Laserfiche WebLink
!oval (three months, �_'-50_100 PrOJ2Ct r�- __Iating to advisibility of <br /> building a recr2a-tiz!nal buildling in one of the Twin Cities <br /> S!_+b U r bS) In ad-0 o-- t,,:,, 4-h e -'i r tv�' s general ex p e r i e.-Ice, Mar- <br /> B 11 o-m c:u i s t has d irecll e­per i enc2 wi t�-I 10 c--a I government, having <br /> served as Chair of tl--- Ardefi Hills and Recreation Committee <br /> in the 19702su and as a member o+ the Planning Commission. Kathy <br /> Novak, an-other �iocentric has bLen extensively in-volve� <br /> in survey research at the state level and at the University of <br /> Minnesota as well at Biocentric. <br /> PROPOSAL <br /> As mentioned in the Introduo-ti ,1V r-current plans o <br /> +-Dciliti2s arid prog-am-_ Ere aev-_lcj;:_ad goals and quidelinz?s <br /> found in the Coni-PreitertSive Plan published in 1980. Underlying <br /> the Department's efforts are basic philusophies concerrin.-I <br /> emphasis on passive ;-:ks well as active recreational areas, and on <br /> previ'sloil of -, hE- Basic Standard- for <br /> recreational area needs and the Guidelines for Park 1)2velopmtent <br /> in the Comprehensive Plan are founded on these philosophies. <br /> Commi ttee, Department and Council activities in three basic: <br /> areas, land i-.cquisition, park develop::tent­ and recreational pro-- <br /> gramming are planned accordinq to and measured against these <br /> standards and gui del ine=. The three planning functionE represent, <br /> quite different planning horizon-_ and reciource committments; land <br /> aL�q uisitt�_iion a long-t2rs:3 committf;:ent to a qeogralmhic <br /> area; park development, -chile ter::) in effect, can be <br /> ' tered as nee ad to fit ch-inging populations. or r2cr ea' ional 1:,se <br /> trends; Prog. of-aming LZI-1 r-a!adiily L-e --l-t-e-red on a year to Year <br /> basis if desired to me2t more transient recreation-B! needs. <br /> The survey which we are proposing can be designed to address <br /> any or 31l of thEae three levels, depending on the desires of th.e <br /> Director, the Co firm tt72 anal theCouncil . Questions addressing <br /> the relative concern for and enjoyment of passive vs more active <br /> recreati oral areas, and of a small neighborhood park system vs <br /> perceived need for developing community-wide facilities could be <br /> explored to determine if recreational needs of the residents are <br /> being met or wrill be met under existing philosophies and guide- <br /> lines. The adequacy of existing or planned development patterns <br /> for specific parks and groups of parks also can be explored. <br /> Finally, determining if recent programs have been adequate and <br /> ,t e+L."1 could be a part of the survey. These three 1evais of <br /> progra.nmi rig direc-ti:-n need to be reexamined with differe-it <br /> frequency, depending on the permanency of the decisions invoived. <br /> For ex amp 1 e, the passive vs active and neighborhood part: vs <br /> community facilities philosophies involve long-term decisions <br /> which do not need nor can utilize frequent reexamination. Park <br /> development or r-7-developmeq+ issues can and should be reexamined <br /> with more frequency, particularly as areas develop, change or as <br /> equipment and facilities wear and need replacement. P r o g -a t i c <br /> • decisions, while somewhat tied to facilities, are nevertheles-, <br /> quite flexible and need updating to meet population changes, <br /> recreationai trends and competing program availability through <br />