My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2020-8-1_PR Comm Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Parks & Recreation
>
Parks & Recreation Commission
>
Packets
>
2020
>
2020-8-1_PR Comm Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/27/2020 4:26:44 PM
Creation date
8/27/2020 4:26:24 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
127
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
83 C. Nockleby, 2171 St. Croix St. Requested specific documentation from Parks and Recreation <br />84 Director, Lonnie Brokke, of the conversations with the Shannon family about the purchase of the <br />85 property and what year those conversations took place. <br />86 <br />87 Brokke responded that he met with the Shannon Family personally around the time of the Master <br />88 Planprocess which was during 2010-2012. <br />89 <br />90 Chair Hoag asked C. Nockelby if she would suggest the Commission recommend land or cash to <br />91 satisfy Park Dedication for Midland Legacy Estates. C. Nockelby stated that she would not suggest <br />92 either option. <br />93 <br />94 P. Nockleby submitted the same question as C. Nockleby via the Q&A section in Zoom. <br />95 <br />96 Commissioner Stoner noted that the Southwest concept drawings in the June 5, 2020 Parks and <br />97 Recreation Commission packet were general concepts for all open parcels in the Southwest <br />98 Roseville area. They were not drawn specifically for this 5 acre site. <br />99 <br />100 Commissioner Baggenstoss asked how many parks are in constellation J. Staff responded that there <br />101 are not any parks currently in Constellation J. <br />102 <br />103 Commissioner Baggenstoss proposed not suggesting land or cash as both options are undesirable and <br />104 perhaps the Commission looks at a third option of a non-recommendation to the City Council. <br />105 <br />106 Vice-Chair Dahlstrom relayed that he supported tabling a recommendation at the last meeting. <br />107 However, a decision needs to be made as not much has changed with the staff and developer <br />108 working together over the last few weeks. <br />109 <br />110 Commissioner O’Brien agreed that it is difficult to hear that this parcel is being sold for an amount <br />111 that the city cannot afford. She fully supported tabling the recommendation at the last meeting to <br />112 wait to see if there was some other option. However, at this point O’Brien supports providing a <br />113 recommendation as that is what the Commission has been tasked to do. A subsequent <br />114 recommendation can be made that the Commission feels this is a poor idea. Members of the <br />115 Commission can also attend the City Council meeting where they are discussing this issue to speak <br />116 as citizens and Commissioners. However, to just abdicate responsibility is to not have any say in the <br />117 future park planning at this site. <br />118 <br />119 The Commission discussed the potential options for park land and the options for their <br />120 recommendation. <br />121 <br />3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.