CC Min 1998-05-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.1 I . 1 I I . Peter Locatelli, 40 King Street, said he agreed with Mr. Diaz and acknowledged that the City had to abide by ADA regulations in any construction. He said the only things needed - at Stafford were better restrooms, drainage, and heat resistant material on playground equipment. He said the park didn't need "gingerbread stuff." Mr. Locatelli said, "Keep it simple." Enid Brock, 1837 Brewster Avenue, said she had been involved with renovating Stafford Park for almost two years. She said she had attended every City Council meeting, every Park and Recreation Commission meeting, every Park Department meeting which has addressed the renovation plans for both parks, as well as the Council's meetings on the CIP. Mrs. Brock said she was a founding member of the Park Department Renovation Committee, and participated in all the meetings for architectural services, document reviews, design team selection "as well as spearheading with Susie Peyton the fund raising strategies." Mrs. Brock described her work in the neighborhoods and neighborhood meetings. She said she had listened carefully to the neighbors and described the standing room only crowd at the Council meeting where overwhelming support was given to the proposed plans for Stulsaft and Stafford Parks. Mrs. Brock said the Council approved the budget for both Parks and decided "to put over the decision whether to allocate additional funding." She described the newly formed group that "is trying to tell this Council that (the neighborhood) does not want to see these Parks fully funded, and wants them downgraded. That is incorrect." Mrs. Brock said, "I am here tonight to reiterate the community's strong and continuing support for the full funding of these projects as they were designed.... Please do not allow one voice to drown out the voices of many." - Chet Lane, 85 Hillview, said he had lived near Stafford Park for twelve years and was very proud of the Park. He said he was unaware of the previous meetings concerning this issue, but had recently seen the plans for the Park and described them as "a little bit overblown." Mr. Lane said, in light of the needs of the community expressed in the CDBG discussion, he was embarrassed that the City wanted to spend "this much money on local parks when there are so many other needy agencies which truly need the money." Mr. Lane expressed concern that the new landscaping design could present safety issues, keeping parents from being able to keep track of their children, and line of sight at night. Mr. Lane said he worked in the area and described the grass roots campaign that wants to keep the Park "simple, and a neighborhood park." In response to Council Member Claire's questions, Mr. Lane said he was in real estate. Susie Peyton, 3691 Brandy Rock Way, said she the new dissension surrounding Stafford Park renovation "has taken the focus off the community joint project.... Stulsaft and Stafford Parks were put together as a joint project about twenty months ago after I had complained about Stulsaft Park and some other people had complained about Stafford Park. I felt it was a really exciting thing that these neighborhoods were getting together and sharing ideas and sharing commonalties and (expending) a lot of effort to fix their parks which they were doing. It was great. Now with this recent dissension about how to fix the parks, it is taking away from that idea that we had a joint project." Mrs. Peyton - said the new group doesn't realize the budget is for two parks, not just Stafford. She said REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 MAY 11,1998 MINUTES Page No. 471 PAGE 22