Jefferson County Open Space Crown Hill Park March 11, 2013 Community Meeting Group Responses Verbatim Comments Shade Structure Benefits (Note: Each row contains ‐
the responses from one group) ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Concerns No benefits ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
We prefer more benches in the shade
Plant more trees which serve as shade and habitat ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
It’s very hot, good for seniors to rest out of sun
Good for people to meet Small shade areas would be a benefit Why not have Metro State Industrial Design students build the structure? Shade ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
None for shade structure. Benches are used as is picnic areas
‐
are used some ‐
‐
‐
1 Vandalism
Long‐term maintenance Drug dealers Aesthetically not pleasing Unanimously against a shade structure which would constitute development. We support nature shade trees and we see opportunities to plant buffer landscapes to reduce the traffic noise and perhaps grow into shade trees Fabric is high‐maintenance
Cost Shade structure will draw more crowds=noise, trash, need for more parking Structure will obstruct views We’ve seen standing water in that area Vandalism We don’t want an enlarged parking lot Breaking up open space
Can we buy trees to provide shade? If the structure is too big groups will show up and it’s hard to control people Nearby parks with more trees
Graffiti on surfaces Maintenance Seek out trees Overpopulation; large groups—noise to impact wildlife Boulders as shade Trash and vandalism and people pushing the rules
Plant trees for shade; stop removing trees; more native shrubs Limits views The more structures you have, the more invitation to vandalism, “hanging out” at night ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Propose using existing par‐course pads to install small shade structures (not all pads, but a select few) Shade Meeting space for groups? Place for runners and walkers to have place to rest/health/safety feature (8 – no; 1 –maybe) If additional shade is wanted, trees are an option
No real benefit Shade – but could be provided Good after exertion Place to rest But don’t need a new one; natural shade would be better ‐
Self‐explanatory on all so‐called “improvements”
2 ‐
No large shade structure
‐ Encourage loitering
‐ Visual obstruction ‐ Size is too big – several individuals are absolutely opposed ‐ Meeting space for groups – seen as a negative ‐ Maintenance cost of removing cover ‐ Structural soundness
‐ Seasonal – labor issue ‐ There are benches under trees that can be used for shade ‐ Place for smoking, leaving trash, graffiti ‐ Too many clustered things together ‐ Use the money to buy trees instead Our group opposes the pergola because:
‐ Intrusive ‐ Too large ‐ Will attract large groups of people who will not respect the natural environment ‐ Possible graffiti ‐ Too expensive ‐ Already existing shade above of shade structure
Preferred by entire group:
‐ If want more shade, plant more trees ‐ Large groups – mob mentality ‐ Homeless sleeping ‐ Disappearance of wildlife ‐ Not natural; blocks scenery ‐ Diameter is big and an eyesore ‐ Not organic/natural – intrusive ‐ Vandalism ‐ Hangout for kids after dark; smoking dope and drinking ‐ Will scare horses ‐ Noise pollution ‐ Leave shelter on north side of lake ‐ Maintenance problems ‐ Put benches under trees scattered throughout ‐ Because any build‐out is a negative and would change the current dynamics of the park ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
We like the idea of more shade but prefer a more natural approach. What about benches with drought‐
tolerant trees around it? Or something smaller, like the one on the opposite side of the lake? Smaller structures with pergola and canvas covering OK for some More trees/shade
Too hot Extend experience Not reserved Block wind Social Ranger‐led programs Do it at the gazebo – talks Plant trees On a very hot day to get out of the sun
Shade is fine, structures are not Put budget into trees
Majority oppose shade structure Need shade for elderly and disabled
Concrete pad and trees a possible choice Multiple shade opportunities – small footprints ‐
‐
‐
Draws neighbors, picnics, games
Food trash Smaller areas, like arbors ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Not natural – shade structure will be used by birds!
