The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/30/2018 - COMMUNITY PARK REFRESHDATE: STAFF: October 30, 2018 Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning & Development Jennifer Torrey, Senior Landscape Architect WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Community Park Refresh. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to review the definition and scope of Park Refresh projects and what defines the character of community parks. Outreach efforts for the ballot approved City Park improvement project were paused, in order to provide further definition of a park refresh. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What feedback and direction does Council have regarding park refresh and park character? 2. What direction does Council have as staff seek to resume the City Park improvement project? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Overview Efforts to seek clarification on policy questions related to park refresh have intersected with the improvement project for City Park. Both efforts have their own distinct objectives. The first effort is the City Park improvement project. This effort is driven by approval of two ballot commitments, including Building-on-basics (BOB) and the Community Capital Improvements Program (CCIP). The second effort is providing greater definition of a park refresh. The policy questions and framework for park refresh are to be further explored and addressed in an update to the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. As part of early discussions with Council on park refresh, City Park was identified as a pilot project. This is where the intersection of the efforts occurs. City Park Refresh History In 2015, with Council’s expressed interest in the concept of park refresh, policy level discussions began about the need to update aging community parks. There are seven existing community parks in Fort Collins. The City’s community parks are on average 30 years-old. The concept of park refresh was introduced at a Parks and Recreation Board meeting (March 2016) and Council Work Session (April 2016). Please refer to Attachment 1 for the presentation from the 2016 Council Work Session. Park Refresh was defined by five guiding principles and a six-step process. Guiding Principles: ▪ Keep pace with changing trends in recreation ▪ Adapt to changing community needs ▪ Provide equitable park experiences City wide ▪ Connect people with nature ▪ Replace and improve antiquated infrastructure Six-Step Process for Updating Parks: ▪ Project Goals ▪ Initial Concepts ▪ Community Input October 30, 2018 Page 2 ▪ Park Master Plan ▪ Phase I Project Identification ▪ Phased Construction In addition, candidates for refresh (City Park, Rolland Moore Park, Lee Martinez Park, and Edora Park) were identified. The potential cost to refresh each park candidate was estimated. City Park was selected to become the pilot for park refresh, partially due to available funding. The upcoming Parks and Recreation Policy Plan update will provide a comprehensive approach for park refresh efforts in the future. City Park Improvement Project History The funding supporting a portion of the City Park improvement project comes from two separate ballot commitments. The first is the Building-on-Basics capital tax (BOB), approved by voters in 2005 for park upgrades and enhancements for older parks. These BOB funds ($1,703,000) were approved to, “add improvements such as new playground equipment, picnic shelters, restrooms, landscaping and sidewalks needed to keep our parks useful, enjoyable and attractive.” A portion of these funds were spent for other older community parks, leaving the balance of funds available for City Park improvements ($1,465,000). The projects completed to date with BOB funds include Rolland Moore Park community garden, Rolland Moore Park quick start tennis courts, City Park pickleball court conversion (pilot project), and Lee Martinez playground upgrade. In 2015, a second capital improvement tax was passed, known as the Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP). The CCIP funds ($350,000) were approved to, “bring back City Park train in a new, expanded location in City Park.” Utilizing these available funds, the City Park improvement project (pilot refresh project) began in earnest in 2016. City Park improvement project efforts in 2016 included identifying project goals, compiling historical research, analyzing existing park use, creating four distinct concepts, and conducting traffic analysis for each concept. Project goals: ▪ Respect history and character of City Park ▪ Improve pedestrian safety near the City Park pool ▪ Improve the sense of place ▪ Incorporate new City Park train ▪ Improve playground ▪ Additional and/or improved restroom ▪ Improved entry to Club Tico ▪ Safe convenient parking ▪ Enhance pedestrian connections and bike facilities ▪ Additional and/or enhanced shelters After completing these tasks, community feedback was sought. Outreach efforts included a Parks and Recreation Board presentation, two public meetings, concepts shared at multiple city events, comment cards, online surveys, social media, and a work session with Council. Summary of 2016 Outreach: Yes No # Votes Support for Project Goals 82% 18% 71 Preferred Concept: ▪ City Park Trolley Garden 43% - 25/58 ▪ Existing Improved 29% - 17/58 ▪ Lakeshore 19% - 11/58 ▪ Park Center 9% - 5/58 Themes from Open Responses: ▪ Maintain and improve accessibility for pedestrians and bikes ▪ Maintain open space and pastoral character ▪ Improve safety for pedestrians October 30, 2018 Page 3 Work on the City Park improvement project did not resume again until 2017 due to other council recommended priorities, including the Avery Park improvement project and Streets Park improvements. Efforts in 2017-2018 included: ▪ Review of citizen feedback ▪ Site topographic survey ▪ Tree inventory/mapping ▪ Historic element inventory ▪ Master plan development ▪ Field verification of master plan ideas ▪ Review of the master plan by a technical advisory group ▪ Revisions to master plan based on field