Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . <br /> . Staff did discuss with Mr. H.\.isnik and Mr. Holnquist the possibility of <br /> a resident su:rvey to determine their needs. No inf02:mation is <br /> available as to whether this was carpleted by the park's managerrent. <br /> Other issues to consider: <br /> 1. Who will perfOl:1ll long-tezm naintenance of new arrenities? <br /> CU=ently, the p:xJI is naintained by the nobile bare park. <br /> The proposed arrenities v.o.lld be located in the City <br /> easerrent area and v.o.lld be required to be naintained by <br /> the City. <br /> 2. Shculd drainage improverrents be considered a separate, <br /> unrelated issue? <br /> As you can see fran the attached letter fran Mr. Filla, it <br /> appears that the drainage is the nobile bare park's <br /> resp:msibility. The owner feels that by improving the <br /> drainage as part of this proposal, the recreation park <br /> will be made available for better naintenance and use, <br /> . thus providing additional arrenities to the residents. <br /> The City Council should keep in mind that in order to anend the SUP at <br /> this titre, a new public hearing needs to be held. Appendix A requires <br /> a review of the request by the Planning O:rnnission. The earliest this <br /> could be done is August 3, 1994. I clarified this with the City <br /> Atto:mey to ensure that the proper legal process is followed. <br /> Other options the City Council may wish to =sider are: <br /> 1. Send this request to the Parks O:rnnittee for review and <br /> ccmnent. TIlls was staff's recannendation as part of <br /> Planning Case Rey;:ort #94-07. 'Ihere is not a Parks <br /> Catmittee rreeting scheduled for July. <br /> 2. Consider the enforcerrent of the terms of the "Amended <br /> Special Use Pennit" as described in the attached letter <br /> from Mr. Filla. <br /> . Attachment <br /> BF:dg <br />