Meeting with Neighbors
at College Gardens Park:
January 7-8, 2006

Mark Pierzchala, President of the College Gardens Civic Association (CGCA) sent an email invitation to the residents of College Gardens that are on the CGCA email list to discuss the future of the College Gardens Park. The meetings were scheduled for 10:00am Saturday January 7, and 4:00pm Sunday January 8, at the Gazebo. The first email invitation went out on the preceding Thursday. A second email invitation went out Saturday afternoon. Three yard sign reminders were posted around the community on Saturday afternoon for the Sunday meeting.

These meetings were not an official CGCA meeting. Their purpose was to gather information, opinions, and perspectives before a scheduled meeting with the City to be held on Monday, January 9 (documented separately). No votes were taken, nor would that have been appropriate. There will be other opportunities for College Garden residents to express their opinions about the park and SWM. For example there might be a survey, and there will be a CGCA meeting about these two (park and SWM) issues (time and date yet to be determined).

1. At the request of Charles Burroughs a College Gardens resident on College Parkway across from the park, he, Ted Reuther (Clemson Court), and Pierzchala met at 9:00am Saturday morning. They explored a possible alternate site for a Storm Water Management (SWM) pond to the west of Princeton across from Auburn Avenue. They noted that there was a natural basin at that location. It also appeared that it would be more strategically located with respect to existing storm drain pipes, being able to collect more rain water than would a pond in the park. Other issues, such as the location’s legal status in the city, its history of land exchange, and its possible size were discussed.

2. At the 10:00am meeting on Saturday the 7th, five people came together at the gazebo to discuss the future of the park. Much of this time was spent in animated discussion of the history of SWM initiatives in the College Gardens neighborhood. It was advocated that the CGCA pursue the consideration of the alternate site that was explored at 9:00am. Pierzchala agreed to bring this up in the overall process in working with the City; however, he also noted that it was very likely that some change was going to happen in the park. There was about 45 minutes of exchange about the posture of the CGCA in the process and the history of how we got to where we are. Then the discussion turned to the Park area itself and what the attending neighbors value in the park and would seek to maintain in any reconfiguration. (These points are summarized below in conjunction with the outcome of the second meeting.)

3. Approximately 12 people attended the meeting of Sunday the 8th at 4:00pm. Once again there was an animated discussion of the history of SWM initiatives in the College Gardens area. It was agreed that the City Department of Public Works approach to relations with the neighborhood had left much to be desired. Some in attendance were of the opinion that the most recent City initiative should be fought. Pierzchala stated that as a practical point, it was in the interest of the neighborhood to cooperate with the City; we don’t want to be on the outside looking in when decisions are to be made. He said he would follow a two-prong approach: a) cooperate with the City on the park to explore and clarify alternatives and tradeoffs, and b) explore alternatives that could replace or mitigate the impact of SWM on the park. After some time, the meeting came to a discussion of park features that the participants felt were important to the community.

4. Summary of park features, taken from both meetings.
a. Retain large space (not thin and elongated) for large gatherings such as the Night Out, when up to 400 people participate.
b. Maintain a sense of scale in the park. The concern was with a possible large pond that would approach the boundaries of the park.
c. The trees in the park, including those that surround the existing pond are a big deal to the community. Shade is a big and important current feature of the park.
d. Improved teen facilities – enlarged or better basketball facility for example.
e. Safety is an important consideration. This is true for any Storm Water Management pond as well as any features in the park.
f. A sledding hill is a prime directive.
g. New and better overall park equipment such as climbing equipment should be considered. The tot lot is important and should be preserved.
h. An area for volleyball is nice.
i. The soccer field seems to be more heavily used than the softball field. Note that there is a current issue with players relieving themselves into the bushes by the kindergarten playground; this should be solved somehow.
j. There was room for creative thinking about the placement of various features. For example, the basketball courts and the volleyball court could be moved.
k. If something had to go, the softball diamond would be a good first candidate.

5. Some people sent an email before and after the weekend meetings expressing that they could not attend either of the weekend meetings but would have if able.

6. Points of frustration raised by some attendees include: a) surprising way this issue resurfaced at the December 12 Mayor and Council meeting, b) seeming artificial time pressure as a result of this surprise development and because of the reconstruction of the College Gardens Elementary School, c) lack of clarity on the overall city process with respect to hearings, commissions, and permits for both the park and any new SWM facility, d) it appears that the work done for and by the City concerning the study of Low Impact SWM techniques did not fully cover the stated goals and that this was particularly frustrating because it was the CCGA itself that had initiated this work, e) timelines were unclear, f) budgetary resources were unclear, g) the names and roles of government entities (local, state, and federal) that would have to be involved in the park and SWM issues was unclear, h) the name of state and federal laws that seem to be impacting the community with respect to SWM mandates were also unclear.
It was also noted that some other SWM initiatives in the park could and should still be pursued including, for example, techniques that would recharge groundwater. Some of this technical implementation could be underneath the existing fields and resulting groundwater recharge could flow into the existing pond.

7. With respect to CGCA process, it was suggested that an official CGCA meeting to discuss these issues should be held (this will happen at an appropriate time). Also, it was noted that in a CGCA meeting 3 or 4 years ago, that these issues had been raised and that there was an overwhelming vote at that time against any change in the park. (Minutes of that meeting or newsletter documentation are needed.)

These notes were typed by Mark Pierzchala, president of the College Gardens Civic Association, completed January 16, 2006.

Return to SWM Index Page