Get public input on how to design it We prefer trees and no shade structures
No permanent meeting structure Won’t last – 50K is too much money
Engage parents to bring children, do not encourage large organized groups Too large – intrusive versus natural
Attracts vandalism and trash ‐
‐
Prefer shade trees over any man‐made structure
‐
‐
‐
3 No new shade structure is needed!! Don’t like the idea
We believe shade is need in 4 spaced areas around the lake – shade as a small covering over a bench One large shade will only be used for “ranger talks” and not by the typical park goer Nature Play Areas Benefits ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Concerns No benefits; should not be urban play area
‐
‐
‐
‐
Getting families outside in nature – no man‐made structures Boulders and logs and fallen trees attract children Not all kids play the same – variety ensures the most kids will participate! Provides kids a starting point for creative play Kids have a safe place to play, not disturbing wildlife Creative play/open‐ended play. This is NOT a playground, it is open‐ended nature play Small area vs. huge park serving the community For differently‐abled children, can provide simulated pay they can’t get on their own (i.e. climbing a tree) (Please provide more pictures, not just sketches) Our group feels that no nature play areas are needed to enhance the already beautiful area. There are other playgrounds nearby with structures Link children to the park using kiosks or small educational materials or rangers One of our group feels the obesity issue will be addressed 4 Liability, supervision issues
Graffiti Defecation in sand area by wild animals Children will not learn more about nature from play areas; need to have teachers/naturalists presenting Unanimous: ‐ Crown Hill is already a multigenerational nature play area. Nature is a peaceful place and a sanctuary, not artificial play ‐ Goes beyond mission and scope of the sales tax purpose voted on years ago ‐ Liability ‐ Really against the perch – safety concerns ‐ Habitat destruction ‐ Children and animal confrontation (skunk) ‐ Artificial nature of the structures is more distracting in nature ‐ Vandalism
‐ Smoking parents ‐ Migratory coyotes ‐ Takes up too much work ‐ Noise ‐ Parking ‐ Lack of creativity with defined play areas ‐
We feel that leaving the park as natural as possible is most beneficial ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Over‐population (noise, large groups)
Losing the passive quality of park Not an “amusement park” Conflicts with coyote Too close to cemetery (services) Risk to kids climbing Wildlife being affected
Change the atmosphere of the Park Will lose the open space feel of the Park ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
None Schedule programs ‐ Sandbox for neighboring cats
‐ Disruptive in the middle location ‐ Liability ‐ Doesn’t connect families with nature ‐ Disrupts wildlife habitat ‐ Would rather see nature programs with rangers Nature play areas to encourage quality play area
‐ Entire park is nature play – teach children in nature
‐ Changes type of activity done in park ‐ No perch ‐ No climbing rocks ‐ No digging area with sand; will attract feral cats 0 – 9 wanted this in our group:
‐ Unaccompanied youth – safety/liability issues ‐ Discovery Park/Anderson Park/Paramount already have playground equipment ‐ Already have natural exploratory areas in Crown Hill ‐ Maintenance costs ‐ Disturbs natural setting; conflicts with wildlife ‐ Could increase parking issues Opinions in group:
‐ Proximity to cemetery disrupts sanctity of that place ‐ Proximity to equestrian trails pose hazards to kids, riders and horses ‐ Increased congestion ‐ Artificial environment with man‐made structures defeats the purpose of kids interacting with nature ‐ Detracts from the unique nature of C.H. open space – we do not want an urban park ‐ Unnecessary – playground at Paramount and Discovery No one likes the idea of having a play area for kids, given Reasons why we don’t want additional structures:
all of the other playgrounds in the area, across from Rec ‐ Obstructing views Center and across the street ‐ Disturbing nature ‐ Disturbing people at the cemetery Overall, don’t like nature play
Preferred by entire group:
Not the right location, more west, too close to cemetery. ‐ Too close to horse trail – will cause problems. Horses won’t like This would be a compromise, though the structures, can be spooked ‐ Coyotes in digging area The idea of nature play does not need a structure ‐ Bring kids back to nature through nature, not structures 5 ‐
2 out of 12 in group favored
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Not opposed to messages regarding obesity
None No benefits Have tours to identify plants and ecology – will reach more people A leading question!!!
