Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdmin Order 58-95-15 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58.~ Q5' --- /5: of the Public Works Department City of Eugene, Oregon Adopting the Mangan Park Development Plan. The Executive Director of the Public Works Department of the City of Eugene finds that: A. Pursuant to the Eugene Charter of 1976 the City Manager is the administrative head of the City of Eugene, and as such, has authority to administer the development of City parks or to delegate that authority to others. B. The City Manager has delegated to me, as Executive Director of the Public Works Department, authority to administer the acquisition and development of City parks and parkland, consistent with adopted City policies. C. On July 10, 1989, by Resolution No. 4127, the City Council adopted a Parks and Recreation Plan (Master Plan) for the City, which contains adopted goals and policies for development of City parks. The Master Plan also contains guidelines to be followed in making administrative and budgetary decisions about parks and recreation acquisitions, development and management consistent with those adopted goals and policies. D. Consistent with the above authority, the Mangan Park Development Plan (September 1995), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by reference, has been prepared, taking into consideration the following goals: (1) Meeting the existing and future needs of the community through orderly and systematic planning, implementation, and evaluation programs; (2) Making a wide range of parks, programs and facilities available for citizens and visitors of various ages, cultural backgrounds, abilities, interests, incomes, and participation levels; (3) Ensuring safe and convenient access to recreation lands and facilities; (4) Involving the community in the planning of parks and recreational facilities; Administrative Order ~ 1 (5) Coordinating the provision of recreational and cultural services with the plans and programs of other public agencies and private organizations; (6) Enhancing the environmental quality and visual character of the community; and (7) Maintaining, remodeling and upgrading park, recreational and cultural facilities in order to respond to changing uses as well as attaining and preserving operational efficiency. E. In order to solicit public input, the planning process for Mangan Park began by taking general input at a regular meeting of the Active Bethel Citizens Neighborhood group on June 5, 1995. Subsequently an ad hoc park design citizen volunteer group recruited from ABC neighborhood residents met with staff three times to develop the draft Mangan Park Development Plan. F. To allow interested parties to become familiar with the plan proposals, the draft plan was posted at the Petersen Barn Community Center and the Recreation Division Lobby (22 West 7th Avenue) for 10 days prior to a public hearing conducted by Parks Planning staff on September 11, 1995. The public hearing was held at Petersen Barn Community Center immediately prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the Active Bethel Citizens Neighborhood group.. G. Advertising for the public hearing occurred by a display as in the Register-Guard, an announcement in the Active Bethel Citizens newsletter, and a press release five days prior to the meeting. H. During the hearing there was opposition by consensus to the inclusion of a skateboard bowl and a BMX bike riding facility. The plan drew unanimous support when those items were deleted. The final draft of the plan has deleted those items. I. No further written or oral testimony has been received following the hearing. J. The Plan, presented in graphic form, is conceptual. The exact locations of various improvements and their design and construction details will be addressed at the time of implementation. Administrative Order - 2 Now, Therefore, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF EUGENE ORDERS AND DIRECTS THAT: In addition to the above findings, which are hereby adopted, I have reviewed the Mangan Park Development Plan attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and find that it is consistent with the goals and policies of the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan and other adopted City policies. Therefore, the attached Mangan Park Development Plan is hereby adopted, and shall be accordingly implemented as resources permit. Dated this ~ day of October, 1995. li2(ffu~~ ~ Christine Andersen, Executive Director Public Works Department Administrative Order - 3 EXHIBIT A MANGAN PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCALE 1" = 80'-0" ~-~ PUBLIC TESTIMONY RECEIVED AT MANGAN PARK PUBLIC HEARING Petersen Barn Community Center, September 11, 1995, 7:30 p.m. (Staff comments and answers to questions during the hearing are shown in parentheses.) SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS: Steve Lane, 1897 Laveta St., likes general design. A larger play area was suggested. (This play area is about 50% bigger than the new