Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-07 Parks Board Minutes RIVERSIDE PARKS BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 7, 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, Cathy Kline 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 May 3, 2018 were reviewed. Bill made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Cathy second. Motion approved. E. H. Young Master No major updates. Confluence is on target for the Final Master Plan presentation to th Plan Progress Report the Board of Aldermen (BOA) on July 17. Confluence will present the Final plan th to the Park Board at the July 5 meeting and ask for your motion to approve / support. th The presentation to the BOA on May 15 of the Draft Master Plan went well. The BOA seemed very supportive of the plan, especially of the first three phases as presented. There seemed to be support for funding at least these portions of the plan. There were no significant comments about changes to the plan except for the comment about the baseball field being removed. However, the BOA and Mayor are supportive of the baseball field becoming an open play field where multiple types of sports can be played. Proposed Art Plan The comments from the previous Park Board meeting on the Call for Art were incorporated into the draft presented. Next steps will be to set up a meeting with the Mayor and possibly the BOA or a few representatives to present the plan for their support. With Mayor and BOA support we may want to seek additional funding from the Tourism Commission, especially if there is a desire to offer more funds per artwork to the artists. How did we clarify if this is permanent art? The current proposal states that the art would be installed in perpetuity or for as long as the City desires to keep the art installed. This gives us some flexibility. Artists can know that we intend the art to be permanent, but if the art does not hold up we would have the option of removing it. Once we have paid for the art it would be considered the property of the City. We can clarify these details in the agreement between the City and the artist. We should add a statement that allows the City to use images of the art, etc. for marketing and promotion of the City. The artist wouldn’t be given a royalty for use of images of the art. We will have this reviewed by our legal counselor as well. Cathy can provide a clause that she has seen regarding use of art images when she has entered other calls for art. This information is partially addressed in the Promotion paragraph, but could use some edits. We will include an example of how the submitting artist should label their files. This way we will have something consistent. Perhaps their last name first in the file, etc. It was decided that this draft Call for Art is pretty solid and we don’t need to seek additional critique of the Call for Art from others. It was asked if there is any height restriction on the art submitted. We decided not to include a height restriction, but leave it flexible. Artists are to submit art of a size that “ensures visibility and recognition.” It was discussed who should be on the Selection Panel. The Park Board should all be members of this Panel, plus two others. We would like this to be an odd number panel, perhaps a maximum of 7 or 9. We could go up to 9 members on the Selection Panel if we need BOA representation or if we have additional park board members by then. Ideas of who to add to the Selection Panel include an architect, art teacher, others who have reviewed similar calls for art (ArtsKC, KC Municipal Art, Art in the Loop), etc. It was asked if we should include people outside Riverside. Either way would be fine. We do want everyone on the Selection Panel to be invested in the importance of this to Riverside. We also discussed having a Community Committee (CC). This would allow us to have more feedback from additional people without making the Selection Panel too large. The CC could be asked to give feedback on the artists selected to interview. The Selection Panel could take this survey feedback from the CC into consideration when finalizing their choice. CC members could be art teachers, serious art students, designers (e.g. Confluence), an Alderman from each ward. Currently, the Call for Art is written such that the Board of Aldermen would have final approval of the artists recommended by the Selection Panel. Further promoting the Call for Art through other arts organizations in the metro area like Arts KC, KC Municipal Art, etc. would be good. We should also look at promoting it in each of the Arts Councils or groups in the various cities along the Monarch Flyway. It was asked if we should make it a requirement for the art to fit the site based on the City along the Monarch Flyway. It might be best to leave this flexible for the artist to determine if their art proposal fits a particular location. We will revise the Call for Art to state that the artist should 1) indicate how many pieces they are applying for, 2) include one sketch minimum per artwork, and 3) indicate if they have a preferred location per piece. We will also include that the City has the right to change the preferred location. It was discussed if we could have the opportunity to work with the artist to refine