Download to read offline
More Related Content
Similar to Community Advisory Group meeting 5
Community Advisory Group meeting 5
- 1. Windjammer Park IntegrationPlan Community Advisory Group Meeting 5 – May 5, 2016 5/5/16
- 2. Tonight’s Agenda 5/5/16 2 •Introductions • Review feedback / design direction • Discuss preferred plan • Questions and Answers • Discuss costs and phasing • CAG Wrap-up
- 3. Ground Rules 3 • Startand end on time • Silence cell phones • Participate in the process • Listen and speak respectfully • Avoid side conversations • Express yourself in terms of your personal needs and interest and the outcomes you wish to achieve 5/5/16
- 4. Ground Rules 4 • Startand end on time • Silence cell phones • Participate in the process • Listen and speak respectfully • Avoid side conversations • Express yourself in terms of your personal needs and interest and the outcomes you wish to achieve 5/5/16
- 5. Recap: Community Advisory Groupprocess 55/5/16
- 6. Community Advisory GroupPurpose / Charter 6 • Provide input and advice regarding proposed layout options for program elements and landscaping • Serve as a sounding board for the project team • Serve as a liaison to the public / representative groups 5/5/16
- 7. 7 Decembe r 2015 Januar y 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May/ June 2016 Counciland CAG Process • Provide feedback on 3 concept alternatives • Present WPIP concept to community • Gather community feedback (Public Open House and Online Open House) • Review preferred plan to be presented to City Council • Provide final feedback • CAG forms • CAG provides feedback on design guidelines • Introduce CAG and WPIP to community • Gather community feedback (Public Open House) COUNCIL • Programming priorities • Approves CAG COUNCIL Report: Alternatives and Public feedback COUNCIL Approves plan COUNCIL CAG formation update and initial priorities list/ design guidelines 4/19/16
- 8. Recap: Draft Concept Feedbackreceived and design direction 85/5/16
- 9. • In-person openhouse attendance: 28 • Online open house visitors: 356 unique users • In-person comment forms and surveys completed: 6 • Online Open House feedback received: 49 surveys total 3/29/16 CAG Meeting and Online Open House Recap 95/5/16
- 10. Draft Plan Feedback 10 •Family-friendly elements and activities should be prioritized, especially supporting splash park. • Observations that there are a lot of different elements in the park plan. • Concern about effect on Waterside Condos (due to new activities or driveway/ parking). • Varied opinions on the inclusion of dunes as part of walking path, potentially needing additional information/clarity of design. • CAG generally agrees with removing/relocating RV Park and ballfields, if other locations can be found. Public opinion varies. • Consensus that the waterfront is a resource and asset. 5/5/16
- 11.
- 12. Draft Concept 3:Focus 1 12 3/29/16 Draft Plan/ Preferred Plan Concept
- 13. Updated Preferred Concept 5/5/1613 5/5/16 Updated Draft Plan/ Preferred Plan Concept
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27. WPIP Cost andPhasing 275/5/16
- 28. WPIP Cost andPhasing 285/5/16
- 29. WPIP Cost andPhasing 295/5/16
- 30. WPIP Cost andPhasing 305/5/16
- 31. WPIP Cost andPhasing 315/5/16
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39. 395/5/16 Windjammer Park PotentialFunding Sources Phase Grants and Potentially Appropriated City Funding Potential Funding Sources 1 CWF Project Costs 1B Grants and Funding City General Fund Park Impact Fees WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront parks, picnic shelters, play areas, restrooms) WRSCO - Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (Shoreline Enhancements) 2 TBD Based on Funding and available opportunities WRSCO - Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (Parking lots and entry drives) WRSCO - Land and Water Conservation Fund (Parking) WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront parks, amphitheater/stage) 3 TBD Based on Funding and available opportunities WRSCO - Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (Shoreline Enhancements) WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront parks, hardcourts, picnic shelters, play areas, playing fields, restrooms) 4 TBD Based on Funding and available opportunities WRSCO - Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (Lagoon Renovation, waterfront parks, waterfront boardwalks) WRSCO - Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (Shoreline Enhancements) WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront parks, picnic shelters, play areas, playing fields, restrooms) 5 TBD Based on Funding and available opportunities WSRCO- Youth Athletic Fields Grant (Relocation of ball fields) WRSCO - Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (Shoreline Enhancements) WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront parks, picnic shelters, play areas, playing fields, restrooms)
- 40. Potential City Funding, where appropriate Collaborationwith local groups Other Potential Grant Resources for Parks and Recreation Other Ideas General Fund Arts Commission Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation Fundraising City 2% Lodging Tax Knights of Columbus Wells Fargo Corporate Giving Grants Brick Sales .09 Rural County Economic Development Seattle Fund Community Garden and Craft Shows Real Estate Tax Safeco Community Grants Park Impact Fees LL Bean Construction and Recreation Grants Home Depot Community Impact Grants American Express Grant Program Robert Wood Johnson Foundation HUD Community Development Grant Program 405/5/16
- 41. • Process discussionand reflection • CAG Debrief Community Advisory Group Wrap-up 415/5/16
- 42. • May 21Public Works Week Family Fun Day (Windjammer Park) • May 25: City Council WPIP Workshop • June 7: City Council meeting and action on WPIP Next Steps 425/5/16
- 43.
