Skate Park Final Design Concept and Specification Location Copyright 2014
City of Dubuque Action Items # 3.
ITEM TITLE: Skate Park Final Design Concept and Specification
Location
SUMMARY: City Manager recommending approval of the final design
concept and specification location of Flora Park for the site
of the skate park.
SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File; Approve
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Skate Park Location and Concept Design Approval- City Manager Memo
MVM Memo
Staff Memo Staff Memo
Skate Park Improvements C1 Supporting Documentation
AppendixA Supporting Documentation
Appendix B Supporting Documentation
AppendixC Supporting Documentation
Appendix D Supporting Documentation
Appendix E Supporting Documentation
THE CITY OF Dubuque
DUB E i"
Masterpiece on the Mississippi 2007.2012.2013
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Skate Park Project Location and Concept Design Approval
DATE: February 15, 2017
Leisure Services Manager Marie Ware is transmitting information on the extensive
process to obtain public input on a skate park project location. Input was obtained from
citizens on the City of Dubuque website, and from public meetings held at Five Flags,
Hempstead Senior High School, Comiskey Park, and Irving Elementary School.
Based on the feedback and public input, Flora Park became the top choice for a skate
park. The City's consultant, Pillar Design Studios, also scored Flora Park as their top
choice, with Usha Park second and the Lower Bee Branch location being third.
The Park and Recreation Commission met on February 14, 2017, and unanimously
recommend to the City Council the concept design and specific location at Flora Park.
Leisure Services Manager Marie Ware requests the City Council approve the final
design concept and specification location of Flora Park for the site of the skate park.
The City Council has previously approved $600,000 towards the project. Expenditure of
this money is contingent on the skating community (Kids in Dubuque Skate-KIDS)
raising $200,000. The current goal is to build this project in calendar year 2018.
1 concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council
approval.
Mic ael C. Van Milligen
MCVM:jh
Attachment
cc: Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager
Marie L. Ware, Leisure Services Manager
2
THE CITY OF Dubuque
UBgkE 111-America III
I.
Masterpiece on the Mississippi 2007-2012-2013
TO: Michael C. Van Milligan, City Manager
FROM: Marie L. Ware, Leisure Services Manager
SUBJECT: Skate Park Project Location and Concept Design Approval
DATE: February 14, 2016
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to recommend approval for the skate park project
location and concept design.
BACKGROUND
The City Council established a Council high priority for development of a skate park in
the 2015-2016 Policy Agenda. Funding was established as a part of the budget
process. In the FY16 CIP budget (3502461) a total budget of$800,000 with $200,000
of that to be fundraised by the skate community.
In the fall of 2015, a committee was approved to provide input on the development of an
RFP to select a consultant to gather public input and create a concept plan for the skate
park along with cost estimates. The following served on the committee: Tony Breitbach,
Purchasing Coordinator, Steve Fehsal, Park Division Manager, Brian Feldott,
Recreation Program Supervisor, Wally Wernimont, Assistant Planner, Laura Bies, Kids
in Dubuque Skate (KIDS) and Ben Kahle, Reality Check employee.
The scope of the RFP included evaluation of the City's two current skate parks, public
engagement, conceptual design development, site analysis and determination, capital
and operating costs, fundraising and approvals. On August 17th, 2015, the City Council
approved the selection of Pillar Design Studios as the consultant for the Skate Park
Evaluation and Conceptual Design project for a not to exceed cost of $16,295.
To be able to get as much community engagement as possible, a webpage was created
on the City's website. The link to the website is www.cityofdubugue.org/skatepark. The
webpage was designed to provide updates on the progress as well as collect input for
the skate park. News Flashes on the Leisure Services webpage were used as well as
1
Notify Me, flyers, Facebook and press releases anytime there was a public meeting
scheduled.
On October 1 gth 2015, City staff met with the consultant from Pillar Design Studios for a
kickoff meeting. Staff and the consultant toured the City and the two existing skate
parks at Comiskey Park and Mc Aleece Sports Complex. The consultant also met
some members from community group Kids In Dubuque Skate (KIDS).
Before the first public engagement meeting a Dubuque Skate Park Facebook page was
created. The consultant also prepared an evaluation of the two existing skate parks
(Appendix A).
On November gth, 2015, a public engagement meeting was held by the City and
consultant at the Five Flags Center to gather input for the new skate park. The meeting
was well attended with around 35 attendees most being the skate community but others
being moms, dads and interested community members. The meeting gave the
consultant a chance to discuss what kind of skate park the community wanted as well
as where they might like it located. An online survey was also created for the
community to provide input as far as design and potential location.
At the end of the meeting the attendees were asked to place a smiley face where they
would like to see a skate park built (Appendix A). Most were placed on Flora Park but
other locations included the Lower Bee Branch, Veteran's Memorial Park and Usha
Park. Additional feedback indicated other locations such as Comiskey Park and Allison
Henderson Park.
A second public engagement meeting was held by the City and consultant the Five
Flags center on December 15th, 2015. This meeting was well attended with around 30
attendees, most being the skate community. The consultant provided two conceptual
designs (Appendix A). The consultant and the attendees discussed the pros and cons
of both concepts in depth through a 3-D model computer generated program.
Following the December public input meetings, City staff met in January 2016 to discuss
the possible locations for the skate park. It was decided that based on the community
input and other factors, the three potential locations for a skate park would be the Lower
Bee Branch near 15th and Pine Streets, Usha Park and Flora Park. Veteran's Memorial
Park was not considered due to the proposed Miracle League Field. Comiskey Park is
to be master planned and Allison Henderson Park did not have the parking capacity to
support a skate park.
In March of 2016, public information meetings were scheduled for the three locations
identified as possible locations for a skate park. Press releases were created, social
media was used and letters were sent to neighboring properties and homeowners
around the specific location. A digital online input form was also created for those
community members who might not be able to attend the meetings.
Dan Kroger, Recreation Division Manager and Steve Fehsal, Park Division Manager
hosted all three meetings. At each meeting a short summary of the project was given
2
and then input was collected on a pros and cons basis. The information from each
meeting was then compiled in a spreadsheet (Appendix B).
There were also 17 digital online input forms collected for all three of the locations. This
information was compiled in a separate spreadsheet (Appendix B).
Usha Park was the first public input meeting which was held at Hempstead Senior High
School on March 8th, 2016. There were 23 attendees with most being the skate
community and 1 being an employee from Dupaco. Approximately 170 letters were
mailed to surrounding businesses and homeowners.
The Lower Bee Branch location was the second public input meeting which was held at
Comiskey Park on March 16th, 2016. There were 25 attendees with most being the
skate community and 3 being community members. Approximately 100 letters were
mailed to surrounding businesses and homeowners.
The Flora Park location was the third public input meeting which was held at Irving
Elementary School on March 24h, 2016. There were 55 attendees and was evenly split
between the skate community and interested community members. Approximately 250
letters were mailed to surrounding businesses and homeowners. Flora Park was
unique in that there were 5 potential areas within the park where a skate park could be
built. Each of these areas were discussed individually during the meeting (Appendix B).
Location number#5 and location #2 were chosen as the top 2 sites.
The consultant prepared a site selection and feasibility study regarding the 3 specific
locations (Appendix B). The report is based on skate industry standard criteria and
information gathered in the first two public input meetings held in November and
December of 2015 regarding location and concept design. It also included the feedback
from the three public input meetings.
Based on the feedback and public input, Flora Park became the top choice for a skate
park. The consultant also scored Flora Park as their top choice using their scoring
matrix. Usha Park was second, with the Lower Bee Branch location being third.
Leisure Services staff felt that more community input was needed for the top 2 locations
within Flora Park since the location was generally described as Flora Park. Staff also
felt it was important for the consultant to review the specific locations based on
conceptual drawings and potential related costs for each location. The consultant
returned to assess those 2 locations within Flora Park on JUly 5th 2016 and prepared an
additional report (Appendix C).
Input was also gathered from the KIDS community group. They agreed that Flora Park
was the best location for the skate park and provided feedback related to the top 2
potential areas within the park to build the skate park (Appendix C).
A public input meeting was held on August 31 st, 2016 at Irving Elementary School to
collect input related to the top 2 locations (Appendix C). Letters were once again sent
3
to neighboring properties and homeowners around Flora Park. Press releases, a news
flash on the Leisure Services web page and Notify Me notifications were sent out and
social media was used. A digital online input form was also created for those
community members who might not be able to attend the meeting.
At this meeting, there were 27 attendees with most being the skate community, 4
neighbors to Flora Park, a TH representative and a Council Member. The locations
were discussed specifically. At the end of the discussion, each person present was
given a ticket to secretly vote for their chosen location. The location chosen was option
B with no one voting for option A.
There were also 16 digital online input forms collected. This information was compiled
in a separate spreadsheet (Appendix C).
The final 2 locations at Flora Park were visited by the Park and Recreation Commission
on September 29th, 2016 during their annual facilities tour. Advocates from the KIDS
community group were also resent at the park to provide additional input related to the
two sites. At the October 11 t Park and Recreation Commission meeting it was
unanimously recommended by the commission to approve the option B location in Flora
Park.
