PK PACKET 09122005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Parks Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2005 Page 3 1 Mr. Close added that they do rely on the City to help them communicate with the neighborhood. They 2 like to start the process by holding a hearing. People who have taken the time to talk to us about it have 3 the input. They would bring alternative ideas back to the people and allow them to react to them. 4 Oftentimes, people will take parts of different designs and the result is a hybrid design. 5 6 Public Works Director Hartman stated the same process of open houses that was used for Central Park 7 and the new Public Works Facility would be used for Emerald Park. When Central Park was being 8 developed, they were handing out flyers at Village Fest, and something similar would be done. He said 9 as far as the water feature, they are not opposed to having one, but would like to raise the bar of what is 10 there. He said if they were looking at a new water feature, they would look at something that would be 11 different from the pools. 12 13 Vice Chair Young noted that as the park is currently constructed, there are definitely two uses. He 14 questioned whether that would change in future plans. Ms. Garbarini stated the vegetation is one side of 15 the park. She said they would consider what the major uses are. 16 17 Mr. Close pointed out that it is limited space, and because of the location of the building, he suggested 18 there is an opportunity for the building to come to one side or another. This would provide more of a 19 flow through the park. 20 Discussion took place of what the park was used for as far as sports. Sports Booster Representative LL Severson said there has been some parking on the street. Commissioner Sholl stated the parking lot gets 23 filled during the hockey season. 24 25 V. DISCUSSION OF PRESENTATION. 26 27 Chair Koehntop stated that he will present to the Council the following night the recommendation that 28 Close Architects be hired to renovate Emerald Park. 29 30 Vice Chair Young suggested to emphasize the amount of money the park brings in to help determine the 31 amount of renovation. 32 33 Chair Koehntop said he would propose that Close Architects submit as broad a plan as possible. 34 35 Commissioner Ganley questioned how this company was selected over the others. Chair Koehntop 36 explained there was a subcommittee that interviewed three firms. It was unanimous that Close 37 Architects would fit the needs of the park the best. They have the experience in the city with the 38 Holding Ponds and have a lot of experience in this area. It was a clear choice. 39 40 VI. REPORTS. 41 °9 A. Communitv Services. 44 None.