Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes ADVISORY PARK BOARD MINUTES JUNE 8, 2009 Present: Bob Freid, Bill Gogolewski, Kay Hansen, Dennis McHugh, Jim Michelson, Mark Philipp, Allan Siiman, Terry Wohler Absent: Colin Walsh Staff: Thomas Stephany, Director of Parks; Vince Maas, Parks Operations Manager; Bill Sturm, Landscape Operations Manager/City Forester; Trish Wendorf, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL Chairman Gogolewski called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A quorum was determined to be present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Wohler for approval of the May 11, 2009 minutes, as submitted. Seconded by Michelson. Motion carried 8-0. PARK BUSINESS 1) Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park Dog Issues Ms. Wendorf gave a brief report on the short survey that she had sent out to the adjacent property owners of the Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park area. She also stated that since a Letter to the Editor in the Oshkosh Northwestern was published she had gotten requests from other interested parties who also requested the survey. She then distributed the results (said results on file at the Oshkosh Parks Department and made a part of these minutes) of the survey to the Board members. Out of the 319 surveys sent out, she received 138 responses to date. Fay Helstrom, 1320 Timothy Trail, stated she was the person who wrote the Letter to the Editor in the Oshkosh Northwestern. She requests that dogs be allowed on the nature trail of Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park, not within the park (grassy area). She called various other communities and determined that they allow dogs in their parks on the trails (Appleton, Neenah, Green Bay, and Madison). Jane Ryan, 1318 Faust Avenue, suggested allowing dogs on the trail at the Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park on a temporary basis and also suggested that the parks crew put up “oops” stands along the trail. She stated an extra fee could be put on the dog license permits to pay for the “oops” bags. Randy VanNess, 1950 Mereworth Court, reiterated his memorandum and emails (said memorandum and emails on file at the City Parks office and made a part of these minutes) to the Parks Department. He is in favor of dogs being allowed to be walked on the trails within the Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park. Nancy Sobralski, 3195 Sawyer Creek Drive, stated she is surprised that the Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park is considered a park. She stated she doesn’t think that the posted No Dogs In Parks signs have deterred anyone from walking their dogs on the trail. She held conversations with adjacent property owners and noted that they are all in favor of walking their dogs on that trail. Mr. Siiman stated that the overall consensus of the survey reflects that people want to be able to walk their dogs on the Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park trail. ADVISORY PARK BOARD MINUTES PAGE 2 JUNE 8, 2009 Mr. McHugh stated he doesn’t think the Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park is a park since it doesn’t have the usual park amenities. He stated we are spending too much time applying park rules to a property that is not a park. He stated walking a dog on that trail is the same as walking a dog on the sidewalk. He noted, however, that it is essential that the dog walkers have their dogs on a leash. He stated he does not, however, agree to allow dogs in parks, but he does not consider the Rusch/Sawyer Creek Park property a park. Mr. Wohler concurred with Mr. McHugh and supports letting dogs be walked on this particular trail. Mr. Stephany stated he will put the issue on the next regularly scheduled meeting agenda for the approval process. He noted the No Dogs Allowed in Park have to remain in full force and effect until the ordinance is changed. Mr. Michelson stated the trail is really an extension of the sidewalk, but there is a need to keep it safe so that everyone using the trail can co-exist. He stated “sparsely” is the key word because this particular trail is not like South Park or Menominee trail, so the safety aspect is diminished and is safer. Mr. Siiman suggested a survey be taken of the entire City to make a determination as to dogs on trails/paths at the other parks as well. 2) Menominee Park Observation Tower Roy Duxstad of the Oshkosh Southwest Rotary Club gave a brief background of the flashing light/navigation beacon. He reiterated his memorandum to the Board (said memorandum on file at the City Parks office and made a part of these minutes). He stated the first proposed location of the light is not likely since the overgrowth of trees; the second proposed location has too much activity going on; but the third proposed location is currently close to the old tower. He distributed photographs (said photographs on file at the City Parks office and made a part of these minutes) reflecting what the proposed tower would look like (painted white and not painted). He stated his group would make the tower aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. He stated the plan is to set up a maintenance fund similar to the Little Oshkosh fund, at the Oshkosh Foundation. He suggested a camera could be installed at the top which would allow the handicapped that can’t climb the tower to be able to see