My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2023-5-2_PR_Comm_Min
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Parks & Recreation
>
Parks & Recreation Commission
>
Minutes
>
2023
>
2023-5-2_PR_Comm_Min
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/21/2023 3:54:17 PM
Creation date
6/21/2023 3:54:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Staff reiterated that the role of the Parks and Recreation Commission is to review the proposed <br />development and relevant parks and recreation system plans and goals; and to make a <br />recommendation as to whether the City should accept land, cash, or a combination, to satisfy the <br />Park Dedication requirement. <br />The project developer was available at the meeting to answer any questions. <br />Commissioner Arneson mentioned that the parking lot at Rosebrook Park is very small and <br />potentially expanding the size could be beneficial. <br />Commissioner Boulton added that a larger parking lot may be useful for the future Capital <br />Improvements at the park. <br />The Commission questioned the land type and existing utilities on the north side of the parcel. <br />The project developer answered that there is no existing utilities on the north 30 feet of the <br />parcel. There was a previous easement that has been vacated and the land is now a proposed <br />drainage easement to outlot A. <br />Staff clarified that a recommendation of land would send the project back to city staff to work <br />with the developers to findan equitable land location to satisfy Park Dedication. <br /> <br />The project developer relayed that the financial impact of a land recommendation forPark <br />Dedication would make the project no longer fiscally feasible. <br /> <br />Commissioner Baggenstoss asked staff how the land could be used as it is adjacent to an existing <br />park and questioned why the city did not initially purchase the parcel. Staff relayed that there are <br />trees on the parcel that may survive the construction and removing living trees is always a <br />difficult decision. There is a concept plan for the pool to potentially switch it to a splash pad. <br />However, the neighborhood has not been engaged with on the changes. Staff noted that the <br />additional space could potentially be used during the future evolution of the pool at Rosebrook <br />Park. <br /> <br />Staff relayed that the city utilizes the “willing buyer-willing seller” rule for acquiring new <br />parcels that come up for sale. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arneson suggested potentially moving away from willing buyer-willing seller in <br />the future. <br /> <br />The Commission discussed if recommending land to satisfy Park Dedication would add useable <br />parkland to Rosebrook Park. <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.