Zionsville Board of Park and Recreation

Summary Minutes of the Meeting of the Zionsville Park and Recreation Board May 23, 2011 The Zionsville Board of Park and Recreation met Wednesday, May 23, 2011 at 7:00 PM. Ellen Butz, Steve Mueller, Phil Howard, and Neil Clements were in attendance. Matt Dickey, Superintendent was also present. Scott Bruns and Board Attorney Roger Burrus were not present Minutes Phil Howard made a motion to approve the April 13, 2011 regular board meeting minutes; the April 13, 2011 special board meeting minutes; and the May 13, 2011 special board meeting (claims) minutes as presented. Neal Clements seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Public Comments/Presentations Rod Reid, with RLR Consultants, spoke regarding the wayfinding/safety signage process for Starkey Park and Rail-Trail. They indicated they had started with performing an audit of these two sites and to researched various best practices and processes for locating safety and wayfinding signage throughout the park. RLR staff visited both sites on three different occasions and presented some of the findings. At Starkey Park, the existing conditions and concerns include how to determine where users are located in the park and seasonal flooding. They noted there are not consistent enough tree size to support trail blazing efforts on tree trunks, and some of the existing maps are not oriented in the same direction as the viewer. He also felt there could be some clarity added to sign language as part of the signage system renovation. Some of the same concerns were noted along Zionsville Rail-Trail, which has more new users. There are also multiple access points, which adds to the design challenge. Some areas of the trail are named for donors and there seems to be no set hierarchy to naming efforts in relation to the overall Rail Trail name. This could confuse the new users as to if they are still on the rail trail. The consultants also made note of a few maintenance tweaks that they may recommend. Mr. Reid showed Board members some examples of safety and navigational trail signage as well as presentational styles and mounting schemes from other park systems. The consultants will recommend placing trail maps at certain identified nodes, identifying what the authorized trails are, identifying the service loop in a different manner, and coordinate placement of signs with emergency personnel. They noted trails could be named or numbered. Signage at the Rail-Trail could be lowered to roughly four (4) feet in height to bring them to a more personal level. They also recommend directing to offsite uses, and to establish a more clear trail nomenclature hierarchy. 1 Mr. Reid presented some examples of trail signage and orientation for the Board to consider using for Zionsville parks. He then asked for comments and input from those in attendance on the presented wayfinding strategy and trail naming and identification options/conventions. They would then move forward with developing different looks for consideration. Steve Mueller then spoke. While he appeared to not be against tweaking the signage nomenclature/hierarchy along the rail trail, he cautioned that adjusting some of this rail trail sub-names needs to be coordinated with the Park Board Attorney to avoid potential legal issues that might arise from the way those may have been been conditioned upon donation. Phil Howard asked if the consultants had recommendations regarding names vs. numbers for trails. The consultants indicated they had struggled with the pros and cons of both methods. He suggested numbers might be better for safety personnel, and would require less sign space. Mr. Reid specifically mentioned that a numbering system would be easier and possibly more precise.... and on the other hand names might be more unique and creative, if they became widely accepted and utilized by the users. It was also mentioned there would need to be learning and acceptance process for the names and sometimes certain names are not accepted. He also opened the door to the possibility of combinations as life safety issues are balanced with the local "cultural" aspect. Police Chief Rick Dowden and guest George Tikijian both spoke from the audience without benefit of a microphone. Chief Dowden mentioned that from the public safety viewpoint, the simpler the better. He pointed out that in an emergency situation people forget the name on the trail sign they just saw or garble it. The point was from the public safety view to try and design to protect from that. The Chief used a specific example of SP-3, for Starkey Park, Trail 3, as a easier trail name to be remembered and used by someone in distress. He mentioned that from the dispatch side they have some ability to adjust for whichever approach may be used. This public safety-centered viewpoint would be more to adjust for the errors inherent when th public is communicating during a life- safety issue. Former Park Board member/President, George Tikijian requested to speak from the audience as well. He also spoke against the approach of naming the trails with geographical and/or feature related names. he instead supported a more simple letter/number system. While he began his comments supporting the public safety recommendations from Chief Dowden, he went on to give other reasons why in his viewpoint, geographical/feature related naming systems should not be used. He mentioned that selected names have to be almost organically and universally accepted or they won't "take". He went on to point out that at some time in the past there had been an attempt to officially name the portion of the Rail Trail between the Nancy Burton and David Brown portions. His discussion culminated in an example. His last point revolved around the example that no one on the current park board or in the audience indicated that they had ever heard the name "Primrose Path" or Primrose Trail"; his apparent point, to how geographical and feature based naming while perhaps having more "romance" to them can fail completely. 