Minutes - Parks and Recreation Commission - 11/09/2017

Home

Commissioner Sis asked what consideration has been given to other planned developments in the area. He asked about the trails related to the Riverstone project next door. Mr. Gladhill responded there are some opportunities the City could push. He noted the trail on the south side of Alpine Drive could be continued, and there may be some further opportunities to work with Riverstone. Commissioner Sis stated his priority is to be sure the area is well-connected. Mr. Riverblood noted the map does not show how the best crossing of the Alpine Drive. That for yet. A round-about was discussed, though it may not be allowed by MN- DOT for this state-aid road. A tunnel was also discussed, but it was cost-prohibitive. A trail on the south side will ultimately connect, and the door remains open for the best solution. Mr. Riverblood noted the sample motion includes the number 16 units, though it is actually 19 units. Chair Bennett thanked staff for their work and their presentation. He noted the motion would include 19, if it is made. He expressed support for cash contributions, as a good precedent to be set moving forward. He is open to supporting the proposed motion. Motion by Commissioner Sis, seconded by Commissioner Bayer, to make a recommendation to the City Council that park dedication and trail fees consist of a cash contribution per lot, less the 19 units for which these development fees have been previously satisfied, in an amount specified at the time of platting. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chair Bennett, Commissioners Sis, Bayer, Leistico, and Tchuinkwa. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Trappen. 5.02: Preliminary Approvals related to proposed North Fork Meadows subdivision; Case of Paxmar, LLC Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood noted this item also a recommendation related to park dedication and trail fees. Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the North Fork Meadows project. He noted this has gone through an extensive amount of public engagement and has undergone significant changes. This still requires a zoning amendment, using a tool called a Planned Unit Development. There needs to be a public benefit in order to approve a PUD. While the City has the ability to approve the project through the zoning amendment process, there is no obligation to do so. The City and Planning Commission has asked for compelling reasons to change the code. Mr. Gladhill continued that in terms of Park Dedication, the proposal and staff recommendation is the cash contribution. The Council also wants feedback regarding the concept of a public benefit. In this case, what is proposed is securing the land necessary for the Lake Itasca Park and Recreation Commission/November 9, 2017 Page 3 of 12