a portion of the sketch of the art before production. If artists are asked to interview, we would request a more in-depth sketch for the interview. As a commissioned piece we should have the opportunity to work through any concerns without hindering artistic expression. We discussed the various sites for the art. There is some concern that the northern two sites are secluded on the trail and may be more prone to being vandalized. We could try to select art for these locations that could be elevated or easier to remove spray paint. Currently, safety patrols on the trail are limited. The best points of access for the northern sites are Homestead Park or the Line Creek Community Center in Kansas City off Waukomis. Update: The current map locations are to scale of 7.5 feet per mile. The total distance of the Flyway is 2,091 miles and the trail length is about 15,718 linear feet. We don’t have to make the decision right now about the final placement of the art. We can wait to base this on suitability, site security, etc. Even with the map and site photos being presented to the artists, we can include a disclaimer that a different site could be selected. For the Argosy Casino Parkway site we could possibly give the artist a couple of options. The Argosy site as shown on the map or another using the bridge fence. The question was asked about whether or not artists are always given this level of information and if they look for sites that are highly visible. Visibility is likely important to an artist, but just being one of the selected pieces would be an honor. Fitness Court We discussed locations for the Fitness Court. The Park Board had previously recommended the site by the Community Center and Swimming Pool. At the BOA th Meeting on Tuesday, June 5, the Mayor mentioned that she didn’t think it was the best location. Staff thought it would be good to step back and take a look at all of the potential sites again. The Mayor is appreciative of the Park Board feedback and feels it is important. Location #1: The Park Board loves the idea of being able to expand this site for future amenities such as a Splashground. The adjacency to the Community Center and existing parking are great. Educate people and have a great communications plan. Once people use it they will know it is there and return. Unless the Fitness Court is in your area or along your commute it might not be something you would go out of your way to visit or might not be that big of a draw for out of town guests. If someone decides to make this part of their workout routine, they will know it is there and use it. Is there a way to get a sense from the BOA if they have an interest in making this site something more, for example adding the Splashground? Yes, the BOA will be shown these sites and have the opportunity to react to future amenities here. This site is safe, quiet, fire and police nearby, opportunity to engage with the YMCA. If we did a small community event for landscaping the site, this could be another opportunity to engage citizens in the effort and beautify the site at the same time. The cons for this site are similar for all of the others site except the recycling, which could be screened or moved to another site. Location #2: The Linear Trail site does have about 17 parking spots. The Fitness Court could be perpendicular to the trail, so a little different than shown on the 3D proposed image. It is a high traffic site. The site is already beautiful and along a trail. This site doesn’t need as many improvements as another site might need to make it be inviting. However, is the Fitness Court the right aesthetic for this site? It might look stark compared to the natural environment that exists here. Location #3: The Vivion and Cliffview Drive site has some benefits of being by the bike trail and near the Community center still. There is definitely no shade here. This site might be the next best. The bid package as currently written has an alternate to add a shade structure if we get affordable bids. This site doesn’t allow for the growth or other amenities and currently feels a bit disconnected. Location #4: The site off Karen Boulevard by Sonic is another option. This is adjacent to the proposed future Line Creek Trail connection and the existing Line Creek Trail. The parking would be more limited here and would need to be added. Unless parking is included in the first phase construction, access is mostly limited to trail users. The Park Board also talked about the land by the old Hawg Jawz site. The City does own the land immediately adjacent to the Interurban trail. This site also has no parking. Privacy and shade are good here. Update: The City may want to make this land available for future development. The Park Board still prefers the Community Center site as the best location. The next step is likely to send these locations to the BOA for their consideration. The Park Board is open to further discussion. The Park Board does see the benefit of the Fitness Court being along a trail. Someone using a trail would likely want to stop and exercise at the Fitness Court. Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on July 5, 2018. Adjournment Elaine made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:29 pm. Deana seconded the motion. Motion approved.