Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Underwood Property Task Force - 12/11/2014Underwood Property Task Force Meeting Minutes 11 December 2014 1 The Underwood Property Task Force had a regular meeting on Thursday 11, December, 2014, at 1 pm at City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members present: Karen Whitby, Russ Agne, Michael Simoneau, Glenn Sproul, Sophie Quest, Cathy Frank, Dan Albrecht, Joshua Phillips, Kindle Loomis (delayed) Members absent: Others present: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner; Betsy Terry, Interim Director of Recreation and Parks; Drew Bruce, SE Group; Mark Kane, SE Group. 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items. There were none. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. None. 3. Overview of project Mr. Kane provided an overview of the property’s geographic features, including topography, soils, land cover, water features, and proximity to other natural and built features. There was a brief discussion of why the property had the various zoning designations that it did. Mr. Bruce indicated that this research shows the City included some zones for no-build given wildlife considerations, as well as the protection zone based on Prime Ag soils. 4. Agriculture Discussion Mr. Kane stated that he hoped this part of the discussion would be as conversational as possible: what are the important considerations under agriculture that the group and the City should be thinking about? How important are the considerations with relation to other considerations? Mr. Kane provided some information regarding the soil types on the property. Prime Ag soils are present on the western portion of the property. Mr. Kane identified some of the options and priorities identified in other documents: Community Supported Agriculture, Community Gardens, etc. It was acknowledged that these were overarching types, and that more specific or targeted types of each could be possible or prioritized. Members added additional types of agriculture they would like to have considered, including school supported agriculture, community orchards, accessible gardens. Mr. Albrecht discussed some of the challenges or cautions of a CSA or farm leases, or any private management of the property, as the property was purchased with resident tax dollars. He asked that this be part of the discussion. 2 Members discussed whether it was legal or in line with the community’s desire of the use of the open space fund to lease to private (non-school) entities, for direct farming or CSA. Ms. Quest stated that she didn’t believe anybody was promoting those uses at this time. Mr. Sproul stated that he believes the current and draft Comprehensive Plans indicate that the property should be available to the public. Ms. Terry suggested that people may wish to discuss their interpretation of what a CSA is. Ms. Loomis gave an overview of what the Common Roots CSA currently includes. Ms. Loomis gave some examples of what Common Roots could use the property for, including training programs, school supported agriculture, farm to school programs, etc. Mr. Albrecht added that the committee was perhaps getting into the weeds early, while the broad discussion is still not complete. Ms. Kindle asked to have a discussion on the possibility of livestock use on the property. Members questioned infrastructure needs and compatibility; members agreed this would be dependent on type of animal. Ms. Whitby cautioned to remember that the property is in an impaired waterway. Ms. Frank offered that the existing wildlife corridor should also be considered. Mr. Albrecht offered that a management plan could give guidelines to farmers or users of the property. Mr. Agne shared that the Natural Resource Committee discussed the use of goats on the Wheeler property. 5. Recreation Discussion Mr. Kane recapped a previous discussion about “Wildplay” areas. He shared photographs and an overview of the important aspects and spoke to its national trend. One caution is that they are not as easily made accessible as other types of play types or structures. Mr. Kane stated that a previous discussion of ballparks reached general agreement that any fields would be multi-use and low-key. Mr. Albrecht stated that ballparks could fit a range of land intensity. Some have formal fences, dugouts, etc, while others have no more than grassed areas and non-grassed areas and few benches. Ms. Terry stated that most people she’s talked to want to make sure that any new field could be adaptable and used for a variety of things, and not tied to one use for 30 years. Graded and drained is often enough to achieve this. Members discussed the importance of having uses intertwine so that a party of people may divide into different uses within view of each other. Mr. Sproul reiterated that he was a strong proponent of passive recreation, and felt the term encompassed more than planned active areas, and that even the unused natural areas and garden areas should be seen as recreational. He added that recreation can be viewed as serving more than just the youth population and can be very diverse in scope and service. Ms. Frank reiterated that trails could be connected to neighboring properties. Mr. Kane agreed, stating that the parcel itself would serve more as a small niche, or as a gateway to a trail system, rather than providing its own system. 3 Mr. Kane briefly talked about pump tracks and strider tracks. Both have range of options, from smaller and more integrated to more structured. Mr. Sproul reiterated that he felt that it was important to include the groups of typically underserved age groups: seniors and preschoolers. Mr. Kane also highlighted that traditional playgrounds could also come in a range of sizes, amenities, and intensities. Ms. Frank asked about blending of various uses. Mr. Kane agreed and said that his team plans to look at ‘arrival portals’ and how to structure the flow of the property such that pieces are integrated, but provide a natural flow. The site features, especially the wetlands and brook, may present a challenge to this. Ms. Frank agreed and cautioned that such crossings are not as easy to attain as one may think. Mr. Kane gave an overview of treehouses/ structures. These structures could be used by the kids, as well as other groups. A barn type structure could possibly open fully in mild weather and be multi-purpose, plays, meals, group meetings, etc. Ms. Whitby questioned whether a tennis court would be a good use and asked about the demand in the City. Mr. Simoneau indicated that the current courts at Dorset Park were not in demand and were repurposed. Mr. Sproul stated that he would not like to see anything paved, as it would not be as adaptable to changes. Courts such as this are expensive to build and maintain and if they weren’t meeting needs, would not be a good uses of space or funds. 6. Natural Resource Discussion As time was short, this topic will be discussed first at the next meeting of the Committee. 7. Other Members discussed the possibility of private land development on the park. Mr. Kane stated that the question begins with an understanding of what is legal, and what is expected by the South Burlington Community through the Open Space Fund. Mr. Albrecht agreed that the consideration of what the taxpayers understood as the purpose of the fund was important. He added that another consideration would be, even if legal, what the effect would be on the remainder of the property. Mr. Simoneau stated his desire to have all options discussed and vetted at this early stage and within the task force. He added that any uses must benefit the property and the City, and not diminish other stated goals. Ms. Quest pointed out that several people have not spoken their wishes yet. 8. Timeline for next meeting The next meeting will be held on Tuesday December 16th at 2:00 pm. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm.