PRECM 02-03-1971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Park Board Meeting February 3, 1971 2 building. Dickey replied that the most suitable area was north and east of the knoll. Soil borings have been. taken but the results were not yet available. He stated at worst, the building -could be placed on piles or the area excavated and filled in with solid materials. Early indications, however, were that neither of these operations would be necessary. No trees would be destroyed in constructing the building. Weissman inquired as to what consideration had been given for possible future construction of a community center. Dickey replied that this shelter could be incorporated physically into a larger building through a mutual wall or it could be connected externally via a walk-way or it could be tied into a complex through landscaping. At the request of the chairman, the Park and Recreation .Department stated that from an operational standpoint the building was excellent. The design provided an optimum use of interior space, the absence of corners elimina ted supervision problems, it provided adequate storage space, and it allowed for a great deal of flexibility for possible future expansion. Sherlock moved to reconsider his motion of January 6, 1971 relating to the Richard J. Hansen Park Shelter, Dahl second. Motion carried 6 - 0 Sherlock moved to recommend .that the Council approve the revised square concept as presented on February 3, 1971 for the warming shelter at Richard J. Hansen Park. Barnhill second. The motion was discussed. Mayor Bromander addressed the Board. He stated that there was a feeling that communication between the Council and the Board was not all that it should be. He explained that only the Council could be responsible for the decision as to which shelter concept was employed. To assist the Council in their decision, they would like a list of reasons why the Park Board preferred one concept over the others. Gunderman stated that he felt the breakdown occured when the Board recommended an action to the Council and the administration drew up a resolution that went to the Council without the Park Board having an opportunity to review the wording. The possibility of adopting the "green sheet" technique used by the Planning Commission was discussed. Sherlock suggested that it might be more direct to have a Park Board member attend Council meetings when Board items were on the agenda. The Board endorsed this idea whereby upon notification from the Park and Recreation Department to the Board chairman of an item relating to Park Board business appearing on the Council agenda, the chairman would appoint a Park Board member to attend that meeting. A vote was taken on the motion recommending the revised square shelter concept to the Council. Motion carried 6 - 0