Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/1979 P&Z Minutesr October 24, 1979 The specialmeeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order 4v Chairman Ken Gourley, Members present: Bob Doocey, Vi Schwankl, Vernon Relnert, Jerome Heath, and Council liaison John McLean. Also present were Park Board Chairman Ina Liljedahl, present for the first part of the meeting; Council liaison for Park Board,, Richard Zelinka; Mr. Short, city planner; and his associate,, Kevin Locke. Members absent.: Johnson, Shearen. Mr. Gourley turned the meeting over to Ina Liljedahl, Park Board Chairman, for her review of the Five -Year Park Plan. Mrs Liljedahl indicated that some land had already been acquired and developed, some acquired but undeveloped, and some was in the process of being acquired. One such place was in the southeast corner of the city where parcels from two developments could be chosen so as to be adjoining and thus create a good- sized park area, which would be multi -use similar to Lino Park., There was al- ready some acreage in the area (West Oaks), which was, primarily wetlands, and would be kept as open space with no active uses planned, although perhaps some trails could be put in. This could possibly be granted under LAWCON, although other areas were denied because of the city's classification under Metro's criteria. West Oaks was not planned for development until 1984, although. there were different organizations that might be willing to help out, such as the Lions. Mr. McLean suggested something rudimentary be developed within the next two years, such as cross-country ski facilities. City Hall Park was the Park Board's prime target area for this year as far as providing better facilities, as it was more or less in the center of the city, and was the park people saw first when coming into the area. The Park Board proposed going ahead with the all -season building in 1980, although limited to the lower level, depending on the plans and Council approval. The lower level would provide a warming house and bathroom facilities, and the upper level, which could be added later, would be a community room and kitchen. The free skating area and perhaps the tot lot facilities would be put in as well. The ball fields would not be reversed as planned. The situation at Lino Park was discussed, and the work the Lions had done there; the shelter, in particular, had greatly increased the use of the park. Sunrise Park was 20 acres, and was the most heavily used park, with the best facilities. Plans were to simply maintain it, although a pleasure rink would be installed and the hockey rink and warming house updated this year. Next year the Park Board would work on getting plans for as many of the parks as possible, and Sunrise Park would be one of these, as it had never had a complete park plan. Sunset Oaks, which had been proposed for 1980, had already been acquired and developed by the owner. Shenendoah Park would be handled in a similar manner by the owner; less land was taken as a park dedication in return for the owner putting in the facilities. Mr. Gourley commented that he liked the philosophy of having the park in before the people were there. Mr. Zelinka noted that at the Council meeting before last, the land value had been raised to $1,00 an acre. In the case of an 80-acre development, 10 percent of that, or 8 acres would be the park dedication; the actual worth of that land to the developer was prob- ably somewhere between $-8,000, so he would gladly exchange a couple of acres for a fair amount of equipment. LaMotte was a very small park and was undeve- loped; Mr. Short incicated Centerville had adopted in their plan the idea of developing a park large enough for both communities in this area which would include LaMotte. Country Lakes, on the southwest corner of Reshanau Lake, was presently undeveloped, and would be kept rustic rather than -developing an organized activity park. A sandy beach, marina, picnic facilities, tot lot and scenic trails were planned for the area, to be developed over a number of years. Mr. McLean noted there could at .some time be the need for a village ;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 Page 3 Planning and Zoning Commission October 24, 1979 city would be involved at Metro's meeting in January or February to review their criteria for the next year. Presently, under these criteria,thecity would not receive any grants. A recess of five minutes was taken, and the meeting reconvened for Mr. Short's presentation on parks. Mr. Short indicated he would cover the systems approach to'parks, the'pre- vious plan (1974), the proposed draft plan, proposed policies to accompany this, and some questions in relation to regional parks posed by Metro' Council which had to be answered as a part of the park plan.' Copies of a summarized recommended system for Lino Lakes were available, which had been prepared as part of a memo at the request of the Park Board last winter. There was also information on funding and recommended standards for parks; there were a number of standards the city could use to evaluate and/or develop their park system, for example, how many acres should be provided per thousand population. These ;categories were: tot lots, neighborhood parks, community playfields, community -wide city park, and special use parks. Aside from this, parks could generally be classified into active and passive kinds of activities, although there were some overlaps. The passive category referred to disorganized or outdoor appreciation types of activities, for example, strolling in the park. Borderline activities would be providing space for casual or impromptu sports and picnicking. The active category would include all organized sports such as little league and activities that required a special field such as 'football and tennis, or playground equipment. The hierarchy of parks would try to address all these different kinds of needs. Mr. Short reviewed these, start- ing with the types of parks located closest to home up to those farthest from home. Tot Lots were generally provided along with other parks further up in the hierarchy, such as neighborhood parks, Frequently they were in higher density areas where there was no room for people to provide their own facilities. In reference to Sunset Oaks, Mr. Short indicated it was rare to provide a tot lot in a large lot subdivision. Neighborhood'Parks were providedwithin walking or biking distance of home, and were intended to fulfill the day-to-dpy activities of the family. It included play apparatus, open play area for pickup softball or football, a picnic area, or scenic areas. Parking areas were not considered necessary, as the park was near the home or within drop-off distance. Winter activities would include free skating as opposed to hockey, as activities would be of the the type that would not require orggnization. A mimimum size of three to ten acres was suggested; in a large development, more than three acres would be needed, and if some of the property was wetland and not usable, more than ten acres would be needed. Mr. Short suggested 21-31 acres per thousand population, which was taken from a national standard and custom- ized for Lino Lakes; taking the population and dividing it by that recomm- ended standard would give the number of acres to provide as .a goal. More important than the standards per thousand, however, were the service area standards, or how Page 4 Planning and Zoning Commission October 24, 1979 close the parks should be to the people who used them. This varied by park classification. In Lino Lakes it was not as easy to apply this standard, because of the amount of undevelopable land and open space, and lack of in- tensive development. Mr. Short recommended these standards be applied only to the Urban Service Districts, urban expansion and rural residential areas, and that no park facilities be provided for the. rural areas as designated on the land use plan. For, all parks collectively, he recommended a standard of 8-10 acres per thousand population; most communities ran 12-15 acres per thousand, but this included one more category of parks called open space, which in Lino Lakes was unneccessary, as the County park fulfilled this need. Also, those passive uses that normally were included in neighborhood, parks or community ballfiel.ds would not be that important for the city to provide in view of the County:park and the undevelopable land within the city. Mr. Locke indicated that since the County open space was concentrated in the.. center of the community, the city may want to provide areas similar to West Oaks in other areas. The table of recommended standards, which would be included inthe park plan, could be revised to show this. Mr. Short in- dicated he based the standards on a population of 10-12,000, and since passive, uses were not included in the,8-10 acres, West Oaks (46 acres), would not be considered in the total; also, Country Lakes (26 acres) would be a special use park and also should not be included in the total parks acreage. Mr. Locke indicated these guidelines were meant to be general; in most communities, following the service area standards (distance from the house) and appropriate minimum sizes, tended to have more overall acreage per thousand people, as it was harder to meet the problem of keeping the parks accessible. This would be especially true for Lino Lakes, where there was no intensive multifamily development; because of this lower -density, the tendency would be to have more park per thousand people. If one type of park had more than the recommended acreage, thiswould increase the overall amount but would not answer the need of any other type of park. Also, Lino Lakes was a growing area, and until it reached the point of saturation, the city would be: ahead of itself on parks, as it was easier to get park land before it was needed. Mr. Zelinka noted the city did not have the normal'. distribution of schools and school playgrounds, which was an additional con- sideration. Community Playfields were intended for more organized athletic activities such as league softball, football and soccer, fora more active, mobile age group. These facilities were larger and farther from home, within biking or driving distance,, and were providedfor an older age group who could travel the increased distance.; roadway barriers were no longer a consideration. In more intense urban areas ther were often combination community playfields and junior or senior high complexes, all within about 30 acres or so. The re- commended size of this type park was 10-40 acres. The park would provide a warming house with equipment storage apace, bathroom, and sometimes a con- cession area. Sometimes spectator facilities such as bleachers were provided. Parking space was important, and the park should have good access, located on a collector street or minor arterial so it could handle the traffic without intruding on local streets, and also so it was easily found. Lighting would be neccessary for adult evening games, and hockey in the winter. It was im- portantfor a park of this kind to have maximum developable land, as other- wise it would be impractical to develop. The Community -Wide City Park would be large enough to accomodate the community for Fourth of July celebration or Memorial Day with suitable facilities such as a shelter and parking. The recommended minimum size was 50-100 acres, or whatever was appropriate; or 4 acres per thousand population. City Hall Park 4 Page 5 Planning and Zoning Commission October 24, 1979 would appear to .fulfill this function, and was located near the center of the city. Mr. Zelinka felt that eventually two such parks would be needed --City Hall Park, and.an additional one for the southeast corner of the city. A Special Use Park wduld provide facilities for,a particular use, such as,a golf course,swimming beach, archery range, snowmobiling,.etc.. This would be determined by whatever was needed and the city wanted to,provide. A swimm- ing beach was one of the most popularspecial use facilities. Mr. Short briefly reviewed the 1974 plan, and indicated it hed,used a system approach similar;to.this one. It hadbasically designated neighborhood. and community parks, and neededito,be,updated., He next reviewed the proposed, draft plan. He indicated that tot lots would not be addressed very much, as the need for these was diff:icultito anticipate,and questioned whether tot. lots like the one in Sunset Oaks would be in demand. As,a basis for desig- nating the need,for neighborhood parks, he had divided the: city intoneigh- borhoods, which were basically defined by barriers of roadways, as,parents were uncomfortable with school -age children, theheaviest users of, this type of park, crossing major roadways unsupervised. He had used the land use plan as a basis to work from, eliminating' the open space and rural areas, which, left'primarily.the urban service districts and the southeast corner of the city, with a couple exceptions. The barriers, were the more heavily travelled roadways such as the interstates,state highways and county roads. The first four neighborhoods were defined by the intersection of Main Street and Lake Drive in the northwest, with the four, quadrants as the four neighborhoods. The next neighborhood was the Sunset Oaks and Airpark area,which was oddly shaped because the barriers weren't too substantial, although Lilac could be considered a barrier. Moving south, the Lakes Addition andolder parts of the community south of the interstate and west of Lake Drive constituted another neighborhood. Thenext area was the southwest corner of the city, North of Birch St. and south of the lakes consitituted two neighborhoods, one east of Reshanau Lake and one west. Because of the odd shape,and the diffi- culty of traveling from one area to the other because of the barrier of the lake, they were considered as two separate areas. South of Birch Street in the Shenendoah area was another neighborhood. Between the west city line. and. Highway 49 was a corner which formed a neighborhood, and also east across Highway 49 was another area. Moving to the southeastcorner of the city, the interstate divided the area into two neighborhoods, one east •and one west. if there were more bridges across the interstate, they would not necessarily need to be divided this way. Another area, designated rural residential on the land use plan, was just north of Centerville and east of Pelletier Lake; this was really too small to warrant a city park, but Mr. Short felt the need could be met by working with the city- of Centerville to provide joint. facilities. Coordination with Centerville should also be considered for La- Motte. Mr. Short addressed each of these neighborhoods as far as the need for a neighborhood park. Area 1 was larger than a section, running about a mile from Main Street up to the north city line. City Hall Park, at the very southern end of this neighborhood, would fulfill the neighborhood park needs for part of this area, butit would be a substantial distance for residents noth of Pine Vista or by Rondeau.Lake, especially in view of the wetlands dividing the area. He indicated the city might want to consider providing some kind of park in the upper area as the need developed. The question was raised as to whether it was reasonable to provide a park when residents had large lots; Mr. Short -indicated that one unit per five or ten acres would 8b Page 6 Planning and Zoning Commission October 24, 1979 not require parks, but estimated the need would grow in this area as Tots were subdivided. If areas turned out to.bu unresubdividable, residents would have created their own rural area, and the need for a park would become a low priority. Area 2, west of Lake. Drive and north of Main Street had some facilities at the elementary schooa., which was the only school with- in the city, that would fulfill some of the needs.of a community park., How- ever, this was a mile,or so away from some.ofi,he subdivisions, and as more subdivisions occurrred, there would be the need for a park. Mr. Short suggested that park land be taken if a;subdivision came in that was in a practical location for a park for this area. Mr. Heath felt two parks might be necessary because of lot spilits, and the duplexes along Lake Drive and the western end of the neighborhood, although these were in a high water table area. Mr. Locke indicated that according to the land: use plan, this would not happen, and Mr; Short felt the elementary school facilities plus the additional park would be adequate. Area 3 was rural residential but hadnot developed much, and was bounded by rural on the west and by in- dustry on the south. Mr. Heath noted that most of the lots were about one acre. Itrwas suggested that it would be logical when cash was taken in lieu of land in an area, that it be applied to acquisition or development of parks within that neighborhood. Mr. Zelinka noted it would be interesting, when the Park Board wanted more than ten percent of the land, if they could buy it at $1,500 an acre. Mr. Short felt this would not be reversible. Area 4, east of Lake Drive, south of Main, and north,of the interstate, would be served by Lino Park. Mr. Short felt there was no need for, an additional park in view of the amount of developable land, and also in view of the fact that it was' n' very far from City Hall Park, although Main Street would be- come more of a barrier as the city developed. Mr. Locke noted that all the park needs they.were pointing out were really only needs if the different sectors reached full development and the kind of density the land use plan called for. Also, in the rural residential sections, which were at a lower density than other parts of the city, the application of the standards was more lenient, and the providing of neighborhood parks was a lower priority than for the more intensively developed areas. Mr. Short noted that in con- sidering the expansion residential areas, which was development at a one acre density-, the city should plan for futuwe resubdivision. Area 5,.the Sunset Oaks and Airpark area, was discussed; the Airpark area was 5-acre lots held in joint ownership, but Mr. Gourley felt these couldbe resub- dividable because of the street which ran down the south side.. Mr. Zelinka indicated they were considering land for Sunset Oaks, the arrangement being one tot lot site equivalent to two acres, and the balance would be taken either as another community park or the possibility of another tot lot. The total park land was 22 acres, the two of whioh had been designated for ,the• tot lot (one acre plus equipment). The selection would probably be made next year,or the following year. Mr. Short felt that due to the shape of the neighborhood, the farther the park site wasilocated from the center, the less practical it became. He felt that if negotiation was still open, a more central location should be chosen, although the size was good. The need for a park in this area will be shown in the park pian, generally near Lilac Street, as this was the midpoint of the district. Area 6, south of. the interstate and west of Lake Drive had an existing park development -- Sunrise Park-- which served the area well as far as a neighborhood park and community playfield functions. Mr. Short noted there was schood district property in the area, which was a possibility, as the farther from Sunrise park, the more it was necessary to provide something. Mr. Zelinka indicated Page 7 Planning and Zoning Commission October 24, 1979 it was doubtful whether a school would ever be built there, but that they might develop part of that as secondary ballfields, soccer, football, or perhaps a rink, the time range being about 5-8 years in the future. Mr. Short-telt this should : be kept in mind. Area 7 was a small area : in the southwest part of the city, somewhat isolated, .and could develop either as multifamily or residential. It seemed reasonable to consider coordinating with Circle Pines on. Baldwin Park. Mr. Short had a question on Areas 8 and 9 as to whether the Commission felt Country Lakes Park, 22 acres of basi- cally passive uses and special uses, would fulfill the neighborhood park needs for this area. It was felt that the tot lots and open play areas, would provide some of the function, but,that there was a safety hazard with unsupervised children near a swimming beach. It was,suggested that some- thing be provided'south of Birch Street in the,Shenendoah area because of the few number of units that would eventually develop_ in the area, and also be- cause of the proximity of the county open space, which .would reduce the need for a park in these areas.Area 10 , south of Birch Street and east of Highway 49, was a well-defined area and would be served by Shenendoah Park. Area 11 presently had no park other than the trailer court's own facilities, which were designed to fulfill,their own needs. Mr. Short felt there would be a need to provide something for the rest of the neighborhood, perhaps very soon. Area 12, a small neighborhood across Highway 49 to the east of area 11, was fairly far from Shenendoah; if a park were provided in area 11, it would be fairly close in proximity, although Highway 49 would be a barrier Shoreview was also right across County Road J from this area. Moving to the southeast corner of the city, Area 13, east of the interstate, was indicated as needing park facilities. Across the interstate, Area 14, was a rural resi dential.area of one acre lots. The park Board had designated some acreage here which seemed to be in a good location. Mr. Short recommended. that parks in the last two neighborhoods, the small section on the east side of Pelletier Lake and LaMotte, be corrdinated with the City of Centerville. The first re- quired acquisition and development, the second development only. Mr. Short next reviewed the need for community playfield facilities. These were intended to serve a greater number of neighborhoods and a greater popui41- tion. City Hall Park would function as a community playfield. The 40-acre parcel from the State of Minnesota would have been a good location, but would not be included in the park plan. Mr. Short recommended combining neighborhood parks and community ballfields, providing both facilities together following the neighborhood park plan. Sunrise Park was an example of this kind of combination park. The areas proposed were: Above the interstate and west of Lake Drive; east of Interstate 35-E; west of Interstate 35-E; northeast of the Lake Drive/Main Street intersection (area 1); northwest of this same intersect- ion (area2); below the Interstate; and area 4. Mr. McLean raised the question of providing bicycling paths in the southeast part of the city; Mr. Zelinka indicated the city had proposed this at one time, bbt the county had been going to do it, and was now 2 or 3--years into the future. Mr. McLean suggested a loop going up to the county road, crossing the interstate at the bridge, and going down the other side. Also, the county park could be utilized as well.. He felt it would be reasonable to follow some of the arterials, and do something informal, starting with signs on some of the roads. Mr. Zelinka suggested a 9-mile loop along County Road J to Centerville Road,down Birch Street and ..1 Highway 49 or Ware Road. Mr. McLean suggested that a 2 to 3-ft.path of fine crushed linestone would be adequate. Mr. Short was requested to show this in' the park plan. 87 Page 8 Planning and Zoning Commission October 24, 1979 Mr. Short next reviewed the proposed park policies which would accompany the park plan. These were: (1) Continue to improve the,city's parks according to an ,established system approach.: Basically, a system would be adopted and parks developed accordingly:utilizing existing facilities. (2) The extent of recreational facilities provided should vary by land use districts. In other words, parks would be concentrated in areas,where,the city proposed development should occur,ie;, the urban sewer districts,expansion residential districts, and rural residential districts. No park facilities would be provided within rural areas. (3) The first priority for park acquisition and development should,be for parks in the urban service districts. More funding was available for these parts of the city. (4) The second priority for acquisitionand,de- velopment should be parks in the expansion residential districts. Mr. Short indicated that funding focused on different types of facilities each year; for instance,i.f the LAWCON,application had been directed at access to Reshenau Lake, it may have fared better if that was what the DNR and LAWCON were in- terested in funding that year. He noted the Park Board had done more in their, park plan than most cities for not having had a consultant work with them. However, refinement of that plan would help them in their grant applicationS. (5) Community play fields should also serve neighborhood park functions.This would be true,part-iculariy i,n.the southeast part.of the city. (6) Multifamily developments should provide on -site parks. Mr. Heath felt this should be in the ordinance; Mr. McLean noted the ordinance presently encouraged this bUt did not require it. (7) The extensive wetlands.and regional parks planned mini- mized the need for passive parks in Lino Lakes. The clty's need was for more active recreation, as the passive uses were already provided for. Passive ac- quisition should be a low priority for the city. (8) Parks should be associ-, ated with drainage areas in order,to consolidate public property. If there was a park dedicatedin an area that already had,wetlands, it would be reasonable and practical to Consolidate the two as long as it was not a safety hazard. (9) Parks should be developed in conjunction with school sites wherever possible particularly community playfields. Mr. Reinert asked if these were standard policies, and Mr. Short replied that they were custom-made for Lino Lakes. At. Mr. Reinert's request, Mr. Short indicated they would look for any general, park policies that could be added that the city thought appropriate. Mr. McLean suggested a policy statement be made concerning bicycle paths. He also asked whether a firm statement should be made indicating that the county park