City Council Minutes 1998 08 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

with Cottonwood Park, and to add and refurbish some amenities that existed. He expressed concem that the work has been stopped due to lack of notice. He feels that neither he nor the residents of Lake Park were adequately notified, as the notice did not indicate there would be a berm of this size. He understands Council has a commitment to Old Town Louisville to protect them as much as they would any other part of the City. He would like to get the park back to what it was, at least, because the park has been unusable all summer. He feels the City can no longer afford to let the ground sit scarred the way it is and the project needs to be finished. He feels it is important that a balance between protecting the interest of Old Town and protecting the interest of a newer part of town is achieved and he is confident Council can do that. Lathrop stated that comments from residents indicate the priorities should be to complete the project and to improve the park. One of the specific improvements mentioned was to dredge the lake. He spoke to individuals in the neighborhood after Drexel Barrell set the height stakes. These conversations indicated that the height, as it is now, is reasonably acceptable. The importance was placed on cleaning up the park and dredging the lake. He proposed that Council consider proposed alternative 'C'. Lathrop then suggested that as part of the 1999 budget process, Council allocate specific funds within the City's financial limitations to improve Lake Park. Levihn agreed with Lathrop. He also felt that the City should try to minimize the effects of this project; however, he could not justify an additional $750,000 to do so. Keany stated that Lake Park looks terrible right now, but feels it will look much better when it's finished. As a former downtown homeowner, he can understand the importance of completing this project. He expressed concern about the City's fiscal responsibility to complete the project, and was unsure which alternative was best. Davidson expressed his disapproval for the manner in which this issue was presented by staff to Council. It was presented as a continuation of the drainage way improvements completed over the past few years that would not be a serious impact to anyone. He did not approve of the type of notification that was given to the residents in the area. After taking a look at Lake Park and reviewing the alternatives proposed, he agreed with Lathrop and Levihn in selecting proposed alternative 'C'. He feels that this is the alternative that Council would have selected, had staff presented these alternatives initially. He took issue with the manner in which the Public Works Department approached the project. He felt they looked at it as a drainage control issue rather than an issue in a park. He requested that the City Administrator instruct the Public Works Department to approach issues within a park or open space in a separate manner from street and sidewalk repairs. He agreed with Lathrop on improving Lake Park. Mayer disagreed with Lathrop, Levihn and Davidson regarding alternate 'C', as he would select proposed alternative 'B'. He stated that this project is being done to address development before 1980. The development since 1980 has been required to provide their own detention area in order to prevent an increase to the flooding of downtown. 4