My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1986-06-24
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1986
>
1986-06-24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 5:25:12 AM
Creation date
8/11/2005 11:51:08 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />June 24, 1986 <br /> <br />Council Business, continued <br /> <br />Benke also pointed out that the contract for city hall does <br />include expansion of the existing parking lot into the park area <br />so we need to resolve that parking issue relatively quickly so <br />that the work order can be modified. <br /> <br />Schmidt, recognizing we are going to have to deal with a decision <br />on Third Avenue, believes the city should have some hard data on <br />just how often that street is used because a lot of folks <br />maintain the street should not be vacated because it is a matter <br />of convenience. Schmidt believes the city ought to evaluate just <br />how necessary it is that that street be there (how often it is <br />used, and just how much of a convenience it is versus how much of <br />a necessity it is). <br /> <br />Benke asked staff to get a traffic count to determine routine <br />use versus park-related use versus parking-lot-related use. <br /> <br />Tony Bona, 703 Second Avenue N.W., had nothing further to add to <br />the petition but would like to see the park development begin <br />soon. Bona stated Veterans Park is the only park in New Brighton <br />that has not been updated for years and the taxpayers would like <br />to see improvements made, and thought it would be advisable to <br />begin construction this year. <br /> <br />In response to Williams's inquiry, Bona responded the neighbors <br />would like to have the playground updated first and believes the <br />playground is in the same basic area in both park plans. <br /> <br />Brandt noted one of staff's suggestions was to include the ball <br />diamond in the first phase of the development and asked if the <br />fencing would change in any way or if there is a plan to use <br />plantings to camoflauge it. Anderson stated the intent is to not <br />put permanent fencing on the ball diamond in order to get multi- <br />ple uses out of the area. <br /> <br />In response to Brandt's question, Anderson advised that the <br />fencing the city uses is about five feet high versus seven-foot- <br />high permanent fencing, which is not a significant difference. <br />Anderson further stated the playground would be an additional <br />fifty or sixty feet behind the plantings and bermings with a <br />sidewalk between and that that distance would remove any hazard <br />of softballs being hit into the playground area. <br /> <br />In response to Brandt's inquiry, Anderson stated alternative <br />temporary fencing to snow fencing, works better but is not <br />aesthetically desirable, although one firm is developing an <br />appropriate fence which will be marketed in a few years. <br /> <br />Page Six <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.