|
Fox & Associates |
40 |
||||
|
|
Discussion: Roelkey gave a brief history of the sites in question, noting that the tennis court complex at the Commons of Avalon Park was decided on a few years ago, with the developer making recommendations as made by City staff. He also noted that the Lake Coventry community appeared before this Commission a few years ago, anxious to get a park built, but the City did not have “ownership” at the time. Roelkey said the developer would like to build out these parks at the end, noting if the cost was more than $176K, the City would reimburse them through CIP funds, allocating a certain amount each year, but again stating the cost is not known at this time. (Alderman Hall noted that if the developer exceeds the $176K, all concerned parties must mutually agree on the amount.) They are asking for approval of the park plan at this time so they can move forward, as Roelkey reiterated to the Commission that the Lake Coventry Park in a very important park within the City’s park system, serving the residents on the north side of 40 West. He listed amenities available in nearby parks, noting the lack of basketball courts in the area, while reminding Commission members of the decision for the tennis courts at the Avalon site. Scott Miller said the layout makes sense, but wondered if the parking area would suffice, to which Roelkey replied the parking areas at Waverly Elementary School could be used if necessary, adding that these parks would not have attractions that people would drive to, it’s more of a neighborhood park. Roelkey suggested that the tennis courts be brought together, with only 1 span of fence and no path in between, but having the path “fish hook” from the parking lot to the courts. Roelkey said this Commission would only need to approve the concept plan and feels the Planning Department would keep close track of the developer. Steve Oder, Fox & Associates said they are willing to make necessary changes, but needs approval from the Rec Commission in order to go to the next step. Roelkey reiterated this Commission is here to discuss the concept of what’s in the park, nothing else at this time, noting the Planning Department will deal more with the specifics. Roelkey also said the plan meets the need in the area, noting the old plan for Lake Coventry has simply been ‘tweaked’ a bit, with Commission members noting the plan does look good. Members of the Lake Coventry community were in attendance and noted some of their concerns – Asked if the basketball courts were necessary in this park as they are concerned about others from the City coming in playing at night, disturbing the community and possibly opening the area up to more crime. They asked why users couldn’t just go to a school lot to play basketball. Noting they would prefer more open space. Roelkey informed the residents that park hours end at 10:00 p.m., suggesting that residents contact City Police and/or the Park Enforcement officer if they feel this is needed. Matt added that the residents need to realize the park is for all City residents, not just those living in the development and that the City has a duty to provide activities for everyone. In answer to a resident’s question about fencing in the park, Roelkey said no, the only areas that would be fenced would be the basketball & tennis court areas. A resident asked about a larger pavilion or an additional pavilion, to which Roelkey replied that the current plan calls for a pavilion that could accommodate about 30 people, noting that another pavilion would cost between $35-40K and if the community so desires an additional pavilion could be addressed to be expanded in a second phase. He explained the permit process for users of the pavilion and also informed those present of the intent to place the summer playground program in the area. He also said the current parking area could not accommodate a larger pavilion, which brought up the next concern by a resident who stated he did not want a larger parking area as he felt this would encourage outsiders to come into the neighborhood and he would rather the access be for those in the neighborhood. He was also concerned about users parking on the neighborhood streets and using the park, saying he would rather it be more family oriented, with plantings and a path system, not too much activity for others to come to. Roelkey said the path is not part of the linear system and would only be a 6’ path that would link the 2 communities, and reminded those present that the neighborhood streets can be used by anyone since they are public thoroughfares. He also said the only ‘outside’ use he sees is possibly a t-ball league, which shouldn’t burden the neighborhood. In answer to the question as to when all of this would take place, Roelkey said the developer is trying to get the concept approved tonight so it can be forwarded to the Planning Department, and said it would be about 2 years if all goes according to plan. Roelkey added that he would make sure a berm (trees) would be planted as a buffer for Lot #39. Matt suggested that the residents consider forming a “Friends of” group and suggested they contact the City about forming such a support group for the community. Roelkey again reminded the residents to contact Jesse Goode, stating he could address some of their concerns and encouraged the residents to meet with Jesse so he is made aware of any problems and/or concerns and can plan to handle. In answer to concerns as expressed by M. Clagett (property manager at Lake Coventry), Alderman Hall shared that she is still encouraged to attend the Planning Commission meeting when this issue will be discussed and noted that the City can’t allow one group or neighborhood to pick and choose what goes into a particular area, as these are for the entire City, not just one development. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Conclusions: Mary Nagle then made motion to accept the park plans as presented noting the redesign of the tennis court area and to have a buffer between the basketball courts and the residences to aid in privacy and noise control. This was seconded by Byron Hawkins. Residents asked if the courts could be moved so as not to be so close to the houses and Commission members agreed. Steve Oder said he is willing to address these suggestions as made to relocate or reconfigure the court location. Mary then made an amendment to the motion, suggesting that the developer meet with Roelkey to make said changes before submitting final plans to the Planning Commission. (Roelkey noted this is then the perfect opportunity for public comment when the site plan is being discussed. He added public comment will be heard at the planning meetings as well as the Mayor and Board meting when this issue is discussed). Mary then amended the motion again to note that efforts will be made to consider the community’s request to relocate the basketball courts to a more favorable place. Bryon also seconded this will all in favor and the motion being passed. Alderman Hall encouraged the residents to appear before the Planning Commission to make sure this has been addressed or to contact Roelkey to check the plans. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Action items: Developer will meet with Roelkey and will then forward new plans to the Planning Commission. |
Person responsible: |
Deadline: |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Renaming request for Riverwalk |
Nancy Maher |
20 |
|||
|
|
Discussion: Nancy Maher, who had written one of the letters on this issue, informed the Commission of the close proximity of the Carlo’s home in reference to the park, noting that the son of the Carlo’s had perished at the World Trade Center on 911, asking the Commission to recommend renaming the park to a Heroes Park to memorialize Mr. Carlo, Mr. Linton and others who were lost that day. Commission members said they, too, would not object to a memorial but does not feel that the park should be renamed, citing once the City does this for one group, it would then become a right for others. They said, instead, perhaps a monument or type of memorial could be placed in Memorial Park, with Stuart Frazier adding that possibly a section of Baker Park, the Irish Garden or some other discreet place would be better. Commission members agreed they would like to see a ‘passive’ memorial. Nancy asked if there would be a restriction on the monument if placed in Memorial Park and Roelkey said not to his knowledge. She then stated their group has already raised some funds, but would like budget help. Roelkey said possibly DPW could offer in kind services, but could not offer any financial assistance at this time. Commission members agreed there is certainly no opposition to a memorial at the Memorial Grounds. Charles Abrecht, also on the memorial committee, said he feels an entire park should be dedicated to the 911 victims and families, stating that just a monument is not enough. He said they would be appearing before the County soon to have Ballenger Creek Park renamed Linton Park (after Allen Linton, also lost at WTC on 911). He feels there should be a park dedicated just for this cause, possibly naming it Heroes Park adding the group is willing to form a “Friends of” committee to assist. Commission members all agreed this is certainly an important issue, with Phil stating we should have a 911 Memorial in general, not just for 1 or 2 victims. Phil also recommended the group (Ms. Maher & Mr. Abrecht) explores the options at Memorial Park and if this does not work out, then we could find out what is possible and what is available. Mary agreed, stating the memorial should be a sacred place for contemplation and reflection. Ms. Maher informed the Commission that cities and counties all over the US have made arrangements for memorial parks for the 911 event, asking if the City has any intent, to which we replied we knew of no plans to date. Commission members agreed with the concept of an obelisk or a wall, with Ms. Maher asking who will pay for this. She was informed that the veterans have always paid for the many monuments in Memorial Park, and then asked if the City would match any funds raised. Alderman Hall said there are a lot more approvals to seek before going any further and it was suggested that Ms. Maher contact the Memorial Park groups to see if this is an option. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Conclusions: Mary Nagle then made two motions – the first motion is to NOT rename Riverwalk Park. The second is to strongly recommend to the Mayor and Board to take a closer look at memorializing the events of 911 by placing a monument in Memorial Park, and if this is not possible, to locate another site where a memorial can be placed. Scott Miller seconded with all members favoring |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Action items: |
Person responsible: |
Deadline: |
||
|
|
Forward to Mayor & Board workshop |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Playground @ Max Kehne Park |
Roelkey |
30 |
|||
|
|
