Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-2022 Park Board Packet PARK BOARD MEETING Wednesday, February 2, 2022 6:30 pm ******************* Council Chambers Park Board Members: Pat Huelman (Chair), Clark Gooder, John Nordlund, William Kusterman, James Zilka, David Termont, and Julie Ann Cutts. Public Services Director: Rick DeGardner Administrative Assistant: Kellie Schmidt AGENDA 1. Welcome and Oath of Office of Julie Ann Cutts & David Termont 2. Call to Order and Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Setting Agenda 5. Open Mike 6. Approval of September, 2021 Minutes 7. Approval of January, 2022 Minutes 8. Watermark Park Master Plan 9. New Business A. Vote-in Vice Chair 10. Old Business A. Review 2022 Parks & Trails Budgeted Items 11. Next Scheduled Park Board Meeting – Wednesday, March 2, 2022 12. Adjourn CITY OF LINO LAKES PARK BOARD MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Park Board Chair Pat Huelman called the Lino Lakes Park Board meeting to order at 6:30 pm. on September 1, 2021. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. SETTING OF AGENDA Agenda was approved as is. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES William Kusterman made a MOTION to approve the August 4, 2021 meeting minutes. Motion was supported by James Zilka. Motion carried 6 - 0. 5. OPEN MIKE There was no one present for Open Mike. 6. DETERMINE PARK NAMING RECOMMENDATIONS Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director recapped the naming process and the survey that was taken previously to develop names for the park located at Centerville Road & Birch Street as well as to rename City Hall Park. DeGardner detailed that there were 76 respondents. Approximately 50% voted for the name Tower Park, with Blue Heron Park and Water Tower Park each around 25%. He then went onto address the name suggestions for City Hall Park stating that approximately 75% voted for the name “Main Street Park” over “Old City Hall Park”. He stated that Park Boards next step is to prepare DATE: September 1, 2022 TIME STARTED: 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED: 8:33 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Patrick Huelman (Chair), Clark Gooder, Jame Zilka, Abby Haworth, William Kusterman, John Nordland, and Richard Jensen. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick DeGardner (Director of Public Services) Kellie Schmidt (Administrative Assistant) the name recommendations for City Council to review at the September 13th City Council meeting. William Kusterman made a motion to accept and change the name from “City Hall Park to “Main Street Park. It was seconded by Richard Jensen. Motion passed 6-1 with Gooder opposed. Clark Gooder, Park Board Member, stated he wanted something more unique for the name and that is why he opposed “Main Street Park”. The Park Board went on to discuss the names for Centerville Road & Birch Street. Based on the feedback they received Kusterman made a motion to accept the name “Tower Park” for the Centerville Road/Birch Street location. John Nordland seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-2 with Huelman and Gooder opposed as they were hoping for something more specific and unique to our City. The Park Board did discuss that although many of them like the name “Blue Heron Park” it was pointed out that there is Blue Heron Elementary School nearby and the Blue Heron is used in many areas within the City as a name so it could be confusing for people and the GPS could pull up a wrong site. 7. DISCUSS 2022 PARK BOARD GOALS Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director, recapped how the Park Board typically recommends parks and trials project to the City Council consideration. He detailed that funding is usually provided through the Dedicated Parks Fund, Park and Trail Improvement Fund, and General Fund. He stated currently there doesn’t appear to be much for undesignated funds in the Dedicated Parks Fund and Park & Trails Fund. This may change after Lino Park and Tower Park projects are completed in 2022. He stated there currently is $90,000 allocated for the Parks and Tails Fund. DeGardner then provide a list of potential projects that the Park Board has previously discussed as well as the Existing Playground Equipment Inventory. Pat Huelman, Park Board Chair, also shared some information regarding parks and trails project summary. Huelman stated we should consider the need for a dog park. He also discussed some of the parks that were on the previous list that had been identified as a guide to the parks needs. He stated that there were a few “big ticket items” but that there is only $90,000 available making it hard as they can only do some things but not update the needs of an entire park. He stated that he is glad to have the funds, but it’s hard when more is needed to really make a difference. James Zilka, Park Board Member, commented that it would be hard to make a decision without visiting some of the parks that are at the top of the list in terms of need. He stated that when the Park Board does the park tour he would have a bit more feedback. Richard Jensen, Park Board Member, confirmed with DeGardner that as of right now there is only $90,000 in funds to use to upgrade a park. DeGardner confirmed and added that if Lino Park come in under budget there could be some funds extra