HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes 07-23-1991 SpecialMinutes of the Special Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991
Page 25
Present: Chair Freels, Commissioners Anderson, Waage, Wahl, Gutzke, Johnson;
staff Blank and Pederson
Absent: Commissioner Watson
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Freels called the special meeting to order at 7 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Director Blank briefly updated the residents in attendance on the planning
process regarding the three parks on the agenda. Two were planned
improvements and the third was new construction. All three began as a
result of residents petitioning the City, and the improvements proposed
for Shiloh and Gleanloch were placed in the 1991 CIP. The request to
build the 10th Avenue Park was received after the CIP had been approved by
the Council, but the Council agreed that a neighborhood park was needed in
this area. Surveys were sent to residents asking for their opinion on how
the parks should be improved. After the design consultant had reviewed
all the surveys, preliminary plans were sketched and presented at
neighborhood meetings. Based on resident input at those meetings, the
plans were refined to reflect the needs of the neighborhood residents.
Director Blank further explained that this evening's park commission
meeting would be another opportunity for residents to voice their concerns
before the plans are forwarded to the City Council. He also stated that
the Park Commission had three options at this point, and those were to
approve the concept plans, approve the concept plans with amendments, or
defer action for further study. He stated that no further notices would
be sent to residents, and that if the plans were recommended for approval
at this meeting, they would be on the City Council's August 5 agenda.
2. 10TH AVENUE PARK
Design consultant, Barry Warner, presented the concept plan for 10th
Avenue Park and described the facilities. He explained that the house
that exists on the site at this time will be removed and the garage may be
redone to accommodate a shelter of some kind, whether it be for skating or
picnicking. He stated that although parking is shown on the plan, it is
not being recommended for inclusion at this time. When asked about the
cost to remove the house, Mr. Warner stated that a salvage company would
be taking care of it at no cost to the City.
Wayne Enos, 10850 So. Shore Drive, stated that he had just recently moved
to this area and felt the situation here was deplorable in terms of the
safety of the children. He stated that he has witnessed on many occasions
children playing in the street, and he feels the park is needed and should
be built immediately. He wholeheartedly approved the proposed concept
plan.
Chair Freels inquired about the cost to make the garage into a picnic
shelter as opposed to turning it into a warming house. Director Blank
stated that a picnic shelter would cost about $5,000 and a warming house
would run about $20,000.
Special PRAC Meeting
July 23, 1991
Page 26
Some of the residents stated that they would prefer a warming house and
felt confident they could get the neighborhood to volunteer to staff it in
the winter.
Commissioners concurred in their support of the overall concept plan for
the 10th Avenue park.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY MARLENE WAAGE AND SECONDED BY TOM JOHNSON TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN WITH AN OPEN AIR PICNIC SHELTER
INSTEAD OF A WARMING HOUSE, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT A WARMING HOUSE
WOULD BE CONSIDERED IF THE COST ESTIMATE COULD BE REDUCED AND IF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD VOLUNTEER TO STAFF IT. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL
AYES.
3. GLEANLOCH PARK
Mr. Warner described the layout of this park and stated that the trail
would have a new 750 foot section added to it to link it to the existing
trail and that it would wind around the wetlands. Wyatt Gutzke asked
about trees and was told they would be added at the forester's discretion.
Tom Johnson wondered if the new trail segment would be underwater since
its location in the park is in rather a low area. Mr. Warner responded
that wherever possible, it will be placed on higher ground and it will
have a new type of fabric underlayment to help prevent it eroding away.
Residents asked if the basketball court would have two baskets to
accommodate different age levels. Mr. Warner stated that it could have
two hoops, one on either and of the hard court area.
No residents from the Gleanloch area spoke on behalf of this park. The
Park Commission was unanimous in its support of the proposed concept plan.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DONALD ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY MARK WAHL TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE GLEANLOCH CONCEPT PLAN AS PRESENTED. MOTION
CARRIED WITH ALL AYES.
4. SHILOH PARK
In response to a resident's question regarding where the funding is coming
from to improve these parks, Director Blank explained park dedication
fees. No tax dollars will be used to build these parks, but it is
necessary to use tax dollars to maintain them.
