Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 06 08 Regular Item B COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM B June 8. 1998 Meeting MGR Consent Informational Public Hearin Regular X REQUEST: The Parks and Recreation Department requests the Commission review information relative to the design for Torcaso Park and provide !5taff with any direction it deems appropriate. PURPOSE: The purpose of this item is to present the Commission with a report on safety at Torcaso Park and to receive any direction the Commission deems appropriate. CONSIDERATION: On January 12, 1998 the Commission authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with Starmer, Rinaldi Planning and Architecture (S.R.I.) to review the park conceptual plans developed by city staff and to bring them to final design status for bidding. On April 20, 1998 a two-year-old child drowned at Torcaso Park, one of the parks being designed by S.Rt. SubsequeI1lt investigations by the Winter Springs Police Department concluded that the drowning resulted from a lack of parental supervision. In an abundance of caution the city requested that S. Rt. provide the city with a report and recommendations relative to safety at the park to make sure that every reasonable safety precaution will be included in the final design of Torcaso and other city parks. Relatedly, S. R1. was asked to determine if the vacant parcel currently being uS4~d by the Public Works Department for storage across the street from Torcaso Park could be feasibly utilized for recreational purposes. The following steps have been taken to date relative to T orcaso Park. . Public meetings were held for all parks being considered for renovation or development, including Torcaso Park. . At least (4) such meetings were held for Torcaso Park with several dozen people attending and responding to questionnaires and generally discussing their ideas of how they would like the park to be developed, who it should serve and how it should serve. . Goals and objectives for park service were then concluded, a draft site use plan reviewed and amended and a complete preliminary plan (Htage III) was finalized and presented to the Commission in June 11997. In Februclry 1998 the city's risk management department concluded a risk management assessment of city parks. The city's safety officer and risk management analyst from the city's liability insurance provider performed the assessment. The assessment identified some minor deficiencil9s at Toracso Park that were rectified in February. The assessmEmt also identified some play equipment that did not meet current sclfety standards. That equipment was removed last fall. FUNDING: No additional funds required for planning and engineering. RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Department request the Commission to review the report provided by S.R.I. and provide the Staff with any direction it deems appropriatc~. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Plans as pJesented here will be developed for the other six (6) park locations i.e., Trotwood, Moss, Sam Smith, Sunshine, Winding hollow and Grizzley Field by the end of August, 1998 with final engineering design and specifications complete and ready for bid advertisement by mid September, 1998. ATTACHMENT: S.R.I. De~~ign Report on Safety at Torcaso Park. COMMISSION ACTION: City of Winter Springs Torcaso Park Study Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 2. Design Narrative 3. Torcaso Park Area Master Plan 4. Torcaso Park Site Plan 5. Entry Kiosk Concepts . I . SrI 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mission Statement: This study was undertaken to evaluate the planning, design, and safety issues for park development and provide professional opinions for improvements to existing conditions specifically for Torcaso Park as well as for future park development for all parks under the City's Park Rehabilitation Program. The key issues we wer~: asked to evaluate for Torcaso Park are as follows: 1. Would we redesign the existing park layout and or the proposed improvements based on our perspective of professional park planning principles? 2. Would development of the vacant parcel on 1st Street, labeled parcel d on the attached master plan, be an asset to the park? 3. What can the City do to provide additional safety within their community parks and recreation facilities, especially for those containing, or are near, bodies of water? 