HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks And Recreation Board - Minutes - 09/29/2004Call Meeting to Order: Jessica MacMillen called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m.
Agenda Review: No changes.
Items of Note: Ann Hunt and Mark Lueker were not able to attend tonight's meeting.
Ann submitted comments on Design Concept #6 of Spring Canyon Community Park.
Citizen Participation: There were several citizens in the audience with concerns
regarding Spring Canyon Community Park (SCCP). Jessica explained that the Board
allows 20 minutes for citizen participation. The following citizens spoke of the current
• design plans for Spring Canyon Community Park (SCCP):
Rich Harter — Rich came to read a position statement from the Northern Colorado Sports
Alliance. Before he read it he acknowledged that there had been a great deal of effort
made by the SWAN neighborhood and the NCSA to come together. He also thought
there was a level of frustration from the sports community that he hoped SWAN would
appreciate, and that is that the NCSA had the needs of the youth/sports community in
mind. He continued that the park is a community park, not a neighborhood park, and is
not to be an extension of open space, for which we already pay significant tax dollars.
He was concerned that there was precedence being set here by watering down the
facilities that were meant to be here, and he did not want this park to set the precedence
for future parks. He thinks it's interesting that there has been fighting over a recreational
area for families as though a nuclear reactor or county prison we being built. He felt it
was disappointing that this has become such a confrontational issue when everyone is
trying to do something positive for youth. He then read the position statement and
submitted it to Marty (see attached.)
Rick Parkins (resident to the south.) He does not feel well represented by SWAN as most
of their members live to the north or northeast of the site. He thinks most lighting and
traffic has been moved to the south and worries because there is a school nearby with
several traffic arteries. He feels underrepresented. He wishes that the facilities were
moved to a more neutral area, further north where they would have equal representation
• as their neighbors. Jessica asked for clarity on what they want. Rick said they want the
lighted areas moved back up toward the north and east. He was told at the last
neighborhood meeting that things were moved south because they did not get a lot of
• complaint from people living to the south. Jessica asked for clarification; was he saying
that there was not enough representation from his neighborhood? He said correct. He is
concerned about school kids walking to school (there's a lot of traffic going across the
road) and asked if there was a plan for emergency vehicles. Jessica said they have
already had people address traffic safety and fire in earlier meetings. He also said he
understands the needs of people with children and sports, but doesn't know why a wild
area was picked. He feels it will change the complexion of the area.
Joe Rike (resident to the south.) He is not against parks, but feels this site was picked 13
years ago, and the area has changed since then. He is concerned that the park is a one -
road destination, and the dog park people already aggravate the area. He is also
concerned that traffic is funneled along Horsetooth Road, by the school. He thinks it
seems logical that the activities in the park get moved north. He compared this to living
on Overland Trail during a CSU football game. Jon asked him to describe the conditions
on Horsetooth Road that makes it seem difficult. Joe said people are parking on both
sides of the road, and they have 35-40 cars on weekends, and some horse trailers. He
thinks the main access should come from both Overland Trail and Horsetooth Road. He
feels the road department and the fire department will have concerns, too. Jessica said
that Horsetooth Road is a dedicated arterial road and has the potential to be widened. She
spoke with BHA at the open house on Monday, and there were no plans for people to
park on Horsetooth Road once the park was completed because there would be plenty of
parking in the park. Joe continued that three houses were within 660 feet from the duel
isaccess, and that the fire department allowed them to be there at the time, but might
change their mind now. He would like to see everything more centrally located, and
utilize the north access better.
Randy Fischer (lives adjacent to the park.) represents SWAN. He explained that they
started SWAN in the living room of their home, and they reached out to everyone in the
surrounding area. He also said he has been to neighborhood meetings all over town, so
he was dumfounded that Mr. Perkins would say they are under represented because they
made every effort to gain support from all the neighbors. He said he's never seen Mr.
Perkins at any meeting. He also said they took fliers from door to door, and reached out
to the people in the south end. SWAN received a copy of Concept 6, had a meeting, and
decided that this concept is the best achievable alternative for the park site. They then
spent the next week getting the message out to the neighborhood to support this concept.
He doesn't think people realize what an incredible departure this is from Concepts 4 & 5.
