Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to work with homeowner to restore barrier at Bay View Park after resident complaints
Summary
After a resident described repeated trespassing, property damage and harassment at a home adjacent to Bay View Park, the Forest Lake City Council directed public works to work with the homeowner to restore a physical barrier and discussed whether a citywide tree-replacement or park-screening policy is needed.
Tara Steamlack, who lives at 1445 Bay View Drive SE, told the Forest Lake City Council she has endured years of trespassing, property damage and harassment by park users at the property line adjoining Bay View Park and asked the city to install screening — trees, shrubs or a fence — to clarify the private boundary.
“Not one but two homeowners, including myself currently, who did not know each other, expressed the same concerns to city staff,” Steamlack said, outlining a 25-year history of neighbor complaints and missed follow‑ups in prior staff communications. She told council members that balls from the park’s basketball court repeatedly strike her fence, have damaged it, and that visitors have approached and harassed her dogs.
Dave, a city staff member presenting the staff report, told the council the issue raises a policy question. “Staff is not recommending installation of additional screening on city property at this time,” he said, explaining the city’s traditional approach to maintaining parkland for the public rather than installing screening for the benefit of individual adjacent homeowners. He added that approving screening on park property could set expectations for similar requests across the park system.
Council members asked detailed questions about the Bay View Park rehabilitation — including the playground and resurfacing of the basketball court — and whether moving the hoop or shrinking the asphalt pad might reduce overshoot and damage. Several council members expressed sympathy for the resident’s experience and concerns about prior communication and tree‑removal timing.
After discussion about tree replacement, trees’ vulnerability to basketball impacts and differing resident preferences, a council member moved that public works coordinate with the homeowner to restore some type of barrier along the property line. The motion carried (one opposed). Council also asked staff whether a formal tree-replacement policy or case‑by‑case review process should be drafted for future park screening requests.
The council’s action directs staff to work with the property owner on options; specific designs, budgets and installation dates were not finalized at the meeting and will return to staff and the council for follow-up.