4. What can the City do to provide additional safety for their community parks and recreation facilities, especially for children under the age of three? Methodology: The findings and results of this study are the professional opinion of2 registered Architects and 2 Registered Landscape Architects who visited the park, observed existing conditions, reviewed the requested improvements found in the community survey, and reviewed the City's proposed improvements. As a point of clarification our opinions represent those of the design profession, and mayor may not reflect the opinions of legal, insurance, and / or risk management professionals, which the City would be well advised to consult. It should also be noted that the attached Torcaso Park Master Plan drawing is not an accurate or detailed survey document, but :rather a graphic representation of existing conditions created from an interpretation of various maps and aerial photographs. Conclusions: Comment: 1. In !Jur opinion the existing Torcaso Park: design including the intended additional improvements are well done and we do not recommend any significant modifications. 2. In !Jur opinion development of the vacant parcel on 1 st street to contain park activities would not be an asset to Torcasso Park but may in fact have a ne~tive impact by encouraging children to cross the street between the two sites. Th~ parcel in question can certainly contain some play apparatus or park type activity but we would recommend it be enclosed and only accessible to the immediate residents to the south and not connected to, or associated with, Torcaso Park. If this site were so developed the questions which the City must face are: a) are we encouraging a potentially dangerous mix of pedestrian and vehicular traffic by having two play areas so close to each other (children moving back and forth) b) are we duplicating facilities and risking criticism for unequal expenditure of City Park and Recreation Funds c) if the site is restricted to usage by local residents to the south, to discourage other children from crossing the street to the north, are we then creating a precedence whereby all residential communities will require their own "mini self contained parks" 3. In tOur opinion the City is providing an asset to the community through the development of water features in its Parks. To make a good faith effort to promote their safe use we suggest a combination of low vegetation, which discourages access to the water's edge and written precautionary warnings stating that usage of the park by young children without responsible adult supervision is strictly prohibited. 4. Th~re is a certain amount of risk inherent in all parks and although the risk can be reduced through good design and reasonable regulation it cannot be fully eliminated Parks, regardless of their design, are not intended to be occupied by young children wilhout responsible adult supervision. Therefore, we are not aware of any open access community parks that we would suggest are safe for unsupervised children Although the following may seem common sense and not necessary, it might be an excellent idea as a community awareness advisory to put out a pamphlet which relays a very simple but important message: The City of Winter Springs is pleased to provide its citizens with numerous improvements to its Parks and Recreation Services and wants to make Sllre that the community understands that the parks are designed to serve a wide variety of users and age groups, and asks that you help in observing all park rules to help protect the safety of everyone especially our little ones who need responsible adult supervi:sion. 2 DESIGN NAU.RATIVE ISSUE 1: Would we redesign the existing park layout and or the proposed improvements based on our perspective of professional park planning principles? EVALUATION: In our opinion baving reviewed the community interest survey, visited the park, and reviewed the preliminary master plan prepared by a previous consultant, we believe the existing layout and list of improvements to be made to the park was well done. We believe that although there may be a few minor things we may have designed differently the existing plan responds well to this community and the layout is sensitive to family concerns regarding safety by virtue of allowing the responsible parent or supervising adult to easily monitor the entire site as their children take advantage of the various activities. It is .our intention to build upon the existing master plan by not only completing the previously scheduled improvements