My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_901205
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1990
>
pm_901205
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:33 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
12/5/1990
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
<br />3 <br /> <br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Wednesday, December 5, 1990 <br /> <br />the City could approve lots less than 85 feet wide to maintain <br />the same number of lots to reduce the monetary loss to Mr. <br />Zeece. <br /> <br />Roger Christiansen, Chairman of the Park and Recreation <br />Commission questioned whether the City could sell the property to <br />the adjacent land owners. Shardlow replied that it would depend <br />on the authority of the HRA, but his opinion was that the City <br />could not sell the property to the adjacent landowners. <br />Christiansen then stated that the only way for the neighbors to <br />acquire it would be through the County auction. Shardlow <br />replied that this would seem to be the case. <br /> <br />Christiansen testified that it would seem to be a good option to <br />have the residents purchase the property. Christiansen added <br />that the Park and Recreation Commission normally does not want to <br />give up any potential park land, but because this parcel was too <br />small, landlocked, costly to maintain and because few people <br />would be able to utilize it, the Park and Recreation Commission <br />felt that the City should dispose of the property. Christiansen <br />added that the Park and Recreation Commission does not like to <br />have parks less than 3 acres, unless there is some unique <br />resource or unless it is adjacent to a larger park. <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned how far the closest neighborhood park was <br />from this area. Christiansen replied that, McCarrons would be <br />the closest and pointed out that the City council felt there was <br />enough park land in the area. <br /> <br />Johnson questioned whether the prime reason for the Park and <br />Recreation Commission's recommendations was the size. <br />Christiansen stated that the factors in their recommendation were <br />the size, security issues and the limited number of citizens who <br />would benefit from the park. <br /> <br />Johnson questioned what is available at McCarrons and whether the <br />citizens could use it since it is currently a National Guard <br />Armory. Zeece replied that there is a softball field and some <br />equipment used by citizens. <br /> <br />Johnson pointed out to the Commission that the options for the <br />Commission would be to pass the neighborhood input on to the <br />Council and hold off on action on the plat until the Council <br />decides on the disposition of the land or the Commission could <br />pass on the neighborhood input with a recommendation on the plat. <br /> <br />Shardlow commented that he would <br />plat which hasn't been seen. <br />Commission could recommend that, <br />park land not to be surplus, then <br /> <br />have concern about approving a <br />Shardlow suggested that the <br />if the Council determines the <br />the plat should be approved as <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.