My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/04/1991 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1991 Park Board Packets
>
02/04/1991 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2021 10:03:48 AM
Creation date
7/23/2021 3:23:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
02/04/1991
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.
/
78
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
With regard to park facilities and recreation programs the <br />survey found: <br />*The five most highly desired additions to park <br />facilities and activities were: <br />1. Hiking/walking/jogging trails <br />2. Bicycling trails <br />3. Youth recreation programs <br />4. Teen recreation programs <br />5. Restrooms in parks <br />*The five least desired additions to park facilities and <br />activities were: <br />1. Indoor ice arena <br />2. Outdoor swimming pool <br />3. Indoor swimming pool <br />4. Snowmobile trails (tie) <br />5. Exercise courses <br />Urban Use of the Land: Can Lino Lakes take advantage of its <br />environment without destroying it? What leads to -residential <br />satisfaction? <br />Similar questions were recently asked in Ann Arbor, Michigan, <br />and their resolution by researcher Rachel Kaplan can be of <br />benefit to Lino Lakes. Kaplan tried to determine how the <br />immediate physical environment affected neighborhood <br />satisfaction. What she found was unexpected. The overall <br />amount of open space was not the key to residential <br />satisfaction and greenbelts and large mowed urban parks did <br />little in improving neighborhood satisfaction. The amenities <br />really valued were small "pieces of nature." Kaplan found: <br />Rather than large open areas and mowed expanses, <br />residents expressed a desire and a delight in smaller <br />areas that have trees and shrubs. <br />The influence of the pieces of nature was such that even <br />parking lots could be perceived by local residents as <br />positive neighborhood influences if they included small areas <br />of trees and shrubs. <br />,•� To provide for residential satisfaction Kaplan argued that <br />Page 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.