PRECM 05-05-1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.:~ * 2 ~:~;,, The development of two alternate plans.,: (A and B) resulted from concerns by some residents in :the area that development of park facilities on ~t ~~a" both sides of 29th Avenue might present a safety hazard and that the °"" park would be more usable if.the street were closed between 15th _ Street 'and the northern boundary of the park. The design of the park is- essentially the same in both plans, the only changes being some grading adjustments and a change in design of ..the parking lot. -The sump area to the-east of-29th Avenue is utilized in Plan B for parking and a turn-around with additional area for free play and 'apparatus, as fill becomes available. Plan A calls for less immediate development of the sump area; however, as fill becomes available, a similar course to Plan B would be followed.. The Park Board and Park and Recreation Department are in favor of Plan B; however, some concern. has been expressed by the Engineering and .~r'ire,Departments regarding the proposal. With the .installation of 14th Street N.W. there is a good possibility that motorists will utilize the controled intersection for entering and exiting Silver Lake Road and utilizing 29th Avenue N.W. as a thoroughfare to get ' to that point. From a traffic safety viewpoint such a movement is to be encouraged, but it would become more difficult since 28th Avenue' ' N.W. would have to be utilized as a by-pass. the Fire Department's ~ basic concern is that such a road closing would reduce the number and/ a' or, convenience of emergency .access points. It is noted that several area residents did not feel the safety hazard to park users justified the road closing . Should-Plan B~ be approved by the Council, several subsequent actions _would be necessary. A change order to-the street overlay contract should be drafted and approved as soon as possible. Additionally, a street_vacation proceeding would have to be initiated and completed prior to approval of plans .and specifications. If past practice is followed, the most condensed time table would be as follows: 1. April 8 - Order vacation proceedings, refer to Planning Commission and set date of public hearing for May 6; 2. April 15 - Review by Planning Commission; Public hearing and Council action. it is anticipated that .the Council would be asked. specifications on May 13.