03/05/91 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Merland Otto tluggested that an option for the Commission to consider would be the possible removal ~,f thee Playground eauipment lrom Pettzer Park and installing it in a different park, particularly with the vandalism problems Mr. Boos had mentioned. Mark Boo~ staled that he does not want to see that happen because the equipment in Peltzer Park doesiget Used a lot now. Chairmani; Helland thanked the citizens for the input and informed them if there were any changes ~ith 'regard to this issue, they would be notified by the City. CaSe #2, Fa¥~ Addillion sketch plan park dedication review. Merland ~tto informed the Commission that Mr. Chapman was present to review an alternative for; the trail alignment through Faye Addition. Bill Chap,man iexplained that the new trail allernative would be located to the north of the developrnT~nt between the commercial and the residential property and would connect the proposed ~rPark! to Anoka County's Park on the west side o1 the addition. Mr, Chapman ~told the Commission that he talked to Anoka County that afternoon and they expressed an~ interest in a land trade; the property along the river tot some property along Hirhway #10. He also explained that Anoka County expressed an interest in purchasin~ the Kelly property southwest of Faye Addition. Merland O, llo informed the Commission that if the County does acquire the land along the river by ~eans of a land trade, they will want the trail to run south to the river and then wesl to cQnne~:l with the County Park. He also explained that if Anoka County does not go through~With ihe land trade, he feels, thal the proposed trail alignment Mr. Chapmen presente~woUld be a good alternative. Mr. Otto recommended approval o! the proposed trail a]ignmr entl contingent upon Anoka County's decision regarding the land trade. Motion by Cllairman Hetland and seconded by Commissioner Lokker to approve the proposed;itrailialignment on the condilion that there is not a successful exchange oi land between Anok~a County and the developer and the Kelly property is not acquired. However, the apPli~rant imust come back to the Park and Recreation Commission to review the proposed!ialigrnment if there is a successful land exchange and if the County is still intereste~ in purchasing the Kelly property. This approval is also continoent upon approval ~rom Metropolitan Council. ~ Further Discuc;sion: Commissioner Swokowski pointed out that the Park and Recreation CommissiOn Would prefer the trail alignment to follow the southern portion of the plat near the ~river front. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Hetland, Commissioners Prell, Johnson, Lokker, Rustad and Swokowski. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Roselle. Case #3; R{mi~ming of ~h~ ~o~th~rn h~lf of Riv~r'~ B~n¢ P~rk. Merland ¢1to ,explained that on December 18, 1990 the City Council received e petition requestin~ thb renaming ol 1he southern half of Rivers Bend Park to the David R. Hartley Park, ar~di a requesl to rename the fishing pier to the David R. Hadley Fishing Pier. At that time !-here, was a split vote and the motion to rename the park was passed. However, at the Ja0uar),, 8, 1991 meeting, 1he new City Council rescinded 1hat motion and asked that it go ;throUgh proper channels; starting with the Park and Recreation Commission. :iPARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION / JANUARY 10, 1991 PAGE 3 OF 5