Meeting #3 Wrap Up

7/31/2019 Meeting #3 Wrap Up

1/11

1

Hawthorne Park Master Plan Medford, OregonGM #2120100.00

Meeting #3June 2012

Site Boundary

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x

Decidous Tree

Coniferous Tree

Tree Slated For Removal

1.

622.

3.

4.

5.

6.7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22. 23.

26.

28.

31.

24.

27.

29.

32.

33.

34.

35.

47.48.

49.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.56.

57.

58.

59.

60.61.

63.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.42.

43.44.

45.

46.

50.

25.

x30.

4.10 Acres

.45 Acres

1.00 Acres

.70Acres

Total Garden Acreage.55 Acres

125ParkingSpaces

44ParkingSpaces

Acres

.18

Existing Vegetation to beintegrated into proposal

Proposed Vegetation tobe integrated into

proposal

Vegetation to beremoved based on

Proposal Design andlayout

Total #: 32 Total #: 14 Total #: 9

A

B


2/11

2


Meeting #3June 2012

Hawthorne Park Tree Analysis : A Look At What Vegetation Should and Should Not Remain

50 150 250 400

Site Boundary

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Decidous Tree

Coniferous Tree

Tree Slated For Removal

1.

622.

3.

4.

5.

6.7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22. 23.

26.

28.

31.

24.

27.

29.

32.

33.

34.

35.

47.48.

49.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.56.

57.

58.

59.

60.61.

63.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.42.

43.44.

45.

46.

50.

25.

x30.

Tree ID # Common Name

1 Silver Maple2 Douglas Fir 3 Japanese Pagoda4 Katsura Tree5 Bald Cyprus6 Tulip Tree7 Tulip Tree8 Willow Oak 9 Conifer 10 Conifer 11 Conifer 12 London Plane Tree13 London Plane Tree14 Giant Sequoia15 Horse Chestnut16 Western Catalpa17 Tulip Tree18 Tulip Tree19 Tulip Tree20 Tulip Tree21 Tulip Tree22 Silver Maple23 Silver Maple24 Black Walnut25 Port Orford Cedar

26 Green Ash27 Incense Cedar 28 Silver Maple29 American Linden30 Silver Maple31 Flowering Plum32 London Plane Tree33 London Plane Tree34 London Plane Tree35 London Plane Tree36 London Plane Tree37 London Plane Tree38 London Plane Tree39 Coastal Redwood40 Blue Spruce41 Western White Pine42 Red Maple43 Pin Oak 44 Ponderosa Pine

45 Sweetgum46 Ponderosa Pine47 London Plane Tree48 London Plane Tree49 London Plane Tree50 Port Orford Cedar 51 Horse Chestnut52 Dawn Redwood53 Incense Cedar 54 Port Orford Cedar 55 Western Juniper 56 Norway Spruce57 Silver Linden58 Yellowood59 Coastal Redwood60 Deodar Cedar 61 Deodar Cedar 62 Modesto Ash63 Marshall Ash

64 Horse Chestnut

Number of Varieties Conifers Decidous Number Of Healthy Trees Number Reccomended For Removal2333 42 2241

T r e e S u r v e y

Meeting Notes While this was a focal point at meeting #2 in general people noted to the design team they preferred Proposal #1 as it would save more

of the existing trees on site.

Design Notes After working with Bill Harrington the City Arborist, Group Mackenzie determined a number of trees should be removed based on age,

health, and maintenance. 33 tree varieties exist in Hawthorne Park currently and in total 22 trees are slated for removal. This analysis sincerely affected the overall tree canopy in proposals #1 and #2.


3/11

3


Meeting #3June 2012

Hawthorne Tree Survey : A Look at How Each Proposal Will Effect Existing Vegetation



proposal





proposal



Total #: 32 Total #: 14 Total #: 9 Total #: 28 Total #: 17 Total #: 13

AA

B B

Flexible Lawn Space

Flexible LawnSpace

Parking LotDog Park

Dog Park Courts

Courts

CourtsBear

Creek

Bear Creek

Gardens Gardens

SplashPad

Aquatic Center

SplashPad GardensGardens

A A

BB

Overlook

Flexible Lawn Space Parking Lot

T r e e C o m p a r i s o n

Meeting Notes NA

Design Notes Overlaying the tree survey on Proposals #1 and #2 we determined which of the two proposals would remove more of the existing healthy

trees. Sections cut across the park (A and B sections for both Proposal #1 and #2) show density of tree canopy. Proposal #1 tends to have a

more evenly spread tree canopy while Proposal #2 maintains portions of the park with greater tree density. Proposal #1 removes fewer trees, 9 total trees whereas Proposal #2 removes 4 more trees based on the overall park layout.


