HomeMy Public PortalAbout1974-026Village of Medina
Hamel, Minnesota 55340
RESOLUTION NO. 74- C, CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE/POLICY PLAN FOR
RECREATION OPEN SPACE OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
WHEREAS the Metropolitan Council's proposed Development Guide/Policy
Plan for Recreation Open Space will have a broad effect on the recrea-
tional opportunities, life styles and tax payments of citizens in the
metropolitan area; and
WHEREAS the City of Medina has experienced the planning, acquisition,
and development of a large regional park reserve within its boundaries
during the past decade; and
WHEREAS the Medina City Council believes it would be beneficial to
share with the Metropolitan Council and with other communities some of
the knowledge gained from its experience;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Medina City Council makes the
following comments concerning the proposed Development Guide/Policy Plan
for Recreation Open Space of the Metropolitan Council:
1. In Policy #8, public hearings of a formal nature should be re-
quired in addition tc any other methods of citizen participation. Hear-
ings should be held before adoption of plans and programs, not afterward.
2. Policy #9 should be amended to insure adequate public input on the
part of people end communities where regional recreational facilities are
to be located. Since few of the proposed sites appear to be unique in
the sense of being one of a kind, it would seem prudent to require city
council or town board approval --not just consultation --of any proposed
site. This would insure maximum public input, support, and cooperation.
3. Policy #14 should be amended to insure that powers of eminent
domain are not used without approval of the local city council or town
board.
4. We believe it would be desirable to add a policy calling for the
granting of life tenancy options to persons whose homes are taken for
open space purposes, regardless of the ages of such persons.
5. It would be difficult and probably unfair to apply the metropolitan
significance definition to sites as designated in this policy plan under
Policy #15, since the plan includes no exact boundaries but only broad
areas where open space might be located.
6. If the Metropolitan Council proposes to define proposed park sites
as being of metropolitan significance, and if it proposes to bring all
its legal powers to bear against what is deemed incompatible develop-
ment (page 21), then it seems only fair that property owners should be
insured of prompt offers for their land. We have seen cases where owners
have been unable to sell or develop property, yet have received no real
offer of public purchase.
-RESOLUTION NO. 74-.26, Page 2
7. We agree that the Metropolitan Council has a special obligation to
provide a fair share of development funding to Hennepin County in view
of the large amounts of money the county already has spent to acquire
park land.
8. However, the Development Guide/Policy Plan fails to insure that
development funds will be used wisely and will do the best job possible.
Why, for instance, are storm sewer, curb,and gutter necessary for park-
ing lots at Morris T. Baker Park Reserve? Must five maintenance shops
for the Hennepin County Park Reserve District cost more than one million
dollars total? Perhaps the Metropolitan Council should review
specifications for such projects.
9. Likewise, some mechanism is necessary tc see that public funds do
not accrue to the disproportionate benefit of private industry. We
agree, for instance, that the\Coon Rapids Dam must now be a metropolitan
responsibility, not soleCy that of Hennepin County. However, we think
Northern States Power Company, not the public, should pay for structural
repairs that were needed in the dam when it was given to the Hennepin
County Park Reserve District in December 1969. NSP paid $300,000 to the
county for repairs at that time, but minutes of the Park Reserve District
board meeting of November 21, 1973, indicate that repairs could cost as
much as $1,800,000. That, of course, is far beyond the $600,000 you
have budgeted to pay for those repairs, and it indicates a deficiency
in the agreement under which the dam became public property. Perhaps
the Metropolitan Council should review such future agreements to insure
that the public interest is protected.
10. Under the proposed System Plan, it would appear that park re-
serves would be large enough to accommodate the functions of a regional
park as well in most cases, and activities of a regional trail could be
accommodated within both.
11. It is interesting to note that the list of proposed sites (pages
51 and 52) includes neither Lake Minnetonka, the state's tenth -largest
lake, nor White Bear Lake. Yet in the Minnetonka area you would locate
a regional park on the much smaller and much more fragile Whaletail
Lake, which is only 22 feet deep at maximum and only 13 feet deep in
much of its area.
12. It may be an unwise allocation of funds to
every single lake of over 100 acres and 15 feet in
on page 52). It may be possible to provide access
but shallow lakes for limited uses such as sailing
case, however, the ecology and surroundings of the
sidered carefully.
seek public access on
depth (as proposed
to some very large
and fishing. In each
lake should be con-
13. We strongly agree that a trail system need not link every re-
gional facility (Page 53). We believe groups of municipalities should
do primary trail planning.
APPROVED BY THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL THIS 3RDDAY OF DECEMBER, 1974.
Donna Roehl, Clerk WayneMayor Neddermeye r, Mayor