My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/06/1996 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1990 - 1998 Park Board Packets
>
1996 Park Board Packets
>
05/06/1996 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2021 2:52:55 PM
Creation date
7/9/2021 10:51:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
05/06/1996
Park Bd Meeting Type
Regular
Park Bd Publication Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
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).
View images
View plain text
A. It's just too much. It appears they are trying to concentrated all of the <br /> facilities and activities of a ten acre park, serving three or more subdivisions, <br /> into a couple of acres. It's suppose to be a neighborhood park and <br /> everyone has continually expressed their interest in an natural park setting. <br /> You have a copy of the previous letter from many in our neighborhood sent <br /> with no response. Granted it is much shorter and more general, but it <br /> includes the same points that we are bringing to you tonight. <br /> B. This concentration in essence makes the Lonesome Pine Trail cul-de-sac, <br /> the primary entry point to the park. I don't think this is what people had in <br /> mind when they moved into this neighborhood. And I don't think it was <br /> designed to serve as the main entrance to this park. <br /> C. In addition, several of the proposed facilities and activities will attract <br /> vehicular traffic. This end of the park has no infrastructure to safely handle <br /> this type of traffic and parking. This point has been made repeatedly a <br /> previous meetings, again with no response. <br /> In fact, just as we had feared, at our last meeting we were surprised by a <br /> proposal for an extensive ball field setup including large backstop with wings <br /> and benches protected with fences. This doesn't sound like sandlot ball. It <br /> will surely draw youth teams for practices and perhaps even games. <br /> There also was a proposal for a picnic shelter. While this might be nice for <br /> occasional neighborhood use, but it will undoubtedly bring unwanted traffic, <br /> parking, loitering and litter. <br /> The bottom line is simple. The "load" of the park must be spread out, <br /> especially placing destination facilities where there are appropriate <br /> accommodations to safely handle traffic and parking <br /> Point 2. Now lets focus on what's going into the park. There appears to be <br /> little attention being given to the Neighborhood Park Survey Results. The <br /> highest priorities after the playground equipment and open play space is a <br /> nature walk and benches. Besides that, the path would just seem the <br /> logical first step. It connects the neighborhoods and makes it possible to <br /> move on wheels which seems to a very popular mode of transit in this area. <br /> It would seem to be especially important for parents with strollers and <br /> individuals with disabilities. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.