assessments / advisory comments ▪ Phasing strategy and cost estimates developed with a general contractor ▪ Two community meetings (Facebook live and cable 14 video/comment cards/survey polling) ▪ Additional public outreach (online survey / online comment card / social media) Summary of 2018 Outreach: Yes Neutral No # Votes Support for Overall Vision 60% - 40% 366 ▪ Community Meeting 69% 121 ▪ Neighborhood Meeting 53% 103 ▪ Online Responses 58% 142 Support for Program Elements ▪ Trolley garden 48% 22% 30% 284 ▪ Pavilion 49% 19% 32% 283 ▪ Promenade 61% 17% 22% 280 ▪ Boardwalk 61% 15% 24% 279 ▪ Tennis/pickleball relocation 57% 21% 22% 274 Improved Area Preference 277 ▪ Putt-putt 12% ▪ Informal picnic area 34% ▪ Slackline/hammock 09% ▪ Unprogrammed / passive 45% Phase II Priority 268 ▪ Tennis/ pickleball 31% ▪ Pavilion 17% ▪ Playground / picnic shelters 26% ▪ Restroom 26% In late June, after hearing concerns regarding proposed plans from several residents who live near City Park, the City Park improvement project was put on pause with Council direction to take a step back and look at the definition of park refresh and park character as well as the scope and scale of park refresh. Additional outreach planned for the City Park improvement plans over the course of the summer was cancelled. Please refer to Attachments 2 and 3 for meeting summaries from the two outreach meetings. Community Park Refresh Outreach Summary Staff from Community Services and the City Manager’s office developed a survey to obtain citizen feedback on the concept of park refresh. The survey contents included demographics, scope and scale of refresh, refresh guiding principles, and definition of park character. Please refer to Attachment 4 for a copy of the Community Park Refresh survey. Outreach efforts involved conducting on-site surveys at each community park and city recreational facility, providing the survey online, advertising the online survey by distributing posters and cards at October 30, 2018 Page 4 recreational facilities and libraries and utilizing Nextdoor, social media, and Twitter. Surveys were collected from mid-August through mid-September. A total of 1,381 people participated in the survey. There was broad demographic representation by those who participated in the survey in terms of gender, age, zip code and community park visitation. Summary of Park Refresh survey results: ▪ Most important guiding principles: connect people with nature; replace/improve antiquated infrastructure, and meet current safety standards ▪ Majority support for all 8 scope and scale descriptions for park refresh ▪ Most important elements in defining park character: unique features/qualities and location/context Primary themes identified from open response question - What Should a Park Refresh Include: ▪ Update playground equipment/surfacing (107 responses) ▪ Reduce water use / introduce adaptive plants/wildlife habitat (105 responses) ▪ Add shade throughout the park (95 responses) ▪ Provide more / update existing dog parks (77 responses) ▪ Provide additional walks/trails and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists (74 responses) ▪ Include maintenance/upkeep (70 responses) ▪ Address safety concerns (52 responses) ▪ Provide year-round/clean restrooms (44 responses) Primary themes identified from open response question - What Should a Park Refresh NOT Include: ▪ Invest in short-lived trends (23 responses) ▪ Change existing character (22 responses) ▪ Total reconstruction (22 responses) ▪ Remove natural beauty or large open spaces (21 responses) ▪ Overlook safety concerns (17 responses) Primary theme identified from open response question - What else is Important about Park Character: ▪ Park Character should remain unique from park to park (37 responses) Community Park Refresh and Park Character Defined The following working definitions for Park Refresh and Park Character reflect input received in the community park refresh outreach effort. Park Refresh - “To update or make changes to a park to solve existing concerns, address community needs or recreational trends through repair, alterations, and/or additions while upholding park character.” Park Character - “Attributes that make-up and distinguish a park and influence the experience within the park, including programmatic and experiential elements.” Park Use Studies In partnership with Larimer County Department of Health and Environment and the Colorado School of Public Health (including faculty and students from both CSU and UNC), two tools were selected to study park use, visitation and activity levels. SOPARC (System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities) is an observation tool to record how specific areas are used. SOPARC was conducted within City Park by students in September. The second tool selected is an intercept interview survey. Students will be conducting interviews at various locations around town in mid to late October to find out why people do or do not use City Park, why they do or do not use other community parks, and how physically active they are. Results from these studies will be available in December 2018. Park Refresh Next Steps Further investigation of funding and implementation strategies for park refresh to be included in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan update. October 30, 2018 Page 5 City Park Improvement Project Next Steps Staff recommends moving forward with the City Park improvement project. Staff proposes to hold a design workshop for the City Park improvement project, where several stakeholder groups are identified and invited to review and comment on the current master plan and develop their own options. The current master plan and alternative options developed by stakeholders will be reviewed by the community in an open house format. We estimate this effort to take a minimum of six months. Master plan refinements and identification of a funded phase I project would follow. Funding for additional outreach efforts will come from the phase I project budget and could possibly delay or impact the ability to complete a phase I project. The City Park train (locomotive, gondola car and caboose) is currently under construction and scheduled for completion in late 2019. