View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

Parks and Recreation


Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes

February 9, 2010  6:30PM 

PRESENT:              Etten, D.Holt, M.Holt, Jacobson, Brodt Lenz, Pederson, Stark, Willmus

ABSENT:               Hiber, Ristow

STAFF:                 Brokke, Anfang

 

1.    INTRODUCTIONS/ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT

No Public Comment

           

2.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES ? JANUARY 5, 2010 MEETING

Commission Recommendation:  Minutes for the January 5, 2010 meeting were  

 approved unanimously.

3.    COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (CLEARWIRE PROPOSAL) at ACORN PARK

Willmus reviewed the current status and actions in regards to the Clearwire 
     Proposal at Acorn Park.
§                     Following the January 25th Council meeting the Clearwire Proposal was sent back to the Parks and Recreation Commission for further discussion and recommendation. 

Commission discussion followed;

§  Sarah Brodt Lenz shared photos for a tower designed to look like a tree so as not to be as conspicuous.

§  Jason Etten questioned whether we want to open up public land to private use.

§  Dave Holt inquired into where the tower would go if it wasn?t placed in a park.  Commissioners agreed that the answer to that question is beyond the scope of the Commission.

§  Ultimate question for the Commission is; do we as a body think this is an appropriate use of the park?

§  Jim Stark voiced his opinion that the direction and policy for the overall use of a park is a Master Plan issue.

§  Dave Holt reminded the Commission that wireless capabilities has been previously discussed with the Master Plan Citizen Advisory Team and Commission.

§  Mary Holt recognized that the proposal designates a large area in the park and to make a decision on this without consideration to the Master Plan process is not appropriate.

§  Sarah Brodt Lenz recommended that any recommendation or policy should address ?tall structures? and surrounding support areas (the overall footprint), rather than specific use structures and discuss the proposal from a design standard approach.

The Commission discussion was redirected by the question; does the Commission feel permanent commercial uses in a park are appropriate?

§  Mary Holt mentioned that she would feel more positive toward a decision to authorize commercial use of a park if the revenues generated were returned to the parks and recreation system.

§  Jim Stark cautioned that this action might lead to selling a part of the park to maintain infrastructure.

§  Dave Holt encouraged Commissioners to look at potential future uses of the park and how technology fits into those uses.

§  Jason Etten asked about the usefulness of technology if it is not available wide-spread.

Commissioners recognized that the Co-Locate Policy is what most everyone is struggling with and questioned whether they are saying yes to one tower in one park or authorizing multiple towers in parks throughout the City. 

§  Commissioners talked about whether a decision on this proposal sets precedence for future considerations that haven?t been planned for.

Commissioners suggested a moratorium on significant park use issues until the Master Plan process is completed.  If we value the process, there needs to be consideration for it.

§  Commissioners asked about the possibility of seeing some design standards, which other Cities have them, what do they look like, especially in regards to those that disguise the look of a structure.

 Brokke reviewed the specific charge from the Council.

§  Placement Alternatives

§  Criteria Considerations

§  Potential Impacts

§  Suggested Use of Revenues

Chair Willmus suggested tabling further discussion to the March meeting and asked Commissioners to think over the discussion from tonight and recommended visiting the site to have a clear picture of what is being proposed.

 

4.    2010 PARK IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (PIP)

Brokke briefed the Commission of the history of PIP.

§  Began in 1991 with separate dedicated funding for projects outside of the funding for day-to-day operations

§  From 1991-2003 the funding level was $250,000

§  PIP funds were reduced to $150,000 in 2004

§  In recent years PIP has been funded at levels between $150,00 and $200,000

§  2010 PIP Budget - $185,000, proposed projects include;

o    Evaluate Acorn and Howard Johnson tennis courts for safety and maintenance needs

o    Replace court lights at Rosebrook

o    System wide playground improvements, as needed.  There are currently 26 play areas (playgrounds) in the system

§  Safety surface, replacement of cargo nets and play area borders

o    Nature Center Improvements

§  Replace carpeting

§  Paint/stain interior

o    Central Park Victoria Ball Field Improvements

§  Skin and rebuild 2 fields at CP Victoria.  Ball fields are in dangerous condition and desperately need attention.

Commission discussion followed; Commissioners recommended the City Council reestablish PIP funding to the $250,000 level provided until 2003.Commissioners also recommended Parks and Recreation staff show the Council the projects and system needs that are needed and important to the overall maintenance of the operation rather than just addressing whatever can be afforded with the funding provided, after all, PIP addresses community maintenance, health and safety concerns.

 

Commission Recommendation:  Willmus moved that staff forward the list of projects as presented with a change that restores funding to $250,000 so that needed improvements can be accommodated.  Pederson made a friendly amendment that added specific dollar amounts to the value engineered items.

§  Discussion: Dave Holt inquired into knowing more about how the Council makes decisions on services like PIP without information to support the funding request.  The Council needs to see the true costs of deferring maintenance items and the significance of safety implications that go along with the delays.  People take Parks and Recreation for granted and tend not to see the consequences of not maintaining our resources.

Pederson seconds the motion.  Motion passed 6-0, Brodt Lenz was not present at the time of the vote.

 

5.    PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE

Brokke updated the Commission on the progress of the Master Plan Update and promoted upcoming listening sessions and community meetings.

 

6.    REVIEW ANNUAL CALENDAR

Commissioners agreed that it made sense to delay the rescheduling of the November meeting until new Commissioners are named.

 

7.    DIRECTORS REPORT

§  The City Council are holding a meeting with Department Heads on February 13th

§  Roseville has received a grant from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture to address the Emerald Ash Borer. The project will include an update of the forestry ordinance

§  Two Commission seats will be available beginning in March. Applications are due February 24th Applications are available online or at Roseville City Hall.  Contact Lonnie Brokke for more information.

 

8.    OTHER

§  Willmus informed the Commission of the story on Bandy at the OVAL that recently ran in the New York Times

 

Meeting adjourned at 8:25 pm

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Jill Anfang, Assistant Director