Geotechnical work was completed in December of 2016 and survey work was
completed in January of 2016 at the approved location for the consultant to provide an
accurate final concept design and cost estimates. A final concept design has been
prepared to specifically fit the location designated at the Commission meeting.
(Appendix D).
DISCUSSION
It has been a long process to get to the recommended final location and design of the
skate park. This is because of the extensive community engagement in determining the
location. Staff collected as much community engagement and input as possible with a
total of six public input meetings. All the meetings were well advertised through several
different outlets and online input feedback forms created for those who were not able to
attend the meetings.
The consultant has provided detailed reports regarding evaluation of the existing skate
parks and potential site locations for the new skate park. The consultant has been
actively working with the KIDS group during the design process. The consultant is also
assisting the KIDS group with fundraising ideas and strategies.
The KIDS group and skate community have been very active in participation and
engagement during the entire process. A summary of their actions since the skate park
was built at McAleece Recreation Complex is attached (Appendix E). This summary is
provided by KIDS to the Council. They are poised and ready to amp up their
fundraising efforts once the location and design are approved by the City Council. KIDS
currently has raised about $17,500.
4
Budget Director Jenny Larson shared that the skate park construction funds are to be
bonded and the timing of that bonding is March of 2018. This timing will allow for the
KIDS group to work on fundraising. It also means that the next step in the process is to
create an RFP for construction and design documents for the skatepark. This can be
done during the same time that the KIDS group is fundraising and could allow for
bidding to happen late winter of 2017.
The Park and Recreation Commission at their February 14, 2017 meeting reviewed all
the documents and unanimously made its final recommendation to the city council of
the concept design and specific location in Flora Park.
RECOMMENDATION
I respectfully request City Council approval of the final design concept and specific
location of Flora Park for the site of the skate park.
Prepared by Steve Fehsal, Park Division Manager
5
DEPARTMENT: STATE PROGRAM: PROJECT TITLE: PROGRAM: 4C TOTAL
Leisure Services/ Culture&Recreation Skate Park Improvements DEPARTMENT: 30 PROJECT
Park Division FDICIP NO: 350-2461 COST
$ 870,000
EXP PRIOR ESTIMATED BEYOND
TO FY 14 FY 14 PROJECT BUDGET 2014.15 2015.16 2016.17 2017.18 2018.19 2019
A. EXPENDITURE ITEMS
$ 70,000 Design&Engineering
Construction $ 800,000
$ - $ 70,000 TOTAL $ 800,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
B. PROJECT FINANCING
$ 70,000 General Fund
GO Borrowing $ 600,000 !
$ Private Participant $ 200,000
$ - $ 70,000 TOTAL $ 800,000 $ - $ - $
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project provides for the design and planning services for skate park improvements and additions for the city.
JUSTIFICATION
Skateboarding continues to be a very popular activity. The current skate parks at McAleece(opened in 2000)and Comiskey(opened in 2005)do not serve the
Increasing needs and changing desires of skateboarders. The planning would look at locations appropriate for concrete as the preferred outdoor skating surface. The
project is needed to meet demand. It will also consider locations in the central or west side of the city that is not well served by our two current locations,while
enhancements to existing locations are a possibility. The last two years many skateboarders have been using Allison-Henderson Park and in-line skating rink due to the
lack of facilities. Issuing GO del abated by TIF limits the location options to the downtown,but will be considered.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROJECTS
This project implements the Comprehensive Plan's Infrastructure Goal Ten: To provide, maintain,and improve City-owned buildings, structures,facilities, and properties;
objective 10.1)Support maintaining and improving the energy efficiency and aesthetic qualities of City-owned buildings, structures, facilities, and properties.
This project also implements the Comprehensive Plan's Recreation Goal One: To provide a safe park and recreation system that continues to meet the community's
needs for useable and accessible park and open space;objective 1.1)Continue to strive to improve the existing high-quality, safe park and recreation system and Goal
Seven:To enhance the visual attractiveness of the community and park system;objective 7.1)Support maintaining and enhancing all park areas in a manner that fosters
community pride in the park system.
RELATIONSHIP TO SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES
This project implements the Sustainable Principle of Community Design.
1
DATE: 10/21/15
PROJECT NAME:DUBUQUE,IA PROJECT#: 15-009
SKATEPARK EVALUATION
We conducted an onsite investigation of the two existing Skateparks on October 19`h,2015,The Skateparks
in review are Comiskey and located at 255 East 24th Street.and McAleece Sports Complex located at 1801
Admiral Sheehy Drive.
-
_
T
i
COMISKEY SKATEPARK MCALEECE SPORTS COMPLEX
Upon initial review both existing Skateparks appear to be in good condition,well maintained and meet
current safety standards.They are located within large park facilities,receiving continued use and serving
the Dubuque residents as intended. Based on the above information,we foresee three options:
Option#1—Leave both parks as is.They are in good shape,well maintained and functional.At this time
they are serving the purpose they intended,offering the community members a safe and legal place to
Skate.
Option#2—There is some room for improvement in regards to flow and skate-ability.B removing a few
P P g Y Y g
of the existing elements and adding a few poured-in-place concrete elements,we are able to transform the
design and ultimately the skate-ability of the Skatepark.
Cost: $20,000 for Comiskey $40,000 for McAlleece Sports Complex
Option#3—Update and upgrade,remove all existing elements at both Skateparks.By designing and
construction new poured-in-place Skatepark(s)we not only reduce if not eliminate maintenance cost but
also offer better functionality,flow and skate-ability to the overall park.
Cost: $100,000 for Comiskey $200,000 for McAlleece Sports Complex
In conclusion though the current Skateparks are a bit out dated,they serve the intended purpose and offer a
safe and legal place to Skate.With the addition of a larger,regional park the existing parks will serve as
more of a neighborhood park,providing options to the local users.Whichever option the City would like to
move forward with we can provide direction,estimated cost and assistance.For further questions regarding
our analysis please contact me directly at 480.285.6787 or brad Ldpillardesignstudios.com. u
Sincerely,
Brad Siedlecki,President
I
II
Tempe,Arizona PHONE 888.880.5112
Chicago,IL FAX 888.841.2569
WEB srrE www.r)illardesignstudios.Com
I
I
`; '' ,,. may: ;. j., r ,, ., „q,„ 's --.• -- , 'r, ;� s�+».�:: ;y,r .{, �,
8 �
8, T
J
ry� A
Y
H.
q�.,,•
B _ r
2
•��, �i .ygiq �N .. s � y tl t. k �� Y
I lK
ow
�$ _. y � iei_ ,,,'eFx�ery.
^ a ... '� a ..,.,. a. S Air ".Y A
�-s•• 'moi
Si
AIL
m
8 ,
s � W
WIMP
At
p
fp.::. dd L99L N u loll,
IL
- '� '' �sP' �se; ,_...,:.:,,�'a e)ww, '�K4 �r,��. ,�' g =^.,,,._ yw •� T r .,r' .ce' � ��
d5 d �e
�°A N ,... �5... � & t b v amu•.: � � ,,w.� t fi =� _. �
- t
1
� s
-
1
T
a�
s
}
5
-
l \r
�l
i � u
h'1"
CITY OF DUSUQ UE, LEISURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SKATE PARK PUBL[C INPUT MEETING G'OMMENTS
USHA PARK(3/YO/16)/LOWER BEE BRANCH (3/16/]6)/ FLORA PARK(3/23/1bj
PARK WEIAT ARE THE PROS OF THIS LOCATIONS WHAT ARE THE CONS OF TIHS LOCATION?
USHA PARK _
✓ Wide open spat¢ ✓ Lack of amenities (parking/restrooms)
✓ Separate side of town (from existing) ✓ Not centrally located
✓ Close to youth (more schools) ✓ No shad¢
✓ On hus route ✓ Windy
✓ Safer ✓ No lights
✓ Near bike trail ✓ Safety (traffic)
✓ Visible ✓ Not room to expand
✓ Close to gas station(food/drink) ✓ Not easy to walk bike
✓ 2esidential on two(2) sides ✓ Not all$ >oin to stricture
LOWER BEE BRANCH
✓ Infrastmcture in plat¢ �/ Doesn't fix current location
✓ Not as racideruial ✓ Close to correctional facihty
✓ Up and coming future ✓ Eailmad[racks
✓ Far from west end/not centre]
✓ No shade
✓ No[close to food water
✓ Small space
✓ Dra rase
✓ Lack of other arnenities
✓ Potential for vandalis.n
✓ 16"'Street traffic
✓ On of construction
FLORA PARK
✓ Adds to varicly of activiGex l'or Lids ✓ Currently overloaded
✓ Accom.nndations available ✓ Cbse to residents
✓ Central location ✓ Noise level
✓ On bus route ✓ F.nss of greenspace
✓ Several schools within 1 toile radius �/ Tmffc paaems
✓ Lighting ✓ User demographic may charzge
✓ Cbse to c nience stores ✓ Poic3rtial added mai.»enance
✓ Tmftic flow and arkin ✓ Parkin by Flillcrest Famil Services
- �/ Shade �/ Bothering families having parties in park
✓ Saf ✓ Decrease prnpeaty value
CITY OF DUBUQUE LEISURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ONLINE SKATE PARK INPUT FORM SUM MARV
LOWER BEE BRANCH/ FLORA PARK/ USHA PARK
MARCH.2016
YARK WHAT ARE THE PROS OF THIS LOCATION? WHAT ARE THE CONS OF THIS LOCATION?
