Full Text
Public Meeting Results Imperial Heights Park Page 1 of 4 Public Meeting Results Imperial Heights Park Notes from Public Input Meeting December 5, 2013 Project Background: The City of Laramie is seeking a Land and Water Conservation Fund award from the Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources in the amount of $50,000 to be used to develop the Imperial Heights Park, which is located near the intersection of Sherman Hills Road and Morgan Drive on the town’s eastern edge. Matching funds in the amount of $101,875 budgeted for the development of a playground will come from the City of Laramie. This project is a part of the City’s commitment to develop and maintain parks that are modern, safe, accessible and responsive to community needs. To this end, the Parks and Recreation Department held a public meeting to gather public input for the new park on December 5, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the Laramie Community Recreation Center. Parks and Recreation Staff mailed 563 postcards to five subdivisions: Imperial Heights, Sherman Hills, Grand View Heights, Valley View and Laramie Plains; the announcement was also posted to the Laramie Boomerang and the City of Laramie website. The meeting was attended by 40 people. The meeting had three goals. One: solicit public input for the new park, what program elements do park neighbors want in their park? Two: gather public input for the Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources, Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant staff is preparing for consideration during the City Council regular meeting on December 17, 2013. Three: aid in the development of request for proposals (RFP’s) for the park when professional services are considered. The results of the public workshop exercise conducted at the public meeting are highlighted below. Participants were asked to place green dots and red dots on a poster to indicate strong “for” or “against” preference for a program element. The green dots indicated a strong preference “for” a program element, and the red dots indicated a strong preference “against” a program element. Meeting participants were instructed to place as many dots on the poster as they felt were strong preferences “for” and “against.” However, they were instructed to only place one dot per program element. The poster received 278 total dots at the conclusion of the exercise. The table below indicates the top ten responses “for” a program element and top ten responses “against” as a result of the public workshop exercise. From the public workshop exercise the public present desired, or wanted the development of, a traditional and non- traditional playground program element and does not want the City to take no action to develop the park, along with not wanting a BMX program element. ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Meeting Results Imperial Heights Park Page 2 of 4 Imperial Heights Park Public Meeting - Public Workshop Exercise - December 5, 2013: Imperial Heights Public Meeting - Public Workshop Exercise December 5, 2013 TOP 10: "FOR" Responses Votes counted out of 167 total Percentage of all "For" votes Blend of Traditional Playground and Non Typical Playground 13 8% Bridge 12 7% Natural Playground 11 7% Gravel Path 10 6% Playground All Ages 9 5% Shade Structure 8 5% Merry Go Round 8 5% Playground Ages 5-12 7 4% Playground Ages 2-5 7 4% Walking Paths 7 4% TOP 10: "AGAINST" Responses Votes counted out of 111 total Percentage of all "Against" Votes Taking No Action 18 16% BMX 17 15% Trailhead 14 13% Picnic Shelter 11 10% Fencing 11 10% Dog Park 9 8% Restrooms, Flush 5 5% Restrooms, Compost 4 4% Dog Free 4 4% Developed Turfgrass 4 4% ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Meeting Results Imperial Heights Park Page 3 of 4 Comments and Questions from the meeting: A park may have some effect on the aquifer and should be seriously considered. The property boundaries shown on the map provided should be investigated to make sure they are accurate. If the park is developed with native grasses, there is a concern about the fire hazards. Isn’t the alleyway on the southwest side of the proposed park dedicated in Albany County, and not part of the park? It may be difficult to establish a trailhead in such a small area. Residents in this area pay the highest water bills; would a park increase their water costs? If turf grass is not used, what are the other options? Will the park be accessible? Would there be more than one access point? Would the City consider creating a committee to represent the residents on the development of the park? Will there be lights in the park? If so, light pollution is a concern. What about the antelope? Will there be a corridor left open for them? Will the park be American with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible? Will the park be for children of all ages? Will there be an off-street parking area? Will parking on the street accommodate the park? What is the zoning to the west of the proposed park? Will Sherman Hills Road be extended between Imperial Heights subdivision and the Sherman Hills subdivision in the future? Will alcohol be allowed in the park? Will there be fencing around the park? What requirements will the City have to meet to submit the grant due by December 31st? ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Meeting Results Imperial Heights Park Page 4 of 4 Comments and Questions from the meeting, continued: Could the City hold off submitting a grant for another year? Maybe the City could pursue acquiring other property in the neighborhood that would not have as many obstacles. Why are residents held to a higher standard than the City on possible pollution of the aquifer? End Comments and Questions