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (PDF) 2. 2018 City Park Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF) 3. 2018 City Park Community Meeting Summary (PDF) 4. 2018 Community Park Refresh Survey (PDF) 5. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF) 1 Refreshing Fort Collins Parks Kurt Friesen, Park Planning & Development Director 6-26-16 ATTACHMENT 1 Questions for Council 2 • What feedback does Council have regarding the park refresh concept? • What direction does Council have regarding funding options for refreshing parks? • What feedback does Council have regarding park build out and life cycle programs? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fort Collins Parks are Valued 10 Three Part Approach 1. Park Build Out – Completing the Park System 2. Park Life Cycle Program – Maintaining What We Have 11 3. Park Refresh – Adapting to Changing Needs Existing Process 12 Proposed Process 13 Park Build Out • Maple Hill • Trailhead • Bucking Horse • Eastridge • Interstate • Richards Lake • Bacon Elementary • Iron Horse •Lind • Fossil Lake • Lake Canal • Airport • Huidekooper 14 2 Community Parks • East Community Park • Northeast Community Park 13 Neighborhood Parks Based on 2008 Parks & Recreation Policy Plan Current Park Projects Southeast Community Park 15 16 Current Park Projects Southeast Community Park 17 Current Park Projects Southeast Community Park 18 Current Park Projects Southeast Community Park 19 Current Park Projects Southeast Community Park 20 Current Park Projects Southeast Community Park Current Park Projects 21 Maple Hill Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park 10 Year Projection 22 $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Administration Park Projects Impact Fee Collections Community Park 10 Year Projection 23 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 East Park Community Projects Park Impact Impact Fee Fee Collections Collections Park Build Out Suggested Solution: • Increase park impact fees. Fee increase evaluation is currently underway. 24 Parks Life Cycle Program 25 Playground before Playground after Replacement or Restoration of Existing Park Elements Recent Projects • Greenbriar Playground • Edora Ballfield Lights • English Ranch Walkway repairs • Golden Meadows Tennis Court • Spring Canyon Bike Park Renovation Phase 1 Parks Life Cycle Program 1,000+ Acres • 6 Community Parks • 42 Neighborhood & Pocket Parks • Archery Range 26 Asphalt/ Concrete Buildings Fields Courts Irrigation Playgrounds Structures Water Life Cycle Components Average Park Age 27 Note: The three oldest parks in the city, Washington Park, Library Park and City Park are over 100 years old and not included in the average. Parks Life Cycle Funding 28 0 200 400 600 800 1000 $- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Acres Actual Life Cycle Funding Acres Life Cycle – 10 Year Projection 29 $‐ $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Community Park needs Neighborhood/Pocket Parks KFCG Contribution Includes only current park acreage – no proposed parks included Park Life Cycle Suggested Solution: • BFO Offer for Additional Life Cycle Funding 30 Park Refresh Reasons to Update Parks • Keep Pace with Changing Trends in Recreation • Adapt to Changing Community Needs • Provide Equitable Park Experiences City Wide • Connect People With Nature • Replace and Improve Antiquated Infrastructure 31 Reasons to Update Parks Keep Pace with Changing Trends in Recreation Pickleball 32 Reasons to Update Parks Adapt to Changing Community Needs 33 Community Gardens Nature Play Reasons to Update Parks Provide Equitable Park Experiences City Wide 34 Fossil Creek Park Playground Lee Martinez Park Playground Reasons to Update Parks Connect People with Nature 35 Reasons to Update Parks Replace and Improve Antiquated infrastructure 36 Accessibility Irrigation Pavements Park Refresh Process 37 Park Refresh Example 38 March 3 & 7 Community Meetings Park Refresh Example 39 “Trolley Garden” Concept 40 Park Refresh Estimate by Park Approximately 50 Million Dollars Total $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 City Park Rolland Moore Park Lee Martinez Park Edora Community Park Park Refresh Funding Options • Development of a Park Improvement Fee • Funding through Typical BFO Cycles • 10 year Capital Improvements Tax 41 Parks are a Good Investment • Increase in property value • Increase in tourism spending • Direct use value • Health benefits • Community cohesion • Improved air & water quality 42 140 billion in economic activity that resulted in nearly 1 million US jobs in 2013. 1 - 2015 The Economic Impacts of Local Parks: An Examination of the Operations and Capital Spending on the United States Economy 2 - 2003 Measuring the Economic Value of a City Park System – Trust for Public Land Questions for Council 43 • What feedback does Council have regarding the park refresh concept? • What direction does Council have regarding funding options for refreshing parks? • What feedback does Council have regarding park build out and life cycle programs? Page 1 of 4 Park Planning & Development Department 215 N Mason St PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-221-6618 fcgov.com/parkplanning Meeting Summary Subject: City Park Tomorrow – Neighborhood Meeting Date: June 4, 2018 Location: Lincoln Center – Columbine Room Attendees: Approximately 80 City Park neighborhood residents MEETING FORMAT A meeting was held specifically with neighborhood residents to present current plans and ideas for future improvements to the core area of City Park and to receive feedback on the proposed ideas and phasing from the neighbors. The 30-minute presentation included: history of City Park; core area limits; project goals; 4 initial concepts; 2016 public outreach; summary of 2016 citizen feedback; current refined concept; design ideas for specific project elements; proposed phasing; and estimated cost for each phase. Following the presentation, a question