LOWER BEE BRAiVC6(1)
Crntml location;better part of town;rc-idents in arra wilt Incl No Cily money at all to fuaul this losing proposition.
safe.
FLORA PARK I2
My grandma lives by it so it would be most convenient£or 1 can't think of any.
Also,the pool is by it so on a hot daY.the pool maY get nxoree
business.
Central llubuque. Lots of activity in the arca during warm Not a bt of room to build w:thnui rcrnoving certain
swsons.safe ori hborhood, structures_
It will bong more altmdion oI people and accessibility is key The question is will it b¢big enough?
in this location silrcc it is in[Ire middle of uptown and
downtown Dubu<ue-
Centndly localrxl,there is natural shade,bativoom facilities and I thank the biggest con is also the tete-s. Them was talk at
drinking founndars. The a lot of green spat, r lh¢V R previous n eet:ngs that w may have to remove trees to put
ourts. 1 know Ihrrc are now RR Via ods n that par[of the :n tlxe park. 1 tltink with the location that l dcscrilxd within
park,bul itrry are under maintained and wrdcr-utilized. 1 the park,you would br able fu m- - 9ve lbe a nt of
believe[hat would be a perfect locaeion f r a park of This s -- trees That need taken out. We re also told drat they will
We have other AR diamonds ti.at are well taken care of so,you b¢removing some due to the Emerald Ash Rorer. 1 think
could move games thcrc. Since there arc[tors already there, the people rranuving the lues need to be involved in
w¢will be able to spend minimal budget on landscaping and ddcnn:ning the correct location at the same time as they go
have uwzi.xwm otential for the F tures in our skate rk. to r¢anove the trees.
Cenitxl location,parking,restmoms. New use for a nice park. Unwelr.xtming neighbors
PARK WHAT ARE THE PROS OF'PItIS LOCATION? WHAT ARE THE CONS OF THIS LOCATION?
FLORA PARK troatrn...a>
I don't think Eaer¢are any. 1 am not in Favor oYa skate park. "Chert arc too many activities in Flora Park now such as
Our Oi[y is too far in debt io have to maintain a facility like chis swimming,Irorscshoe, tennis,baseball,pickle ball,rte.
dtal would not bee joyed by anvty- Who is going to supervise the people using this facility as
them might b¢a wide differetrce in ages? Seems like a
gond plan¢E r drugs,etc.,to 1>e present if there is no
supervision- Plora Park also has picnic facilities so it is a
fancily-oriented pazk which docs not need a bunch of
teenagers banging out thane_
Ovcm11, I Think the skate pmk will work much better as pmY oC None,but obviously the park cau't be close to everyone.
a bigger park with other attractions- "l'he facilities will already Flora is on the bus line and Inas pl¢my of parking.
be[here, families with skaters and non-skaters will all have
things[o do. Having a built-in audience of non-skaters will
help gow interest in the sport and will alse>discorauge Itids
from vandnlistn and[he like.
- Bringing a slcale park to this area of town will brbtg in
more vandalism to the arca and cause the park[o be more
run down.
Il is ce>rlrally located for the slmte board enthusiasts. None
The only pro 1 see is that it would be a mid-City location_ But I personally 1'e¢I[ha[ [Itis park has a lo[of attractions
already. I don't think that adding the skate park here is a
od idea_ I don't know where in Flora you were looking
at, but i£you planned to use rhe ballfie]d along
Pennsylvania, would that mean the V6,pickle ball, Gltle
leabvc, Pnsbee people would need to go elsewhere? Flora
Park is heavily used already For three(3)seasons and I
don't think we need to add the skate park Frere_ Again,not
ure where you were thinking of adding iq but [wouldn't
want to see any more trees taken dower since the Ixvk is
already losing so man to Gmerald Ash Borer.
PARK WHAT ARE THE PROS OF THIS LOCATION? WHAT AAE THE CONS OF THIS LOCATION?
OSHA PARK(5)
- There is almady way too much Tm Y3ic at that location
with Hempstead School and the Northwest Arterial so
close by, along with west end shopping and Medical
Associates and the Rlood Center. Pick a less
con jested area for traffic_
When compared to the other,best option (Flora Park), Increaeed parking requirements_ City has a parking
there are no pros in my opinion. lot, but when City lot is Fv11, where will people park?
The church parking lot and the staff parking lots are
for the credit union and church members, and not For
public use_ The church and the credit union do not
want to take on the additional liability of providing
parking for park users_
The[rafhe along Pennsylvania Avenue is extremely
heavy right now, and wish the addition ofa park, the
traffic,trying to access Pensylvania Avenue,will
only he more of a problem.
SAFETY__.If there was a park at Usha, the youngcrs
who live on the west side of the Northwest Arterial
would have to cross the Northwest Arterial, which is a
hazard_ When school is in session,[here arc crossing
guards watching the intersection,however, when
school is not in session, how will tlrese drildren cross?
l.ntS of space, tons of cxistir� arkut ccntrall loca[cxl. -
Thera is a ton of room at Usha. The jungle gym is nice, It might be too much Fun_
but it's hard to access so hopefully access created to the
skate park could help out_ When it's warm out, there arc
large group of kids that ride around nn skateboards and
scooters and it world be great to gc[ them to a safe spot to
la .
PARK WHAT ARE THE PROS OF THIS LOCAT[ON? WHAT ARE THE CONS OF THIS LOCAT[ON?
USHA PARK t�..tv�..e
None The parking, access crossing Pennsylvania Avenue,
and lighting. The open park would have to be fenced
in due to dose resident hous9ng OR the loads of kids
cutting through yards, etc_ I live very close and kids
already disrespect the park equipment that has been
rovidcd, and also the noise.
� , v 1 0
JV
# nY f4
♦ F wa �' � � �I � J � •
fy 4 � -
* \ •Z w
46 _
� � r�"r ►-- "`L L.L.` i.,,,��:.
CITY OF DUBUQUE.,LEISURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FLORA SKA'['E YARK SITES/OTHER POSSIBLE FLORA LOCATIONS
FLORA PARK SITE WHAT ARE THE PROS OF THIS LOCATION? WHAT ARE THE CONS OF THIS LOCATION?
#I
✓ By s-gnxl crnvsing ✓ 7'rxtFc
✓ Parking (Irving School) ✓ Losin6 count
✓ Away from residential housins ✓ Dubuque Montessori School
✓ Flat ✓ Cut down tires
#2 _
✓ Fasy access ✓ On hill _- - -- —
✓ Parking(summer) ✓ Money to excavate
✓ Lighting ✓ Driver distraction
✓ Away from res-idenlial housing ✓ On comer(Ira ffic)
✓ Mor¢visibl¢
✓ Closes[to concessions
✓ Noi (akin away amcni[
#3
✓ Flattest ✓ More trai}ic
✓ C'en[rally located ✓ No park
✓ Fit landscape ✓ interf with other acti vi tial
✓ Th^, street �/ Tak¢away baseball diamond
✓ No trees(open) ✓ Closer 10 residential housing
✓ Restrooms �/ Drainage
✓ Pavilion ✓ Best open space
✓ Most used av:lion
#4
_ ✓
✓ Tmffc
✓ Halcrest Famay Services
✓ Parking
✓ Nex[to main la nd
FLORA PARK SITE WHAT ARE THE PROS OF THIS LOCATION? WHAT AAE THE CONS OF THIS LOCATION?
#5
✓ Nothing there-bring activity ✓ During volleyball-Gghl parking
✓ Away from large groups ✓ Not lhru street
✓ Restroom close ✓ Road repair
✓ Close to parking L� ✓ More than on¢access necdal
✓ C'lose to concessions
✓ Not close to residential housing
✓ Flat
OTHER POSSIBLE
FLORA LOCATIONS
(Unused balLleld area
✓ Lights ✓ Fi¢Id used-Frisbee, , festivals
✓ Parking ✓ Take away amenity
✓ Pla[ ✓ Closer[o residential housing
✓ No trees in way
✓ Natural satin
'°Potential residential
meeting to
Why not Allison-
Henderson and/or Murphy
Park?
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
SITE REVIEW SELECTION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
nv
5ji, -
Prepared by Pillar Design Studios, LLC
The purpose of this report is to aid the City in site selection and clarity. We
will provide detailed information in regards to our methods and process and
walk the City through site selection and feasibility.
