Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Presentation of Windjammer Park Integration Plan to City Council

9.222 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Proposed concept for Windjammer Park as presented to Oak Harbor City Council.

  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Presentation of Windjammer Park Integration Plan to City Council

  1. 1. Windjammer Park Integration Plan City Council Meeting– May 25, 2016
  2. 2. Today’s Agenda 5/25/16 2 • Introductions • Recap of Community Advisory Group process and outcome • Review Preferred Windjammer Park Integration Plan • Review costs and phasing for Preferred Plan • Review potential City Council action
  3. 3. Recap: Community Advisory Group process 35/25/16
  4. 4. Community Advisory Group Purpose / Charter 4 • Offer meaningful community input on: • Prioritize and define program elements to be included in the WPIP • Location and layout of selected program elements in Windjammer Park, which will inform final design, and • Phasing of the WPIP 5/25/16
  5. 5. 5 Decembe r 2015 Januar y 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May/ June 2016 Council and 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 5/25/16           
  6. 6. Community Advisory Group Process Feedback 5/25/16 6 • The group supports the recommended plan, because the process has been inclusive, the design team listened to their input, and the plan incorporates that feedback. • The community engagement process has built momentum for the plan, and should be continued as phases or specific park elements are contemplated for implementation. Community engagement and transparent reporting on park progress has a strong potential to support turning the vision into reality.
  7. 7. Updated Preferred Concept 75/25/16
  8. 8. Updated Preferred Concept 5/5/16 8
  9. 9. 95/25/16
  10. 10. 105/25/16
  11. 11. 115/25/16
  12. 12. 125/25/16
  13. 13. 135/25/16
  14. 14. Updated Preferred Concept 5/5/16 14
  15. 15. Cost 155/25/16
  16. 16. 165/25/16 Park Total cost / acre Funding sources AM Kennedy Park Beaverton, OR 2 Acres - $141,200/acre THPRD Bond Measure Engelman Park Wilsonville, OR 1 Acre - #350,000/acre City General Fund, OR State Park Local Park Grant Hood River Waterfront Park Hood River, OR 6 Acres - $420,000/acre City General Fund The Dalles Festival Park Portland, OR 4 Acres - $450,000/acre ARRA Funding Khunamokwst Park Portland, OR 4 Acres - $450,000/acre City General Fund Westmoreland Park Portland, OR .6 Acres - $1,000,000/acre City General Fund, Metro Nature in Neighborhood Grant Milwaukie Riverfront Park Milwaukie, OR 8.5 Acres - $1,060,000/acre OR Parks Fund Local Grant, OR Marine Board Tanner Springs Park Portland, OR 1 Acre - $2,500,000/acre Portland Development Commission, Tanner Springs Development Community, Private investments Average Cost / Acre: $640,000/acre
  17. 17. WPIP Cost and Phasing 175/25/16
  18. 18. Phasing 185/25/16
  19. 19. 195/25/16
  20. 20. 205/25/16
  21. 21. 215/25/16
  22. 22. 225/25/16
  23. 23. 235/25/16
  24. 24. 245/25/16
  25. 25. 11/18/15 25
  26. 26. Updated Preferred Concept 5/5/16 26
  27. 27. 275/5/16 Windjammer Park Potential Funding 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)
  28. 28. Potential City Funding, where appropriate Collaboration with 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 285/25/16
  29. 29. Next Steps 5/25/16 29 • June 7 – City Council can take action on the final plan
  30. 30. Questions? 5/25/16 30
  31. 31. Back Pocket 5/25/16 31
  32. 32. Overall Community Feedback 5/25/16 32 • Windjammer is a resource and asset for the City; it should be welcoming for locals and visitors. • Elements that should be ‘a given’ in any future park: canopies, existing wetlands, kayak campsite, kitchens, parking, restrooms, site furnishings and the iconic windmill. • Family-friendly elements and activities should be prioritized, especially installation of a new splash park. In addition, renovation of existing lagoon, event plaza, stage/ amphitheater and waterfront trail have high priority for a future park. • Flexibility of spaces is important. • Removal of the existing RV park is preferred over renovating it to current standards. • Consider park neighbors in final design. • Views of the water from the park are important both for casual users, and formal events. • Removal of the current, formal ball fields can allow for other activities within Windjammer Park. This removal should occur if and when there is another in-city venue sited for these fields.
  33. 33. 5/5/16 335/25/16
  34. 34. 5/5/16 345/25/16
  35. 35. 5/5/16 355/25/16
  36. 36. 5/5/16 365/25/16
  37. 37. 5/5/16 375/25/16
  38. 38. 5/5/16 385/25/16
  39. 39. WPIP Cost and Phasing 395/25/16
  40. 40. WPIP Cost and Phasing 405/25/16
  41. 41. WPIP Cost and Phasing 415/25/16
  42. 42. WPIP Cost and Phasing 425/25/16
  43. 43. WPIP Cost and Phasing 435/25/16

×