the scene from the top on the bottom level and also allow internet capabilities. Mr. Siiman inquired why the Southwest Rotary Club was so intent on putting the tower at this particular area (Option #3)? Mr. Duxstad stated the navigational light has been in that area for the past 30 years and people are used to that location. He stated his group met with Bill Wyman of The Waters and showed him where the proposed location would be. After Mr. Wyman saw the pictures, he didn’t think the tower would be an eye sore. Mr. McHugh stated that area by The Waters is so picturesque with the extensive remodeling that Mr. Wyman did and to see that tower in that area would be like putting an elephant on site. It is his opinion that the proposed tower does not fit The Waters concept and he would not like to see that property in jeopardy. He would prefer option #1. He stated we are putting too much into one park and we should consider other alternatives. Mr. Stephany inquired of Mr. Duxstad, would the area just north of the beach house be okay? Mr. Duxstad stated that it would. Mr. Michelson stated he is in favor of the tower project. He has been to Columbia Park and was amazed of the sites a person can see across the park and lake at that height. He stated proposed location #1 is not feasible; proposed location #2 is a little congested, (traffic is a concern) but not bad. Proposed location #3 is a good location since there is ample parking available and he feels The Waters and the tower could co-exist. ADVISORY PARK BOARD MINUTES PAGE 3 JUNE 8, 2009 Marion Stevenson, 1335 Fairview St., thanked Mr. McHugh for his concerns and statements. She stated she is against the tower project. She does not see it as attractive – she thinks it would be another eyesore. She also doesn’t favor the Schertz site, as it would adversely affect The Waters and invade the privacy of people renting The Waters facility. Calumet County is very much higher than Oshkosh, so 75 ft. is not very scenic. She has concerns with security and insurance and is fearful that those costs would fall onto the tax payers. She does not feel it is a worthwhile project for the money involved. Ross Fuller of the Oshkosh Southwest Rotary Club, stated safety is the key issue here. If the tower would save one life, than it is worth it. Steve Steve, of the Tri-County Park Alliance based out of Freemont, stated the tower would be used for the safety of snowmobilers and boaters. Tom Sitter, 905 Nicolet, of the Oshkosh Boat Club, stated the Oshkosh Boat Club has been organized since 1937 and has approximately 50 members – including a wide mix of people. Their Club did a vote on the tower project last March (no location at the time of the vote) and are agreeable to the project. There has been a navigational light at that location since the 1970’s and that was the key to what they voted on. That light serves its purpose as it is also used to keep people away from the mouth of the river. He stated the tower should be as close to Miller’s Bay as possible, because that is a safe harbor since Miller’s Bay has buoys that give boaters direction. Mr. Maas stated that when he read the narrative, it was noted that this tower would have a lockable gate for park staff to lock at night. He pointed out that the City does not have staff at night to be able to lock the gate. He also stated that painting the tower would require re-painting over a short period of time, and the parks budget would not be able to sustain it the cost to paint it. Chairman Gogolewski stated if the boaters and snowmobilers just need a strobe light, why can’t they just put a light on a 75 ft pole with a camera? He stated he prefers proposed location #3. Mr. Duxstad stated that was possible and was suggested if the Club didn’t move forward with the tower project. The idea of a tower came to the club members when they were at The Waters for a Rotary function and when on the second floor of The Waters, they saw the gorgeous view and wanted to incorporate that view with the light/beacon. CITIZEN’S STATEMENTS There were no citizen’s statements. PARK DIRECTOR/STAFF REPORTS 1) Miller’s Bay Aquatic Plant Control Ideas Mr. Stephany stated the parks staff has not had an opportunity to research the weed harvester. He stated staff would most like do the chemical control for the summer months and noted that permits had been applied for. 2) Leach Amphitheater Mr. Stephany stated there are some really awesome activities going on at the Leach this year. He stated that the Oshkosh Irish Fest was a great success. ADVISORY PARK BOARD MINUTES PAGE 4 JUNE 8, 2009 3) City Forester’s report – gypsy moth suppression spraying Mr. Sturm gave a brief report on the spraying that the DNR did by aerial application. He noted that staff had properly notified about the applications. 4) Parks Operations Manager’s Report Mr. Maas reported that he recently had knee surgery and was out of commission for six (6) weeks and thanked Mr. Sturm for helping out in his absence. Mr. Sturm reported that parks crew are busy mowing lawns and getting the pool in operation for their th opening on June 6. Crews are currently working on construction projects. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, Motion by Wohler for adjournment; seconded by Freid. Motion carried 8-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:24 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Trish Wendorf Recording Secretary