Minutes - Parks and Recreation Commission - 03/12/2009

Home

The applicant, Andrea Seiberlich, advised that she would prefer site one, as it is closer to her neighborhood. She explained that they have volunteered to keep up on the maintenance. She did not feel that parking would be an issue at all, and thought that the site would be used to sit along the trail. Chairperson Johns commented that Sunwood Drive also has a four foot shoulder for parking. Andrea Seiberlich displayed a sketch she designed with Bachman's. Chairperson Johns confirmed that there would be a tree with plantings and questioned if the applicant would be installing a path as well. Andrea Seiberlich confirmed that they would be installing a path, but explained that it would not yet be paved and would instead be hard pack. Chairperson Johns confirmed some details from the sketch and questioned if the site would back up to the neighborhood taking care of it. Andrea Seiberlich advised that her neighborhood would actually be located across Sunwood Drive. Chairperson Johns questioned if the site would interfere with the wetlands existing in that area. Al Haugen advised that it would not interfere with the wetlands in that area. He advised that letters had been sent out to the neighboring property owners to gain their feedback prior to the City Council worksession on February lih. He stated that one phone call was received from an adjacent property owner that was concerned that the tree would block the view from her property along with leaves blowing into her property. Parks Supervisor Riverblood advised that the eastern portion of site one contains 25 year old Aspen trees already. Commissioner Barr questioned which children would be included in the memorial and which would not. Andrea Seiberlich advised that parcel of land, prior to the tragedy of the young boy who was struck with a car, was an eye sore and the neighbors had been interested in doing something with it. She advised that once the tragedy occurred the neighbors decided that something needed to be done. She stated that although the one child was a catalyst for the project, all children could be included and no one would be turned away. She was unsure of whether the child's name would be printed on the boulder and did not feel that it would have to be included. She thought it could be generalized to include everyone. Chairperson Johns questioned ifthis was the standard Adopt-a-Spot policy. Park and Recreation CommissionlMarch 12, 2009 Page 4 of 15