Brown Road Park Draft Master Plan Master Plan Process Step 1: Site - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

brown road park draft master plan
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Brown Road Park Draft Master Plan Master Plan Process Step 1: Site - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Brown Road Park Draft Master Plan Master Plan Process Step 1: Site Assessment Understand Opportunities and Issues Evaluate Site Characteristics Identify Stakeholders Step 2: Outreach and Master Planning Workshop #1 Workshop #2


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Brown Road Park Draft Master Plan

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Master Plan Process

Step 1: Site Assessment Step 2: Outreach and Master Planning Step 3: Adoption Process

Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board North Lancaster Neighborhood Association

City Council

 Understand Opportunities and Issues  Evaluate Site Characteristics  Identify Stakeholders

Workshop #1 Visioning Workshop #2 Design Alternatives Workshop #3 Preferred Alternative Draft Master Plan

*

Planning Context

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3 Planning Context

Vicinity Map

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Related Plans

4 Planning Context

Comprehensive Park System Master Plan

  • Classifies parks
  • Provides design guidelines
  • Identifies the need to master plan and

develop Brown Road Park

Salem Community Forestry Strategic Plan

  • Recommends a 23% citywide canopy goal
  • NOLA at 11%

Sensitive Area Management Handbook

  • Describes best management practices for

each Salem park

slide-5
SLIDE 5

NOLA Goals for Park Master Plan

5 Planning Context

Goal 1: Showcase unique attributes to distinguish the character and diversity of the NOLA neighborhood. Goal 2: Incorporate amenities as identified for a neighborhood park in the [Comprehensive Park System] Master Plan with a focus on health and family. Park design should maintain an exception for parking lot. Goal 3: Park design should enhance visibility into the park space from adjacent local streets and residences. Goal 4: Park design should enhance safety of the users of the park. Goal 5: Promote tree planting to increase the urban tree canopy of the North Lancaster Neighborhood and extend the community garden

  • f the park.
slide-6
SLIDE 6

6 Virtual Field Trip | Site Overview

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7 Virtual Field Trip | Existing Facilities

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8 Virtual Field Trip | Wetlands

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9 Virtual Field Trip | Site Photo

LOCATION FINDER

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10 Virtual Field Trip | Site Photo

LOCATION FINDER

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11 Virtual Field Trip | Site Photo

LOCATION FINDER

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12 Virtual Field Trip | Site Photo

LOCATION FINDER

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13 Virtual Field Trip | Site Photo

LOCATION FINDER

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14 Virtual Field Trip | Site Photo

LOCATION FINDER

slide-15
SLIDE 15

$- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

Picnic Shelter Playground Equipment More Walking Paths Lighting Community Garden Enhancement Multi-Purpose Court Benches / Picnic Tables Social Area / Classroom More Trees Benches / Picnic Tables Swings Drinking Fountain Space for Nature Adult Fitness Equipment Expanded Open Turf Area Natuer-based Play Open Space

15 What We’ve Heard

Workshop 1 Activity Results

Program Element Money Spent Percentage Picnic Shelter $ 55.80 20.1% Playground Equipment $ 33.75 12.2% More Walking Paths $ 27.45 9.9% Lighting $ 27.20 9.8% Community Garden Enhancement $ 27.00 9.7% Multi-Purpose Court $ 22.50 8.1% Benches / Picnic Tables $ 16.60 6.0% Social Area / Classroom $ 13.50 4.9% More Trees $ 12.10 4.4% Benches / Picnic Tables $ 11.20 4.0% Swings $ 11.20 4.0% Drinking Fountain $ 6.35 2.3% Space for Nature $ 6.15 2.2% Adult Fitness Equipment $ 3.35 1.2% Expanded Open Turf Area $ 2.25 0.8% Nature-based Play $ 0.60 0.2% Open Space $ - 0.0% TOTAL $ 277.00 100%

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16 What We’ve Heard

Survey 1

Favored Park Elements

  • Trees!
  • Lighting
  • Picnic area / picnic shelter
  • Playground / play equipment
  • Walking paths, soft-surface paths
  • Practice soccer field
  • Basketball court
  • Keeping / expanding community garden
  • Dog park (deemed not appropriate by CPSMP)

Common Concerns

  • Impacts to community garden

from increased use

  • Loitering & criminal activity
  • Not having enough parking
slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Alternative 1: Playground & Dog Walk Destination

Conceptual Design Alternatives

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18 Adult Fitness Equipment Hoodview Park Playground Conceptual Design Alternatives

Precedent Images

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Alternative 2: Family & Neighborhood Gatherings

Conceptual Design Alternatives

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20 Weathers Park Picnic Shelter Pollinator Habitat

Precedent Images

Conceptual Design Alternatives

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21 Conceptual Design Alternatives

Alternative 3: Community Garden-focused

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22 Accessible Raised Beds Smaller Picnic Shelter

Precedent Images

Conceptual Design Alternatives

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23 What We’ve Heard

Workshop 2 / Survey 2

Workshop 2 Sticker Activity Survey 2 Comments

Likes Dislikes Likes Dislikes Alternative A Playground (with dual zones) 2 4 Adult Fitness Area 2 2 5 2 Paved Path (perimeter loop path) 2 9 1 Soft Surface Path 3 5 Alternative B Picnic Area with Shelter 7 2 Practice Soccer Field 3 4 3 Pollinator Habitat 4 5 1 Paved Path (wide entry walkway) 5 Gravel Path (perimeter loop path) 1 3 3 Alternative C Picnic Area with Shelter (larger shelter) 4 1 4 1 Community Garden with Accessible Beds 4 3 Community Garden Expansion Areas 3 1 Basketball Court 3 2 6 2

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24 Brown Road Park Draft Master Plan

1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1

1. Picnic Shelter 2. Playground 3. Half Court Basketball 4. Youth Soccer Field 5. Community Garden with Accessible Beds 6. Outdoor Fitness Area 7. On-street Parking Pocket 8. Park Identification Sign 9. Pollinator Habitat

  • 10. Park Kiosk
  • 11. Security Light

Brown Road Park Draft Master Plan

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25 Other Concepts Considered

Parking Options

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATE OPTION

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26 Other Concepts Considered

Parking Options

PARKING POCKET PARKING LOT

Financial Considerations Wetland Impact PRO: No Direct Impact CON: Permitting/Mitigation Cost Funding Availability PRO: Yes, Federal funds CON: Would take a significant part of Phase 1 budget (SDCs) Maintenance Streets Maintenance Park Operations Functionality Parking Capacity CON: Less than current PRO: Equivalent to current Traffic Separation CON: Parking near traffic PRO: Away from traffic Maintenance Access PRO: Preferred by Park Ops. CON: Difficult to use Special Use Access Yes Yes Consistency with City Policies Parking for Neighborhood Parks PRO: Consistent with CPSMP CON: Requires policy exception

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Q & A

Workshop 2 Workshop 3

Staff contact: Rob Romanek, Parks Planner Public Works Department (503) 588-6211 BrownRoadParkInput@cityofsalem.net Park webpage: www.cityofsalem.net/brown-road-park

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Existing Street Parking

slide-29
SLIDE 29
slide-30
SLIDE 30