Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 05/14/1998

Home

~1~-3~88838 HI31S1NI~TDN KDIESLf~ ~-SS PI~ I~Y 04 '~J8 0~:05 Community...other ideas?" Each small group was asked to record their answers on the Mastea' Objectives List, which would be turned in to staff at the end of the meeting. They were also asked to agree upon the three most important objectives that the group felt should be addressed in the plan. Each group then reported on what they felt were the three most important objectives. These objectives were recordea:l on a flip chart and are listed as follows (please note there is no order of priority in the list): Small_.~oup.s_ummary of most impoctant objectives. · 1. Keep it natural (trees) 2. Control ace.s to the area (traffic, no commercial developmen0 :3. Law enforcement (littering, speeding) 4. No public acce~ or trails in areaz ah~ady developed 5, Better public access sensitive to property owners concerns 6. River use conform to natural conditions 7. Trails linking exi,~ting public acc.~s without going on Highway 10 8. Continuous trail along corridor (on street) 9. Preserve residential views and r~idents privacy 10, Preserve shoreline and natural setting of the fiver I 1.Maintain land owner and stakeholder rights 12. Preserve natural srtting as much as possible 1:3.Limit amount of development along river. 14. Protect rights of agriculture land owners (similar to other property owners along riven') A few issues of significant concern were brought forth during the sro~J! group exercise. While many participants took part in the exercises and discussed the objectives, others were more concerned with the alignment of a trail shown on the City's "Proposed/Existing Parks & Trails" plan and chose not to directly .participate in the exercise. A discussion separate from the cx~rcisc focused on contentious issues related to private property owners rights, trail corridors, public involvement not being adhered to and untrustworthy government. Several residents were specifically concerned about a proposed trail going through or near their property. Two sides to this issue were presented at the meeting, One side wag opposed to any trail being planned for within the river corridor. The other side was interested in a trail that would be within the river corridor area but would not impose upon already developed private property and would not look to crea~ any further public access than already exists or is planned within Mississippi West Rcglonal Park. It was noted that one of the objectives listed during the small group exercise was to "maintain land owner and stakeholder rights." This objective should be stressed in the plan. it was further noted that many of these same issues were discussed in previous public meetings for the Comprehensive Plan. After considerable discussion about this issue and after several participants had left the me~ting, a vote was taken by a show of hands thai favored a trail within the corridor (10) and a show of hands that favored no trail within the corridor (I6). Next Step The objectives and issues identified in this meeting will be formulated into a draft plan for the future of the Mississippi River Corridor. This draft will be included in the full Comprehensive Plan update that is to be completed by D~cember 30, of this year. The plan will be in draft form and available for review in early .{uly. Future public m~fings will be sehoduled to review and comment on the draft plan prior to final adoption. Please call City Hall at 427-1410 for information on the process or to find out when the next pu. blic meeting is to be held. The me~fing adjourned near 9:15 p.m. Hoisington Koegler Group, lnc Page $ of $ '7