My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
3.15.23 Park Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Parks
>
Parks Commission
>
Parks Commission Minutes
>
2023 Park Minutes
>
3.15.23 Park Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/27/2023 1:52:05 PM
Creation date
4/20/2023 3:00:12 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
Rauschendorfer brought up the naming of the park, and questioned what issues might arise out of that <br /> process. Denaway discussed the plan to engage with the public, DNR and Bernin family. Denaway confirmed <br /> naming will be discussed after public engagement. Rauschendorfer reminded the Commission that the <br /> naming policy has not been used by the City Council.Commissioners discussed how to move forward with <br /> naming the park.Tennyson suggested removing the naming discussion from the plan, and presenting the <br /> Master Plan to the public with the name Bernin Park. <br /> Rauschendorfer asked if Oneka Lake Park would be merged the Bernin property, and Denaway clarified the <br /> differences in rules of use between passive and active parks, and suggested that if the commission would like <br /> to merge the parks,they would have to make both parks either passive or active. <br /> Tennyson made a motion, Rauschendorfer seconded to approve the WSB&Associates, Inc proposal and next <br /> steps. <br /> All ayes. <br /> Motion approved. <br /> :3. Pack Sign Replacement Plan <br /> Denaway presented pictures of current park signs and discussed the condition of current park signage, <br /> stating that eight(8) park signs need replacement. Denaway then presented the City's sign ordinance (Sec 90- <br /> 625)and restrictions held within the sign ordinance. Public property signage does not need permitting, but <br /> approval from Council is required. <br /> Denaway then presented various signage options, including pylon, monument style and alternatives to pylon <br /> and monument signage,with pictures of the standard and non-standard signage being used in other city <br /> parks. Denaway discussed common communication needs for each of the Parks, mentioning that messaging <br /> needs are not high in most of the City's parks. She suggested a phased approach to replacement. <br /> Denaway then presented the commission's options for a sign replacement plan. These include working with a <br /> vendor that offers standard, predesigned signage or requesting proposals from firms that offer custom <br /> signage. Commissioners discussed advantages and disadvantages of both options, including the simplicity of <br /> using standard signage, and the custom signage coming with integrated landscaping designs. <br /> Tennyson suggested utilizing a uniform signage design for all parks but in a variety of sizes. <br /> St. Pierre and Tennyson suggested using a timeless design versus a modern or trendy design. <br /> St. Pierre mentioned the need to keep in mind the goal of the signage, which is to inform the public of the <br /> information they need to know about the park. Moore-Arcand mentioned the possibility of including <br /> biographical information on the signage of family-named parks. St. Pierre mentioned that detailed signage <br /> would need more maintenance to ensure that the information is not lost by fading and weathering. St. Pierre <br /> suggested placing QR codes on signage that would lead park users to informational pages on the City <br /> website. <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> Parks Commission Minutes <br /> February 15,2023 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.