12-13-2000 PR MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Park & Recreation Commission Minutes December 13. 2000 Page 4 . options for the water system, should the urban service district boundaries change in the future. Commissioner Peterson stated that he has as concern with the timing of the process. He stated that the first opportunity the Commission had to view this proposal was in September and only one site was under consideration. At the October meeting, five additional sites had been added and the Commission was asked to make a decision. The Commission has since discovered that conversations had occurred in June regarding the potential of a water tower site, yet the Commission is now being requested to make a decision under a shortened time frame. Commissioner Huberty stated that it was the role of the Commission to protect the resource and to be stewards of the park and recreation system in the City of Elk River. She stated that she would not want to see the tower located in the park and that sites 1, 2, 6, and 8 appear to be acceptable and available for consideration. She suggested taking soil borings at all sites in order to determine is any site would not work. Chair Kuester asked the Commission what they would want to do. He stated there appears to be three options: 1) support the original motion to locate the tower in Trott Brook Park; 2) approve a motion to state that the tower should not be in either park; 3) suggest that the Utilities Commission look at Site 8. . Commissioner Sladek stated that it is not the Commission's job to direct the Utilities or the City Council where to locate its tower. COMMISSIONER SLADEK MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE WATER TOWER NOT BE LOCATED IN EITHER PARK. COMMISSIONER HUBERTY SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Reitsma stated that his largest concern was that of the timing of the process. He stated that the Utilities Commission should have been before the Park and Recreation Commission in June. His second concern was that the money offered under the original approval in an amount of $20,000 was not enough, especially in light of the discussion of $100,000 difference between the Hillside site and any other site. He felt that if the Commission agreed to place it in Hillside City Park, that the Utilities should pay the difference. Mr. Reitsma stated that he concurred with Bryan's analysis in regards to the best location. Commissioner Dave Anderson presented information regarding protection of the Hillside City Park. He supported the motion on the floor. He stated that Hillside City Park has the healthiest Oak forest within the City and that it should be protected vigilantly during the future driveway construction. Commissioner Anderson presented visual images with the water tower located in Hillside City Park, which illustrated the visual impact of the tower on the park. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-1. Commissioner Reitsma opposed. Utilities Commissioner Tralle stated that the Utilities Commission would look at other sites and consider the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation. .