Minutes - Parks and Recreation Commission - 12/14/1989

Home

Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Hetland, Commissioners Shumway, Prall, Johnson, Rustad, Lokker and Roselle. Voting No: None. Absent: None. Case #2: Rcqlle~t for park dedication concept approval of River Bluffs P.U.D.; Case of Jack Miller, Mr. Otto showed a sketch of the suggested park area, much of which is in a flood plain. Greg Frank, the representative for Mr. Miller, stated that it was Mr. Miller's preference to use cash to meet park dedication requirements and maintain private open space. The private open space is acceptable as long as it meets the requirement of 20% of the total area. A pedestrian easement tied in as a part of the trail system would be acceptable. Commissioner Shumway inquired as to the minimum width of the trail corridor. Mr. Otto replied that it would have to be a minimum of fifteen feet (15') to accommodate service vehicles. Motion by Commissioner Shumway and duly seconded by Commissioner Hetland to accept a ten foot (10') easement along the North side to Outlot A (running East/West) to the Rum River and the remainder in cash with the stipulation that the existing ten foot (10') easement can be used as well, otherwise, it would revert to a twenty foot (20') easement. Staff is to verify if the existing easement to Outlot A is strictly drainage and utility or if it allows public access. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Hetland, Commissioners Shumway, Prall, Rustad, Lokker, Johnson and Roselle. Voting No: None. Absent: None. Case #3: Rcq~JeSt f~r park dedication concept approval of Heatherwood Hills The park dedication concept of Heatherwood Hills P.U.D. was discussed by the Commission. Current proposed trail widths are sixty feet (60'). It was suggested that they be changed to seventy- five feet (75') as stated in the City Landscape Architect's review dated December 5, 1989. Motion by Chairman Hetland and duly seconded by Commissioner Shumway to recommend park dedication concept approval of Heatherwood Hills P.U.D. as per the City Landscape Architect's review Dated December 5, 1989. The proposed thirty foot (30') trail right-of-way would be used to meet P.U.D. open space requirements but would not be dedicated as park. Additional land must be dedicated as open space to meet P.U.D. requirements. The developer indicated this would likely be on the North end of the P.U.D. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Hetland, Commissioners Shumway, Prall, Rustad, Lokker, Johnson and Roselle. Voting No: None. Absent: None. Case #4: Naming of Ramsey Municipal Parks. Refer to page #4. .Case #5; Relocation of Park in Sorteberg's 6th Addition. A copy of a petition from area residents was distributed. The petition requested that the park in Sorteberg's 6th Addition be relocated from the Northeast corner of the Addition to the Northwest corner of the Addition. Councilmember Pearson stated that Mr. Sorteberg had no real preference for one park location over another in this addition. The Commission reviewed the petition. A discussion ensued regarding whether or not the area residents near the suggested park location would object to it's presence. Councilmember Pearson stated that he believed most of the people Park and Recreation Commission / December 14, 1989 Page 3 of 5