My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1990/08/20
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
Agenda Packets - 1990/08/20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:36 PM
Creation date
7/25/2018 5:37:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
8/20/1990
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
8/20/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
U.k111 <br /> t <br /> 110 <br /> MEMO TO: MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS <br /> FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR <br /> PARKS, RECREATION & FORESTRY <br /> DATE: AUGUST 8, 1990 <br /> SUBJECT: SILVER VIEW PARK PROPOSAL REVIEW <br /> The Silver View Park proposal has been placed on the _agenda for <br /> discussion and review during the Monday, August 20, 1990 council <br /> agenda session. I will be out of town on vacation this week and <br /> therefore unable to attend. However, members of the Parks and <br /> Recreation Commission and Forester Wriskey will be present. <br /> Here are questions and issues which you may wish to discuss further <br /> to determine whether changes should be made when considering <br /> adoption of the proposal. <br /> 1. South side of sliding hill. Should the south side of the hill <br /> remain unmowed or should it be mowed to 8-10 inches or are there <br /> other suggestions? A decision must be made to determine the level <br /> of maintenance. <br /> • 2 . Pond weeds. The proposal suggests that the weeds should be <br /> harvested twice a year using the cable and hook method suggested <br /> by Environmental Specialists. This is a great concern of residents <br /> and is listed as a priority in the Pond section of the proposal, <br /> page 14 and 18 . <br /> 3 . Pathway. The proposal suggests that the pathway should be <br /> completed around the entire pond with woodchips as a surface <br /> material. The northerly pathway should be replaced with a hard <br /> surface material from Long Lake Road to Silver Lake Road and <br /> leading to the picnic shelter. <br /> 4. Buffer Area of -. • . • - . ... _ - .,„. . . _ <br /> and brush should be allowed to grow up to the path (allowing one <br /> cut on the pond side of the trail. ) The proposal suggests <br /> regulated control of the buffer area by means of selected pruning <br /> and trimming. The concept plan designates the pond and buffer area <br /> as a nature area. "Grooming" the nature area is contrary to the <br /> philosophy. Is everyone in agreement with this fundamental concept? <br /> What policies and enforcement will support this conceptual <br /> philosophy? <br /> 5. Time line and priorities. ? This question cannot be answered <br /> because funding has not been secured and funding determines when <br /> • projects can be initiated. The priority and time line is simply <br /> a scenario that the Task Force developed in the event that all the <br /> suggested funding was granted or approved without delay. <br /> { <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.