Mercer Island unveils inclusive ‘Woodsy Wonders’ concept for Dean’s Children’s Park; full build could cost $6.3M–$7.8M

City staff presented a detailed site‑plan update on Nov. 6 for Dean’s Children’s Park that would replace aging playground equipment with a multi‑phased, accessibility‑focused “Woodsy Wonders” design featuring a central inclusive play hub, themed discovery nodes along woodland trails, a picnic shelter and a gender‑neutral restroom with an adult changing bench.

The presentation, led by Shelby Perreult, capital projects manager, and assisted by Laura Laney of Berger Partnership and inclusive‑design consultant Ingrid Canix, described the plan as the product of summer outreach (more than 70 respondents), Arts Council input and a site assessment that found opportunities beyond simple playground replacement.

The plan’s nut graf: the design seeks to balance three aims — increase inclusive, multi‑age play; preserve the park’s woodland character; and limit impacts to trees and stormwater by using a mix of surfacing and phased construction. Perrault said the park was prioritized in the 2022 parks plan because its flat topography makes it a good candidate for an accessible, multi‑generational playground.

Key components and tradeoffs

The preferred plan organizes the park into distinct play zones: ‘‘Critter Corner’’ (ages 2–5), discovery path play nodes, an intermediate compound play area and a large 5–12+ treehouse‑style adventure that would serve as a visual landmark. Designers showed multiple vendor concepts (Berliner, KOMPAN, Earthscape and landscape structures) to illustrate aesthetics, materials and lifespan tradeoffs. One option—the Berliner net‑tunnel tower—would be roughly 30 feet tall and use a tightly woven, enclosed net ramp to provide ramp‑like climbing access; a second KOMPAN concept would be a lower, more rustic platform treehouse (~21 feet).

Inclusive design principles were a central theme. Ingrid Canix said the project aims to move beyond minimum ADA compliance toward inclusive play that supports social, sensory, cognitive and motor development; staff introduced icons to show how each proposed element would deliver those experiences. Perrault said many vendor elements are customizable and that selection and vendor refinement would continue after commission input.

Surfacing and environmental questions

Staff presented surfacing options and acknowledged tradeoffs between accessibility, stormwater/impervious area and tree preservation. ‘‘Unitary’’ surfacing (poured‑in‑place rubber) is the most accessible but increases impervious surface; ‘‘engineered wood fiber’’ (wood chips) is more permeable and natural looking but less accessible. Commissioners requested quantified estimates of any net increase in impervious surface; Perrault said staff will return with percentage comparisons and stormwater implications.

Parking and circulation

Three parking options were shown: a minimal footprint (about 11 stalls with one‑way circulation), a moderate option (15 stalls, removal of one tree) and a maximum layout (17 stalls, removal of two trees). Commissioners expressed concern about the number of compact stalls proposed and noted families often drive larger vehicles; staff signaled a willingness to adjust stall sizes and favored stronger pedestrian connections between the park and the larger athletic‑field lot to handle overflow and reduce unsafe street parking.

Phasing, costs and funding

Staff proposed four phases: Phase 1 (utilities for future restrooms/picnic shelter, one large 5–12+ structure, swings and ADA restriping), Phase 2 (central play area, picnic shelter and parking improvements), Phase 3 (entry, discovery path, restroom) and Phase 4 (allowance for improvements to the Dragon feature). Perrault said Phase 1 is intended to fit within the city’s current CIP budget allocation for the park, but staff emphasized that full implementation would exceed existing funding. The preliminary full build cost range shown by staff was $6.3 million to $7.8 million; current city allocations total roughly $1.5 million, leaving significant additional funding to be sought through state grants (staff flagged the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office as a likely source) and fundraising.

Accessibility details and community engagement

Commissioners repeatedly asked for clearer metrics showing how many specific play elements will be usable by wheelchair users (distinguishing between transfer‑based play, elements that allow users to remain in a mobility device, and those that require transfer). Ingrid Canix said true inclusion is a balance: only a small share of children are wheelchair users who can self‑transfer, but ground‑level elements (wheelchair‑accessible spinners, group seesaws and ramps) must offer meaningful play so that users who reach higher levels are not excluded from valuable social interactions. Staff committed to producing a refined inclusivity matrix at the next design stage.

Community groups — Friends of Dragon Park, MIPA Preschool Association and Friendship Circle — have been engaged and staff said they plan a December meeting with Friends of Dragon Park and additional outreach to disability‑support organizations to test equipment and surfacing choices.

Commissioner feedback and next steps

Commissioners generally endorsed the overall direction while urging the team to:

- Return with precise surfacing and impervious‑surface figures and stormwater implications; - Provide more explicit, per‑equipment accessibility metrics (what a wheelchair user can do on each piece and whether transfer points yield a meaningful play experience); - Reexamine parking‑stall sizing (fewer compacts, more regular stalls) and improved pedestrian connections to handle overflow; and - Refine the phasing schedule and funding plan, including grant and fundraising strategies.

Perrault said staff will refine vendor choices and bring a more detailed package, including cost updates and impervious‑surface estimates, to the commission early next year. She reiterated that the current site plan is conceptual and that additional funding will be required to complete phases beyond the initial CIP allocation.

Why it matters

Dean’s Children’s Park is a long‑used neighborhood park that the city views as a candidate for a high‑quality, truly inclusive playground. Decisions on surfacing, vendor selection and funding will determine whether the final design delivers accessible play without substantially increasing impervious surface or losing the park’s forested character.

Ending

Staff will return with refined cost estimates, surfacing percentages and per‑element accessibility information in early 2026 and will continue outreach with Friends of Dragon Park and disability‑service organizations.