08/24/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. At the August 7, 1989 City Council meeting, there was no denial by the Park & Recreation attendees that a master plan exists. Instead, they commented that it is continually being updated and changed. My interpretation of this is that there is a master plan, but that the Park & Recreation Commission has decided not to follow it. It is my understanding, that significant changes to the plan (i.e. path extension, elimination of a bridge, grossly expanded picnic shelter, etc.) requires public notification and hearings to determine the requirements of the residents, as well as, to ensure those changes fit in with the intent of the original master plan. 8. In July 1989, 1 attended a City Council meeting and was surprised when I was told that the path had been approved. I had expected that Mary Saarion would keep her word when she said in the spring 1988 meeting and subsequent meetings and letters that the residents would have an opportunity to see the plan before anything was approved. As far as I know, none of the residents directly impacted by the path had seen the plan prior to its approval. As a matter of fact, there are several of us who did not even know that it had been approved. 9. Since that time, I have contacted the city and requested all the background information that went into the approval of the path. I have received copies of several memos, but to date, I am still waiting for a copy of the Council minutes when it was approved so I can find out when it happened. 10. 1 would like to comment on a memo from Mary Saarion to the Mayor and Council Members dated June 14, 1988 (see attached). • When questioned why the wood chip path did not extend around the entire pond, an appropriate response would have been that the master plan includes a bridge to connect the two existing paths and provide easy access to the park. When funds were available, it would be constructed. • I think Mary stated it very appropriately in her memo when she wrote, "it was the desire of the Park & Recreation Commission to extend the path" - not the best interests of the residents that were considered. 11. In Mary Saarion's memo to the Mayor and Council Members dated March 28, 1989 (see attached), she states "the pathway plan was ... reviewed several times by residents." This statement is not true. We never saw a plan until late this summer after we were told it had been approved. 12. Once I finally received a copy of the path plan (July 1989), 1 contacted both Rick Wriskey and Wayne Burmeister regarding its proximity to our lot line. The path and plantings as currently planned will be on our property. We had pointed this out to Mary in the spring 1988 meeting, but we were accused of moving the stakes that had been put in for the meeting. This past week Wayne Burmeister has restaked our property lines and agrees that there is a problem. There is no room for the plantings which the residents have been promised. Since our lot is also adjacent to the concrete access walk, it is even more critical that there be a definition of our property. Otherwise, there will be a tendency to "cut the corner" through our yard. In addition, if the ag-lime turns out to be anything like the wood chips, many walkers will choose to walk along side the path rather than on it. 13. The plan also indicates the path will be 8 feet and "narrower as required." Since the culvert is being put in so vehicles can cross and drive down the path, anything narrower than 8 feet would have the trucks driving on the unstable bank of the pond or on the plantings.