My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01787
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1700-1799
>
pf_01787
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2024 12:15:36 PM
Creation date
2/21/2024 12:07:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1787
Planning Files - Type
Planning-Other
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
289
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
- Proximity: The field would be located next to business parking areas <br />and an office building and the potential for damage due to foul balls <br />and overthrows is very high. <br />It is also important to note, that the skating areas will be relocated <br />at Bruce Russell Park unless they are retained in their present <br />location. It is not economically feasible to place the rinks on a <br />seasonal basis on the proposed city owned ballfield because of: <br />a) turf repair <br />b) hockey board wear and tear from continual assembly and re -assembly <br />c) relocation of lights and warming house <br />3. Affordability: <br />The City is not in a position to provide unlimited resources for either <br />acquisition or maintenance of park areas. Based on the current proposal <br />it is far more economically feasible to: <br />- Add lights to additional Central Park Victoria fields. Lighting just <br />one more field would provide the same space as used at Lexington and <br />eliminate added daily maintenance costs. <br />- Place a backstop, for casual softball play, and play apparatus at <br />Mayflower Park to serve the neighborhood interests. <br />In reviewing the priorities for land acquisition in the City, this site <br />is considerably lower than several other sites which provide greater <br />resource protection, site amenities and capacity to serve large numbers <br />of citizens. <br />The question of payback was raised during the planning commission meet- <br />ing. I know of no measure of determining payback on a facility that <br />generates no income except for direct programming costs. Certainly <br />there is a very real value in using recreation and park space but it <br />is not definable in quantative monetarial terms. <br />4. Park Planning Procedures: <br />In ascertaining proposed park land use, the criteria applied are <br />usually the following: <br />- Does it provide either active or passive recreational use? <br />- Is there a capacity to provide several amenities on one site thus <br />facilitating ease of maintenance and more attractive use for families <br />and multi -interest groups? <br />- Does the space protect significant cnvironmental resources? <br />- Is it part of a connective land use such as a trail or pathway" <br />- Does it provide massive green space or forested areas? <br />- Is it cost effective in terms of acquisition, maintenance and overall <br />usability? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.