The fact that there are no lighted ballfields is a major victory for the neighborhood since
the original design contained four lighted ballfields, 10 soccer fields, and numerous other
facilities including 750 parking spaces. He also wanted to point out that there is an entire
park in this upper location (Cottonwood Glen) with all access from Overland Trail. He
thinks this design has a compromise that they think is great; another 135 parking spaces
plus overflow for another 60. He feels there is plenty of parking, and that this concept is
an equitable distribution of facilities, and they applaud the staff and the consultants for
their wisdom in developing it. The only thing he identified as a potential problem is the
• location of the dog park, but it was minor. He applauded the board, especially for the
meetings last month that gave direction to complete this plan the way it is. He said he
• felt that their voices have finally been heard and they feel great about it. He took
exception that all SWAN members were concentrated on the north end because it simply
was not true. He asked that this not become a neighbor vs. neighbor debate. He said they
have a tremendous victory. If people don't support this, there are many more people who
will want a lot more here than you have here with this design. This is Solomon wisdom.
It's a great compromise and they appreciate it.
Chris Haas — Echoed what Randy Fischer said. She also added that this is a busy park on
Saturday, and since the City is growing from the south end, most traffic to the park will
be coming down Horsetooth Road. She said it doesn't make sense to access it from the
north. She would like to see a light on Drake and Overland because there are quite a few
accidents there. She was glad to see the P & R Board listened to them, and she is very
pleased. She thanked the Board. She wrapped up with a statement that this is a youth
facility so there was no need for lights.
Emily Hammond (resident to the north.) Emily stated that this has been an awesome
process to be a part of, watch it come together, and see the Board listen to the
community. She feels Concept 6 is an amazing balance of wildlife, people, recreation,
and organized team sports. She agrees it is a community park and she hasn't spoken to
anyone who didn't understand that. She sees the park heading in a community -oriented
direction. She feels youth recreation is not strictly about team sports any more. She feels
touchy about folks in south saying thing are be pushed down there, because they are not
. doing that.
Randy Ride — Randy said he has been to all of the meetings and finds it interesting to see
the Board's job from his perspective. He said the people who have consistently showed
up at the meetings have had a unified message, with consistent comments. He was
pleasantly surprised to see Concept 6. He feels it is not perfect, but that the Board
listened and the feedback was incorporated in the design, and that there is something for
everyone. He appreciates that and thinks they have done a good job.
Rachel Olbreeze (Silver Oaks.) Feels Plan 6 has come a long way from the others.
Thanked the Board for all they have done eliminating lights and activities. She's
disappointed with the dog park, and would like to see activities pushed a little more
north, and the dog park moved west. Feels Horsetooth is a bad road, and would like to
have Overland share a little of the burden. She thinks moving the dog park will alleviate
the parking issues.
Deborah Flynn (Silver Oaks.) She thanked the Board for the opportunity to be heard, and
for the continued adaptation from their input. She feels the north end needs to share more
of the designated youth areas, and would like to see the dog park moved back to the west.
Overall, she finds Concept 6 suitable if these changes are made.
Tim Johnson — Tim is not a member of the Sports Alliance or SWAN, and he appreciates
• the softening of Concept 6. He feels it looks like Edora park in regard to unprogrammed
activities and family drop in use. He is a member of the Transportation Board, and can
• understand the concern for Horsetooth Road as they had the same concerns. He thinks
we need to look at how Edora Park is fed from Stuart Street and the neighborhood streets
from the south. He urged the Board to think about using a round -about because it will
take the flow away from street. It would provide a 15-20 mph approach as well as
continuous flow. He also suggested not having offset streets coming from the south to
feed the main line of the park. He added that the Transportation Board usually rejects
that because it makes the kids compete with traffic. He thanked the Board for Concept 6.
Van Pinner — Van is opposed to not having an offset entrance. He questioned the Board
why the entrance to the park was on Platte Street in the previous plans and now it is on
Horsetooth Court. Roger responded that they are trying to reduce cut through traffic on
Platte, and the number of homes impacted by the access point of that location was less.
Van requested a compromise. He proposed that we strongly consider moving the
entrance of the park. He feels it will be tough for them to deal with the traffic, as it is
hard enough getting in and out now. He thinks they could get in and out with a
compromise between Platte and Horsetooth Court. He suggested that the value of his
property would go down if the activity in the park remains on the south end.
Candy Luango (Silver Oaks.) Candy would like to see a conservation effort of our
natural resources. She does not want anything to interfere with their natural experiences
with wildlife. She believes native plants should be used, such as juniper and evergreen.
She also does not want cottonwoods put in as it is a health risk to her family (pollen.)
• She applauds the Board on the handicapped areas, and would like people in the area to be
reassured, even have written notice, that the ballfields will never be lit. She admits that
she has a real mistrust of the government. She would like to encourage wildlife by
having some indigenous nut and berry plants put in.
