HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks And Recreation Board - Minutes - 04/28/2004PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
Minutes Of Regular Meeting
April 28, 2004
Cottonwood Glen Neighborhood Park
5:30 p.m.
!ouncu Liaison: 13111 Bertschy Staff Liaison: Marty Heffernan, 224-6064
President: Jessica MacMillan Phone: 495-1270(work) 407-8896 (home)
Call Meeting to Order: President Jessica MacMillan called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m.
Agenda Review: Marty Heffernan added the new Northside Aztlan Community Center project
to the Agenda.
Items of Note: Board Members Del Price, Mary Carlson, and Greg Miller were unable to attend
tonight's meeting.
Citizen Participation: Mr. Dennis Vanderhiden attended the meeting representing the Junior
Cross -Country Program as a coach and coordinator. He spoke to the Board about the need for a
cross-country track facility in Fort Collins. He explained that because of funding constraints the
School District was not a sponsor of the Junior Cross Country program and the School District
did not have a cross country facility that could be used by the Junior Cross Country runners. Mr.
Vanderhiden was interested to know if a cross country course could be included in the design
and construction of Spring Canyon Community Park or in some other park or natural area owned
by the City. Board Member Jon Sinclair explained that cross-country runners had been allowed
to use Collindale Golf Course until a few years ago, but are no longer able to use it.
Lance Freeman asked if the Junior Cross -Country program had any money that could help pay
for the cost of a cross-country course. Mr. Vanderhiden felt the program had some money, but
only in the range of $1,00042,000. Lance wondered if the School District or CSU would be
willing to help pay for the cost of constructing the cross country course if they plan to have their
cross country runners use the new course. Jon Sinclair noted there were a large number of
runners in the Fort Collins community who would utilize and enjoy a cross country course in
addition to cross country runners associated with the School District and CSU and the Junior
Cross Country program. The Board questioned whether the construction of a cross-country
course would be expensive? Craig Foreman indicated that an 8-to-10 foot wide soft or crusher
fine path could be constructed without a great deal of cost and would be a nice facility for
runners as well as for walkers and other recreational users. The Board asked if a cross-country
course could be included in the design of Spring Canyon Community Park. Craig felt that a
cross country course could be included on the park site, but may require runners to run three or
four laps in order to complete the full cross-country circuit. The Board felt it was appropriate to
consider the possibility of including a cross-country course in the design of Spring Canyon
Parks and Recreation Board Minutes
April 23, 2004
Page 2
Community Park as part of the design process for development of the park. The Board felt that
the School District and CSU should help pay for the cost of the course if their teams were going
to use it or their teams should be charged a fee to use the course if they do not participate in its
construction costs.
Approval of Minutes: The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 24,
2004 meeting.
Northside Aztlan Community Center
Marty Heffernan then asked the Board their opinion of the property located on Lemay south of
Vine Drive as a possible backup site for the new Northside Aztlan Community Center project.
The Board members generally indicated the Lemay property could be used as a backup site for
the project, but they did not feel it was as good a site as the existing Northside Center site. The
Board felt the Lemay site was not as close to the downtown area as it should be and there was
also concern about the cost of acquiring the site.
Marty asked the Board if they were concerned with building a new recreation center on the
existing site given the subsurface contamination problems. The Board felt that if the new
recreation center could be built on the existing site, without undo expense, or undo delay, that
this was the preferred alternative. The Board did not feel that the subsurface contamination
would prevent people from wanting to use the new recreation center once it was built. Marty
indicated that staff will continue to work with the Environmental Protection Agency and the City
attorney to work through the various issues associated with constructing the recreation center on
the existing site.
Spring Canyon Community Park Design Process and Preliminary Concepts
Craig Foreman spoke to the Board about the design process for Spring Canyon Community Park.
He explained that the City expected to have the design consultant team selected by mid -May and
ready to begin the design process, after the appropriate contracts have been signed, by the end of
May. He explained that the public outreach and the design process, including the development
review, would take place during the remainder of 2004 and into 2005. Construction is
anticipated to start later in 2005 through 2006 with the park to open to the public in 2007.