4/11

4


Meeting #3June 2012

P a t h s C o m p a r i s o n

Long Loop

Medium Loop

Short Loop

Proposal #1 Loop Paths Proposal #2 Loop Paths

Long Loop

Medium Loop

Short Loop

3160 or .6 miles

2550 or .48 miles

2280 or .43 miles 1600 or .30 miles

2160 or .40 miles

2280 or .43 miles

8 0 0

1

1

0

0

3 4 0

2 5 0

1 2 0

1 2 0

2 8 0

8 0

8 0

1 0 8 0

5 6 0

1

1

0 0

5 8 0

1

0 8 0

2 4 0

Hawthorne Paths Diagram : Understanding Movement Through the Park

Meeting Notes In general Proposal #1 has longer paths that are better de ned - this was met with positive feedback at meeting #3. Overall people preferred the paths on Proposal #1 because. A comment was made about using signage to mark the total distances for each of the paths in the nal design so people can track the

distance they have traveled during use.

Design Notes We received a great deal of feedback regarding the importance of Loop Paths after Meeting #2. Both of the proposals have de ned loop paths that vary in distances. Each have a Long, Medium, and Short Loop. This analysis board

helped people who attended meeting #3 give feedback on which loops they preferred.


5/11

5


Meeting #3June 2012

S p a t i a l C o m p a r i s o n B o a r d

Hawthorne Park Spatial Diagram : Understanding the Size And Layout of the Park

Flexible Lawn Space

DogPark

PlaygroundPerrenialGardens

Courts

Parking

Flexible LawnSpace

Playground

Courts

ParkingDogPark

SplashPad

SplashPad

4.10 Acres3.40 Acres

.45 Acres.40 Acres

1.00 Acres

1.25 Acres

.70Acres

.90Acres

Total Garden Acreage

.55 Acres

125ParkingSpaces

125ParkingSpaces

100ParkingSpaces

44ParkingSpaces

Total Garden Acreage

.40 Acres

Acres

.18

.28Acres

Meeting Notes Some attendees felt more parking is better and needed for Hawthorne Park.

Design Notes While both proposals have similar programmatic elements the sizes of these elements vary between the two proposals. This analysis board helped people at meeting #3 determine which programmatic elements they preferred to be larger and which they

preferred to be smaller. Proposal #1 has a larger Field, Play Area, and Garden Space while Proposal #2 has larger Court Spaces, Splash Pad, Dog Park, and

Parking Lots.


6/11

6


Meeting #3June 2012

P h a s i n g

AquaticCenter:

Phase 2

Project Scope: Phase 1


AquaticCenter:

Phase 2


AquaticCenter:

Phase 2

AquaticCenter:

Phase 2


Proposed Aquatic Center Design: ORW Architecture

Hawthorne Park Phaseing Diagram : A Park Design Through Stages

Meeting Notes NA

Design Notes Proposal #1 tends to provide a better opportunity for staging as the Aquatic Center is located on the edge of the park where it would be

easier to install an aquatic center after the overall park design has been implemented. Staging the park in preparation for the proposed aquatic center is a very important element of this masterplan process. We wanted to represent each of the proposals as a two part process where the Aquatic Center was removed from the overall scheme to

show how this would affect each park design.


7/11

7


Meeting #3June 2012

B e a r C r e e k

Benches placed along theBear Creek Greenway toallow passersby to enjoythe creek and restoration.

Corten fencing with intricate metalwork provides an elegant edge for the border of the Greenway.

A compilation of elements that buildupon ideas from the original Bear Creek Masterplan.

While excellent efforts have been made to the Bear Creek riverbank a sincere push toward restoring thiscreek will greatly enhance the overall appeal of thepark. It will also proivide leisure as well as educationalopportunities for the community.

The original Bear Creek Masterplan was further developedand integrated into the proposals presented today. Think-ing about concrete art, the Bear Creek Overlook, river-bank restoration, and casual seating along the Greenwaytrail will enhance both of the schemes presented today

Meeting Notes Like that both options include elements of Bear Creek master plan. Clari cation was given from meeting attendee regarding extent of

restoration work completed to date. Comments were giving regarding preference for the overlook location. GM will review the proposedlocation as the design moves forward.

Design Notes Both proposal #1 and #2 have these elements integrated into the proposed masterplan.


8/11

8


Meeting #3June 2012

M a t e r i a l s , P l a y , P l a n t s


9/11

9


Meeting #3June 2012

P r o p o s a l # 1

J a c k s o n S t r e e t

300

GreenwayTrail

Skate Park

Bear Creek Restoration

Bear Creek PlazaOverlook

PerennialGardens

Playground

Plaza Entry

Picnic Shelter

Splash Pad

PerennialGardens

Multi-UseCourts

AquaticCenter

Loop Trail

Big Dog -Dog Park

Small Dog -Dog Park

H a

w

t h o r n e

S

t r e e

t

M a i n S t r e e t

2 7 5

1 7 5

Restroom

B

e

a

r

C

r

e

e

k

1 Acre

1 2 5 S p

a c e s

5 0 m P o o l

4 4

S p a c e s

PoolBuilding

Picnic Area

Picnic Area

Proposal #1 Design Notes Direct pathways Athletic courts located in the center of the park along the

eastern edge Large playground grouped together with the splash pad, picnic

shelter, restroom and gardens in the NE corner Large and small dog park located in the center of the park to

encourage activity Aquatic center anchoring the SE corner of the park Bear creek overlook located under the I-5 viaduct Skate park located under the I-5 viaduct

Proposal #1 Meeting Notes People preferred the Loop paths of proposal #1 because they

are better de ned and longer. People liked that the Splash Pad was located right next to

the Play Area in Proposal #1 as this would give parents anopportunity to better monitor children and would providechildren with multiple play opportunities.

