Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 08/11/1994

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I CASE #4 REVIEW ANOKA COUNTY RUM RIVER CENTRAL REGIONAL PARK By: Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Supervisor Background: Since 1972, Ano .k-3 County has held title to 434 acres in the extreme northeastern area of Ramsey, currently designa~ted as a regional park. This property was formerly pasture with associated agricultural usagO. With the exception of a gravel road that traverses the midsection of the park, terminating at tho river, the park is undeveloped. The park's location, plus the combination of lowland and upla4a, d forest and gently rolling topography makes it an ideal candidate for passive use. The approximate four miles of river frontage comprise about one-third of Ramsey's exposure to the Rum River.: Purpose: Anoka County has prepared a draft master plan for the park with the intent of soliciting public comment on the l~roposal. Assuming positive support for the plan, the County will request the inclusion of the~ park within the Metropolitan Council's Parks and Open Space Capital Improvements Program. Phase I of the park's development could begin as soon as 1996-97. Observations: The plan recomm{nds passive development by virtue of trails (primarily hiking/biking and skiing), river access for ca. noes and, possibly, small craft, and the provision of various levels of camping sites and associated improvements. Mr. Jack Mauritz, a planning consultant, and the Anoka County staff, has prepared a detailed narrative of the proposed park plan. The first three pages of the attached plan can be considered an "executive" summary. The remainder of the draft master plan is a well-prel:~ared accounting of the varied development considerations. While not importa~ t to this case, it seems interesting to note that directly east of County Road #27, about midway batween County Road #7 and the noah/south park road, exists a large, wild blueberry patch. This is the only wild patch that I'm aware of. Perhaps the most notable aspect of the park's initial development is the proposed use of a enterprise/concesSionaire approach for the campgrounds construction (page #17, circled, upper right comer). Ant~ka County's projection is that this concept could "shave" $600,000 off the first phase development costs of $1,895,000, with the eventual development cost of $3,465,000 (1994 dollars). The City may use Chis opportunity to provide direction on issues of import as it relates to planning. However, there s~ould be ample time to comment as the park's plan evolves. Areas of future or current concern could include: The timing or extent of the provision of play equipment. As we know, the Rodgers Lake Recreation-~District could use improvements in this regard. Eventual lir~kage to the City's trail system. There clearly will be a good bike and pedestrian connectiort at 179th Lane and the park's entrance. It may never occur, but the City's draft trail plan shows an off-road connection to the park under the U.P.A. powerlines. -- Park fees as it relates to walk in neighborhood use.