Laserfiche WebLink
DISCUSSION <br /> The three "finalist" alternatives were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission <br /> on November 10, 2016 The three alternatives are again presented here, followed by a <br /> summary of why the Parks and Recreation Commission chose Alternative Three as the <br /> preferred location to recommend to the City Council <br /> Alternative One <br /> This alternative is shown on Attachment 1 It locates one of the tennis courts in the grass <br /> "horse shoe" shaped area between the parking lots The second court is immediately <br /> adjacent and to the east of the first court This alternative is estimated to cost <br /> approximately $800,000 <br /> Pros Cons <br /> • Grading is minimized • Removes 15 parking spaces from east lot <br /> (Currently 43 existing spaces in east lot) <br /> • Impact to west parking lot is limited • Removes 1 parking space from west lot <br /> (Currently 65 existing spaces in west lot) <br /> • Moderate total project cost • Removes 6 trees (1 Heritage Trees) <br /> • Courts located away from existing <br /> housing <br /> • Centralized location with easy access to <br /> tennis building <br /> Alternative Two <br /> This alternative is shown on Attachment 2 Again it locates one of the tennis courts in <br /> the grass "horse shoe" shaped area between the parking lots But in this case the second <br /> tennis court is located immediately adjacent and west of the first court This alternative <br /> is estimated to cost approximately $760,000 <br /> Pros Cons <br /> • Grading is minimized • Removes 18 parking spaces from west lot <br /> (Currently 65 existing spaces in west lot) <br /> • Lowest total project cost • Removes 8 trees (2 Heritage Trees) <br /> • Courts located away from existing <br /> housing <br /> • Centralized location with easy access to <br /> tennis building <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br />