Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />steve Sarkozy <br />" <br />Bob BierscheJ.d <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />June 2, 1993 <br /> <br />RE: <br /> <br />Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendations on <br />Rosevi11e Lutheran Church Proposal for Bruce Russell <br />and Lexington Parks <br /> <br />The Parks and Recreation Commission, at their meeting on June 1, <br />1993, reviewed the proposal by Rosevi11e Lutheran Church for <br />Bruce Russell and Lexington Parks. They received comments from <br />neighbors and Roseville Lutheran Church. <br /> <br />The Parks and Recreation Commission made the following comments <br />for the City Council to consider in making their final decision: <br /> <br />1. Consider the benefits to all citizens. <br /> <br />2. Is there a guarantee that there would still remain some <br />public park land at Bruce Russell? <br /> <br />3. Take into consideration there is already a shortage of park <br />land in the Bruce Russell area. <br /> <br />4. What is the definite time line for action? <br /> <br />5. The development of the entire parcel at County Road Band <br />Lexington would make this a large community park and Bruce <br />Russell would lose its character as a neighborhood park. <br /> <br />6. There is a sense of ownership in Bruce Russell Park by the <br />neighborhood, many of whom bought homes in the area because <br />of the park. <br /> <br />7. The feeling was expressed that if Bruce Russell Park is <br />abandoned that it is in conflict with VISTA 2000 Leisure <br />Committee's recommendation of smaller neighborhood areas. <br /> <br />8. Commission does not want to start precedent of losing neigh- <br />borhood parks. <br /> <br />9. They expressed the desire to create more parks~ even if <br />smaller in size. <br /> <br />10. Concern expressed for traffic at Lexington and County Road <br />B. <br />