My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-12-2000 PR MIN - SPECIAL
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
P&R Minutes
>
2000 - 2019
>
2000
>
07-12-2000 PR MIN - SPECIAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:05 AM
Creation date
5/19/2005 4:16:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PRM
date
7/12/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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 />Joint Park & Recreation/Planning Commission Meeting <br />July 12.2000 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ms. McPherson felt that the Park and Recreation Commission is moving more <br />toward a proactive stance. rather than a reactive one in working with <br />developers. <br /> <br />Chair Mesich felt that the City has been very liberal with builders and that it needs <br />to be more demanding. He felt the City should have gotten more land with the <br />Trout Brook Farms development and was concerned that there will be no parking <br />available for park users. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dave Anderson expressed his appreciation to the Planning <br />Commissioner for their support. He stated that often at the Council level the park <br />dedication recommendations are cut considerably. He felt it was important for <br />the Park and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission to work <br />cooperatively to get their message to the City Council. <br /> <br />Commissioner Huberty felt that it is important that the developer knows early in <br />the process of what the Commission wants. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dana Anderson stated that the Park and Recreation Commission is <br />looking for quality land which is more suitable for recreation. as compared to <br />some of the low. wet park land which was dedicated in the past. He explained <br />that the Commission has set criteria for park land which includes accessibility and <br />visibility from a city street, rather than tucked back behind someone's backyard, <br />availability of parking, and connection to city trails and other parks. Ms. <br />McPherson stated that the Park and Recreation Commission is in the processing <br />reviewing the topography of "future parks" designated on the Master Park Plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner John Kuester stated that the Commission feels the City now has <br />some valuable natural park areas. but now needs to move toward acquiring <br />more open and level property. suitable for recreational use, in order to have a <br />balance of park land. <br /> <br />Commission Reitsma asked how the Planning Commission felt about the proposal <br />partnership with the School District for park land in conjunction with a new <br />elementary school on County Road 12. Chair Mesich stated that he felt it seems <br />like a natural partnership, but that the city must be comfortable that they are <br />getting something for their money. <br /> <br />3. Tree Preservation <br /> <br />Commissioner Reitsma stated that he felt there is a need to establish guidelines or <br />standards for tree preservation. <br /> <br />Ms. McPherson explained that the City currently does not have any standards in <br />place. She stated that the Planning Department is trying to deal with tree <br />preservation as a condition of new plats, but does not have the staff to do the <br />inspections. <br /> <br />Chair Mesich stated that he felt the city would need a forester on staff if a tree <br />preservation ordinance were adopted. <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.