New Search
f • EVEN THOUTH NOT SHOWN ON THE SCHEMATIC PLAN, STAFF WANTED THE <br />~ AUDIENCE TO KNOW THAT LIGHTING WOULD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PARK'S <br />DEVELOPMENT. <br />• A COMMENT WAS MADE THAT FENCING IS KIND OF A NEGATIVE FEATURE. THE <br />SUGGEST WAS MADE TO HAVE FENCING ALONG ROYAL ONLY, AND MAYBE USE A <br />LOW WOOD FENCE OR A WIRE FENCE. (Staff agrees that fencing can sometimes be <br />unsightly, however in many situations where containment is important, it is necessary.) <br />• A PARTICIPANT COMMENTED THAT THE DRAFT PLAN LOOKS 100 TIMES BETTER THAN <br />WHAT SHE ANTICIPATED. <br />In Summary <br />In general the draft plan was well received. Some individuals strongly endorsed the plan as <br />shown at the meeting. The strongest dissention was ftom dog park proponents who felt the <br />allotted space for the dog park was too small. Staff agreed to look at the open waterway channel <br />alignment to see if some adjustment would provide a little more room for the dog park, however <br />maintaining a balance of uses on this neighborhood park would likely limit this to a relatively <br />small increase. Strong support was given for the active use plaza area and for the concept of <br />incorporating exercise stations near the pathways for the elderly and people in wheelchairs. All <br />participants were excited over the prospect of seeing this park constructed in 2005 and urged the <br />City to use what ever funding available to complete as much of the plan features as possible. <br />Closing <br />Staff outlined the remaining process required to adopt the park plan and confirmed the <br />construction timeline is still being planned for the summer of 2005.Once a final park design is <br />reached, the City will need to apply for the joint Division of State Lands/ Army Corps permit to <br />mitigate the small wetland. This permit process can take up to 6 months and staff would like to <br />have it completed prior to starting the construction drawings late this year. Furthermore, a site <br />review or conditional use permit process maybe required for some of the plan elements, <br />particularly the restroom. <br />In the interest of moving the planning process along, staff asked the group if they felt a 3rd <br />meeting was necessary if the plan changes were mailed to them with a comment period? The <br />consensus of the group was to not have another meeting as long as they received copies of the <br />revised plan and were given the opportunity to comment. <br />