People preferred the location of the proposed Aquatic Center on Proposal #1 as it anchors the SE corner and after viewing thephasing diagram #1 would clearly be easier to implement.

The notion of the Dog Park as a year round activity center helpedprovide support for proposal #1 as the Dog Park is located in thecenter of the park.

People did comment on the need to increase parking in thisproposal.


10/11

10


Meeting #3June 2012

275

GreenwayTrail

Skate Park


PerennialGardens

PerennialGardens

Picnic ShelteAttachedRestroom

Food Carts/Concessions

Splash PadWith Plaza

Full SizeBaseball Fiel

AquaticCenter

Loop Trail

Dog Park Shelter

Dog Park

2 7 5

Small KidsPlayground2-5 years old

Multi-UseCourts

Big KidsPlayground5-12 years ol


H a w

t h o r n e

S t r e e

t

M a i n S t r e e t

B

e

a

r

C

r

e

e

k

Picnic Area

1 2 5 S p a c e s

5 0 m

P o o l

100 S p ac e s

Bear Creek Overlook

Picnic Area

Pool Building

P r o p o s a l # 2

Proposal #2 Design Notes More meandering pathways Athletic courts located in the center of the park along the

Western edge Play areas are placed together at the NE corner of the

park. 1.25 acre dog park located in the SE corner to help anchor

and activate this edge Aquatic center located in the center of the park along the

eastern edge Bear creek overlook located under the I-5 viaduct Skate park located under I-5

Proposal #2 Meeting Notes People liked the amount of parking in this proposal. By locating the splash pad next to the Aquatic Center in the

middle of the park people felt that Proposal #2 would have avery successful and active center.

People were discouraged by the location of the courts as thelocation next to the Viaduct and the existing trees would shadethe area making it less conducive for various court games.

After looking at each of the analysis boards, Proposal #2received less positive feedback than it did during meeting #2.


11/11

275

GreenwayTrail

Skate Park


PerennialGardens

PerennialGardens

Picnic Shelter AttachedRestroom

Food Carts/Concessions

Splash PadWith Plaza

Full Size

Baseball Field

AquaticCenter

Loop Trail

Dog Park Shelter

Dog Park

2 7 5

Small KidsPlayground2-5 years old

Multi-UseCourts

H a w t h o r n e P a r k P r o p o s a l #2

Big KidsPlayground5-12 years old


H a w

t h o r n e

S t r e e

t

M a i n S t r e e t

B

e

a

r

C

r

e

e

k

Picnic Area

1 2 5 S p a c e s

5 0 m

P o o l

100 Sp aces

Bear Creek Overlook

Picnic Area

Pool Building

Final Notes Outside of the comments on increasing the parking in Proposal #1 the general feedback from the meeting preferred the park layout and

design of this proposal. We will continue to explore comments from the website but feel con dent in the overall appeal of proposal #1 and will move this direction

as we work to complete the nal masterplan.

C o m m e n t s O n T h e P r o j e c t

Proposal #1

Pathways Distances

Long

Medium

Short

Trees To Be Removed

Proposal #2

Use AreaFlexible Lawn

Dog Park Playground

Perennial GardensCourts

Splash PadParking

Cost of ElementsAquatic Center

PathsDog Park

PlaygroundPerennial Gardens

CourtsSplash Pad

Parking

Aquatic Center PathsDog Park PlaygroundPerennial GardensCourtsSplash PadParking

-+ -

==-

+-

Aquatic CenterPathsDog Park PlaygroundPerennial GardensCourtsSplash PadParking

+-

+==+-

+

Flexible LawnDog Park PlaygroundPerennial GardensCourtsSplash PadParking

4.101.00

.45

.55

.70

.18169 Spaces

3.401.25

.40

.40

.90

.28225 Spaces

Flexible LawnDog Park PlaygroundPerennial GardensCourtsSplash PadParking

Long

Medium

Short

3160 - .6 Miles

2550 - .48 Miles

2280 - .43 Miles

Long

Medium

Short

2280 - .43 Mile s

2160 - .40 Mile s

1600 - .30 Miles

9 13


300

H a w t h o r n e P a r k P r o p o s a l #1

GreenwayTrail

Skate Park


Bear Creek Plaza

Overlook

PerennialGardens

Playground

Plaza Entry

Picnic Shelter

Splash Pad

PerennialGardens

Multi-UseCourts

AquaticCenter

Loop Trail

Big Dog -Dog Park

Small Dog -Dog Park

H a w

t h o r n e

S t r e e

t

M a i n S t r e e t

2 7 5

1 7 5

Restroom

B

e

a

r

C

r

e

e

k

1 Acre

1 2 5 S p

a c e s

5 0 m P o

o l

4 4

S p a c e s

PoolBuilding

Picnic Area

Picnic Area

Meeting #3 Wrap Up

Documents