Craig and Senior Park Planner Kathleen Benedict then provided the Board with an overview of
the Spring Canyon Community Park site. The undeveloped park site is approximately 89 acres,
not including the 11-acre Cottonwood Glen Neighborhood Park. The site has Spring Creek
running though it, although the creek is piped through most of the park as the site has been used
for many years as a farm. The site has very rich soil, but also a very high ground water table.
Craig and Kathleen discussed the idea of rehabilitating Spring Creek in the park to enhance
wildlife habitat and provide an area in the park for recreation, discovery, and relaxation. The
Board was very interested in the re-establishment of Spring Creek on the park site. Craig and
Kathleen noted that the site will require a great deal of storm water analysis, particularly with the
Parks and Recreation Board Minutes
April 23, 2004
Page 3
re-establishment of Spring Creek. This analysis is part of a Federal review and requires fairly
sophisticated hydrological engineering.
Craig and Kathleen then discussed with the Board typical features found in our community parks
and the need in Spring Canyon Park to provide a youth sports complex. Typical features include
a core area with shelters, restrooms, a playground and a plaza area. Other typical features
include soccer fields, baseball/softball fields, walking and running paths, non -programmed turf
areas, a dog park, potentially a BMX track, a skate park, climbing wall, and roller hockey rink.
The site also needs to accommodate a future recreation center with associated parking, parking
for all of the amenities contained in the park, as well as a maintenance facility. The park is also
the junction for the Spring Creek and Fossil Creek trails.
The Board then toured the park site and discussed its unique attributes given its proximity to the
foothills.
Other Business
Marty then spoke to the Board about the memo they asked the staff to prepare at their last
meeting regarding the proposed six foot high fence along the Mason Street Corridor Trail
required by the Burlington Northern Railroad. He indicated that he had spoken with
Transportation staff who indicated the railroad was not willing to change the height of the
fence, but noted that the fence would not be chain link, but rather post and rail with four inch
wire mesh fabric. The Board indicated that they were still interested in sending a memo to
the City Council encouraging further negotiations with the railroad to modify the proposed
fence to allow for wildlife movement from east to west. Staff agreed to prepare a memo and
after approval from the Board President Jessica MacMillan to send it on to the City Council.
Jessica then brought up the subject of the Rule Property on Lemay Avenue south of Harmony
Road. She explained that the Rules had a contract to sell their property for development and
were relying on the sale for their retirement income. However, the property has historically
designated buildings on it including a barn, home, and some out buildings. The Rules were
looking for a place for these buildings to be relocated and preserved so they could sell their
property for development. Jessica asked the Board if these buildings could be relocated to
one of the City's parks? Marty explained that he had been asked the same question by the
City Manager and had worked with the Park Planning staff to investigate if these buildings
could be relocated to one of our City parks. The Park Planning staff reported that the
buildings could not be successfully relocated to any of our existing parks without
substantially interfering with the parks present facilities and uses. If the City owned land in
the southeast part of the City near the Strauss Cabin, the buildings may have been relocated
to that park site. However, the City does not own any land in the area and is still looking to
acquire some. The only possible place for these buildings is to incorporate them into the
development of Spring Canyon Community Park, but the planners did not feel that the
buildings were appropriate for this park site.
Parks and Recreation Board Minutes
April 23, 2004
Page 4
The Board agreed that these buildings were not appropriate for Spring Canyon Community
Park and would not be able to relocated to any other existing City park. The Board was
sympathetic to the Rules situation, but felt their buildings were not appropriate for relocation
to a City park.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Meetine Attendance
Board Members: Lance Freeman, Dean Hoag, Ann Hunt, Mark Lueker, Jessica MacMillan,
and Jon Sinclair
Staff Members: Kathleen Benedict, Craig Foreman, and Marty Heffernan
Guest: Dennis Vanderhiden