Loading...
120588pkaCITY OF SHOREWOOD JOINT PARR COMMISSION /COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1988 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 PM 0 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. SNOWMOBILE REVIEW 2. FREEMAN PARR 3. MANOR PARR WARMING HOUSE /PAVILION 4. REQUEST FOR SATURDAY MORNING ICE TIME - MHA 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. REPORTS RASCOP HAUGEN STOVER GAGNE BRANCEL VOGEL LABEREE LINDSTROM JAKEL CHRISTENSEN ANDRUS WEATHERLY 7. ADJOURNMENT FREEMAN PARK • Even if we accept the "as built" vs "plan" construction: o Parking /South Ballfield buffer gone. o 2.4ft. high Southwest elevation. o North Ballfield moved 20ft. to the North. o Very high East elevation (this is where excess fill is placed) we are left with the three problems of: rocks, undulations and grading. Most conversation is about the rocks... probably because this is the easiest problem to solve. Typically the size of a foot or fist, but going all the way up to some large chunks of asphalt, there is perhaps a dumptruck full of rocks littering the entire graded area. But, there is enough money in the contractors hold -back to pay someone to pick them and the softball league might be willing to pick and rake the field on a volunteer basis. Disturbing is the news that because of freezing /thawing and settling, rocks may continue to surface for years -to -come. We are told that this the best we can expect considering the material there was to work with. Undulations ocurred because the field appears not to have been dragged after it was disked. Or, perhaps, the furrows were caused by the seeding machine. In any case, the field surface looks like a lake with waves 2 to 3 inches high and spaced the width of the machine. • Grading itself is the final problem. The Engineer readily agrees that this is not a final "fine" grade. Basically, there are three problems: o . Grade changes of several inches over a short distance. o Placement of the North field causes the outfield fence to go over the bank. Standing at the outfield fence, the infield is (for me) at chest level. A Co- President of the softball league estimates that the last few feet will have to be raised 3- 1 /2ft. o The infield and outfield grades do not match. (There has been some corrective action taken.) Both Co- Presidents of the softball league say that the fields are not usable. The Engineer readily agrees. The Engineer maintains that he never considered this to be a finished grade ... that finishing, to him, includes fences, backstops, dugouts, etc. and that what we have here is a field ready for finishing. The grass seeding was to prevent erosion. Freeman Park p.2 • The Park Commission and, I believe, the City Council thought we were getting a finished park... needing only backstops and fencing to play ball. What to do? The Engineer says we have almost $2,000 left ... we could buy some black dirt. I think we have a larger problem: o re- grading and rock - picking o 40 loads of dirt (10 Black/field x 3 fields plus 10 loads fill for North) o fine grading o re- seeding o new contract... bidding, specifications. o associated Engineering and Surveying o Should the parking lot be moved to provide the So. Ballfield buffer? o Fill never did get placed in the North -East corner ... and that was the reason for getting fill in the first place. We are told that the reason fill was not placed there is that the drawings call for potential /future... so if in the future we want this potential we need more fill. Also, there was concern about disturbing the walking path (that doesn't exist). • PARK COMMISSION ACTIONS Park Commission expectations are well documented in memoranda and minutes. Excerpts follow for convenience: o 03/16/87 memo -The amount of fill (from Shorewood Oaks) not to exceed the amount allowed for in the grading plan. -Don or Norton to stake out the dumping area. - Norton suggested a requirement that the dirt be leveled. o 04/06/87 minutes -Only topsoil to be in the final grade. - Engineer to inspect fill. -No debris, roots, stumps. -All fill to be leveled. Freeman Park P.3 o 05/20/87 minutes - Restated all points of 04/06/87 motion. -Asked to be advised if any problems arise. 0 06/01/87 minutes -Noted that dumping began on South side not NE corner. -Clay loads mixed with black dirt. Would this create a problem? - Stumps, large branches and roots mixed with fill - will cleaning these out be more park expense? -A motion passed that the minutes of April 6 and 20 be reviewed and also reviewed with the contractor. We wanted a written statement regarding negotions with the contractor. We stated: "Commissioners also wish to express extreme dissatisfaction regarding the fact that their requested recommendations were totally disregarded." Reaction to our statement of dissatisfaction was that ... we were looking at a partially finished project and that,when finished ... it would be fine. o 07/06/87 minutes -More fill is being hauled. Dump in NE corner. -Two thousand --:x hundred truckloads required by plan? is 0 01/04/88 minutes -OSDA Engineers Norton and Osmusson are present. - "Fine" grading is specifically referenced in the minutes. PROJECT STATUS AS OF JAN. 1988 As of 01/04/88 we have: • Plan • Specification • Bubble chart delineating responsibility and chain -of- command • Multiple bids (lowest of which is $11,405 over Engineer's