1986-06-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 1986 Council Business, continued Williams asked what is expected of the Park Board and the Park and Recreation Director for that meeting by way of new park design. Benke's request would be that the park plans, either previous or modified, would show how we would develop the park (1) not expanding the current parking lot, (2) how the area adjacent to the ball field would be developed if Third Avenue were to be vacated between Eighth and Ninth Streets. Anderson stated he could address the two issues possibly by doing a base plan between staff and Park Board and can present that plan to council with a few overlays of those two sections (Third Avenue and parking lot); with regard to the remainder of devel- opment on the west and north, would prefer to proceed with the development of a Master Plan for the entire park, given the understanding that when we come in with construction plans and specifications there may be changes in the Master Plan as devel- opment begins downtown. Anderson felt he had enough information to plan the entire park as one unit with the possibility of changes. Benke summarized by stating council is asking for processing a special use permit to consider and resolve the parking lot issue, and asked the Park Board and staff to look at how the parking arrangements would work into the park plan (assuming we move across the street with parking), and how the park would develop (assuming council would close Third Avenue). Benke stated that information would be available for discussion along with a concept and staging plan for the park on July 22, 1986. Rehberger asked if the impact of traffic on other streets had been considered if Third Avenue is closed; Benke stated traffic counts will give staff and council direction. 5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried Schmidt stated he had removed this item from the Consent Agenda because the mower was purchased four years ago and, with $1,200 worth of repairs, questioned what was considered to be the life of heavy duty mowers and wondered what the other options were available if another Cushman presented the same risks. Anderson stated the useful life is six years followed with significant repairs; because of the rugged use, did not know of anyone that would lease them; and before making a decision to purchase another Cushman, his staff tested one for three weeks. Although the Cushman is the least expensive with the trade-in, it is a good piece of equipment. Page Eight Park's Rotary Mower Report 86-142A