01/02/89 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion carried. Voting Yes: C. hairmanHe~land, Commissioners Shumway, PraI1, Johnson, Rustad, Lokker and Roselle. Voting No: None.: Absent: None. Case #2: Request for park _&~dicati°n COncePt approval of River Bluffs P.U.D.; Case of Jack Miller. Mr. Otto showed a sketch of the suggeste~l Park area, much of which is in a flood plain. Greg Frank, the representative for Mr. Miller; s~i~ ~that it was Mr. Miller's preference to use cash to meet park dedication requirementS and mairjtainlprivate open space. The private open space is acceptable as long as it meets the requirement.0f 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 cordd6r. Mr, Ofl6replied 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 (103 easement along the North side toouflot A (running East/West) to the Rum River and the remainder in cash with the stipulat!on that :the exlsting ten foot (10') easement can be used as well, otherwise, it would revert to a ~wenty foCi (20) easement. Staff is to verify if the existing easement to Outlot A is strictly drainage andafilitY or if it allows public access. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairmani Hetland, Commissioners Shumway, Prall, Rustad, Lokker, Johnson and Roselle. VOting No: N0ne~i Absent: None. Case #3: Req~jest for park dedic~tfion e°neep~[ approval of Heatherwood Hills The park dedication concept of HeatherWOod Hills P.U.D. was discussed by the Commission. Current proposed trail widths are *!xty feet (60'). ;It was suggested that they be changed to seventy- five feet (75') as stated in the City;Landscap~ ArChitect's review dated December 5, 1989. Motion by Chairman Hetland and...dulY seC0,n~edby Commissioner Shumway to recommend park dedication concept approval of H~atherwood:Hil!s P.U.D. as per the City Landscape Architect's review Dated December 5, 1989, i :Theprogosed ithirty foot (30') trail right-of-way would be used to meet P.U.D. open space requir~en~ bfi~:Would not be dedicated as park. Additional land must be dedicated as open space to meet P4U~D. requirements. The developer indicated this would likely be on the North end of the P;U.D: Motion carried. Voting Yes: iChairrnanHetland, Commissioners Shumway, Prall, Rustad, Lokker, Johnson and Roselle. Voting No.. None; Absent: None. Case g4: Naming of Ramsev iMunicirml'Parks. Refer to page #4. , Case #5: Relocation of P0rk!n s0r~¢berg'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 ~he NOrtheast comer of the Addition to the Northwest comer of the Addition. Counci member 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 ithe 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 Cx)mmission /December 14, 1989 'Pag? 3 of