Loading...
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.