07-16-1990 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL 1j ' co Pte . FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY • DATE: JUNE 27, 1990 SUBJECT: SILVER VIEW PARK PROPOSAL The Silver View Park proposal is intended to present a concept plan for improvements at Silver View Park. In no way is this plan offering precise dates, costs or designs of capital equipment, facilities or services. The Task Force was well aware that costs change and to pinpoint costs in 1990 for improvements in 1993 is impossible. For this reason, general estimates are given on each grid sheet. Examples of facility and equipment were provided as a guide to the ideas discussed by the group. In addition, ideas were offered in different scopes. For instance, a $50,000 playground facility would be grand, but a $30,000 playground facility would suffice. Another example of cost differences is the bridge over the narrows. As explained in the narrative, a pedestrian bridge is recommended contingent on the fact that the culvert is laid on the west side of the pond which would allow maintenance vehicles to pass. If the culvert is not installed, then the bridge should allow vehicular passage. The costs of the pedestrian and vehicular bridge are different. However, because it is unknown what the decision will be, the higher cost bridge was inserted to be conservative. • The Task Force again was well aware that a plan is simply a plan and that costs are volatile until the very time of receipt of bids and funding availability. Staff suggests that the Council concentrate on the first ten (10) pages of the proposal which defines the thirteen recommendations of the Task Force and Parks and Recreation Commission. The most important part of this whole plan is the concept plan (blob map) which creates a distinct function of three different areas of the park and offers purpose and intent for each area. As Ron Fagerstrom stated repeatedly at the public hearing, this • - . • • - i- �- •• is i i : :: .. ... . . •-. =- -■ - -- - .e this concept. There are duplications in this proposal but not contradictions. The proposal was created with each concept area planned separately. Because functions may occur in more than one concept area (i.e. benches, pathways, trash receptacles), the same facilities are listed in each individual concept area plan. There are some deviations regarding a hard and fast rule on the concept plan. For instance, the pond area is considered nature passive, and yet it is proposed that a hard surface pathway be installed on the north side of the pond for the walking impaired. This may be in conflict with the concept if one believes that the pathway 411 will then attract active users such as bicyclist, skateboards, rollerblades, etc. However, this deviation demonstrates that this plan is flexible and because the general concept is defined as a guide, the plan is designed to provide opportunities to consider special needs and requests of the community.