however the Park Board should plan on the $90,000. William Kusterman. Park Board Member, commented that the Park Board needs to identify the real important needs and make the City Council aware of them. That they need to try to make them understand what funds would be needed to make a real difference. Clark Gooder, Park Board Member, did request to have Mike Hoffman, Parks Supervisor, attend a park walk though in Ocotber or attend a Park Board Meeting dregarding the needs of each park and the city. Kusterman commented that he remembered at one time the Park Board received Mike’s assessment of each of the park and is looking to have that updated and provided again to the Park Board. Zilka stated that there has to be a clear 5yr plan, 10yr plan, etc. Going year to year will not cut it or make a significant difference. Huelman stated there is two folds. One, is to go back and take a look at the list of needs that they have slowly been chipping away at. He suggest that the Park Board do a work session where they can look at the list and re-prioritize it and then update the long term financial plan. Two, is try to obtain more funding. After a lengthy discussion the Park Board decided to visit the following parks to review and make assessments: City Hall Park, Marshan Park, Wenzel Farms Park, and Shenandoah Park. Park Board did discuss a dog park with-in the City. The logistics and spacing was discussed. Abby Haworth, Park Board Member, stated it would be hard to consider putting in a dog park at this time when they have some many parks and trails they need to update that they are having a hard time funding. Kusterman stated he would go on recorded opposing a dog park at this time. At this time the Park Board will visit the parks and then work to compile a plan/list on what needs to be done. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. PARK SIGNAGE Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director, stated that the need to update our park identification signage has been discussed for several year. He pointed out that many of the parks do not have any signage, and those that do have routed, wood type signs. DeGardner stated he is looking to order new park signs for Sunrise Park, Lino Park, Birch Park, and Tower Park and would like feedback from the Park Board regarding the signs color, font, and if we should include a logo or address. Clark Gooder, Park Board Member, stated he thought that Lino colors are primarily blue and green. He stated he thought blue would be a good background color. DeGardner stated that the blue offered would not be the correct blue due to the type of material. Park Board Members Kusterman, Gooder, Nordland, Zilka, and Huelman stated they like the green background for the sign. Zilka stated he liked the bottom font better (the one featured on the tan sign). The Park Board discussed whether or not to add the address to a park name sign. They stated they thought it made sense to do it if the Park was a “destination” park and had a parking lot vs parks that do not have parking. Another decision was the size of the sign, big sign vs a small sign. It was determined that the big sign would have an address and a small sign would not and that parks that were larger and brought people into a neighborhood would receive a bigger sign than the other parks. B. SCHEDULE PARK BOARD TOUR Park Board confirmed that the next meeting will be off-site tour of the park. Itinerary will be sent out and tour will start at 6:00pm or 6:30pm. 9. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Clark Gooder, Park Board Member, stated that he just wanted to comment that Park Board meetings are important that we should continue to have them continually to discuss park needs and should try not to cancel. Pat Huelman, Park Board Chair, asked if they could schedule a work session to discuss the Park needs and goals. Rick DeGardner, Public Services Dirctor, stated that the Park Board could do that. 10. NEXT SCHEDULED PARK BOARD MEETING Wednesday, October 6, 2021 – This will be offsite (park visits). 11. ADJOURNMENT William Kusterman made a MOTION to adjourn to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Motion was supported by Clark Gooder Motion carried 6 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Kellie Schmidt, Lino Lakes Administrative Assistant CITY OF LINO LAKES PARK BOARD MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Park Board Chair Pat Huelman called the Lino Lakes Park Board meeting to order at 6:30 pm. on January 5, 2022. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. SETTING OF AGENDA Agenda was approved as is. 5. OPEN MIKE There was no one present for Open Mike. 6. FINALIZE WOOD OF BALDWIN LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN Jordan Gedrose, with WSB, presented the Woods of Baldwin Park Master Plan to the Park Board. Gedrose stated that 18 people provided 39 comments regarding the plans. He summarized the resident feedback by stating the following: Resident Likes: • Clearing & thinning of underbrush • Two entrance to park • Doggie stations • Larger play area with swings • Half-court basketball instead of exercise pod • Seating in shaded areas DATE: January 5, 2022 TIME STARTED: 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED: 8:05 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Patrick Huelman (Chair), William