Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-2022 Park Board Minutes 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