10/24/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

;1 Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission October 24, 1979 fire barn, perhaps in the Centerville Road/Birch Street area. this could per- haps be'a combination fire barn and small activity park, not over six acres in size. Mr. Reinert asked if maintenance costs for these parks included policing the area in terms of cleanliness, and was answered that it did; he also asked about the impact of parks in terms of policing from a law enforcement standpoint. Mr. Zelinka indicated this problem did not usually occur where there were sports facilities, unless people came from further than 40-50 miles away, but was most frequent in family pleasure parks after hours. It was indicated the policing cost projections were already considered, but not as a part of park funds. Mr. Short indicated that'parks should be developed in areas designated for,residen- tia'I growth, which would already require greater police coverage. Mrs. Liljedahl noted that the Park Board had been concentrating on the more heavily populated areas, and that most of the land acquired was contractor -donated. There was one parcel under consideration for acquisition', but because of the price quoted, this had been dropped. She indicated the Park Board preferred to avoid taking cash in lieu of land too often; in view of possible future resub- division, there should be as many areas open as possible for tot lots, which would be'virtu'ally maintenance -free. She also noted it would be very helpful if the Planning Commission could work more closely with the Park Board in the future. There Was some difficulty in working with Plats because Park Board members did not always know what the topography of the area was. Mr. Short in- dicated that in some communities the Park Board is present at the preliminary plat review, an in other communities, the Park Board is allowed to administer their park plan after it is completed. Mr. Zelinka noted 'the park plan would have to be reviewed and changed as the city developed as far as residential, industrial, and Commercial development, roadways, and so on, although general location, size and facilities could be designated. Mr. McLean commented that the way people were building on lots, there would not be the ability to split later on; Mr. Gourley indicated this situation was being considered, although there was a lack of enforcement tools.Mrs Liljedahl had some park plans available, which she briefly reviewed, and indicated these had been done by university students for the city at minimal cost. Mr. Zelinka was in the process Of negotiating for son1e landscape graduate students from the U, as there was state and federal grant money available for this type of work/study experience. The County Open Space was dicussed as to what type of facilities would be developed there, and the impact on city parks. Mr. McLean indicated these would be passive park facilities which would not be in competition with city park plans, such as trails, a beach and changing house on Centerville Lake, a picnic area, canoe rental facilities (George Watch Lake), overnight camping facilities, anda nature center. A restaurant had also been considered on a concessionary basis. Activity would start,in about two years, with about a ten-year span for development. He indicated the County had reviewed this with the City Council and Commissions on previous occassions, and would probably be happy to do so again if requested. Mrs. Liljedahl reviewed the LACON grant situation, which was actually federal money, but administered locally by Metro Council. Under their criteria, Lino Lakes would not be able to be granted for their proposal. Mr. Zelinka felt that since the city had given up over 2;500 acres of land off the tax rols, something should be gotten in return for this for city parks. Mr. Short in- dicated that Metro prioritized the applications, and the State Office of Local and Urban Affairs administered the money. Mrs. Liljedahl indicated the