Loading...
17-4207.17.17 | Master Plan Report Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Lake Oswego, Oregon Iron Mountain Park EXHIBIT A ESA is committed to sustainability in our business practices and in supporting other local business. This report is printed on FSC certified 100% post- consumer content recycled paper, manufactured in the USA using wind power. Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates iii July 17, 2017 Acknowledgements City of Lake Oswego Staff, Parks & Recreation Ivan A. Anderholm, Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Director Ryan Stee, Lake Oswego Project Manager (former) Planning Advisory Committee: Megan Big John Jeff Munro Mike Buck Bill Ward Elizabeth Hills Frasier Wick Susanna Kuo Julia Wood John LaMotte Jan Wirtz Doug McKean Consultants: ESA Vigil-Agrimis MIG 819 SE Morrison Street, Suite 310 815 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97214 Portland, OR 97204-3022 www.esassoc.com www.migcom.com Michael O’Brien, RLA, Project Manager Ryan Mottau, MIG Inc. Paul Agrimis, RLA, Project Director Mathangi Murthy, MIG Inc. Roman Gutierrez, Landscape Designer Thomas Fischer, Landscape Designer Contents Acknowledgements Precedes 1 Introduction 1 2 Existing Conditions 3 3 Site Analysis 7 4 Planning Process 9 5 Master Plan 17 6 Implementation 24 7 References 25 Appendix A Cost Estimate Appendix B Public Involvement Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 1 July 17, 2017 1.2 Project Goals Parks Plan 2025 The Parks Plan 2025 was drafted to meet community needs by first providing residents with their highest priority services as identified in a planning analysis, public involvement process, and as verified by a statistically valid survey. The four goals of Parks Plan 2025, in order of the community’s priority are: • Investing in existing parks and natural areas: Making the best use of the City’s existing park and recreation resources is the top priority of residents. In the past, community priority focused on enhancing the park system by building new parks and acquiring new natural areas. This Parks Plan builds on those successes, but focuses on improving existing parks, recreation facilities, and natural areas. By reinvesting in its existing assets, the City can increase the sustainability of the park system by protecting its investments, preventing more costly repairs or loss of habitat, making better use of existing resources, and providing additional recreation facili- ties and opportunities. • Enhancing stewardship, maintenance and operations: Closely related to the above priority, is the goal of enhancing stewardship, maintenance and operations – the commu- nity’s second priority. This priority addresses improvements in maintaining developed parks and stabilizing or restoring natural areas. It also includes several planning efforts that will enhance the City’s ability to manage the park system, such as building a coalition of sports providers to advise on the planning and management of sports facilities and updating the City’s pricing policy for recreation programs. Finally, it increases public information and community vol- unteerism to build future stewards of the park and natural area system. • Providing recreation options: Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation is the community’s partner in promoting active living and addressing the obesity crisis. People are more likely to be active if they can select from a variety of options for exercise and sports, play for children, and opportunities to experience nature. The community’s third priority is to provide additional recreation options, including more com- munity gardens and more river access for swimming and boating. Chapter 1- Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Master Plan Lake Oswego has over 300 acres of natural areas that currently offer little or no traditional park amenities. Providing addi- tional comfortable access and amenities is strongly desired by the City of Lake Oswego and many residents. Addressing these needs will help achieve the City’s Parks Plan 2025 goals of investing in parks and natural areas; enhancing stewardship, maintenance and operations; providing recreation opportuni- ties; and filling geographical gaps in park access. The Parks Plan articulates that the ability to experience nature is an essential recreation service. Connecting young people with natural areas was also a key finding of the 2008-2012 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Developing areas like Iron Mountain Park will help the City address what has become known nationally as “nature deficit disorder.” Providing parking, picnicking and nature play opportunities with a natural character at this site will encour- age use by families and help usher in the next generation of environmental conservationists. The master plan for Iron Mountain Park provides a long-term vision to define and facilitate limited development of the lower portions of the site as a city-wide park and environmental education resource for the city. The master plan is needed in order to define a common vision among stakeholders, many of whom have provided on-going care and maintenance of the park, and for current and future park users. 2 esassoc.com 1. Introduction • Filling geographic gaps: close to home access to parks has been shown to increase the use of the system, health out- comes and the property value of neighborhoods. The Parks Plan identifies three essential services, Play for Children, Exercise and Sports and Access to Nature which together make up a unit of basic park access. Across Lake Oswego there are gaps in residents’ access to one or more of these services. Filling gaps in the system includes adding features, connecting natural areas and in the long-term adding parks to areas beyond walking distance to existing parks. This goal emerged from both public input and analysis but ranked behind the other three goals of the Parks Plan. With a strong focus on reinvesting in existing parks and natural areas along with a management strategy to enhance the park system, the Parks Plan 2025 identified a five-year action plan that identifies priority capital and planning projects to realize these goals. It also provides tools for updating the Plan every five years to keep abreast of changing community needs and priorities. Iron Mountain Park Iron Mountain Park was identified in Parks Plan 2025 as meet- ing the need for natural character play areas, development of trails and pathways, identifying and integrating natural features, management of the property portfolio, and connect- ing natural corridors under the goal of “Filling Geographic Gaps”. Within the goal of “Investing in Existing Parks and Facilities” this site meets the strategies of development of sustainable facilities, enhancing and expanding opportunities for exercise and sport, and protecting and preserving historic resources. Iron Mountain Park can also “Provide Recreation Opportunities” by development of the master plan (this document), providing recreational programming to address essential services, and introduction of new recreation fea- tures and amenities. The final goal, “Enhancing Stewardship, Maintenance, and Operations”, will be met at this site by restor- ing habitat, and conducting a public information program. Additionally, this unique site can provide the opportunity for dialogues about the relationship between the rich history of the past industrial uses and the natural beauty and benefits of natural areas. The Iron Mountain Park project requires a multi- objective design approach to providing safe and comfortable access, a rich interactive experience, while maintaining habitat and keeping the historical heritage evident. 1.3 Project Overview Public Involvement The outreach approach for this project enabled the community to contribute ideas, solutions, and strategies for addressing issues, which resulted in a final design that appears to be sup- ported by a majority of participants. Lake Oswego assembled a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) for this project to provide the design team with their collective understanding of the area’s residents, the City of Lake Oswego, and of the site itself. The PAC met five times with the design team and City staff to review the project’s scope, determine the design direction, review preliminary plans, and to comment on the final concept plan. In addition to the PAC meetings the team hosted an interac- tive website at two points during the design process to get a broader level of feedback from Lake Oswego residents. The website allowed stakeholders to review plans and provided the ability to make very specific comments on particular elements within the plan (a picnic table, for instance) and whether it was preferred, or not. These methods allowed us to reach beyond the usual outreach participants and it helped LOPR to enhance their outreach capabilities. It also built support and created more under- standing of the project for residents. Design Development The design approach was to develop a recreational space that respects and honors the ecological and cultural history of this site. We also brought a culturally sensitive aesthetic to the design and development of built elements in order to amplify the connection of the user to the beauty and importance of natural areas in our urban environment. Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 3 July 17, 2017 created a lattice of open areas called “rooms.” The miners left pillars of untouched rock to support the roof. After all the ore in an area had been mined, the pillars were removed starting at the farthest point from the entrance. This allowed ore in the pillars to be collected, but it was dangerous as the ceiling collapsed. Entrances to these mined-out areas were sealed off. Small rail cars filled with ore were drawn by cable to the entrance and tipped into a bunker. Finally, the ore was sifted into two grades and hauled in rail cars down to the furnace. The ore road now known as the Iron Mountain Trail is one of the oldest roads in Lake Oswego. It is almost 60 years older than Iron Mountain Boulevard. The road traverses the south face of Iron Mountain from Glen Eagles Road to Fairway Road. It originally ran all the way to the furnace, across the present site of the golf course and down the south side of A Avenue. Before this road was constructed, ore was winched up the mountainside and hauled to the furnace by a roundabout route. The new wagon road across the face of the mountain was built around 1878 by C. W. Burrage, City Surveyor of Portland, who also engineered part of the California and Oregon Railroad. In 1880, Burrage super- vised installation of a narrow gauge railroad on the existing wagon road. This made it possible to haul ore to the furnace all year round and in any kind of weather. Logging on Iron Mountain and other areas helped feed the charcoal pits that fueled the blast furnace. No one is certain, but it appears that the forest on Iron Mountain was cut at least twice between 1850 and today, maybe three times. Logging opera- tions in Oswego continued long after the iron company went out of business. There was a sawmill on Tryon Creek near Boones Ferry Road that reportedly operated between 1914 and 1916. There were a number of forest fires associated with the logging camps in Tryon Creek in 1914, 1921 and 1922. The Flora Logging Company operated another sawmill in the Foothills area in the 1950s. A 1947 photo shows the south side of Iron Mountain com- pletely denuded of trees. The natural resources of Iron Mountain Park have been exploited for over 150 years. When the dream of making Oswego the “Pittsburgh of the West” was abandoned, the Oregon Iron & Steel Company became a land holding corporation and went into real estate. To attract new residents, the Ladd Estate Company (the marketing agent for Oregon Iron & Steel) devel- oped recreational amenities like the golf course, which originally extended up the north side of Iron Mountain. In 1928, the company used 1,400 sticks of dynamite to change the course of Springbrook Creek to make way for a polo field at the base of the mountain. A riding arena, clubhouse, and stables were added in 1937. Construction of the Hunt Club facilities dramatically changed the wetland known as Prosser’s Swale or Spring Brook Marsh. The old mine road became a bridle trail for members of the Lake Oswego Hunt Club. 2.1 Site History Iron Mountain has a deep significance to Lake Oswego and the surrounding region due to the discovery of iron in the hills around Sucker Lake (now Oswego Lake) in 1861. This discovery eventually allowed for the region to stop relying on iron shipped around Cape Horn in South America and created an industry that helped shape the area. The incorporation of the Oregon Iron Company in 1865 and the construction of the first blast furnace in 1867 (at what is now George Rogers Park) necessitated the need for raw materials. In 1867 operations began at the Prosser Mine on the south face of Iron Mountain. The mine was named after Henry and Mary Prosser on whose Donation Land Claim it was located. Mary Prosser later leased, and then sold, the property to the Oswego Iron Company. During the 27 years that the mines were worked, ownership of the company changed twice. In 1878 it was acquired by the Oswego Iron Company and in 1882 it was sold and reincorporated as the Oregon Iron and Steel Company. Mining ceased in 1894 when mounting debts, compounded by a national economic crisis, forced the furnace to shut down. The Prosser Mine was a drift mine, meaning ore was extracted by digging horizontal, rather than vertical, tunnels into the moun- tainside. During the years the mine was worked, four tunnels were driven into the mountain side. Lateral tunnels or “drifts” 2. Existing Conditions Photo courtesy of Susanna Kuo 4 esassoc.com 2. Existing Conditions ESA Vigil-Agrimis (ESA VA) was contracted by the City of Lake Oswego to delineate wetlands and streams in the lower por- tions on the east side of Iron Mountain Park in support of planning for future aquatic habitat restoration. Restoration is in the early phases of planning, and at the time of this report a concept plan has been selected out of three options. Restoration will include a realignment of the stream channel to the base of the slope. The design intent is to restore functional- ity to the stream and meet requirements according to ODSL, USACE and Lake Oswego. Springbrook Creek is a tributary of Oswego Lake that origi- nates from a residential area west of the site and flows along the extreme southwest edge of the park. Springbrook is a major contributor to Oswego Lake and is in the initial stages of planning for restoration within the Engineering Department. Because of this larger watershed discussion the area associ- ated with Springbrook Creek was not part of the overall project for restoration. 2.3 Zoning Current land use in the park includes open space/passive recre- ation and wildlife habitat (PNA – Park and Natural Area Zoning). Construction staging for the Lake Oswego Sewer Interceptor Project was provided in the northwest portion of the park. All 2.2 Previous Planning Efforts The Iron Mountain Boulevard Park master planning process occurred in 1984 and planned one parcel (currently where the staging area is) which included habitat viewing, picnick- ing, trail access, and interpretive opportunities. Additionally in 2014, the Iron Mountain Restoration Plan was completed. It provides a guide for the Friends of Iron Mountain and the City for restoration activities for the park. The Oswego Iron Heritage Trail planning was funded by the City of Lake Oswego, and created under the oversight of City’s Historic Resources Advisory Board. It connects seven sites linked to the area’s iron industry. These sites are The Prosser Mine at Iron Mountain Park, the Charcoal Pit, the Pipe Foundry, the 1888 Iron Furnace, Worker’s Cottage, the 1866 Iron Furnace, and Oswego Pioneer Cemetery. Interpretive signs at each of the sites provide information about mining and iron making in nineteenth century Oswego. Metro’s regional trail system is planned to expand in this area (Bridgeport to Milwaukie Trail), but the segment along Iron Mountain Blvd. is shown on current planning documents as running along the railroad alignment on the south side of the street. Opportunities may exist to shift the alignment of the trail within the park boundary, which would open up possible additional funding sources and resources for Iron Mountain Park. Photo courtesy of Susanna Kuo Photo courtesy of Susanna Kuo Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 5 July 17, 2017 2. Existing Conditions 2.6 Flora and Fauna Five habitat types were observed on-site: wetland, riparian, scrub-shrub, Douglas fir forest, and Oregon white oak forest. The lower portions of the park consist of an emergent plant communities dominated by bulrush and field horsetail. Dominant shrubs were spiraea and red-osier dogwood. Uplands adjacent to wetland resources consisted of moderate upper canopy cover (55-75 percent cover) of several dominants including Pacific willow, big leaf maple, red alder, Douglas fir, crabapple, and English hawthorn. The shrub and herb strata contained primarily dominant invasive or weedy species, including Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, horsetail, reed canary grass, and herb Robert. Surrounding upland forested areas included the additional species: beaked hazelnut, wal- nut, and vine maple. The Douglas fir forest is the largest habitat type on-site with approximately 32 acres covering the steep slopes along Iron Mountain Boulevard. This forest consists of a relatively even- aged stand of trees dominated by Douglas fir. Sub-dominant mature trees include big-leaf maple, Pacific madrone, and western red cedar. Black cottonwood, Oregon ash, and Pacific willows are located at the base of the slope just east of the wetland. The forest consists of three main vegetation layers: canopy, shrubs/saplings, and groundcover. The forest canopy cover is estimated between 80 to 90 percent, which provides a substantial amount of shade for the understory. The shrub layer is approximately 5 to 15 feet high and is relatively sparse, with an estimated cover of 40 to 50 percent. The shrub species consist of California hazelnut, vine maple, Indian plum, poison oak, common snowberry, thimbleberry, and serviceberry. The groundcover is dominated by English ivy that at one time was estimated at 70 percent coverage. Ivy reduces the biodiversity of the forest floor and threatens the long-term health of the forest. Native groundcover species property surrounding the park is zoned residential. Adjacent land uses include an equestrian center with stables (the Lake Oswego Hunt Club), and single-family residences located west of the Hunt Club and north of the Iron Mountain ridgeline. The park is bordered to the south by Iron Mountain Boulevard. Other land uses in the study area include farming activity prior to the 1950s, and single-family residences from the 1940s-1950s to 2003-2010. Two of the three houses were removed from the study area between 2003 and 2004 and the remaining house was removed in 2010. 2.4 Topography The terrain of the lower portions of the park (where the primary park development is planned) is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 122 to 132 feet above mean sea level. The slopes and ridgeline above this area constitute the major- ity of the park acreage. The overall elevation of Iron Mountain ranges from 300 to 450 feet above mean sea level. The Lake Oswego Hunt Club borders the park to the south and west, and Iron Mountain Boulevard borders the study area to the south and the east. Steep forested slopes continue to the north where the park abuts residential neighborhoods. The Union Pacific Railroad (formerly Burlington Northern) is parallel to and south of Iron Mountain Boulevard. 