stream design, LLC 1535 grant st. ste 203 denver, co 80203 (p)720.663.7352 www.streamlanddesign.com Meeting Notes Project: Westwood Park Meeting Date: Feb. 28, 2012 Re: Public Meeting #2 Location: Cornerstone Baptist Church Date Issued: February 29, 2012 Compiled By: Paul Thomas Present: See attached sign-in list for meeting attendees. Denver Parks Staff: David Marquardt, Nicole Stahly LiveWell Westwood: Norma Brambilia, Jose Esparza Stream Design: Jess Clark, Paul Thomas Topics Discussed: 1. General: The meeting was held to further identify the public's preferences for types and characteristics of improvements such as water play, playgrounds, shade shelters, and court activities. In addition, three concept drawings showing different spatial arrangements of the activities and program elements around the site, and also showing different ways to deal with the significant slope across the site were presented. The meeting was held in English, with bi-lingual (English-Spanish) graphic presentation materials, and with simultaneous Spanish translation of the proceedings. The meeting was kicked off by Councilman Paul Lopez. He outlined the purpose of the meeting and asked participants to draw in their own ideas if the things that they wanted were not being shown as options. Nicole Stahly of Denver Parks and Recreation ("DPR") recapped the previous meeting, and her design workshop with a fifth grade class at Munroe Elementary School. 2. Paul Thomas of Stream Design explained the first "exercise" of the evening--using sticky dots to vote for the preferred type of park elements within the categories listed below. Attendees were given four colored dotes, and asked to vote for their favorite general type or character of improvements. Three options were presented for each of the four categories. The highest ranked group from each board is shown in bold. Activities and Games 1. Court sports and games 2. Climbing 3. Skateboarding Water Play 1. Natural style 2. Jets in pavement 3. Vertical pipes and elements Playgrounds 1. Nature play 2. Traditional structure and playground elements 3. Custom / alternative play
Shade Shelters 1. Traditional park structures 2. "Sails" (fabric elements supported on tall posts 3. Custom / art structures 3. Jesse Clark of Stream Design presented the 3 park concept diagrams developed for the meeting. The three alternatives can generally be described as follows (see attached Concept Plan graphics and descriptions): Concept A: A "single level" concept, with a large flat park area containing all of the park elements, organized around an oval walkway. This concept requires a tall wall along Alameda similar to what exists today. No pedestrian connections are made between the interior of the park and Alameda, (or the bus stop adjacent to the park on Alameda). Concept B: A "split level" concept that distributes all the park activities except the playing field along an upper level that wraps around the west, south, and east edges of the park. This alternative incorporates a significant slope between the upper and lower level that could be used for sledding. This plan provides connections to the bus stop on Alameda from the park. Concept C: Another "split level" concept that places most of the park activities on an upper level, with the playing field and group picnic area with shelter on the lower level. This alternative clusters most of the activities in the southwest corner of the site, creating a focused activity area. This alternative provides a connection to Alameda and the bus stop similar to Alternative B. The attendees were given three dots with numbers 1,2, and 3 written on them to vote for their favorite, second favorite, and least favorite concept alternative. General trends from the dot voting are as follows: Concept B garnered the largest number of first place votes, narrowly edging out Concept C. Concept C had the second highest number of first place votes, and the highest number of second place votes. Concept A had the least number of first and second place votes. Following the dot voting the group convened for a final discussion about why people voted the way they did. Each concept was discussed, and attendees were asked why they preferred or disliked each alternative. The following includes some of the comments received: Concept A Pros: Thought it was safer since it has bigger separation from Alameda Like the way it blocks Alameda Flatness allows more activities in the park Cons: Wall along Alameda attracts graffiti Some don't like flat park area Concept B Pros: Good visibility between park and Alameda Playground near Nevada is safe Some like basketball in this location Best for sledding Like plaza space Like access to bus stop Westwood Neighborhood Park Meeting Notes Stream Design, LLC 2
Cons: Some like more separation from Alameda Air quality and noise Activities too spread out Concept C Pros: Like the hill and raised corner focal point Good compromise between opening up to Alameda and protecting park from traffic and noise Good for bus stop users--can walk through park --adds activity and security to park Upper and lower levels with slope in between breaks up park and adds interest Like plaza space Cons: Sledding hill not big enough 4. The meeting was adjourned. Attendees were told to expect another meeting in approximately 2 months. Stream Design believes this report accurately reflects what transpired at the meeting. Please provide comment to the appropriate project manager if you have a different understanding of what occurred or would like to add specifics or additional information. Notification should be made within 5 working days of issuing this report, after which, it is assumed that all parties agree that this report is accurate. CC: File Westwood Neighborhood Park Meeting Notes Stream Design, LLC 3