My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-30-2022 Council Packet
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2022
>
11-30-2022 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/6/2022 12:48:38 PM
Creation date
12/6/2022 12:45:12 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
153
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br />Additional comments that were received from the survey and neighborhood meeting. <br />- “Go big or go home!” <br />- “Taller play structure with bridge!” <br />- “The zipline is awesome” x2 <br />- “Avoid options that focus on fewer movements. The more options to move in different ways <br />the better. Avoid climbing, zipping, sliding, hiding, spinning, running above-ground paths <br />etc. Just objects with a main focus on climbing isn’t as fun…” <br />- “Shade and places for parents to sit should be available” <br />- “The addition of shade over the playground will help protect kiddos with sensitive skin!” <br /> <br />PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION <br />All of the playground options were included in the November 3, 2022 Parks & Recreation <br />Commission Packet and were presented at the November 3, 2022, Parks & Recreation Commission <br />Meeting. The Commission also had the opportunity to review the design boards in detail before the <br />meeting. During the meeting, the Commission focused on the top five playgrounds for the survey <br />results and each Commissioner was allowed the opportunity to provide feedback on the designs <br />(November 3, 2022, Parks & Recreation Meeting Minutes are attached). <br /> <br />Overall, the comments were positive of all playground designs, but the Commission liked two <br />options the best. Those two options were St. Croix Recreation's (Option “J”) and Northland <br />Recreation’s design (Option “I”). In both options, the Commission stated that they liked the shade, <br />height of the structure, and the number of play elements that were in the design. In option “J” they <br />liked all the different activity areas and the “themed” 2-5-year-old play area of a ship. There were a <br />few comments that it had a few similar characteristics to the newly built Rondeau Park. Option “I”, <br />was a little more different style playground than any other playground in Little Canada and there <br />was more ramp accessibility throughout the playground structure. There was much discussion about <br />both options and the following motion was made, <br /> <br />3 <br />19 <br />10 <br />17 <br />0 2 4 7 <br />26 <br />42 <br />29 <br />6 <br />10 <br />0 <br />5 <br />10 <br />15 <br />20 <br />25 <br />30 <br />35 <br />40 <br />45 <br />Pioneer Park Playground Designs
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.