My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PK PACKET 12122005
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Parks and Environmental Commission Packets
>
2005
>
PK PACKET 12122005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/7/2019 10:08:51 AM
Creation date
8/7/2019 10:08:51 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes <br />June 13, 2005 <br />Page 2 <br />2 Ms. Garbarini noted she worked on the WSBN, which won a landscape architecture award. Though it is <br />3 not a public facility, it was a difficult process to go through in terms of neighbors in the area. There <br />4 were a lot of native plants to work around, and it was an involved project. <br />5 <br />6 Mr. Close added the notion of what everyone thought would be a storm water hole became a property <br />7 that actually raised values. <br />9 Ms. Garbarini displayed photos of Emerald Park. It is surrounded on three sides by homes. A lot of the <br />10 vegetation is valuable. The play equipment and water feature will be coming out. There are valuable <br />11 spaces existing that they would not want to remove such as the ball area and picnic area. She said they <br />12 understand some lighting may need to be added and they recognize it could be an issue with neighbors. <br />13 They will work with the neighbors on the parking spaces to determine whether they should stay or if it <br />14 should become green space. <br />15 <br />16 Mr. Close indicated they are ready to enter discussions with the Board and the residents to move <br />17 forward. <br />18 <br />19 Commissioner Ganley asked what kind of soils are at the park, and what unique challenges, if any, may <br />20 they present. Mr. Close answered the topography does nice things for containing the park. However, <br />22 they are not familiar with the soils yet. The plants seem to be doing well. <br />23 Commissioner Ganley questioned whether they use a lot of plants in their work. Mr. Close said it <br />24 depends on what is existing in the park. There are ways to be careful about valuable trees. <br />25 <br />26 Commissioner Ganley inquired whether the elevations could be an issue. Mr. Close responded if the <br />27 existing plants are healthy, they are a given, and they work with them. In places where the plants are not <br />28 healthy, it would make sense to reshape the soil and they would work with that. <br />29 <br />30 Chair Koehntop asked if in Mr. Close's experience with land of this size, would it be better to clear it off <br />31 and start from scratch. He mentioned the building is one of the issues, and it could use some updating. <br />32 <br />33 Public Works Director Hartman stated to replace that building would be relatively cheap. It is <br />34 something we could look at in the planning. <br />35 <br />36 Mr. Close said the building does seem to divide the park. It should be determined how long the park <br />37 should be renovated for. It is good to think big, he said, and work within the realities of budget. At the <br />38 outset, they will encourage the Commission to think big and of the long-range potential to this facility. <br />39 <br />40 Ms. Garbarini noted they usually create several concepts and designs for consideration. <br />41 <br />1 Commissioner Ganley asked how they would involve the neighbors in a dialog. Ms. Garbarini answered <br />many times they have open houses and invite the residents, and ask them what they would like to see. <br />44 Also, many times mailers would be sent to people in the area or they would advertise in the local paper. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.