Somerset Hills Property - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

4. Melvin Miller Park's 1910 deed reads that it was given "as a public park, to be improved and used as such." Staff feel that such language prohibits other uses or disposing of it, however I would certainly want an attorney's opinion to verify this if liquidation were to become an actively pursued issue. This is one of the oldest park lands within the city. Melvin Miller has street frontage on most of the south side (W 27th), the northern half of the west side (Beaumont), and a dead end spur of Terrace View Drive on the east side. The Beaumont frontage is a steep bank that will require steps or extensive ramping for easy access. The most notable aspect of the park is the good stand of trees, mostly firs. Slopes vary. The part easiest to develop, because of gentler slopes, would be the eastern side, especially the northern portion. However, because of the quality of the forest, past park planners have tended to feel that the forest should be preserved. Being on a northerly spur ridge of the south hills, it has importance as part of a forested ridgeline. That may be partially why another park (Hawkins) was acquired in the same neighborhood. Hawkins seems to have been purchased with a mind to development. It is mostly open, and has a great view toward Fern Ridge Lake. However, the shape of the park is awkward, and grades make physical access into it a little more problematic than Melvin Miller. Openness, seen as more conducive to development, and the view, are the strong points of this park. Hawkins is larger than needed for a neighborhood park, but because of the ownerships and subdividing that were not coordinated some of the size is necessary to obtain good access and avoidance of visually obscure corners. Taken as a whole site, it might be attractive to a developer. However there doesn't seem to be a logical portion to declare surplus that would be attractive for a developer without severely compromising the remaining park. 5. While John Etter talked with the individual you mentioned (Lloyd Helikson)a few months ago no one has contacted him recently. An interesting note was that in the conversation with John , this person never mentioned his willingness to participate in volunteer fund raising activities. In any case, we would have difficulties working in this area since Parks Planning's two person staffing level simply does not allow time to be dedicated to take a leadership role in this type of volunteer efforts. However, if some local resident did want to coordinate fund raising we'd work with them in whatever manner we could. 6. The most difficult step involved in this will be to get the various pieces of land that "people" have been discussing as surplus formally designated as such. 1 believe this is going to take a significant amount of "public" processing of some type on a global basis where we package all these parcels and take them through together. Nearby residents typically don't want to see the liquidation of local parcels of undeveloped park land. I think the two lots which make up Gilbert Park are a good example of an undersized parcel which Park planning staff feel is of little use as a Neighborhood Park site but the local residents were overwhelmingly negative to the idea of liquidating this parcel to facilitate activities at the proposed "Field of Dreams" park a few blocks away. While staff have been starting discussions on "surplus" park land, there isn't yet clear direction on how we are going to accomplish this task.. When we do, I believe it will take a significant amount of time and public involvement. However, once we have formally designated "surplus" lands we could then enter into negotiations with regard to trades as was done with the Gilham Park you referenced. The Parks and Recreation Plan has a policy which states park lands should be periodically reevaluated to verify their continued need and if not needed to sell or exchange them for park lands needed in other areas. The specific thing which made the Gilham trade work without additional processing was that this type of exchange was specifically supported in the Willakenzie Plan through it's showing two added park sites in new locations and the old Gilham Park site deleted. The only other undeveloped parkland that is specifically mentioned in the Parks and Recreation Plan is Candlelight Park located off Royal Avenue which is to be traded for better sites in the Bethel area . • I hope this has been helpful. Thanks Johnny r om: NNATHANS To: MEDLIN Johnny R Cc: LYNCH Linda L; NORRIS Linda H; BERRIAN Pam C; ETTER John F; MORGAN Dick A; HAMMITT Bob; HAHN Jean K; ANDERSEN Chris F; FERGUSON Joe M; Nancy Nathanson; ceeccdd Subject: Re: FW: Somerset Hills property Date: Tuesday, November 15, 1994 5:20PM Page 2