Laserfiche WebLink
�MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1991 <br /> SEWER PLANT PROPERTY — CONT. <br /> Vongries wa� opposed to ths motion because it included a <br /> valuable piece of property, which the Council will once again ask <br /> to be purchased and he felt that the property is not needed for <br /> park land. <br /> Wilson stated that they should be thinking of the <br /> opportunity to protect land as natural habitat as that <br /> opportunity may not arise again to do so. <br /> Chair Flint reminded them of the time when a bonding bill <br /> was pa�sed for Hennepin County to purchase park land which has <br /> been turned into �arver and Saker parks. He felt that they mu�t <br /> look forward to the future and they need to take this <br /> opportunity. He felt they should just offer the City Council <br /> $150, 000 for the whole site. <br /> Wilson noted that the Oak Hill site could probably be <br /> developed no matter what the future setbacks will be for the <br /> property. <br /> Bradley asked how receptive Council and the public would be <br /> for the Commission to buy the whole piece and later sell a <br /> portion for development. <br /> Cha�r Flint noted that 7and can be bought for park land and <br /> later sell a portion for development. He felt that they should <br /> go back to the Council and request to expend the $900 to retain <br /> John Shardlow for his planning services. <br /> Johnston noted that he voted against the motion because he <br /> feels that the 4 acres has a value, it would produce a 7and <br /> locked piece of land, it is filled with junk and is not valuable <br /> a� a park. <br /> Wilson agreed to amend her motion to include removal of the <br /> junk by the City and to include an access easement acro�s the <br /> private property to get to the public portion. <br /> It was moved by Bradley, seconded by Kokal , to request <br /> Council to a�thorize expenditure of $900 from the park dedication <br /> fund to retair, John Shardlow to study options for the property as <br /> park land ranging from minimal deve7opment to maximum <br /> development. Ayes 6, nays 0. <br /> Johnston noted that the �tudy will be of use to the Council <br /> also and felt that the Commission should not have to pay the <br /> entire amount. He al�o noted that he is not in favor of buying <br /> property which would already be preserved through ordinances. <br /> 9 <br />