Laserfiche WebLink
P9INUTES <br />City Council <br />Dec. 28, 1988 <br />Reappoint- The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr~. Fahey. <br />ments Ayes (5) Collova, Fahey, ScaY.ze, Blesener, LaValle. <br />(Cont.) Nays (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 20, Pac{e 598. <br />Scalze repor•ted that Ken ldehr~le has r•equested r•eappointment to the Park <br />Commission for an additional term. Scalze noted the good attendance and <br />valuable participation of Mr. Wehrle. <br />Fahey suggested that a certificate of appreciation be sent to Wehrle as <br />well. <br />Mr•s. Scalze intr•oduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 88-12-558 - REAPPOINTING KEN <br />WEHRLE TO THE PARK COMMISSI0~1 FOR A THREE-YEAR <br />TERM COMMENCING JANUARY l, 1989 AND INSTRUCTING <br />THE CITY CLERK TO SEND A CERTIFICATION OF APPRECIATION <br />TO MR. WEHRLE FOR NIS PAST SERVICE TO THE CITY <br />The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr. Collova. <br />Ayes (5) Scalze, Collova, Fahey, Blesener, LaValle. <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Page 599. <br />Center•ville Scalze infor•med the Council of the Par•k Commission's recent r•ecommendation <br />Road Park that the parking lots for the Centerville Road Par•k have buffer ar•eas of <br />Parking 75 feet from both Centerville Road and DeSoto. Scalze r•eported that the <br />Lots r•ecommendation is a compr•omise from what the Park Commission originally <br />pr•oposed and from the comments received by adjacent property owner•s. <br />Agenda <br />Addition Fahey asked what the setback for parking lots would be if the proper•ty <br />wer•e developed as Industr•ial pr~oper•ty. <br />The City Planner r•eplied that the parking lot setback for• an ind~astr•ial <br />development is 5 feet. <br />Fahey stated that he felt a 75 foot buffer would be a terrible waste of <br />park proper•ty. Fahey stated that he was also concer•ned with keeping the <br />par•king lot as close to the r•oad as possible so that it is visible and <br />can be policed easily. Fahey pointed out the policing pr•oblems that the <br />City has had with the lower parking lot in Spooner Park. <br />Fahey felt that a par•king lot with a 50 foot setback was pr~efer•able than <br />75 feet, noting that the par•king lot would be landscaped. Fahey felt it <br />unreasonable that since the City is purchasing the proper~ty, the City <br />Page -9- <br />