Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> -2- <br /> • <br /> The issues of concern stated by the residents petition are <br /> questionable. <br /> 1 . The development of such a pedestrian walk is not inconsistent <br /> with the original plan for Silver View Park as one can see on <br /> development park design maps. Only in respect to the success <br /> of the park referendum was the bridge planned. <br /> 2. Hiking . is considered a legitimate passive , open space park <br /> activity. <br /> 3 . Since people walk the undeveloped portion of the pathway from <br /> • point A to point B, the forming of a "mud" path is imminent <br /> 5. <br /> and surely the development of a landscaped pathway is more <br /> aesthetic than a mudpath and the inherent liabilities the City <br /> assumes. <br /> 4 . The development of a continuous pathway around the entire pond <br /> will be more aesthetically pleasing than an unfinished path <br /> loop which stops at points A and 13 and does not connect as is the <br /> current case. <br /> The pathway behind the homes will cause little additional <br /> maintenance than already is performed. Currently, the City <br /> mows the park property. Additional maintenance to replenish <br /> wood chips and water or weed landscaping would be the only <br /> only additional " intrusion" . <br /> The pathway will not prevent natural drainage since the pathway <br /> will be level on the slope, any heavy rain runoff would run <br /> over the pathway from the higher park property. <br /> 6 . The issue of Silver View pathway has been on the Parks and <br /> Recreation Commission agendas during March, April and July. A <br /> special letter was mailed to each resident who had a concern <br /> about the pathway inviting them to the Mare'h meeting. Concerned <br /> residents did attend the April meeting and their concerns were <br /> heard by the Commission. <br /> Considering all the issues , the Parks and Recreation Commission has <br /> a strong case in the motion made on April 23 , 1987 to recommend the <br /> continuation of the path around the pond. <br /> Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission hold fast <br /> to the motion to continue the pathway around the entire pond. <br /> Furthermore, it is recommended that a 30-60 day notice be sent to <br /> the residents who signed the petition notifying them of the date in <br /> which the pathway development will begin, i . e. October 19 , 1987 . <br /> In addition, the City would offer to consider an agreement of <br /> landscaping wishes and desires of the residents in hopes of <br /> alleviating their fears that the path would be an eyesore. <br /> MS/sl <br />