My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1986-07-22
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1986
>
1986-07-22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 5:25:59 AM
Creation date
8/11/2005 11:49:07 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />July 22, 1986 <br /> <br />Council Business, continued <br /> <br />In response to Brandt's question, Anderson stated the light poles <br />would be sunk into a marshy area but they will not be as high as <br />the existing poles for aesthetics reasons and because of the <br />difficulty of stabilizing them. <br /> <br />Brandt asked if there were any designed pole that would allow the <br />pole to be placed farther away yet with direction; Anderson <br />stated there probably was, but soil is the same for quite a dis- <br />tance; and noted the staff report suggests additional soil test- <br />ing as borings have not been done outside the immediate area of <br />the city hall building and noted borings could be done before the <br />next council meeting if ordered by council. Proper noted there <br />are some from city hall and would need $500 to do further test- <br />ing; regarding light poles, these would have underground wiring <br />which would help that problem. <br /> <br />Benke felt council should have the soil information at the next <br />meeting. <br /> <br />With regard to the ball diamond, Anderson stated the church is <br />still requesting that we switch the ball diamond around but <br />stated if council stays with the current configuration, staff <br />can work with the church to mitigate any problems (parking) the <br />church may have. Anderson stated the ball field in the plan is <br />very tight and that the vacation of Third Avenue would allow more <br />space and buffering and would help alleviate some of the church's <br />problems. If the ball diamond is rotated, Anderson explained <br />that its intrusion into the park is unacceptable; Father Grieman <br />understood that, but his preference is still to rotate the field. <br /> <br />As a practical matter, Benke stated if we were to buffer the <br />parking lot more, it would be hard to argue they should not park <br />there when, in fact, it will be so convenient to the ball field; <br />and, assuming we can work out a method of managing the problem <br />that might ensue in terms of coordinating activities, it seems <br />the investment we are providing to the St. John's students is a <br />reason to resolve any street parking/pedestrian-safety problems <br />that might be encountered; would like to keep that as an item for <br />discussion to reach an agreement for the parking arrangement. <br /> <br />With regard to the Concert Grove versus the Ampitheater and the <br />costs involved for an ampitheater and the skepticism with regard <br />to the potential use of the Ampitheater, Schmidt feels the <br />Concert Grove is considerably more practical and is a good incor- <br />oration of the plan. Further Schmidt felt the current orienta- <br />tion of the ball diamond is the most appropriate and agreed that <br />there does need to be some recognition that Veterans Park is a <br />public park that is being made available for a private parochial <br />school without any taxation. Schmidt has no problems with pro- <br />viding those benefits to the school, the church, and the neigh- <br />borhood; feels we have included the basics in the park plan and <br />have embellished the plan with the aesthetics; feels comfortable <br /> <br />Page Twelve <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.