Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Main Park Masterplan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Lebanon advisory committee rejects consultant options, asks for bolder main-park plan
Summary
Advisory members said consultant options A–C for the Main Park fall short of community needs and agreed to draft a written recommendation favoring a bolder alternative; they flagged parking, accessibility and potential joint projects with the school district as priorities.
The Mount Lebanon Parks Advisory Committee agreed it was not satisfied with the three consultant options for the Main Park master plan and voted to prepare a written recommendation to present to the commission at the next meeting. The committee said the consultant-recommended Option B improves accessibility and adds meeting space, but does not deliver facilities members said residents want, such as indoor courts or a walking track.
“The $20,000,000 to do B does not get you a basketball court or indoor walking track,” the Chair said, adding that residents will likely consider the price tag insufficient for the amenities implied. Committee members debated cost and scale, with one member summarizing square-foot comparisons: Option A roughly 1,800 sq ft, Option B about 5,700 sq ft, and per-square-foot cost figures cited by speakers that made Option B appear more cost‑effective overall.
Members discussed a larger alternative — a combined stadium and rec-center project financed through a bond or an improvement authority — that could deliver more facilities in a single project but would require school-district participation and complex financing. The Chair also raised parking as a critical constraint: “Currently, there’s only 373 spaces,” the Chair said, and the presentation showed about 468 spots under the assumed new design; the Chair added the proposal still left a larger shortfall as quoted during the meeting.
Committee members agreed to consolidate written comments offline, have the Chair and volunteers draft a recommendation, and bring that draft back for approval at the next meeting so the commission receives clear priorities rather than a piecemeal response.
