Laserfiche WebLink
input on tree preservation. He stated that once all the Boards and Commissions have provided <br />their input, the City Council will review the document. He provided details on the existing <br />conditions and adjacent property uses and identified future land uses. He provided details on the <br />road connection that would be proposed for Bowers Drive and other elements discussed by the <br />Planning Commission including density transitioning. He stated that Capstone is proposing to <br />build a similar development to that of Riverstone, north of Highway 10, on the parcel. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heinrich referenced the connection to Bowers Drive and asked if there would be <br />a barricade rather than an actual road. <br /> <br />Parks & Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood stated that there was a neighborhood <br />forum held online to gather input. He stated that the Planning Commission further discussed the <br />topic at their meeting the previous week and it was his understanding that the neighborhood was <br />generally okay with a connection that is more narrow, at 20 feet, rather than a full width street. He <br />stated that although barricades were discussed previously, he did not believe that idea moved <br />forward, as the additional connection will provide a benefit in terms of public safety and public <br />works. <br /> <br />Chair Bennett asked if the road connection could be used by vehicles and pedestrians or whether <br />it would only be used by public safety and public works. <br /> <br />Parks & Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood stated that the Mississippi River Trail <br />will not go through that location. He stated that he believed the recommendation of the Planning <br />Commission was that the connection would be a narrow street that vehicles could travel on. He <br />did not believe that many others, outside of those on Bowers Drive, would choose to use the <br />connection. He stated that the City has the wherewithal to site parks and communicated that with <br />the developer, noting that the intent would be to preserve the beautiful wooded area on the site <br />within the parks area. He asked if the Commission also believes that the park should be within the <br />wooded area and not in the open area of the development. He stated that it is the opinion of staff <br />that a small neighborhood park would be warranted in this development. He noted that the wooded <br />area could provide the theme for the park, using the suggestion of a tree fort concept. <br /> <br />Commissioner Leistico asked the number of homes that would be within the development. <br /> <br />Parks & Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood replied that there is not yet a count of <br />the homes, noting that the intent is to establish this framework that the developer could use to <br />develop their sketch plan. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Sis stated that he would agree that the wooded area is an asset and would support <br />locating the park in that area. <br /> <br />Commissioner Guck asked the size of the wooded area. <br /> <br />Parks & Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood replied that the wooded area is <br />between 16 and 20 acres. He stated that he has communicated to the developer that the park would <br />only need to be about one acre. He noted that it is likely that when a development plan comes <br />forward, additional tree preservation may be required along the 50-foot buffer. He stated that staff <br />Park and Recreation Commission / June 11, 2020 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />