Open Space Advisory Board 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 r� Open Space Advisory Board Minutes DATE Page 2 of 3 1. The Staff indicated that there would be new appointments to OSAB in the near future, and that we should discuss future meeting dates at the next OSAB meeting to accommodate the new members. OSAB agreed to move the next meeting to Wednesday,'February 22, 2006, at 7:00 to avoid having the meeting on President's day. 2. Staff presented Board members Pat Hornbostel and Gary Mansdorfer with appreciation certificates, and OSAB thanked them for their time and their work. 3. Michael Markel made a presentation to OSAB describing his revised proposal for the North End Project. Art Phelps indicated that they would like to see trails from Balfour up to Hecla Lake, and that the trails should accommodate wheelchairs and walkers. In addition, Art Phelps indicated that adequate attention should be placed on where trails come out to Highway 42 and to South Boulder Road, so that public safety is not jeopardized. Gary Mansdorfer expressed concerns about the density, and the lack of any parks within the proposed plan. Several OSAB members concurred. Ted Kowalski expressed concern that the dedication may not meet the 15% requirement because Hecla Lake is encumbered, as are the lands with ditches, and thus these lands should not count towards the public land dedication. Mr. Markel indicated that he was obtaining a letter from a water attorney about Hecla Lake, and the associated water rights. OSAB indicated that they would like to see the letter when it is produced. 4. OSAB embarked on a long discussion about the prioritization of lands within and around Louisville that are at least 5 acres in size, and that may be available for OSAB or the city to obtain an interest in at some point in the future. OSAB developed a prioritization whereby the following properties were determined to be of a higher priority to OSAB: D, UU, N, LL, LL1, ZZ, MM, and the west side of Gateway. OSAB determined that the following properties were of a slightly lower priority: B, KK, GG, II, JJ WW, XX, and C. OSAB determined that the following properties were of the lowest priority: W, X, Y, Z, VV, 0, EE, FF, HH, M, L, B, G, H, J, YY and I. OSAB recognized that the acquisition of an interest in property of lower priority may become available for purchase prior to a property of higher priority, and thus this prioritization is merely a tool, and is not absolutely binding on OSAB. Discussion Items for Next Meeting 1. Appointment of Officers 2. Dates of future meetings 3. Follow up discussion to Rulemaking decision of City Council 4. North End 5. Other Items as Staff determines necessary