Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I- <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />Ie <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />Ie <br />I <br /> <br />ARDEN HTT.TA(;I CITY COUNCn.. - JULY 11, 1994 <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Acting Mayor Aplikowski opened the meeting to public comment on items not on the <br />meeting agenda. There were no public comments. <br /> <br />UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br />A. REVIEW OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ARDEN MANOR (SWIMMING <br />POOL) <br /> <br />Fritsinger stated that at the last Council meeting the owners of Arden Manor Mobile <br />Home Park were requested to bring a proposal to address amenities for park residents <br />to compensate for the loss of the swimming pool. Staff discussed possible options <br />that park management might offer in place of the swimming pool facility, which the <br />owner states is too costly to repair. Park management is proposing to construct two <br />new basketball hoops, remove the existing tennis courts, construct two new sand <br />volleyball courts in place of the tennis courts, add additional drainage landscaping <br />improvements, correct drainage problems from the pond to the outlet pipe on the <br />south side of the park, put in additional landscaping near the existing pool. Staff is <br />concerned that not all age groups will benefit from the proposed amenities, especially <br />younger children. Another question is whether drainage improvements should be <br />considered as a separate, unrelated issue. Correspondence has been received from <br />City Attorney Filla indicating that the storm drainage responsibility should be separate <br />from the recreation proposal. <br /> <br />Hicks suggested that long-term maintenance agreement could be worked out with <br />Arden Manor for the maintenance of any facilities built on the City park easement <br />area. He asked if any residents have been involved in preparing an alternative to the <br />pool. Residents present indicated that they had not. <br /> <br />Fritsinger stated that he had suggested to the park management that a survey of <br />tenants be conducted, but it has not been done at this time. <br /> <br />Hicks stated that if the swimming pool were in use, it would not be available for <br />children under the age of 14. It was his understanding from the public hearing that <br />children under 14 do use it, even though they should be accompanied by parents. <br /> <br />Malone noted that the park management agreed to provide a recreational facility in the <br />form of a swimming pool nearly 20 years ago. The SUP granted by the City <br />depended upon the swimming pool as a condition of approval. At this time he sees <br />nothing to cause the City to back away from that requirement. This does not mean <br />the conditions of the SUP cannot be amended with a good plan for alternative <br />recreation facilities, that a poll or survey should be taken to allow residents to express <br />their preferences. Malone stated that he would have to have that type of information <br />