Arlene Swift (Quail Hollow.) She is not a member of SWAN or the sports community.
She feels Concept 6 is a great plan as it shows a lot of diversity and compromise. She
added that traffic would affect all of us, as they are affected in Quail Hollow now. She is
very excited with the design of this park and what it represents.
Diane Hunter (Quail Hollow.) She feels Concept 6 is much better than anything else
offered to date. While she is not totally satisfied, she thinks most people can say it is a
fair compromise. She feels it is an extraordinary spot because you can sky watch all year,
and putting lights in would have been a big mistake. On the parking issue, she went
down and counted the number of cars parked on the north end; there were 68 cars. She
feels Cottonwood park is a well -developed park, and too busy. She cannot get through
the parking area with a horse as it is very dangerous, and that it needs to be paid attention
to. She does feel that her opinions have been listened to. She knows organized sports do
not care for it, but feels this is a park for all citizens, not just organized sports. She also
feels this plan meets all of the diversified activity. She asked that the north east area be
left non -irrigated so they could have an area for the horses to relax after a trail walk. She
thanked everyone for their hard work and for listening
0
. Cheryl Burke Macavoy (Silver Oaks.) She is a special education teacher, and felt it was
not a good idea to have the dog park next to a handicapped playground. She said the
noise can scare the children and that they would be defenseless against attack. She would
like to see a compromise in that area.
Jessica thanked everyone for their comments and closed citizen participation. She invited
them to stay for the remainder of the meeting.
Approval of Minutes: On a motion by Greg Miller, seconded by Lance Newlin, the
Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the August 25`h, 2004 meeting.
Mary asked that it be noted that she faxed in her comments when the Board was
reviewing the previous three Spring Canyon Park plans, and did not see them reflected in
those minutes. Jessica said they did not see them, and asked if she could e-mail them.
Mary said they were no longer available.
Overview of Natural Areas General Management Guidelines
Mark Sears of Natural Resources spoke to the Board briefly about the Natural Areas
General Management Guidelines. He said that the Board should have a memo in their
paperwork from him that included a copy of the guidelines and a map of the natural
areas. He requested that the Board review the guidelines as they relate to recreation. He
added that this item would be on the City Council work plan for 2004, and that it was
• good timing because they will also be asking the Board to review the Management plans
for the Fossil Creek Natural Areas as well. The Fossil Creek plan is 11 sites along the
Fossil Creek drainage in the south end of town. Mark also invited the Board to an open
house on October 20`h specifically for the P&R Board and the Natural Resources
Advisory Board. He felt it would be a chance to meet one on one with the Natural Areas
staff and discuss each site, including Bobcat Ridge. He said his staff would then be
attending the P&R Board meeting on October 27`h to discuss the Board's comments on
the General Management Guidelines, and the Fossil Creek and Bobcat Ridge sites.
Marty asked if Mark could explain what they are doing with guidelines, and what
specifically he is looking for from the Board. Mark responded that he would take their
input on the 27 h, and the Natural Resources Board review in November, and report back
to Council in December. He explained that the Guidelines were originally targeted
toward local natural areas, but as they branch off into regional areas, the recreational
opportunities will grow so they want to change the Guidelines to accommodate the
expanding regions. He added that Bobcat Ridge is 2,600 acres, and Soapstone will be
close to 20,000. With an additional purchase they are working on with the county they
could end up with close to 30,000 acres open to public access, with well over 30 miles of
trails. He added that the Open House would be at 281 N. College in rooms A-D, from
4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. He clarified that they are interested in individual comments at the
open house, and more broad comments as a Board the following week.
0 Spring Canyon Community Park Design
• Presenters: Roger - BHA Designs; Craig Foreman and Kathleen Benedict — Parks
Planning. Roger suggested they begin with a brief summary of comments from Monday
night's third public meeting.
Kathleen began with a review of the public comments that were accumulated at the
public meeting. A written summary was included in the Board's packets. Please refer to
that document for specific items from the summary. Kathleen reviewed the positive and
negative comments of Concept 6, including responses to a question posed regarding the
location of the dog park. She thanked the public for all of the comments, as they help
modify the designs. She added that all comments will be compiled by their public
facilitator, Liz Lancaster, and that they would be posted on the City web page in a few
weeks. Kathleen also added that the general feeling of the meeting it that citizens felt
they had been listened to, and that there was wide representation from all neighborhoods
surrounding the site.