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................2
2. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA..................................................................3
3. EXISTING AND PROPOSED LOCATIONS.................................................5
4. SITE SELECTION MATRIX .................................................................10
5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION...................................................11
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
1 . EXECUTI„F L,, n, I "r
It is our understanding the City is looking at 3 (three) sites that were decided upon after two public input
meetings. The total estimated budget for a 15,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. Skatepark is between $600,000 to
$800,000. The City has committed $600,000 towards the Skatepark Project and $200,000 is being
raised by the community.
Skate ark Identification
Name: Size:
Skate Spot 3,000 to 5,000 sq. ft.
Serves 12,000 residents
5 Users capacity
Neighborhood 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft.
Skatepark Serves 25,000 residents
65 User capacity
Community Skatepark 10,000 to 20,000 sq. ft.
Serves 55 residents
85 User capacity
Regional Skatepark 20,000+sq. ft.
Serves 75,000 residents
100+User capacity
Sneer Pie_ , Designed to mirror an urban environment. Skate plazas resemble an urban, downtown
gathering place. By incorporating local landscape design and art, Pillar creates a park that is both
aesthetically pleasing and extremely functional. True streetscape designs embrace the urban style,
utilizing color, local materials,vegetation, etc,to form an inviting space that boasts artistic style and
that benefits skaters and non-skaters a like.
Halfpipes, bowls, pools are what the general public thinks of when hearing the
,.aoa'cl skarepark. These parks highlight curvy forms of smooth, undulating concrete.
Hybrid parks is a term for a design that fuses both street and transition elements
together.
Due to our years of experience in Skatepark Design and Construction, we have created and
implemented a matrix to assist us with selecting the optimum site for Skatepark development. This
matrix takes into consideration key components in Skatepark development, the ranking system was
created based on previous Skateparks and how each area ultimately affected the Skatepark cost,
size,viability and longevity.
By the end of this summary, we will have outlined the key factors considered during the site review
selection process, identified the selected locations and provide the reader with scaring, positive and
negative points of the given sites and convey our final recommendation for the new Skatepark
location. The final decision of where the Skatepark will be placed Is the City's.
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
2. SITE SELECTION AND CRITERIA
The location of a Skatepark can directly affect the success of the park, below are key factors that we
would like to highlight.
A. Safety Concerns - Safe skateparks are a top priority for anyone involved with skateboarding.
Nobody wants a dangerous skatepark, and certainly nobody wants to see local youth exposed to
unnecessary risk.
Visibility is of high importance when it comes to safety. Not only do we want to show members of
the community what a healthy and social activity Skateboarding is but also we do not want to
place skateboarders in an environment that promotes and draws activities that need remote and
secluded areas.
In general highly visible parks of any kind is often perceived as more approachable, while a
secluded park can be considered dangerous and leave participants hesitant to use it. Our
experience is that a more visible park, promotes social interaction, provides a sense of pride and
ownership to the local users and gets positive feedback from the general public.
When ranking the sites we took into consideration:
• Lighting —does the current location have lights?
• Fencing—Is there current fencing? Will the park need to be fenced?
• Are there Pedestrian sidewalks and or walkways within the site?
• Is the site visible from surrounding roadways and/or parking lots?
B. Access—The sole purpose of the skatepark is to attract skateboarders, and access is the most
definite factor that directly affects the usage. How will the skatepark be accessed, what is the
distance between the skatepark and the communities where the skateboarders live? Location
proximity to public transit, shopping, and main roads should all be considered.
How can the users access the skatepark?
• Can they walk there?
• Can they bike there?
• Is public transportation an option?
• Is it near schools or meeting places for teenagers or young adults?
• Is there room for construction equipment to move around the site?
C. Park Activity —When looking into park activity we are determining what type of usage the park
currently has, how the Skatepark will affect that usage and if that usage is beneficial to the
Skatepark. A park with shared space, with many different types of activities going on
simultaneously tends to be a healthier space, which in turn equals continued use. Visibility and
Activity are related qualities; we believe it is important to measure them separately in order to
ensure each criteria is valued appropriately.
• Number of different types of activities that occur within the given location.
• Are the activities geared towards children? Youth? Adults?
• Is the location a walk-way? Are people passing through the park to get elsewhere?
• Are there amenities for the passive user, benches, paths, etc.?
DU6000E SKATEPAR% PROJECT
D. Amenities— Having existing amenities within the park can reduce the overall cost of the project as
well as make a more comfortable recreational space for the user and non-users alike. The less
comfortable the place the fewer people it will attract and the ones that are using It will not stay
as long. Questions asked:
• Does the site have access to restrooms?
• Is there a water fountain?
• Are there existing bike racks?
• Are there existing trash receptacles throughout the site?
• Is there a shaded and/or rest area?
• Is the site lit?
• Is there power access?
• Is there an existing parking Iota If yes,is there room for additional park users?
If no, can one be added?
E. Feasibility —This category reflects positive and or negative qualities about the site that simply do
not fit elsewhere. A few Items to consider:
• Is there any push back from the public in regards to the location?
+ Are there any noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods?
• Property Ownership.
• Zoning issues?
• Would the site be prohibitively expensive to develop?Wetlands? Toxicity?
F. Site Conditions—There are two major site considerations that can play a large role into the
design and cost of the final Skatepark, drainage and topography.
1. Drainage - When introduce new surfaces to an existing landscape, it's important to consider the
natural flow of water in that area may be disrupted.Adding impervious surfaces like skateparks
increases the amount of stormwater runoff, which collects particles of oil, dust, and other pollutants
as it travels over the surface of the ground.
Subsurface gravity drainage systems use gravity to discharge storm water runoff to an
acceptable outlet. Pipes are buried underground for subsurface drainage. Gravity drains are a
common feature in residential construction, often used for foundation drainage and French drains
and where land is too flat or too wet. The capacity of the gravity system contains normal runoff
that's conveyed through the system until it's discharged.
• Is there an existing stromwater plan for the site?
• Is there an existing stormwater sewer connection?
• Can gravity drains be incorporated into the design of the proposed Skatepark?
2. Topography —The most cost effective designs take into the consideration the natural curvature
of the given site, due to this it is important to be aware of the site topography and the effects of
the desired terrain. The final design should minimize the need for excavation and or fill while
considering erosion, water run off patterns and natural landscaping elements. Questions asked:
• Does the site have changes in elevations?
• Is there existing vegetation?
o If yes, will the vegetation need to be removed to construct the Skatepark?
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
3, EXISTING AND PROPOSED LOCATIONS
• Existing Sk8 Park-
Locations Comiskey Park 1
• Existing Sk8 Park-
McAleece Sports
Complex
• Proposed Location #1-
c
-Usha Park
Proposed Location # 2—
1 -Flora Park
1 'L Proposed Location # 3-
-Lower
--Lower Bee Branch
a`
F. 1
>l
A. Existing Locations
Though the current Skateparks are a bit out dated,they serve the intended purpose and offer a
safe and legal place for the users. With the addition of a larger, regional park the existing parks
will serve as more of a neighborhood park, providing options to the local users. A separate
Evaluation Analysis report has been completed and is available for review.
B. Proposed Location
1. Usha Park located 3937 Pennsylvania Avenue,has 160,000 sq.ft. of developable area.
Upon initial review the site has multiple elevation changes comprised of large relatively flat
areas, allowing for an open site plan with vegetation spread out along the outside edge of the
park. There are no limitations on styles of skatepark design, and the open site plan allows for
clean site lines throughout the entire park. Gravity drain design is possible and easily
incorporated.
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
' f
Moo
n
i
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
DESIGN EXAMPLES
1 k
r
2. Flora Park located 2605 Pennsylvania Avenue, has 600,000 sq.ft. of developable area.
Flora Park is a large developed space, it is an established park that has multiple existing
amenities. There are multiple elevation changes throughout the site, ample vegetation areas and
multiple flat areas that have been developed and are already used as open space.
The site does allow for all styles of skatepark design but the design elements will need to be
spread out and connected with a skate-able pathway. Since the park will not be concentrated in
one area, there is a need for more viewing/spectator areas. Please note that it may be difficult
for an entire family to view the entire facility from one vantage point. Drainage is not an issue as
gravity drain design is possible on the elevated areas.
aage 7
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
:Jll
b
list
� 4{ t ` •4
'Y f VJ
Page `�
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
DESIGN EXAMPLES
1
V-'s
o -
3. Lower Bee Branch located at W I51 St and Pine St, has 54,000 sq. ft. of developable area.
Upon initial review the site is comprised of large relatively flat area adjacent to the Lower Bee
Branch Creek and retention basin, allowing for an open site plan. The rivers proximity of the
Mississippi River to the site is an area of concern,we will have to review the geo technical report
before determining what style of park can be built on this site.
