My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 10/10/2013
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2013
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 10/10/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 1:14:19 PM
Creation date
10/9/2013 1:27:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
10/10/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Park and Recreation Commission <br />Meeting Date: 10/10/2013 <br />By: Mark Riverblood, Engineering/Public <br />Works <br />5. 2. <br />Information <br />Title: <br />Review of 'Pocket Park' Policy <br />Background: <br />Periodically, the Park and Recreation Commission reaffirm's its policy of not recommending the satisfaction of <br />Park Dedication by acceptance of small park spaces or 'pocket parks' for new plats - but rather that a more <br />sustainable solution is using the equivalent proceeds (cash dedication) to focus on trail connections between larger <br />neighborhood and community parks; and also further development of these larger existing parks. <br />This last policy review was performed in the context of the multi -year City Owned Land Inventory project. <br />Attached is an abstract of that exhaustive process (first attachment), and the following is an excerpt of a part of the <br />Final Draft Policy (second attachment): <br />"POLICY STATEMENT CRITERIA <br />(16) The demand for public parks is shifting away from small neighborhood pocket parks <br />to larger regional community parks. The cost to maintain a large number of small <br />neighborhood pocket parks can be greater than the cost to maintain a small number of <br />regional community parks. As such, the City will consider the consolidation of <br />underutilized pocket parks in favor of larger regional [community] parks". <br />The purpose of this case is to once again to acknowledge the general policy above, as it relates to the platting of <br />land and associated Park Dedication processes. <br />Notification: <br />Observations/Alternatives: <br />As part of the aforementioned process; wherein neighborhood connections (trails) to community parks and other <br />regional destinations were explored as a sustainable mechanism for recreation and access to the parks and open <br />space system, trail priorities were identified. <br />While there are hundreds of miles of potential trail -ways, routes and possible connections, there must be a priority <br />assignment for considering new trails given the ever-present shortfall between funding for trails, and all the trail <br />desires. These trail prioritiesmay be thought of as two distinct categories: <br />• Short connections of trails or sidewalks that make 'whole' a larger system of trails, or succinct and coherent <br />connections to destinations. <br />• Trails that provide both neighborhood connections and are a route to community destinations; and are part of <br />larger 'arterial' trail system within the city. <br />Examples of the second category above are the Mississippi River Trail, the Lake Itasca Trail, the trail paralleling T. <br />H. #47 or the emerging Trott Brook Trail. The third attachment is a City of Ramsey map that shows the city's <br />community park system with these connecting 'priority' trails highlighted. This large, circuitous looped trail may be <br />described as the Circle of Ramsey. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.