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
DEPAFTb1ENT OP PARKS, <br />PECflEATiON pND FOP.ESTFV <br />C►fy of Mau�dsV�e� <br />` FAMSE COUNTY,MINNESOTP <br />]901 XIGMWAV 10 <br />MOV N�5 V IFW, MINN. 55112 <br />MEPg� T0: Mo�mds Viev Pax&a S Recreation Co�issioneis <br />FROM: StaFf <br />DAT6: Apiil 20, 1978 <br />BE: Pence replacement along Red Oak Drive <br />Staff reeeived a le[ter dated April 12 from Mr. William Lamppa, 5119 <br />lted Oalc Dxive cequeating tha[ the city replace his fence along the edge <br />of his proper[y because it had been damaged through park uscrs. <br />Af[er iaspecting the site in ques[ion, there are 7 homes that abut tLe <br />eastern edge of Woodciea[ Park. Of [hose homes� 4 have a fence boarding <br />the park perimetez. <br />Staff would roncur with Mr. Lamppa [ha[ his fence as well as o[hers <br />aloag the park boarder could have been damaged by park users. The <br />particular feace in question is an older wize fence 48" in heigh[, <br />[hat the skatera have climbed over to re[rieve pucks. <br />Before a deciaion is made conceming the es[ahlishmen[ of a neighborhood <br />feace policy� Staff has prepared a list of poasible considerations. <br />1. If we set a precedenc [o replace one fence we will have to replace <br />ell residents fences abu[ting park propexty in the iuture. <br />2. Staff doea not feel tha[ fencing each exis[ing pazk area is <br />pracGical or feasible. <br />3. Fences generally do noC enhance [he aesthetic appearance of the <br />neighborhood pazk system. <br />4. We would need [o install at leas[ a 6 Foo[ fence to Snsure that <br />future problems would be eliminated, which would be ex[remely <br />expenaive. <br />5. Fences should be used as a final alterna[ive afCer all o[her <br />solutiona have been exhausted. <br />fi. If ae inatall just one section of fencing we will only be <br />ce-rou[ing [he existing traffic and not offering a long tecm <br />eolution. <br />7. Is it the City's responsi6ility to pzovide "easemen[s" or acceas <br />to the parke from each direc[ionT <br />8. 6xamine [he pose1611iCy of the Ci[y aharing the cost of fence <br />replacement vith the homeowers. <br />1...' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.