The Grand Marais Park Board came a little closer to making final decisions on its recreation park master plan when it met in city council chambers Tuesday, June 23, 2009.
The meeting started with a review of the May 19 “listening session” intended to gather input from the community. Board members agreed that the comments were mixed regarding how much to change the location of campsites and how much green space to include in the new plan. The meeting had ended with consultant Bob Bruce expressing frustration with some of the comments and with the park board’s minimal involvement in the discussion. “I feel badly that I let some of the comments get under my skin,” said Bruce. He apologized for a lack of professionalism.
The board approved a document Park Manager Dave Tersteeg had formulated to answer questions about potential changes to the park.
According to the document, “The master plan projects a vision for the park 25 years and beyond.” The plan will guide day-to-day actions that collectively work toward achieving the goals that have been set out by the park board. No changes to campsite configurations are being considered either this summer or next. Any changes would need to make sense financially for the park. The ball field and pool would not be relocated unless suitable replacements are ready on Community Center grounds. Thepublic works garages will be relocated only when funding is in place.
The master plan attempts to answer the question of how much and what part of the park should be used for camping and facilities, landside marina support, trails, roads and parking, playgrounds, and open space. The plan does not attempt to determine either the amount of revenue the plan would generate or what kinds of changes might take place in the marina.
Bruce said he believes the public’s opinions on the two plans presented May 19 were split down the middle. He said that after that meeting, he came to believe that they should step back and take a “30,000-foot” view of the future of the park and hopes the plan they decide on will be considered a good one in 30-40 years. With that in mind, he developed a site map offering a third option. He believes his latest design is “functional and workable” and takes into consideration input from the park board, the city council, the community, and professionals.
Bruce’s third option did not include an event pavilion, although he left space adjacent to a new park officethat would allow the building to be expanded. “We don’t know if that’s a viable use or not,” he said.
Bruce’s recommendation included a large area of reconstructed wetland surrounding what is left of a former wetland in the southeast corner of the park. “I’m convinced there’s money available [for] that, and I’m convinced it’s beneficial in its own right,” he said.
Some board members expressed concern that delineating wetlands in the site plan would create a mandate to restore what was once there. No one advocated getting rid of the wetland that currently exists, but some expressed a desire to avoid losing campsites if it were expanded. Mike Roth explained that a law regarding wetland preservation excludes land that was converted from wetland prior to 1991. Theboard decided to highlight the current wetland on the site plan but not outline any firm plans to expand it. At the board’s request, Roth will pursue professional delineation of the current wetland area.
Another significant aspect of the third option is that trailer sites are absent from the northeast corner (below the highway and west of North House Folk School). Todd Miller said that although he is aware that some community members are not concerned about preserving those campsites, he has heard from non-seasonal as well as seasonal community members who are opposed to getting rid of them.
The board talked about whether current seasonal users could be guaranteed their sites for a certain length of time. “People don’t enjoy sudden changes,” City Administrator Mike Roth said. Extreme changes could result in seasonal users leaving, he said, although he advised against giving campers “false hope” regarding the future availability of their sites. Bruce said his plan addresses the end result years down the road.
Miller said those sites might be important to people for various reasons, such as because they have put a lot of work into the site or because they like their neighbors or because they are simply accustomed to staying there.
In place of the trailer sites, Bruce had put “green space” that he called “festival grounds.” He said he envisioned active promotion of music festivals with a promoter on staff. The space would be intended to generate revenue through ticket sales and refreshments. While the bottom of the sliding hill could also be used for festivals, he said, having festivals in the northeast corner would make more sense because they would be closer to downtown. Walt Mianowski said the town already has festival grounds at Harbor Park. Todd Miller said he could see the value of having festival grounds and believes the rec park would have a better “festival” feel than Harbor Park.
The town does not need all the green space reflected in Bruce’s plan, said Robin DuChien. Board chair Lindsay Mielke agreed, saying, “Making more green space is kind of silly to me.” The drawback to taking campsites out of the northeast corner, she said, is that those are the most desired spots. The view would not be as good in other parts of the park, she said.
“You can’t have green space downtown and then have empty buildings,” Mianowski said. “We’re getting radical remarks in the community from radical groups.” Both he and Mielke indicated that there seems to be no end to some people’s desire to reclaim green space.
Miller suggested that they should consider four issues regarding the northeast corner of the park: financial ramifications; how the proposed green space would be used; how the change would impact people, particularly seasonal campers; and whether the space would be intended to give North House more space for large events.
Bruce said his consulting commitment is nearing its end and he will need to write up a final report soon. He needs the park board to tell him what that report should say, however, and told them they need to move from expressing individual opinions to giving him a directive.
How do we move from here? Miller asked, saying they needed help. Bruce responded by saying it wasn’t his job to help them come to a consensus. “Talk amongst yourselves,” Mike Roth urged.
Theboard decided to discuss the issues further at their next regular meeting at 3:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 14 in the park’s recreation hall. A public meeting to present the board’s final plan will be held at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 28 at a location yet to be determined.
At the end of the meeting, the board listened to comments from the handful of community members who had come to the meeting. George Wilkes said that turning the northeast corner of the park into green space would simply replace the green space that will be lost when the ball field is gone. Carah Thomas said she hoped the board would be “visionary” and take pride in the park’s wetlands, realizing that they are an asset that will attract visitors.
Leave a Reply