estimate) The Park Commission is now paying full market rates (to correct a grading problem that should never have occurred). Freeman Park p.4 S BACK TO THE BEGINNING The shame in all this is not the $73,312 spent. It is that: o The $73,312 represents a major portion of all the money we had. o Another year is lost. o If we pay what I think it will cost to fix the problem... the Park Commission will have zero money for anything. The Engineer tells us that the contractors performed as instructed and should be (and were) paid. The owners representative tells us that in a multifaceted project like this it is hard to fix blame. Someone said that it's probably just a communications problem. But I don't see how it can be a communications problem. How could we have been more clear? The minutes are precise. Engineers attended our meetings. The Bubble Chart defines responsibilities. There is a plan and a specification. We voiced our concerns at the beginning, midway and end of the project: 6 • Beginning: Reiterated on 4/20/87 the points of 4//87. • Midway: Extreme dissatisfaction; 6/1/87. • End: Discovered that the South Ballfield was incorrectly • measured and pointed this out in time for correction. Where do we go from here? Why is the "as built" different from the "plan "? What is our leverage? Who pays? The Engineer is supposed to make recommendations. Chapter 12 Sports Facilities Sports Facilities John M. Roberts Landscape Architect Department of Landscape Architecture Iowa State University The general concern of this chapter is with the plan- ning of sports facilities and the environment in which competitive games are played. A sports facility is to be considered an exterior space specifically planned and artifically constructed for one's enjoyment and recreation through active individual or team play. Further refinement of a game's definition might include a prerequisite for physical and mental effort, traditions, rules, penalties, a scoring system, and degrees of competitiveness. The chapter's general emphasis will be placed upon those physical conditions which affect the experience and enjoyment of play. Specifically, the text will deal with the player's relationship to solar light, the sur- faces upon which the game is played, physical dimen- sions of the competition area, the artificial game area related to existing topography, facility standards, spe- cific construction information, and specific sports. Scope of the Physical Area Area Space Standards Physical Facilities Facilities Surfaces Surface Materials A. Concrete B. Cork C. Cottonseed Hulls D. Asphaltic Concrete E. Cinders G. Decomposed Granite F. Clay H. Natural and Synthetic Turf Orientation A. Solar Orientation B. Reflectivity C. The Game D. The Nature of Sunlight F. Latitude and Sunshine F. Longitude and Time G. Solar Altitude and Azimuth Diagrams Surface Drainage Recommended Gradients Golf Course Design/ Construction A. Spatial Criteria H. The Tee B. Circulation 1. Green Shape/ C. Course Layout Orientation & Circulation D. Length J. Drainage E. Sequence K. Green Design F. The Fairway L. Drawings G. Hazards Trail Design A. Gradients B. Horizontal Radius C. Separation D. Rights of Way E. Surfacing F. Signing Conversion Chart — Meters /Feet List of Groups Concerned with Sports Facilities Bibliography & References Scope of the Physical Area It is not too difficult for us to remember when our games often evolved only from a desire to play, and 399 Recommended Gradients Gradient Play Area 1'/2.2% cross slope Archery 1 % along length Turf Aerial Darts same as tennis • Badminton 1.25 -1.5% Concrete 1.5% Asphalt 1.5% Clay Grasstex* or equal 8 - 1 % Synthetic turf �fk�d Mir+) • � t} .. - S016OW lud =Ay. /d qld ! Battin�"ame3 �s11tG Bocci 1I _ Basketball 1 -1.5% Concrete 1.25 -1.5% Asphalt Grasstex; or equal 0.8-1% Bicycle 0 -3% Little effort 8% Medium effort 20% Walk bike Bowling (lawn) 0 -0.25% Turf Levet Curling Croquet Sand, clay, or equal 0-.25% same as tennis Deck Tennis same as football Field Hockey Ff3otl I Turf Synthetic turf .5- 1% level Fencing 0.5-1% Handball Court Hoseshoe (longitudinal ridge level) 1.5 2% to sides same as football Lacrosse Paddle Tennis same as tennis ' Quoits level same as tennis' Quoitennis Roller Skating - recreational pitch to side 1- 1.25% Linear straight -a -way, concrete bank 2 -4 Curves Running Track - straight -a -way 1 -2% to sub -drain - Cinder - sub -grade 0-.25% to curb Cinder - surface 0.5 -1 % to drain Clay or soil - surface 0,5.0,8% to drain Grasstex' or equal - - Running Track - straight with circular ends 1 1 /2 -2% to sub -drain Cinder -sub -grade 0% straight - a -way Cinder - surface .3' to 1.0' superelevation Clay or soil - surface .5 -.8% to curb .3' to 1.0' superelevation Grasstex' or equal .5 -.8% to curb .3' to 1.0' superelevation. Shuffleboard level 11/2 -2% Skeetshoot - general area same as football Soccer p 1 Speedball same as football Tennis Courts 0.5 -1.0% cross slope Concrete � 0.4 -.5% end to end Asphalt - rolled on base 1.0 0.9 -1.0% Clay 8 Grass Grasstexl' or equal 0.5 -.8% Synthetic turf 0.5 -.8% 1-2% from pole Tetherball Trackfield Brents Shot putt -turf area 1% axial crown Hammer throw -turf area same Javelin -turf area same essentially level High jump Long jump essentially level Pole vault • essentially level Note: maximum gradient on tracks, runways, circles, and landing areas for throwing events shall not