Barry Warner described the improvements to Shiloh Park and explained that
a 100 foot section of trail will be added leading to the Shiloh Pond,
which will make it easier for maintenance to get in and flood in the
winter. The play structure area will be relocated to higher ground to
prevent flooding of that area. The informal ball field in the northeast
corner of the open area is set back 120 feet from residents' lot lines,
and there will be a one -section backstop. A double tennis court is
proposed for the upper part of the park. No lighting is proposed for the
tennis courts and no parking is planned. Benches will be located near the
play structure and near the tennis court. The park with tennis courts is
estimated at $100,000.
Brad Barks, 2600 Jewel Lane, feels it's a good plan, very usable, is glad
about no parking lot and feels there is a safe distance between home plate
and the play structure.
Special PRAC Meeting
July 23, 1991
Page 27
Melissa Barks, 2600 Jewel Lane, likes the park plan also.
Joanne Dunnigan, 17330 28th Ave., objects to the backstop, but likes the
plan otherwise. She feels the backstop identifies it as a ballfield and
will attract power hitters and baseball. She is also concerned about the
grading and flooding of the park. Mr. Warner explained that the grading
will not change the drainage areas, but will channel it elsewhere.
Tim Dunnigan, 17330 28th Ave., believes baseball will be played there and
he does not want the backstop. He is afraid that some power hitters will
knock the ball 300 or more feet, which will result in balls coming into
his yard. Although his yard is fenced, because he has a dog, he is afraid
that kids will try to climb into his yard to retrieve balls, and the
family dog is very protective of their property. He does not want to be
responsible for injuries as a result of someone crawling over his fence.
He also believes the tennis court should be moved closer to the "active"
area of the park. He suggested that basketball be designed for adults and
kids, with two hoops at different heights. Mr. Warner stated that the
tennis courts could be moved to an area near the play structure, but that
would require soil improvements in that location. Right now, the tennis
courts are on the best soils in the park.
Jean Halvorson, 2620 Holly Lane, is looking forward to the improvements
and is glad about the backstop. She states that pitching to small
children is very tedious and now the backstop will stop all those missed
balls. She would like more benches located along the open field area.
She also approves of the tennis courts where they are proposed.
Marianne Hartshorn, 17125 30th Ave., likes the tennis courts and wants a
bench placed near the pond for putting on her ice skates in the winter.
She also likes the sledding area and wants the tennis courts located in
such a way so as not to disturb this area. She feels the tennis courts
should be fenced in. She also favors the backstop. Mr. Warner claimed
that the tennis courts could be moved slightly to accommodate sledding and
at least two sides of the courts would be fenced.
Margaret Hurst, 2625 Holly Lane, likes the concept plan and feels it
appeals to all ages. Would like a picnic table placed somewhere near the
play structure.
Curt Hustad, 17200 27th Ave., lives on the larger pond and is pleased
about the path going to the pond, would like a bench located there, likes
the placement of the ballfield and approves of the tennis courts but wants
them moved slightly to accommodate the sledding hill. He does not think
the tennis courts should be moved down to the active play area, because it
might require the removal of too many trees.
Director Blank, in response to a question about winter flooding of the
pond, said that our park maintenance crews cannot drive onto the ponds
until the ice is at least 10 to 12 inches thick. The kids who want to get
out there and play hockey and general skating can walk out on the ice much
sooner than the crews can drive on it, so they go ahead and start
shoveling an area and in the process berms of ice get built up, which
prohibit the maintenance crews from doing the best job possible. So, in
Special PRAC Meeting
July 23, 1991
Page 28
order to get the best ice surface, Director Blank suggested that people
stay off the ice until maintenance can get there, or else shovel the
entire pond rather than small areas. The pond will also be signed with
no snowmobiling," in response to a resident who said they've had problems
with that in the past.
Mary Hustad, 17200 27th Ave., likes the plan, wants the backstop, and
thanked the commissioners and staff for designing a plan based on what the
residents wanted.
