The Park Committee met recently. Read the minutes here.
Some History and the Process:
NHCC is developing a Newport Hills neighborhood vision for the five acres vacant City park property located west of Ringdall School, aka the Tyler Property. The NHCC Park Committee wants to know what ideas you have for the park, what amenities you would like at the park, etc. Please take this brief survey and tell all your neighbors!
The next steps for the committee are:
- Review the results of the survey.
- Develop three to five visions for the park.
- Present the visions to the neighborhood for input and comments.
- Incorporate comments and present three visions to the Bellevue Parks Department for approval of one vision.
- Present the vision to the Bellevue City Council with support from the Parks Department.
This committee conducted a survey during the 4th of July Picnic. View the results.
You can read more about the park at the City’s Parks Department website.
Coming soon – A NAMING competition for the park – start thinking about what name you would like!
22 responses so far ↓
1 Robin Bentley // Sep 14, 2012 at 6:10 AM
Hi Heidi,
Yes, perhaps Bruce will enlighten us at the next meeting.??
Thanks for taking the time to respond. However, I don’t see how Michelle could have shared “some of the info” as we both walked out at the same time.
I will give second thoughts to any committee I’m asked to join in the future as this was obviously a complete waste of my time.
I’m very hopeful mediation will help get all the voices heard (and listened to).
2 Heidi Dean // Aug 23, 2012 at 1:05 PM
Hi Robin:
Cheryl (the mediator) was present during the park planning committee discussion but she did not actually do any mediating. She did suggest that the issue of re-opening the application process sounds like something the COB mediation office could help with. To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure what’s supposed to be happening with that… maybe that’s something that Bruce Young (president) can answer. The requests to re-open the application process and the offer of mediation were both directed at him and I didn’t hear a definitive response from him on either thing. I will ask him to please provide an update.
I’m sorry you felt unheard. Michelle Hilhorst was able to share some of the information after you left the meeting. Debra Haraldson posted a link to your meeting minutes at the top of this page.
Heidi Dean
NHCC 2012 VP
3 Robin Bentley // Aug 22, 2012 at 9:01 AM
I walked out of the meeting last night because I didn’t feel people were interested in the Parks Committee report. Would someone like to fill me (and the rest of us) in on what happened after the mediator was brought in?
4 kate // Mar 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM
John: I disagree. I think that a local park for dogs and their owners, within walking distance, is necessary. Just as sports fanatics have their fields up the street, we dog lovers have our field. I agree the field could be shared with other venues. Drainage is a huge concern there and I could only imagine the cost of renovating the property for use other than a dog park. For dog owners, all we require is a garbage can for poop and the now fenced in area along 60th. (Marymoor has the benefit of wide open fields with parking used only by dog park users who know to drive slowly. Not so on 60th where any dog chasing a ball that escaped the fence, is likely to be run down by the speeders). The police offer who parked next to me at Tyler Park didn’t seem to have any problem with my dog being off leash and even threw his ball for him. There is no posting that all dogs must be leashed at Tyler park
5 John Bruels // Feb 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM
As it stands now, it is clearly posted by the parks department; dogs are to be leashed on the Tyler property. Those that fail to follow this run the risk of a misdemeanor charge if caught by King County Animal Control or Bellevue Police.
6 John Bruels // Feb 4, 2012 at 4:19 PM
There are two dog parks within a 10 minute drive of NPH. Cedar River in Renton and Robinswood near Eastgate. There are also hundreds of acres of Forest Service land that don’t require leashes so long as the dog is under “strict voice control.” I think there are much better uses for our scarce urban parks.
7 Heidi Dean // Jan 30, 2012 at 6:38 AM
I had a last minute family issue come up that prevented me from attending the January club meeting. I was wondering if there was any news about the Park Committee? The December meeting minutes indicate the committee is supposed to form in January. I submitted an application several months ago and haven’t heard anything. Update?
8 Janet starr // Jan 29, 2012 at 7:04 PM
Newport Hills needs a place for a community garden/p-patch area. Many people do not have the ability to garden in small back yards or apartments.
I am concerned that because the area is used for dogs now, it may be difficult to change it to other use. It would be great if we could mark off an area for” other than dog use” so that the whole area does not become an ff leash dog park.
9 Heidi Dean // Dec 12, 2011 at 8:15 PM
While I understand Gail’s concern about the fencing and dog safety, I would have a problem with altering the fencing for two reasons:
1. Altering the fencing for canine safety, whether done by the city or by private citizens, indicates that the Tyler Property is a “dog park”. It is not. Its future use has yet to be determined. I fear that allowing private citizens to alter any part of the property now to benefit a specific group will allow them unfair influence over/claim to the future use of the property because of their financial and manual labor investment in it.
2. Having visited various off leash dog parks in King & Snohomish counties, it is my understanding that OLA (off leash area) etiquette is to have your dog under control at all times regardless of whether there’s adequate fencing (Marymoor, for instance). If one’s dog is prone to running away, especially running toward busy roads, then maybe that dog is not appropriate for an unofficial OLA like the Tyler Property.
