Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/12/1995

Home

I I UPDATE ON NORTHFORK OAKS ADDITION AND NORTHFORK OAKS SECOND ADDITION By: Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Supervisor Case #2 I I I Background: Attached is the P~trk and Recreation Commission's first case from the August 1994 meeting. At that time the Park and Recreation Commission viewed the various issues within its charge for Northfork Oaksi Addition. In summary, there was no park dedication needed, but the recommendation~ were to adhere to the City's Tree Conservation and Establishment Policy and to ensure a pedestriah connection is effected to 164th Lane N.W. O bser va ti on: I I I I I ',l I I I I Earlier this week,~ the City Council will have acted on the preliminary plat request for Northfork Oaks 2nd Additiog. This is the north half of the plat that makes possible the east/west connection of the Lake Itasca[Trail to 164th Lane N.W. While the north half of this proposed plats street configuration has changed slightly, it is believed the issues concerning the Park and Recreation Commission have not. Because of this, the developers have ~een informed that a formal review by the Commission may not be necessary unless the Commf[ssion desires it, or the developers do not desire to adhere to this Commission's earlier recommeMled actions. The developers intend to fulfill the recommendations made by the Commission in At'gust 1994. The only modification is the specific alignment of the pedestrian link. North Fork, Inc. prefers to have the link traverse the area behind the north and northeast lots of Northfork Oaks 2nd, instead of straight west from 164th Avenue N.W. to connect to a residential street. The developer's preference may be~ more aesthetically pleasing but could be slightly higher in actual construction costs. However, an offset to the backyard routes additional construction cost, is increased access to City-owned Out}ot B, which may also provide linkage to County Road #83. Please note: The most recent trail link, Ramsey Commons 2nd Addition, was at a width less than 35 feet (urban are~). Similarly, Staff has acknowledged that Northfork Oaks 2nd Addition's trail link, though propoised at 35 feet wide, may not be entirely above the ordinary high water mark. The developers, tfiough, must ensure a sufficient corridor width above this elevation for trail construction. Thins assurance will be accommodated by Staff (and Park Commissioner(s), if desired) inspecti6n of staked route and subsequent rough grading concurrent with road construction. Attached for your Information: Sket. ch demonstrating prior and current trail link routes Aug't~st I l, 1994 Park and Recreation Commission case Jant!ary 3, 1995 Planning Commission case with Staff's review letter Commission Action: I I I ! None required. Reviewed by: Parks/[Jtili ties S t, pervisor P&R: 1/12/95 /kaj Copies also Distributed to: City Administrator City Engineer Zoning Administrator Dennis Peck, North Fork, Inc.