1
a
Y
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
4. SITE SELECTION MATRIX
Location#i Location#2 Locabon#3
Usha Park Flora Park Lower Bee Branch
SAFETY CONCERNS 10 is 2,5 7.5 5
Surrou,din I' ht no es no
Exgtin fencin no no no
ALINI . rian traffic r10 lyes I8
S' ht lines secun l es lyes lyes
Points
SITE ACCESS 15 is 10.5 14 10
Pedestrian Access to Park lyes yes yes
Bicycle Access to Park eses s
Pedestrian Access with in Park no, no no slotted for the future
Automobile access Yes yes yes
Construction access Yea yes yes
School proximity 1 mile .25 mie 2 miles
Public Trans tion Yes yes yes
Points
PARKACTIMTY 10pis 4.5 10 2
T s of current use !cricket tennis/baseball/swim ssivarecree5an
Existin a round es es no
Existin welkinpaths Ino Ino Itrail
Points
AMENITIES(Existing) 15 is 6 15 5
Bike racks no yes no
Water Fountains no yes no
Electrical no yes no
Restrooms no yes no
On-site Public Phone no yes no
Lights no yes no
Trach Receptacles es yes yes
Seating tables yes tables
Shade limited yes limited
Adjacent Parking Yes yes yes
Space for add'I parkinges yes yes
Points
Feasibility 5 is 4 5 3
Public canuover5 no no no
Pro Ownershi C' Ci CA
Zoning around site residential residential I industrial,resdential
Noise im pact on neighborhood yes Ino Ino
Development Cost issues I no Ino Ino
Points
DRAINAGE 25 is 25 25 10
Storm Water Connection es es s
Gravi Dmin Options yes yes Into
Points
TOPOGRAPHY 20 is 20 15 15
GradeJmulfioleeleva6ons Imultiple elevations Bet
Ve station along exterior of park as ria
Ve elation Removal Ino yes, Ino
Points
Total Points 72.5 91.5 51
P::�� 12
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
5. SITE SELECTION ID RECOMMENDATION
Ultimately, all park locations are acceptable for the Dubuque Skatepark Project. While each park
has its disadvantages and advantages,the goal is to find the best location for your community
members and users.
Flora stands out as the recommended location due to the existing park infrastructure and amenities
already in place. The park itself already sees great use, is located within the center of town and has
a variety of amenities for the entire family to enjoy. Though the design will more than likely be more
spread-out and consist of landscape cut outs, literally wrapping throughout the park—it is our
professional opinion the small added cost of minimal vegetation demolition is outweighed by the
existing infrastructure and amenities.
Usha Park though at first glance seems like an optimal location for ease of design and construction.
Demolition will be minimal but the lack of infrastructure is less than ideal. Also, due to the vast, wide
open space there are no areas to shelter users from the elements. Park amenities will need to be
incorporated to shield from the sun, wind, etc.
Lower Bee Branch though a suitable location has some areas of concern, the biggest being the
drainage and flooding issues, due to the water table, that will need to be addressed. Though we can
design and ultimately build on the site,there Is a high probability that more funds will go into the
infrastructure then the Skate-able square footage at this location. It is our understanding that Lower
Bee Branch Park is slotted for future park funds for amenities,such as parking and restrooms, but at
this time there are no park amenities available to users and or community members.
USHA
POSITIVES: NEGATIVES:
Ample space for all design styles No existing restrooms
Ample parking with room to add additional parking No existing power
Easy access for construction and maintenance No existing water
Site contours and space optimal for Skatepark development Shaded areas must 6e odded to the sire
No demolition of existing vegetation
FLORA
POSITIVES NEGATIVES
Multiple areas to develop within the site Demolition of existing vegetation wlll be necessary
Existing shade Access for construction is minimal
Water on site
Power on site
Existing restrooms
Provides a unique setting for Skatepark due to existing vegetation.
DUBUOUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
LOWER BEE BRANCH
POSITIVES: NEGATIVES.
Open space No existing restrooms
Ample parking with room to add additional parking No existing power
Easy access for construction and maintenance No existing water
Site contours and space optimal for Skatepark development Shaded areas must be added to the site
No demolition of existing vegetation Water Table may limit style of pork
Based on our evaluation the best option for the skate-able square footage is Flora Park, with that being said
we can complete a Skatepark within Usha but it is our findings that some funds will have to go to the park
infrastructure instead of skate-able square footage. Flora Park is the best location in terms of funds going
towards the skate-able square footage, long-term viability and usage.
= I a
� r "`. . �"_, f
�`�Jrr '�� ��' �� �-'r ,e-� �c � .c� �,.e � _� fi +i�j,._ Cfl j � �. r'
J��S rI ice- 1_`r./Jr��S � r r� � � � - ` .,�� . ... � _ -r { _ .. e. � r T
T' `� �
I
''-�� _ j� li` _ F �— � ��-��' � J��.t x•14 �ti _ � � /C'�-
r' - �� _ � r ` 6t
}` — •--F .«�- _ o q, +s�' .fit - .�,--�
t � q
9p
,
- _ryC rpENNSV(VANIA AVE_ _7E � ` '��3
���-� E�T 4` 'i r-� I i i r► � � _ r
4� � � ag£_,.� a moo¢ .,£ oo- !. ..4
_ � � � 519 '� - r �T '. ��1-'f i�'c � �F"9i pR=. S _ �•
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
FLORA SITE REVIEW AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
f4k 41
Prepared by Pillar Design Studios, LLC
The purpose of this report is to provide in-depth analysis and review of the
Flora Park location for the Dubuque Skatepark Project. We will provide
detailed information in regards to our methods and process and walk the City
through site selection and recommendation.
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT,
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................2
2. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA..................................................................2
3. PROPOSED LOCATIONS.....................................................................3
4. SITE SELECTION MATRIX ....................................................................8
5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION......................................................9
6. ATTACHMENTS................................................................................11
,DUBUQUE SKATER ARK PROJECT
1 . EXECUTIVE SUMMARI'
After the initial site selection process and public input, the City has decided on Flora Park to be the
location for the new Dubuque Skatepark. Flora park is located at 2605 Pennsylvania Avenue, has
600,000 sq. ft. of developable area. It is our understanding the City conducted numerous public Input
meetings to narrow down the possible five sites to two sites. Please see Attachments for further
information. The purpose of this study is to review and rank these locations in order for the City to make
an informed decision as to where the new Skatepark will be located.
Due to our years of experience in Skatepark Design and Construction,we have created and
implemented a matrix to assist us with selecting the optimum site for Skatepark development.This matrix
takes into consideration key components in Skatepark development,the ranking system was created
based on previous Skateparks and how each area ultimately affected the Skatepark cost, size, viability
and longevity.
By the end of this summary, we will have outlined the key factors considered during the site review
selection process, identified the selected locations and provide the reader with scoring, positive and
negative points of the given sites and convey our final recommendation for the new Skatepark location.
The final decision of where the Skatepark will be placed Is the City's.
2. SITE SELECTION AND CRITERIA
We will be reviewing the same key factors as the first study but ranking each line item, from I to 10 with
one being the least and ten being the highest. The key factors we are considering:
• Feasibility
o This category reflects positive and or negative qualities about the site.
• Safety
o Our experience is that a more visible park, promotes social interaction, provides a sense
of pride and ownership to the local users and gets positive feedback from the general
public
• Site Access
o The sole purpose of the skatepark is to attract skateboarders, and access is the most
definite factor that directly affects the usage.
• Construction
o It is cast effective to select a site that will require minimal disturbance and or damage to
both the selected area and the overall park infrastructure.
• Drainage
o When introduce new surfaces to an existing landscape, it's important to consider the
natural flow of water in that area may be disrupted. Adding impervious surfaces like
skateparks increases the amount of stormwater runoff, which collects particles of oil, dust,
and other pollutants as it travels over the surface of the ground.
• Design Development
o Ultimately, our goal is to provide the City with the most skate-able square footage for the
dollar. In order to do so, it is imperative to select a site that fits within the design
parameters laid forth by the users and community members.
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT,
Y
F4 "� • ��
q 6
W,
i pyyop It
oa
Ak
d e:, n �� wry • , 1`�,�x"r-v�
J %w;
,DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
A. Upper Site—Site #5
Upon initial review of the upper site,it was obvious this location had ample open space for the
requested design elements as well as very little vegetation that would need to be disturbed and or
removed.Construction would also be uninhibited as there is more than enough room for construction
storage, again without any unnecessary disturbance to the area,as well as easy access for
construction vehicles.
e
1 � i
!pf
f
\ C 1 \
1
P.Wrtw Skate ParkA.a '
Hydrants
w`
t
Water Mein
T
�SaNtery Sewer-GraWty .
+3 Stam Inlets \'
Slam Graviq Mains
$ iS�., y. ��k �� � Irf iy;>
>�. � t-
� "-9 ��.. . � p
�3' � e�N����.' �:
.. . �i` 5,
wt.
.. -..YY.r ... .
�., -
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
B. Lower Site—Site#2
The Lower site also has enough room to create the requested Skatepark,though elevation changes
and existing vegetation may cause a bit of a challenge.The existing parking lot, as well as good sight
lines from major roadways are an advantage to this location.
