Parks advisory board recommends Quarry Park master plan for Plan Commission and Common Council review

The Oshkosh City Parks Advisory Board voted to recommend a preferred master plan for Quarry Park to the Plan Commission and Common Council at its meeting, endorsing a largely passive design that preserves open space while accommodating a small central gathering area and site-specific construction limits.

The plan matters because Quarry Park is a former quarry that was later used as a landfill; that history imposes engineering and regulatory constraints on what can be built there. Staff and consultants presented a preferred concept developed with neighborhood input, a cost estimate of $521,370 for full development, and a list of required environmental and post‑closure approvals from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

John Kinnear, president of Rettler Corporation, told the board the master plan is intended as a guide for future development and not a final construction set. “This is a guide for future development. It’s not anything set in stone here,” Kinnear said, describing the site’s documented landfill boundaries, gas vent pipes and covered groundwater monitoring wells that limit deep foundations and root‑penetrating plantings. Kinnear said the consultant team and neighborhood favored a design approach that minimizes deep disturbance of the landfill cap, uses slab‑mounted site features and favors flexible trail surfacing to accommodate settling.

Kinnear described two initial concepts. Concept 1 emphasized multiple access points and broad open lawn with native plantings outside the documented landfill boundary. Concept 2, which the neighborhood preferred, emphasized a stronger central gathering area, greater connectivity through the park and additional shade where feasible. The preferred concept retains lawn and loop trails, places tree plantings preferentially outside the landfill cap area, and includes stone outcroppings that reference the site’s quarry history.

Consultants and staff explained several technical limits that shaped design choices. Because the site contains a clay cap over landfill fill and documented monitoring infrastructure, designers recommended avoiding deep foundations, avoiding tree species with aggressive root systems in capped areas, and using slab‑mounted park fixtures (benches, picnic tables, musical play instruments) anchored rather than set on deep posts. For paths, consultants recommended flexible surfacing (gravel/limestone screening) with geotextile or geogrid layers rather than rigid concrete or heavily reinforced pavement, to allow for settlement and easier maintenance.

Kinnear said the preferred concept includes “musical instrument” play elements at the neighborhood’s suggestion. When a board member asked whether musical playground equipment has generated complaints in other locations, Kinnear said the element is increasingly common in multi‑generational play spaces but may not suit tightly packed residential sites; the park’s central, larger site made the element viable.

Neighborhood speakers who attended praised the design and local volunteer efforts. “We have gotten so much positive reaction from people who live in the neighborhood, people driving by,” said Lori Buzzkirk, a resident whose property borders the park, describing neighborhood plantings and support for a unique, low‑impact park amenity.

Staff and the consultant presented a preliminary cost estimate for the preferred master plan. Kinnear said the total for the full development concept is $521,370, which includes earthwork and demolition, utilities, native seating areas, walking trails, musical play equipment, amenities, contingency and geotechnical survey costs. He said required DNR landfill post‑closure modification permits, stormwater and erosion control permitting and geotechnical design will determine the final scope and cost adjustments.

After discussion the board moved to recommend the preferred master plan advance to the Plan Commission and Common Council. The motion was made by Tim (mover) and seconded by Jacob (second). In a subsequent voice vote recorded on the transcript, board members recorded as voting aye were Davis, Flom, Metz, Franz and Herman. The board chair announced the vote would be transmitted as a positive recommendation to the Plan Commission and Common Council.

Next steps identified by staff include pursuing required geotechnical investigation, confirming DNR permitting requirements, and preparing the plan for Plan Commission review and Common Council consideration. The consultant noted that detailed engineering — including geotechnical pavement profiles and precise interfaces with monitoring wells and gas vent pipes — will be required before construction plans are developed.

Quarry Park’s final design and schedule will depend on the permitting determinations and the formal approvals that follow Plan Commission and Common Council review.