Kusterman, James Zilka, Clark Gooder, and Richard Jenson MEMBERS ABSENT: John Nordlund STAFF PRESENT: Rick DeGardner (Director of Public Services) Resident Suggestions: • Protect natural amenities of the site • Don’t include boardwalk as it is unnecessary, a wildlife barrier, and an obstruction of view. • Make park less “buggy” • Provide benches for seating but limit the amount of tables • The current playground equipment seems to be usable Gedrose stated that after reviewing the feedback they (WSB) have incorporated the following into the Master Plan: • Benches at play area and basketball court • Protect natural site features by not incorporating boardwalk After a lengthy discussion by the Park Board Members and staff regarding pros and cons of ½ basketball courts, park shelter appearance and size, park “wow” factors, park lighting, and whether or not an exercise pod would be a better alternative vs. ½ basketball court, Richard Jenson (Park Board Member) made a motion to accept the proposed Final Master Plan as presented. William Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. 7. FINALIZE WATERMARK PARK MASTER PLAN Jordan Gedrose, with WSB, presented the Final Master Plan for Watermark Park. He stated that during the public engagement process (which took place November 1 – November 19), 33 people provided 72 comments. He summarized the resident feedback by stating the following: Resident Likes: • Large play area • Overlook • Pickleball • Large open green space • Shelter near water edge Resident Suggestions: • Beach area along pond/lake edge • Provide play surface alternate to wood chips • Incorporate zipline or ninja course in play area • Provide workout stations near play area • In open space provide gag ball and soccer nets • Provide ice rink in open space or on pond • Drinking fountain • Large shelter for community events • Lighting for courts • Bicycle maintenance station Resident “Out of Project Scope” Comments: • Incorporate splash pad • Clubhouse and pool • Provide tennis court • Provide full court basketball • Incorporate dog park • Stock lake with fish Gedrose stated that they, WSB, incorporated the following into the Final Master Plan: • Provide workout stations near play area • Incorporate large shelter Pat Huelman, Park Board Chair, asked to have “out of project scope” defined. He asked, what determines something to be “out of scope”. Gedrose stated that Watermark Park was to be a neighborhood park and once you start incorporating those big items (full courts, ice rinks, etc.), that isn’t at the other parks, you make it a destination park. You would want a larger parking lot and such too if you had other residents outside the neighborhood using the park. Gedrose also stated that the City does not own the pond so stocking it with fish would be up to the development/HOA. William Kusterman, Park Board Member, inquired about how the park was being funded. Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director, stated that the City is getting a significant amount of money from the developer (Lennar) to develop trails and a park in that area. The development consists of 864 homes and there should be enough money to see the master plan come into completion. The Park Board Members also inquired about the amenities and how they were decided (for example, why is there no full size basketball court, tennis courts, etc.). Gedrose stated that it was based on what would be best for the park and what the space could accommodate. DeGardner stated that the park consisted of about 5 acres. Kusterman asked about putting an ice rink at the park. He noted that Lino Lakes has limited ice rinks and he as a kid, and assumed still many kids to this day, like to play hockey and skate in the winter. He commented that as a youth he would spend all day out on the ice as it was in his neighborhood park and easy to get to and wondered if this (an ice rink) would be an amenity that kids of all ages in that area could use. He suggested maybe even putting it over the top of the basketball court or having like a dual court like Lamott Park (Centerville) has. He noted that in the summer it is used for basketball and in the winter it is a skate/hockey rink. Gooder expressed that he also likes the idea of a rink that doubles as a basketball court with nets around it and maybe even a skate park. Gedrose stated that it would hurt the turf to put it a rink on the grass and most likely would be tough on most hard court surfaces. DeGardner reminded the board that it is a neighborhood park and that putting in a rink would bring people to that park (make it more of a destination). He also stated that the rink would be an eye sore in the summer as it would hurt the turf. Huelman stated that due to the park system setup we currently have it seems like some of the neighborhood parks need to share the burden of having some of those destination type features. He is looking to make sure we are serving our residents and supports more hard court surfaces and “wow” type factors in our parks. He gave the example of Birch Park and how it is a neighborhood park but shares the burden by having the ice rink there drawing people to it and serving our residents in the area. DeGardner pointed out to the Park Board that Tower Park is just a few miles away from Watermark Park. It has 40 acres of land and is to be built as the next “destination” type park. Currently it has tennis courts and pickle ball courts with the next phase plans currently being a full court basketball and playground. He just wanted to remind the Park Board of that land and space as it could serve as the next ‘destination” type park and could have skating/hockey rinks. He pointed out the close proximity Tower Park is to Watermark and Clearwater Creek Park. He also stated that the City had made the decision in the past to reduce the number of City rinks due to resources but if looking to put one in he would recommend Tower Park due to its location, parking lot, etc. James Zilka, Park Board Member, inquired about what interaction the City of Lino Lakes has had with the Watermark HOA. He states that the HOA might have some input on what is needed for the park and maybe even some thoughts on how they can work together to maximize the park/amenities. Richard Jensen, Park Board Member, pointed out that the feedback they received on the form it stated that residents like the comment and wanted a full basketball court. He thought we should give the residents of that area what THEY want. DeGardner informed the Park Board that they (City Staff) could reach out to the HOA and ask if they want the full basketball court and explain the change that would be (draw people to their neighborhood). But if they (the HOA/residents of Watermark) want that then that’s what the City would do as it is their (the residents of Watermark) park. DeGardner did notify the Park Board that by reaching out for this feedback it would push the project back to the fall rather than spring construction timeline. He did agree with the Park Board that it is about doing things right and what the residents want. Zilka concurred that he would like the input from the HOA and make sure they are doing it right and giving the residents want they want. DeGardner informed the Park Board that he would reach out the HOA regarding the full court basketball, ice rinks, hard court surfaces, etc. He stated that they will discuss the feedback at the next meeting (scheduled for February) and the possible new timeline for the project. Gooder brought up a last point. With ice rinks and hard court surfaces they would need lighting too and that is an additional cost. It is something to consider when we receive the HOA feedback and discuss Watermark again in February. The Park Board decided to make no motion to approve the Watermark Park Master Plan at this time until they receive feedback from HOA. 8. NEW BUSINESS There was no New Business 9. OLD BUSINESS William Kusterman, Park Board Member, inquired where the Park Board was at in terms of funding (what was left in funding resources). Rick DeGardner, Director of Public Services, stated that at the next meeting he will provide information of where Park Board is at with regarding funding sources and items planned. 10. NEXT SCHEDULED PARK BOARD MEETING Wednesday, February 2, 2022 11. ADJOURNMENT William Kusterman made a MOTION to adjourn to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Motion was supported by Clark Gooder Motion carried 5 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Kellie Schmidt, Lino Lakes Administrative Assistant DATE: February 2, 2022 TO: Park Board Members FROM: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director RE: Watermark Park Master Plan The Park Board discussed finalizing the master plan for Watermark Park during the January 5, 2022 meeting. In addition to reviewing comments received from the on-line public engagement process, Mr. Jordan Gedrose from WSB presented the updated Master Plan, originally designed in 2016. After a robust discussion, staff was directed to reach out to the Watermark Development HOA to solicit additional feedback for the following: 1. Basketball Court - Current concept plan indicates a ½ size basketball court. This is typically what you see in neighborhood parks. When a full-size court is installed, its common for groups several miles away to meet up and play hoops. Any opinion on what size basketball court? 2. Hockey Rink - Is there any interest placing a hockey rink somewhere inside the looped trail? Likely near the parking lot. Would have a visual impact to the park area in the spring summer/fall. Also, without lights or a warming house facility, may not be fully utilized. Maybe the HOA could clear a skating area on the pond? Feedback was due back to the City by January 27. Attached is a summary of the 25 responses. ATTACHMENTS Summary of Responses Watermark Park Master Plan Name Half Court Full Court Hockey Rink Pond Rink Comments Andria Mattlin X X Please do not install a full-size court. Because this park is in our development, it would be nice to keep the traffic and groups at a minimum.There are several residents who already maintain rinks on the ponds. I believe we have 4 skating areas on ponds right now. I do not think a rink is needed as it would add to the outside traffic and groups. Caitlin Ternes X X 1. 