HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem IV-A 5-22 PRAB Draft MinutesCITY OF BOULDER
BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety, please go to the following link:
www.boulderparks-rec.org
Name of Board/Commission: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Date of Meeting: April 24, 2017
Contact Information Preparing Summary: Sarah DeSouza, 303-413-7223
Board Members Present: Tom Klenow, Kelly Wyatt, Jennifer Kovarik, Marty Gorce, Valerie Yates, Tyler
Romero, Raj Seymour
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Yvette Bowden, Ali Rhodes, Jeff Haley, Sarah DeSouza, Bryan Beary, Dean Rummel, Keith
Williams
Guests Present: None
Type of Meeting: Advisory/Regular
Agenda Item 1: Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
Agenda Item 2: Future Board Items and Tours
Bowden reviewed upcoming community touch opportunities. These events can be found at
www.BoulderParks-Rec.org
Agenda Item 3: Public Participation
Amy Oetl, City of Boulder resident, spoke about the lack of a toddler slide in the plans for the Christenson
Park renovation and the community’s desire for having this amenity added at this site. Please see attached
follow-up response.
Teresa Szeliga, City of Boulder resident and member of the Board for Colorado Junior Crew, spoke in
support of a boathouse facility that would benefit the three community rowing organizations that train at the
Boulder Reservoir.
Agenda Item 4: Consent Agenda
A. Approval of Minutes from April 24, 2017
Minutes from April 24, 2017 were approved as written.
B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update
PRAB members had the following comments and questions on this item:
Concern regarding hand written signs indicating changes to the rules pertaining to dogs at the
Boulder Reservoir. Please see attached follow-up note.
Will the department actively market and promote the upcoming summer “fun days”?
Has the city’s Transportation Department determined how it will re-use the recently removed Civic
Area bridge?
Agenda Item 5: Action Item
None this month
Agenda Item 6: Discussion/Information Item
A. 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program
Haley presented this item to the Board
PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item:
Interest in seeing the department consider a partnership with an outside entity to replace the
building at the Flatirons Golf Course.
Question regarding the size and location of the future park area at the Transit Village.
Interest in the design of the new playground at Safeway located at Table Mesa and Broadway.
Vacant land near NIST is perfect location for small park or play area.
How do descriptions of plans for parks such as Scott Carpenter and the Boulder Reservoir change
as the result of funding limitations?
How are phased redevelopment opportunities factored into the costing and implementation of park
plans?
Do “take care of what we have” projects ever get replaced with more interesting and innovative
projects?
What opportunities are being delayed due to limited funding for Tom Watson Park renovation?
For the tax renewal proposal, is the Scott Carpenter Park renovation the only department project
being considered?
How will the department ever be able to afford to build large facilities like a Recreation Center
since larger assets require far more funding than small annual CIP allocations.
Need to consider revenue generating opportunities as a means to fund larger capital projects.
Agenda Item 7: Matters from the Department
A. Encampment Update
Rhodes presented this item to the Board
PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item:
Why are the provided sharps containers being used?
Appreciation for the work the department and city is doing on this issue.
Appreciation for the “People First” language being used for this project (People Experiencing
Homelessness).
The work being done by the city on this issue should be shared with other agencies.
B. ACTIVE System and Registration Update
Beary presented this item to the Board
PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item:
Appreciation to all department staff working on this implementation for their patience and
customer-focused approach.
Are analytic reports being generated by the new software useful to the organization?
Congratulations on the successful launch of this software.
C. 0.3% Sales Tax Renewal (Community Project Applications) Update
Haley presented this item to the Board
PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item:
Open call for community projects associated with the 0.3% Sales Tax Renewal initiative.
Interesting to see the Studio Arts application and what facility are they interest in building.
Downtown Boulder Cinema project is seeking partnership opportunity.
Most projects are seeing infrastructure or partnership.
Don’t feel that it is a PRAB Board Member’s role is to provide feedback on this type of material.
Input is better suited to individual community members.
How much funding will be generated by this tax?
PRAB members have a good finger on the pulse of what is going on in the community especially
relating to recreation and leisure activities.
Agenda Item 8: Matters from the Board
A. PRAB Community Engagement Updates
Board members attended the following activities/meetings/tours: Meet and Bleat event; Goat Yoga,
picnic with CU LEED program; Coot Lake; Chautauqua.
Next Board Meeting: June 26, 2017
Adjourn: There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned
at 7:44 p.m.
Approved by: Attested:
_________________________ ________________________
Tom Klenow Sarah DeSouza
Board Chair Board Secretary
Date _____________________ Date ____________________
3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200
To: Members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
From: Yvette Bowden, Director of Parks and Recreation
Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Re: May PRAB Meeting Follow-up Items
During the May Business Meeting, members of the PRAB asked several questions and/or
requests. Please find responses below:
1. Regarding the design and outreach process for Christenson Park, please see the attached
memo from Planning Manager, Jeff Haley.
