Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Victoria committee probes low‑cost ideas to activate underused 'non‑traditional' parks
Summary
At its June 16 meeting the City of Victoria Park and Recreation Committee reviewed six underused ‘‘non‑traditional’’ park sites and discussed low‑impact amenities — picnic tables, benches, bike fix‑it stations and scenic swings — while emphasizing preserving natural character and neighbor preferences.
The City of Victoria Park and Recreation Committee met June 16 to review several underused “non‑traditional” park spaces and consider modest, low‑cost amenities to increase public use.
Committee member Jenna Smith, who led the presentation, said the discussion would focus on city parcels that lack playgrounds, sports fields or courts and are largely passive green space. “We’re going to be taking a look at some parks that fall into the category of defining…non‑traditional park space,” Smith said.
Why it matters: Several of the sites discussed are tucked into neighborhoods or protect wetlands, meaning changes must balance public access with preservation and resident preferences. Committee members repeatedly emphasized small‑scale improvements rather than large capital projects.
What they reviewed: The committee evaluated Alageney Park (trail and storm‑water pond with a gravel path), Church Lake Park (wetland overlook with limited flat space), Goodman Park (roughly 7.88 acres with potential as an informal trailhead for the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail), Notman Woods (canopied trail system), Salters Park (small, sloped neighborhood parcel with limited access) and Bayfront Park (a prominent downtown site already listed in the capital improvement plan).
Ideas discussed included benches and picnic tables to create meeting points, bike fix‑it stations near trail connections, interpretive signage at wetland overlooks, and “scenic” swings at waterfront overlooks. Members repeatedly warned against paving or heavy development where neighbors have expressed opposition; several speakers said past debate over trail paving at Alageney suggests preserving a gravel path there.
Access and infrastructure: For Goodman Park members noted muddy access in places and suggested small improvements (gravel or an informal path) and additional signage to encourage use as a trail launch; the committee discussed whether modest parking or phased picnic table installations would be warranted. Notman Woods participants urged preserving the wooded character rather than creating destination amenities that could change the user type.
Next steps: The committee recommended continuing on‑site review for a few parks, adding specific amenity requests to future planning (for example, bike fix‑it stations on trail corridors), and coordinating with neighborhood preferences when proposing any changes. Bayfront Park’s larger rebuild remains in the capital improvement plan, and committee members favored low‑cost interim amenities there until the scheduled project.
The committee did not take a formal binding vote on amenity installations; deliberations will inform staff recommendations to the city council and future capital planning.
