Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reopens park-plan discussion; members ask MKSK to consider adjacent parcel and ADA access
Summary
Council debated an MKSK park-plan proposal and whether to expand its scope to include the adjacent parcel and options for a new council chambers/community center; members also pressed for ADA improvements at City Hall and recommended limited, lower-cost concept work before full engagement.
The Pepper Pike City Council on March 11 continued its discussion of an MKSK park-plan proposal for Pepper Pike Park and asked staff to ask the consultant to consider an adjacent parcel and how future City Hall improvements might interact with park design.
Why it matters: Council members said the park work offers an opportunity to develop a cohesive campus plan — including options for an annex or a separate council chambers/community center on the neighboring lot — and stressed that accessibility upgrades for City Hall (ADA improvements) should be part of the overall picture.
What council discussed: Several councilmembers said they liked the existing playground and pavilion and did not want to remove them in the short term. Suggestions included leaving the playground intact while planning conceptual alternatives for the rest of the park, and testing three conceptual options for multiple parcels rather than immediate, expensive community engagement. One councilmember said the cost estimate MKSK provided for a full engagement was $46,000; another recalled a prior, smaller estimate near $10,000 for a more focused scope.
Next steps and requests to staff: Council asked staff to contact MKSK to request limited-scope conceptual sketches that would consider city-hall renovations, ADA access improvements, and uses for the neighboring parcel (including the possibility of a one-story community center/council chamber). Members recommended asking multiple architects for conceptual proposals or issuing a targeted request for qualifications to gather a range of ideas. A smaller council/staff focus group was proposed to coordinate next steps and to discuss scope and budget before committing to a more robust engagement or community process.
Community input and timing: Council members discussed staged engagement: a low-cost preliminary concept phase (to generate ideas for the campus and the adjacent parcel) followed by a broader community-engagement phase if council chooses to proceed. A suggestion-box concept for playground-user input was raised as an immediate, low-cost way to collect resident priorities while the broader planning conversation continues.
Context: Members emphasized that a comprehensive, multi-parcel “campus” evaluation could avoid duplicative spending and make City Hall accessibility improvements that complement park design. No formal council action was taken; council directed staff to pursue consultant feedback on scope and to return with options.
