PRECA 01-05-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 6., 1980 Park Ftoard Minutes Page 6 • Johnson stated plan fl3 is the only acceptable alternative. in w_i c,~ ~ of .safety . Olson also liked plan ~'3. Van Hatten is in favor of plan ff3 however, it is .not an altern~~tive. He feels-this is a prot~lem due to what the developer forgot and feels it should go back to him for .solution. [•JestlinJ* liked plan #3 but felt 'the decision should be left up to the residents. If they don't want a park with t`he stipulations then there should be no park. Gunderman said he was under the impression that there would be a trade off in density and would not have the problem that there is. He is not in favor of ff3. because it is not feasible.. He feels it should be turned over to the legal department and engineering department to discuss and look for other alternatives and then brought back to the Park Board. Motion by Johnson, seconded by Van Hatten, to submit plan • #3 to the Council. • Carlson ammended the motion to state the park property, sYrould not be used as a holding facility because of danger Plus decreas<~d use of thc~ part. Motion and arrmendment withdrawn. Plotion 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. 1. P1o water. should be held (water that the park does not hold naturally) irr the park due to safety of 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. ~Io ra~-rt:er. should be held (water that the parlc. does not hold naturally) in the park due to the polluted quali- ty of the run off ~,*ater. , Menke feels the Council should look at ff3 and may have possi- ble other alternative, then send back to Park Board. The Council would work toward ff3.