Roger then walked through the primary changes to Concept 6. He also added that he felt
is had been a great process, and felt they were making ground. Jessica asked if the dog
park could be put in the southwest corner of the site until the recreation center was built,
and then moved to a new site. Roger responded that it needed to be in the master plan
from the beginning or it would run the risk of not having space later. Jessica requested
that the dog park be moved away from the playground.
• Jessica also asked if the drawing on the eastern side of the site was the amphitheater.
Roger said they were not calling it a concert venue because it was intended for more
social gatherings. Marty did not feel that he was in agreement with that because groups
like the symphony do hold concerts in the park. Jon felt access to the park would be
difficult, and Craig explained that they have a place set aside for the portable stage
(Showmobile) on the left side of the site by the sidewalk system.
Craig then took over and said that the key issues from Monday night's meetings were:
- trail locations (they are still working on the details)
- Horsetooth Road access (still working with Transportation, thinking about the round-
about)
Lance asked if a roundabout would fit on Horsetooth Road. Craig said they would need
to look at it, but that it could go into the park. He also wanted to make sure that they
addressed horse access through the park, and to reiterate to those users that they are
valued and won't be forgotten. He wants to provide them with access through the trail or
the area that runs along the outer perimeter of the site. He felt the horses could make their
own trail through there, and that it is low irrigated turf. Craig then stated that he wants to
make sure that the larger parking lots on both the north and south sides will accommodate
trailers. He said that they most likely will not have designated horse trailer parking areas,
but general spaces on a first come, first serve basis instead. Craig then opened it up to
questions.
n
U
. Jon stated that he liked the soft path around the outside of the site as it accommodates the
requests from runners. He said that there was one area where the soft path and bicycle
path cross at the south entrance, and asked if there was a possibility of putting in an
overpass or underpass in that location. Both Roger and Craig said they have already been
addressing the situation. They were thinking of a bridge that looks like a trestle, that is at
least 12'-20' wide. It would need to accommodate walkers, riders, and horses. John also
asked about the small area on the northern end that was not irrigated. He suggested it be
left natural grass. Craig offered that they could make that an area for the horses to cool
down. Mary asked for clarification of natural grass. Craig said it would be a blend of
fescue, and buffalo grass, that take low amounts of water and fertilizer, and not mowed
all the time. He felt it would lend to the natural look of the park.
Lance asked what percentage of the park was actively programmed. He felt it was about
25%, and wanted to remind everyone that they already hacked out more from the park
than originally planned. Craig confirmed that it is currently at 25.5%. He added, for
comparison, that Fossil Creek is in the low 20 percentile, and Rolland Moore was in the
mid 30 percentile.
Lance stated that he felt the dog park should be moved away from the playground and
farther to the north and west for better access from both ends. He also asked to bring back
the water, a side -channel, to feed the dog park and picnic area. Lance also inquired about
the canyon area at the bottom of the site. He said that they keep saying we are not going
• to play games in that area, but he thinks, as managers, they should have the ability to
move fields around to utilize and preserve turf areas. He thought they should look at
those areas as potential areas to put a field when a designated field was closes to allow
the turf to recover. Toward that, he wanted to look closely at the width and size of the
throats of those areas so they are not made too small. He clarified that they may need to
put fields in there so they don't over use the area on the north. The fields need to be
rotated so they don't turn in to dirt, otherwise, if one is taken out for repair we won't have
any fields in this park.
Lance, then asked about the small turf area toward the north. He felt it should be either
taken out or utilized. He felt it could be made into a small field for kids. Lance added
that they keep talking about the active vs. the passive use of the parks, and he might have
been a little prone to putting more fields on, but that there was never any information that
showed the fields were really needed. Marty responded that Jeff Jamison of Recreation
Sports submitted a memo to Marty regarding fields in response to a citizen request.
Marty said he felt Jeff did show the need for more fields. He passed Jeffs memo out to
the Board. Marty emphasized that even though we have a need for additional fields, we
still think that this site and this location need the design that has been recommended. He
added that there is a need out there, but that we were doing a pretty good job of meeting
the needs, particularly when compared to other communities. He felt it is tough to meet
all the needs of users that want to recreate at the same time. At Dean Hoag's request,
Marty asked Jeff to come up to discuss facility needs with the Board.
