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
122 Commissioner Dahlstrom noted that a park cannot be put on any of the streets that are not public. <br />123 Only Eustis and County Road B West are public streets surrounding this parcel. Also, he reiterated <br />124 that a .5 acre parcel is very small and would still require park staff to upkeep it regardless of size. <br />125 <br />126 Chair Hoag recommended to propose preferably lots 14, 15 and/or 16 (and potentially 12 and 13) <br />127 as a potential location for the .58 acre of parkland to fulfill the Park Dedication Requirement for <br />128 2395 County Road B West to the City Council. If that location is not feasible the Commission <br />129 recommends cash in lieu of land. Seconded by Commissioner Baggenstoss. <br />130 <br />131 The Commission and staff discussed potential options for a park that is .58 acres. <br />132 <br />133 Commissioner O’Brien stated that she is concerned about the small size of this potential park as <br />134 many of the residents who provided feedback to the Commission were derisive about the size of <br />135 Midland Grove Park and its lack of accessibility. She worries if residents would approve of an even <br />136 smaller park in the area. However, she did point out that the Commission can’t know that as most of <br />137 the feedback did not relay the citizen’s desire of land vs. cash. O’Brien stated that she is concerned <br />138 that the small piece of land may make the Commission feel better but it may not be useable to the <br />139 community. <br />140 <br />141 Chair Hoag noted that the location he recommended was not chosen solely for the easiest <br />142 development of a park, rather he recommend it because of the potential to save as much of the <br />143 natural area as possible. Also, it may potentially become a piece of a long term “park puzzle” in this <br />144 area. <br />145 <br />146 Commissioner Dahlstrom reiterated that this is a very small piece of land that is not easily <br />147 accessible. Also, the city has to maintain a park long term even if it is left largely as a green space. <br />148 <br />149 Commissioner Baggenstoss stated that there are a lot of great parks in a lot of great cities that are <br />150 small and are very much appreciated by residents in those cities. As Roseville becomes more urban <br />151 it is important to start thinking about pocket parks within the city. <br />152 <br />153 M. McNealy, Having a small space that is not surrounded by traffic like the garden park on <br />154 Cleveland is more desirable. In this front section on Co. Rd. B there are enough walkers and bikers <br />155 on our end of town that would use this space to enjoy nature. <br />156 <br />157 Roll Call <br />158 Ayes: Arneson, Baggenstoss, Brown, Dahlstrom, Heikkila, Hoag, Lenhart, O’Brien, and Stoner. <br />159 Nays: None. <br />160 <br />161 <br />4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.