Design team lays out options, parking shortfall and rough costs for Great Crossing Park phase 2

A consultant team the court identified in the meeting (referred to in the transcript as Brandcenter Carroll) presented conceptual options for a second phase at Great Crossing Park and sought feedback on layout, amenities and costs.

Pat Hoagland, introduced by the consultants as a parks designer with extensive experience, discussed tradeoffs between a 4-field and a 5-field complex, stressing parking and grading constraints. Hoagland said a commonly used planning figure is about 60 parking spaces per field for tournament use and reported an on-site count of about 266 existing spaces in the ball-field area; he estimated a five-field complex could require roughly 540 spaces, leaving a shortfall of approximately 274 spaces to host tournaments comfortably.

The presentation included examples from other jurisdictions and options for amphitheater siting, noting sun-angle orientation, retaining-wall needs, drainage and stormwater-detention implications. The consultants emphasized that additional paved areas and expanded parking increase stormwater-management requirements and earthwork costs, and that the shown cost ranges excluded major grading and retaining-wall work.

On costs, the team gave ballpark ranges (as presented): a 4-field option in the $5.9 million range, with higher ranges for added fields and for artificial-turf fields; the consultants also noted that the adjacent new parking and associated retaining walls could add more than $1 million. Speakers emphasized these figures are conceptual and that a detailed topographic survey and a committee to refine site constraints are the next steps.

Court members and local recreation staff discussed priorities: many agreed that county youth leagues should retain priority access through June 1, while travel-tournament activity could be scheduled on remaining dates. Several members urged that if turf is selected, it be done comprehensively to maximize season length and rental revenue rather than incrementally.

The court expects the consultants to return with a formal scope and contract terms for the next meeting cycle; the contracting item was put on the upcoming Friday agenda for consideration.