2. Regarding rules regarding rules permitting dogs
at the South Shore of the Boulder Reservoir, staff
have confirmed that the long-standing practice is
to limit dog access to the South Shore effective
May 15. This practice will be reviewed with all
others during the South Shore Site Management
Planning process in 2017.
3. Bikes are not allowed on the trail around Coot
Lake but they are allowed on the main trail/road
that continues along the north shore of the
reservoir. Page 35 of the attached PDF includes
an outline https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/reservoir-
master-plan-1-201306262334.pdf?_ga=2.157707577.2064235982.1495750086-
526898246.1465854467 Send kudos to Recreation Center and administration staff on
successful implementation of Active software and excellent customer service around this
effort (Rhodes)Send kudos to Park Operations Staff for their proactive work to help
support community members experiencing homelessness.
4. Schedule meeting with Kovarik and Sherman to review CIP information provided at May
meeting.
5. Provide audio link to Active System and Registration update item to Kovarik.
Christensen Park
2016 Playground Renovation Information
At the May 22 PRAB meeting, a neighbor of Christensen Park asked PRAB to find funding and direct staff
to provide a new toddler slide at the playground as part of the recent renovations. Staff has prepared
the following summary for review and consideration by PRAB and will be available to answer any
questions at the June PRAB meeting. As the summary indicates, the planning process for the park was
rigorous and engaged a broad section of the neighborhood. The project is complete and recently staff
has received positive remarks about the new play equipment and amenities. Staff has also followed up
with the neighbor who commented at PRAB and shared the same information. Staff does not
recommend proceeding with a toddler slide based on the increased quantity and diversity of new
amenities that have been provided for the 2 - 5 age range, the high cost of amending the site post
construction and the overall neighborhood support and approval of the park throughout the project.
Background
Funding for the renovation of Christensen Park was identified in the Capital Improvement Process to
address deficiencies of varying assets to be improved or replaced in 2016-2017. The main improvements
identified were the replacement and enhancement of the existing 23-year-old playground equipment
and irrigation system. The general use of the park and spacial relation remain generally the same.
The Christensen Park Final Concept Plan was developed based on community feedback along with
other considerations such as budget constraints. The mostly web-based outreach for Christensen Park
included several opportunities for community feedback. There was general support for the plan from
the community with a variety of comments commonly received for this type of project. All comments
were considered to balance the expressed desires.
A visual preference survey was used as one tool for understanding the community desires. For example,
the main structure recently installed was chosen by 32 out of 66 survey respondents. Out of 4 play
equipment options provided, the second favorite was chosen by only 10 respondents. The full survey
results and comments can be made available.
Alterations were made to the draft plan to accommodate common threads provided during the open
comment periods. Equipment to accommodate a variety of ages was thoughtfully planned. The
extension of the natural materials play area nearly doubles the designated play space in the park and is
inclusive of all ages. There were several comments regarding slides, but the feedback did not represent
an overwhelming need for a toddler-specific slide during the open comment periods.
A letter was received in August requesting a toddler slide although we commonly get requests for very
specific desires in the planning process. The concept plan had already been reviewed by the community
with general approval. Making an alteration after the community review could be perceived as poor
communication from the department. The alternative would be to re-open the community comment
process causing a delay in the project, and to be fair, other desires would have to be considered for
alteration.
Two e-mail requests for toddler slides were received in mid-May. One e-mail was the same person who
contacted the department in August. There was reference to a NextDoor chain of communication. At
the time of the request, the equipment was already installed and the play surface material was
scheduled to be installed shortly after. Halting the surface would have delayed access to the playground
for more than 6 weeks.
Community Outreach Process Timeline
May 4 – 25, 2016
Postcards were sent to a .25-mile radius of the park notifying community members about the
renovation, DRAFT Concept Plan and visual preference survey available online.
Signs showing the DRAFT Concept Plan and information about how to leave feedback and take
the visual preference survey were posted onsite. A phone number and e-mail address were
provided for anyone without access to the internet.
DRAFT Concept Plan was posted online along with a visual preference survey to provide the
opportunity for the community to help design the look and feel for their local playground.
Community members could leave comments on the web page or in the comment box at the end
of the survey. The plan remained available online and the comment period and survey was
closed on May 25 so we could review and feedback and revise the plan accordingly. E-mail
addresses were collected to provide project updates.
July 12 – July 22, 2016
The Final Concept Plan was posted online for community feedback. E-mail notification went to
all respondents to the survey and anyone who visited the web page and signed up for e-mail
notifications.
Signs showing the Final Concept Plan and information about how to leave feedback were posted
onsite. A phone number and e-mail address were provided for anyone without access to the
internet.