and answer session was conducted. After the question and answer session, electronic polling was done to obtain information on the level of support for various park elements and to determine which elements / proposed phases were seen as higher priorities. Below is a summary of the question and answer session: 2016 CITIZEN FEEDBACK PROCESS When presenting the 2016 design concepts, how many people voted? x Staff Response: There were approximately 75 to 100 people who attend the public meetings and gave input on the 2016 concepts. In addition to those who attended the public meetings, there were others who provided input through comment cards and at summer events hosted within City Park. EXISTING TREES A large percent of trees in City Park are Ash Trees and will be affected by the Emerald Ash Borer. Have you considered how you are going to work around that? x Staff Response: The City Forestry Department has identified which Ash trees in the park will be treated and which trees are in poor health or condition and that will not be treated for Emerald Ash Borer. Locations of proposed park elements have taken into consideration trees that will likely need to be removed in the next year or so due to poor health or safety concerns. Existing, healthy trees are being preserved and protected. EXISTING CITY PARK TRAIN AREA Would a dog park work in the area with the old city park train tracks and shed? x Staff Response: ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 of 4 A dog park would create compaction to tree root zones and stress to existing trees in this area, so it is not as suitable as passive types of uses would be. PLAYGROUND / SHELTERS / RESTROOM Is the footprint of the proposed playground smaller than what is in City Park now? x Staff Response: The footprint of the proposed playground is smaller; however, the proposed playground offers more vertical play experience than the existing playground and has less unused space within the playground surfacing area. Why are you moving the playground and shelters? x Staff Response: The existing playgrounds are in the sun and have sand surfacing that absorbs and holds heat, making the play environment very hot on warm days. The existing shelters, which provide overhead sun protection, are in the shade of the existing tree canopy. The proposed plan switches these locations to provide a shaded play environment and picnic shelters that can be surrounded by irrigated turf space or planting beds. Are the frogs going to be moved? x Staff Response: The proposed improvements do not impact the location of the frogs. Why not fix the shelters and restroom, and not replace them? x Staff Response: The existing restroom was retrofitted from a building with a different use / purpose. As such, it’s layout is not ideal and the layout makes maintenance access to utility pipes more challenging. Renovating the structure is a consideration that can be explored more closely. The proposed, new restroom provides a men’s restroom, women’s restroom and a family restroom with an adult size changing table. The existing shelters are in poor condition. Replacing them in a new location, rather than continuing to repair them in place, is preferred. PARKING / CIRCULATION How are you going to accommodate parking if you close City Park Drive? x Staff Response: Off-street parking is proposed near the relocated tennis/pickleball courts. In addition, formalizing the existing on-street parking on South Bryan Avenue west of the lake is proposed, and additional on-street parking areas are proposed along other portions of South Bryan Avenue, Sheldon Drive and City Park Drive. How are bikes going to be accommodated? x Staff Response: A north-south multi-purpose path is proposed along the west side of Sheldon Drive from West Oak Street to Mulberry. In addition, the proposed promenade will provide a safe east-west circulation for both bikes and pedestrians across the park. Additional bike racks are proposed near the relocated tennis-pickleball courts, entry to Club Tico, City Park Pool entry, picnic areas, playground, pavilion and north lake shore. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 3 of 4 Has a traffic study been done to look at impacts with closing a portion of City Park Drive? x Staff Response: Yes, a traffic analysis was completed by the City traffic department. Most of the traffic runs north- south on South Bryan Avenue. Closure of the stretch of City Park Drive between South Bryan and Sheldon will not negatively impact traffic patterns. OPEN SPACE How much open space is being taken away with the proposed design? x Staff Response: For the park as a whole, the amount of open space will be roughly the same. With the removal of tennis/pickleball courts, removal of a portion of City Park Drive, and removal of unnecessary pavement near Club Tico, the amount of open space in the Core Area would increase by approximately 46,000 square feet. West of the ditch, with the addition of off-street parking and relocation of the tennis/pickleball courts, open space would be reduced by approximately 44,000 square feet. Open space is defined as planted or turf areas. TRAIN AND TROLLEY Do the train and trolley have the same season for operation? x Staff Response: Both the train and trolley run generally from Memorial Day to Labor Day. SECURITY Will there be additional security for the park with the addition of night lighting of the boardwalk and other park areas? x Staff Response: The park hours will remain the same, with the park closing at 11pm. Proposed lighting will create a safer environment within the park during operating hours. Rangers would still patrol the park as they currently do. Can you see into the treehouse towers, because that could be a safety issue? x Staff Response: There will be clear visibility into the play structures. PHASING / COSTS Why is the train the first phase of the project, and how long will it be until tennis courts are relocated? x Staff response: The train was voter approved and has approved funding in place. Construction of phase I is planned in 2019. The timing of the relocation of the