Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 08/09/2001

Home

200i, regular meeting minutes dated May 10, 2001, and the Joint Parks Tour with City Council, dated June 14, 2001. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Cook, Commissioners Johns, Droegemueller, LaMere and Ostrum. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners Olds and Rolfe. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Case #1: Review Planned Unit Development (PUD) Provisions of City Code Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated that the purpose of this case is to review the requirements of PUD's in general and also in anticipation of making a park dedication recommendation on The Ponds subdivision as some of the Intents and Criteria portions of the ordinance relate to the Park Commission's customary examination of issues. Mr. Boos explained that on June 6~ 2001, Ramsey's Planning Commission recommended Preliminary Plat approval of The Ponds, as well as a rezoning to a PUD. As indicated, the rez0ning is primarily used to provide flexibility for meeting various goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. He proceeded to review the items under the subdivisions of Intent hnd Criteria. Mr. Boos informed the Commission that no action is required for this case. Case #2: Recommend Park Dedication for The Ponds Subdivision Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos reminded the Commission that they reviewed The Ponds subdivision in its concept stage. He introduced the developer Mike Black of Royal Oaks Realty and Civil Engineer Dave Putnam. Mr. Boos described the subject property and reported that all the Planning Commission cases and attaclunents are included in the Park and Recreation Commission's agenda. He noted the sidewalk and trail plan. Mr. Boos pointed out that, as it is proposed, there are three park spaces, however, much of that is wetland area. Mr. Boos delivered the following analysis of the park spaces. Park #1 includes the wetland north of the existing Flintwood Terrace playground and the area around it. The plan shows a 30' to 40" corridor leading to Iodine Street, aligned with the trail or sidewalk on the north side of 144th lane. This configuration would allow cmmection between the differing dwelling units in this corner of the plat to points west along 144th Lane, and also south to the playground. He pointed out that the upper 'leg' can be considered for parkland credit because it's average width is approximately 35'. Park #1 includes a 25' dedication at the extreme southeast corner of the plat, south of the apartment building, connecting to Dysprosium Street. This leg could receive land credit because it abuts an existing 20' corridgr, bringing the width to 40'. Mr. Boos explained that the developer's calculation of Park #1, that is not wetland, is approximately 2.69 acres, is not developable and, therefore, should not be considered for park dedication credit. Mr. Boos continued with a description of Park #2. He noted it is in the extreme southeast portion of the property and is probably not developable. This was shown on the Park and Trail map. He recommended that this space could be credited for land dedication but subtracted from the park and trail easement area. Concerning Park/)3, Mr. Boos is not recommending credit for this space because the width of the corridor is shown as 20'~and the minimum standard is 35' in the urban area. Mr. Boos stated that Mr. Black is proposing 307 units, so the cash for park dedication would be $399,000 if no land credit is given. He added that he is not sure what Park & Recreation Commission - June 20, 2001 Page 2 of 8