Rick Graft (no address given), sent in written comments which were read at
the meeting. He is interested in having trees and shrubbery cleared in
the pond area, a low backstop, and modernization and relocation to higher
ground of the play structure. If demand exists, he thinks tennis courts
would be a great improvement. He does not want parking or any additional
lighting.
Fran Jack, 2640 Jewel Lane, is concerned about the landscaping around the
play structure. In addition to canopy trees, she recommends low and high
trees to screen the area. She believes that the relocation of the play
structure closer to the pond is a bad idea and fears that children will
wander too close to the water. Mr. Warner explained that its proposed
location is 130 feet from the pond but it could be placed so that it is
150-175 feet from the pond.
W. Rayford Johnson, 3010 Holly Lane, is pleased overall with the plan.
His teenage daughters will especially enjoy the tennis courts. He thinks
it would be a good idea to light the tennis courts and have coin operated
meters. He would like the park to have a building for social gatherings
and a wading pool for smaller children to use. He thinks the basketball
court should have two tiers for different age levels and should have the
cushioned, more modern surface. He would like the basketball court moved
over toward the pond and the play structure moved to where the hard court
is proposed. He believes the playground structure should have some
features that will be challenging to the handicapped. He supports the
backstop and would like the pond to be stocked with fish. Mr. Warner
responded that it was not cost effective to move the basketball court
because of the soils in that area, and that the cushioned surface Mr.
Johnson referred to is very costly. Lights over the tennis courts are a
possibility but are also costly. Staff explained that a wading pool was
also very costly to install and maintain and that it was not likely the
DNR would stock the pond with fish. The pond is not deep enough, and the
fish would die over the winter.
Si Matthies, 17220 27th Ave., lives between the two ponds. He feels that
the plan addresses all levels and ages. He wondered what the play
structure would be like, and it was suggested by staff that he visit Swan
Lake or St. Mary's neighborhood parks, because the play equipment will be
similar to those. He was concerned about the runoff into the ponds and
wondered if the ponds had drainage. Staff indicated that they did.
Vicki Menne, 17320 28th Ave., supports the plan but doesn't want the
backstop. She lives close to it and does not want her yard to become an
extension of the park. She asked what the backstop would look like. Mr.
Warner stated it would be wire mesh and cage like, about 10-12 feet high
and 30 feet long.
Special PRAC Meeting
July 23, 1991
Page 29
Diane McClelland, 2720 Garland Lane, agrees with the idea of an informal
ballfield, and she likes the playground. She wondered if anything could
be done about the goose droppings, to which staff replied "not much."
Sara Olsen, 17110 28th Place, likes the plan and wants the tennis courts,
but no lights. She also supports the backstop and requested picnic
tables.
Kate Kane, 17115 28th Place, thanked the Commission and staff for inviting
residents to comment. She is happy with the plan and likes the informal
playfield. She was informed the playground area would include two sand
diggers. She requested a domed play structure. She asked if the
ballfield would be reserved by organized teams and was informed by staff
that we do not schedule or reserve neighborhood parks. It is possible
that youth athletic coaches may organize practices at that site.
Cindy Nidetz, 17135 29th Ave., likes the tennis courts and the overall
park plan. She supports the backstop.
Erin O'Neill, 2630 Jewel Lane, lives on the pond and also feels that the
playground is going to be too close to the water. Marlene Waage commented
that she has a playground in her neighborhood that is only 60 feet from a
pond, and they have never had any problems with the children wandering
over to the water.
Joan Schwarze, 2640 Holly Lane, appreciated the planning process and wants
the Commission to approve the plan.
Charles Smith, 17125 28th Place, approves the plan as proposed and feels
that a one sided backstop would be sufficient.
Kathy Kelly, 2735 Jewel Lane, would like "no parking" signs placed along
Jewel. Staff indicated they would have the Public Safety department look
into this.
Wayne Stevens, 2635 Holly Lane, used to live in Brooklyn Park near a park
that had a backstop and it did not attract power hitters. He thinks the
plan is workable.
Brian Younger, 2695 Jewel Lane, stated that the backstop seemed to be a
major concern, so he kept a tally of those in favor of the backstop and
reported that so far, 15 out of 18 support it.
