1986-06-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 1986 Council Business, continued Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Brandt, to INITIATE CONSIDERA- TION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PARKING ON CITY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE FIRE HALL AND DIRECT STAFF TO CONSOLIDATE FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION BY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PARK DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND THE QUESTION OF THIRD AVENUE CLOSING BETWEEN EIGHTH AND NINTH STREETS. Schmidt stated, recognizing the timing on these matters and being able to get any work done yet this year, whatever plans that come forward for the park are going to have to be final plans. Therefore, Schmidt would like the staff report to include what should be done this year and what can be deferred for future development. Williams stated council more or less rejected all of the park plans for various reasons and feels the Park Board, designers and staff need direction from the council in order to come forward with a good plan. Gunderman stated if, in fact, this is going to be a neighborhood park for the children in the community, it is quite obvious which items are to be left in; if we are talking about a theater and whether or not that is appropriate for a downtown-type park, that is something different. Williams felt there should be a Master Development Plan approved for the park to include all of the elements envisioned so that anything developed now will not have to be removed in the future. Benke shared the question of what should or should not be included in the park, but feels before council can look at plans that have the kinds of information we want, it needs to decide the more basic questions as to whether or not we are going to take some of the land for parking and/or close Third Avenue. Benke believes once the two issues are resolved, the plans for the park can then be considered. Williams agreed, but felt the sequencing ought to be that the parking plan and the Third Avenue issue be resolved by council, and then give the Park Board a piece of land that it can develop. Schmidt recalled that the plans for the site would not change whether or not the street is vacated and the ball field oriented in a different direction. Schmidt's concern is that what is developed on the piece of land north of the park be compatible with the development on the northern portion of the park. Benke felt council could resolve the parking issue and street issue at one meeting, following which subsequent direction might be needed to resolve the park's details. Page Seven