HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Passatempo Park Public Design Workshop' ~ G~~~ OF DU~~~2
~~~~~~'' AGENDA STATEMENT
~/ PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
04LIFOR~~~ MEETING DATE: May 21, 2012
SUBJECT: Passatempo Park Public Design Workshop
Report by: Rosemary Alex Parks and Facilities Development
Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS: 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Project Context
Option A -Planetary
Option B -Sensory
Option C -Natural Systems
Questionnaire Summary Results
Preferred Conceptual Design -Site Plan
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive presentation from Staff and Landscape Architect
2) Receive public comment on preferred conceptual park design
3) Recommend approval of the preferred conceptual park
design to the City Council or provide alternate
recommendation
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Budget for Construction $1,770,298
Cost Estimate for Preferred Conceptual Design $1,746,600
(including 10% contingency)
BACKGROUND: In 2007 preliminary design work on the neighborhood park in the
Sorrento East Development was initiated and the Italian word for Pastime, "Passatempo", was selected for
the park name by City Council. Shortly thereafter design work was suspended due to the slowdown in
housing starts surrounding the proposed park site.
As shown in Attachment 1, the Sorrento East Development is bounded by Gleason Drive and Central
Parkway on the north and south and is to the immediate west of Fallon Sports Park. The original land
plan for the development has changed since 2007 resulting in a slight reconfiguration to the park site that
required a redesign of the initial concepts. As part of the 2010-2015 Capital Improvement Program the
City Council authorized the re-start of Passatempo Park and on March 6, 2012 the City Council approved
a new Agreement with Callander Associates Landscape Architecture (Callander Associates) to provide
design services.
COPIES TO: Callander Associates Landscape Architecture; Participants from the First Workshop
ITEM NO.: 8.1
G:\PCSCOMMWGNDSTMT\5-21 SORRENTO EAST WORKSHOP #2\.doc
,•
The first of three public meetings for the park design was conducted on April 26, 2012 and held in one of
the model homes adjacent to the future park site. Fifteen community members were in attendance.
Callander Associates presented three design alternatives as shown in Attachments 2 through 4 and
received input and questionnaire responses from the attendees. Following the meeting, Staff posted the
three alternatives along with the questionnaire at the sales offices of the three home builders. After
posting over the weekend, two additional survey questionnaires were completed for a total of 16.
Based on public meeting input and all completed questionnaires, Option C Natural Systems was the
overall preferred design. As part of the process, participants were asked to show their preference on a
number of the park elements the results of which are shown in attachment #5. The top five preferences
are as follows:
#1 Shade Trees
# 1 Shade Structure
#3 Play Areas
#4 Passive Seating
#5 Sensory Garden
Preferred Conceptual Park Design
The Landscape Architect has worked to incorporate the comments and questionnaire results into a
preferred conceptual park design. As shown in Attachment 6, the proposed conceptual design
incorporates the oval circulation shape along with elements from Option C -Natural Systems and Option
B -Sensory Systems. In general the plaza and play areas have been refined and the stream bed has been
relocated to better align with existing grades and connect with the play area.
Emphasizing the Natural Systems concept, the play area is now connected to the stream bed acting as a
`headwaters' of the seasonal stream and boulders are placed in the play area and transition into stream
bed. The play equipment selection is inspired by a tree fort and the surrounding seating is more informal
with boulders and seat walls. The sensory garden from Option B has been incorporated into the north side
of the plaza and the vineyards along eastern property line have been expanded. Shade trees and the shade
structure have been included in the plaza area to provide shade at picnic areas as well as higher use areas.
Those at the meeting expressed a desire for shade structures and shade trees; so long as they did not block
views and to incorporate seating to take advantage of views. The topic of dogs in the park came up and
Staff indicated that Passatempo Park is not anticipated to have a dog park. In addition, one meeting
attendant requested that no dogs be allowed in the park, which is inconsistent with the City's current
standard park regulations allowing dogs (on leash only).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission receive the presentation
from City Staff and the Landscape Architect, receive public comment, and recommend approval of the
preferred conceptual park design to the City Council or provide alternate recommendation.
2 of 2
U~
N
o-,
«+,«s
+~-
er~
a
w ~~ `a ,t
s~ !'
~~ >.t`
~~
~LL .~.~* .'fit
~, ~ a ~`:
k. ~~
i .~
t
G:.:,
~ ~
~~~~ ~r .~~f~~.
15Ntl97NNVa~ '.
as tlavrosstll
a' t ~ _.. :+.~`
~.
~~
a ~
C
j
O
~~,'
. ~ ~•
~~ ~
~*~,~ ~yt ~ ~ wt
4 ~~ § ~~ y ;
~ ~' ~ r~~.
~ N
w ,+I~
.y; "y c' z
~, ~...tiL~ a $`~ ~,~. Zd`u[`
`#
N,:
~z
vi ~ y ..i
1- '~~+
Z ~
Z
W
U
d
~..
is
~:
o:
~'.° ,
.. ^E1
W N _
ON
~ .
^^~ N ~,
LL Q 6
`.,~ ~,
~~
.-`
~ ~ ~ t
6 ~
`
5 ~
r
~~
~~
.~
,.
-,
~-
h
~:.. ~~~..., y
~f
vZ
~'~
N ~
f-
z
W
2
U
Q
I-
Q
L
^~~
W 2
^^~
I..i~ 3
7
L,
/~/~~~'.
V(:
y^~~
i. .,
3 ~ N
O
~ ~
t
Q :`
vz
~'
M
F--
Z
W
U
Q
I-
~--
Q
'~~.
~~
-:~ '~{
-~,.
~.
{n ,
i
N
N
t!')
m
0 ''
a-+
Q
fQ
N
a--+
~~
~~;
Qom.
(iJ ~',,
v~
~°
~~
vi ^~
a <V
~.
~"
~, ,R
H
Z .
W ,'
~ .
2
U`:
H
Q
,M
to
z
lJ
O
+_~
~ 'E
N
t6 Y::~
~ ~
a.
+-~ a,.
CU ~
a
~ `` ~
~' R
Passatempo Park
April 30, 2012
Questionnaire Summary Results
Community Meeting
1 Preferred Option Tally
Option A: Planetary 4
Option B: Sensory 2
Option C: Natural Systems 10
2
Program Preference
# of responses Average Preference l1 to s, with s
being highest preference) Preference
Ranking
passive seating 11 4.36 4
bioswale 7 3.57 17
group picnic 10 3.70 11
climbing structures 11 3.64 T12
grape vines 11 3.64 T12
play areas 12 4.50 3
amphitheater 10 3.90 T8
individual picnic areas 10 3.80 10
swings 11 3.64 T12
slides 11 4.00 7
spinning toys 11 3.64 T12
bosque of trees 10 3.90 T8
shade (structure, gazebo) 10 4.60 T1
interpretive learning 10 3.60 16
sensory garden 11 4.18 5
shade (trees) 10 4.60 T1
shade (trellis) 10 4.10 6
spring toys 9 3.33 18
clean bathroom (respondent addition) 1 5.00 N/A
movies in the park (respondent addition) 1 5.00 N/A
3 Other Comments
Stream
Side gate to the school will be great.
Any new children play items would be good.
Climbing structure for kids. Integrated kitchen
with tables.
Keep within theme of the community,
Italian/Tuscan
flowing layout. The incorporation of the
interpretive stations, the prominent entry off
of Lee Thompson and the creative design.
Low bollard lighting should be considered for
pathways.
12012QuestionnaireResults 12.0430 ATTACHMENT 5
~~~4.~-7
~:
~Q
Z
5W
L
2
U
Q
H
H
Q
~~
~~`