My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMMISSION_MINUTES_1978-04-27
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
COMMISSION_MINUTES_1978-04-27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2022 11:54:36 AM
Creation date
9/5/2014 9:24:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
Documnet Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
: <br />GATEWAY <br />DEPARTMENT OF PAHKS, <br />RECtiEA710N ANO FORESTRV <br />C►f � Mo��dSUe� <br />� RAMSEYCOUNTY,MINNESOTA <br />]401 MI6HWAV 10 <br />MOUNOS V IEW, MINN. 55112 <br />hffitYl T0: Momds Viev Parka d Recreation Commissioneca <br />FROM: Staff <br />DATE: April 20, 1978 <br />RE: Fence replacement alcng Red Oak Drive <br />Staff received a 2etter dated April 12 from Mt. William Lamppa, 5119 <br />Red Oak Drive requesting that the aity replace his fence along the edge <br />of hie pmpetty because it had been damaged through park users. <br />After inspecting the site in question, there are 7 homes that abut the <br />eastern edge of Woodcreat Park. Of thoae homea, 4 have a fence boarding <br />the park perimeter. <br />Staff vould concur with Mr. Lamppa that his fence as well as others <br />along the park boarder could have been damaged by park users. The <br />�i particular fence in question is ao older wite fence 48" in height> <br />that the skatera have climbed over to retrieve pucics. <br />� <br />Before a decision ia made concerning the eatablishme¢t of a neighborhood <br />fence policy, Staff has prepared a list of gosaible considerationa. <br />1. If we set a precedent to replace one fence we will have to replace <br />all residents fences abutting park property in the future. <br />2. Staff does not feel that fencing each existing park area is <br />practical or feaeihle. <br />3. Fencea generally do not enhance the aeet6etic appearance of ehe � <br />neighborhood park syatem. <br />4. We would need to inetall at least a 6 foot fence to insure that <br />£i,ure pmbleme would be eliminated, vhich would be extremely <br />expansive. <br />5. Fe�aea should be used as a final alternative after all other <br />eolutiona have been exhaueted. <br />6. If we inatall juet one section of fencing we will only be <br />re-muting the existing traffic and not offering a long term <br />aolution. <br />7. .Ta it the City�e responeibility to provide "easements" oz accese <br />to the parks from each direction7 <br />8. Bxamine the poaeibility of the City eharing the coat of fance <br />replacement aith the homeo�ners. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.