tennis courts is dependent on approval of additional funding for phase II. If phase II funding is approved, reconstruction of the tennis courts could happen in 2019 or 2020. Will the existing restroom stay in phase one? x Staff response: Yes, the existing restroom will stay with phase I construction. It will be inside of the train tracks. An accessible sidewalk connection will be provided across the tracks to the restroom. How much will the cost of maintenance increase? x Staff Response: ATTACHMENT 2 Page 4 of 4 The Parks Department is currently providing maintenance for existing elements within the park. Most of the proposed features replace old or worn out features. Overall, the amount of maintenance would not change or could possibly be reduced with newer features. The only feature that would result in additional maintenance, is the trolley garden. The trolley gardens are included in phase III. Staff is working on determining the additional funds needed to maintain the trolley gardens. GENERAL COMMENTS PROVIDED x City Park improvements should focus on what younger generations want and like. x Design ideas presented are nice, but prefer they don’t happen at City Park. x Concerned about preserving the character of the park. x Concerned about preserving open space in the park. x Suggest interviewing picnic shelter uses in the park to see what their needs are. x New tennis/pickleball courts should be constructed before existing are removed. x Suggest increasing the area for the playground and providing more places for parents to sit. x Water quality of lake should be improved. x Concerned about how the proposed architectural style of the pavilion, picnic shelters and new restroom fit with the park’s sense-of-place. x Safety should be a higher priority in the phasing of improvements. x Glad to hear the existing trees are being protected as they are one of the best parts of the park. SUMMARY There was excellent attendance, lots of questions were asked about specific components, a divergence of viewpoints were expressed, and significant support for maintaining the “character” of the Park was articulated (although “character” appears to mean different things to different people). Support for the overall vision was evenly divided, while each of the specific elements received majority support. Please note that this document has been prepared as a meeting summary and is therefore not intended as detailed meeting minutes. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 4 Park Planning & Development Department 215 N Mason St PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-221-6618 fcgov.com/parkplanning Meeting Summary Subject: City Park Tomorrow – Community Meeting Date: June 7, 2018 Location: Lincoln Center – Columbine Room Attendees: Approximately 100 Community and Neighborhood Residents MEETING FORMAT A meeting was held with community residents to present current plans and ideas for future improvements to the core area of City Park and to receive feedback on the proposed ideas and phasing. The 30-minute presentation included: history of City Park; a description of the core area limits; project goals; 4 initial concepts; 2016 public outreach; summary of 2016 citizen feedback; current refined concept; design ideas for specific project elements; proposed phasing; and estimated cost for each phase. Following the presentation, a question and answer session was conducted. After the question and answer session, electronic polling was done to obtain information on the level of support for various park elements and to determine which elements / proposed phases are considered higher priorities. Below is a summary of the question and answer session: PLAYGROUND / SHELTERS / RESTROOM Is the footprint of the proposed playground smaller than what is in City Park now? • Staff Response: The footprint of the proposed playground is smaller; however, the proposed playground offers more vertical play experience than the existing playground and has less unused space within the playground surfacing area. The design team will look at ways to increase the footprint size of the playground to be able to accommodate additional play equipment. Why are you moving the playground and shelters? • Staff Response: The existing playgrounds are in the sun and have sand surfacing that absorbs and holds heat, making the play environment very hot on warm days. The existing shelters, which provide overhead sun protection, are in the shade of the existing tree canopy. The proposed plan switches these locations to provide a shaded play environment and picnic shelters that can be surrounded by irrigated turf space or planting beds. How much further away is the proposed playground from the City Park Pool than existing playgrounds? • Staff Response: The center of the existing main playground is 303 feet from the entry into the pool; the center of the existing tot lot is 437 feet from the entry into the pool and the center of the proposed playground area is 435 feet from the entry into the pool. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 2 of 4 PARKING / CIRCULATION How are you going to accommodate parking if you close City Park Drive? • Staff Response: Off-street parking is proposed near the relocated tennis/pickleball courts. In addition, formalizing the existing on-street parking on South Bryan Avenue west of the lake is proposed, and additional on-street parking areas are proposed along other portions of South Bryan Avenue, Sheldon Drive and City Park Drive. Will there be increases in traffic with the proposed plan? • Staff Response: A completed traffic analysis indicates closure of the segment of City Park Drive between South Bryan Avenue and Sheldon Drive will not significantly impact traffic volumes on surrounding streets. The proposed elements currently exist in the park or have been in the park in the past (i.e. City Park Train and historic trolley), so no additional traffic is anticipated for replacing existing elements. The gardens are a new proposed element. It is not expected that this amenity will result in a substantial change in numbers of park