Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Hendriksen explained that when he fa'st started on the Planning Commission, it <br />was assumed that there would be no park (land) dedication, only cash payment, and it really didn't <br />matter whether the Park and Recreation Commission saw the sketch plan first. Now, there is <br />concern that we need to look at land dedication more and more, and he feels the Planning <br />Commission cannot make decisions on the size and location of the lots and roads until they know <br />what the Park and Recreation Commission has in mind. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik reminded the Planning Commission that there is a Park and Trail Plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner LaDue stated that as a Planning Commission, it is within their scope to rearrange a <br />plat to allow for trails, etc., and to recommend approval of that plat; and it may happen that the <br />Park and Recreation Commission may disagree with them. He added that if the Planning <br />Commission hasn't received information to the contrary, it should be assumed that dedication will <br />be made in the form of cash, and if it's a situation where the Park and Recreation Commission <br />disagrees, then the developer will have to back up to allow for that. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer commented that after the Planning Commission forwards the sketch plan, <br />the next time they see the plan, they are holding a public hearing for the preliminary plat at which <br />time "everything is cast in granite." <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik stated that the plat can still be changed but another public heating would have to be <br />held. She also reminded the Planning Commission that each case advises what the Park and <br />Recreation Commission's recommendation is expected to be. <br /> <br />Upon discussion of what occurs when the Park and Recreation Commission disagrees with the <br />recommended sketch plan, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to make it standard <br />practice to have the sketch plan return to the Planning Commission if a substantial change occurs. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer commented that the Planning Commissioners need an updated copy of the <br />Parks and Trails Plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik noted that such plan is being incorporated as part of the Comprehensive Plan <br />Amendment which is still in process. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer went on to direct Staff to review the City Code, Sections 9.50.37, Subd. <br />5.e and Subd. 9.b; 9.50.50, Subd. 3, paragraph 9 (Stage 1 Improvements); and 9.50.57, Subd. 2. <br />He felt these should be reviewed with respect to the verbiage concerning the responsibility of the <br />Parks and Recreation Commission. He stated that he was not against the Parks Supervisor having <br />authority to oversee development, but he felt City Code should not state "Park and Recreation <br />Commission" because the Parks Supervisor is not the Park and Recreation Commission. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Terry to direct City Staff to <br />prepare an ordinance amendment to Sections 9.50.02 (except Subd. 1.a), 9.50.03 and 9.50.04, <br />and to review for possible amendment the verbiage regarding the responsibility of the Park and <br />Recreation Commission in Sections 9.50.37, Subd. 5.e and Subd. 9.b; 9.50.50, Subd. 3, <br />paragraph 9 (Stage I Improvements); and 9.50.57, Subd. 2, based on discussion. Forward to the <br />Park and Recreation Commission and City Council for review prior to scheduling public hearing. <br /> <br />Motion carded. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Deemer, Terry, Hendriksen, <br />and LaDue. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners Holland and Thorud. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/October 3, 1995 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />