Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Open Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves amended viewshed easement for Merrill Springs Park after neighbors and landowners debate scope
Summary
The council adopted an amended view‑preservation easement for Merrill Springs Park after public testimony from Friends of the Park and the property owners. Supporters and opponents disagreed about whether the amendment expanded a landowner’s viewshed; staff said the amendment clarifies height limits and excludes park woods.
The Common Council unanimously approved an amended view‑preservation easement for property adjacent to Merrill Springs Park (Legistar 88,148), after two registrants and City Parks staff described competing interpretations of the amendment’s scope.
Faith Fitzpatrick, president of Friends of Merrill Springs Park, told alderpersons the proposed amendment “extends the width of the viewshed” beyond the original intent and could allow the landowner to dictate vegetation on public property. Fitzpatrick said the proposed map differed materially from what she understood to be the original viewshed and urged the Council not to approve the amendment.
Jessica Harrison, who identified herself as the property owner for the lot that established the easement, said an earlier draft of the amendment had a mapping mistake that incorrectly included a portion of the park. Harrison said the current version was limited to Lot 2 (the parcel that was sold to expand the park), excluded the existing oak tree canopy in the park and replaced vague language with specific height limits so municipalities and landowners could avoid future disputes. “We have no intention of cutting down any mature trees,” Harrison said, adding the version before the council was intended to reduce confusion by setting measurable height limits.
Parks Division interim superintendent Lisa Laschinger told alderpersons the city’s team had worked on the documents for several years and that the amended easement uses tiered height limits and intentionally excluded the park’s existing woods. Staff provided comparative maps showing the easement the city proposed versus a map circulated by the Friends of the Park and said the proposed easement reflected a compromise reached with the landowners.
Council action: The item was moved and seconded for adoption and carried without objection. Staff said the amendment would allow native restoration in the easement area while preserving the public view through defined height limits.
Ending: With the amendment approved, Parks staff said it would proceed under the clarified easement, which they said balances vegetation restoration and public views.
