Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Park & Recreation Commission Minutes <br />July 8. 1998 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />6. <br /> <br />Open Mike <br /> <br />Jim Nystrom spoke regarding the need for bicycle lanes in the city. He asked that <br />consideration be given coordinating trail plans with road construction such as <br />when School Street is improved, and also on County Road No. 12 from Highway <br />169 to the county line. <br /> <br />Cathy Lorentzen. 20069 Zane Street, asked if there are any plans to upgrade 197th. <br />She did not feel the road was designed to handle the amount of traffic which is <br />being generated by all the new development. She expressed her concern for <br />the safety of children using 197th to access the Deerfield Park if it is developed. <br />She felt 197th A venue was not designed to handle the amount of traffic now using <br />the roadway and was also concerned about speeding. <br /> <br />Chair Anderson Indicated that Deerfield 2nd park is being used as a passive park <br />with nature/walking trails At this time, the only access to the park is via the <br />gasline easement. He agreed that 197th is not designed for pedestrians, and he is <br />not aware of any plans to upgrade 197th Avenue at this time. <br /> <br />Ann Schreifels, 20060 Vance Street, expressed her concern that the wildlife will be <br />disturbed if the park is developed. She also expressed her concern for the safety <br />of children playing in backyards, and for their property. if the park were <br />developed with trails. <br /> <br />7.a. <br /> <br />Neiahborhood Meetina to Discuss Deerfield 2nd Park <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Steve Wensman, Planner, explained the concept plan for the Deerfield 2nd Park <br />which was endorsed by the Park & Recreation Commission at their May 13th <br />meeting (Option A). The plan suggests a looped bituminous trail on the southern <br />portion. wood chip trails in the northern half with some sort of connection. He <br />indicated development of the park is dependent on whether or not it is possible <br />to get around the wetland to the northern area. If not, the park would have to <br />be developed as two separate sites. At some point in the future if development <br />occurs to the north. there may be an opportunity to create a vehicle entrance <br />on the northern boundary with parking and a picnic area. <br /> <br />A resident questioned how the park users would know where the park ends and <br />private property begins. Another resident asked if the park would be fenced. He <br />expressed concern that opening up the park to increased usage would bring <br />vandalism to the neighborhoods and would disturb the wildlife. Commissioner <br />Anderson indicated there would be signage to delineate the park boundaries <br />but there would be no fencing. He explained that fencing would block the <br />natural trails the deer are currently using. Chair Anderson indicated that these <br />types of parks most often become self-policed by the neighboring residents using <br />the trails. <br /> <br />A resident asked if there would be toilets in the park and how they would be <br />maintained. Commissioner Anderson indicated that eventually there would be <br />portable toilets in the park which would be maintained weekly. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />A resident stated his property is located west of the wetland and that his property <br />line goes into the wetland. He questioned how the city would access the <br />