Re:
4316.02 – Teddington Neighborhood Park
Conference:
Teddington Neighborhood Park - Public Meeting #2
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation
Carolina Room
Date:
April 7, 2016
Purpose:
Public Meeting #2 – Community Input
Attendees:
Kevin Brickman – Mecklenburg County Park & Recreation (MCPR)
Chris Hunter – MCPR
Greg Clemmer – MCPR
Brian Bennett – Mecklenburg County Asset & Facility Management
Marshall Giles – ColeJenest & Stone (CJS)
Joel Causey – CJS
Dan Putman – CJS
Community Members (See Attached Sign-In Sheet)
Minutes:
I. Introduction
a. Project Information:
i. The current site for the proposed Teddington Neighborhood Park is
approximately 18 acres. The site is located in western Mecklenburg
County on the southeast corner of the intersection of Freedom Drive
and Elmwood Circle. Three parcels are included within the park site:
05916103 (1.45 acres), 05916118 (15.26 acres), and 05916119
(1.20 acres). A tributary of Paw Creek flows through the site. Much
of the site is wooded and located within floodplain. Informal dirt trails
currently exist throughout the park. The site has some significant
topographic changes and limited space for a traditionally developed
park creating challenges with visibility and accessible park
improvements.
b. Meeting Introduction:
i. Kevin Brickman with MCPR introduced the project team and the
project to community members. A brief overview of the history of the
park site and plan was given, including the first public input session
in 2014 and the Park and Recreation Bond approved in 2008. Kevin
talked about what would happen over the course of the meeting, and
informed attendees the purpose of the meeting was to inform the
community of the intention to develop the park, the design process
that has been followed to date, and to allow opportunity for
attendees to voice their thoughts and opinions.
II. Presentation
a. Marshall Giles of CJS led the initial presentation. The project was introduced
to the community via prepared PowerPoint presentation. CJS was tasked
with designing a neighborhood park that provides both passive and active
facilities as determined to be most important to the public as based on most
recent MCPR 10-Year Comprehensive Master Plan. Information directing
the study, including proposed park elements was provided from MCPR. The
presentation included: park location, definition of a neighborhood park,
analysis of the site, opportunities and constraints of the site, potential park
P:\SDSKPROJ\4316\4316.02\200 - Correspondence\20 - Conference Memos\0413 - Public Meeting Minutes\4316 - Public Meeting Minutes.docx
4316.02 – Teddington Neighborhood Park
April 7, 2016
Page 2
elements including precedents, two alternate park locations evaluated in
2014, and the revised preliminary concept plan for the park based on current
survey data. The preliminary concept was explained in depth, with an
explanation for each park element, and the preliminary location of that
element in the park. Community members were asked to do two things:
i. Community members were asked to review the preliminary concept
and make comments about aspects of the design that they
liked/disliked. Attendees made comments both on comment sheets,
and also on “post-its” attached directly to the concept plan.
ii. Community members were also asked to place colored dots on the
five (5) elements they liked best, thereby prioritizing which elements
were most important to them. Community members were informed
that members of the project team would be available for discussion
and to answer questions.
b. Following the presentation, the floor was opened for general questions from
those in attendance.
III. Questions
a. A lengthy question and answer segment followed the presentation.
Representatives of MCPR answered questions, with the assistance of CJS
when addressed directly. The community members voiced the following
questions and comments about the park. Some of the questions included:
i. Why is MCPR planning to build a park in the Town Park
Neighborhood?
MCPR currently owns the Teddington Neighborhood Park
parcels and has been planning to build a neighborhood park at
this location in accordance with the Park & Recreation 10-year
Master Plan and voter-approved 2008 Bond Referendum.
ii. Traffic at this intersection is unsafe. There is only one entrance to
this neighborhood and parked cars along the park will make it more
dangerous. Community members expressed concern with a high
frequency of accidents, and large trucks exceeding the size limits of
Freedom Drive.
MCPR recommends that traffic concerns be brought to the
attention of Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT).
There will be no parking provided as this is not a feature of a
neighborhood park. No parking signs may be required along
the street, as approved by CDOT.
iii. Who will be allowed to use the park?
The park will be intended for use by residents of the
surrounding neighborhoods, specifically Town Park
Neighborhood, Teddington, etc. The standard regulations for
County Parks will apply: the park will be open from sunrise to
sunset. CMPD and County Park Rangers will regularly monitor
the parks to ensure compliance with laws.
iv. Is the building of this park a certainty? Is there anything that can be
done by concerned neighbors to prevent the park from being built?
MCPR already owns the parcels. A public meeting was held in
2014 to discuss preliminary plans for the park. Planning had
been put on hold until recently.
v. Why were the local residents not informed of the park until now?
MCPR has owned the initial parcel since 1993 and acquired the
additional parcels in 2015. A public meeting was held in 2014.
vi. Why will the park not have restrooms?
P:\SDSKPROJ\4316\4316.02\200 - Correspondence\20 - Conference Memos\0413 - Public Meeting Minutes\4316 - Public Meeting Minutes.docx
4316.02 – Teddington Neighborhood Park
April 7, 2016
Page 3
Restrooms are not a feature used in neighborhood parks.
Restrooms are cost-prohibitive on small park projects and the
park is intended for use by area residents with close access to
their own home restrooms.
vii. Can the money for this park be used to fix up other area parks
instead, or for other purposes?
The current funds were set aside specifically for the Teddington
Neighborhood Park and were allocated through the voterapproved 2008 MCPR Bond Referendum. It may be possible to
reallocate the funds to other parks in the area.
viii. The name is confusing. The park would border Elmwood Circle and
the Town Park Neighborhood, not Teddington Drive. Can the name
be changed?
MCPR is open to suggestions on an alternate park name and
encourages area residents to make recommendations. To
recommend an alternate park name, the community must
formally request a name change following the guidelines
established by the Mecklenburg County Facility Naming Policy.
This policy is available for review at:
https://mecklenburg.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=148
4960&GUID=827E1456-B3F3-4A69-B930-A374756E9FEF
ix. Can the park be moved to the other side of the creek?
Two alternates were studied by CJS. Locating the park on the
eastern side of the creek is both cost-prohibitive and presents
issues with safety, visibility, and accessibility due to
topography and potential for flood studies.
IV. Meeting Adjourned
a. The site plans with sticky notes, the precedent boards with different color
dots, and comment sheets completed by those in attendance were collected
by the project team.
b. Meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 PM.
V. Results of Breakout Session
a. Preferred Park Elements (based on number of dots given to each elements)
P:\SDSKPROJ\4316\4316.02\200 - Correspondence\20 - Conference Memos\0413 - Public Meeting Minutes\4316 - Public Meeting Minutes.docx
4316.02 – Teddington Neighborhood Park
April 7, 2016
Page 4
b. Other Written Comments from the Proposed Site Plan (on sticky notes)
i. There were (16) comments posted in general opposition to the park
for multiple reasons. Most common among these were:
a. Safety concerns
b. Traffic problems on Freedom Drive
c. Park not needed
ii. One comment was in favor, suggesting an alternate name.
c.
Other Written Comments Provided on Comment Sheets to MCPR
i. Two comment sheets were filled out listing support for the park with
suggestions for an alternate park name and other desired elements
such as a creek bridge and wildlife/nature educational boards.
d. Overall, there were (16) written comments received in opposition to the park
and (3) in support of the park.
P:\SDSKPROJ\4316\4316.02\200 - Correspondence\20 - Conference Memos\0413 - Public Meeting Minutes\4316 - Public Meeting Minutes.docx