff Review letter from late MarCh <br />suggested the bituminous path along Alpine Drive be extended alOng the limits of this plat. <br /> <br />John Peterson, applicant, stated he hadn't seen the Staff Recommendations. He explained this <br />approximately 20-acre site is proposed to have 127 townhomes. There were 131 in the first <br />submission, which is slightly over the maximum. The greenspace calculation was made based on <br />131 units. After deducting asphalt for driveways and streets, there was 52 percent of greenspace, <br />.which is 12 percent over the City's recommendation. That number will increase now that 3 <br />buildings are eliminated. He stated Staff recommended the responsibility lie with the developer <br />to install sidewalk on one side of the curvy road that runs north and south. He said the <br />approximately 600 feet on Alpine Drive is recommended for an 8-foot bituminous path, while <br />along the east boundary is the private path. He indicated the trail system shown on the map is in <br />the rear yards. It is basically through common space, which would be owned by all residents. He <br />noted that all of the common space is public space, in that is open to all residents of the <br />subdivision. He also identified another acre that could be designated as public space for the <br />residents. He said these public spaces wouldn't have a lot of amenities. He explained the <br />demographics show the residents will likely be singles, some with and some without children, <br />and empty nesters. Most the children in this development would likely be grandchildren. For <br />this reason, he explained, they prefer to offer passive recreation.rather than swingsets and toys. It <br />would be expected that the grandparents would take their grandchildren to another park in the <br />area. Also, this type of Homeowners' Association typically has a more difficult time obtaining <br />insurance for these types of parks. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson listed the park costs involved with $1,700 per unit in Park Dedication and $400 for <br />Trail Fee, which is $266,000 so far. He notedthe trail along Alpine Drive will add to that cost. <br />He said in his experience, this is the highest of any city he's worked in. He also mentioned the <br />pedestrian traffic in this development would have 2 parallel corridors to move north and south. <br />One would be the concrete sidewalk in the front yards, and the second would be the trail in the <br />back yards. He said if this were an existing development, and the trail was proposed to be added, <br />most residents would object. He suggested one pedestrian corridor is appropriate. He said he <br />would choose'to put it in the front yard, where it is, and would rather not put the trails in the back <br />yards. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olds stated the trail offers amenities to the residents for that development and also <br />to the residents of Ramsey. He said he understood there would be resistance to putting in a trail <br />in an existing development. However, he noted, in a new development, people are aWare of the <br /> <br />Park and Recreation Commission/April 11, 2002 <br /> Page 5 of 14 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.