Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 04/12/2001

Home

along Dysprosium Street. Commissioner Johns stated that the trail along C.R. #5 should be a priority. Commissioner Droegemueller replied that his motion was that trail along C.R. #5 be included. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Cook, Con-tmissioners Droegemueller, Rolfe, Jolms, and Ostrum. VotingNo: None. Mr. Black inquired if the City had a tree conservation ordinance. Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos replied no, but explained that the City's policy requires preserving as many trees as possible. Mr. Black reviewed the site and indicated the areas in which trees will be impacted. Case #4: Approve Annualized Meeting Calendar Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated that the purpose of the case was to list annual agenda items that are addressed each year. The following list was presented for Commission review: · January: · February: · March: · April: May: · June: July: August: September: · October: · November: December: Review previous year, call for Lawful Gambling Imp. Program projects Recommend approval of current year Capital Improvements Environmental Expo Planning, announce seasonal park positions Finalize Expo booth preparations, determine outdoor meeting schedule Five Year Capital Improvements Program Review Draft Capital Improvements Plan/Joint Council/Commission Tour of Parks Revise Draft Capital Improvements Plan (C.I.P.) Approve Draft Fiv. e-Year C.I.P. Public Hearing on Draft Five Year C.I.P. Finance Committee presentation on Five Year C.I.P. Recommend Park Dedication Rates Receive RYAA year end analysis Consensus of the Commission was to acknowledge the annual agenda items. Case #5: North Fork, Inc. Request for a Tentative Passive vs. Active Land Use Determination Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos presented the Commission with a letter from North Fork, Inc. indicating that they are requesting a passive vs. active land use opinion on both the existing and proposed park land east and southeast of Lake Itasca. Dennis Peck Director of Development North Fork, Inc., stated that in looking at the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan it identifies the area north and south of 153~a as multiple family housing. In light of that they are searching as to what the City wants for amenities. The townhomes that will be constructed will be upscale to match the existing homes in the area. North Fork, Inc. is concerned about what will happen with the open space in the area and they are prepared to dedicate a significant more amount of land than what they are required to do. Most of the homeowners in the area would be looking for a more Park and Recreation Commission/March 8, 2001 Page 6 of 8