•
• Jeff stated that his job is to schedule the facilities for programmed use and that he sees
more of our needs for facilities than the normal person does and that his current need is
ballfields. He explained that they do not have a shortage of ballfields, but a shortage of
scheduling times, because everyone wants them during prime time, which is 4:00 p.m. to
dark, if there are no lights. He said that lights give him the ability to add more playing
time for the groups. Del asked what kind of groups use the lights, and Jeff said that the
community parks are currently used for adult City programs right now, but that Edora
Park was used every day of the week in the evening up until 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. by
youth groups. He said that when the Fossil Creek fields comes on line he has groups
waiting in line for them. He also added that Edora and Fossil Creek have 310-foot fences
which gives a larger outfield so they can also use them for soccer, rugby, lacrosse, and
ultimate frisbee, because it is turf with lights. He explained that this then takes away
from the baseball, and softball players. He added that there is not a lit football field in
town so using the outfields is their only option. Jeff said that he would like to have fields
with large outfields. Craig confirmed that these fields are 320'. Jeff felt that would help
his situation. Jeff also said that some of the groups that use the fields are Poudre School
District, Soccer Club, and the Fort Collins Youth Baseball, and that two new baseball
groups have started up in the past two months. He said there is just not enough space for
all groups. He feels they do the best job they can to accommodate them.
Del asked if two ball fields were big enough to accommodate soccer fields. Jeff said they
were and that anytime you get 90 foot base paths it gives you a bigger outfield of 300-
• 320 feet. Del asked how he felt about fences around outfields. Jeff said that fences allow
for a real baseball game with actual home runs. He added that it does limit what you can
schedule as far as baseball, but didn't hurt anything as far as turf sports. Marty said that
the overall conclusion of Jeff's memo was that there is a need for additional fields, both
diamond fields and particularly turf fields. One of the primary needs is for practice space
and we have heard from a lot of people about that. Jeff added that they turn people away
for practice fields because there are not enough. Del asked if we adopt the suggestions
from Lance could we have practices in these areas non -programmed turf areas of Spring
Canyon? Jeff said it would depend on the width, but that we could have room for
staggering some 30x50 fields. He added that square areas are good because they are big
enough to turn the fields in different directions so they don't get worn in the goal mouth
area. Dean asked how the flat the area would be. Craig said 1-2%. Jeff also mentioned
that presently the City sports staff did not plan on creating a roller hockey league so he
didn't know if the roller hockey rink needed to be lighted. Marty said that the design
team had discussed this and believes the rink needs to be lighted to accommodate the
drop in play. Marty asked if there were any other questions. The Board had none, and
thanked Jeff for answering their questions.
The discussion then went back to Concept 6 of Spring Canyon Community Park.
Del inquired about the maintenance road that was to connect Overland and Horsetooth
Roads. Craig said they could either bring the vehicles through the soft path by the
existing sidewalk or put in a reinforced sidewalk and bring them through on the west
side. He said that access could also be used for emergency vehicles. Del asked again
• about the amphitheater. He felt the area on the east side would be the most likely area to
have a hill where people can sit and relax. Craig said that they could create that in the
bottom of the northern section, just north of the sidewalk. He said it would be in the final
plan. Del said he was unclear of the trails. Craig reviewed the trails and said that the
white ones are concrete, and that the crusher fine trail typically parallels around the
backside of the concrete trail. He said all of the trails would be approximately 12 feel
wide. He said they could also be used as a horse trail. Del asked where the horsetrailer
parking would be. Craig said all parking areas would be big enough for a horsetrailer to
turn around, as well as fire trucks. Del does not want to see any horsetrailer parking on
south end. Craig said they would need to provide horse access to Pine Ridge from the
south. Mary said they could go to the top of Pine Ridge (Dixon Reservoir,) or on the
west side of Cottonwood Glen as that is where she parks. She also felt that bigger signs
were needed and more ranger management. Del felt that if the dog park were moved to
the new location there would be a problem with dogs and horses. Craig said they would
be tightening up the facilities in that area so there would be plenty of room for both.
Jessica asked what would happen to the space where the dog park is now. Craig said they
might make the area another practice area. Mary felt that moving the dog park to the
west would fill up the parking lot. Marty asked Craig to explain that if the dog park were
moved, additional parking would come with it. Craig said it would add 40 more spaces.
Marty felt this would address the concern we heard during public participation where
more of the activity in the park, and associated parking, would be moving from the south
• so it would be accessed from Overland Trail. Del wanted to second the option of
bringing the water to the picnic area. Craig agreed.
Greg wanted to applaud Craig for Fossil Creek and the lessons they learned concerning
the proximity of the playground to the skating area. Jessica asked if they could move
Shane's Inspiration Playground up to the pavilion area. Del felt it should stay in area it is
now in. Roger added that one of the lessons they learned at Fossil Creek was when you
enter that park, all of that activity right at the entrance makes you feel like you've arrived
in an exciting place.