Nancy Younger, 2695 Jewel Lane, approves the park and likes the plan.
Mark Utter, 17130 29th Ave., does not want the tennis court and feels they
do not belong in neighborhood parks. He would like the sliding hill left
as is. He is concerned that if a tennis court is installed, it may some
day be lighted. He would prefer to have a second play structure installed
in the spot proposed for the tennis courts. Upon inquiring on the price
for another play structure, he was told it would be approximately $35,000,
which is the same as the cost for the tennis courts.
Special PRAC Meeting
July 23, 1991
Page 30
Kathy Burns, 2425 Olive Lane, is in favor of the plan. She loves baseball
and tennis and wants picnic tables. She lives four blocks away from the
park and usually bikes there, but would be upset if "no parking" signs
were installed as she sometimes drives her car to the park.
Mary Lou Wallach, 2810 Holly Lane, supports the overall park plan, and she
requests picnic tables. She doesn't think the playground/pond proximity
will be a problem.
Lou Bolwahnn, 2910 Jewel Lane, feels the park plan is excellent and he
wants the tennis court. If tennis is not approved for the park, he
requests that the turf in that location be improved, so more activities
can be played there.
John Frees, 2900 Jewel Lane, favors the tennis courts. His teenagers will
use it a lot.
Prior to Chair Freels closing the public meeting, residents stated they
would try to keep the kids off the pond in the winter so maintenance can
get in and make the skating area larger than they've been able to in the
past. Another resident indicated she didn't think the pond would pose a
problem. with the playground as the kids who use this park have to walk
around, over, or near the water every time they are in the park. Some
residents asked that "no golfing" signs be posted. Director Blank did
encourage residents to call the police when activities like golfing or
snowmobiling were taking place as they are prohibited, and the police are
sensitive to this.
Staff informed the residents that the playground equipment is chosen after
the Council approves the concept plan and that four criteria are
considered: safety, is it fun, it must be usable by multi -ages, and ease
of maintenance. Staff further stated that if the plan is approved by the
Council, building could begin in the fall. A residentwondered if a
second playground would be considered if the Council did not approve the
tennis courts. Chair Freels explained that the funds available for this
park were determined in the 1991 CIP and although it might not be possible
to construct a second playground this year, residents could petition for
one at a later time.
Commissioner Mark Wahl favors only one tennis court in this park and is
concerned that it could cause parking problems. He does not support off-
street parking.
Commissioner Wyatt Gutzke also feels one court would be ample but wants it
turned north -south and moved farther away from residents' homes. He
supports the addition of picnic tables and believes an eight foot high
backstop would be sufficient and would not block the residents' view of
the pond.
Commissioner Tom Johnson supports two tennis courts but wants them placed
so they do not interfere with the sliding hill. He wants adjustable
basketball or two hoops, and picnic tables. He asked if the old
playground location would be a feasible site for a future parking lot and
was told it would require significant grading and tree removal.
Special PRAC Meeting
July 23, 1991
Page 31
Commissioner Marlene Waage favors two tennis courts because two are more
economical and she feels the backstop is a necessity.
Commissioner Don Anderson likes the concept plan but believes that parking
could be a problem.
Chair Freels approves of the plan with two tennis courts, no lights,
backstop, picnic tables, additional benches, and improved drainage.
Commissioner Mary Kay Watson was not able to attend but sent in written
comments stating she supports moving the playground to higher ground,
thinks the backstop is a good idea, supports tennis courts but does not
want them to interfere with the sledding area. She favors clearing an
area around the pond for better view but not so much to invite late night
revelers and inappropriate play. She supports added benches and picnic
tables.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DON ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY WYATT GUTZKE TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SHILOH PARK CONCEPT PLAN AS PRESENTED, WITH SOME
ADDITIONAL BENCHES AND PICNIC TABLES. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH FIVE AYES.
MARK WAHL SUPPORTED THE OVERALL PARK PLAN BUT FELT THAT ONLY ONE TENNIS
COURT WAS NEEDED, THEREFORE, HE VOTED NAY.
Chair Freels thanked the residents for attending and reminded them this
item would be on the City Council's August 5 agenda.
5. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.