August 22, 2016
Christensen Park Final Concept Plan was shared with PRAB at the monthly Advisory Board
Meeting.
Original Play Features
1 combined post and platform style play structure for 2-5 and 5-12 years
2 spring toys for 2-5 years
2 toddler swings
2 belt swings
New Play Features
Natural Material Play Area including:
Water pump feature with potable water (pump will be re-installed and water will be
ready to pump by park opening)
Log bridge
Dry creek bed
Log balance beam and large climbing and balancing boulders
Natural log child seating area
Natural wood arch as gateway and open open-sided fort
Building sticks (currently drying the wood for park opening)
New Play Features (continued)
New Play Features (continued)
Sand Play Area with Hand Controlled Digger Play Feature
2 Toddler Swings and 2 Belt Swings
Cozy Dome hide-away and climber
New Play Features (continued)
Combi Play House and Net Climber with Slide
Front
Back
Inside
Construction Schedule
The construction of Christensen Park began in the fall of 2016. The construction was planned in phases
to leave as much of the park open as possible during the construction period.
September 2016
The first phase of construction of the natural materials play area began. This phase included a
dry river bed, new seating area, log bridge and a hand pump for water play.
November 2016
The second phase of irrigation replacement began.
March 2017
Demolition of the existing playground began the third and final phase of the playground
replacement.
Current Condition
The project is nearly complete with concrete sidewalk and curb poured and all play elements installed.
The poured in place rubber play surface was installed the week of May 22. With the current schedule,
the park is anticipated to be open by mid to end of June.
Any re-configuration of the play area inside of the current curbed footprint would have required the
department to halt the scheduled poured in place installation. Halting the poured in place contractor
would have required re-schedule. Rescheduling is expected to take up to 6 weeks from request.
Any addition or reconfiguration of the park may also require additional community outreach to ensure
the community receives clear understanding of the change. Additional outreach would be expected to
take approximately 3 weeks to communicate out, receive feedback and react to comments. The
outreach period should occur before any material is ordered or installation can be scheduled.
Three possible options and rough estimates are provided for discussion and evaluation of the addition of
a slide feature at Christensen Park.
Option 1: Continue with Current Design and Construction Plan (Staff Recommended)
Approximate Cost: $0
Timeline: No additional time
Staff does not recommend proceeding with a toddler slide based on the increased quantity and diversity
of new amenities that have been provided for the 2 - 5 age range, the high cost of amending the site
post construction and the overall neighborhood support and approval of the park throughout the
project.
Option 2: Replace Cozy Dome with Poly Slide
Approximate cost: not figured
Timeline: an additional 18 weeks to current construction timeline
This is not an option due to timing. It was added to the options as demonstration that it was explored at
the request of the letter to PRAB. There was sufficient room to remove the cozy dome and replace it
with a Poly slide with a 40” deck. This would have required a delay in the poured in place installation
with removal and storage of the cozy dome for use in a future location. This would have caused the
playground to be inaccessible until the mid-September. Although this would be the least expensive
option, it would close the playground for the entire summer.
Landscape Structure Poly Slide 40” deck
Option 3: Add a Poly Slide with an additional poured in place and curb section
Approximate cost: $15k
Approximate Timeline: 20 weeks
The department could complete the park with the current footprint, opening at the end of June. An
additional section of curb would be poured in a semi-circle outside of existing curb for new slide and
poured in place material. There would be a concrete curb dividing the slide from the other amenities but
would be outside required fall zones. Parts of the park would need to be closed off to add an additional
section to the playground. Consideration of proximity of the trees planted near the playground limit
some configuration options. Installation of a Poly Slide with a 40” deck requires approximately 14’ x 23’
of space to accommodate the required fall zone. This would require 360-400 sq. ft. of additional poured
in place and approximately 50 ft. of curb. The new section and the surrounding area could be open late
Sept. to early Oct.
Option 4: Add a Smart Play Cube 2-5 that includes a slide
with an additional poured in place and curb section
Approximate cost: $28k
Approximate Timeline: 20 weeks
The addition of the Smart Play Cube would have a similar impact on playground use and timeline as
Option 2 but would increase play value for younger children for an incremental increase in cost and
footprint.
Installation of a Smart Ply Cube 2-5 requires approximately 22’ x 22’ of space to accommodate the
required fall zone. This would require 484-520 sq. ft. of additional poured in place and approximately 60
ft. of curb.
The new section and the surrounding area will be open late Sept. to early Oct. For the staff time and
funding it would require to add a section to the playground, the department should consider expanding
the play surface to accommodate a piece of equipment that will increase play value beyond a slide. The
Play Cube 2-5 includes a slide along with other low climbing features.
Smart Play Cube 2-5