2.5 Existing Use Iron Mountain Park was donated to the City in 1963 and cur- rently covers 49 acres of upland, riparian, and wetland habitat. Trails that exist serve higher elevations, but access from the flatt portion along Iron Mt. Blvd. does not exist. The trail at the top of the hill is a remnant old iron mine rail line. There are several other minor trails throughout the park that are either created by resident animals or from human use. Since 1990, the City has used money from an open space bond along with other sources to acquire additional parcels for the park (USDOI 2013, Stee 2015 pers. comm.). The formally recognized group, Friends of Iron Mountain (formerly Friends of Brookside) was started in the early 2000’s and partners with the City to help with care and maintenance of the park. Metro and other enti- ties have also worked to acquire land adjacent to the park to increase open space. Photo courtesy of Susanna Kuo 6 esassoc.com 2. Existing Conditions spotted towhee. According to information from Parks, rough- skinned newts inhabit the unnamed stream. Newts and chorus frogs are native pondbreeding amphibians, and both species likely breed in the impounded stream sections and/or the permanent wetland. The scrub-shrub area provides edge habitat that is used by several native species. Coyote and black-tailed deer report- edly move through the area early in the morning on a regular basis. Other species observed in the scrub-shrub include downy woodpecker, Stellar’s jay, American goldfinches, and Cedar waxwings. Common wildlife species not observed, but expected to occur on-site based on habitat requirements and distribution includes raccoon, garter snakes, opossum, voles, moles and other small rodents. The Douglas fir forest provides extensive foraging and nesting habitat for several common native songbird and woodpecker species including the American robin, Stellar’s jay, downy woodpecker, black-capped chickadee, red-breasted nuthatch, and brown creeper. Raptors including the red-tailed hawk, cooper’s hawks, great horned owl or western screech owl are expected to use the forest for nesting or roosting. Wildlife species observed in the white oak habitat were similar to those observed in the Douglas fir forest and include red- breasted nuthatch, black-capped chickadee, song sparrow, and black-tailed deer trails. A few raptors, including the American kestrel, turkey vulture, and red-tailed hawk were observed soaring above the oak bluffs. present among the ivy includes fringecup, sword fern, slender- footed sedge, inside-out flower, and wood strawberry. The Oregon white oak forest covers approximately 11 acres and is located along the top of the hillside. The main his- toric trail is a rough dividing line between the oak forest and Douglas fir forest. The oaks are short in stature (20 to 30 feet high) with diameters of 8 to 10 inches. Other trees growing among the oaks include Pacific madrone, big-leaf maple and a few Douglas firs. The dominant shrub species was common snowberry and Poison oak with English ivy as a dominant groundcover species. A small patch of Scot’s broom was observed off the trail. Oaks are considered a rare and impor- tant habitat in Oregon (ODFW, 2008) because of the high number of endemic species or species found in association with oaks, such as the acorn woodpecker and the white rock larkspur. Significant efforts have been undertaken to control inva- sive species. Invasive species of concern include blackberry, clematis, English Ivy, periwinkle, Scot's broom, poison oak, lesser celandine, hydrocotyle, holly, and geranium. Restoration efforts have included volunteer work parties with the Friends of Iron Mountain Park for the past 15 years. The park is also on the invasive species removal program list of sites for treatment. Wildlife in the wetland includes nutria, great blue heron, and ruby-crowned kinglets. Wildlife observed in the riparian habitat on-site includes several American goldfinches foraging on red alder cones; as well as American robin, Stellar's jay, and Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 7 July 17, 2017 3. Site Analysis for the park. Tree preservation is a critical component of providing for a natural area protection. The promotion of stewardship, conservation, and sustainability are important goals in Lake Oswego’s Parks Master Plan There are several elements that constrain future development within the park: • Protection of sensitive and valuable natural resources • The significant forested and steep slopes cover the majority of the site and limit options for park uses and circulation • Work near the creek could result in wetland or riparian impacts and may require mitigation • Long street frontages and mid-block crossings expose pedestrians to conflicts with vehicles • Accessibility to existing trails from the lower development portion. 3.1 Opportunities and Constraints Opportunities and constraints to park development were evaluated based on the existing conditions analysis and the requirements of different uses and needs. Iron Mountain Park will be a City-wide park, but contains significant forested and steep slopes in most areas, which limit development potential to a very small area. Extensive infrastructure, such as parking, restrooms, hard surface trails and play areas, are needed to support the level of use associated with the broad activity base provided in a hybrid park. These factors provide the context for weighing what types of activities would be appropriate at the site and how those chosen activities could be located and/ or designed to best fit into the site. Key opportunities and con- straints for site development are summarized below. Constraints Several key features were identified during the site analysis that were used to guide concept and master plan development Winter Winds Summer Winds Legend Park Boundary NeighborhoodAccess Points Golf Course Wetland / Stream Residential Potential Crosswalk Commercial Parks Taxlots Forested Iron Mountain Park Master Plan Opportunities and Constraints Plan - OverviewJanuary 2016 Inset Plan 0 300 600 900 1,200 Feet Sun Road SpringbrookPark WalugaPark WestlakePark PenningtonPark WoodmontPark GreentreePark Oswego LakeContry Club CampbellNativeGardens LakeOswegoHuntClub 8 esassoc.com Diversity of native plants is moderate. An existing gravel trail traverses the upper slope from a trailhead to the west of the Hunt Club up to the top of the ridge. This trail is partially a remnant of the old iron mining railroad. Numerous rogue trails are found throughout the park. Rogue trails are trails created by park users without permission. These trails contribute to erosion and degradation of water quality in the unnamed creek. The rogue trails also fragment habitat areas and provide corridors for dispersal of non-native vegetation. The lower portions of the park are nearly flat and total approxi- mately three acres that could be developed to accommodate recreational needs. There are areas along the creek that have existing tree and shrub coverage, although much of the shrub coverage is from invasive species like Himalayan blackberry. There is also a large gravel laydown and staging yard that has been created for utility work being done in the area. Since the master plan process started the contractors have completed their work and have removed the gravel and reseeded the area with grasses. There is an existing gravel/asphalt pad adjacent to Iron Mountain Boulevard that operates as a de-facto parking lot for some local park users. This represents an opportunity to locate parking in an area that is already adversely affected by automo- bile traffic, and limit impacts to other more sensitive areas of the park. Opportunities There are several elements that should be explored and enhanced through development of the park: • Natural resource education opportunities are in abundance • Access to trails within the park, as well as to regional systems • Nearby neighborhoods lack facilities for play and gathering • The impending stream restoration can be folded into the design discussion • Proximity to the Campbell Native Garden • Providing for access to natural resources for all abilities • The pond, while not on park property, presents an attractive feature to provide views to. 3.2 Analysis The unnamed creek flowing through the lower portion of the park where development is intended to happen is currently flowing in an incised channel that has limited functions and values. It currently flows through three small culverts as it cuts across the site. The second/third growth forest within the park is in fair condi- tion generally with a well-developed vegetative structure of canopy trees, tall shrubs, low shrubs and groundcovers. Legend Park Boundary Taxlots Hardscape Wetland / Stream Existing Access Points Contours (5’) Existing Trees Previously Proposed Trails Existing Trails 0 35 70 105 140 Feet Natural AreasBuffer Trailheads Fire Access Lake OswegoHunt Club Iron Mo u nt ai n B o ul e v ar d Slope Slope Slope Slope 1984 Plan CampbellNativeGardens Debris Pile Boulders Iron Mountain Park Master Plan Opportunities and Constraints Plan - InsetMarch 2016 a weekday evening in May of that year. The online exercises fol- lowed each of the public events in an effort to gather as much public input for this process as possible. To help establish the preferred feel and scale of features in the conceptual plan, the planning team utilized an online visual preferences exercise that allowed participants to react to example photographs and concept plans, and provide direct input into what seems most appropriate for this site. This exercise expanded the reach of the workshop format to desktops and smartphones across the community. Outreach Event #1 Design Charrette After the LOPR project manager introduced the project team and welcomed the community members to the charrette, members of the design team gave a brief overview and the role of the Iron Mountain Park as a city-wide facility (larger than a local park) located in the center of the City of Lake Oswego. They reminded the participants about the recommendations pertaining to the Iron Mountain Park from the Parks Plan 2025. Recommendations from that planning process stated a need to develop a concept plan for the Iron Mountain Park proper- ties and identified system gaps that could be accommodated within Iron Mountain. The team then presented a slide show to illustrate the context and the park’s existing conditions. Following the presentation on existing conditions, partici- pants at each table discussed their favorite thing about Iron Mountain Park. Following this brainstorming exercise and informed by a set of inspirational images provided by the proj- ect team, participants explored if and how these features could fit in the park. To provide the participants with scale references on the amenities/ features, the project team handed out scale 4.1 Approach Iron Mountain Park will be a new city-wide park. Engaging the public in developing the master plan ensures it will reflect the needs, interests, and desires of the community. The general approach to the planning process included the following steps: (1) Protection of sensitive and valuable natural resources  Review and analyze the site using field visits, previous documentation, and historical resources,  Gather initial input on Park Program and user preferences through a public meeting and online survey; (2) Develop Preliminary Concept Plans and Park Program,  Gather feedback on Preliminary Concept Plans through public meeting and online survey; (3) Develop Refined Concept Plan,  Gather feedback on Refined Concept Plan through public meeting and online survey;  Gather public feedback on Draft Plan; (4) Produce Draft Master Plan,  Present Draft Plan to PAC; (5) Revise Master Plan, if needed,  Present Master Plan to City Council. 4.1 Public Involvement The consultant team designed and facilitated a public involve- ment process that included public charrettes, online exercises, and multiple Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings to gather ideas and consolidate design direction for Iron Mountain Park. These discussions were framed within the contextual information developed in the Site Analysis Task, and the role of this park as defined in Parks Plan 2025. The exercises developed for the charrettes and online exercises were intended to maximize the understanding of public desires for the park’s development and advance consensus around elements and programming that met the multiple goals for the use of this site. This outreach approach enabled the community to contribute ideas, solutions, and strategies for addressing issues, which has resulted in a well-supported and successful master plan. There were two public charrettes for this project. The first was scheduled on a Saturday in January 2016, and the second was Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 9 July 17, 2017 4. Planning Process comparisons that showed the size of this site in relationship to other Lake Oswego Parks. The PAC members assisted as facilitators at each table and helped with reporting-out group findings. Each group reported back the following: • What were the main things you placed in the park? • What locations were the most important to your group? • What activities/amenities wanted to be clustered, which wanted to be separated? • What didn’t fit (from your list of activities/amenities). Discussion from this process was recorded graphically during the meeting. Charrette Results What is your favorite thing in Iron Mountain Park? What activi- ties would you like to see at the site in the future? • Peace and Quiet • Small gravel lot- shared parking with Hunt Club (10 to 15 car capacity and not very visually prominent) • Picnic table/equipment: boulders and logs • Nature Play • Restroom (small, composting, shared with Hunt Club) • Dogs away from Hunt Club • View/ Access to pond • Connect to Lower/ Upper Tryon Campbell Native Garden • Horse riding • Boardwalk loop (raised wood walkway) • The unfilled wetland found in one part of the site can be used as a model for rest of the site and in other parks in the city (“Oswego Wetlands”) • Offers a peek into old, existing mines in the site • Hiking • Walking with pets • Accessible • Bike • Birds (suggestion to incorporated bird blinds when design- ing facilities in the site) • Trail on Iron Mountain Boulevard (separated) and in the park What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? The following elements were mentioned by multiple groups as a good fit within Iron Mountain Park: • Nature Play: Many participants emphasized retaining the wilderness and keeping the park natural. Nature play elements were mentioned by most of the groups as ameni- ties that would fit with the existing character of the site. Some groups felt nature play elements can be interspersed throughout the site. • Trails and trailhead: Participants emphasized multimodal access to the park. Most groups mentioned developing interpretive trails and boardwalks that highlight the wetland features. Connecting the park site to the existing city-wide trail system was also stressed. • Kiosk or interpretive signage: Participants mentioned install- ing entry kiosks and other information kiosks throughout the site with interpretive signage. The entry kiosk could also integrate information about the location of different ameni- ties/features in the park. • Wetland, restored stream and natural buffers: Most groups were interested in restoring the wetlands on the site. Participants suggested boardwalks and interpretive trails around the wetlands that would help visitors and users understand the historical and ecological significance of the site. Natural buffers (vegetation, wildlife corridors) were other suggestions that would protect streams and wetlands. Participants also suggested avoiding development within or disturbance of wildlife travel corridors and other ecologi- cally sensitive areas. • Picnic areas and pavilions: Participants expressed interest in installing picnic tables and picnic shelters in the park. Many 10 esassoc.com 4. Planning Process Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 11 July 17, 2017 4. Planning Process environmental science associates Many participants felt the rerouting improved the visibility of the park and made the site safer. Some observed that the rerouting helped with the ecological restoration by allowing more space for planting buffers along the stream. Others observed that by rerouting the stream, stormwater manage- ment from the hills can be more efficient. A PAC member also suggested appropriate tree plantings (Oregon White Oak near the picnic area and Madrone on the hill slopes) to help with stormwater management from the hills. Rerouting the stream also allows for a bridge to access the loop trail in the hills. Some participants liked that this bridge will offer an elevated spot to view the stream and the park. • Loop trail, trailhead and regional trail: Most groups preferred the trail alignment as shown in Concept 1 within the park. Many participants liked the idea of connecting the park site to the existing city-wide trail system. However, they provided suggestions for realigning the trail connections at certain sections. For the west trail (north of the Hunt Club), participants preferred not to have it run all the way across and parallel to the edge of the polo field. For the east trail connection, participants suggested removing the switch- back to avoid redundant connections and to preserve the wild character. They also stressed closing down rogue trails and having just enough pathways for connectivity. Most groups mentioned incorporating more interpretive features and boardwalks that highlight the wetland features than what iwasshown in the concepts. • Kiosk or interpretive signage: Participants mentioned install- ing entry kiosks and other information kiosks throughout the site with interpretive signage. The entry kiosk could also integrate information about the location of different ameni- ties/ features in the park. • Nature Play: Many participants expressed an interest in a boulder garden or using the rocks and loose material avail- able at the site for nature play. Participants emphasized the need for balancing the wilderness of the park with site ame- nities and features. Many participants liked the nature play elements shown in the concepts. However, they stressed that nature play and education opportunities should also respect the ecological systems for their habitat value. One participant provided an example by explaining how children can play in the water, but that should be separate from the tributary feeding native species and the larger hydrological system. Westmoreland Park was cited as an example where children play in a great water feature that is separate from the Crystal Springs. • Wetlands, restored stream and natural buffers: Most groups were interested in restoring the wetlands and improving water quality on the site. A participant suggested planting water plantain instead of the invasive species that is cur- rently present in the pond. Many groups suggested avoiding lawns and instead suggested meadowscaping or using native plantings in open areas. A participant member sug- gested native plantings (such as Aster, Checker Mallow, Mock Orange, Spirea, Oregon Grape, Thimbleberry, Wild Roses, groups indicated these facilities should be designed to mini- mize physical and visual disturbance to the site and respect the ecological context. • Parking: Most groups suggested limited parking should be available on the site. Participants suggested permeable parking treatments to help with minimizing stormwater runoff impacts. A desire for sharing parking with the LO Hunt Club, if feasible, were also voiced. • Restrooms: Participants recommended installing restrooms that will be easy to maintain and also respect the ecological context of the park site. Online Exercise A website was developed to offer people interested in the project who were unable to participate in the Public Charrette a chance to weigh in on the same information. The input derived from this exercise strongly correlated with the feedback received at the charrette. Approximately 150 people participated in the online survey. When asked what their favorite thing about Mountain Park was the majority used the words natural, trails, park, and walking/hiking in their responses. When given images to respond to relating to features at Mountain Park the responses again correlated closely with the charrette results. People responded very positively to nature play, a simple trailhead, wetland access, gathering circles and outdoor classrooms, and rustic or natural looking built elements. Outreach Event #2 (Options) Charrette Results This public event began with the design team reminding participants that Iron Mountain Park would be a unique park in Lake Oswego: a park which would enable visitors to enjoy the wilderness, experience nature, serves an interpretive and edu- cational role while preserving the habitat and wetland system. Amenities and features such as picnic shelters, play area, view- ing decks and trails will be designed to enable users to enjoy the park while minimizing the ecological impacts at this site. The design team presented two refined concepts (Figures 1 and 2) to the community to incorporate feedback. They also presented a concept map of revised trail connections from the park to the surrounding neighborhoods (Figure 3). Following the presentation on the two concepts, participants at each table discussed their likes and concerns about ele- ments in each concept. Each group reported back their findings to the entire gathering. The following elements from Concept 1 and Concept 2 were mentioned by multiple groups as a good fit within the Draft Concept for this site: • Stream alignment: Most participants preferred the rerouted stream alignment as shown in Concept 1 for various reasons. 12 esassoc.com 4. Planning Process • Access: A recurring recommendation from many participants involved traffic calming along Iron Mountain Boulevard. Many groups advocated for safe crossings and reinforced connections to the nearby Campbell Native Gardens site. Online Exercise An online exercise was posted on the project website after the outreach event. It provided an opportunity for community members who could not attend the outreach event and was also an additional follow-up opportunity for participants who wanted to provide additional comments on the alternative concepts. The online exercise enabled participants to make comments specific to each of the refined draft concepts. Participants were asked to place a series of pins to mark each of the concept drawings, indicating where their comments applied. They were first asked to place a pin on features they liked or features they felt appropriate for the site in each concept. Next, participants were also asked to place a pin on features they disliked or felt inappropriate for the site in each concept. Lastly, participants also placed pins to indicate and ask questions about a particu- lar spot or feature on both the concepts. Around 60 respondents participated in this online exercise and they placed a total of 282 points or pins were placed with comments, questions, etc. The results of this online exercise are summarized in the appendix. These heat maps represent the density of pins placed by individual respondents to par- ticular questions (What I like, What I don’t like) regarding Draft Concept 1. Clarkia, Vine Maples, Twinberry, Currant etc.) for easy main- tenance. Some participants suggested more boardwalks along the creek. A participant wanted more opportunities to have some open views of the creek for people to see it and also a path along the creek (a "Creek Walk"). • Picnic areas and shelters: Some participants observed the presence of animals in the north side of the park. They sug- gested moving the picnic shelter to the east in Concept 2 to minimize physical and visual disturbance to the site. Many groups indicated these facilities should be designed at an appropriate scale to respect the context of the site. • Parking: Many groups indicated preference for a smaller parking lot as shown in Concept 2 to minimize stormwater impacts and disturbance to the wild character of this park. Some participants also suggested using permeable pavers for the parking area to help stormwater management. A few participants preferred the larger parking lot as shown in Concept 1 to minimize impact to on-street parking or the Hunt Club parking during peak seasons of park usage. The project team informed the participants that the park master plan, level-of-service standards and the draw to this park will determine the parking lot size. Participants suggested permeable parking treatments to help with minimizing stormwater runoff impacts. A desire for sharing parking with the LO Hunt Club, if feasible, was also voiced. • Dog use: Participants anticipate dog use at this site and suggested designing accordingly (such as adding signage indicating this is a dogs on-leash area). • Restrooms: Participants recommended installing restrooms that will be easy to maintain and also respect the ecological context of the park site. Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 13 July 17, 2017 4. Planning Process members weighed in on the concepts to ensure they exempli- fied the themes that emerged from the discussion of the public engagement results. They provided inputs on which aspects of the design concepts best represented the public engagement results. The following design themes emerged from the discussion of the charrette and online exercise results with the PAC members: • Natural and Rustic – Park elements should have a natural and rustic feel • Learning – This is an amazing opportunity for children to learn more about nature • Maintenance – Easy to maintain facilities are strongly desired • Connectivity – Maintain and develop connections to nearby trails • Impact to wildlife and nature – Balance preservation with access improvements • Fire hazard – Limit elements that would contribute to higher fire risk • Edge with Hunt Club – Look at sharing facilities with the Hunt Club • Parking requirements – Anticipate bus parking /utilize exist- ing paving • Ancillary Facilities – Need adequate restrooms and garbage bins Preliminary Design Concepts Following the discussion on the results from the public engage- ment events, the designers presented two preliminary design concepts (representing a first pass at assimilating the concepts developed at the charrette) to the PAC members. In the next steps of this planning process, the project team will incor- porate the discussions from this meeting into more refined preliminary concepts. Concept A In this concept, the stream is rerouted to the base of the steep slope of the site. The realignment of the stream opens up more area to accommodate recreational needs and provides oppor- tunities for buffering the stream and also improving the water quality. This concept moves the regional trail to the north side of Iron Mountain Boulevard and provides parking towards the front of the park site (existing asphalt surface). A nature play area is included just south of the trailhead. A viewing deck or boardwalk is provided near the wetlands. Views to the Hunt Club and wetlands are preserved. This concept allows wildlife access to water without having to cross the park. Design team members clarified that the water flow and hydro dynamics will not be altered from existing conditions. He also clarified that the site no longer has the native landscape and was originally a marshland. Planning Advisory (PAC) Meetings The Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan process combines technical analysis of the park site with the input of the com- munity to set a direction for site design and the addition of new facilities. A Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) consist- ing of representatives of boards, commissions, neighborhood associations, parks and recreation professionals and other community groups will provide guidance throughout the process. PAC Meeting #1 The first PAC meeting, held on January 7th, 2016 combined the kick-off of the process, background information and a preview of the materials for the first major public outreach event. The LOPR project manager introduced the consulting team and initiated a round of introductions by the PAC members in attendance. Following the discussion on the project timeline, the project team provided PAC members with the site analysis report (see Chapter 3) and a brief presentation on existing conditions. Discussion of the current conditions, opportunities and chal- lenges was recorded graphically during the meeting. The consulting team previewed the concept of the charrette to be held on January 30, and invited the PAC to help shape the materials and the outreach process to ensure a good turn-out. PAC members were also asked to put the charrette on their calendars. Ideas from the PAC included: • Develop vision first • Set the context for big picture Emphasize respect for what is there • Size of site in comparison to other Lake Oswego Parks • Park is centrally located in Lake Oswego and matters to many people • Tap into the Neighborhood Association lists • Provide text for an invite and the associations can pass it along City channels (list from Lake Oswego staff) • Tap into organizations about nature for further outreach PAC Meeting #2 The Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) met on March 3rd to review results from the Community Design Charrette and from the follow-up online exercise. At this second meeting of the PAC, the discussion focused on assisting the project team to interpret the results and begin incorporating them into prelimi- nary design concepts. Around 12 PAC members attended this meeting that was facilitated by the design team. Following the discussion on interpretation of the results from the public engagement activities, the design team presented two preliminary design concepts to the PAC members. The PAC 14 esassoc.com 4. Planning Process PAC Meeting #4 Around 12 community members participated in this event. Discussions in this meeting were centered on reviewing the stream restoration efforts (under a separate contract), specific comments and concerns relating to the preferred master plan design, and next steps. Some of the key points brought up during the discussion are summarized below: Stream Restoration: The project manager from Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation gave a brief summary of the restoration design process. In short, the design process is moving forward. Traffic Safety: There is a strong desire from PAC members for the design team to incorporate a summary of traffic safety issues that have been brought up in the PAC meetings in the narrative of the Master Plan. The main issue is vehicle speeds on Iron Mountain Boulevard. The primary mitigation strategies discussed were to provide additional signage and to lobby the City to reduce the vehicular speed to 25 where it runs along the park. A PAC member requested that the design team coordi- nate with the LO Traffic Coordinator prior to the next submittal. Fire Hydrant: The Fire Marshall will require the fire hydrant supply line to be up-sized from 2” to 6”-8”, and move closer to the footbridge. A PAC member asked if it could be connected (daisy-chained) to the hydrant on the Hunt Club property. Staff said that this would likely not be allowed under code require- ments, unless it was supplied by its own main line. Either way, it seemed that the consensus would be to locate the hydrant close to the footbridge. Small Animals: There was some discussion about how to save the small amphibians (Salamanders, primarily) that currently reside in the ditch and near the old foundation. Some thought that a salvage and release program to the pond area might be a good alternative. Others felt that once the overstory and shrub layer was removed that they would find their way to more suit- able environs. More study by the stream restoration designers was desired. Site Interpretation: The PAC requested that interpretive panels or similar be spread throughout to tell the story of the iron industry that was a major part of Lake Oswego’s history. It could be designed with existing Iron Heritage trail system. There were others that felt it important to include Native American history as well. More discussion later in the meeting suggested that placing an interpretive panel at the site entry near the parking lot should be the first location considered due to the fact that most of the park users would pass through that area and that would allow maximum visibility for the story to be seen. Trail Location: PAC members expressed the desire to see the trail connection heading west from the footbridge to push high enough on the slope to get as much distance and screen- ing from plant material to make sure that horses will not be Concept B In this concept, the existing stream alignment is retained with enhanced buffers. Nature play elements, picnic shelter and gathering circle can be accessed by a bridge across the stream from the park entrance. The regional trail is adjacent to Iron Mountain Boulevard. Reviewing the Concepts PAC members and the project team weighed in on the trade-offs between the two schemes. Many PAC members felt Concept A had a more inviting site design with a natural transition from more active to less intense uses. They also felt Concept A segregates the natural and sensitive areas for preservation more effectively whereas Concept B intermixes uses and activities. Some members liked the treatment of the regional trail coming into the site and away from the traffic on Iron Mountain Boulevard, as seen in Concept A. Members also discussed the cost implications of realigning the stream (Concept A) versus building a more substantial bridge (Concept B) over it. PAC Meeting #3 At this third PAC meeting, members assisted the project team to synthesize the public engagement results and develop the Draft final Concept Plan from the two refined conceptual site plan alternatives. Around 8 PAC members attended this meet- ing that was facilitated by the design team. After a round of brief introductions was made summarized results from the outreach event (held on May 12th) and the online exercise were presented. Included in this portion of the meeting was a summary of feedback on aspects of the two refined conceptual site plan alternatives that people liked and did not like. Following that discussion input was provided to the project team for directions in developing the Draft final Concept Plan. The Final draft Concept Plan is the preferred alternative that incorporates aspects from the two refined alternative plans presented at the Outreach Event #2 on May 12th. Overall, PAC members and results from the public engagement activities show that Concept 1 was more popular and had many features that participants liked. Input for the Final Draft Concept Plan • Preference to keep parking on the lower end of the park- ing requirements as per the City Code and Level-of-Service requirements • Continue to explore shared parking with the LO Hunt Club • Material finishes and palette to reflect the hybrid character of Iron Mountain Park: a park with preserved habitat and wetlands, yet developed to be a place where users can enjoy the wild character, experience nature, and learn • Issues regarding access to the park site that fall outside the project scope and park site area to be carried forth beyond this plan Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 15 July 17, 2017 4. Planning Process Four PAC members attended this meeting along with LOPR staff and the design team lead. Due to the small size of the group the discussion was relatively informal. The design team shared the results from the second online out- reach exercise. The PAC felt that the comments received during the online outreach were very similar to previous outreach efforts. Some of the key points brought up during the discussion are summarized below: Hunt Club Improvements: There are potential Hunt Club access improvements being considered along the Iron Mountain Boulevard Right-of-Way. It was asked that as the design for Iron Mountain Park moves forward that the design- ers coordinate with Hunt Club to integrate the aesthetics of each properties approach relating to materials and landscape along the ROW. Endangered Species: It was asked if introducing endangered species (e.g. western pond turtle) into the restoration efforts would increase the mitigation value. The design team discov- ered after the PAC meeting that the introduction of endangered species is not recognized by permitting agencies as a path for mitigation of impacts. It could, however, help enhance the resource and provide for an interesting story to tell about the development of park amenities. Signage: There was a request to include a site map within the park showing locations of amenities and trails in the area. Interpretive signage relating to Hunt Club history was also pro- posed. Other members of the PAC asked that the iron history of LO and the site be included. Fire Safety: BBQ grills or fire pits were brought up. PAC mem- bers and LOPR all agreed that the danger of fire in the forested slope was too high to allow for any fire in the park. Wildlife Impacts: The PAC asked the design team to provide language in the narrative that addresses the impacts to the existing fauna near the proposed improvements. Restrooms: The design team confirmed that the intent is for 2 single stall restrooms only. The PAC would like to see the rest- rooms and the shelter to be in closer proximity to each other. CPTED: The PAC asked that the design team include language about how Community Policing Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles were applied to the design of this park. Fertilizer: The question of lawn maintenance and use of fertilizers was brought up. PAC members were assured by LOPR that any fertilizer would follow the City’s Integrated Pest Management program, and would utilize phosphorous free fertilizer. Nature Play: The PAC asked questions about the nature play portion of the design. The lead designer gave a brief rundown of the basic principles and some of the possible elements that spooked by trail users and their pets. Later in the meeting there was discussion about how to achieve the screening and prevent dogs from bolting off the trail towards the horses. A combination low fence and dense plantings was thought to be a good solution. The design team was advised to make sure that the Master Plan narrative includes this information. Parking Lot Paving: There is a desire to have permeable park- ing in the parking lot if feasible. The design team suggested that the drive aisle should be standard asphalt, and the park- ing bays would then be permeable paving. It could be precast pavers or permeable asphalt or concrete. Parking Lot Exit: A PAC member asked if the exit out of the parking lot should be “right out only”. The discussion in the group did not reach consensus on whether this would be some- thing for the design team to pursue. Fine Lawn Area: There was a discussion around the appropri- ateness and size of the manicured lawn area in the park. There was concern over the presence of lawn in the plan and ques- tions about whether it was an appropriate element in the park. Others felt that lawn would be useful for children and families that use the park. The design team suggested that providing a relatively small area of lawn would concentrate activity in that area and lessen the impact to the surrounding, more natural- ized environments. Drinking Fountain: PAC members thought there should be more than one drinking fountain in the park. There seemed to be consensus on having one at/near the restroom, and another at the trailhead. It was also suggested that the trailhead foun- tain also include a bottle filler. Dogs: There were questions about dogs on the boardwalk and the possibility of them jumping into the pond/wetland to chase other small animals. Staff said that technically dogs are required to be leashed, but that there is no real way to enforce that rule. The group discussed ways to mitigate this issue and some of the ideas included signage, more enforcement, or a low barrier on the boardwalk. LOPR staff and the design team will develop a plan for dealing with this issue. Restroom Location: There was nearly universal agreement about moving the restroom further into the site to lessen the possibility of it becoming a de facto “rest area” for people trav- elling on Iron Mountain Boulevard. PAC Meeting #5 The Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) met for the final time on December 28th to review the second online survey results, and to provide comments on the Draft Master Plan Narrative and the Park Conceptual Plan. The intent of this meeting was to solicit feedback for the narrative and concept plan, to allow for finalizing both in anticipation of creating documentation suitable for submission to Lake Oswego’s Land Use Approval process. 16 esassoc.com 4. Planning Process to the nature of routing a trail through the existing trees that it would necessitate that it be a narrow, soft-surface trail. This would most likely limit its safe use to foot traffic only. Boardwalk: The PAC wanted to discuss the boardwalk shown on the concept plan. One member felt that it was too wide (looked like a “dock”) and wasn’t long enough. After discussion it was agreed that making it narrower and having more exten- sive reach would be preferred. The lead designer sketched an alternative on the plan and the PAC agreed on the general layout. could be used. The PAC recommended that the Arts Council of Lake Oswego could be involved in any continuing design and development of the nature play area. An OAC member suggested that a rain gauge in the nature play area would be interesting and educational. Trails: The PAC asked that the narrative have more mention of the Metro Regional trail and how it is to be funded. They also desired more information about how to decommission the rogue trail to the east. A question was also asked about trail use and what will be allowed. The design team said that due 5.1 Project Goals The project goal was to gather community input and develop a master plan for a new hybrid park. This unique site will serve the needs of residents within a half mile of the site (a neighbor- hood park), as well as providing improved access to the trails within Iron Mountain Park for the entire City (a City-wide park). The master plan is a conceptual document that may be modi- fied in the future. Elements in the park design and layout may vary from the master plan depending on available funding, changing community needs, and unforeseen constraints. The public involvement process was designed to develop an overall concept for the future of the park that was broadly supported by the community. The broad concepts below were identified at the start of the master planning process and well-supported by public input. These goals have been incorporated into the Master Planning process: • Conserve and enhance natural features, including the sig- nificant trees, wetland areas, and the creek • Develop a balanced approach to the protection of existing natural elements (forested slope, riparian habitat) with pro- viding for community access and recreation needs • Provide for opportunities to educate people (primarily chil- dren) about nature and natural processes • Maintain a positive and respectful relationship with the adjacent Hunt Club • Increase access to trails within the forested slope, provide looped systems if possible, and include the planned Metro regional trail through the site • Provide built features that are natural and rustic, and scaled appropriately • Allow the separate stream restoration process on the site to inform and interact with the park design development • Support alternative transportation to the park and through- out the community • Plan a new community park that helps fulfill recreation facil- ity deficiencies within the park system as identified in the Comprehensive Park System Master Plan. 5.2 Preliminary Concept Plans Two Preliminary Concepts Plans were developed to explore the siting and layout of a variety of potential features within the park. Concept layouts were influenced by the project goals, site analysis, use zone delineation, LOPR park standards, and public input on preferred amenities. The Preliminary Concept Plans were presented at PAC Meeting #3 to gather input, and then placed online for the general public to have the opportu- nity to comment. All of the concepts include pedestrian and vehicular access, play areas, trailheads, and picnic shelters. The Preliminary Concepts are summarized below. Elements from both plans were used to develop the Draft Master Plan. Draft Concept Plan 1 In this concept, the stream is rerouted to the north valley wall. The realignment of the stream opens up more develop- able area for recreational needs, provides opportunities for buffering the stream and also improving the water quality. This concept moves the regional trail to the north side of Iron Mountain Boulevard and provides parking towards the front of the park site (over an existing asphalt surface). A nature play area is included just south of the trailhead. A viewing deck or boardwalk is provided near the wetlands. Views to the Hunt Club and wetlands are preserved. This concept allows wildlife access to water without having to cross the park. Water flow and hydro-dynamics will not be significantly altered from exist- ing conditions. Draft Concept Plan 2 In this concept, the existing stream alignment is retained with improved bank conditions and enhanced buffers. Nature play 135 Draft Concept 1 Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Portland, Oregon May 2016 0 20 40 8040I r o n M o u n t a i n B o u l e v a r d 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 2 7 10 11 Gathering CirclePicnic ShelterTrailheadNature PlayViewing DeckLegend Limits of Work Wetlands Existing Tree Canopy Resource Buffer Grass Taxlots 1 Viewing Deck 2 Gathering Circle 3 Nature Play 4 Trailhead 5 Picnic Shelter 6 Restroom 7 New Fire Hydrant 8 Regional Trail Park Elements 9 Split-Rail Fence Contours (5’) 10 Bus Turnout 11 Parking (30 Spaces) 135 Draft Concept 2 Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Portland, Oregon May 2016 0 20 40 8040I r o n M o u n t a i n B o u l e v a r d 1 3 4 5 6 8 10 2 7 9 Gathering CirclePicnic ShelterTrailheadNature PlayRestroomLegend Limits of Work Wetlands Existing Tree Canopy Resource Buffer Grass Taxlots 1 Gathering Circle 2 Trailhead 3 Nature Play 4 Restroom 5 Picnic Shelter 6 New Fire Hydrant 7 Bus Turnout 8 Parking (12 Spaces) Park Elements 9 Split-Rail Fence Contours (5’) 10 Regional Trail Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 17 July 17, 2017 5. Master Plan 18 esassoc.com 5. Master Plan The plan shows a portion of a future Metro regional trail bisect- ing a portion of the park, but there are no immediate plans for this trail section to connect to a broader City or regional system at this time. Additional thoughts regarding improvements associated with access and safety are located near the end of this document in the Future Considerations section. Parking The parking lot is located at the southern boundary of the park, paralleling Iron Mountain Boulevard. It has two drive- ways providing entry to a single drive aisle with angled parking on either side. There is a single pull through spot for bus park- ing. This parking lot will support the picnic shelter, gathering circle, boardwalk, and nature play, as well as support trail users. It will provide 20 paved parking spaces, with potential for development of an additional 10 spaces. The drive aisle will be standard vehicle rated asphalt, and the parking stalls will be porous paving. The amount of parking is consistent with LOPR experience of other similarly sized projects including West Waluga Park. elements, picnic shelter and gathering circle can be accessed by an existing culverted roadway across the stream from the park entrance. The regional trail is adjacent to Iron Mountain Boulevard. The stream will be restored, but remains in its existing alignment. Existing stream crossings (culverts) are utilized to access the more active portions of the park from Iron Mountain Boulevard and the parking lot. 5.3 Recommendations The Draft Master Plan was developed with significant collabora- tion with the Planning Advisory Committee, input gathered from the public, meetings with City staff, and community needs iden- tified in the Lake Oswego Parks Plan 2025. The Draft Master Plan is shown in the figure below. Specific elements are described in the following sections. Transportation and Access Iron Mountain Park has the potential for good pedestrian access opportunities for residents with frontage along Iron Mountain Boulevard. Substantial infrastructure development will need to happen for these opportunities to become reality. 