HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.2.24 Park & Rec Minutes1 | Page
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS Regular Meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission
City Hall 2077 West Larpenteur Avenue
MINUTES December 2, 2024 at 6:30 P.M.
A.CALL TO ORDER: 6:36 PM
B.ROLL CALL:Mike Bradbury__X___ Eric Brenton__X___Tom Faust__X__Bob Haight_____ Wesley Goldberg__X___ Erin Williams__X___
COUNCIL LIAISON:James Wassenberg ___X____
STAFF PRESENT:Kelly Nelson___X___
C.PRESENTATION: N/A
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES:1.November 4, 2024 – Parks and Recreation Regular Meeting Minutes
Faust motions to approve the Park minutes; approved 5-0
E.AGENDA:
1.Community Park Playground Proposals
Commissioners review 11 playground designs submitted by seven vendors to narrow the
selections down to their top three designs for recommendation to City Council and then request any necessary revisions from the vendor(s).
Flagship Brenton says that although the components have their own areas, they are not too far apart, and the flow is nice. Commissioners like the shade canopies, zipline, and the overall look, but
question how many components could be enjoyed by those in wheelchairs or with mobility limitations. The slides are not overly large and do not seem to have ramps, which may limit the structure to the able-bodied and younger ages.
Staff may ask the vendor if they can modify the design to include ramps, should the City Council like this overall design.
Kompan Options 1 and 2
Brenton dislikes how far apart the components are spaced out.
Wassenberg thinks kids like to play together and this does not allow for that.
Williams adds that the components seem geared toward younger kids.
2 | Page
Commissioners feel that the overall playground seems smaller and that it provides less components than the other playground designs do. Ultimately, the Commission feels these two Kompan designs are not contenders to consider further.
Midwest Playscapes Option 1 Wassenberg loves the track to run on!
Williams loves the doublewide slide because multiple kids can slide together at once.
Wassenberg likes the triangular climbing structure but not the overall design of the playground.
Midwest Playscapes Option 2 Wassenberg says that this design gets rid of the preferred elements from Option 1.
Bradbury likes the raised mounds to climb and jump over and also likes the climbing sphere. He wishes he could pull over some elements from Option 2 to the Option 1 design.
Williams likes the rock walls.
Goldberg appreciates the roofs over the playset to offer shade in Option 2.
MWP Option 1 Wassenberg and Nelson appreciate that the slide has a ramp and that the zipline and swing set are inclusive.
Williams thinks certain areas feel tight to navigate.
Brenton and Bradbury don’t like the color scheme (blue PIP with red and green play structures).
MWP Option 2
The Commissioners really like the palm tree swing and the sensory dome, but they question if there is a ramp to access the main play structure or if it would limit some users.
Wassenberg says that geodesic climbers are popular.
Williams asks if a rope climber or a bar climbing structure is preferred.
Northland Recreation
Wassenberg likes this design the best and appreciates that there are various-sized slides and that it
has a little roof to offer some shade over the main structure.
Brenton says that this is his favorite design as well and that it has good flow. He adds that it feels the most inclusive of age groups. He does not like the dark blue poured-in-place surfacing, however.
Nelson wonders if the swing set could be expanded to add one or two more swings and potentially be angled to still fit within the space.
Bradbury likes the height of the main play structure.
3 | Page
The Commission wonders if the Friendly Fence element could be moved and whether the
Spinfinity Standing and/or the Solo Spinner could be replaced with something that accommodates more than one person at a time like a rope structure or the palm tree swing another vendor showed in their design. Wassenberg would like a track design added to the poured-in-place (PIP) surfacing. The commissioners would like to maximize the games/elements on the PIP such as a raised mound and Hopscotch or another game added. St. Croix Recreation Option 1
The Commission does not like this design to consider it further. The components are too scattered, and it feels as though you get fewer elements overall than other designs provide.
St. Croix Recreation Option 2 This playground was not designed with Falcon Heights’ needs in mind. It is a playset that another purchaser ordered and then had to terminate their project after doing so. So, the vendor is
offering it at a discount, although the total price still exceeds the playground’s budget by $100K. The Commission does not like this design to consider it further. The components are too scattered. Webber Williams says the layout is in a strange shape. The Commission feels the play elements are on the smaller side and not very engaging for older kids. TOP 3 PLAYGROUND DESIGNS: 1. Northland Recreation The Commission makes a list of their top playground designs, selecting the playground design
submitted by Northland Recreation as their favorite and the closest to being “right,” with only simple revisions to be requested. They would like to see a raised mound, a track and a game or two added to the PIP surfacing, as well as to change the color of the PIP material. They would
prefer if the swing set could be expanded and angled to still fit within the space. And they would like to know if the Solo Spinner/Spinfinity Standing Swing could be swapped out with either a standing swing that accommodates multiple kids or replaced with a rope structure. The Friendly Fence may need to be moved to provide more space. Can a spring rider element be added? All-in-all, this option is considered the most considerate of the various ages and abilities it can serve. 2. Midwest Playscapes (Hybrid of Option #1 mixed with Option #2) Commissioners like the Midwest Playscapes Option #1 as their second favorite. However, the Commission would like to morph some of the elements from Options 1 and 2 together, to improve Option 1’s design. Add raised mounds to the PIP surface, a rock wall and a curved or taller slide as shown on Option 2. Inclusivity and accessibility are not considered in the design as much as the Commission’s top choice, however.
3. MWP Option #2 and Flagship - - - TIE! The Commission determines that the third spot will actually be shared by two playground designs, MWP Option #2 and Flagship, as both need several alternations to make them
contenders for the Commission. And, depending on what the City Council prefers and if they
4 | Page
would like to see either of these options altered by the vendors, then Staff can request modifications.
MWP #2: While the Commission strongly likes various components offered by the manufacturer such as the swing set, palm tree spinner, sensory dome and climbing structure, the central structure is not accessible to wheelchair-bound or mobility-challenged users and would need to be modified in order for the Commission to recommend it. Flagship: Like the MWP #2 design, the Commission likes the look and flow of this playground and its various components such as the shade canopies, the zipline and the boogie board, but ramp access and inclusivity are lacking. The slides are not overly large, which may limit appeal to younger kids. Information/Announcement Staff updates the Commission that the Little Free Library that is being donated should be installed at Curtiss Field tomorrow, 12/4.
And, due to an unforeseen electrical issue and the expense associated with the repair, there will not be a warming house at Curtiss Field this winter. Residents can still enjoy the ice rink!
G. ADJOURNMENT: 8:41 P.M. Brenton motions to adjourn the meeting; Approved 5-0