Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 <br />neighbors have regarding the development of that park. He explained that the residents <br />adjacent to the park are not satisfied with the planning and development process that has <br />been guided by the Park Board and the Park and Recreation Department. Mr. Peterson <br />said that the Park Board and the Park and Recreation Department have not given the <br />property owners the consideration that has been traditionally given to citizens in matters <br />of this type. <br />Mr. Peterson noted that petitions, letters and surveys have been submitted to the Park <br />Board and the Park and Recreation Department staff. These items have not been given <br />property attention as they relate to the selection and type of equipment being proposed for <br />this park. The original master plan for this park is being altered without the consent of all. <br />interested parties. Other concerned parties are involved in soliciting donations of money, <br />material and labor for equipment that they desire regardless of the concerns of the <br />adjacent property owners and the original master plan. They are proposing and in some <br />cases purchasing equipment that the property owners do not want such as picnic shelters, <br />barbecue grills, picnic tables and a large backstop for a playing field. Mr. Peterson said <br />that just because something is donated does not necessarily mean that everyone wants it. <br />Mr. Peterson noted some problems with the present development of the park.. There is no <br />easy access to the park now or planned for the future. The park is landlocked and <br />surrounded by cul-de-sacs. The picnic tables, shelter and ballfield will attract numerous <br />park users by car. The parking space is to small to accommodate such use. The current <br />design has the ballfield pointed at the playground which would have the potential for fly <br />balls coming into the play equipment and injuring a child. Adding to the problem is a 30 <br />foot buffer zone separating private property from park activity and equipment and the <br />planting of trees in the area originally planned for a playground. These actions have the <br />effect of reducing an already small play area. There is too much equipment planned for <br />this small space. There is a lack of walking and bike paths and no money available or <br />being raised to construct them. Mr. Peterson said that the Park Board should implement a <br />policy that no park be developed until the bike/walking paths have been constructed <br />throughout the park. It does no good to purchase a lot of equipment for a park that has no <br />access. The result is a park that has little use or promotes shortcuts and trespass on <br />private property to gain access to the park. Mr. Peterson noted that there is an adjoining <br />nature area and he felt that the design and selection of equipment did not take this into <br />consideration. The only choice of equipment considered for the park is plastic. He did <br />not feel the selection of equipment took into consideration options for equipment made <br />from natural materials. He noted Pinewood Elementary School, Moundsview as an <br />example of materials that could be used. <br />Mr. Peterson said that property owners are asking that all planning and development of <br />the park be put on hold until all pending issues are resolved. They are also asking that the <br />City Council intervene and mediate all issues so that there can be a negotiated settlement <br />between all interested parties. Mr. Peterson noted that the Park Board has set another <br />public meeting for June 27, 1996, 6:30 P.M. at the Lino Lakes fire hall to discuss this <br />matter again and would like action to be of a compromising nature. He said that property <br />PAGE 2 <br />