exceed 1% in a lateral direction (except superelevation on curves) and 0.1 % in the running or throwing direction. Trap shoot - general area 11/2 -2% same as badminton Volleyball ' 458 normal time of play. For those who wish to analyze latitudes located between two charts, solar angles may be interpolated. - Surface Drainage Periods of play will depend a great deal upon remov- ing storm water from the surface and subsurface. Figures 56 and 57 use exaggerated contours to indi- cate some typical examples of surface drainage pat- terns. Figure 56 explores alternative baseball drainage patterns and Figure 57 graphically contours regular shaped sports areas. The choice of one drainage pattern will probably depend upon the play area's orientation related to the site's topography, the loca- tions and directions to intercept storm water off the field or court, and the character of the game. For example, Fig. 57 -3 is preferred by some while Fig. 57 -11 is preferred by others (Gabrielsen) for a tennis court. But if off -court conditions precluded such sheet drainage to the lower side, the designer might recom- mend another symetrical pattern Nke Fig. 57 -1 or Fig. 57 -9. In either case the designer should be con - -scious of giving neither player an advantage due to slope, to disrupt the surface plane in such a manner as to effect the bounce of a hit ball, or create a ridge -running counter to the sag of a net. Game courts or turfed areas which do not depend completely upon the accurate bounce or roll of a ball, such as football, volleyball, field hockey, soccer, etc., become somewhat easier to cope with. For example, Fig. 57 -4 is usually selected for football, soccer, and field hockey, while a volleyball court similar to Fig. `57 -1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,10 could be used. An important point with games, such as volleyball, is to consider similar elevations at serving points related to a net. In all cases, gradient change must not occur so suddenly that a player stumbles at any point. Baseball fields produce a very complex study in grade change related to ball bounce, player security, area scale, running and fielding, and player line of sight. Critical areas such as the infield must be fairly flat with a gradual elevation to the pitcher's mound, yet suffi- cient slope must be provided so as to insure surface drainage. Recent introduction of synthetic grass has not completely eliminated the need for drainage al- though lower gradients may be used than necessary for natural turf. The 0111104 of tiiin ltt of rrn * melon to drain water from the outfield but a CWttd pads Y2,,, o 4' tk3n of:tK w.Ow. See.lr, butem4ow Mato, wffl difficulty In following a ground bell out of figs. 56 -1, 2, 4, and 6 would seem more sympthetic to the outfielders' line -of -sight while maintaining a somewhat level infield. Fig. 56 -4 is not symetrical and must be handled with great care because storm water stays on the field over a greater distance and exces- sive gradients will position one fielder quite high and the other quite low. Again, the choice of drainage designs will depend a great deal upon field orientation and where storm water can be intercepted. Golf Course Design /Construction The architecture of golf courses requires mature judg- ment in visual design concepts, technical construction knowledge, and, at the least, a player's view of the game. Whether or not a particular course is judged good or poor becomes a subjective evaluation, yet those courses consistantly receiving applause are beautiful, easily and consistantly maintained, and pro- vide an interesting game of golf. Those who involve themselves in the design, construction, and mainte- nance of a golf course are setting out to develop a very complex and artificial space in which a game is played. The game historically, has evolved from coastal loca- tions which provided natural hazards and challenges to holing -out. The topography was not disturbed, the hole being dug in an existing level area, and sand dunes formed the basic topographic character. From this beginning, the golf course architect has sought to remain sympathetic to golf's original character while -meeting contemporary demands. The modern golf course has increasingly become an artificial space subject to traditions imposed by its birth place, yet prepared to function in a very different and contemporary environment. Golf course architec- ture has not and will probably never remain com- pletely in tune to the form of early courses. Changing player desires, equipment, regional variations, and particularly the economic pressures of construction and maintenance have all combined to produce a dis- tinctly modern game. The following notes seek to sketch a brief outline of golf course construction with theoretical explanations. It is assumed that the reader possesses a background in, physical design, agronomy, grading and drainage principles, landscape architecture, and construction documents, and seeks to understand specific aspects of golf courses. Various publications exist on the sub- ject and their sources appear within the bibliography. Spatial Criteria —The amount of space necessary to construct a golf course varies with the shape of the site and the degree of topographical change. In gen- eral, the rectangular site oriented north /south and with minor topographical change is most efficient. 459 456