No fabricated play areas!! We want the children to enjoy the natural environment 6 Not needed – too many parks in the surrounding area
Areas of 6 and 7 are in vegetated areas where animals live Not nature – use money for binoculars, etc. Hazard to animals – no deer Artificial We have a unique property
Kids won’t use as much as hoped Liability issues – what if kids fall off or push each other off? Excrement in digging area Throwing rocks at horses Unsupervised play Coyotes will be fed junk food Scare birds, coyotes, wildlife, horses Vandalism Obesity studies are political Waste of open space funds that can be better utilized Best nature play is a walk by the 10 ½ miles of trails!! Crown Hill is a unique environment that needs not to be industrialized and homogenized Three parks with playgrounds in immediate vicinity (one of which, skate park, kids exercise constantly!) NOISE, NOISE, NOISE PARKING, PARKING, PARKING There are hawk nests in the fork area where play area #7 would be! We’ve seen them on daily walks Will scare the horses Add native signage at Kestrel Pond And please be mindful that the drought is impacting enough of our fragile environment ‐
‐
Too many people
Losing the character of the park
‐
‐
‐
‐
Danger of small children left unattended
Destruction of natural habitat Distracting children from walking and exploring No pseudo‐environment to replace nature ‐
‐
Nobody in our group wants this
These structures are already at 38th and Kipling ‐
‐
‐
Children should not be mixed with coyotes
No nature play area The group strongly agrees that “the dig” and “climb on” should not go forward Mixed opinion on “the perch” – the minority opinion liked it, the majority did not ‐
7 ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Nature play would change demographic
Doesn’t fit concept and intent of Crown Hill Will detract from natural function of Park Plenty of other playgrounds in area See comment about coyotes
‐
‐
‐
Liability Providing play areas when other parks for children are close by Preserving the open space character Family‐Friendly Ideas ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Invalid assumption that families do not use Crown Hill open space! Have a naturalist present information about wildlife No development
Interpretive programs by rangers It is a family‐friendly place right now Make it better, not necessarily more family‐friendly – wrong question Constant maintenance of benches and sidewalks
Interpretive signage (low profile) Park ranger tours Add more pet waste facilities for families with dogs More benches around outside loop
Pave loose gravel paths Don’t pave gravel paths Multi‐language display signs More bathrooms Crosswalk at 26th into Park Education enrichment programs Increasing educational aspects by using funds to create links to schools Visual or electronic links to the habitat Docents Educational materials to support parents teaching about nature Stations with materials around lake Scheduled talks by park people Put money into programs and not toys
Improve vegetation Think Crown Hill Park is family‐friendly now
Plant more trees Expanding parking lot Add bike racks Existing families seem very happy now
Bird counts, nature walks and activities Better signage Activity box with things to do (ideas for family fun) Encourage ranger‐led walks
Encourage bird‐watching Parking on north side Crosswalks on 26th!! No more development 8 ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
More parking but not in main parking lot. What about side street/off‐street parking on 32nd or on Kipling? What about asking the high school if we can use their lots? What happened to all the bike racks? Need more Could there be a full‐time park ranger to help keep order? Nature programs to answer children’s questions
Have rangers available Have volunteers available Outreach programs to kids Have family‐friendly programs to educate (Current 10‐20 x/year! Communicate better!)
It is family‐friendly – what makes you think it’s not? More educational programs
A “berm” along west side/Kipling More trees Shaded benches – resting, viewing spots Parking crucial if we want to draw more people – 32nd had to be fenced to keep off parking. More programs=more parking It is a family‐friendly place Rangers do tours
Naturalist offer interactive signage (educational!) It’s perfectly family‐friendly the way it is! Update the nature signs Plant more trees Appreciate, don’t fabricate Educate around habitat restoration Put those cool open space playgrounds across the street at that park north of Golds/gas station that never has anything there!! Why does Open Space [staff] feel it is currently not family‐friendly or not family‐friendly enough?