which include restrooms, pavilions, tot lot, fishing pieni, picnic areas, and sidewalks, but also to add final details to continue to enhance the park such as landscaping, parking, signage, and lighting. ISSUE 2: WOldd development of the vacant parcel on ]SI Street, labeled parcel d on the attached maSi~er plan, be an asset to the park? EVALUATION: It is generally very difficult to suggest to a municipality and especially the City of Winter Springs who has made a major commitment to enhance it's parks and recreation services to the community, that a parcel of land which is already owned by the City is not an appropriate site for this kind of activity. However in our professional opinion this parcel falls into that category and it is our recommendation not to develop it as a park, for several reasons. The first reason is that the existing 5.5 acre Torcaso Park site has ample room to house all of t:~e activities currently planned for this community and the vacant parcel in question contains less than % of an acre of land which is too small to provide any sport field ISSUE 3: activity and any smaller playground activity which the existing park site already contains would be an unnecessary duplication of activities and an inappropriate use of park impmvement funds. The second reason, and probably the more compelling reason, is that locating any activity on th:is site has the potential of creating an unsafe condition especially for younger users. It is a high probability that the majority of park users will primarily use the existing site because of the assets it has both in terms of existing play amenities as well as its simple attral;tion to the water feature. Thw;, if activities were located on the smaller vacant parcel of land you will be asking user:) to cross one and possibly two streets to reach said activity from the main park area and mixing pedestrian traffic with vehicular traffic is a dangerous situation which should be avoided at all cost. What can the City do to provide additional safety within their community parks and recreation facilities, especially for those containing, or are near, bodies of water? EVALUATION: Water, to most living creatures, is a natural environmental feature that has a natural attraction especially for humans to explore, play in, and/or simply sit by, in, or on and enjoy it's tranquillity. Is the presence of water a risk?...................... Yes it is, however it is no more ofa risk than with any of the other natural features of the earth like wind and fire, they only be:come a risk when not properly used. Do we design water features in our park and recreation projects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes we do, however they are designed to either be interactive and played with, or non-interactive and simply to be admired. Can you control the use and minimize the risk? Yes you can, swimming pools and water apparatus features which are intended for interactive use are generally best controlled with trained professional supervision and/or written required s,afety rules with strict prohibition of use without adult or parental supervision. Natural or non interactive water features such as retention ponds, lakes, or streams are more difficult to control because trained professional supervision is generally not provided and rightly so since you cannot possibly watch every pond, lake, ocean, creek, stream, or river we have in our Central Florida Communities. Control and minimization of risk for these water features can only be reasonably handled through awareness (written precautionary signage), common sense (parental or adult precautionary teaching), and/or physical barriers preventing access. Precautionary signage and teaching are self explanatory, physical barriers are far more difficult to accomplish. You can construct fences or walls to discourage access, but we find that this is typically not a feasible solution because it is either cost prohibitive or diminishes the visual quality of the water feature to the point that the feature is no longer an amenity. In addition, fences and walls are seldom successful because they often become an attraction for certain age groups that seek the challenge of getting to the other side. ISSUE 4: One possible barrier design to discourage access to non-interactive water features is the appropriate use of plant material. Littoral zone plantings in the water along the bank and heavy plantings of ornamental grasses and ground covers on the bank near the water's edge tend