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 77 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 13 13 14 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 20 20 20 20 20 22 23 ENTRY EXIT REGIO N AL T R AIL 24 25 26 26 27 27 28 IRON M O U N T AI N B L V D 29 30 BUFFE R BUFF E RPROPERTY LINEBUFFER16 16 13 9 PICNIC SHELTER4 NATURE PLAY3 BOARDWALK2 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Stream Restoration Pedestrian Bridge Boardwalk Nature Play Irrigated Lawn Native Meadow Native Meadow Buffer Gathering Circle Picnic Shelter (2) Stall Restroom Entry Plaza Accessible Picnic Tables Bench Bus Loading Zone (18) Stall + (2) ADA Parking Lot Permeable Pavement Potential Future Parking Expansion Stormwater Area Planting Buffer Split Rail Fencing Vehicular Bollards Safe Trail Crossing Plaza + (5) Bicycle Racks Pedestrian Sidewalk Trailhead Soft Surface Trail Gravel Paving Concrete Paving Wetland Interpretive Signage 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PARKS AND RECREATION | LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON FEBRUARY | 2017 819 SE Morrison St, Suite 310 Portland, OR 97214 P: (503) 274-2010 F: (503) 274-2024 Entry Plaza There will be an entry plaza adjacent to the parking lot. This area is intended to provide a space for visitors to orient them- selves with the park upon entering from the parking lot or regional trail. Bicycle parking for a minimum of five bicycles will be provided at the plaza. There is potential for signage that provides wayfinding and park rules to be located here. As with the parking lot, if feasible, porous paving will be used for the plaza hardscaping. Trails Three trail types are proposed within the park. The majority of the trails will be minor gravel-surface paths, forming a network throughout the lower portions of the park and connecting park features. The major shared-use path will maintain an impor- tant connection from the parking lot/regional trail through the active portions of the park with a paved surface. A soft surface trail will loop throughout the park, providing an alternative surface for walkers and joggers, and allowing park users to enjoy the mature tree groves while minimizing impacts to the trees. Shared-use paths will be provided in the more devel- oped portions of the park. The regional trail is shown along the southern edge of the park and separates the active use area from the parking lot. This trail originally was shown by Metro as being on the south side of Iron Mountain Boulevard in the railroad right-of-way. Through staff discussions with Metro officials it was deter- mined that incorporating it into the park would be benefit for both the park and the trail. Staggered gates at the cross- ing from the parking lot, and signage, will alert park users to potential conflicts with bike users on the trail. This trail will be 12’ wide to accommodate both pedestrians and bikes. It is assumed that the trail will be either concrete or asphalt, and porous pavement will be considered as well. Paved trails within the developed portion of the park will be designed to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Striping, raised crossings, and other traffic calming measures should be included where pedestrian, bike, and vehicular circulation interface. Trails leading from the developed portions of the park into the forested hillside will connect with the existing trails crossing the slope above. These trails will primarily be narrow, soft-sur- face trails that require less grading and can be routed through the existing trees to minimize the need for any tree removal. The soft surface trails will also enhance wildlife viewing due to the lack of foot noise (e.g. crunching of gravel). Nature Play Nature-based play is fast becoming a must-have in develop- ment of progressive play spaces for children in parks and school yards. Nature play can contribute greatly to health and human development, and can be a springboard for the next generation of naturalists and conservationists. Nature-based play, as a concept, is perfectly suited to this park as it relies less on scripted and location-specific activities, but encourages free thinking and discovery through active par- ticipation with natural materials. The notion that children are encouraged to play WITH nature, rather than in nature, opens up a plethora of educational opportunities. With the merging of play and nature we further the ability to open minds to a vast sea of potential in a variety of directions. Play elements for Iron Mountain Park should incorporate active participation with natural materials (Sticks, sand, boulders, etc.) to emphasize connectivity with the natural forces within the park. Care should be given to future design development to ensure that whatever elements are chosen for the play area are compatible with the desire for relatively low levels of noise to limit impacts on local wildlife. Incorporating the Lake Oswego Arts Council during the design of nature play elements should be strongly considered. Gathering Circle Gathering circles (also referred to as conversation and learning circles) provide multiple opportunities for a diverse mix of edu- cational and community-building activities. Designed to foster interactive discussions, these circles allow a variety of groups to build, share, and express knowledge. It will also double as a nature-based play piece, due to its proximity to the play area. The intent at Iron Mountain Park is to provide a circle that is constructed of materials that are both natural and highly durable. Solid wood or stone would be preferred types. Boardwalk The boardwalk was highly desired by a large majority of the public during the design phase. It will allow park users to get close to the rehabilitated and constructed wetlands at the edge of the Hunt Club pond. Working in concert with the gathering circle, the boardwalk extends the educational opportunities all the way to the water’s edge. The design provides for looped access to provide as varied an experience as possible. The northern path and the boardwalk itself are designed to meet ADA requirements. The boardwalk Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 19 July 17, 2017 5. Master Plan would not have railings, but would have a short curb at the edges. The surface material will be pultruded fiberglass which will provide an accessible surface that does not get slick and will outlast most any other decking alternative. The potential addition of railings, gates, or other techniques to discourage dogs from disrupting pond wildlife should be explored in the next design phase. Stream Restoration PAC members noticed that in both the outreach event and in the online exercise, the stream alignment represented in Concept 1 was more popular. Participant’s preferred the stream being re-routed closer to the hillside and the addition of a pedestrian bridge across the stream. Through close coordi- nation with the stream restoration the design team was able to affect this change in a way that benefitted both projects. This alignment will provide additional and immediate shading of the water within the stream from the existing forest, as well as provide a more protected approach for the animals living in the forest. The park will benefit by having a larger contigu- ous area for the more active portions. It will also allow public safety officers a better view into the park. At the trailhead there will be a need to construct a bridge to access the trails on the hillside above. Trailhead and Bridge The trailhead will include a kiosk that will be able to provide trail maps, park rules, and scheduling information for park users. The area will have gravel as the primary surface, and should be relatively understated. The bridge will create a nice gateway into the upper portions of the park, as well as a place for park visitors to be able to see the stream as they are crossing. Picnic Shelter The picnic shelter will provide for extending the use of the park as it will provide cover from rain, as well as shade during the summer. It has been sized to accommodate two full size picnic tables and would be perfect for gathering of up to 15-20 20 esassoc.com 5. Master Plan people. Anything larger was deemed incompatible with this portion of the park due to the limited area and the desired natural character of the park. Restrooms Restrooms are an important and necessary support amenity in a citywide park. Due to the limited size of the developed portion of the park a single restroom is recommended. This restroom will include multiple stalls and be ADA compliant. It is located near the entry plaza for the convenience of park users and maintenance activities, but well enough in the park to not become a “rest stop” for anyone travelling on Iron Mountain Boulevard. Site Furnishings Site furnishings include picnic tables, benches, trash recep- tacles, bicycle racks, and drinking fountains. These amenities are small but are critical elements for the enjoyment of park users. Bicycle racks will be located near park entry plaza to encourage alternative transportation to the park. Benches and picnic tables will be scattered throughout the park to provide a diverse array of settings for picnicking, socializing, or resting. Trash receptacles and drinking fountains will be located near the entry plaza and at the trailhead. Trash receptacles should be located for easy access by park maintenance staff. Landscaping Planting materials used in the park should be native to the park to the greatest extent practical. Plantings along the relocated stream corridor will be part of the stream restora- tion effort. Where the park development abuts that, and at the areas not specific to the higher developed portions of the park, plantings should be considered as restoration and should mimic typical pre-columbian plant selections and layout. Within higher use areas, like the parking lot, care should be taken in selecting plant that will adapt to the relatively harsh conditions there. Plants should be varieties of natives, or orna- mental plants that closely resemble western Oregon plants. Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 21 July 17, 2017 5. Master Plan • "See and be seen" is the overall goal when it comes to CPTED and natural surveillance. A person is less likely to commit a crime if they think someone will see them do it. Lighting and landscape materials play an important role in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. • Natural Access Control is more than a high block wall topped with barbed wire. CPTED utilizes the use of walkways, fences, lighting, signage and landscape to clearly guide people and vehicles to and from the proper entrances. The goal with this CPTED principle is not necessarily to keep intruders out, but to direct the flow of people while decreas- ing the opportunity for crime. • Creating or extending a "sphere of influence" by utilizing physical designs such as pavement treatments, landscaping and signage that enable users of an area to develop a sense of proprietorship over it is the goal of this CPTED principle. Public areas are clearly distinguished from private ones. Potential trespassers perceive this control and are thereby discouraged. • CPTED and the "Broken Window Theory" suggests that one "broken window" or nuisance, if allowed to exist, will lead to others and ultimately to the decline of an entire neigh- borhood. Neglected and poorly maintained properties are breeding grounds for criminal activity. Resource Protection The stream channel and riparian corridor at Iron Mountain have been degraded due to past land practices, including the placement of fill material along the banks and throughout the site. As part of proposed stream and wetland restoration, non-native invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry will be replaced with a diversity of native trees, shrubs and ground- cover. Relocating the stream to a new meandering channel with gentle slopes will lengthen and widen the riparian cor- ridor for the benefit of several aquatic and terrestrial species found at Iron Mountain Park. With these improvements the habitat complexity will increase and we expect to see an increase in species richness among the songbird species. Aesthetics and code requirements will be important factors in plant selection. There is a small portion of the park that will have a manicured lawn. Through the design process we heard from the public that providing for a place for children to run and families to have picnics would be important. It was also determined to be a way to focus activity in a few select areas within this portion of the park to relieve pressure on more sensitive parts of the park. The remainder of the developed part of the park will be seeded with a native meadow mix. The intent would be to provide a mixture of lower growing grasses and wildflowers, with an emphasis on pollinator and forage species. Maintenance efforts to coordinate with blooming times is desired, if possible. Site Lighting Lighting will be included within the park to enhance security and to extend use of key features. The parking lot will have minimal lighting for security. Activity lighting will be included for key features that may be used in the afternoon or evening. Lighted amenities may include picnic shelters, trailhead, and entry plaza. The features that are lighted and the duration of the lighting will be determined based on demand and com- munity feedback. Activity lighting will end prior to park closure each day, so that after-hour use will be discouraged. Utilities The park is well-served by public water, sanitary, and storm sewers within Iron Mountain Boulevard. Providing necessary services for park facilities will not be an issue. Potable water service will be provided as a single system that serves the entire park. The system design will be determined at the time of development and be dependent on phasing and site constraints (such as large trees and topography). Potable water will be necessary to serve the public restrooms and drinking fountains, as well as irrigation for ornamental shrub and lawn areas. Sanitary service will also presumably come from Iron Mountain Boulevard. It will be required for the restroom and the drink- ing fountains. The precise location and depth of the sanitary sewer will be determined during the design phase. The intent is to treat all stormwater on site. The plan shows two areas in the parking lot devoted to stormwater. These are located and sized to be able to treat all of the impervious areas within the parking lot as shown, as well as for the potential expansion. Hard surface trails and paths could be treated with adjacent filter strips. Safety The development of the Iron Mountain Park concept plan incorporated design guidelines of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). CPTED has four main principles: 22 esassoc.com 5. Master Plan • Prioritize the use of native plants and minimize require- ments for irrigation • Preserve and protect existing trees to the extent practicable • Limit the use of fertilizer and herbicides. 5.4 Future Considerations During the course of developing the Master Plan several ele- ments and concerns came to light that were outside of the scope of this project. In order to ensure that these concerns not be lost during future design phases we described them as follows. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Iron Mountain Boulevard is an important vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian corridor that links several north side neighbor- hoods as well as the Boones Ferry Road commercial corridor and Downtown Lake Oswego. It is also a link to the Lake Oswego Hunt Club, Oswego Lake Country Club, and the upper trail that exists within Iron Mountain Park. When completed, the improved Iron Mountain Park will be a big draw that will provide much needed open space for the north side. As a special hybrid park it will contain features that will be attractive to all City residents. Vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic to the park can be expected to increase. The Iron Mountain Park Master Plan addresses trails/paths within the new park space but the conditions and needs of the path along the full roadway are not part of the plan's work scope. The City's Transportation Advisory Board and Engineering Department have considered restriping Iron Mountain Boulevard to allow a few more feet on the south edge of the roadway. A full bike path of 8 to 12 feet wide on the south edge While natural resources will be temporarily disturbed dur- ing construction and for the first few years while vegetation establishes, the long-term improvement in wildlife habitat is anticipated to offset short-term impacts and create habitat of higher value. Reducing fragmentation by creating a single, open reach of the stream, and connecting it directly to the high-quality forested slopes above will benefit the local fauna over the long term. As part of the permit application to the Corps and DSL, the stream restoration team addressed the expected ecological uplift of stream and wetland restoration using the "Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol (ORWAP),” which is a plan- ning tool for land managers and restoration ecologists. Sustainability Sustainability in construction, materials, and maintenance are important elements of the Iron Mountain Park Master Plan. It will incorporate Lake Oswego’s sustainability framework including: • Provide public access to and use of existing and future natu- ral areas while ensuring site protection and stewardship • Encourage resource conservation and protection when developing facilities, projects and environmental programming • Encourage walking and biking to the park with safe trails connecting the surrounding neighborhood • Limit the use of impervious pavement and use pervious pavement where practicable • Incorporate aesthetically pleasing stormwater treatment facilities for runoff from all streets and parking lots Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 23 July 17, 2017 5. Master Plan and/or improved sight lines. Pedestrian crossings should also be considered at the Campbell Native Garden just east of the roundabout. Access The level of use for this park will only truly be determined after it has been completed. Suitability of parking levels may need to be modified based on ongoing observations on availability. The amount of parking shown on the master plan was deter- mined by evaluating public comments with the PAC and LOPR staff, and by assessment of similar facilities in the region. Additionally, the park’s “carrying capacity” will be closely monitored. Care will be given to making sure that the resto- ration efforts within the park, and the wildlife that inhabit it, have adequate capacity for their ongoing coexistence. Trail Use The master plan process looked at existing trails and made broad recommendations for improvements and connectivity. Types of use were not part of this scope. Public comments, however, provided some insight into public desires, and should be considered when trail design begins. Culvert Adjustment Consideration should also be given to adjusting the existing culvert under Iron Mt. Blvd. at the east end of the primary park development area to restore flow into the site to historical levels.zz would require infill/widening of the roadway to gain space due to the narrow right-of-way and steep slopes along the adjacent railroad embankment. The existing path along the north edge of the roadway, which is more like a road shoulder than a full path/trail, is more often used by people who walk, run, and bicycle through the corridor, with dogs and baby carriages part of the flow. With varying widths (8' narrowing to 3'), blind curves, and higher traffic speeds (40 MPH), along with pedestrians, bicyclists and dogs moving in/out of the shoulder onto the roadway, residents have expressed concerns about visibility and safety along Iron Mountain Boulevard. For motorists, there is also a safety concern regarding traffic exiting to Summit Drive from Iron Mountain Boulevard due to the odd angle of Summit and difficulty seeing on-coming traf- fic. It is also difficult to see on-coming traffic and pedestrians in the traffic circle due to grade differences and dense vegeta- tion. Visibility and congestion in the circle is also a concern when several pickup trucks with horse trailers are stacked up at the Hunt Club entrance. Adjusting the width of the south edge of the roadway could add a few feet for bicyclists but the existing path on the north edge needs attention. Ideas for improving the path should be considered as a follow-up to the Iron Mountain Park Master Plan. These include: pushing back the short retaining walls on the road's blind curves to expand the 3-foot shoulder to a full bike lane; expanding the path to a wider 2-lane bike path; wood guard rails along the north shoulder to separate vehicu- lar and pedestrian traffic; reducing the 40 MPH speed limit (the PAC suggested 25 MPH); and improving the Summit intersec- tion with better pedestrian crosswalks, lighting, a 4-way stop, 24 esassoc.com 6. Implementation Costs 6.1 Estimate of Probable Cost A preliminary cost estimate was developed for implementing all of the elements included in the concept plan. The estimates below include costs for design, permitting, and construc- tion, and include a contingency to cover unforeseen elements and changes that may arise during the detail design and construction. Potential funding sources include Park System Development Charges and Transportation System Development Charges, a General Obligation Bond measure, state and federal grants, and private donations. Development at the park could be supplemented with volunteer work crews. Estimated construction costs for all of the elements within the master plan total between $856,000 and $1,070,000 in 2017 dollars. An estimate of costs for major park elements, including design and permitting services, is included below: • Site Utilities $40,500 – $69,500 • Earthwork and Demolition $35,300 – $44,100 • Stormwater Facilities $13,700 – $17,200 • Parking Lot $142,600 – $178,300 • Pedestrian Paving $8,700 – $10,800 • Site Structures $90,000 – $112,500 • Nature Play Area $40,000 – $50,000 • Site Imprvmnts/Frnshngs $329,900 – $412,400 • Planting $ 112,700 – $140,800 • Erosion/Sediment Controls $27,600 – $34,400 • Totals $856,000 – $1,070,000 6.2 Priorities and Phasing Park phasing and development will be dependent on avail- able funding. LOPR is actively seeking grant finding through a variety of sources to provide 50% of the development costs, 50% of the costs have been budgeted utilizing Park System Development Charge proceeds. The park will be developed as shown in the Conceptual Plan. If phasing is deemed necessary LOPR will develop a phased approach to meet funding realities The stream restoration is being developed through a separate process. Funding for that will also be from other sources. It is hoped that the stream restoration and park developments outlined in this document would be constructed at the same time to maximize financial efficiencies and to limit the duration of construction activities at the site. 6.3 Permitting Requirements Current land use in the park includes open space/passive recreation and wildlife habitat (PNA – Park and Natural Area Zoning). All property surrounding the park is zoned residential with the exception of the southern boundary which is public right-of-way (Iron Mountain Boulevard). The stream restoration will be permitted through a separate process. Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 25 July 17, 2017 References City of Lake Oswego Parks & Recreation Department. “Park and Recreation Facility Survey Summary Report.” December 2004. City of Lake Oswego. “Iron Mountain Restoration Plan.” March 2014. City of Lake Oswego. “Oswego’s Iron History 1865-1928.” August 2010. City of Lake Oswego. “Sustainability Action Plan for City Operations 2014 Update.” March 11, 2014 Commission for Citizen Involvement. “Citizen Involvement Guidelines for Lake Oswego.” September 1990. Environmental Science Associates. “Iron Mountain Natural Area Habitat Assessment and Enhancement Recommendations.” November 2012. Janet Goetze. OregonLive.com. “Lake Oswego’s New Iron Heritage Trail Offers Walkers and Bicyclists Glimpses of the City’s Industrial Past.” February 9, 2012. Jones & Jones Ames Associates. “Iron Mountain Boulevard Park Master Plan.” July 1, 1984. Kittleson & Associates, Inc. “Transportation System Plan 2015-2035.” September 2, 2014 Koler/Morrison Planning Consultants. “Historic Resource Protection Plan, Lake Oswego Study Unit.” August 1989. Lake Oswego Planning Division, City of Lake Oswego. “Lake Oswego Urban & Community Forestry Plan.” December 2007. MacLeod Reckord. "Lake Oswego Open Space Plan." March 6, 2001. MIG. “Lake Oswego Parks, Recreation and Natural Systems Plan 2025.” July 31, 2012. Sorenson, Saundra. The Lake Oswego Review. “Befriending Iron Mountain.” February 19, 2015. The City of Lake Oswego. “Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 2010-2013, Volume 1.” March 18, 2014. 26 esassoc.com Appendix A Iron Mountain Park Master Plan Cost Estimate DATE:4/17/2017 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Qty Unit Unit Price Est. Cost Erosion and Sediment Controls Sediment Fencing 2075 LF $4.25 $8,819 Inlet Protection 3 EA $90.00 $270 Tree Protection Fencing 2398 LF $5.00 $11,990 Construction Entrance 1 EA $2,500.00 $2,500 Temporary Const Fencing w/ Gate 985 LF $4.00 $3,940 Sub-Total $27,519 Earthwork and Demolition General Excavation 94 CY $10.00 $941 Tree Removal 3 EA $500.00 $1,500 Clearing and Grubbing 77061 SF $0.25 $19,265 Demo Existing AC Path 4665 SF $1.00 $4,665 Stockpiled Soil & 1/3 Compost & Gravel 47 CY $25.00 $1,176 Finish Grading 77,061 SF $0.10 $7,706 Sub-Total $35,253 UTILITIES Water 3/4" water supply pipe 215 LF $30.00 $6,450 1.5" water supply pipe 195 LF $35.00 $6,825 Sub-Total $13,275 Electric Parking Lot Lighting 2 EA $7,500.00 $15,000 Sub-Total $15,000 Sewer 6" pipe to sewer system 280 LF $90.00 $25,200 Cleanout 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000 Sub-Total $27,200 Stormwater Stormwater Facilities 1 LS $13,689.37 $13,689 Sub-Total $13,689 Parking Lot Asphalt Paving (with Base)17100 SF $8.00 $136,800 Parking Lot Signage 4 EA $500.00 $2,000 Concrete Wheel Stops 18 EA $100.00 $1,800 Striping 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000 ESA 6/15/2017      Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation | Iron Mountain Park Master Plan environmental science associates 27 July 17, 2017 Sub-Total $142,600 Pedestrian Paving Paving - Concrete 3,055 SF $5.00 $15,275 Paving - Gravel 3,446 SF $2.50 $8,615 Sub-Total $8,615 Site Structures Picnic Shelter 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000 Restroom 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000 Sub-Total $90,000 Nature Play Area Nature Play Area 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000 Sub-Total $40,000 Site Improvements / Furnishings Benches 9 EA $1,800.00 $16,200 Bollards 37 EA $500.00 $18,500 ADA Drinking Fountain 2 EA $6,000.00 $12,000 Boulders 37 EA $225.00 $8,325 Picnic Tables 3 EA $4,000.00 $12,000 Boardwalk 1,852 SF $120.00 $222,240 Interpretive Signage 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000 Loop Bike Rack 5 EA $500.00 $2,500 Split Rail Fence 1,102 LF $30.00 $33,060 Sub-Total $329,825 Planting Planting 17,191 SF $4.00 $68,764 Seeded Rough Lawn (native)11,006 SF $0.25 $2,752 Topsoil 637 CY $30.00 $19,101 Irrigation 11,006 SF $2.00 $22,012 Sub-Total $112,629 $0 SUBTOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST: $674,790 $0 MOBILIZATION/INSURANCE/BONDING (8%): $53,983 $0 CONTINGENCY (25%): $182,193 $0 (Target Budget)GRAND TOTAL: $910,966 ESA 6/15/2017      28 esassoc.com Appendix B Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #1 Summary (1/7/16) 1 Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #1 Summary January 7, 2016 Santiam Room, Palisades Building, 1500 Greentree Road, City of Lake Oswego, OR Process and Schedule The Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan process combines technical analysis of the park site with the input of the community to set a direction for site design and the addition of new facilities. A Public Advisory Committee (PAC) representing the interests of the diverse users and neighbors of Iron Mountain Park will provide guidance throughout the process. The first PAC meeting, held on January 7th, 2016 combined the kick-off of the process with a preview of the materials for the first major public outreach event (Phase 1 of the timeline presented in Figure 1). City of Lake Oswego project manager Ryan Stee introduced the consulting team and initiated a round of introductions by the PAC members in attendance (listed at the end of this summary). Figure 1: Iron Mountain Conceptual Plan process timeline Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #1 Summary (1/7/16) 2 About Iron Mountain Park and Trails Following the discussion on the project timeline, the project team provided PAC members with the site analysis report and a brief presentation on existing conditions. The Site Analysis Report is available at the project web page www.ironmountainpark.org Discussion of the current conditions, opportunities and challenges was recorded graphically during the meeting and is transcribed below. Emphasis is added where an idea was repeated multiple times. What is special about Iron Mountain Park? • It is the only park within walking distance for many residents • Opportunity to engage kids in nature o Lead to/ connect to trail • One of few places to ride horses o Natural o Dark o Wildlife • It is an educational resource o Natural resources o History • Attracts people who come away with a new appreciation for nature • Provides a sense of awe and pleasure Opportunities • Think about the big picture, beyond the park boundaries o Connections o Role of this park in making the whole system work better o Show more context • Relationship to Lake Oswego Hunt Club o Shared parking o Improved access o Education programs for youth • Public restroom facilities • Connect Campbell Native Garden • Safer crossing (at Summit) • Flooding as a learning opportunity for existing constraints in the site Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #1 Summary (1/7/16) 3 Opportunities (Continued) • Landscape and make it appear park like o Native plants • Bike path • Make the park a part of the pedestrian route along Iron Mountain Boulevard • Integrating art • Identify volunteer projects • Explain the pending clean-up of the site and what it could be o Tell the backstory of the utility work o Create and improve sightlines into the park o Anything would be an improvement o Grant opportunity • Improve north side of road • Incorporate the history of iron mining and the Hunt Club o Mine shaft access? Located high on site and potentially hazardous Challenges • Many stakeholders/ complexity • Limited developable site • Confusing access • A place to play could be in conflict with natural resources • Fill/debris removal • Recent and past work damage • This site is all edge, the hardest kind of natural resource to manage • Stream restoration is expensive and may warrant a separate budget • Could the culvert be replaced higher? • Facilities without lights encourages vandalism Further research and background documents suggested • 1980s plan as reference point • Neighborhood Association proposal on trails • Iron Mountain Boulevard Trail • Wetland delineation at Hunt Club • Lake Oswego Hunt Club mark-up map Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #1 Summary (1/7/16) 4 Community Outreach The consulting team previewed the concept of the charrette to be held on January 30, and invited the PAC to help shape the materials and the outreach process to ensure a good turn-out. PAC members were also asked to put the charrette on their calendars. Ideas from the PAC included: • Develop vision first • Set the context for big picture o Respect for what is there • Size of site in comparison to other Lake Oswego Parks • Park is centrally located in Lake Oswego and matters to many people • Tap into the Neighborhood Association lists o Provide text for an invite and the associations can pass it along o City channels (list from Lake Oswego Ryan) • Tap into organizations about nature for further outreach Next steps The key next step is the design charrette scheduled for January 30, 9:30AM at the Palisades Building in the gymnasium. List of attendees • Mike Buck, Friends of Iron Mountain Park, Lake Grove Neighborhood Association • Elizabeth Hills, Country Club Neighborhood Association • Trina Lee, Lake View/Summit Neighborhood Association • Heather Charvet, Hunt Club • Janice Weis, Hunt Club (Alternate) • John Lamotte Planning Commission Representative • Bill Ward, Planning Commission Representative (Alternate) • Fraser Wick, Natural Resources Advisory Board Representative • Lisa Adatto, Sustainability Advisory Board Representative • Susanna Kuo, Historic Resources Advisory Board Appointed Representative • Jan Wirtz, City of Lake Oswego Recreation • Megan Big John, City of Lake Oswego Parks • Jeff Munro, City of Lake Oswego Parks • Ryan Stee, Lake Oswego Project Manager • Ryan Mottau, MIG Inc. • Mike O’Brien, ESA Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Design Charrette Date January 30, 2016 Time 9:00 – 12:00 PM Location Palisades Building, Gym, 1500 Greentree Road Agenda Visit www.ironmountianpark.org or https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/parksrec/iron-mountain-park-plan for more information 9:30 – 9:40 am Welcome and Introductions 9:40 – 10:00 am Iron Mountain Today  Existing conditions presentation  Questions and discussion 10:00 – 10:20 am Table Discussion  Introductions: What is your favorite thing about Iron Mountain Park?  Review scale of primary access/developable area 10:20 – 10:45 am Table Exercise: Activity Images  What activities fit (or do not fit) at Iron Mountain Park?  Additional ideas for activities? 10:45 – 10:55 am Large Group Discussion: Additional Activities 10:55 – 11:30 am Table Exercise: On The Map  Scale of features: what fits?  Relationship 11:30 – 11:50 pm Report Back 11:50 – 12:00 noon Next Steps Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Design Charrette Date January 30, 2016 Time 9:30 – 12:00 PM Location Palisades Building, Gym, 1500 Greentree Road Instructions for Assisting at the Charrette Sign-In (9:30) 1. Ask each participant to sign in and create a name tag 2. Provide an agenda and ask people to gather at the table marked with the number/color on their name tag Project Team Presentation (9:40) 1. Consultants will give background of the site and project, and parameters of the charrette exercise. Table Discussion (10:00) 1. Ask each person around the table to introduce themselves and answer: “what is your favorite thing about Iron Mountain Park?” 2. Write down responses on feedback form 3. Describe the materials on the table: o Site plan (one sheet with context and detail of “developable area”) o Park Master Plan from 1984 o Activity images (booklet or board) o Scale comparison Table Exercise (10:20) 1. Ask everyone to spend five minutes looking through the activity/amenity images (which will also be projected on the wall) 2. Starting at the beginning of the package/board, ask the group to indicate a thumbs up/thumbs down vote in response to the question: Which of these activities or features do you think do (or do not) fit at Iron Mountain Park? 3. Ask if there are any more activities or amenities (not shown in the book/board) that would fit at Iron Mountain Park Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Large Group Discussion: Additional Activities (10:45) 1. Provide a quick summary of the activities and amenities your table gave the most “thumbs up” to 2. List off any new activities or amenities your table came up with Table Exercise: On The Map (10:55) 1. Direct the group to look at the site plan and orient to any key locations (developable area, trail heads, Hunt Club) 2. Point out the scale references on the activity images (small, medium, large) and the scale comparison that shows the size of this site in relationship to other Lake Oswego Parks 3. Using the list of activities/amenities that were most popular, ask where on the site your group would like to see them placed 4. Use markers, scaled elements (small medium large circles) to locate the activities and amenities on the site 5. Label any elements (small medium large circles) with the activity you have discussed 6. Use the glue sticks or tape to secure the pieces you are generally agreed to. 7. Summarize the following points for the report back: a. What were the main things you placed in the park? b. What locations were the most important to your group? c. What activities/amenities wanted to be clustered, which wanted to be separated? d. What didn’t fit (from your list of activities/amenities? Report Back (11:30) 1. Provide (or delegate) a brief summary of the key points above Thank you for your help in making this charrette work! PARKS PLAN 2025 GOALS Adopted July 31, 2012 These are Parks Plan 2025 goals that relate directly to Iron Mountain Park. They are our guide in developing the Master Plan. During the Parks Plan 2025 public involvement process, the community identified the three essential services (Play for Children; Exercise and Sports; and Experiencing Nature) that should be located close to home. • Iron Mountain Park provides two of three essential services (Experiencing Nature; Exercise and Sports). • Iron Mountain Park is identified as a site with historic resources and is one of the five habitat connectivity and clusters in the city. Listed below, are specific recommendations which involve Iron Mountain Park as a relevant park site. The Parks Plan 2025 recommendations (Chapter 5 in the Parks Plan 2025 Plan) identify specific steps and park sites necessary to implement the plan objectives and goals. Recommendations are organized by goal and they include a list of existing sites to guide and prioritize implementation. GOAL 1: FILLING GEOGRAPHIC GAPS • 1.1: ADD NEW PLAY AREAS Identify locations within existing park sites that could address play for children service gaps and add play areas. Iron Mountain Park (natural character) • 1.2: DEVELOP TRAILS AND PATHWAYS Develop the interconnected, city-wide pathway system as proposed in the Trails and Pathways Master Plan (2003), including pathways within existing and future parks as well as pathways that connect parks and community destinations. Iron Mountain Park • 1.3: IDENTIFY AND INTEGRATE NATURAL FEATURES Integrate natural features and opportunities for nature play and interpretation into existing parks. Iron Mountain Park • 1.5: CONNECT NATURAL CORRIDORS Protect land to expand and connect existing natural resource habitat clusters. Springbrook Creek - Iron Mountain Habitat Cluster GOAL 2: INVESTING IN EXISTING PARKS AND FACILITIES • 2.9: PROTECT AND PRESERVE HISTORIC RESOURCES Stabilize and restore historic and archeological resources in parks. Iron Mountain Park is listed as a relevant park site. More on other side  GOAL 3: PROVIDING RECREATION OPTIONS • 3.1: DEVELOP SITE MASTER PLANS AND DESIGNS Create park master plans and designs to ensure that new parks and renovated existing parks meet a variety of recreation needs. Iron Mountain Park (Master Plan). Iron Mountain Park is a signature natural area for the City and an important historical site. The park’s master plan is out of date. • 4.3: DEVELOP NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS Create natural resource management plans for prominent natural character sites or large hybrid parks with significant natural resources. Springbrook Creek - Iron Mountain Habitat Cluster • 4.4: RESTORE HABITAT Restore selected natural areas to their highest resource value and ecological function. Iron Mountain Park Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette #1 Summary (1/30/16) 1 Design Charrette Meeting #1 Summary January 30, 2016 Gymnasium, Palisades Building, 1500 Greentree Road, City of Lake Oswego, OR Lake Oswego’s Parks and Recreation Department held a Community Design Charrette on January 30th to inform the Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan. Around forty community members participated in this charrette facilitated by Ryan Mottau of MIG Inc., and Mike O’Brien of ESA. A list of attendees is included at the end of this memo. This memo provides an overview of the various discussions that occurred during the design charrette organized into the following sections:  Charrette Overview  Charrette Results o What are the activities that you would like to see at Iron Mountain Park? o What features fit at Iron Mountain Park?  Next Steps  List of Attendees Charrette Overview Ryan Stee from the Parks and Recreation Department introduced the project team and welcomed the community members to the charrette. Ryan Mottau from MIG Inc. gave a brief overview and the role of the Iron Mountain Park as a city-wide facility (larger than a local park) located in the center of the City of Lake Oswego. He also reminded the participants about the recommendations pertaining to the Iron Mountain Park from the Parks Plan 20251. Recommendations from that planning process stated a need to develop a concept plan for the Iron Mountain Park properties and identified system gaps that could be accommodated within Iron Mountain. Mike O’Brien of ESA presented a slide show to illustrate the context and the park’s existing conditions. The presentation illustrated the following about the site:  Iron Mountain Park is a 51 acre natural park that is placed on a steep sloped area with a 9 acre lowland that includes wetlands and streams.  The park is the historic location of iron mining industry in Lake Oswego.  The park is located on Iron Mountain Boulevard adjacent to the Lake Oswego Hunt Club with a trailhead off of Brookside Road. The park amenities include a system of soft surface trails and wildlife viewing. 1 Parks Plan 2025 is the City of Lake Oswego’s Parks, Recreation and Natural System Plan. It provides the Parks and Recreation Department system-wide direction and strategies for the next 15 years. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette #1 Summary (1/30/16) 2  The park is predominately forested with steep slopes and is one of the more bio- diverse parks within Lake Oswego. It features two stream corridors and wetlands.  Much of the natural resource features of the park are degraded and in need of stabilization, restoration and long term management.  Around 3 acres of land is considered developable. Mike O’Brien answering questions on existing conditions at the site Ryan Mottau recording table-wide findings as a wall graphic PAC member facilitating table discussions and map activities Community members recording features at scales that may fit well in the park site Following the presentation on existing conditions, participants at each table discussed their favorite thing about Iron Mountain Park. Following this brainstorming exercise and informed by a set of inspirational images provided by the project team, participants explored if and how these features could fit in the park. To provide the participants with scale references on the amenities/ features, the project team handed out scale comparisons that showed the size of this site in relationship to other Lake Oswego Parks. The PAC members assisted as facilitators at each table and helped with reporting-out group findings. Each group reported back the following: Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette #1 Summary (1/30/16) 3  What were the main things you placed in the park?  What locations were the most important to your group?  What activities/amenities wanted to be clustered, which wanted to be separated?  What didn’t fit (from your list of activities/amenities) Discussion from this process was recorded graphically during the meeting and is summarized below. Emphasis is added where an idea was repeated multiple times. Charrette Results What is your favorite thing in Iron Mountain Park? What activities would you like to see at the site in the future?  Peace and Quiet  Small gravel lot- shared parking with Hunt Club (10 to 15 car capacity and not very visually prominent)  Picnic table/equipment: boulders and logs  Nature Play  Restroom (small, composting, shared with Hunt Club)  Dogs away from Hunt Club  View/ Access to pond  Connect to Lower/ Upper Tryon Campbell Native Garden  Horse riding  Boardwalk loop (raised wood walkway)  The unfilled wetland found in one part of the site can be used as a model for rest of the site and in other parks in the city (“Oswego Wetlands”)  Offers a peek into old, existing mines in the site  Hiking  Walking with pets  Accessible  Bike  Birds (suggestion to incorporated bird blinds when designing facilities in the site)  Trail on Iron Mountain Boulevard (separated) and in the park Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette #1 Summary (1/30/16) 4 Figure 1: Graphic recording of favorite things/activities in Iron Mountain Park What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? The following elements were mentioned by multiple groups as a good fit within Iron Mountain Park:  Nature Play: Many participants emphasized retaining the wilderness and keeping the park natural. Nature play elements were mentioned by most of the groups as amenities that would fit with the existing character of the site. Some groups felt nature play elements can be interspersed throughout the site.  Trails and trailhead: Participants emphasized multimodal access to the park. Most groups mentioned developing interpretive trails and boardwalks that highlight the wetland features. Connecting the park site to the existing city-wide trail system was also stressed.  Kiosk or interpretive signage: Participants mentioned installing entry kiosks and other information kiosks throughout the site with interpretive signage. The entry kiosk could also integrate information about the location of different amenities/features in the park.  Wetland, restored stream and natural buffers: Most groups were interested in restoring the wetlands on the site. Participants suggested boardwalks and interpretive trials around the wetlands that would help visitors and users understand the historical and ecological significance of the site. Natural buffers (vegetation, wildlife corridors) were other suggestions that would protect streams and wetlands. Participants also suggested avoiding development within or disturbance of wildlife travel corridors and other ecologically sensitive areas.  Picnic areas and pavilions: Participants expressed interest in installing picnic tables and picnic shelters in the park. Many groups indicated these facilities should be Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette #1 Summary (1/30/16) 5 designed to minimize physical and visual disturbance to the site and respect the ecological context.  Parking: Most groups suggested limited parking should be available on the site. Participants suggested permeable parking treatments to help with minimizing stormwater runoff impacts. A desire for sharing parking with the LO Hunt Club, if feasible, were also voiced.  Restrooms: Participants recommended installing restrooms that will be easy to maintain and also respect the ecological context of the park site. Figure 2: Graphic recording of what activities/amenities fit in Iron Mountain Park Next Steps The project team will post an online exercise as a follow-up opportunity (based on the input from the PAC and the Charrette participants) allowing additional community members a chance to provide their thoughts. The results of the online exercise will be appended to this summary at the next PAC meeting. For updates on the project, visit www.ironmountainpark.org. Inputs from this process along with technical expertise of the project team will inform the design alternatives that will presented to the community members. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette #1 Summary (1/30/16) 6 Photos of various groups presenting results from the mapping exercise that explored if and how various features could fit in the park List of attendees  Alexander Fulton  Anna Dettmer  Audrey Matteson  Barbara Hanildi  Barbara Wadman  Bill Ward*  Bob Sack  Brian McLaughlin  Corinna Campbell-Sack  Dan and Deb Work  Doug McKean  Ellen Ludwig Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette #1 Summary (1/30/16) 7  Greg McMurray  Halli Peil  Jan Wirtz*  Janice Weis*  Jerry Nierengarten  John LaMotte*  Jon Van Hoomissen  Jonathan Snell  Joy Prideaux  Kate Vance  Kathryn Nichols  Kristen Gottlieb  Kristin Engstrom  Lisa Adatto  Mary Turnock  Mike Buck*  Paul Lyons  Paul Lyons  Robin Halton  Ron Gronowski  Sharon Howley  Susan Nierengarten  Susanna Kuo*  Trina Lee*  Victor Nelson  Ryan Stee, Lake Oswego Project Manager  Ryan Mottau, MIG Inc.  Mike O’Brien, ESA  Mathangi Murthy, MIG Inc. * Denotes PAC members Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 8 Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results February 29, 2016 http://lime.migwebtech.com/index.php/survey/index/sid/728274/lang/en What is your favorite thing about Iron Mountain Park?  Hiking in a natural area. That there is natural habitat preserved in this urban/suburban area.  A wetland providing habitat to wildlife, and a chance to observe and appreciate a natural setting.  All the history that have within  already completed  "Although a bit difficult to find the access points, there are a few of them, which gives a visit to the area some change, each time.  Oops, two things... We very much like the change in elevation. The view from the top of the trail down over the Hunt Club is amazing. That huge barn looks quite small."  Beautiful forest with a lot of potential  Beautiful!  Being able to ride my bike from our neighborhood to nearly downtown LO without getting on a road.  CURRENTLY, THE HIKING TRAILS FROM THE UPLANDS AREA TO THE HUNT CLUB AND TO DOWNTOWN VIA IRON MTN BLVD  Great place to hike. Relatively unknown. Kind of sorry more people will find out about it :-)  Great running trail  green space in the city. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 9  Green space within the city. Biggest interest is to have more safe walking trails within city. Our lack of sidewalks make neighborhood walking hazardous.  Have never been before.  Haven't visited yet.  Hiking on the trails with my dog and grandchildren. It is a great resource.  Hiking trails, natural forest.  I can walk to it from my home.  I have never been there  I hope that I can ride my mountain bike there  I love running on the trails in the morning. Except for the face full of cobwebs. Any chance there is a plan to deal with that?  I love the "natural" undeveloped environment of Iron Mountain Park in the middle of the City. Every time I walk along the pathway or drive along Iron Mountain Blvd I am so grateful that it remains unspoiled. My hope would be that it remain one of the last holdouts of Nature in the midst of the ever increasing push to develop every square inch of land.  I love the hiking trails.  "I love the peace and quiet of the Park. I live within easy walking distance and walk there fairly regularly. Currently the paths are a mess due to new gravel being spread which has made things muddy and for difficult footing, but I am hopeful things will be completed soon.  The fact one can see wildlife in the Park is just a bonus"  I run by there every week. I didn't know it was a park. There are usually construction trucks parked there. The water fountain near there is never turned on and my runner friends and I usually dart behind a bush to relieve ourselves. Maybe some restrooms would be nice and a working water fountain.  Iron Mt. trail  it is a forested buffer between the lake and the subdivisions to the north.  It is home to a number of Madrone trees. Arbutus menziesii. There are several interesting things about these trees that are not well known one of which is that by my count we are losing a few each year from a small population in Lake Oswego and at one time they were more common and grew spontaneously where there are rock piles. But herbicides affect them more than other species and herbicides have been widely used in Lake Oswego for a number of years (for decades) without any concept of Integrated Pest Management until recently. The Western Garden Book puts it like this: "If you live in Madrone country and have a tree in your garden, treasure it."  It is near the Springbrook park and it has a trail with a trail head.  It is wild. I like the wide pathway. I like the lookout.  "Its ‘wild-ness’! It is amazing to have a natural area in the city within walking distance of many neighborhoods that is like areas most people have to drive a long way out of the city to enjoy. Because it hasn’t been developed, it still has some of the native plants & animals that lived here before houses built up around it. What a treasure! Woods, wildflowers, wetlands, deer, owls, etc. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 10  We need more such places, where wildlife can survive and people can become healthy in body & spirit immersed in the harmony of the natural world.  I walk the trails almost every day, watching it change through the seasons. I always feel healthier & more at peace when I get home than when I started out. It is the biggest reason we have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years."  "Its ‘wild-ness’! It is amazing to have a natural area in the city within walking distance of many neighborhoods that is like areas most people have to drive a long way out of the city to enjoy. Because it hasn’t been developed, it still has some of the native plants & animals that lived here before houses built up around it. What a treasure! Woods, wildflowers, wetlands, deer, owls, etc.  We need more such places, where wildlife can survive and people can become healthy in body & spirit immersed in the harmony of the natural world.  I walk the trails almost every day, watching it change through the seasons. I always feel healthier & more at peace when I get home than when I started out. It is the biggest reason we have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years."  It's close to where I live and I can walk up Fairway to get to the trail, which is where I walk my dog often. It's close to the Hunt Club and I enjoy seeing horses and riders there. I like the way it connects neighborhoods and brings people together.  Its large size makes me feel like it's an escape from urban or suburban life, to be surrounded by the tall trees and away from development. Plus the trail that connects Lake Grove with downtown Lake Oswego allows passage along a natural setting, avoiding Iron Mountain Blvd.  Its large size.  It's location  It's name and what it exemplifies: the history of the beginnings of what is now Lake Oswego. Also the fact that the designated Park area has not been developed and any development going forward should be done with extreme care so as not to ruin that which is precious and historic in that portion of the City.  Its natural forest feel.  its natural state and historic value  I've been in LO for 25+ years, didn't know it existed  Large sixes natural area with good trails  Leaving it as natural as possible and not changing the habitat unless environmental concern.  location  location  Location  Long paths to walk my dog on - easy access, friendly people.  love the views  My favorite aspect of Iron Mt. Park is that I can walk on relatively quiet paths, remote from car traffic, surrounded by trees and greenery. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 11  My favorite thing about Iron Mountain Park is the dramatic landscape -- the steep wooded mountainside with the wetland at its base. I love walking through the forest and observing the wildlife. It is also a very interesting park because it was the site of the earliest iron mine on the Pacific Coast. The combination of natural beauty and historical interest makes it a special place.  n/a  Natural elements of the park. I usually run by the park and it is a very pleasant space to run by/in.  Natural pathway. Views, shade  Natural space, wildlife, quiet  Nature  nature in the city  Nature, wetlands, escape from suburbia.  Never been. Where are the access points? Perhaps you should start by giving people basic information that would allow participation on site.  Never knew it was there.  No rusting vehicles, boats or trailers allowed on people's property. Love the Rec Center and all of the trails.  Opportunity to design a new park. I hope this means the construction equipment will be gone soon! I love on Hwy 43 and am eager for the pipe construction to end.  peaceful trails, that it is natural.  Please create a play park with SWINGS and activities for very little kids!  Potential for cycling  proximity and accessibility  proximity to my home  Proximity, wooded canopy  Quick opportunity to walk the woods and feel a bit removed from traffic. The wetlands are a good educational tool for kids as they are accessable.  Quiet walking/jogging trails without lots of bicycles.  Remoteness. Few people.  Right now my favorite is Iron Mt Trail with its beauty and unspoiled state which makes you feel like you are in the deep forest, miles from home. However, the wetlands area has the potential to become the favorite if it can be restored back to something resembling its original state. This park has fantastic potential.  rugged natural beauty. wildlife.  Running trails  Steep hiking trail, great walkable local access.  The biodiversity  That it is a city owned piece of land.  That it is a large natural area where I can walk. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 12  That members of the local community can walk into the park and hike existing trails quietly and without crowds. This limitation on access creates a natural cap on use of the park, which allows the natural environment and habitat to thrive and be experienced with a very light human footprint. I would like this aspect to be maintained.  That the park could restore a wetlands.  The ability to walk or jog through the canopied forest on a reasonably maintained trail.  The beauty and solitude of the trail.  The feeling that I am in a natural environment - that it is real.  The forested trails and its mining history  the hiking trails  The hiking trails.  The large tree canopy - the fact that it remains a natural area  The long, quiet trail provides a great hike through nature.  The natural character of the park. On the trail, you can see animals and plants and feel like you are in the forest.  The natural setting and the "wildness" of the Park for habitat and visitation.  The quiet and safe environment for riding horses!  The quiet and safe environment it provides horse riders.  The relatively underveloped nature where salamanders and snakes feel somewhat able to still live there. No pavement, less man-made esthetic.  The seclusion and privacy. It feels like a nature reserve.  The serenity.  The size of it and the paths through the woods.  "The steep grade.  I like the workout I get when taking a brisk walk from the Hunt Club to to the top of trail."  The steep hills for exercise -- connects the Uplands neighborhood with Iron Mountain Blvd  The summit overlook and overall quiet-forested feel to the trails  The trail system  The trail system that leads to the stables.  The trail that gives me access to the changing seasons of nature as well as species of wildlife, rare species of flowers, varieties of trees and simply a peaceful place to escape at least once a day. The quiet and beauty that we all need amid the busy world in which we live is here, in Iron Mountain Park.  The trails and potential mountain bike singletrack.  The trails provide easy access between neighborhoods and a nice bike commute route.  The trails, which are walkable year round, and natural beauty of the forested area.  The trails.  The trails.  The Trees.  The uncrowded trails into the forest.  The view from the trail. The quiet. It's untapped. It's perfect. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 13  The views  The views  The views.  the walking trails and the pond with blue herons  The wild, nature like feel  The wildness of it. I think that it is essential to have a place in the city that is unpaved, not pruned, not full of kiosks and signage. A place to focus on nature, rather than man-made constructs.  To have a local park in this area so I don't have to travel an hour to ride.  Trails  Trails through the trees where I can ride my horse.  Trails, even though they are limited and open space  trees  Trees!  "Two things....the trail on the side of the mt. is a great up and downhill exercise forested soft trail. (no concrete or asphalt)  Also the interpretive signs at the top of the side trail provide historical interest, particularly to outside visitors."  Until now I didn't know it existed. I use as many parks as I knew we have. I prefer areas for off leash dogs but we do all. The major area @ Luscher farms is well conceived and poorly constructed. Drainage was not well considered and even after. I offered engineering assistance was ignored so. So what we have now is Soup. There are some very verbal but poorly informed individuals asking the parks people to modify things. It doesn't work. So trails need to be responsibly laid out and then constructed. Take a looked b a Wilsonville memorial park and even Potso Tigard park. Not pretty but functional.  Views, close to home.  Views, seclusion, length.  walking the iron mt trails---3-4 times per week  Walking trails. Private. Shade from sun  walking/hiking trails in a "wilderness" setting  Walking/hiking trails, natural beauty, and history!  We enjoy walking our dogs on the trail behind the Hunt Club and the wetlands in the middle of the park. It is not over used which is another plus.  We love that it is a rugged and natural walk way, great hiking area and its a great place to walk our dog.  When walking through it, it is hard to tell you are right in the middle of the city.  Wildlife habitat potential.  Wonderful views, exercise and connectivity to neighborhoods.  Woods, trail, connection from Lake Grove to downtown. Habitat for many animals and plants.  Woodsy and natural Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 14 Nature Play: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like it! 90 59.2% I am not sure 41 27.0% No, I don’t think this fits 15 9.9% No answer 6 4.0% Any other thoughts?  A fenced in dog park for those people who insist on having their dogs off leash at all times would be nice.  a trend is nature area play -see the children's museum latest outdoor exploration area. super natural setting  Best of all.  Certainly I do not think we should have the typical play areas with swings, slides, etc.  Defining a space would be very good, but then keep that space as natural as possible. May have to restore from time to time.  Given time with people scrambling all over this scene it would be ruined. What would this teach children about nature conservation?  Hard to mow around the rocks, and some mowed walking spaces would be nice.  I do like the idea of more access as opposed to trail only, or inaccessibility due to overgrown areas.  I don't know what the purpose of this is supposed to be. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 15  I like that I can bring a picnic lunch and eat with my family in this setting.  I like the natural look, but these logs and rocks don't offer much enticement to children to climb, explore, and hide.  I see accidents happening here..  I think this use could be good if it were limited in areal extent.  If possible, include large forest wood that has interesting branching as in Susanna Kuo's photo illustrates. Also, it might be good to have some large columnar basalt boulders on their sides for sitting to view the creek.  If there was a walking trial, this might work.  I'm not sure what I'm seeing here. Are the logs and rocks placed intentionally?  I'm not sure where this is so I cannot make an informed comment  Iron Mt Park is not an open area park. Its appeal is its peaceful surroundings and ability to see natural processes happening during the seasons.  Is this a restoration area or a "nature play" area? I think that we can "play" in nature by just being in nature, without constructing anything. We can use our imagination for play. I do like that all of these materials are natural.  It doesn't look like a planned site! More like a place that naturally has rocks, tree trunks, etc  It would be great if there were biking trails wondering through the trees.  It's a weird statement  Keep it as natural as possible.  keep the area as natural as possible  LO has plenty of playgrounds  Maybe a bench.  