Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Main Park Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board to review 72-page Main Park master plan; members seek clarifications on options, outreach and costs
Summary
Mount Lebanon’s parks board reviewed the Main Park master plan and asked staff for clearer materials and guidance: members raised questions about public outreach, three design options (A/B/C), estimated costs, grant timing and accessibility/parking tradeoffs, and agreed to table detailed recommendations until members can review materials in depth.
The board opened a discussion on the Main Park master plan, a 72-page design document staff made available online, and advised members to review the plan in detail before the next meeting. One member said the plan’s public release date (March 2025) and the limited direct board engagement felt odd, and asked whether board members had been consulted during the plan’s development.
Staff said the main-park plan follows an earlier, broader parks master plan that incorporated extensive community outreach; the main-park plan relied on that earlier input and targeted outreach (pool events, Uptown booths) rather than a repeat of a full survey. Members requested clearer materials and a version that can be marked up or annotated ahead of the next meeting.
Board members debated the three options presented in the plan and their tradeoffs: some options were described as adding court capacity, while others focused on parking decks or separate buildings. One member said option B seemed to have had the most prior support but noted the current commission must still evaluate priorities. Cost estimates cited by a member ranged in the tens of millions for combined elements; staff confirmed grant awards totaling approximately $850,000 plus an additional amount referenced by members but said the grant expiration timing is under review.
Members emphasized accessibility: several options depict new parking and circulation that could improve access to the pool and rec center, and some designs propose elevated decks or changes that would alter sightlines and hillside trees. The board asked staff to produce a concise summary of the three options, cost ranges, and which elements are most likely to be advanced in the near term so the board can prioritize a pro/con list and pull smaller projects into its 2026 project list.
The board agreed to table an in-depth recommendation until members have reviewed the materials and returned with suggested small projects and prioritized feedback at the next meeting.