Leave it alone so families can have the experience that is not available at other urban spots Nature walks
You cannot improve on nature
Already family‐friendly
It is family‐friendly now
Upkeep but no new structures except bathroom Plant more trees! $200,000 pergola could buy a lot of trees It is currently family‐friendly – keep it that way
We believe nature is family‐friendly by definition and not additional family‐friendly changes are needed
Plant more trees 9 Replace Fitness Equipment Benefits ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Concerns Not in a centralized location
No QR Spread out the fitness low‐tech equipment An outdoor location for folks to exercise
But we do not want to cluster the equipment, we prefer it spread around the lake if it is replaced Structured exercises
Doesn’t engage children or anyone
Walking is exercise Yes, with similar equipment
Exercise station would be replaced and not added to or concentrated Not QR Gets seniors exercising and walking and free‐stretching in between is important Modeling for youth is important No one in the group of the five who wanted to replace the equipment wanted the equipment clustered Didn’t like the QR smartphone fitness idea Half of us like the idea of fitness areas and the other half don’t Promotes fitness and some would use Would like current stations upgraded
Good at current places with new basic equipment – no technology required 10 ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Not in a centralized location, spread out
No QR Most people do not use fitness equipment Divided – both options we reject
We do not want the smart phone app
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Seems like a lot of money
Should just get rid of it Liability Gets hot Splinters Lack of use
‐
‐
Rather have it be nature‐centered stations with information
Replace would be OK
‐
‐
‐
‐
Doesn’t match a passive rec. park for open space – already have rec. centers available Financial and maintenance concerns Don’t see many people using it Seems like a fad ‐
More obstruction of nature
‐ Too much congestion at one area
‐ Not being used much Preferred by the whole group:
‐ No QR – requires technology – trying to get away from technology during workout ‐ Others would like it completely removed ‐ Vandalism
‐ No “smart” phones ‐ Simple – no QR system ‐ Replace as is ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Keep exercise stations as is
Bring them current as is (up to code) Spread out and simple No smartphones (i.e. get away from the “screen” that Tom spoke of) N/A – we are not in favor of exercise equipment
We don’t want fitness equipment
Take up concrete and restore to natural New equipment on same footprints
Manufactured material is fine Possible benefit to handicapped folks Current fitness equipment is satisfactory
Our group is unanimous that the fitness equipment should not be grouped at the entrance. We prefer small areas around the lake (like what has been there for past 20‐30 years) 11 ‐
No electronic stuff!! Will scare the horses
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Maintaining the character of the park
Natural environment
We are not using it No concerns if not replaced
Do not put equipment all together – keep spread out design ‐
No concern about current equipment
Additional Comments: 
Add more trees next to benches; make that the shade structure. No man‐made shade structures. 
Group was unanimous in rejecting all proposed developments. 
While our comments appear a bit scattered, please read them all and keep in mind that we feel so strongly about leaving it the way it is…and make NO MISTAKE this open space park is a gem! Because of the way it is! So our comments do not address each question specifically but rather we question the premise of the park not being family friendly to start with??!!?! Very important – 100% consensus – we are not opposed to the proposed “development” (so‐called improvements) in their own rights, meaning we like play areas, we like shade structures, JUST NOT AT CROWN HILL. Open space objective should not be all things to all people at all parks. Would rather see money go to programs/experiences, not be spent at Crown Hill. Our consensus is spend the money elsewhere in the open space system, i.e. buy more land, plant trees. Upgrade, improvement, progress is not always the same in every circumstance and in this instance less is more. “If it’s not broken, do not fix it.” Do not “fix” Crown Hill to death. Government has done right with the history and development of Crown Hill up till now—we encourage government to acknowledge this and keep up the precedence. 
To make it better: ‐ More trees; make it a model urban forest; ‐ Pet waste dispensers with bags supplied; ‐ 4‐5 to 6‐foot berm and plant shrubs to block out noise and pollution of Kipling; ‐ Interpretive programs. Not appropriate to substitute a passive open space with an urban recreational park mission. 
Leave Crown Hill Park as is. Maintain, don’t develop. Good to comply with ADA. Take the money, buy land along light rail stations and put nature play there. 
Obviously, we want to preserve Crown Hill as is. Routine maintenance only. Do not build any play areas or add infrastructure. Listen to the people. 12