one at Petersen Park: it should not become so big and attractive that it draws people from outside the neighborhood.) He would like more information about a canvas cover for the picnic area. Janice Svetal, 2523 Mangan St., likes the size of the play area, and the presense of basketball and picnic facilities. NEGATIVE COMMENTS: Anita Vansickle, 2511 Mangan St., did not like the BMX and skateboard facilities. She believes problem youths would be drawn to the park, and that vandalism and crime would be more likely. She said there were problems with the BMX facility at States Street Park. She was concerned with potential after-dark problems if youth are drawn to the area. Steve Lane, 1897 Laveta St., felt that the BMX would become run-down in appearance as it has become at States Street: then it might be used for other purposes. If it is installed, there should be a sponsoring group to organize events and maintenance. Steve recognizes the need for facilities to meed the needs of adolescents. He also proposed designing a facility for in-line skaters, possibly inconjunction with skateboard use. Mary Kelly, 1220 Jacobs St., asked why there was no (picnic) shelter? (Picnic shelters, along with restrooms, make a park that is attractive for homeless people. Thought was given in making a concrete pad under a couple tables large enough that a person could set up their own portable canopy. Tim Patrick, Petersen Center Supervisor, advised that the Eugene Celebration Office had canopies to rent for special occasions.) Betty Moberly, 1418 Waite St., thought that there would not be a demand for horseshoe play. (The park planning committee had also debated that issue. The thinking is that it could be at least tried out at that location, perhaps with only two courts, to confirm the need before developing it as shown.) Don Sherry, 2531 Mangan St., asked if there would be park lighting. (Lights, hard to see on the plan from a distance, are shown, but would not be among the first improvements.) He felt that people might go 4-wheel driving in the park as he did in his youth and thought some barriers to prevent that should be incorporated. (Such vandalism of turf is so infrequent that the City does not feel park plans need to be modified to address this act.) He wanted to know about funding and ground breaking for development. (The earliest budget would be in FY 97, or July, '96. Due to limited funding and maintenance restrictions, any work at that time would be limited to general grading and hard surfaced improvements that did not require frequent maintenance. Turf, landscape plantings and irrigation are particularly not one of the development options until maintenance capacity is restored.) Tim Patrick, Petersen Barn supervisor, stated that car problems in the park occur about twice a year. At Petersen prior to the sportsfields, there were some behavior problems in the park. When Kidsports activity came in, the behavior-type problems diminished. He suggested that soccer goals, therefore, might by appropriate for Mangan Park. On skateboarding, he suggested consulting with Marilyn Steele of Amazon Community Center. It is his understanding that there were problems in the beginning, but that they have taperred off now. He was sure skateboarding was an activity that here to stay. Janice Svetal, 2523 Mangan St., thought the location for the portable toilets should be moved closer the playground area. She also questioned how the park grading would go. (A topographic survey is needed first, which will reveal what elevation the park needs to be graded to. The basic plan should not change: the issue is whether the park will be one, two or three feet above the street.) REBUTTALS AND GENERAL COMMENTS Steve Buss, 4023 Wagner St., likes overall design. Has reservations about the BMX and skateboard facilities, and does not want the community to have to pick up the responsibility for them. Jim Lynch, 2359 N. Clarey #26, had concerns about children exiting cars, and thought off-street parking would be desirable. (To have or not have off- street parking was discussed. The intent of the park is to serve people within walking distance, and as long as the park did not become so attractive as to draw people from outside the neighborhood, any parking demand is expected to be accommodated with on-street, park side parking.) Sherry Christiansen, 1299 Taft, was concerned about park hours and night usage. She said that the BMX and skateboard facilities belonged in a larger park. Linda Lane, 1897 Laveta Dr., also thought the skateboard bowl belonged in a bigger park. CONCLUSION Following a short general discussion, staff proposed that a final plan have the BMX and skateboard facilities deleted, and that the space be left open for other recreational amenities that future residents of the area might suggest. There was no disagreement with this proposal from any in attendence. Staff advised that the plan would be redrawn accordingly, and that an administrative adoption of the plan would follow. Recorded by Lisa Goorjian with edits by John Etter