Loading...
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