Laserfiche WebLink
ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION <br />1 <br />MEETING MINUTES FOR <br />2 <br />SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 <br />3 <br />Langton Lake Park Walking Tour~6:00pm <br />4 <br />Sandcastle Park ~ 6:45pm <br />5 <br />6 <br />PRESENT: <br />7Becker-Finn, Bogenholm, Diedrick, Doneen, Gelbach, Holt, Newby, O’Brien, <br />8Stoner <br />ABSENT: <br />9Heikkila notified staff ahead of time of absence <br />STAFF: <br />10Anfang,Brokke <br />11 <br />INTRODUCTIONS <br />121. <br />13 <br />ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT <br />142. <br />15Community members Sherry Sanders & Lisa McCormick plus Andy Berg & 3representatives from <br />16the Rosedale project in attendance. <br />17Sherry Sanders extended an invitation to the Commission to visit Tamarack Park <br />18Other guest deferred comment until later in the meeting <br />19 <br />APPROVAL OF MINUTES –August 4,2015MEETING <br />203. <br />th <br />21August 4minutes approved unanimously.Doneen abstained from vote because he was not at the <br />22August meeting. <br />23 <br />244. <br />DEBRIEF FOLLOWING TOUR OF LANGTON LAKE PARK IN RELATION TO TWIN LAKES <br />25 <br />AREA <br />26The Commission met at 6:00pm tonight at Langton Lake Park to tour park properties in relation to <br />27proposed Twin Lakes development. Commission members then convened for their September <br />28meeting at 6:45pm at Sandcastle Park. Commission follow-updiscussion included; <br />29Holt suggested the Commission work to solidify the opportunity for developments to be <br />30flagged when received by Community Development. <br />31Look into the possibility of creating a City document that leads to flagging projects <br />o <br />32that have implications to the parks <br />33Stoner commented on the minimal distance/buffer between development areas & park land. <br />34Suggested looking into plantings that grow into a natural barrier of sorts. <br />35Becker-Finn added comments on the amount of potential sound developments could bring to <br />36the area’s park. <br />37O’Brien asked about the footpath neighbors had spoken of at an earlier Commission <br />38meeting. <br />39Stoner inquired into whether development plans included a sidewalk along the <br />o <br />40parkway. <br />41 <br />PARK DEDICATION –ROSEDALE MALL EXPANSION <br />425. <br />43Brokke briefed Commission on the proposed development on the north side of Rosedale between <br />44Penney’s & DSW. This project involves a replatting of the area and triggers a park dedication <br />45recommendation. The role of the Commission, at this time, is to recommend to the Council <br />46accepting cash in lieu of land (7% of the FMV, $102,300 or .105 acres of land). <br />47Doneen commented that a land dedication of this size does not make much sense. <br />48 <br />Commission Recommendation: <br />49 <br />50Commissioner Doneen moved recommending the Council that cash in lieu of land be accepted for <br />51park dedication with the Rosedale Mall Expansion. Second by Holt. Motion passed unanimously <br /> <br />