Dean commented that Roger and Craig have been more than accommodating and is
amazed at the compromises made. He applauded them for what they've done. Dean also
had a few concerns. He wondered about the safety on the trail, with too many bushes and
mountain lions. Craig said they are working with natural resources to put in shorter
grasses. Dean also thought there might still be concerns with the parking, but thought the
overflow parking would help. He wondered if there was a possibility of putting in a four-
way stop, or speed bumps to stop kids from drag racing. Craig said that we will be
looking into putting in speed bumps but we may encounter problems because Horsetooth
and Overland Trail are still arterial streets, even though they dead-end at the park site.
He said they are having a dialogue with transportation, and would continue to keep tabs
on it. Dean asked if they could see about getting a signal light. Craig said they would.
Dean was also concerned about future community parks, and making sure they get back
• to what community park plans are. Craig said that this one is different, but he was sure
they would have more of a classic community park with their other parks coming up.
• Marty added that this park has a lot of unique issues and the level of public involvement
is something they have never experienced before. He added that the future sites being
developed are in farmland and they shouldn't have the same issues that this site has. He
said our intention is to be appropriate with these other parks in the future, and we might
have a lot more fields in some of those parks if they fit well and could be buffered.
Lance wanted to make sure that it gets in the notes that this is not the plan for all of the
future parks, just this park only. Jon felt that was fair, but did not want to paint ourselves
in the comer with this park. Marty said the design team is happy with this design. He
added that we could build parks all day long and never meet the needs of groups who
want fields 3:30 p.m. to dark. He feels we have enough fields if people are willing to
recreate at different times, so we assess our situation for the entire park system, compare
ourselves to other communities, and look at our needs. He feels this is an appropriate
response for this site. Jon feels that at the same time we've got to build for the growth of
our city. Marty said that if you look at our park system, we do as well as anybody, if not
better. We have a nice amount of fields, excellent facilities, and people are recreating, so
we are not shortchanging anyone.
Jessica asked Jeff if PSD fields help offset the needs of our fields. Jeff said they do
some, but that they have fences around their fields which limits their availability to kids,
and that the school actually use our fields quite a bit. He added that the schools also help
out many of our user groups in return. Marty wanted to mention that the Board was
• involved in Building Community Choices, which used City capital dollars to upgrade and
improve six fields. Jessica also asked if there was a need for lighted roller hockey from
a scheduling standpoint. Jeff said they don't have requests for it, but that he sees they do
fill up the parking lot at Fossil Creek. Marty added that we have heard from users that it
would be nice for it to be lit. Lance said that the CSU rink is used regularly at night, and
not just college kids. He said the demand is huge. Roger said that he plays roller hockey
and that they spill over in the parking lot all the time. He feels it could be beneficial to
have it. Marty reminded everyone that the design team is recommending lights for the
roller hockey rink.
Del asked about parking and tournaments. Craig said that we do need more parking
spaces now than we did 20 years ago because families have more cars. Del inquired
about the material used to create overflow parking. Craig said grass or gravel. Lance
was concerned that there would be a lot of people in the core area when there were a lot
of events going on and wants to be sure there is enough room so they are not all crammed
together. Craig said that is why the open areas are going to have big spaces.
Lance asked what Craig and Marty wanted the Board to do. Marty said that Council
would be considering the design that they take to the study session on the 26s'' so he
wanted to hear from the Board about the dog park issue, if they are in support of moving
it. If so, they'll redo the design to show that, and then ask the Board to take a vote on
recommending it for Council's endorsement. Jessica asked if they could see the plan
• with the dog park in its new place before they take it to council. Marty said they could
send it out to them. There was discussion on how that would be handled before the
• Council meeting as the Board did not meet again until October 27`h. Craig said he could
get the new design to them so they could approve it.
Marty interjected that Council will not be locked into the design and the logistics. It
would just be a general okay from them that we were going in the right direction so we
will know if we are on track. Marty added that he hoped the Board could do a motion
that would generally approve the concept with the condition that the dog park is moved,
along with the other facilities, if necessary, subject to the Board's approval through e-
mail. He said that then they could set a special meeting to reconvene this same meeting
in the event that they don't get a unanimous vote based on the new design. On a motion
by Greg Miller and seconded by Del Price, the Board voted unanimously that they would
review the revised park conceptual design and vote, by sending and email to Marty, to
either recommend or not recommend the design to the City Council. If a majority of the
Board did not recommend the design to the Council, a special meeting of the Board
would be held on October 13`h to continue their discussion of the design. (Staff Note:
The Board voted unanimously by email to recommend the revised conceptual design to
the Council)
Mary Carlson had to leave for another engagement.