10 Gail // Dec 11, 2011 at 9:26 AM
I would like to see the current fencing on the Tyler property modified to prohibit dogs from escaping. It is a great off-leash area as it is, except that the current fence is inadequate. Just the other day my dog escaped with another canine friend and they were almost hit by cars (along with my daughter, trying to catch the escapees!). Simple chicken wire added to the bottom half of the fence and the west end closed off would greatly increase the safety of the park until such a time as other development of the area is funded. If the City won’t modify the fence at this time, I would hope that approval would be given to residents doing so. I have not returned to the park since the harrowing escape we experienced a few weeks ago; it is just not safe.
11 marci // Nov 29, 2011 at 9:51 AM
Is the form still available for signing on as a parks committee member?
thanks.
12 Sandi Tampa // Oct 5, 2011 at 12:16 PM
I spoke with Claudia and she clarified for me. Woodridge had asked to have their NEP projects put on hold to help City of Bellevue with their budget (I think that is pretty cool). She said this has nothing to do with the Newport Hills Park as there won’t be any budget for such a project until 2016 (at the earliest).
13 Sandi Tampa // Oct 2, 2011 at 11:27 AM
I posted this 2 weeks ago with no response. I suppose I posted it in the wrong place, so I’m re-posting here. (I corrected a typo in this post):
At Tuesday’s (9/20) Community Club meeting, I understood Claudia Balducci to say that some neighborhoods have requested the city to put some of their projects on hold due to the City of Bellevue’s budget problems. Then, I also understood that Newport Hills is pushing the issue of the park along 60th (the survey request says “The City of Bellevue would like to hear your ideas on the park at the “Tyler” property along 60th.”) while it’s not on the city’s radar or budget. Did I understand that correctly, or am I missing something?
14 Tosh // Sep 24, 2011 at 12:36 PM
I started using the park this spring as an off leash dog area. I was one of a few people there, but over the summer the usage has steadily increased to 15-20 regulars in the late evening timeframe as people learn of its availibilty and of the presence of other dog/owners.
While I have no problems in sharing the park for other uses, I think that it would take considerable time and money to develop and maintain it into anything other than an off leash dog area.
People who are not familiar with the property should be aware that it has a significant drainage problem during the rainy season, something I think would add a lot of cost to any real development.
15 Heidi Dean // Sep 10, 2011 at 1:25 PM
I encourage you to attend the community club meetings when we discuss future uses of the Tyler property. Expansion of the perimeter for additional parking has already been discussed, regardless of whether there’s dog park/splash pad combo use. I agree that the splash pad would need to be contained but that can be as simple as fencing it in with chainlink fence and some plantings on the outside to pretty it up. Somehow the people of Everett have managed to make it work in Forest Park where dogs are allowed (and can be seen playing on an everyday basis). The Rotary Centennial Water Playground has only a low cement wall around the perimeter of the splash pad with two ends open for easy access. I’ve been there on several occasions this summer and last summer and have yet to see a dog allowed to run through there.
I will try to get to Forest Park soon to take pictures which I can provide to Robert Parrish, Park Committee chair, and to the community club membership for consideration.
16 RS Trindle // Sep 10, 2011 at 11:04 AM
Sharing is good.
But sharing between little kids in a water space and dogs off leash is possibly not the easiest pairing. Do you envision lots of fencing? Separated parking and walks to keep the dogs and tots happily separated? From a health and safety standpoint, the dogs would have to be excluded completely from the water feature.
Considerably more space would need to be devoted to parking if there were a toddler water park. And suddenly the space doesn’t seem so huge.
17 Heidi Dean // Sep 10, 2011 at 9:19 AM
The splash pad would actually take up very little of the several acres the Tyler property covers and could be located at the very front (roadside) of the property. There would still be plenty of room for a dog park, a skatebowl, or both, in the back of the property. I am a dog owner and have taken my dog to the Tyler property to play but I don’t think it’s necessary to reserve that huge area ONLY for dogs. Why can’t the dogs (and their owners) share the space?
18 RS Trindle // Sep 9, 2011 at 6:39 PM
The site is a natural splash pad most of the year due to the drainage issues and natural springs.
In my mind, a dog park makes the most sense. A splash park for young kids would only get use for two or possibly 3 months of the year, and the rest of the time the space would be underutilized and prone to vandals. A dog park would get year round use, as many dog owners are pretty dedicated to taking them out no matter what the weather.
19 Gretchen Anders // Sep 9, 2011 at 1:18 PM
Love the idea of water park/splash pad!
20 Anna // Sep 9, 2011 at 8:04 AM
I would like to have a dog park. We don’t have a dog park close by, and many of us like to take our dogs to open areas so they can exercise and socialize them with other dogs. Please consider this alternative. There are a lot of dog owners in this neighborhood. Thanks.
21 Heidi Dean // Sep 6, 2011 at 12:21 PM
I suggested a skate park (at a club meeting) also, Stephanie. I think it would be a great space for neighborhood kids I see rolling around on their boards. The closest skateparks are in Renton or across town by the YMCA. I also like the idea of a small waterpark/splash pad like the one at Forest Park in Everett.
22 stephanie Major // Sep 6, 2011 at 9:15 AM
What about having a park dedicated to older children, more precisely those 10 years and older? For example a skate park? Anybody knows if it keeps kids out of trouble?
Leave a Comment