users such that traffic patterns would be negatively impacted. Could there be softer surfaced walking paths provided (around the lake) as well as a concrete path? • Staff Response: While the limits of this project don’t reach the south end of the lake, the design team can explore where crusher fine pathways may be added. OPEN SPACE / EXISTING TREES How much open space is being taken away with the proposed design? • Staff Response: For the park as a whole, the amount of open space will be roughly the same. With the removal of tennis/pickleball courts, removal of a portion of City Park Drive, and removal of unnecessary pavement near Club Tico, the amount of open space in the Core Area would increase by approximately 46,000 square feet. West of the ditch, with the addition of off-street parking and relocation of the tennis/pickleball courts, open space would be reduced by approximately 44,000 square feet. Open space is defined as planted or turf areas. How many trees will be removed in this process? • Staff Response: The proposed plan has been carefully planned to save all the existing trees. Saving the cherished trees has informed the placement and design of every element of the proposed plan. TENNIS / PICKLEBALL COURTS Do you have suggestions for where we can get more pickleball courts in town; and if during the gap between removal of the existing courts and construction of the new courts, can the pickleball nets be moved to Greenbriar park? • Staff Response: If all or a portion of the funding of Phase II is approved by City Council, it is possible the new tennis / pickleball courts could be constructed concurrently with Phase I. Phase II improvements can be grouped into 4-5 smaller sub-phases so that if a portion of the Phase II budget is approved, several of the sub-phases could be completed. In addition, there is another budget offer to add 4 pickleball courts at Spring Canyon Park. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 3 of 4 TRAIN / TROLLEY / PAVILION (STATION) Do the train and trolley have the same season for operation? • Staff Response: Both the train and trolley run generally from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Is the use in the Pavilion limited to 3 months out of the year? • Staff Response: While the train and trolley operate from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the Pavilion is programed to have year-round use. In addition to displaying the trolley and train for viewing year-round, there is a shelter component to the open area section of the structure that would also be used year-round. The pavilion has been designed as a multi-purpose structure. PHASING / COSTS / CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Why is the train the first phase of the project, and how long will it be until tennis courts are relocated? • Staff response: The train was voter approved and has approved funding in place. Construction of phase I is planned in 2019. The timing of the relocation of the tennis courts is dependent on approval of additional funding for phase II. If phase II funding is approved, reconstruction of the tennis courts could happen in 2019 (possibly concurrently with phase I) or 2020. Will the existing restroom stay in phase one? • Staff response: Yes, the existing restroom will stay with phase I construction. It will be inside of the train tracks. An accessible sidewalk connection will be provided across the tracks to the restroom. How long will the park be closed during construction? • Staff Response: Construction sequencing will be planned to impact as small of a park area at a time as possible. The length and timing of construction will depend on how many and which components / elements are included in each phase. If City Council chooses not to fully fund or partially fund this project, where does the money come from, or do some of the phases not happen? • Staff Response: Staff will explore grant opportunities, donations as well other options. Phasing will occur as funding allows. GENERAL COMMENTS PROVIDED • Concern for preservation of open space within the park. • Concern about preserving the historical character of the park. • Suggest adjusting phasing to address safety and lighting concerns sooner. • Suggestion to construct new tennis/pickleball courts before existing are removed. • Suggest a bandstand / small platform for music at the lake. • Suggest the Trolley Pavilion be called the “Trolley Station” (Club Tico was historically called the Pavilion). • Concern for the small footprint area for the proposed playground, suggestion to increase the size. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 4 of 4 • Suggest providing more, but smaller playgrounds throughout the park. • Like how the proposed playground promotes exposure to nature for kids which is essential for healthy childhood development (physical, emotional and spiritual); like the playground design leading to more imaginative and physically challenging play. • Suggest the open area of the Pavilion (Station) be allowed to be reserved for dancing or other small group activities (surfacing material to be appropriate for dancing). • Suggest temporarily moving the pickleball nets to Greenbriar. • Suggest providing shade and wind breaks for relocated tennis / pickleball courts. • Suggestions were given on which elements should be higher priority. While opinions varied, security / lighting and reconstruction of tennis / pickleball courts were mentioned the most. • Suggestion to consider children’s needs for improvements in the park before adults. • Suggestion to reduce the size of the Trolley Pavilion (Station). • Suggestion to look at amount of use each element / facility type within the park receives. • Proposed improvements to the park should consider all ages and types of park users. SUMMARY There was excellent attendance, lots of questions were asked about specific components. A divergence of viewpoints were expressed, and significant support for maintaining the “character” of the Park was articulated (although “character” appears to mean different things to different people). Comments were