Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-03 Parks Board Minutes RIVERSIDE PARKS BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 3, 2018 6:00 p.m. The Riverside Parks Board held their regularly scheduled meeting at Riverside City Hall, 2950 NW Vivion Road, Riverside Missouri 64150. Those in attendance were: Noel Challis, Deana Winter, Elaine Warren, and Bill Bray. Call to Order The Parks Board Meeting was called to order at 6:04 PM by Deana Winter. Approval of Minutes The minutes from April 5, 2018 were reviewed. Elaine made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Bill second. Motion approved. E. H. Young Master Noel reviewed the consolidated DRAFT of the Master Plan layout. It was noted Plan Progress Report that the Bell Tower would remain as part of a central plaza or hub with the road alignment changing. This allows more space on the north side of the park and less division. The plan also includes a destination playground with pockets of play rather than one large playground. The ballfield would be replaced with an open play field that could be used for multiple sports. The landscape would be enhanced with native plants helping to reduce mowing maintenance. The park will include 8 pickleball courts. There will be multiple trail connections, including the connection behind the Argosy Casino on the levee. Options are being explored for a Missouri River overlook. Water access is important so a canoe/kayak launch and boat dock are included. An observation tower is also being explored in connection with the water overlook. Additional features could be a canoe/kayak launch on Line Creek and an entry gate or statement at the levee wall to help people know they have arrived at the park. A firepit is shown as a possibility. It was asked how this could be managed. There are several options to consider. The City of Lenexa has a first come, first served firepit where users bring their own wood at Blackhoof Park. The firepit could also be locked with a cover and available by reservation only. It was asked if the overlook will eliminate the amphitheater. In the option shown here, yes, but Confluence is exploring different alignments that would allow the amphitheater and the overlook to exist together. This is also anticipated as a future phase so we have more time to explore options. Are they considering activity above the ground, for example a ropes course? This plan doesn’t show it, but Confluence has considered the southwest tree area as the best location for the ropes course. We can have them note this on the plan. The current thought is to fill up to 4’ of elevation under the playground and pickleball courts to raise them above the normal flood water level. The required elevation to do this is still being studied. This would require steps to access the pickleball courts from the parking lot side, but a ramp could be used for ADA access on the north side. A possible location for an additional restroom will also be noted on the plan. It was asked if Argosy is supportive of the trail going behind the Casino. Yes, they have shown strong support for this. It will require a bridge, so could be a couple phases down the road to build. Possible phasing was reviewed. A 1.5 million phase one budget is anticipated. What this could get us is the road, parking lot, dog park, half of the playground and pickleball courts. However, these numbers are preliminary still. The bell tower would only have a simple path, no plaza. Phase I is anticipated to break ground in Spring of next year. It was asked when Phase II could start. This could be as early as July 2019 due to the City budget cycle. We are currently projecting a $750,000 budget allocation for Phase II. We could possibly do Phase I & II as a single contract. The plan for Phase II is still to be determined. Possibly build the other half of the playground, the bell tower plaza, additional landscaping and trails. Phase II could also include a signage and wayfinding package for the City. We aren’t sure yet if this should be a priority over park amenities. We definitely want people to be able to find the park, especially once all of the amenities are added. We could also get ahead of ourselves on the signage project unless we reserve room for future additions. There are so many potential opportunities in Riverside including a new downtown area, etc. The comment was made that if we get the signs up too fast, we might be inviting them to a construction zone. Another point is that once people find the destination playground or other amenity for the first time, they will know how to return there. People say they don’t know about EH Young now because they don’t have a reason to go there. But, once you have a reason to go there, it’s much easier to find. Having the entrance ready so that you know you have arrived could be key. The question was asked if alcoholic beverages are allowed in the park. We believe they are as long as you have a permit and a shelter reservation. This is Platte County policy, but will confirm Riverside policy. UPDATE: Alcoholic beverages are not permitted without prior city approval. The responsible party must have a liability insurance policy and a liquor use agreement must be approved by the BOA. Additionally, public safety officers must be present. State and City licenses may also be required. All of the river access for boating is shown in future phases. We have started looking at potential grant funds and private donor options to help leverage city budget. If grants were secured, could some amenities move up in the installation schedule? Likely not, unless perhaps the boat dock could be moved up with MDC grant funding. Has Confluence been helpful in identifying grant funding? Currently, they have just provided a list of other resources from their history of working on park projects. However, they will likely be willing to provide additional help. We will also brainstorm about this at the next Steering Committee Meeting. To get the park to the way it is shown on this plan is over $14 million dollars and likely more. To do everything will require many phases. th On May 15 a more polished plan with some 3D images will be shared with the Steering Committee and the Board of Aldermen. The BOA presentation will be during their regular meeting at 7pm. The more finalized plan will be presented to th the Park Board on June 7. We will move the presentation and adoption of the final plan that was scheduled for June 19 th to July 17 th to accommodate the Mayor’s schedule. The opportunity to apply for the Bark for Your Park grant was discussed. One of the grant requirements is to show community support for the Dog Park. The Park Board was asked if they have been approached by community groups in the past, requesting a Dog Park. There hasn’t been an organized effort for a dog park. However, many people have discussed the idea of having a dog park. We can use the votes for the master plan. It was asked if the ETC Survey included a question about a dog park being an important amenity. We will look into this. We could also do a social media poll. Elaine offered that we could post on the