1/2 court basketball court would be appropriate 2. A hockey rink would be great. What are the odds of the city providing lights to the rink? I would rather not see the HOA clear a rink on the pond, they do not do the best job of clearing snow on sidewalks and I feel like that would carry over onto a pond. Alsol several residents already clear rinks on the ponds and invite neighborhood residents to use those rinks. Casey Bashier X I like the idea of a half court for basketball, and no hockey rink (the neighbors are clearing off the ponds all the time). Cheri Eck X X My input would be for a 1/2 size basketball court. I feel with a full size court you would be opening it up for people out of the area to come in and use. I think when you have outsiders coming in it adds to crime instances and people loitering around. I also think the shallower ponds are better for ice rinks. Many of the residents in Watermark are already using them for hockey rinks. I would prefer not to look at boards all year round. Dan Musser X X #1 - 1/2 size basket ball court #2 - no hockey rink. There are currently 3 on the ponds and are underutilized. If a homeowner were interested; i'd suggest they work through HOA to clear on pond. David & Megan Mastell X I think a half basketball court is plenty for the neighborhood. Also, a hockey rink may not work since most of the winter months are dark and we would need lights in order to really utilize it. I would love it myself but without lights, it’s useless. Is it possible to expand the actual playground space? We will have well over 1,000 children in the neighborhood and the one playground that we have now can’t accommodate the amount of kids we have now. I’m not sure how much the open lawn space would get used other than by people on walks with dogs. The playground could be expanded into the open lawn space and actually benefit a lot of the children giving them a lot more space to play especially with the amount of children we foresee using it. Dennis X My votes are: ½ size basketball court No Hockey rink I would recommend a Bocce Ball court Dennis & Judy Adams X With many ponds within the Watermark division, I do not think it is necessary to build a hockey rink. Also, a full size basketball court would be better than a half court, as this is a LARGE development and full size can accommodate more people. Derek Emig X I think a hockey rink with asphalt for summer roller hockey and flooded for ice hockey in the winter would be a great addition to the Watermark community. We have alot of hockey players in the community already and that number will grow as the development develops over the years. It will get great use year round. Erica Baraglia X X I would like to ask we not place a full size basketball court in the neighborhood. We do not want to attract other individuals from further away into our neighborhoods potentially trashing the place. As for the ice rink I dont see it being utilized if there isn't a warming station. Also curious how it would be used during the warmer seasons, another potential for it to get damaged. Might I suggest clearing of the lake to allow us all to utilize it but also not have a permanent structure. This can then free up space in the park for a more natural setting. Jason Knutson X I would love a hockey rink Jeff Flipek X Could we perhaps keep the pickleball courts and make the basketball court a tennis court. We could put up a basketball hoop to shoot at in the tennis court but not have any basketball lines. As for an ice rink, Could we have the city or association sweep and flood the pond to improve and maintain ice quality? Jessica Paredes X I would prefer only 1/2 court. Limiting amount of groups from outside the neighborhood (I would prefer this would not happen) Also as far as the hockey rink. It’s great idea but I feel like rinks are already being created on the ponds (at least 3-4 this year) Kyle Johnson X X My fiancée and I would like to express our support for a half size basketball court and a hockey rink in the watermark development. The rink would be awesome for kids in the winter. We think it would be highly utilized over the years. Laura Stein X I live in the Lennar Watermark community and wanted to provide my thoughts on the park plan as requested. I think it should stay at a half basketball court to prevent the extra traffic coming from further away from the community. I also don’t think it’s necessary to have an extra ice rink as many people utilized the ponds to make ice rinks already this winter. Is there any consideration for something like a splash pad in that spot? Lori Tessier X X I think that a full Basketball court would be better, kids need to get outside a play and get exercise. Also it would be fun to have games. I believe the same with a Hockey rink, Let the kids and adults have fun! Mallory Messin X Basketball court: I personally think a half court is fine but no strong opinion if it’s a full court. Hockey rink: I would rather not see a permanent hockey rink in the potentially open space. We have plenty of ponds and can shovel a main rink near the park in the winter. Watermark is built on a giant wetland the design has tons of ponds so far there are houses on three and I think there are 4 skating rinks prepped in the ponds. These are community areas so the invite is open for anyone to use them. They do lack light though if the thought is to add a skating rink. The survey had 33 responses from at that time probably 100 household. If something got 10 likes it’s safe to say that of the current population a good portion are for that idea. Included in the current watermark neighborhood the HOA will be putting in two green space parks and one playground. With this in mind, in talking to many