Community Interests

Park Questions and Definitions are Tough

Western property

Northwestern Cavelleous Property

GMParkand Indian Wells Sub

Gunnar Mettala Park and Indian Wells Homes

GMParkBasketball Courts west

Basketball Court in GM Park

A review of the Gunnar Mettala Park “TRADE” for the Cavelleous’ property.

The trade of Gunar Mettala Park for the Cavelleous’ property is an interesting concept as is the development of the 90-120 homes on the grounds of the eastern portion of Gunnar Mettala Park. However, the details of such a TRADE are not known and the meetings and discussions that are to begin are not yet set in motion.

There is about 14.5 weeks until the May 15th, 2016 August Ballot language deadline date according to City Clerk, Cathy Buck. What is to be done in the meantime is a monumental amount of work; it is doubtful that all details will be known for a ballot question by the due date.

It is not exactly as Mr. Sever, promoter of the development perceived it: just a trade of 10 acres for 20 to 30 acres.

It is a task for the Parks and Recreation Commission to decide the needs for an Engineered Athletic Complex to be built on property that has many attributes to be considered. The western part of the Cavelleous’ property appears as open fields. The property between Gunar Mettala Park and the easterly part of the Carvellous’ property is mainly woods and scrub trees.

There needs to be an audit of the Cavellous’ property and an assessment of what might be usable and what has to be removed. There has to be an assessment of infrastructure of existing and surrounding properties. The ingress to Mettala Park is to remain. A serious traffic issue is an assessment of how to exit the Cavelleous’ property without a future road entering and disrupting the residents of the Roberts Development by either using Theodore or Independence streets.

Is the rational road development potentially the widening of the of the Cavellous’ property existing lane/driveway for ingress and egress into the western portion of the Cavellous’ property? By widening the Cavellous’ drive into the ITC property, this drive tied into the present Gunnar Park Drive would give a “horseshoe shape” to a future road around and through the final developed park. Furthermore, the downtown traffic issues would not be pushed into residential developments; therefore, eliminating traffic. Walking/biking trails into the park, not traffic, would suffice.

Cavallaros, 3015 Maple Entrance Lane

Gunnar Mettala Entrance

Gunnar Mettala Entrance

Gunnar Mettala Entrance

Then too there needs to be a design for the “new addition”of the park by blending with the existing park. The proposed  desired amenities by the “committee of review” for how and what is to be built on the new property consisting of 2.0 million dollars of investment in an “Engineered Athletic Complex” is a tough question.

Another serious question is the matter of the density of 90 to 120 homes built within Gunnar Mettala Park and the proposed internal layout and infrastructure of roads placement off Maple and Beck and the phased timing of development. There has to be an infrastructure and home layout for review by the Planing Commission and Parks and Recreation. A review of Zoning is required, as there is an adamant posture that there should be no commercial development as a condition of this development on Beck Road.

There too is the assessment of how this development will handle an immense amount of traffic. Recognize that there is to be 90 to 120 homes built on Gunnar Mettala Park property. Recognize that directly across Beck Road is a huge Apartment Complex development that is has a Club House with amenities and consists of (29) buildings with (7 ) family units per building. A total complex of rentals consisting of 203 units/families with two-car garages.

There will be an enormous traffic build up at Beck Road and Maple. Then add into the mix the Robert’s Development of 120 homes in three-phases. The total build up of traffic is a lot of traffic right dispersed around Western High School on Beck and congestion on Maple Road.

Consideration has to be given to the Trailways and the Indian Wells Development as there too has to be a buffer created on both sides of the”Trail”as ingress into private property is a concern. There too is wildlife and water in the area paralleling the “trail” that should not be disturbed.

Commercial spot-zoning as presently proposed is not to be a part of this project, and should be rejected immediately. No office is appropriate nor is a future “party store” etc.

Perhaps a field trip by members of the Parks and Recreation Department and the Planing Commission members should be undertaken to see specifically what is be requested and review the area and the Cavelleous’ property and the environment and habitat of the area. This would give the members an adequate assessment of the nature of the development and the impact that is planned for the area.

Certainly there is an assessment for future park maintenance to the City as well as staffing. Finally, there is the question of gathering enough detail for a true assessment of the value of the project as new homes adds value to the tax base which is a serious consideration.

Time is needed to make this assessment and hopefully, Council, will have all the details known for a potential ballot question…if and when the details and cost assessments of all matters are understood.

Until the facts are known the Council should be cautious: “Facts are Troublesome,” but without the Facts, nothing should be done. Without knowing the future costs to residents and taxpayers and the impact of traffic and costs of infrastructure, nothing can be decided.

Economic development is needed but cannot be obtained through a knee-jerk decision not knowing all the facts. The Council has directed the gathering of facts which is of utmost importance and presently are not in a rush to judgement.



  1. Cathy Phillips

    February 12, 2016 at 7:52 am

    Excellent review and excellent points as to what needs to be done. “… property consisting of 2.0 million dollars of investment in an “Engineered Athletic Complex” jumped out at me because from what I heard those on the council and the mayor were touting that the seller was going to PAY for the Engineered Athletic Complex, but I would bet you that it would cost more than 2.0 million to build.

  2. David Thompson

    February 12, 2016 at 9:20 pm

    Leave our beautiful peaceful park alone. Its all about $. The developer and the additional tax revenue- with current residents being the loser.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top