Gatewoods Facebook. We could also do a poll on Next Door. Proposed Art Plan A draft call for art for the Monarch Walk was presented. We had contemplated targeting a single artist vs. multiple artists. With multiple artists, you could have more types of art mediums. At the $15,000 that we have available, we are more likely to draw younger, up and coming artists vs. the more established artists. We need to make sure this is advertised with KU, the Art Institute, etc. Do we want to put out this call and potentially not get responses because our budget is too low? Is it better to just make sure you have the right budget established the first time? What types of materials can we get for $2,500 and will they last? Some works are stone or metal that is meant to rust. Blue Springs examples were shown from their temporary art that became permanent when they negotiated on their price. Some google images of monarch art were also shown. st What is the target date for this? Currently the draft shows August 1 as the potential call for art. The schedule options reflect the difference between artists providing proposed actual sketches vs. just showing their body of work as an example of the type of work they can do. It was determined that it would be best to call for sketches of proposed art since we are asking for a specific subject matter. It was suggested that we should consider making the art dedication date the same as another event in the City. For example, install them before a big event in the City when we expect to have more visitors. For example, before Fireworks season? A preliminary budget was provided that would include the art, art pedestals, signage, promotion of the art and the possibility of using a website to manage art submissions. Currently the budget shows keeping the full $15,000 to go towards the art. We would need to make up the remainder with other funding sources or possible revenue. Revenue sources could include entry fees, reception tickets, art patrons, etc. Are there grants? Yes, there are some we could look at including one from NEA that talks about solving a problem with art. This project could be a good candidate for this because we are talking about the importance of pollinators and also encouraging people to visit E.H. Young Park, which is currently underutilized. Signage options have been researched. This budget shows the least expensive option that still looks very professional. It was asked if Riverside would design the signs? Currently, yes, but we may seek help from a graphic designer. The idea of using the CaFE (Call For Entries website) was presented. A single call for art with 6 pieces should be $525.00, but this will be confirmed. Could we seek funding from the Tourism Commission? The question was asked if it is too late? It could work for getting funding for the signage, travel for the artists, etc. It seems like a good fit as the art is something that should attract people to the City. Should we leave one of the art pieces open to students? Maybe not this round because we don’t have time. We should definitely look for future opportunities. It was determined that we would advertise that we have 6 locations for artwork and each piece will be granted $2,500. We will have the opportunity to select the art, which will ensure that we get the best quality we can afford. Is it typical to have an entry fee? It was decided that we would lower this from the proposed $50 to $25 / artist. The fee could be good for covering the cost of the use of the CaFE website. Since we are requiring artists to spend a lot of time to submit an entry, we shouldn’t have a high entry fee. Who will be doing the selection? Blue Springs has a selection panel separate from their Art Commission. The Park Board would like to be the selection panel with some other guest artists/experts invited to be on the panel. We need to be a little open-ended about this permanent, public display. A permanent piece for $2,500 will attract a different level of artist. Should we say, “suitable for possible permanent public display.” Currently under “Other Responsibilities” the artist would be required to sign an agreement that the artwork would remain on site in perpetuity unless the City determines otherwise. There is some concern that an entry-level artist may have an awesome idea but not know for sure if the artwork will withstand time and weather. This clause would give us the right to remove the art if it is not holding up. There is a fine line of making it as good as possible for a $2,500 budget. We can also look at other sources of funding and possibly increase the funds available to the artist. This is an experiment in how long something that costs $2,500 will last. There is language in the document right now that talks about the art needing to withstand all elements, etc. Perhaps this language needs to softened. For example, “as you are thinking about your materials, acknowledge the type of weather conditions that exist in Western Missouri.” Should we have a minimum size requirement? Is it possible we could get larger work if we don’t have a minimum requirement? Most people know when they are making a public piece of art that it needs to be of a size that is visible. Decided to leave this as the art must ensure visibility and recognition. Talked about the requirement that “the art cannot have sharp edges.” How is this defined? An artwork could have sharp edges in locations where people wouldn’t be able to touch them. There are sharp edges in almost every environment, but we also need to consider City liability. “The safety of the public, including children must be considered” may be sufficient language to cover City liability. Also, we have the option of approving things and can vet artwork from a safety perspective. We have some discretion. Blue Springs has a videographer on staff who provides video of the artwork being installed and interview questions with the artists. We felt that we don’t have to go to the extent of having a professional videographer, but could do some videos for social media promotion. There is so much we can do on launch day, including a dedication ceremony with a walk or bike ride on the trail. Fitness Court The location selected by the Park Board is by the Community Center. The proposed installation date is 08/10/18. This date works for our main partner, the YMCA. We can also look at dates that coincide with other events. Perhaps the National Night Out or an FPAL pool party. The date may not matter as much if the Fitness Court is close to being complete around one of these events to bring more visibility. It would be good to get it installed before school starts. The National Night Out is well attended by families. UPDATE: National Night Out will be held at the Community Center from 5-8pm on 8/7/18. We talked about beautification at the proposed location. Currently the budget should allow for beautification. We plan to bid the project with alternates. Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on June 7, 2018. Adjournment Elaine made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:33 pm. Bill seconded the motion. Motion approved.