Maybe less grass surface, as this would be too soggy to use most of the year. More logs, textures, and surfaces to explore in addition to large rocks.  Mountain bike accessible trails!  My 11 year old plays in this park.  Naturescape!!!  No image came through  Not sure it would be used.  Not sure where this would happen since it is so steep sided for the most part.  Oregonians can handle the weather and Mother Nature in general. A rustic park to me is more appealing and will save the city a ton on both creation and maintenance.  Please create a play park with SWINGS and activities for very little kids!  Preserves natural elements, but invites exploration.  Seems like the steep slopes would make this difficult. Hard to visualize. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 16  Stepping stones, a high path, logs to rocks to logs, etc. Chaos is not advisable.  This concept would need to be limited to one area which is relatively level and secure and could be used in inclement weather.  This looks man-made (faux nature)  This must be at the lower flat area? Can it be accessible from the upper trail along the Mt.?  Too minimal.  Use natural items (rocks and tree trunks, but have an artist create interactive art. More aesthetically pleasing (see Seattle parks for multiple examples)  What the heck is it?  What would encourage kids to play with this? It could be fun if presented well  Why do that?  Wouldn't interest me, and seems like it would require a lot of mowing/maintenance.  Yes, nature play for children is a kind of use that seems appropriate for this park. Special attention should be paid to where it is located- such as not too far from the restroom, but not really close to the wetlands (discourage kid & dog splashing into wildlife areas.) Also giving some thought into how far into the wild areas of the woods do we want children to explore? I'm okay with kids building forts etc, but in the past the city has dismantled one that was built, and had to deal with a homeless person living deeper in the woods there. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 17 Nature Play: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 53 34.9% I am not sure 52 34.2% No, I don’t think this fits 35 23.0% No answer 12 7.9% Any other thoughts?  A better designed sign would be nice.  a combination of open areas and natural (unopen) areas is a nice mix  A MORE NATURAL LOOKING SIGN WOULD BE BETTER  Again, how is it presented?  Being able to play in the woods versus walk on edge of woods is important. Right now tryon restricts traffic to path only which feels like being a voyeur instead of participant in nature  Can't tell what this is...just a sign explaining the types of trees in that spot?  Does the sign indicate direction, "hands off area" for people?  doesn't look like a play area  Doesn't look like you could get into it, but nice for trail border.  Don't love the blue - it's alarming  Habitat!  Hmmmm . . . Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 18  I don’t know what that picture means? Kids play in the forest? Seems good, but great opportunity to make nature play that is more creative. (again refer to Seattle nature play parks... each one is unique)  I don't see how this invites nature play.  I love the mix of wild plants. Limited signage would be my preference. Someone telling me where I can play in nature is like someone telling me where I can think on my own. It is going to happen wherever I am, I don't need a sign to tell me what to do.  I would feel that I am intruding on the natural plants. I would not know what to step or not step on. I would probably avoid it.  I would prefer a sign that better blends with the natural setting.  I'm not a fan of a lot of signs.  I'm not sure I understand this photo. Is ths sign inviting me to go behind it and play in the underbrush? The thick understory isn't very inviting.  Impenetrable barrier.  Is this inviting people to explore into the woods without designated trails? Perhaps not appropriate in a wetlands.  let's keep the wild and play areas defined; so we don't invade, step on; wipe out the natural space  Looks a little too formidable.  Looks like there isn't a trail for walking through forest?  Looks relatively unspoiled by humans  make sure resources are protected  no image came through  Not sure about play in such a densely natural growth area.  Overgrown and not accessable  Parents might get worried about smaller children going out of sight. Also, wouldn't kids soon trample an area like this? It looks like it should remain undisturbed.  Please include trails for hiking and mountain biking, directional to reduce conflict  Remove post and is perfect !!  Some simple trails, bark chips, gravel, may be needed focus the areas you want kids to play in. A good example might be the Audubon bird sanctuary trails in northwest Portland  The dense undergrowth in this example doesn't look very accessible and doesn't have any particularly interesting features for children to explore.  Think wooden posts like those in Tryon park.  This photo makes this use look quite inaccessible. This could be good for wildlife, but not for human use. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 19  This picture does not look inviting.  This picture fits best with my idea of a natural area.  Too Jungley.  too primitive.  Too wild for children. This "nature" would soon be ruined if people could scramble throught it. Allowing children to destroy nature is the exact opposite of what we should be teaching them about it.  What are you getting at here? ARe you asking whether this type of signage should be employed? Are you encouraging people to go bushwhacking through natural areas?  What does that mean? Am I expected to charge through the thicket Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 20 Nature Play: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 78 51.3% I am not sure 31 20.4% No, I don’t think this fits 32 21.1% No answer 11 7.2% Any other thoughts?  Better for kids  I am not sure this is possible in Iron Mt Park  Good for kids to play on.  Great for kids!  Great for kids.  Here is a good combination of nature (the logs) in it's natural state, with an educational/man-helped feature - the sawed off ends to show the rings inside. love it!  I like this kind of play area, but I like the less-structured natural play area better.  I think if it is possible to hide a little play area away in the trees, that would be good. Making it a highlight could material change the park.  I think it's importent to have climbable places for children, and the design of these places needs to be integrated somewhat with the natural habitat. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 21  I'd prefer something more natural, but if there is a lot of interest in having a playground for kids, this looks like a reasonable option.  If a constructed playground is necessary, then I prefer this to traditional playground equipment. I like the use of natural materials.  if one of the purposes of the park is to provide a children's play area this is good. I really like the new "natural park" in Sellwood.  It doesn't look safe.  Kids love things to climb on  Kids love to climb. Some signage to advising parents that they are responsible for their children may be necessary to avoid lawsuits. However, getting along and avoiding cracked skulls negotiating nature are important skills to learn and should be learned Asa kid.  kids will definitely play on  Looks dangerous shifting logs  Looks like a mess to me. Sorry  Looks like a timber camp! Nice.  Looks like it's trying to be natural, but is actually kind of forced. Good for older elementary aged kids, but not very young nature explorers. This is going in the right direction, buts little too structured/proscribed/contained.  Looks very fun!!  Love this! Great for kids, which is a category we are sorely lacking  Much better. Natural yet controlled/delineated space for play. Logs and rocks good as they are not destructible.  My 5 year old would bring blankets and build forts here.  no image came through  No metal swings or bars. Stick with natural materials.  Not sure if "structured" play areas are appropriate.  One good feature here though is a bench (or nice sitting log?) for parents to sit while they watch their children play.  Only if Family friendly trails for hiking and biking are included.  Perhaps too big  Playing in the outdoors is very important, of course, but we need more really natural areas for kids to explore.  Reminds me of logs on the beach which we know are dangerous. don't want to encourage my kids to play on logs.  Safety (railings)? Or something to hold onto when balancing on logs?  Structured rocks and logs for climbing.  There are not a lot of flat areas in the park. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 22  These logs, cut in neat lengths and stripped of bark, roots, and limbs, don't look very natural or interesting. I'd rather see a fallen tree with its root system exposed which would be more interesting to climb and explore. I'd also like to see the giant granite boulders on the site incorporated into a nature play area.  TOO MAN MADE  Too obviously constructed. Not much different from other play parks.  Too steep for a log structure.  Totally artificial, where can the snakes and salamanders live?  Very natural!!! they all fell so perfectly  Where could it go?  Wondering if teens would use it at night to drink/smoke.  yes! Awesome! please build this nature play area!!  Yes, that would be a great place to stop with your family to play/eat a picnic. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 23 Nature Play: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Answer Count Percentage I think this would be a good feature for Iron Mountain Park 65 42.8% I don’t think this is appropriate for Iron Mountain Park 48 31.6% I am not sure 27 17.8% No answer 12 7.9% Any other thoughts?  Actually, with a stream corridor in the developable area, it would be even better if the kids could walk (safely) across a real stream.  Again, this might be a great addition to other developed parks in the area, but let's take advantage of the natural aspect of Iron Mt Park.  All of these examples are on flat landscapes - hard to visualize on the steep slopes of Iron Mountain Park.  already completed this part. got interrupted while completing survey  as a water run-off area, this makes sense. as a walking path, this can be a hazard for weak ankles. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 24  DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT, AND AS LONG AS ITS AS NATURAL LOOKING AS POSSIBLE  Does this have any connection or relationship to anything within the Park boundary? Is a dry creek bed relevant to the Park?  Don't like rocks  I hope there would be some water in the streambed.  I like the idea of an area for interacting with rocky terrain (especially for kids); this doesn't really look like the best execution of that concept, though. Maybe more larger fixed rocks?  I like this kind of play area, but I like it less than a less-structured type of natural play area.  I would like to see trees involved with the area  I wouldn't like to see the Park over developed with "cute" features.  If such a thing, a fake creek, were to be built, we hope it would go where some water run-off would stream down in high water times.  If there is a need for a stream drainage, then this looks great. I am strongly against the sidewalk, manicured grass, lighting, etc.  Interpretive signs to explain that various habitats.  Iron Mountain Park, other than the viewing area, should probably not be a draw for families or a recreation area because of the amount of wildlife that lives there. Both for the wildlife and the people it is better for the wildlife to have some place to be without people scaring it into the neighborhood.  It would be good to have places where people can interact with the water and also have places that encourage study and close observation  It would be great to have some offroad cycling access.  Looks like California it New York... Which is it.. Especially like the fence effect  Looks too built up for a natural area.  Love the concept. Where?  Love the idea of a clean water/creek area for kids to play in  Natural looking & probably good water run off area - which we need more of  no image came through  Place for kids to have an adventure and explore  Same as previous.  The final photo includes fencing, pavement and light standards I do not think appropriate to the park. The foreground is somewhat acceptable.  The rock area would be great for kids, but not the paved spaces and lawn.  the rocks feel like an empty stream. could be better with the wood and stone combination Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 25  This does not fit in to my concept of Iron Mountain Park.  This looks fine. Again, the most important issue to me is what the balance is of different types of uses.  This will probably be a mess in a rainy, shady environment. It looks cool though.  Too extensive a work effort  too many opportunities for twisted ankles!  Too many people  Too planned  Way too many people, and way too few salamanders and snakes  Where are people going to park? In the pedestrian path?  While these look natural, as a mother, I see lots of opportunities for falls and injuries...  Why create a dry streambed when there is a real stream in the park? I'd like to see the stream that is presently confined to a ditch, allowed to meander over the site as a shallow stream that children could wade in. I'd also love to see an area of sand beside the stream where wild animals could leave their footprints.  worthless  yes! please build this nature play area! Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 26 Trailhead: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 110 72.4% I am not sure 22 14.5% No, I don’t think this fits 11 7.2% No answer 9 5.9% Any other thoughts?  A Kiosk (small) give information about the area might be appropriate but the key words are "small" and "unobtusive".  An area that tells the history of the park property and allows picnicking.  centeralized information center, gathering place and history of the area  Developing a recognizable entry creates more user friendly confidence the trail is meant to be used.  Especially to introduce the visitor to the historic aspects and natural diversity  hiker friendly. I like the information boards.  I like maps and educational stuff.  I like the natural materials and small roof to protect the signs, but five large panels, as shown here, seem like too much. However, I think a map of the trail(s) and information about the park is nice at the trailhead.  I like the signs, the path and the bench.  I prefer the wildness. I can look up the history of a location on my own. I prefer the adventure of self discovery, rather than having information fed to me. I find that Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 27 I remember the details when I look them up for myself. Now that everyone is walking around with a computer in their pocket, I don't see the need for all of the signage and the hardscaping that goes with it.  I think signage and park information is needed, but I'm not sure that picnicing areas are appropriate.  I think this strikes the right balance between natural and man-made elements.  Interesting sign boards and tables are never bad, imho.  Interpretive signs are good. Not sure I would want a picnic table.  Iron Mtn Park has history -- what is it? What did it contribute to the area? How does it link in with the Furnace? Etc.  It blends in well.  Keep as low profile as possible  Keep it wild  Kiosks yes, picnic tables maybe not. Boulders or logs for people to picnic and play would fit better. There would have to be trash receptacles and also maintenance needed.  Like campsites. Low maintenance and provide the necessary info and usefulness  Looks like it belongs in a much bigger, more heavily visited park with many miles of trails.  Maybe, but I would probably like to see fewer structures than shown here.  Minimal "upgrades"  nice rustic oversized elements thar fit scale of park  Nice to have a sign so you get an overview of the area, what plants, wildlife, pathways surround you  Nice to have sturdy explanation area of what's available. We can use our phones to take a map picture.  Perhaps too big, but something similar. Picnic tables close to road and not farther into the woods.  Signage and interpretive material is fine, but why a picnic table right at the entrance to a trail? Bad idea.  There is already a decent entrance to the Park with Kiosks.  This already exists in the viewing area at the top of the park, and looks like it has been recently worked on.  This looks both functional and natural.  Way too overdeveloped, too much man-made junk  welcoming and safe  When we first visited the area to walk the trail, we found only *one* sign indicating we were near the start of a trail. That sign was truly lovely, being made of bronze, Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 28 but was at a no-paring inside corner of a very upscale neighborhood near the OLCC. We chose not to park there, and found parking near the west end of the Hunt Club. So, yes, some entrance features and good signage would be very nice.  When we were kids we could play now we must treat forest like zoos... Now Go to view the man made paths  yep, just a but of signage, and a picnic table or two Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 29 Trailhead: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 125 82.2% I am not sure 15 9.9% No, I don’t think this fits 4 2.6% No answer 8 5.3% Any other thoughts?  ... So long as that is not the entrance to an old one shaft  A maintained porta potty or other restroom is essential for the trail.  I like more natural trails. A paved kid's bike trail is good too.  I like the simplicity of this sign, but it might be too simple. It's nice to provide more information for visitors who aren't familiar with the park.  Identification of the multiple trails is helpful - even distance markers could be used so hikers can choose their destination & hiking time.  if it is open to bikes, then i like it.  If there must be signage, then the size and scale of this one fits. I would prefer signage no bigger than this one. The overgrown and closed in feel of the trail is inviting me to explore.  Iron Mt. needs path ways.  Leave the park natural.  looks like a great place to ride a bike  marking things specifically is very helpful in tandem with the big descriptive boards. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 30  Minimally developed nature trails fit well. I'm not sure what the dark feature toward the back is. A stump? Stumps are great interp peices.  More rustic than the first, but preserves the natural feel nicely.  Mountain bike trails?  Natural trails through the wood which are in open to bikes  No gravel, snakes and salamanders could live here  Not a fan of a lot of signs. I think it would get vandalized.  Not very inviting.  Perfect!  Please make trails accesible to mountain biking for families and adults  Simple.  spooky  The trail is great  This could be ok for some parts, however, I like the incorporation of interpretive signs for the main entrances.  This is fine if people STAY on the trail!  This is perfect for walks and hikes. Keep it as natural as possible.  This look inviting, like a secret (nature) garden.  too cheap.  Where you can't have a full blown kiosk at least mark the trail name so you know where you are. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 31 Kiosk: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 58 38.2% I am not sure 43 28.3% No, I don’t think this fits 42 27.6% No answer 9 5.9% Any other thoughts?  Again very useful, easy to build and maintain  But signs are way over engineered. They do not need to be so elaborate.  Covered kiosks and interpretive material are necessary, but this particular example is just plain UGLY!  feel pretty large scale for our little trails  I don't know what this is-a community message board?  I think a few maps would be good  I think it's okay, but also think it's unnecessary and could lead to litter issues.  I think this is close to what is already there.  Information and trail maps. Bathrooms  Is that a restroom in the background? Would it be possible NOT to have one?  Minimal upgrades - only enough that people don't get lost in the Park.  no image appeared. Is it supposed to be a kiosk? If so, yes, I really like that  Not sure what this is; info kiosk?  Overbearing Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 32  Seems a bit intrusive.  Signage and park information kiosks are appropriate. And a restroom would be appropriate, if it were located in an area that did not attract vandalism, and if the city committed to keeping it clean.  Silly. No need in our town for something to be two-sided. And it's always better to orient any maps properly, which is easier to do when facing the start of a trail.  simple and low key is good  Simple, les abstrusive  Simpler kiosk is better  Smaller scale.  This looks fine.  This seems like a duplication of the trailhead signs. The design of this kiosk is nice, except its a bit chunky-looking.  Ticket sales next  Too big  Too big  Too big and clunky looking  too big, and not well designed - top heavy!  Too big, too much, is it really necessary?  Too big. Less roof extension  TOO HEAVY AND CLUMSY IN APPEARANCE/NOT WELL DETAILED  Too massive (the signage), but the graveled surface with rock border is appealing.  Too Wildernessey.  Way too big. Please minimize kiosk signage and keep in parking/access zones.  yes, if trail maps are posted on this Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 33 Kiosk: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 74 48.7% I am not sure 34 22.4% No, I don’t think this fits 32 21.1% No answer 12 7.9% Any other thoughts?  a bit better  A good design, but too big. Too many sections.  A little over the top, don't you think?  Again, Minimal upgrades - only enough that people don't get lost in the Park.  Again, some interpretation, well done, is good!  Already have one at the top of the trail  As with my previous answer, everyone is carrying a computer in their pocket, is the need for all of this signage really necessary?  