Laserfiche WebLink
2. The uses proposed would increase the probability of the <br /> proposed parking,along with the street parking, meeting <br /> the park's parking needs. <br /> <br /> 3. This concept was the lowest level of use intensity, which <br /> appeared to satisfy residents and tennis player members <br /> of the Task Force. <br /> <br /> 4. This concept included two basketball courts which, if <br /> aligned side by side, could meet some of the needs of <br /> inline skaters. <br /> <br />Some support was expressed for concepts that included inline hockey <br />courts. No clear support was shown for one large court versus two <br />smaller courts although it was noted that two smaller courts would <br />serve more users and perhaps limit use to younger players. The <br />cost for the inline hockey component in either Concept B or Concept <br />C is approximately $200,000 if constructed to regular standards. <br /> <br />Those attending with an interest in handball did not oppose inline <br />courts nor did they have a problem with the potential focus of <br />inline skating in the park. Those attending with an interest in <br />tennis expressed concern regarding the concentration of inline <br />skating in the park and the distraction that this might present to <br />the tennis users. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />The three concepts prepared by the consultants are attached. Staff <br />believes all three concepts present an interesting park program. <br /> <br />Should the Commission wish to consider introducing an inline hockey <br />element into the Master Plan, staff believes the public hearing <br />should be continued to determine the total potential impact of an <br />inline hockey element in the park based on the extent of the inline <br />element the Commission supports. In particular, the parking needs <br />will need to be evaluated as well as the impact on the budget, <br />considering the inline element desired. Direction that would be <br />required would be: the number of inline courts supported; the size <br />of the courts; potential user groups (adults, youth); regulation <br />courts or modified; organized play or drop-in; lighting; fencing. <br />Much of this direction would come from input provided by the future <br />inline skaters who will use the facility and staff familiar with <br />the sport. <br /> <br />Staff believes Concept C does not require further evaluation. The <br />program proposed is well within the original Master Plan and does <br />not introduce new program elements. Should the Commission support <br />Concept C, staff recommends action be taken indicating that <br />support. <br /> <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br /> -2- <br /> <br /> <br />