Overview of Park Design and Construction Methods to Reduce Operation and
Maintenance Costs
• City Manger's work plan 2004-2005
Craig reviewed the work items that the city council would be looking at in 2004 and
2005:
- Continue to improve park design and construction to reduce operation and
maintenance costs while still meeting the needs of our citizens
- Monitor the yearly operation and maintenance of the park system, and annual
lifecycle (replaces or renovates infrastructure as it wears out) costs. Currently that's
about $3.36 million for maintenance and $640,000 for lifecycle.
Marty added that the reason we are bringing it up is because we want to give council
some information on how we will deal with Spring Canyon Park and see how we can
reduce the O&M costs. We would like the Board to understand these items and see if the
concepts make sense before taking them to Council. If they do we can report to Council
on the 26`h that we talked about these concepts with you. Craig said that Spring Canyon
is at the forefront to try to make changes system wide so the parks are less costly to
maintain. He added that a large part of the O&M costs is turf, restrooms, litter removal,
lighted ballfields, and utility charges (water, electrical, fuel.)
Del asked where equipment cost came in. Bob Loeven, Manager of Parks and
Cemeteries responded that equipment cost is worked in to all costs in the items listed.
Del asked if this was the whole budget. Marty said it does not include the maintenance of
• the trails, the medians and streetscapes, or the public facilities, just the parks. He said
that total parks maintenance budget is about $7 million. The items discussed tonight
• would represent about $4 million. Marty added that the direction from council is to
reduce O&M costs in designing and constructing our parks, so we just want to show what
we do in the park would not affect the trails, or the Lincoln Center or Senior Center etc.
Craig continued with the work items:
- Lessen irrigated turf. We have the yellow natural grass in this design, which is not
heavily mowed or fertilized.
- Central irrigation controllers/pumps would help us individually control each head
down to the minute increment so that a whole zone doesn't run for an hour, but in
small increments. We have it currently at Fossil Creek.
- Use raw water vs. domestic. Obviously the more parks with raw water the better.
We can buy it one time with a minimal fee for delivery throughout the year.
Domestic water prices have gone up quite a bit.
- Satellite maintenance shops. We are saving 1.5 FTE each year by having a satellite
shop at Fossil Creek park. Less staff driving time means more time working on the
park and lower fuel and vehicle expense.
- Utility cost reductions. We put in'/4" water tap meters and 2" lines in the restrooms.
That '/4 inch tap is what you charge for your sewer service, so the new taps will save
several hundred dollars per month in utility bills. Put more electrical meters in the
parks and work on turning the meters off during the seasons we are not using them so
we are not paying monthly charges for the connection. Disconnect water in the fall,
open up again in the spring.
• - Perennial Flowers/Grasses vs. Annuals. We are using more grasses in the newer
parks instead of the classic use of annual flowers that we have to replace regularly.
We'll still get some color in the parks, but the grasses will really help lower costs.
- Trash cans. We are testing a new trashcan at Shelter #7 in City Park that has a
holding container built into the ground. It holds weeks worth of trash before having
to dump it. Currently it's been four weeks and hasn't had to be dumped yet. The
holding areas are 6' in the ground. It has a pressure lid so it closes tight, it compacts
itself in huge bag, so when it needs to be dumped we take a forklift and lift it out fully
contained. These will be used in high use areas, so instead of changing trashcan bags
1-2 times a day, we can save manpower. It looks just like a regular trash can.
- Vandalism resistant structures. Obviously, this is a real pain for everyone because it
hurts the image of the park system, it hurts maintenance staff to have to do the clean
up work, and takes from other work, so the more we can make resistant structures, the
better for everyone.
- Life Cycle Costs. Asphalt roads, parking lots, and tennis courts are 50% of the
Lifecycle budget. Spring Canyon has overflow parking that is not asphalt, and we
are looking at putting in the roads and parking lots in concrete. We think that would
last at least 30 years. Post -tension tennis courts that are six inches thick with two
inches of concrete on the top will last much longer than traditional courts. These are
the big areas. As we update older parks, we'll start putting concrete in those areas.