given on what the most used or most important elements are in the park, although what these were varied greatly from person to person. Majority support for the overall vision and the specific elements was received. Please note that this document has been prepared as a meeting summary and is therefore not intended as detailed meeting minutes. ATTACHMENT 3 COMMUNITY PARK - COMMUNITY SURVEY Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey, your feedback is very important to us! The information obtained from this survey will be used to shape future efforts in updating existing community parks. Demographic Questions 1 What is your gender? Female Male Prefer to self-identify: ______________________________ Decline to specify 2 What is your age? 15-19 years 20-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60-69 years 70 years or older Decline to specify 3 Do you have children who use the community parks? Yes No 4 If so, what are their ages? (check all that apply) 0-4 years old 5-12 years old 13 years & up 5 What zip code do you live in? ____________________________ ATTACHMENT 4 Community Park Improvement Survey Questions 6 Which Community Parks do you visit and how often do you visit them? (please select one response for each park) ¾ City Park ¾ Edora Park ¾ Fossil Creek Park ¾ Lee Martinez Park ¾ Rolland Moore Park ¾ Spring Canyon Park ¾ Twin Silo Park Never Occasionally Frequently 7 As parks age, it makes sense to update parks to reflect changes in user needs and to solve any existing use or infrastructure concerns. The process of updating parks is referred to as Park Refresh. The City is seeking community input to define what Park Refresh means. In your opinion, should Park Refresh include: (circle one response for each item) ¾ Minor changes For example: replacing old picnic shelters with new shelters. ¾ Major changes For example: shifting multiple park uses to new locations to either make room for a new or relocated use or to solve major concerns or conflicts within the park. ¾ Address current or future recreation trends For example: add new or adapt existing facilities to accommodate sports such as pickleball. ¾ Solve existing concerns For example: changing vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns due to safety concerns; altering the design of park destinations to provide better accessibility. Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No ATTACHMENT 4 ¾ Maintain park character For example: maintain tree canopy or iconic / identifying elements. ¾ Increase activity levels in the park For example: replacing standard off-the-shelf style play equipment with a unique, destination playground. ¾ Alter types of uses in the park For example: conversion of underused paved areas into pickleball courts or conversion of horseshoe pits into slack-lining or hammock use areas. ¾ Adapt to changing community needs For example: providing a large gathering space that can be reserved for celebrations or events. ¾ Other: __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No 8 Do you have thoughts on what else should be included in a Park Refresh? 9 Are there things that you feel should not be part of a Park Refresh? ATTACHMENT 4 10 Which of the following guiding principles for Park Refresh are most important to you? (please choose your top 3 choices, and rank them “1”, “2”, and “3”) _____ Keep pace with changing trends in recreation _____ Adapt to changing community needs _____ Provide equitable park experiences city wide _____ Provide educational experiences _____ Meet current safety standards _____ Enhance accessibility _____ Connect people with nature _____ Integrate culture _____ Replace / improve antiquated infrastructure _____ Enhance / uphold park character 11 Identifying Park Character is an important part of the Park Refresh process. Park Character is shaped by the unique features that make-up a park as well as the experiences that take place within it. The City is seeking community input on what defines Park Character. Please rank the following Park Character Elements in order of importance? (please chose your top 3 choices, and rank them “1”, “2”, and “3”) _____ Location / context _____ Existing elements _____ Park traditions / events _____ Unique features / qualities 12 Please provide any additional comments you have on Park Character. Thank-you for completing this survey! ATTACHMENT 4 Community Park Refresh 1 10-30-18 ATTACHMENT 5 Questions for Council What feedback and direction does Council have regarding park refresh and park character? What direction does Council have as staff seeks to resume the City Park Improvement Project? 2 ATTACHMENT 5 Overview BALLOT COMMITMENTS Park Improvement Projects City Park Train POLICY QUESTION How can we refresh aging parks? CCIP 2015 Preliminary Definition CITY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2016-2018 PAUSE … CITY PARK DESIGN WORKSHOP AND OPEN HOUSE 2019 2016 Work Session PARKS AND RECREATION POLICY PLAN UPDATE 2018 PARK REFRESH DEFINED CITY PARK PHASE 1 PROJECT Pilot Project Pilot Project 2018 Work Session BOB 2005 3 ATTACHMENT 5 Project History 4 Building-on-Basics: park improvements / $1.4M for City Park Park Refresh discussion began CCIP: City Park train / $350K Park Refresh process & approach reviewed by P & R Board Park Refresh discussed at Council Work Session: guiding principles, 6-step process, park refresh candidates, estimated refresh costs, City Park as pilot refresh project City Park Community Outreach: project goals, park history, and 4 design concepts; comment cards (meetings & online) indicated 82% support for project goals 2005 2015 2016  March  April  June ATTACHMENT 5 Project History 5 City Park Master Plan Developed - Coordination with Experts - Field Assessments of Design Ideas Refined City Park Master Plan Community Outreach - public meetings, polling / comment cards, facebook, cable 14 video, social media - polling / comment cards (meetings & online) indicated 60% support for overall vision Project on Pause 2017 2018  June ATTACHMENT 5 Project on Pause Goals During Pause: • Further define the scope and scale of park