area --which they were proposing another addition to --plus the municipal park plan was all the city intended for the community and no other metro parks would be acceptable. Mr. Short felt this could be added as a policy, which would reinforce some of the city's answers to Metro's questions. Mr. Short indicated Metro was requesting information be provided in answer to some questions regarding Metro Systems as part of the park plan. These were (1) Land use policies and municipal actions to be taken to minimize conflicts between existing regional parks designated in the systems statement and ad- jacent uses which exist or are proposed. This referred to what policies the city had concerning property adjacent, to regional parks, whether the city proposed any land use such as industrial that would be in conflict with that use. Mr..McLean,felt the city could not agree with this, as a conflict ex- isted on the Otter Lake Regional Park; Mr. Short indicated this would be addressed in another question. Mr. Reinert felt there were no conflicts as far as city parks being in conflict with the regional parks. Page 9 Planning and Zoning Commission October 24, 1979 Mr. Heath asked if the Lake Drive/35W area would be in conflict, and,l;lr. Short felt this could actually be a benefit to the users of the park. Mr. Reinert felt the land use plan in itself would imply certain policies. Mr. McLean felt the answer to this question should be no. Mr. Locke suggested adopting a policy limited to the chain of lakes park, as there was no conflict there, and Mr. McLean felt this would be acceptable, and suggested the policy with the county be quoted. Mr. Short indicated Metro Council would be looking at the land use plan and,if they saw a potential conflict, they would look to see if they were addressed in the answers to the questions. if there was no conflict, the policies would not be that important, but Metro' was also looking for the added degree of protection in•the policies. He suggested the policy generally state that Lino Lakes recognizes the chain of lakes regional park and proposes no apparent conflicts with,the proposed land use plan. Futhermore, the city has expressed a willingness to more or less work with the region towards resolving any possible adjacent land use conflicts with that. (2) Existing or planned improvements and projects which may result in tax assessments on regional park property or which may physically impact regional park property. Mr. McLean noted that as there- was nothing there, the only thing that would be appropriate would be street or sewer improve- ments that could be assessed back to the county or regional property. The sewer wp East Shadow Lake Drive was being extended, which would give them access to sewer at some time in the future. Mr. Short noted this would1be available then for the planned clubhouse facility located on the north end of Reshanau Lake. (3) Local parks or trails which connect with or otherwise affect regional, school district, or neighboring local parks or trails, in- cluding a description of where the link is located and the nature of the relationship to the other jurisdiction's facility. Mr. Short pointed out the Burgerman trail and the bike trails would be applicable. It was noted that the West Oaks/Bald Eagle open space property would provide a link from Otter Lake to Bald Eagle Lake, which would be between White Bear Township and Lino Lakes. (4) Indicate if any regional parks will be used as part of the local park system and the function the regional park will need to serve in the local system. Mr. Short noted that in the park plan, the city would already be indicating that use of the regional park willfulfill open space needs. (5) Policies and interim management tools to be incorporated in the implemen- tation program to reserve proposed regional parks and trails designated in the system statement which have not yet been acquired. This was not so much a question as to whether= the city agreed with the systems statement, but rather as to whether anything had been done to reinforce the systems state- ment. It was generally indicated that the answer to this was no. Mr. McLean noted they had sent in alternatives, but this had had no effect, and therefore the city was allowing platting and development, as in the land use plan. He felt the answer to this question should not deteriorate the'city's position. Mr. Gourley felt the answer should directly address the Otter Lake Park, which was proposed as a regional park but not yet -acquired. As far as the city having any tools to help implement the acquisition, the answer would be no, with an explanation of that position. It was felt another direct statement should be made such that the city was not willing to have any other encroachment of regional parks; this could be referenced with the contract the city had with the county. Mr. McLean noted that after these answers were put together, the City Attorney should review them. These answers would also be reviewed by the Planning Commission in November or at an extra meeting early in December. Mr. Gourley indicated that housing policies would be reviewed at the November meeting. Mr. Heath moved to adjourn at 11:30 p.m. Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared classed.