Admin Order 58-04-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

stated that they beheved approxmmtely 50% of the people ~n Daneland MoNle Home Park are over age 55, and 50% are younger w~th kids. Some m the audience questioned the need for prowd~ng any on s~te parking. Curbside parking w~lt be prowded on the east and north s~des of the park s~te. The audience debated whether the cm'bside parking would be sufficient once the park was developed. WNIe the group as a whole could not come to agreement on the larger ~ssue of parking, there was agreement that accessible parking would be needed and that at the least tNs could be provided on site. Others suggested the concept of using 'bulb outs' or even a small parking fac~hty on the park In case the on street parking was not sufficient. It was felt that any on s~te parking would need some exposure at Royal especmlly ~f used in conjunction w~th a dog off leash area. The statement was made that people using the dog park has observed 4 or 5 cars many times parked along the street. Some concern was expressed regarding the new resIdentml streets surrounding the park s~te. They are being bmlt at a minimum width with no curbside parking adjacent to the res~dentml properties. People felt that the surrounding residents tmght resort to parking at the curb adjacent to the park s~te, effectively reducing the available parking fbr the park users. The group did agree that the access from Royal Avenue to the park would need more or better v~sibihty. People agreed that the park needed good sidewalks along the facing streets. A soft surthce perimeter path that could be used for walking and jogging was considered Important. SITE DESIGN AND FACILiTiES The group felt the amemtles that would be good to include at the park were hghtmg; benches; p~cmc tables; and a p~cmc shelter (s~m~lar to the one that was installed at Irwin Park, which everyone seemed to hke). Some stated that they would particularly hke to see hghting along the paths. A number of people voiced a request ~br the park to remain as open space as much as possible. They thought an mibrmal open space w~th a shelter would provide a place tbr people m the neighborhood to gather for p~cmcs or other events. Even mentioned was the thought that a ~plaza' could add to the potentml of a 'gathenng place'. Some mentioned that v~ews in and from the park s~te were unportant and should be preserved. WNle there was not an outpouring of support for a Ng playground, some acknowledged that at least a small playground would be beneficml to the park. Concern was expressed that a 'tot-lot* not be placed too close to older k~ds play eqmpment. Most in attendance felt that the inclusion ofrestrooms in the park would be a lmNlity, and were not too anxious to see them at the park. A comment was made that people could go home or use the restroom at a nearby Albertson's Food Store ~f they had the need. It was pointed out that crossing a busy arterial (Royal Ave.) was not to be encore'aged. Besides, encouraging the use of a food store~s restroom was not appropriate for pubhc park users. Many park users hke cNldren and the elderly really need a more convement restroom fac~llty. The group acquiesced that ~t m~ght be appropriate to at least design m a location for some portable restrooms. Ones that could be used seasonally, not be too expensive, and end up being a draw for negative behawor or graffit~. PARK USES There was a s~gn~ficant amount of ~nterest among the people m attendance concerning the continuance of a dog off leash area on Candlehght Park. Because the undeveloped park s~te had been designated and used as an off leash area for more than a decade, a dedicated contingent of dog owners has evolved, who desire the dog off leash area to be included on the future master plan. D~scuss~on continued around the s~ze a dog off leash area should be. For the past decade the entire s~te was avadable ~br the off leash use. Strong sentiment