refresh • Define park character 6 ATTACHMENT 5 Park Refresh Outreach 7 • Survey Prepared by Community Engagement Professionals • Online Outreach Advertised at 10 Locations throughout the City • In Person Survey Conducted at 15 Locations and Events ATTACHMENT 5 In Person Survey Locations & Events 8 Date Location / Event Date Location / Event 8/14 City Park Pool 8/28 Senior Center Lobby Rolland Moore Park 8/30 Twin Silo Park 8/15 Northside Aztlan Center Fossil Creek Food Truck Rally 8/21 Gardens on Spring Creek 9/4 Foothills Activity Center City Park Food Truck Rally 9/6 Edora Park 8/23 Lee Martinez Park The Farm 9/11 Old Town Library Spring Canyon Park EPIC 8/26 City Park Pool Pooch Plunge ATTACHMENT 5 Online Survey 9 Online Survey Link Shared: • 25 Boards and Commissions >200 people • 86 Community Park User Groups • Nextdoor neighborhoods city wide; viewed by 11,458 people • Shared by Twitter reached 3,744 people • Social Media 6,008 people reached via Facebook ATTACHMENT 5 Survey Content 10 Questions Included: • Demographics • Park refresh guiding principles • Park refresh scope and scale • Park character defining elements • Open ended questions Total Responses: 1,381 • 90% Completion Rate ATTACHMENT 5 Survey Results 11 Gender Female Male Decline to Identify Prefer to Self-Identify Total Female 64% Male 34% Decline to Specify 2% Prefer to Self-Identify 0% # Responses 871 461 25 3 1,360 ATTACHMENT 5 Survey Results 12 Age 15-19 years 20-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60-69 years 70 or older Decline to Specify Total # Responses 27 144 382 310 214 187 72 23 1,359 15-19 2% 20-29 11% 30-39 29% 40-49 23% 50-59 16% 60-69 14% 70 and older 5% ATTACHMENT 5 Yes 59% No 41% Survey Results 13 Respondents with children who use community parks Yes 804 No 552 Total 1,356 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0-4 years 5-12 years 13 years & up Ages of respondent’s children 0-4 years 30% 5-12 years 45% 13 years & up 25% ATTACHMENT 5 Survey Results 14 Zip Code Northwest 80521 Northeast 80524 East Central 80525 Southwest 80526 Southeast 80528 Other Total # Responses 215 207 407 295 117 85 1,326 East Central 31% Southwest 22% Northwest 16% Northeast 16% Southeast 9% Other 6% ATTACHMENT 5 Survey Results 15 Community Parks Visited and How Often ATTACHMENT 5 Survey Results 16 Most Important Guiding Principles Total Votes 59 69 118 242 271 289 293 301 380 461 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Integrate culture Provide educational experiences Enhance accessibility Keep pace with changing trends in recreation Meet current safety standards Adapt to changing community needs Provide equitable park experiences city wide Enhance / uphold park character Connect people with nature Replace / improve antiquated infrastructure ATTACHMENT 5 Survey Results 17 Scope and Scale of Park Refresh 63% 72% 73% 80% 82% 83% 88% 93% 37% 28% 27% 20% 18% 18% 12% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Major Change Alter Types of Uses Increase Activity Levels Address Current or Future Recreation Trends Adapt to Changing Community Needs Minor Change Solve Existing Concerns Maintain Park Character No Yes 1,181 1,195 1,183 1,202 1,203 1,168 1,196 1,193 Total Votes ATTACHMENT 5 Survey Results 18 Most Important Park Character Attribute 760 706 566 403 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Unique Features / Qualities Location / Context Existing Elements Park Traditions / Events Ranking: #1 #2 #3 Overall Unique Features / Qualities 349 276 135 760 Location / Context 333 218 155 706 Existing Elements 93 196 277 566 Park Traditions / Events 56 127 220 403 ATTACHMENT 5 Open Ended Questions – Primary Themes 19 Park Refresh Should: # Responses • Update playground equipment / surfacing and provide shade 107 • Reduce water use / provide adaptive plants and wildlife habitat 105 • Add shade throughout the park 95 • Provide more / update existing dog parks 77 • Provide additional walks / trails / connections to parks 74 • Include maintenance / upkeep of parks 70 • Address safety concerns 52 • Provide more / cleaner restrooms open year-round 44 ATTACHMENT 5 Open Ended Questions – Primary Themes 20 Park Refresh Should Not: # Responses • Invest in short lived trends 23 • Change existing character 22 • Include total reconstruction 22 • Remove natural beauty or large open spaces 21 • Overlook safety concerns 17 Park Character Should: # Responses • Remain unique from park to park 37 ATTACHMENT 5 21 To update or make changes to a park to solve existing concerns, address community needs or recreational trends through repair, alterations, and/or additions while upholding park character. Working Definition of Park Refresh ATTACHMENT 5 22 Working Definition of Park Character Attributes that make-up and distinguish a park and influence the experience within the park, including programmatic and experiential elements. ATTACHMENT 5 Ongoing Research 23 SOPARC (System for Observing Play & Recreation in Communities) • Observational Park Use Analysis Tool • Conducted in September at City Park Intercept Interview Survey • Interactive Park Visitation Analysis • Collects Qualitative Data • To be Conducted throughout the City in late October Partners: Department of Health and Environment Colorado School of Public Health ATTACHMENT 5 Next Steps Park Refresh • Further investigation of funding and implementation strategies for park refresh to be explored in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan update in 2019 24 ATTACHMENT 5 Next Steps City Park Improvement Project • Additional community outreach to include a design workshop in 2019 • Anticipate 6-12 months for additional outreach and design followed by a Council Work Session • Funding for additional outreach and design to come from phase I project budget • City Park train is currently under construction and scheduled for completion in late 2019 25 ATTACHMENT 5 Questions for Council What feedback and direction does Council have regarding park refresh and park character? What direction does Council have as staff seeks to resume the City Park Improvement Project? 26 ATTACHMENT 5