9-27-84 Agenda & Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMO TO: Mounds View Park and Recr_eatian Commission IIIDir . ' FROM: Bruce K. Anderson , Dire Oar i Parks , Recreation and ; 'or st ,c, DATE : September 25 , 1984 RE : Random Park Fencing Staff met with five neighborhood residents on Tuesday, September 4 , 1984 to discuss the concerns of the property owners surround- ing Random Park . The meeting was attended by the five adjacent property owners and Parks and Recreation CommissionerBowman . Staff reviewed the past history of Random Park relating back to the initial park design , master park plan , related public hear- ings and meetings that were held prior to adoption of the Random Park plan . In addition , staff reviewed the mailing list of the community residents regarding the construction of the play envi- ronment at Random Park and the public hearing process that fol- lowed . Following staff ' s introduction , each of the property owners stated what their specific concerns were regarding the Random Park tot lot. There were three specific concerns raised by the residents: ( Listed by priority) IIII1. Utilizing their yards for access to the park site . 2. Noise and general disruption of the neighborhood by the young people utilizing the equipment . 3 . Concern for potential vandalism; although no vandalism had occurred to either the playground equipment or the abutting property owners to date . Staff indicated that the large numbers of young people that were attracted to the playground equipment were partially due to the novelty of the equipment, and that the numbers would greatly decrease once the equipment was in place for a year . In addi- tion , staff reviewed the Park Commission ' s fencing policy to use natural berming and plant materials as often as possible to avoid manmade fencing . Following a general discussion , it was unanimously and quite ada- mently stated by each of the property owners that a fence , 5 feet high, running from Ridge Lane to the existing four foot fence owned by Mr. Shah on the northside of the fence would be the only acceptable solution to resolve the problems and concerns they had experienced. Staff indicated that should a fence be installed , the cost would be incurred by the City and all maintenance and liability would be the City' s responsibility as the fence would 41/1 be placed on park grounds. Staff indicated that each of the pro- perty owners rear property lines would need to be fenced and that no gates and/or access to the site could be made available at City expense .