My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-31-2013 Park & Rec Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
01-31-2013 Park & Rec Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/11/2013 11:40:43 AM
Creation date
2/11/2013 11:40:31 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
MINUTES <br />PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION <br />JANUARY 31, 2013 <br />The Parks Consultant indicated that the existing structure in Nadeau Park <br />was designed to blend into the area. He suggested that the new structure <br />have color and provide a change for the area. <br />Vang asked about the cost. DesRoches indicated that the cost of each of <br />the three options is slightly under $50,000. Heikke suggested that a <br />second digger be added to the sand area. DesRoches estimated the cost of <br />a second digger at $600 to $700 installed. Sanders asked about the <br />location of the digger and the potential for digging in the fiber area. <br />DesRoches stated that there would be a stop on the digger so that it could <br />not swing into the fiber area. <br />The Director asked what the age range was for the existing play structure. <br />DesRoches reported that at the time it was installed, age ranges were not <br />assigned to structures. However, from reviewing the structure it appeared <br />to be in the 5 to 12 year old range with elements that are of interest to the <br />2 to 5 year old range. <br />Sullivan asked about the darker plum color drawing more heat. <br />DesRoches indicated that they would recommend colors for the slides that <br />would not hold heat and also noted that slides would be oriented so that <br />they do not face west. The Director asked about the top treatments in <br />Option 3. DesRoches indicated that they are mostly for aesthetics and do <br />not shed much shade. Another option would be to replace these with a <br />more traditional shade structure of either plastic or fabric. There was <br />discussion about the durability of fabric with DesRoches reporting that <br />some cities leave the fabric up all year round and others do not. If left up <br />during the winter, the fabric will start to sag after about 12 years. <br />DesRoches noted that the material is not actually fabric, but a woven poly <br />plastic material. lie also reported that the shade structure can be taken <br />down in about one hour by four people. He also indicated that switching <br />to the traditional shade structure should not impact the cost estimate. <br />The Commission discussed the three options, and it was their consensus <br />that one should be chosen for presentation at a neighborhood meeting. <br />DesRoches indicated that he could have a drawing of the proposal which <br />included depictions of various elements which could be changed out <br />based on neighborhood input. The Commission felt that Option 3 was <br />preferable with the addition of a shade structure. The Commission agreed <br />that presentation to the neighborhood should include various elements that <br />could be switched out based on the neighborhood's preferences. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.