2 When asked for comment, Matt Dickey also briefly mentioned that regardless of whether selecting geographical or a simpler letter/number-based naming systems, that signage space can be at a premium. Approaches need to be selected with that in mind as well. He had previously pointed out that independent of what the names actually are, it would be helpful from the maintenance point of view if certain key items are easily replaceable without paying for and swapping out the whole sign. This viewpoint would suggest that elements like logos and names, that are likely to be points of vandalism attack, or may even just change over time, would be more flexible if be designed in such a way as to be repaired/changed without having to supply/replace a whole sign. Superintendent Dickey also mentioned that since the Consultants had pointed out the user confusion challenges regarding the different rail trail signage/names; The pathway along Eagle Creek, existing through several parks and connector corridors... could, if not carefully considered, end up with the similar confusion problems. As a summation President Butz and Mr. Mueller mentioned that there seemed to be Board interest in naming if possible; but if not, or in cases where that is not the best option, go with the numbering options. Steve Mueller went on to note the potential desire to include rules and regulations in conjunction with trail signage. Mr. Reid noted that type of information would be included on some specific signs in certain key locations, but would not necessarily be widespread throughout the park. Such signage can easily have a negative feel to it. The consultants had already pointed out earlier that a significant portion of the currently existing park signage is "negative" in nature and this can consciously and subconsciously color park users attitudes towards their experiences and the department. Mr. Mueller also added that there are more "off-trail" interest sites along the rail trail than the four or five shown during the presentation. The next presentation involved the Laurel Street/Rail trail connection. Councilor Art Harris, in his role as Safety Board President, spoke by reading a letter from Fire Chief VanGorder, regarding safety and EMS accessibility. According to this note presented to the Safety Board President, the Laurel Street access point should be paved for optimum safety and public use. Mr. Harris also raised the question as to whether non-paved trail surfacing would meet ADA requirements. Mr. Max Mouser with Beam Longest and Neff then spoke, introducing the overall Laurel Ave/Rail Trail Connection Project and highlighting the trail, potential connections, and parking situation. Mr. Mouser presented three options for connecting the Nancy Burton parking area (on Starkey Road) parking lot with the existing rail trail. He noted not all options would meet strict ADA applications for sidewalks-ramps and building entrances, but some of the presented concepts would meet various portions of the multipurpose trail guidelines from INDOT. Option one provides for a serpentine access trail, but require more connector length. Option two moves the main rail-trail and could complicate future addition of the previously considered picnic shelter. Option three re-grades and paves the existing access route but with the steepest grade of the three options. In response to questioning from Mr. Mueller, Mr. Mouser mentioned that none of these options were 3 specifically designed for emergency vehicle access up from the Nancy Burton Parking area. Instead he tried to design it in such a way that would not cut off such a potential use access, as flexible options are better in terms of public safety. Mr. Mouser went on to mention that from his recollection, in BLN's original competitive proposal, the most robust ADA approach with full switchbacks and 8.33% max slopes and the required 5- foot landings every 35 feet would have run an estimated $200,000. Mr. Dickey noted that once the Board offers comments, BLM could go back and add some detail (estimated costs, further design details, etc) to the Board-directed preferred approach. Ms. Butz wanted to see the costs for Option 1 vs. Option 3. Mr. Mueller wants function (access, connections, safety) first but needs to see the costs for the Laurel Street portion before finalizing his thoughts. Mr. Mouser was directed by the Board to proceed with the existing contract to prepare engineering on the three components and he will come back with more detailed cost estimates for the Laurel Street extension and some estimated costs for the parking lot connection and also for Pine Street entrance paving extension potential. It is understood the Park Board may not chose to bid all of these for construction at once depending on how the figures match up with the money they targeted towards this use in the October 30th, 2010 Strategic Planning meeting. There might be a potential to work with the Street Department on cost efficiencies (i.e., cost of asphalt). (Subsequent checking has indicated this may be a possibility and BLN as the Town Engineers are doing both