- 44. Established Priorities forPark Elements 445/5/16
- 45. Park Program: AdjacencyThemes 45 Element Auto. Infrastructure Baseball fields Beach access Boat launch Canopy Event plaza Existing wetlands Gateway entrance Adjacent Elements • Baseball fields • Boat launch • Event plaza • Gateway entrance • Linkage to downtown • Parking • RV Park • Restrooms • Boat launch • Kayak campsite • Trail network • Parking • Gazebo • Kitchens • Restrooms • Landscape and gardens • Multi-purpose lawn • Parking • Restrooms • Landscape and gardens • Landscape and gardens • Linkage to downtown • Parking Element Gazebo Kayak campsite Kitchens Lagoon Landscape/ gardens Linkage to downtown Multi-purpose Lawn Multi-purpose Hard/basketball court Playground Restrooms Adjacent Elements • Kitchens • Landscape and gardens • Multi- purpose lawn • Restrooms • Restrooms • Trail network • Playground • Restrooms • Site furnishings • Stage / amphitheate r • Multi- purpose lawn • Playground • Restrooms • Trail network • Parking • Restrooms • Trail network • Restrooms • Trail network • Restrooms • Splash park • Splash park • Stage / amphitheate r 5/5/16
- 46. The Basis ofthe Three Draft Concepts 465/5/16
- 47.
- 48.
- 49. Draft Concept 3:Focus 1 49 3/8/16 Concept 3: Civic 5/5/16
- 50. • Concept preferencesby CAG members were ordered as follows: • Concept 2 (Naturalistic) • Concept 3 (Civic) • Concept 1 (Recreation) Take-aways from 3/8/16 Concept Review 50 • OK to show removal of RV Park • While formal fields are desired as a facility useful for the community, OK to show removal of formal ballfields and/or modify to be flexible field space (with assumption that formal ballfields will find a new home) Preferences Other themes Most inspiring spaces : • Parking “crescent” (Concept 3) • Stage (Concept 3) • Community space/room (Concept 3) • Event Plaza (Concept 1) • Lagoon/open space (Concept 1) 5/5/16
- 51. Take-aways from 3/8/16Concept Review, continued 51 • Amphitheater (Concept 3)* • Ballfields (Concept 2)* • Beach Access (Concept 2/3) • Event Plaza (Concept 3) • Existing wetlands (Concept 1) • Gateway Entrance @Beeksma/Bayshore (Concept 3)* • Interior trails (Concepts 1/3) • Lagoon (all 3 concepts) Favorite spaces compared to each other (* indicates >6 responses showing active interest): • Landscape/gardens (Concept 3) • Multi-purpose lawn (Concept 2/3) • Parking (Concept 3) • Splash park (Concept 1) • Rentable spaces (Concept 2)* • RV Park (Concept 2/3)* • Vehicular access (concept 3) • Waterfront promenade (Concept 2)* • Windmill (Concept 1/generally relocate)* 5/5/16
Editor's Notes
- #7 Erin– Introduce purpose of the CAG
- #8 ERIN – Here’s how the CAG process will operate - The CAG will meet 5 times between now and May, with two meetings being open house meetings for the public to provide feedback The Council will receive monthly reports at standing council meetings and will provide feedback to inform to preferred plan, roughly in February and April The Council will adopt the Plan in May
- #10 Just a brief recap of major themes from feedback we received from the April 29 Open House and subsequent Online Open House These include CAG and public comments Themes Family-friendly elements and activities, including splash park, should be prioritized Concerned about effect on Waterside Condos from proposed new road and parking on east side of park Questions about the dunes along the walkway Support for open grassy spaces Varied opinions on RV park and baseball field removal Consensus that the waterfront is a resource and asset to Oak Harbor Long-term events could be moved to Windjammer Park and utilize event plaza
- #12 Based on the feedback received from the CAG and community through the open house and online open house, the design team has prepared an updated preferred concept The team has focused on updating the preferred concept to address:
- #14 Based on the feedback received from the CAG and community through the open house and online open house, the design team has prepared an updated preferred concept The team has focused on updating the preferred concept to address:
- #21 [Discuss impacts to waterside condos and tradeoffs]
- #22 [Discuss impacts to waterside condos and tradeoffs]
- #23 [Discuss impacts to waterside condos and tradeoffs]
- #24 [Discuss impacts to waterside condos and tradeoffs]
- #25 [Discuss impacts to waterside condos and tradeoffs]
- #27 [Discuss range of costs and phasing options]
- #28 [Discuss range of costs and phasing options]
- #29 [Discuss range of costs and phasing options]
- #30 [Discuss range of costs and phasing options]
- #31 [Discuss range of costs and phasing options]
- #32 [Discuss range of costs and phasing options]
- #33 [Discuss range of costs and phasing options]
- #42 Final CAG Meeting In the charter we discussed the possibility of providing a recommendation to City Council that they adopt the WPIP – do you feel that as a group, this recommendation can be made (contingent upon feedback received during meeting and discussion). Are there any outstanding questions for the design team? CAG Debrief What do you feel was successful about the CAG process? What challenges / opportunities for improvement do you see? Would you participate in a CAG in the future? Any final feedback for the facilitation / design team?
- #43 Erin- Review next steps and adjourn meeting
- #45 Gill- Quickly review established priorities.