Laserfiche WebLink
April 2, 1986 Park Board Minutes <br />Plan #2 <br />Contains the following elements: <br />-Access from the west (5th Ave.) <br />-Amphitheatre is more formal <br />-Retention area would. actually be water <br />-Access from City Hall <br />-Shelter - southeast area <br />-Senior area is to the north <br />-Tot lot area to the northeast. <br />-Ball field remains in its present location <br />but enlarged by the closing of 3rd Ave. <br />-Chain link fence separates ball field from <br />the rest of the park <br />Van Hatten commented that he liked the water. <br />Page 4 <br />Midness stated the water does attract people, however there <br />is somewhat of a liability with it also. <br />Van Hatten said it probably would be stagnant also. <br />Plan #3 <br />Contains the following elements: <br />-Formal entry with Plaza from 5th Ave. <br />-Walkway on either side of Plaza and pond at the end of Plaza <br />-Pond would have circulation to keep from getting stagnant <br />-Ball field remains in present location but is larger <br />because of the closing of 3rd Ave. <br />-Paths around the pond <br />-Tot lot and hard court area to the northeast, <br />The trail around the pond could be a jogging trail. <br />Rose questioned how high the ball field was. <br />It would be 5 feet.. The pond would be 4 feet in depth. <br />Anderson commented that if the pond is full (at 4 feet) <br />all the time, then it would have to be 8 feet in depth. <br />Williams commented that there could be an upper-and lower <br />pond; one for overflow. <br />Van Hatten liked the access on Plan #1 - didn't feel the <br />amphitheatre was needed. <br />Johnson said he likes the idea of an entrance from 5th Avenue <br />versus a path. Johnson also said he likes a continuous path <br />(not ending). Likes the pathway from City Hall too. <br />