sets of work, and as such, will evaluate which way the project may be built more cheaply). Staff Reports The reports from the Superintendent of Parks & Recreation, the Assistant Superintendent for Maintenance Services, and the Naturalist were all part of the Park Board packet and available for review. Given the relative fullness of the agenda, President Butz asked staff to forgo highlighting any staff report sections and merely address any specific questions raised by Board Member's. No questions were raised by Board Members. New Business Matt Dickey reminded the Board that it has been customary to have a table at the Lions Club Fall Festival. All Board members stated they want to continue this tradition and by consensus directed the application for booth/table be submitted. Old Business: Mr. Dickey presented some information about the DNR/LWCF grant award. There is a contract that must eventually be signed and sent to the DNR for their signatures. Phil Howard made a motion to authorize the president’s signing the contract once Roger Burrus has reviewed and approved it. Neal Clements seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Based upon the Board discussion/direction from the Oct. 30th, 2010 Strategic Planning Meeting, Mr. Dickey presented information about the 400S parcel's topographical survey process. Mr. Dickey noted Roger’s concerns that the potential additional donated parcel also needs a legal survey, so that parcel was added to the proposal and is already reflected in the proposal costs. 4 Phil Howard made a motion to approve engaging EMHT for the project as identified in the proposal. Steve Mueller seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dickey next presented information regarding the new 400S park site public charrette and conceptual design process and asked for approval to move forward with REA for conceptual design. Mr. Dickey noted this is similar to the Elm Street Green process. This does not include construction documents and the process should take about nine (9) weeks. Mr. Kevin Osburn with REA spoke briefly and described the conceptualization process, the schematic design process, and the construction documentation process. He noted this gets the Board further along towards engineering documents and eventually final cost estimates. Steve Mueller wondered how much additional public input does the project need, considering they had input through the grant process. Mr. Dickey noted that in the past specific Park Board members had indicated they wished more chance for public input on this project and this process would also allow for more design refinement and to consider items the public may not have voiced earlier. Mr. Mueller mentioned that certain improvements are tied to the grant process. Consultant Kevin Osburn confirmed the Department's approach, that these grant specific items could be covered ahead of time as part of a charrette briefing to participants and the charratte, would still have value to the public, the process, and the park. Phil Howard made a motion to approve the proposal as presented (for $14,500 plus reimbursables defined in the proposal in the NTE amount or $1,500). Steve Mueller seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Citizen Advisory Committee Reports: Land Resources – Phil Howard. Phil noted this committee met and familiarized themselves with existing pathways and associated projects. Their next meeting will be spent getting familiar with current park assets. He also mentioned the Midland Trail did get approved and is now under Boone County’s ownership. Phil noted the Ag Heritage Trail is also moving forward and the next segment is north of Goodwin, so that might help the Park Board move their own connections forward as well. Finance/ Funding – Neal Clements. No report. Communications – Steve Mueller. Steve noted the pathways and trail maps are now on the website, but is unsure when the new park website will be up and running. He also talked about getting the parks naming process out to the general public for their suggestions. Ellen asked if this could be tied into the park design process, but it was ultimately decided not to do that. Instead perhaps delay the naming process until after the conceptual list of features begins to crystallize. Additionally, Steve also mentioned he is trying to get photos of all the groups that helped with the garlic mustard pull. He is only missing the Village group and will contact Chris Bucher to see if he has photos and is willing to share. Mr. Mueller wants to get Therese to attend the July Board meeting to give an update of nature programs. It was determined that this could be as a part of the regular staff reports that is always on the agenda. Recreation –Scott Bruns. In Scott’s absence, Phil mentioned the recent Family Fun Ride Matt attended. The seven mile ride visits many Zionsville Parks and is very family 5 friendly. Matt also mentioned he received several good comments about the parks and the various areas of Town that can be experienced. Ellen also reported she and Scott met with Zionsville Sports Association representative. Facilities– Ellen Butz reported she and Matt will be meeting soon with realtors regarding Elm Street Green flooding. Phil complimented the garden plots efforts of the department. Other Board Related Items None Claims None (handled at other meeting) The meeting was then adjourned, with a motion made by Phil Howard and seconded by Neal Clements at ~9:00 PM. ______________________________ ____________________________ Scott Bruns, Secretary Ellen Butz, President 6