PRECM 02-06-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 6, 1980 Park Board Minutes ...:Page 6 Johnson stated pla n #3 is the only acceptable .alternative in vieca of safety... Olson also liked plan #3. Van Hatten is in .favor of plan #'3 however, it • ~is :not an alternative. He feels this is a problem due to what the developer forgot and feels it should go back to him for solution.. ~~testling liked plan #3 but felt the decision should be left up to the residents. If they don't want a park with the stipulations then there should be no park. Gunderman said he was under the impression that there-would be'a•t~ade off in .density and would not have the problem that there iso He is not in favor of #3. because it is not feasible. He feels it should be turned over t~ the legal department and engineering department to discuss-and look for other alternatives and then brought back to the Park Board. Motion by Johnson, ser.oiided by Van Hatten, to submit plan #3 to the Council. Carlson ammended the motion to state the park property, should not be used as a h~ldirg facility because of danger plus decreased use of the park. ' Motion and ammendment withdrawn. Motion by Johnson, seconded by Van Hatten, that of the 6 plans presented; #3 'is recommended. .Motion passed. Gunder- man and Carlson opposed. Motion by Johnson, seconded by Carlson, that the following rationale for the above motion be noted.. Motion passed. l.,-No water should be held (water that the park does not hold naturally) in the park due to;safety o_f young children in the park. 2. No water should be; held (water that. the park does. not hold naturally) in the-park because it`will decrease use of the park... 3 . Tdo caater .should ~~be. h~1d (water. that the park does not hold natura uS~) in the park,due to the polluted quali- ty of the run off-water. Benke feels the Council should-look at #3 and may have possi- ble other alternative, then send back to Park Board. The Council would work toward #3.