- Building replacement. The more we build shelters and restrooms in steel, brick or
concrete the better for us. They have a very long life that will last over 20 years or
0
so. We also have to watch the changing and evolving ADA requirements
• Playground and surface/features. We are currently using steel and plastic playground
equipment because the other fabrics are too hard to repair. The parks people are very
good about using only 4-5 companies that make industrial grade playground
equipment. We are also moving to rubberized services. Replacing rubber tiles are
better in the longer run than poured rubberized surface because it's easier to replace
one tile than an entire section.
Jessica asked what does it cost to do two tennis courts with the concrete. Craig said
about $30,000. Jessica asked if we would have to acquire the money for the two tennis
courts that will be added later at Spring Canyon Park. Craig said the money for this park
is from Community Parkland Impact fees. Jessica asked when would we decide to add
those. Marty said after we see how well the initial three courts are utilized. Craig
wrapped up by saying that they would be working on these items the rest of this year, and
next year. He will bring the Board information on how much we are saving to a future
meeting. Jessica mentioned that they never discussed bicycle racks at the park. She
asked if they were going to be a new design. Craig said they would be something
different like the ones at Fossil Creek but with a western theme.
Marty wrapped up the topic by saying that they were looking for the Board's overall
feeling of whether staff is moving in the right direction on this. He said that one of the
trade-offs is that it is getting more expensive to construct a park in this manner because
we're trying to make it bullet proof and low maintenance. Council is very concerned
• about expenses associated with building new parks, so we want to show them that we are
also very concerned about this and that we are working on it. The Board agreed
unanimously that they feel staff is moving in the right direction.
Project updates
- Acquisition of parkland in the northeast. Tabled until next meeting.
- Clean up effort at Old Fort Collins Heritage park. The EPA held an open house on -
site last night at the Northside Azatlan Center. The EPA is working to keep the
parties moving toward settlement as far as clean up is concerned.. Schraeder Oil is
backing out of joining the Administrative Order on Consent. The City has
determined it is in our best interest to stay involved and participate in the clean up,
even though we don't have liability for the clean up. We are still in negotiations for
additional cost for the recreation center, but it looks like Excel is willing to pick it up.
The additional cost to the recreation center that is associated with the contamination
(the ventilation system in the foundation, and the removal of the contaminated soil
that comes up from the drilling of the caissons, will be in the $50,000 to $70,000
range. We are interested in having Excel cover those cost for us. We would agree to
protect our workers and not disturb the soil any more than we have to. There are
conditions on how we would go about doing that, like not building an underground
parking structure, etc. Council has initially granted the easement to move the water
line next to the river right now, and they are still interested in having the recreation
. center on the same site. We are going to Council next Tuesday to talk about some
easement acquisitions. Greg asked what Schrader was doing now. Marty said they
• apparently decided they might be better off going it alone and taking their chances
with the EPA. EPA has the authority to go after them and bring them in for a certain
amount of liability associated with the clean up. Excel has been very cooperative.
Other business
Reminder of Spring Canyon Park, October 26`h , City Council Study Session. It starts at
6:00 p.m. Marty did not know where the item was on the agenda. Marty and Craig will
be doing the presentation. They will show the revised Concept 6, review O&M savings,
and ask for Council's general approval of the design.
Jessica suggested that they reconfirm the motion to adjourn this meeting to another time
and place. Marty said based on the motion that we made with regard to approving the
revised design of Concept 6 we need to have a motion to adjourn this meeting to another
time and date, so if we don't get a majority agreeing on it thorough e-mail that we could
reconvene. Jessica made the motion that we adjourn this meeting and reconvene to
Wednesday the 13`h at 5:30 at this location if a majority of the Board does not vote to
recommend the revised park design concept to the Council. Lance seconded. All board
members agreed; no opposition. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Lance added that this was the greatest collaborative board that he's ever worked with
• Correspondence
None
Respectfully submitted,
ve(f, N ov9--
Kelly Moore
Administrative Support Supervisor
Board Attendance
Board Members: Mary Carlson, Lance Freeman, Dean Hoag, Jessica MacMillen,
Gregg Miller, Del Price, Jon Sinclair
Staff: Kathleen Benedict, Craig Foreman, Marty Heffernan, Jeff Jamison, Bob Loeven,
Kelly Moore
Guests: Shell Hamilton, Randy Fischer, Rainer Olbys, Deborah Flynn, Pat Wunsch,
Rick Ney, Emily Hamond, Yvonne McKnight, Linda M. LoRusso, Marlene Swift, Cheryl
. Burke McEvoy, Julie Chen, Gennie French, Holly Wright, Anita Wright, Chris Huose,
• Amy Snider, Tim Johnson. Several other guests were present but did not sign the guest
register, or their names were not legible.
•