Flora Park Option I
9F
P
Pplenlial Skate Park Free
Hytl2n15 + . '�
Water Main +
Fiber Optic Line — � 1. Y .
y ® Same,Mammas p,ENNSYLVANIA AVG y y,
SrSewer Gravity
Storm
In lnlete
O Storm Manbolea
Storm Gravity Mains
h1
3 ; � � r a "
'DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
4. SITE SELECTION MATRIX
SITE SELECTION MATRIX
Upper Site-#5 Lower Site-#2
FEASIBILITY 20 is
Noise im act on neighborhood 5 5
Develo ment cost issues 101 5
SAFETY CONCERNS
Surrounding light 5 7
Existing fencing 0 0
Sight lines(security) 5 10
Separation from major roadwa s 10 0
Separation from parking lot 10 0
Proximity to fiber optic line 5 10
SITE ACCESS 50 is
Access to parking 51 10
Access to restrooms 10 5
Access to power 10 5
Access to water 101 5
ADA access 51 5
CONSTRUCTION 60 is
Vehicle access 51 10
Staging 10 0
Overhead power lines 5 5
Existing vegetation to protect 10 5
storm water management 10 5
Possibility of emisting vegetation damage 101 5
DRAINAGE 20 is
Stormwater connection 10 5
Gravi dra o tions 10 10
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 50 is
Incorporation of public approved skate ark stVIe 101 5
Grade 10 7
Vegetation protecton 10 5
Vegetation removal 101 5
Open sace 101 5
Total Points 210 139
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT.
5, SITE SELECTION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Ultimately, either location is acceptable for the Dubuque Skatepark Project. While each site has its
disadvantages and advantages, the goal is to find the best location for your community members
and users.
UPPER SITE - #5
POSITIVES: NEGATIVES:
More usable open space to design within Access to parking is further away
The elevation change is less dramatic Close to residential housing
Existing restrooms,connected by an existing pathway Construction vehicles have to travel through the
park to access the site
Easy access to existing stormwater Lower visibility from malar roadway
Less money spent on tree protection
Ample space for staging construction vehicles and materials
Less disturbance for surrounding park amenities during construction
LOWER SITE - #2
POSITIVES NEGATIVES
Good sight lines for security purposes Will have to install guardrails to protect users from
going into major roadway and or parking lot.
Good access to existing parking No existing restroomr,though restrooms are
nearby in order to access users will have to walk
across on open green space
Close proximity to pool concessions Close proximity to children's playground,will need
to design a buffer or separation
Will have to damage existing parking lot in order
to access stromwater connection
Elevation change will require retaining walls
Less developable open space to design within
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT
FEASIBILITY * DEVELOPMENT COSTS * DRAINAGE' DESIGN
During the design process the public requested a large open "flow bowl" style park with circular
flow to help reduce the "criss-cross' of users. While both the upper and lower sites within Flora Park
are developable, the existing trees and major elevation changes at the Lower Site will make it much
more challenging to provide that track design requested. Also, in order to preserve the existing
vegetation, we would have to design around the drip line (canopy) of the trees, which will
undoubtedly limit the design options available.
Non skate-able development costs will be less for the Upper site as we do not have to remove any
existing vegetation and the access to the stormwater is within the park green space without crossing
any parking lots or streets. While at the Lower site in order to access the stormwater sewer we will
have to trench through the existing parking lot. There is also high probability that some tree removal
and or damage will be necessary during construction and in order to balance the cut and fill within
the site we foresee the need of retaining walls. Finally, a buffer between the skatepark, the existing
parking lot and Pennsylvania Ave will have to be addressed. Possible approach may be adding
guard rails and retaining walls which will address safety concerns for not only the users but
pedestrians and vehicles alike.
CONSTRUCTION * SITE ACCESS" SAFETY CONCERNS
The upper site does have a flat open space off the existing road for staging and ample room for
construction vehicles to access the site. Though the construction traffic will have to travel through Flora
Park, it is our professional opinion this will cause little disturbance to the overall park itself.
While the lower site has better access for construction vehicles,there is not much room for staging the site.
Meaning there is not a good flat open space to place a 40' long storage container to hold all the tools
and materials necessary for the project.The container and all equipment would have to be stored on the
existing parking lot asphalt,which will cause damage and ultimately added cost.
While both the upper and lower sites score very low on safety concerns,the upper site is favored do to
better separation from the existing roadways and parking lot.
Close proximity and ease of access to restrooms, power and water is the reason the Upper site scored
higher in the areas.Though the lower site Is able to provide resirooms, power and water they are not as
accessible and will require users to walk through an open green space within Flora park.
The average cost for a Skatepark is $40 a square foot with that being said, it is imperative to note the
additional developmental costs that will be required if the Lower site is selected,such as retaining walls,
safety guard rails, etc.will Increase the square foot cost and ultimately take away from the skate-able
square footage of the park.
It is our recommendation to move forward with the Upper Site.The lack of vegetation as well as minimal
elevation changes make for a better fit for the design style requested by the users, as well as keep costs
down during the initial construction phase. The ease of access to the existing stormwater systemand ample
open flat space means cost savings and fewer disturbances during construction.We believe It to be the
superior site in terms of design ability, development costs and construction accessibility.
DUBUQUE SKATEPARK PROJECT..
ATTACHMENTS
➢ FLORA SKATEPARK SITES
➢ KIDS INPUT
-_ - Poge I I
i
I
• � it � , �. ,1 L� ; .�_t � ,. 'C.- \ �! ' ..�
•� �� 0%
. , ; ` ',� + ,r �, t - LLL • 1-,[L
ti
I • - J� .✓rot L_I—+ ♦ - '/ '
LL L 7tiY't�
w ,
CFTY OF DUBUQUE, LEISURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FLORA SITE FEEDBACK FROM KIDS IN DUSUQUE SKATE (K_LD_SJ
2016
PARK WHAT ARE THE PROS WHAT ARE THE CONS ADDIT[ONAI_. COMMENTS
OF T171S LOCATION? OF THIS LOC_:.ATION? FROM KIDS
SITE #5
{Arca near tower/trees
up top n r baseball
rema ana vmleyban
r[s1
✓ Funhcst from boosts ✓ Parking during volleyball tnay get ✓ This would be our top choice for
✓ Lois of trees removed already Iasi tight [ocatlon also.
year ✓ Not a thmugh street ✓ Seil�:unlainaxl arca,not takvrg up
✓ Ciose to concessions by pool ✓ Need access to Palm Court or space used oRen
✓ Close to restroom and wat¢r at Pennsylvania Avenue if put in to ✓ Would probably need a fence put up
lop of hill allcvialc[ra�c driving all the way around the power/utility area behind
✓ Close ro parking through park m get up there the sire to keep people ti-om geniog
�/ k'latter than some other sites in too close to llul or hoot
park ✓ Scents like tivs would b¢c---�-est site
✓ Not taking existing amenity away to start construction on bocause not
too many obstructions
✓ Needs lu be more conversation
regard utg access to the area, Palm
Court residaus will get tired of
having skaters parking their cul-de-
- Neighbors are used to a quiet,
pr"vote area, and we want to be good
neighbors-
SITE #2 ✓ Existing parking(more ✓ Noise ✓ Seems like this would be dilrcult
(Arca by parK Montessori parking during ✓ Hilly,more excavating Headed m sire m build on and conceals£or
ntrsnre,a ss from summer T) build, mom cost safety would he greatest o£any Plor
the Girl Sronr Office ✓ Easy xcc-ess ✓ May noazi rtlainntg wall above if rtes here due to pmximity m
on Ycnnsyivania ✓ existing liglaing put bare Pennsylvania and heavy traf-£ic there
Avenue ana on hitt ✓ More visibie ✓ Could distract drivers nn all the time-
btlow Open Air ✓ Cluscsl to concessions Pennsylvania Avenue
pavrhon) ✓ Nol taking existing amenity away ✓ High traffic arra busy street
don serous for skaters)
CITY OF DUBUQUE LEISURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SKATE PARK PUIILIC [NPUT MEETING COMMENTS
N'LORA PARK (8/21/Y 6)
PARK WHAT ARE THE PROS OF THIS LOCATlON4 WHAT ARE THE CONSOF THIS LOCATION?
FLORA PARK—OPTION A
close to Penns lvania Ave
✓ Easy access ✓ Not Ylat=$
✓ Parkins ✓ Linear layout
_ ✓ Close to concessions ✓ t3ufi-er zone
J Visibility ✓ Busy during pool hours and schc.ol
✓ Close inTrastructurc ✓ C'lose to pavilion
✓ Low residcartial
✓ Bvs stop
FLORA PARK—OPTION B
(near radio tower
✓ Close[o restroom ✓ Limned parking at times
�/ Flat=adding$ ✓ Not on H.ru street
✓ Far f'ro.n res:dent:al ✓ Visibih
CITY OF DU 6UQIIE� LEI$UR F_ SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SKATE PARK PUBLIC INPUT MEETING COMMENTS FROM ONL[N F_
FLORA PARK(AUGUST, 2016)
GENDER/ OPTION W iiAT ARE TFIE PROS OF THIS WHAT ARE THE CONS OF THIS
AGE A or B? LOCATION? LOCATION?
F/30-39 S ✓ Trees were recently cut down; arca is errtpty ✓ i play V B during the summer and the road next to this
arca gets very crowded with cars. My concern is that
this area can't accommodate any more vehicles without
a arkin �lot_
M/30.39 A ✓ F2cing a father of[wa young children, I want
them to he safe at the park. location A is
much more visibl¢to the public and.is better
monitor¢d by officers. I feel this better
protects our youth from the temptations of
alegal substances and suspicious activay
than an area that is more secluded. It seems
the skating cmnmunity favors Oprion B,bui
the main positive it sce.ns to have for thein is
Ute seclusion. Weare happy that they are
geeing their skate park, but please bring
peace of mind to the neighbors and
community by knowing they are in a safe
and easii accessible area.
N'/30.39 II ✓ Very close to people's houses. Cnharse tram St Anne
Drive is dangerous because it is at the bottom of a bel(not
safe for skatetx>aMers)and cars very rarely stop at any of
the slop signs. Needs better fighting and resurf.cb.g oCthe
road. There is already too much traffic for a neighborhood
mads a Hillcrest has put in tfie Academy and tfie
ainlenance bucks aral log[rocks arc ohear parked in[he
street making i[difficult to drive through. Adding
skutebuarders In lfie mix would make a even .Wore
dangerous.
NOTE THE ADDITIONAL COMMENT"PHAT SHE WOULD
LIKE TO MnKF;
I think it would he best to keep the cnngesbon to the area near[hc
pool That park of the park gets little use anyway mtd it would not
be ri Ohl u ns[ eo le's houses.
F/30-34 A ✓ Easy access from Pennsylvania on exisfing
through mad. No housing tlrat is very dose by.
Easy access to concessions and restr<x�m
facilities near[he ool.
M/19-29 A �/ Option A is preferable. Them is already eas.er
existing access compared In Option R In
addition,Option A is visible From the main road
whiclr makes i[less Ii1:elY that vandalism.
alcohol consumption,drag use, and o16cr illegal
activities would occur as cora ar¢d to Option B_
F/60+ iT ✓ There are no pros in my opinion. ✓ Too close to residential area. Lights, noise and tmf},c will
off t residents on SL Anne,Chaney and Palm Court.
Skateboa.ds are noisy_ Open Reld owned by radio station
might be impacted also as Lxoplc will no[know it is no[
park of the park-kids not supervised could gather there.
Way too many things n Flora Park no -te.wis covets,
baseball Feld,horse shoes, swirr[trring pool,etc. Lack oL'
space to park around Option H_ Housing values will go
down with more noise and lights on_
NOTE THF_ADDITIONAL.COMMF_NT THAT SHE WOULD
LIKE TO MAKE;
Iiow many skateboaMers will actually use[his facility as there are
other ones in Dubuque? Seems like a lo[of money For just a few.
Why will there nut be a ..:er fee to lake care o£tbe tnaiutenance so
LLie taxpayers won't get stuck paying 1'or tlta[ and what about liability
insumnecT You have[o pay[o play golf,swinuning,ern., s wfiy
not use the skateboard facili[y4 The city is not meeting the budget
it i lust hecause you t get government money far this doesn't
mean i[comes withom a cost Havc you ever chocked other cities
that have skateboard facilities to see how they manage Ihcm4 Just
heard oFa cit -n Illinois that had on¢and the craze lasted about 6
years and then they dismantled it Am very conecrnN about adding
this to Flora Park_ ft's a nice aaca to live in artd Iratr to sea more
rea[ion in it. The city can'[provide everything for everybody—
tbe n rit _cbnuld Ixave their say i.a democratic nation.
A ✓ It is too close to the park entrance and would cause
problems f'nr peatple driving info the park. People would he
dropplug off kids Just insdc the Park_ This could cause
backup o£traf£c flow into the park_ Pennsylvania Avenue
is a very busy street I have seen children riding skateboards
on this street mr the downward side of the hills and across it
ai the entrance near Option A. For a sa{ty reasoq l think
O t'on 6 is best
M/40-60 A ✓ Accessible,near parking,near main mad,in open ✓ Additional foo[tmtfic potentially crossing Lhc street m get to
site for safety reasons since site will likely be the skate park with no crossing arra except up by Irving
unsupervised. School_ Potential for noir¢for residents across the street
NOTF_TIIE ADDITIONAL COMMENT THAT HE WOULD
LIKE TO MAKE:
I don't disat=�e¢lluxl the kids nca-d a new park, but this is not the park
for it Skate parks do better when they exisC in stand-alone locations
or within Mher recreational areas away from residential
neighbortronds. We must have other free spaces than spaces within
cun-cn[parks. Flom is overly sammtcd with recrca[ional areas as it
Phase recunsidc-r.
M/4D-6V R ✓ Away from any public roads,away From any ✓ Expanding a parking area.
neighborhood. Less removing of trees(most of
the trees in the area have been cu[down for
Emerald Ash bu ), a uch flatter area_ _
M/40-60 A ✓ Too close to Pennsylvania Avenue, which is a very heovily
tmveted rciad_ The skate park would be adjacent m one of
the mos[used picrtic pavilions in[he park_ The skate park
would compound the noise already genemtcd by the pool_
The amount of parking space available is already limited,
and already fills up from pool traffic. What is the likelihood
of skate board[raveling onto Permsylvania Avenue and
causing an a c:deta7
M/40-60 A ✓ It will not interfere widr the smaller children's NOTF_THF_ADDITIONA[.COM MN'.N'P 7"H A'1' HE WOULD
areas of the park. It s more open and central, LIKE TO MAKE.
pre viding a supervision and accountability,
and tln.a sa Cer_� l am v much i osed too tion 13.
F/40-60 A ✓ OpHon A s a betty Gro:ec because ii will have
mora people using other areas in the park.
l_ncarion El is mo isolAtai an<I can Iced itself to
gongs and other Lypes oCrowdy behavior. Also,
Location S is close to a neighborhao<I and in an
arca that people would like to keep available for
walking and ceful activities.
M/4(1--60 A ✓ Would be visually watched by people either NO"rE T[iE ADDIT[ONAL COMMENT TiIAT}IE WOULD
walking nr driving by(or during summer hours, LIKE TO MAKE_
even[he Pool s[atLvisi[ors)- Close to Par-kirtg
mtd outer venues, i.e. pool,tcrtuis court. Option R would seem to be hidden and more prone to gaog aclivlty
and king oftbc hill mcntal➢ty without any overs:ghl. Also,scents
out of Ute way fur patrons who walk with snurllcr children that
ould tike ro participate in the skate park- Also,building next to a
md:n tower just seems like a bad idea altngcther_
F/40-60 A ✓ Closer to where tmftic can get to :t ea [t is not flat. There ar¢houses across the street on Pennsylvania
Cln_ser to where nvnre activity happais in tive Avenu¢_
park by the pool. 'Phis would also help[o kc-ep
the quiet ne:gbborhood side of the park mora NOTE THE ADD[T[ONAL COMMENT THAT SHE WOULD
ndghbnrhaxxl like. Parking would he easie , if L[KE TO MAKE:
needed_
When do nu ho to have it n en?
F/611+ A ✓ Fasily accessibaity,close m street,easily NOTE THE ADD[T[ONAI. COMMF_NT THAT SIZE WOULD
monitored for otlt¢r activiti¢s,close to bus l:ue, LIKE TO MAKE:
ccn[rAlly located.
Althnug6 t am not a skateba>�rd Caq I would Like to see the kids have
a decent lace to raRice instead of the cit strccts.
F/6U+ A ✓ Easy access all Pennaylvania Avenue. Parking NOTE THF_ADDITIONAL COMMENT T[lAT SHE WOULD
avaLlable,little used area of the park,City LIKE TO MAKE:
- aintains Pennsylvania Avenue Tar better than When 1 moved to Dubuque and purchased my home on St.Anne
SL Avmc Drive. Drive, I bonght al this location because of the proximity to the part:
and the quietness of tlae strceL Since purchasing,the growth of
Hillcresl has created an increase Flow of not just cars, but busses,
city work vehiGes, construction vehicles and loud motorcycles.
Pulling a slate parK in Option B would only exacerbate lbesc
already growing problems of noise,excess water run-o Pf and
sed tm£F c. Please consider the age o£the neighbors in the
area and build O tion A.
Eileen B ✓ Caller wants Option B bca:ausc Uption A alrcndy
took over has a lot going on and is close to the pool so
phos¢ there is already a lot of traffic in that area and
O tion B would be less noir
1
s _
�JJ
\ f
t4
y
I /
o .
Kids in Dubuque Skate
Key events in KIDS movement to get a new outdoor Skate Park in Dubuque
1999—McAleece Skate Park built at cost of$150,000 with above-ground ramps made of Skate-lite
material.
Sept. 2005—KIDS group formed and about 6-8 youth and adult supporters began discussing need for
new skate park.
Spring 2006—researched other cities in Iowa with skate parks and what they spent to build them.
Dubuque spent less than any of the other major cities in eastern Iowa on skate parks.
