2008-12-02_PR Comm Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MEMORANDUM MEETING LOCATION IS Roseville City Hall 2660 Civic Center Drive To: Parks and Recreation Commission 7t•Tiiii •R7i1iM2 1-Tt•7:iT Date: November 26, 2008 Re: Notes for Commission Meeting on Tuesday December 2, 2008 1. Introductions/Public Comment Invited Commissioners and staff will be introduced. Public participation and public comment is encouraged. 2. Approval of Minutes of the October 7, 2008 Meeting Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of October 7, 2008. Please be prepared to approve or amend. Requested Commission Action: Approve/amend minutes of the meeting of October 7, 2008. 3. Twin Lakes Parkway Introduction On Friday November 14th, 2008 an initial meeting was held on the proposed alignment for the Twin Lakes Parkway. Enclosed is a very rough, first blush schematic that outlines the parkway with some very brief indications on how the south end of Langton Lake Park might work. This schematic was done as a starting point for discussion and prior to staff or any commission input. I bring this to you in order for you to begin to think about connections and blending ideas. The role of the Commission will be to discuss, comment and suggest ways on how the park will work best with the road alignment. This is preliminary and will be brought back to you at your January meeting for more detailed input. Requested Commission Action: Comments, thoughts, questions and suggestions 4. McGough Development Project Concept Plan Discussion McGough Development recently approached staff to discuss their continued concept plan options for a possible future multi tenant in the Twin Lakes area bordering Langton Lake Park. On the west side of the park, the border is tight and makes it a challenge to build a facility, parking lot and obtain the required setback. This would be a planned unit development (PUD) and there are a couple of options to discuss/consider- 1). Land Exchange - The initial inquiry from McGough to staff was whether or not Parks and Recreation would consider a small land exchange on the west side of the park for land on the south side, specifically to accomplish the setback requirement 2). Because this is a PUD, the required setback could be minimized, if the land remains park and remains in the same condition as it is today. McGough does realize that the park is a major asset to the development and has expressed a willingness to provide a larger buffer on the south side of the park (something the commission was interested in during previous discussions) and would guarantee that the west side of the park be undisturbed, if the parking lot of the development could be closer to the property line