of the families our number one ask when Lino designs this park is for a unique and creative playground. We realize this is not cheap equipment but it would get more use than pickle ball and basketball if it means those have to wait on those items. On that same note watermark residents that I have talked with are not concerned with sharing our space if it means something unique. The number two most requested item was some sort of splash pad. Maybe this could even be as simple as some flat pop up fountains that disappear and reappear when jumped on. We also note that this is costly but again higher up than basketball or pickelball. Megan & Matt Anderson X I feel like a lot of comments we as residents added to the interactive map weren't listened to. I feel like we have a TON of space that we should fill with things for kids to do. If a full court basketball court isn't feasible, what about 2 separate half courts? That would allow more kids (or adults) to play at the same time without playing with each other. Why can't we have a tennis court? I know Tower Park has them... but Tower Park also has pickleball and we're slated for 2 of those courts? Our kids CANNOT safely access Tower Park - there is no trail or sidewalk system whereas they could access it in our own neighborhood. It seems very contradictory that pickleball is okay to be both places but tennis is not? How about a volleyball court?Gaga ball? Tether ball? Horseshoes? I would just really love to see MULTIPLE different activities for our neighborhood kids to meet up and experience. A point brought up was a hockey rink. With the limited season of a rink I don't see how that is necessary. I also know it was mentioned that we could put basketball hoops inside the rink on the off season. We've played at LaMaotte Park and it is simply not an enjoyable way to play ball. The ball often bounces out of the enclosure and people have to jump boards to get the ball. Boards are also an eyesore in a park. We already have MANY residents that clear areas on our ponds for skating - this even goes back to last year which was our first year in existence. I know a skate park was brought up but I don't support that either. I think that would make us more of a destination park just the same as a splash pad. I don't think they have a place in a neighborhood park. I absolutely do not think that 2 pickleball courts, a half court basketball court and a playground are enough for our kiddos. We need MORE - this is going to be a HUGE development! Give us all the fun things! Nick Rosso X X I vote for a half basketball court, and yes to a hockey rink. Pat Winter X X We live in a Villa near the path and here are our suggestions: 1. We would like to see a half size basketball court; and 2. HOA clear an area in the pond for a skating rink Shelley Bealka X I am a Watermark resident and just received the email about the basketball court and skating rink. I personally think half size is large enough for a basketball court and that a rink isn’t necessary. Let me know if you would like insight on anything else for the park. Thank you for all your work, we can’t wait for the space! Steve R X I'm a home owner in the Watermark community and wanted to share my opinion with you. I love the basketball court idea but think the skating rink idea doesn't make any sense and would rather see a different option, or honestly a few more treesbwoyod be better. Tara Capeau X I would vote for a full basketball court. I think if there is only half that if it is occupied and we had the option of another half court that would be great. I would vote for full, and if that was not approved half would be fine. I would vote no for the hockey rink especially if we cannot use it just for ice skating or if there was no warming house. And not sure about the visual impact to the park area in the summer/fall. Thinking it may not be that attractive. Thanks for allowing us to submit feedback. Udhaya Dayalan X I would prefer a full-sized basketball court. Jnovak257 X 1. We believe a ½ size basketball court would be more than adequate. 2. We do not favor a hockey rink because of the visual impact on the area. Total 16 5 6 6 Total amount of responses: 25 (Sent to 150 emails) K:\019496-000\Graphics\019496-000 Master Plan RenderingScale in Feet 160’0’80’20’10’ Watermark Park | Master Plan Lino Lakes, Minnesota December 27, 2021 | WSB Project number: 019496-000 PLAYGROUND PICNIC AREAS, TYP. SEATING OR FITNESS STATIONS ALONG TRAIL (3) SHELTER POND OVERLOOK / PIER PROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREE, TYP. PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREE, TYP. TRAIL PICKLEBALL COURTS (2) HALF BASKETBALL COURT PARKING OPEN LAWN POND ARBOR SEATING PARK IDENTIFICATION DATE: February 2, 2022 TO: Park Board Members FROM: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director RE: Review Approved 2022 Parks and Trails Budgeted Items In addition to the Woods of Baldwin Lake Park renovation and the development of Watermark Park, the Park Board requested an itemized list of approved parks and trails related items included in the adopted 2022 General Fund Budget: Lois Lane Trail - Install Aggregate Base ($10,000) Replace Sunrise Park Hockey Rink ($21,000) Resurface Six 1/2 Court Basketball Courts ($25,250) Replace Birch Park Rink Lighting ($9,000) Trails Maintenance and Repairs ($35,000)