My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Council_Minutes_1986_11_24
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
Council Minutes 1986
>
Council_Minutes_1986_11_24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2011 4:09:24 PM
Creation date
2/7/2011 2:28:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Mounds View City Council November 24, 1986 <br />Regular Meeting Page Three <br />Motion /Second: Blanchard /Haake to approve the <br />contract with Gunner Isberg, per his proposal dated <br />September 22, 1986, at a cost not to exceed <br />$14,825. <br />5 ayes <br />0 nays Motion Carried <br />Mr. Cook explained the proposed walkway for the Red <br />Oak subdivision would provide an outlet to the <br />adjacent property, but he noted it is private <br />property in back with no easement to provide for <br />an outlet. He added the church has indicated <br />they are not in favor of having a walkway easement <br />in that area. <br />Director Thatcher explained that when the project was <br />first proposed, Bruce Anderson had advised they <br />analyze the issue of putting a walkway in. He added <br />the Park Board had reviewed the proposal and he had <br />received a memo from Mary Saarion, dated November 24, <br />stating that the Park and Rec Commission feels the <br />walkway does not meet the objectives of the Park <br />and Rec Department, but did note there is an opening <br />in the fence that people do walk through. There is <br />also a storm sewer easement, but it is not mentioned <br />as a bike path or walkway. He also noted if the <br />pathway was put in, it would have to go across the <br />church parking lot, which would cause problems. He <br />added the Planning Commission had discussed it <br />briefly but not reached a decision. <br />Councilmember Quick noted that at one time there was <br />an area there that the Park and Rec Department used <br />as a baseball field and playground, and it was also <br />used by the school and had a great deal of traffic <br />going through the opening in the fence. <br />Councilmember Haake stated she does not see a need for <br />the pathway, and she could forsee problems happening <br />with it as the City encountered with the Gale /Yost <br />addition. She added she does not feel this would be <br />a good expenditure of money for the City now. <br />Councilmember Blanchard stated this is private property, <br />bordering on private property, and she does not see the <br />need to put a walkway through. <br />Motion /Second: Haake!Bianchard that the Council does <br />not feel there is a need for a bike path or pedestrial <br />walkway on the northerly portion of the Red Oak <br />Subdivision, between lots 8 and 9. <br />S i 5 ayes <br />0 nays Motion Carried <br />Councilmember Haake asked for a clarification of the <br />Ramsey County plan for the capital i program, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.