July 2006— KIDS sent letter and petition with over 600 signatures to Gil Spence at Park& Recreation
Commission asking for support for more skate park(s) in Dubuque. Sent research numbers from other
Iowa cities' skate park expenditures and photos of damage to many ramps at McAleece Skate Park.
Oct. 16, 2006—KIDS took petition with over 800 signatures of parents and participants to the Dubuque
City Council for a better designed and more centrally-located skate park. KIDS offered help to city in
planning for this. (TH article 10-19-06)
Oct. 23, 2006—Leisure Services Manager, Gil Spence, sent letter to City Manager Van Milligen with
Spence's ideas on what parks would work/not work to put a skate park and what he budgeted for in
FY2008-2012 that included skate park projects (see Oct. 30 below).
Oct. 30, 2006— Letter from City Manager Van Milligen to Mayor and City Council members noted
current city budget had: "FY 2009-$30,000 to rebuild ramp at McAleece; FY 2010-$183,500 to rebuild
2 tennis courts and construct small skate park at Veteran's Memorial Park." Leisure Service Manager Gil
Spence would be requesting "$400,000 to construct a concrete skate park at Usha Park" in FY 2012
budget.This would be determined by the FY 2008 budget process held in Feb-March 2007.
Dec 2006—KIDS sent letter to City Manager Van Milligen with more information/research on areas
available in parks mentioned in letter from Gil Spence on Oct. 30, and research on skate park noise and
how it is mitigated with type of construction in other skate parks around the U.S.
2007-2011—funds budgeted Oct. 2006 for$400,000 for Usha Park skate park Were scheduled to
become available 2010 were pushed back to 2012 and later eliminated from the five-year capital
improvement budget for July 2012-June 2017.The $183,500 for a small skate park and 2 tennis courts at
Veteran's Memorial Park, allocated in 2006, were eliminated from budget also.
Aug. 1, 2012- KIDS sent letter to Mayor Buol and Dubuque City Council recapping history of skate park
and prior budgeting and suggested budgeting from park and recreation that was eliminated from 2007-
2011. KIDS asked for skate park to be moved up on priority list, citing increased demand for skate
Kids in Dubuque Skate Timeline 1
lessons through Leisure Services in 2011 as proof that the sport has potential growth in this area.
August 2012—Leisure Services Manager, Marie Ware, notified KIDS that the Council had reviewed our
WebQA correspondence and referred the skate park idea to her to create a long-range plan. Public Input
Meeting was scheduled for 8/23/12 at the library.
Aug. 23, 2012—KIDS brought about 100 people to the Public Input Meeting at the Library representing
young kids,teens, adult skaters, BMX bikers, parents and others interested in the project who
participated in the meeting and information gathering.
Fall 2012— KIDS met with Marie Ware to discuss input from Public Input Meeting and offer assistance in
preparing info for budget recommendation to city council. KIDS created a Skate Park survey and
gathered data on location, travel to other skate parks, transportation use to get to parks, features
skaters wanted in new skate park, and other amenities important to building a new skate park. Survey
conducted through Reality Check, local skate shop, via hard copies.
Feb. 8, 2012—City Manager Van Milligen provided copy of proposed Fiscal Year 2014 budget including
Skate Park Improvements. Noted upcoming Budget Public Hearing.
Feb. 25, 2012— KIDS attended Budget Public Hearing Meeting including Park Division and addressed the
council thanking them, Mayor Buol, City Manager Van Milligan, and Leisure Services Manager Marie
Ware for including skate park improvements ($870,000) in proposed FY 2014 budget, asking that they
approve it, and offering help to Park and Recreation department on development of a new skate park.
City of Dubuque Capital Improvement Plan listed Skate Parks as a high priority under Goal: Partnering
for a Better Dubuque.
2012-2013—KIDS held a few fundraisers that netted about$2000. Waited for city money to become
available (July 1, 2014) for FY 2014 to start skate park project.
2013-2014—KIDS corresponded with Leisure Services Manager and Park and Recreation Department's
Steve Fehsal on status of plans to get development phase started.The FY 2014 money for$70,000 for
planning of the skate park was cut by city council in Feb. 2014.The planning was then slated to come
from the remaining$600,000 in the city's skate park budget. Community still being asked to raise
$200,000 in addition to the $600,000.
Aug. 5, 2014— KIDS met with Marie Ware and Steve Fehsal to discuss status of skate park development
and help get the process moving. Discussed city processes required, budget, and rough schedule.
Oct. 2014-Skate Park Committee recommendation put together by Leisure Services for City Council
approval. Two members of KIDS, Laura Bies and Ben Kahle, selected as committee members to help
provide input on development of Request for Proposal and select a consultant to create bid specs for
potential contractors.
May 2015—KIDS met with Marie Ware, Leisure Services Manager, and Steve Fehsal, Park Division
Kids in Dubuque Skate Timeline 2
Manager to review status and discuss process for RFP. KIDS gave feedback on initial draft of the RFP.
June 2015—Request for Proposal for Skate Park Evaluation and Concept Design released publicly by city
to potential vendors. Proposals received by late June to city.
Aug. 17,2015—Pillar Design chosen as Skate Park Evaluation and Concept Design vendor by City
Council.
Oct. 19, 2015— KIDS and Leisure Services meet with Brad Siedlecki from Pillar Designs for first time.
Nov. 2015— KIDS shared previous Skate Park Survey with city who created their own survey to post
online and make available at Public Input Meetings in Nov-Dec 2015.
Nov.9, 2015—Public Input Meeting#1 held at Five Flags Center with developer, Pillar Designs/Brad
Siedlecki, leading the discussion and gathering input on possible locations and design features wanted
by public and skaters in the Dubuque community.
Nov. 23, 2015—KIDS met with Community Foundation of Greater Dubuque to discuss fundraising and
possible 5010 designation.
Dec. 15, 2015— Public Input Meeting#2 held at Five Flags Center with developer, Pillar Designs/Brad
Siedlecki, leading the discussion.
Dec. 2015—city notified KIDS that ITC Midwest donation of$15,000 to go to skate park project as part
of$200,000 match money.
Jan. 2016- KIDS met with Community Foundation of Greater Dubuque and subsequently signed an
agreement for the CFGD to be responsible for charitable gift accounting for KIDS in accordance with IRS
regulations. KIDS fund established for donors to give to via the Community Foundation. Direct link to
donate: https://www.dbgfoundation.org/donors-ways-give/give-
now?agency=5425&foundation=l#block-giving-center-giving-center
March 10, 2016—City hosted Public Input Meeting#1 for skate park location input at Hempstead High
School. KIDS attended this meeting with approximately 25 representatives.
March 16, 2016-City hosted Public Input Meeting#2 for skate park location input at Comiskey Park
Building. KIDS attended this meeting with approximately 25 representatives.
March 23, 2016 -City hosted Public Input Meeting#3 for skate park location input at Irving Elementary
School. KIDS attended this meeting with approximately 30 representatives. There were 5 sites reviewed
within Flora Park at those meetings.
July 2016— KIDS met with Leisure Services and the developer, Brad Siedlecki, from Pillar Designs at the 2
potential locations in Flora Park that city had narrowed down to after public input meetings. Gave Brad
an overview of the sites and our opinion of positives and negatives of each site.
...._ -_-3{
Kids in Dubuque Skate Timeline 3
August 2016—City decided to hold additional public input meeting on 2 specific sites at Flora Park still
under consideration. Public Input Meeting held at Irving School on Aug. 31, 2016.
Sept. 29, 2016—KIDS met with Park and Recreation Commission at Flora Park to discuss the 2 sites still
under consideration.
Oct. 11, 2016—Park and Recreation Commission approved the top site (#5) near the radio tower in Flora
Park as the preferred location for the new skate park at regular meeting. KIDS attended meeting to
answer questions if needed.
Oct. 2016—present—City working with developer to identify details needed to complete a design that
would work on the preferred site. Design and budget to come from Pillar Design for this site. Park and
Recreation Commission will need to review and approve this before it can be sent to City Council for
final approval.
Dec. 3, 2016—Accepted a $150 check at the 011iewood Indoor Skate park for funds raised by Dubuque
Area Arts Collective as part of art exhibit with skate decks.
Dec. 2016—started bi-weekly KIDS Board meetings to organize next steps.
Dec. 2016—kept in communication with Steve Fehsal on progress of the skate park designs.
January 2017—met bi-weekly and developed materials for use at the Community Showcase as well as
continued plans for vetting future fundraising events and opportunities.
Feb. 3,2017—participated in the Community Showcase at Mystique. Engaged youth and adults with
skateboard balance challenge, shared the latest location info, our new logo, our history of the KIDS
efforts, and encouraged community members to support the campaign to raise money for the outdoor
skate park. Handed out rack cards with our contact info including our email, website, and Facebook
page, to lead to donation info for our Kids in Dubuque Skate Community Foundation account(5010).
Feb. 9, 2017—Received final renderings of skate park design from Steve Fehsal at City of Dubuque.
To date, we have $15,000 grant from ITC and approximately$2500 from previous fundraising efforts
that date back to 2015.
Kids in Dubuque Skate Timeline 4