Discussion: Matt briefly informed Commission members of his past meetings with the residents regarding this playground, noting that because an agreement could not be reached the project was “shelved”. Roelkey also informed those present of the grants that the City had applied for and received to replace obsolete equipment in existing parks, noting that in last year’s budget cycle, Fred had the opportunity to double the funds, allowing the City to have $46K each to be used in 7 different parks, of which Max Kehne was one that met requirements. Roelkey said the size of the new equipment dictates the placement and he sees only 2 locations in the park that may suffice. Dean Heald, resident, read a letter (see attached), which outlines the options and reasons the residents feel certain spots would not be desirable. Much discussion ensued as to the locations, various configurations of the equipment, size of the equipment. Etc., with Roelkey noting that this is not a neighborhood park, it is a community park which gets a lot of use throughout the year and should address the needs of the various users. Ms. Sulcer, resident expressed her concerns about the park and the additional ‘traffic’ it seems to be getting with people sleeping in the park, more trash and the amount of unsupervised children who at times, have cause problems for nearby residents. Alderman Hall said since a concession was made with the residents on the light issue at the little league diamond, he feels the Commission needs to “stick by it’s word” with the community. He added that if an agreement cannot be met on the location of the equipment, the other option would be to do nothing. Roelkey then explained how the playground equipment is bid, explaining the procedures, standards and requirements, comparison of the vendors, noting that the way this is now done really aids the City in getting the most for their funds. After more discussion on the location, possibility of a fence in the area, etc., Stuart explained how the parks were chosen and the criteria used, adding that the money was specifically earmarked for Max Kehne and could not be used in another park, so felt it important that an amicable agreement be made if possible. Roelkey said a fence could be included, as part of the project, feeling this would be a good compromise and the City would not have to lose the funds. Roelkey will also check with the Legal Department as to whether the small piece of land between the fence and the backyards could be purchased by an interested resident |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Conclusions: Scott Miller then made motion recommending that the new playground equipment be placed in “Location #2”, directly behind right field at the little league diamond, with the appropriate fencing being placed adjacent. Byron seconded and all favored. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Action items: Roelkey will meet with Legal Department regarding the fencing issue. |
Person responsible: |
Deadline: |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
FYI - Friends of Baker Park |
Roelkey |
15 |
|||
|
|
Discussion: Roelkey said he wanted the Commission to review the letter sent by FOBP, noting he felt they were trying to tell the City what to do. Stuart said the City has already been working on some of the concerns, noting lots of other entities are involved in some of their recommendations, such as the Flood Control basin, etc. Roelkey said what concerned him the most was the references to the fountain, noting it would be nice if FOBP would upgrade the fountain, but Stuart again said he has been working with the group regarding some of these issues. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Conclusions: |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Action items: None |
Person responsible: |
Deadline: |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
FYI - Jesse Goode's monthly report |
(None) |
5 |
|||
|
|
Discussion: |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Conclusions: Roelkey reminded the Commission that he will continue to include the monthly report from Jesse in member’s packets, noting anything of concern can be discussed. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Action items: None |
Person responsible: |
Deadline: |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Other
Information |
|||||
Roelkey
gave members copies of a map notating City parks, showing the major functions
of each park while at the same time showing what may be needed in a particular
area.
He also said
he hopes to have the new and revised Parks Inventory Manual ready by the
November meeting, noting it will have more pictures along with a map &
directions listed for each park.
Roelkey
introduced COO Vinny Hughes to the Commission, who commended the Commission on
the negotiations he witnessed at tonight’s meeting and applauded the
Commission’s efforts to accommodate the citizens while at the same time making
sure the park system addresses the needs in the community.
Michael
reminded the Commission that he would appreciate their input on the fee in lieu
of issue, asking them to review the information from Montgomery County. He
hopes to be able to have a presentation ready for the November meeting.
There being
no other official business, Scott made motion to adjourn, with Mary seconding
and all favouring.
The next meeting of the City of Frederick Parks
and Recreation Commission
will be held on Wednesday, November 20, 2002 at
7:00 p.m.
at the Talley Recreation Center, 121 N. Bentz
Street, Frederick.
Respectfully
submitted,
Mary M.
Johnson
Commission
Secretary
