My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 02/10/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2005
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 02/10/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2025 2:58:57 PM
Creation date
2/7/2005 9:27:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
02/10/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
Chair Johns stated as important as Trott BrOok trail is to them, this abuts County Road five and <br />she thought there should be a trail along there. <br /> <br />The Commission thought there did not ne~ed to be additional park space in the development <br />except along Trott Brook, where it :may or may not-be needed beyond the trail corridor. <br />Otherwise, they would want to see additiOnal trails. <br /> <br />Civil Engineer 15 Linton explained there were comments from the floor at the City Council <br />meeting that there should be a park in tho development because of the-density of the <br />development. <br /> <br />Chair Jolms noted she would not be entirely opposed to a neighborhood park but the first priority <br />would be to do Trott Brook. She would rather see lesser density and create Some green space <br />that way. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ostrum stated he would be in favor of providing ways to the main parks than to <br />put a tot lot in the development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Shryock concurred and stated they have very nice parks in the City and she <br />thought it would be wise to get trails installed to provide access to the parks. <br /> <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Riverblood stated there is nothing Preventing the Commission or <br />Council from considering private green space. <br /> <br />Commissioner Shryock stated at this time she would not recommend putting in :a neighborhood <br />park but in the future if density continues at this size to the north, they maY want to consider a <br />neighborhood park farther north. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ostrum thought it would be better to provide more green space than what is <br />provided in the development at this time. ' : ~ ' <br /> <br />Case #3: Sketch Plan Review for Alpine. Woods 2na Addition ". <br /> <br />Civil Engineer 15 Linton explained Oakwood Land Development has submitted a sketch plan to <br />re-plat 5 lots to 7 lots in Alpine Woods Addifion~ This development is west of Sunfish Lake <br />Boulevard and north of Alpine Drive. : ~ ~. <br /> <br />The developer had anticipated keeping an 'existing house and incorporating it into the <br />development, however, the plans have changed and the house will be removed.~ The developer <br />paid cash for the first addition park dedication. The park dedication for the two additional lots <br />should be accepted in cash at the 2005 rates. :The 2005 rates are $2200/lot for park and $550/lot <br />for trail. A trail along :Sunfish Lake Boulevard was not.requested in the original platting. <br />Construction of this trail should also be required at this time. ' <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Ostrum, seconded by Commissioner Shryock. to recommend <br />acceptance of park dedication of $4,400.00 and trail fees of $1,100.00. <br /> <br />Park and Recreation Comm!ssion/January 13,.2005 <br /> Page 5 :of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.