to restrict easy access to the water. In th(: case of the recent drowning tragedy at Torcaso Park it is difficult to say whether dens(i ground cover plantings would have discouraged the youngster from approaching the water, or not. One thing that can be said is that to the best of our knowledge no one designs any water features in any parks that are intended for use by a youngster without the supervision of a responsible adult. Whait can the City do to provide additional safety for their community parks and recreation facilities, especially for children under the age of three? EVALUATION: Safety is one of the primary concerns of all professional consultants as they design facilities for public use and we constantly look for examples of both good design as well as bad to make sure our design solutions are done in a manner that minimizes the risks of accident or injury. From a Governmental Agency's point of view the answer is far more difficult. In many cases the very services that your community demands present numerous opportunities for accidents to occur just by the shear number of people using those services. In our opinion if you follow good faith efforts to request that your designers integrate every option available to them to promote safety in their design solutions, and you make the community users aware of the potential risks involved in their voluntary use ofa facility, than you can feel comfortable and proud that you have provided an asset to your community that the vast majority of the citizens can enjoy the use of with minimal risk to their life safety. Spe:eifically as it relates to the safety of children under the age of three you can really only successfully accomplish two things in protecting their safety. The first is providing a saUl environment specifically designed to entertain their age group and secondly by virtue of ~,ignage providing serious precautionary language that states the existence of danger to young children and their presence without adult supervision is strictly prohibited. We: feel compelled to repeat a statement used above in issue no. 3 which is, that in any facility design whether it is an indoor or outdoor environment, the facility is never intcmded to be used by youngsters without the supervision of a responsible adult. . SrI , , a Torcaso Park (5.5 ac) b Police Dept (28 ac) C Sunshine Park (10 ac) d Vacant Lot (0.7 ac) e Public Works (0.75 ac) f Fire Station (1.4 ac) 9 Nature Walk Park Connector ~. : ~ MASTER PLAN SCALE I' = 40' . srI ST4RMER RAIWllI PUN1IING AI<D ARCHmCTURE INC. 8W NORmERN WAY sum [-I IINTEIl Si'IUNGS. noRlO. 327D8 PH 407 077 Hl8G n 407 m 1019 SEAL CONSULTANT REVISIONS (f) <!J z a::~z 0..0:<( (f)<(.-J Q. ..,a:: Q. "'Wo ~..... a: ~z(/)w ~-<(~ 3:()(/) u..0:<( oo~ -I-- ",...... ..... - <..) DATA DATE: 7 MAY 88 -ID'SlGN, ""'" DRAU'N: as CHECKED: W8 CADD nLE: TORCASO-MP SCALf;, I"l2O' PROJECT NUMBER 98004 DRAWING NUMBER MP-1 ffl'!E&fATJatJ ~~ \ NORTH SITE PLAN SCALE I' 40' lEGEN~ a NEW ENTRY SIGNAGE b NEW PARI< SIGNAGE C NEW ENTRY LANDSCAPING d NEW PARI< LANDSCAPING ; e EXTEND ROAD PAVEMENT f NEW PAvED PARKING 9 NEW 8' CONCRETE WALKWAY h NEW 4' CONCRETE WALKWAY i NEW RESTROOMS j NEW PAVIl,.L10N TYPE PI k NEW PAvlLLlON TYPE P4 m NEW TOT LOT TYPE TI n NEW FISHING PIER TYPE FPI P NEW PICNIC AREA q NEW CONCRETE SITTING COURT r NEW AQUAilC vEGETATION (b~ oUJner) S NEW WATER FEATURE (b::J oUJner) t EXISTING PLAY COURTS U EXISTING PLAY GROUND * NEW WALKWAY LIGHTING TYPE LI , I " NEW POLE. L1GI-lT ING TYPE LI . srI STARlIlR RANAJ.D1 PIANNINC .u<D AIlCIlmCrlJJlE INC. 890 NOR'JBlRN . A Y S1JITl: 1:-1 IlNIDl SPRIIICS. fI.OI!JlM moo PH 407 977 J080 FX 407 f17'1 HUO SEAL CONSULTANT REVISIONS &9.1 &9.1 IIIl9.S IIIl9.S au ~ ~~ ,: ~ ~ i ~ B ~ ~~cn o~ 5 DATA DATE' 19-'1II D~S1r.N: WIIS ORA"": WI!l CHECKED: _ CADD FIL2: KEASD SCALE: S_ PROJECT NUMBER - DRAIflNG NUMBER SP-l PRIIIARY ENTRY KIOSK a ! i ~ scheme PfI~Y ENTRY KIOSK SECONDARY ENTRY KIOSK PRIMARY ENTRY KIOSK d scheme SECOMDARY ENTRY KIOSK PRlllARY ENTRY IUOSIt PRIllARY ENTRY KIOSK PRIMARY ENTRY KIOSK b scheme SECONDARY ENTRY KIOSK SECONDARY ENTRY KIOSK ...... ... ~r~ PRIMARY ENTRY KIOSK PRIMARY ENTRY KIOSK 8cheme e scheme SI!COMDARY ENTRY KIOSK SECONDARY ENTRY KIOSK f . srI -- ~-_._--' ----.. --.-- .--- . --- ...... PRIIIARY EHTRY KIOSK c CCMIlul.t.AH.r 8cheme p."tt:. '.l'UT'lIt ~~ ....... ~o. C.t.C:)I":U!, ~r;, ... co en e ~ z - a: en a. en co 0 I- a: - a. ~III ~ III G P- U ;z - > Z . 0 IL a:: U 0 I- ~ Z I- - III () ~ClI'oU"'SOl. 87004 -......... K-1 !..-