BETTER THAN THE FIRST EXAMPLE  Better than the previous one -- i.e., less massive -- but it still looks like a lot of signage. Maybe just one of the panel would suit the park better than this "triptych".  Definitely too big. Looks more like a building  feels kind of imposing  Great sign but too big?  I don't think there is a need for that much information at the park entrance. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 34  I like the idea of signs with maps, identification of wild life in the area and general rules of use of area.  I like the other info area better. This looks like an emergency shelter.  I think this could be used as there are many things to explain  I would love to provide lots of information for people who are interested - this can do that.  If the financial resources allow for a full educational kiosk that is great, but not a requirement.  Its way too big for this small park  Maybe one or two boards instead of three in the kiosk. There are already several aling the trail. Don't overdo it.  More information kiosks? This appears to be the 3rd example of this feature -- why the duplication?  more informative  Much better design. The design must be reflective of the particular park. How can IRON MOUNTAIN be reflected in the Park's kiosks?  no image appeared??  Not enough material to build out something like that.  not well designed  Perhaps one informational kiosk is sufficient - either at trailhead near the country club or one near hunt club.  Seems like too much pedagogy for a small park.  Seems too large & wordy. Keep it simple.  Smaller version appreciated.  Something similar to this already exists at the viewing area.  The kiosk(s) are an important feature for this park because there is so much history, 5 ecosystems unusual, great plant & animal information, etc. So 3 boards rather than 1. Though don't need such fancy roofs etc. Also where they are positioned makes a difference. For example, the other kiosks at this park are not handy to see as you walk by, so don't get read as often as th e one at Springbrook Park that you can't miss.  The one above was better as it was too small for groups to congregate under. We don't want a spot for late night teen gatherings  The options on the previous page, first photo are better than these two options!  This is okay too, as long as it doesn't take away too much of the wilderness feel of the park.  This kiosk seems unnecessarily large for just three panels. Overbuilt.  Too big Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 35  Too big and obtrusive.  Too fancy.  Way too big  way too obtrusive Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 36 Wetland: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Answer Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 87 57.2% I am not sure 38 25.0% No, I don’t think this fits 19 12.5% No answer 8 5.3% Any other thoughts?  Again, doesn't look like a planned area. Spending money on fallen logs seems a waste  Already have a wet land area. Why encourage more?  An area where kids can safely play that would include creatures natural to the setting - assuming creatures could be kept safe also.  Apsolutely NOT. We do not need any more mosquitos or ponds.  Are the wetlands not supposed to be touched?  But it needs to be more natural - not obviously cut logs Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 37  Can kids play there.  confused? Are the logs meant to draw people into the wetland? This looks like it would invite kids to get into the wetland, potentially damaging the area. Perhaps a viewing platform would be better or a bridge or elevated walkway  Do you have more examples? Because of the large scope of damaged area and extensive restoration required (removing tainted soil etc.) a fair amount of planning should be done for design & implementation of the wetlands area. It should be designed to encourage wildlife, with the people aspect to observe & learn about the wildlife. (So things like birdwatching blinds, and bushes near the water to keep dogs from jumping in, etc.)  Good for birds and animals, and also kids to play.  I agree with enhancing and protecting existing wetlands and stream corridors, just not sure about what action this image is suggesting.  I cannot picture where this would go, but perhaps an area of the park I haven't seen? I have not explored all 50 acres.  I like this, but there is no flat area in the park. It too steep of a slope.  If a pond exists, fine, but let us not make a water feature. How do sawn logs make one think of nature?  if it is naturally there, it's fine...  Looks like a marginally accessible mosquito pond.  Looks like what is there now - no trail, no place to interact for the humans. Could there be a better way to view and use the areas?  Mosquito breeding potential needs to be considered  Natural looking water features are a plus.  Natural or man made...  Need to keep traffic away from the water, so bids can thrive. And people can be safe.  Nice for habitat variety.  Nice, but again, what will keep people from destroying the naturalness? Such a scene only tempts children, especially, to walk right in the explore. Check out the devices in place at The Oregon Garden in Silverton for keeping people OUT of natural areas. Good viewing is essential but some means of denying access is also essential.  Not loving the random logs but like the looks of the water area  not people friendly  Not sure what ideas are represented by the pictures.  Please engage elevated trails to pass over wetland  Restoring the wetland is essential to this plan. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 38  Screen the dwellings so they don't intrude on the wetland.  Something like this would be lovely.  This could be cool if done right but could be a muddy swamp if not done correctly.  This looks like a restoration area. As long as it is allowed to grow without being pruned, mowed, and blown, it will be a lovely space.  This looks ok. It would be more helpful to have another option. Again, not sure what you're trying to exemplify.  This pond looks very manmade. The log sections don't look natural. I hope the natural character of the pond and wetland in Iron Mountain Park will be preserved with its native vegetation that provides cover for wildlife.  This wetland does not look natural,,,way too much man-made  Visual barriers (trees and veg.) between neighboring homes and the park give the feeling of being in nature and not in a neighborhood.  Water and logs, seems appropriate  We would need walkways and perhaps observation areas. We want visitors to appreciate the flora and fauna in a sensitive area with damaging it or scaring off the birds and animals  Wetlands with boardwalks through them would be the ideal  WOULD BE FINE IF THE LOGS WERENT SO OBVIOUSLY PLACED  would like more trees to block out the houses  You can't approach this area. Just view from a distance. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 39 Boardwalk: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 96 63.2% I am not sure 25 16.5% No, I don’t think this fits 24 15.8% No answer 7 4.6% Any other thoughts?  $$$  A boardwalk is ideal for this wetland landscape. Allows access without disturbing the natural environment.  A boardwalk would probably better protect the habitat than a surface trail, but it would also likely be much more expensive.  A raised trail gives access through wet and sensitive areas. Needs to be open to hikers and bikers  A short boardwalk with platform is fine, but not extensive as it is invasive into the wetlands. Was not allowed at West Waluga park.  An elevated trail does not need to be accessed by an ATV. Please keep them hiking / biking trail style  Assume this isn't necessary unless you're building over wetlands area.  Boardwalk seems higher maintenance and less desirable than a trail, although good for wheelchair access. If boardwalk included, should be minimal like one at Camassia in West Linn.  Boardwalks would be appropriate in areas where a trail crossed a creek or was adjacent to the wetlands or pond. Otherwise, I would prefer natural, soft trails.  Don't do this.  especially in the wetland areas.  expensive to build, maintain and fix with wood downfall, rot and foundation settling. etc. Put the trail where it is sustainable. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 40  great for many reasons: safety for humans and safety for nature, and the clear designation for where people should walk will be beneficial in the long-run health of the park.  I believe boardwalks provide access for exploring with minimal disruption to the natural area  I don't think this is needed in the Iron Mountain area.  I like the idea of boardwalks, but this is a pretty small space in reality of usage area. I'd suggest boardwalks only to cross standing water/mud areas and possibly along the North edge of the Hunt Club to connect the existing construction prep area (which will become the park) to the existing trailhead on Brookdside Road  I love this boardwalk because the low rail gives a sense of security, but doesn't obscure views.  I want to maintain the park for wildlife and worry that a board walk might mitigate that goal.  If there is a sensitive wetland area where you anticipate a lot of traffic, then I can see where this would work. For this park, I will always prefer the majority of it be wild space, without man-made structures.  if this is going over a swampy area like over at Luscher Farm, I think it's fine but otherwise, I prefer natural trail.  If this raised walkway can accommodate bikes to connect the current Iron Mountain bikeway to the Lake Grove area behind the Hunt Club, this would make it easier for recreational bikers to connect between downtown and Lake Grove.  If wetlands allow for it, boardwalks are great, but it is a high maintenance item.  It looks fake.  It would be nice around the wetlands. Not as a trail.  Make sure it is handicapped accessible on both ends  No more natural trails?!?!? I like the gravel trails  Not safe for horses  Now we're talking! Good viewing but NOT walking into.  only if needed to protect wetlands below  Simple works. Some simple seating is important.  The walkways would preserve the wetlands.  There are no swamp areas in the park. The recent gravel project should help keep feet dry.  These paths keep humans off the delicate wetland properties, but allow us to enjoy our surroundings Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 41  This boardwalk looks like it for getting from point A to point B. I'd rather see something more modest and just enough to all people to get a little closer to the water without falling in.  This could work to provide non-intrusive access to wetland and stream corridors.  This look awesome! Maybe with some wetlands educational signage.  This might be appropriate for areas that become extremely muddy, but again I am not sure because I would hope that construction of it and use of it wouldn't interfere with the wildlife.  this would be good for crossing the streams, but not for the whole trail.  This would be wonderful.  To me this is too developed; think of upkeep. In our rainy climate think of the need to power wash the boardwalk at regular intervals. I have platforms and a wooden bridge my property that need cared for on a regular basis otherwise the surface develops mold that makes the surface slippery.  Too big, looks like a deck. lots of work to care for.  Use tired or other material suitable for wetlands  walkway increases the audience for a nature walk - not everyone can do unpaved trails  Well, boardwalks are nice for year round access to boggy areas. But isn't Iron Mtn primarily situated on a well drained hillside? This seems like something that would eat up your entire budget.  Why build a walkway when humans (and salamaders and snakes) can walk on the earth? Then you have to maintain it..??  would be used a lot more Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 42 Boardwalk: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Answer Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 90 59.2% I am not sure 38 25.0% No, I don’t think this fits 15 9.9% No answer 9 5.9% Any other thoughts?  A traversing boardwalk would be nicer.  Educational opportunity  Good educational opportunity with minimal impact.  I don't think a gathering circle is appropriate on a wetland boardwalk. The whole idea is to be quiet so as not to frighten wildlife.  I like it, but there is already a space like this near the top of the park. Its a deck that was rebuilt as part of an Eagle Scout project. I don't think there is a need for another one.  I like the idea of providing for school kids to interact with the area. Just not sure this is how I envision it. I think it would be something near the mining adits.  I prefer keep people out.. Stsnd up for the wildlife  Is that off of the boardwalk, or by itself?  is this in a wetland? I'm not sure what the point of this is.  It's fine, but I think sitting on a log or boulder in a clearing would achieve the same goal without spending money on lumber and labor and/or disrupting that natural area.  Kudos to the design team if they include a place to teach the children! Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 43  Needs to be a bit bigger for visits be classes, scout troops etc.  Nice to have a place like this for outreach, as shown in the photo.  No where to put that. And Iron Mtn Road is noisy.  Possibly in future if more teaching happens at the park  Possibly. A controlled group such as this might be okay in the middle of a natural area. General public access to this spot should be denied.  Teaching kids about the wilderness is essential. I prefer the smaller scale of this deck, than the one below.  There is already a viewing area, and another one would draw more people and interfere with the wildlife.  This platform looks too small and not very functional.  Too small  too small  Way too many people there and where are the trees?  We can never educate too much..about our planet  Yes, use our parks as educational opportunities. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 44 Boardwalk: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Answer Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 82 54.0% I am not sure 27 17.8% No, I don’t think this fits 38 25.0% No answer 5 3.3% Any other thoughts?  A bit too intrusive.  A well-developed feature like this would probably get a lot of use, contributing to a greater sense of ownership by the residents, which would be positive.  again, too much will need to be spent on upkeep to say nothing of the fact I don't think it belongs in an area we are trying to keep a "nature park".  Any access to the pond for learning would be great!  dangerous?  Doesn't look natural enough. Expensive.  excellent use of pond in the park  For me, gathering in large groups on a boardwalk defeats the whole purpose of observing wildlife quietly.  I haven't seen any features for offload cyclists.  I like that this one is curved & has the low railing to indicate to stay inside. But the 2nd example is the least invasive. And the wetlands isn't big enough to have a boardwalk actually out into the water. It would certainly scare off wildlife. Maybe just coming up to the edge with a blind to look through and hide behind. And a way to keep dogs away. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 45  I like the ability for people with disabilities. limited mobility to have access to the natural areas in the park  I think a board walk (with a viewing area) near the edge of the wetland or pond would be appropriate. I don't think a boardwalk into the pond is needed, and it might interfere with the wildlife in the pond.  I'm not familiar enough with the wetland character at Iron Mt. Keep access minimally invasive, while providing opportunity for learning and exploration.  Just how much wetlands area is in Iron Mountain park area? We saw nothing.  Looks a little too large and overly constructed. The general idea is good.  Love the acess to the wetlands in all the ideas on this page.  Lovely and controlled.  May be a bit much for this park property.  Not so intrusive into the wetlands. Stay to the side.  not sure why we would build out into a natural area like this. why not stay along the sides rather than intruding into the middle?  The walkways would preserve the wetlands.  There are no ponds in the park.  this one does not blend in well. Looks too civilized and not rustic enough.  This one looks like a boat dock. I think that the salamanders, frogs and other creatures can be seen from a smaller platform, closer to the shore - like the one in the previous photo.  This would be great near the pond so kids and walkers can see the birds.  too large  Too much like a boat dock, to me. Looks like it belongs in a heavily visited national park.  too obtrusive, large of scale for our little space  Very concerned about intrusion into habitat areas.  Very nice ... But needs Alitalia distance from bird nesting areas  Water great With supervision  Way too many people and structures destroying nature  wetland restoration is a great idea  While the final photo is human friendly, it would discourage many kind of wildlife.  Your guided tour of how land used to look Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 46 Gathering Circle: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 63 41.5% I am not sure 33 21.7% No, I don’t think this fits 48 31.6% No answer 8 5.3% Any other thoughts?  Again, attractive and controlled. I DON'T like the hard surface material chosen here. Our Park should use much more natural-shaped and darker-colored material. Basalt's our thing!  At first I wasn't too crazy about this -- a bit massive -- but as I looked at this I began to like it okay.  but not this large  How does this help the salamanders, snakes and birds? They can't live on man- made structures..  I like a more natural look.  I like stone/rocks but this doesn't look indigenous.  I think a play area would be a better use of space  Is this in keeping with a natural nature park?  It does not to be this large. The new design at Tryon Creek Park is a better scale.  It's okay, but looks a bit massive (and potentially expensive). Again, depends on the overall mix.  Keep it minimalistic. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 47  Lake Oswego has enough hardscaping everywhere. Please allow Iron Mountain to be wild and unpaved.  Looks so big. Are you planning on having lectures or events? Would this be for people walking through or are you going to have a parking lot there?  Love the use of hardscape. Low maintinace but very attractive and useful.  Maybe near the mining adits  Maybe something on a smaller scale. Might be interesting to carve some rocks for seating from the mountain side.  More natural with big boulders.  My kids would have loved that, would have created a stage out of it  only good in the summer. Too cold too use in the winter.  Other LO Parks have features similar to this. I'd like to see Iron Mt. kept simpler and with meeting areas better integrated into natural landscape.  places to sit are great  Seems too formal.  Since the developable area of the park is so small (~2 acres?) and due to the wooded nature of the park, I'm not sure a hardscape gathering circle like this fits.  Stone adds to cost. Use wood  The stone is very pretty, but not in character with this woods/wetlands area.  This is a beautiful stone circle, but it looks too formal for the Iron Mountain Park site.  Too built up.  Too civilized an area may invite late night use by teens  Too formal for this park.  too large, too man made; keep things simple, wild, raw  too much concrete and unnatural. very forced.  Too much hardscape.  View destinations draw people into the park  Where did all these people come from? Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 48 Gathering Circle: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 83 54.6% I am not sure 33 21.7% No, I don’t think this fits 27 17.8% No answer 9 5.9% Any other thoughts?  A ice gathering space where you gan get muddy feet  Better than the previous example or a circle.  Biodegradable. Low cost.  feels like it will rot out and not hold up well  Great for a drum circle.  I like its natural state, but I like some polish too. can't we have both?  I like this better.  I like this, as long as it wouldn't be too difficult to maintain (i.e., how well made are the benches?)  I think it fits, but may be too light to stand up to people knocking it over. Unfortunately, vandalism does happen  I would rather not encourage group usage. Space should be for active exploration  If a gathering circle is included in the park, I like this style better than the hardscape style.  If there must be a gathering space, then this "campfire" type circle definitely fits better than the stone circle. It reminds me of wilderness camps as a kid. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 49  if there was a fire pit in the middle of it.  Is this going to be the new park for all the teenagers to sit and have a smoke? That is what this picture look like.  It fits with the natural roughness of the park  Like the first one better. Over time wood will get mossyand possibly rot  Not excited about creating a party place for local kids. I do like the openness of the woods with a bike trail winding its way through the woods.  Not permanent enough  Same as above. We can we not just have a park that brings us closer to being a "nature park" with out a lot of intrusion by man.  Simple  some type of meeting circle would be nice. only one of these needs to be built, but both are good versions  The park has a couple benches from a Eagle Scout project. Very nice, but they are starting to show their age. Eagle Scout Spencer Raymond, and current OPB Contributor did a fine job on them.  The rustic look of this circle is more appropriate than the formal circle above, but I wonder if a gathering circle is necessary. Most people at the charrette said what they valued most was walking the trails and quietly experiencing nature.  This is better. Less intrusive.  This is relatively biodegradable but still needs maintenance.. Leave it untouched!  This works as a casual resting or gathering place.  This would be nice for children (or adult) classes about science in the park (like Tryon Creek Park educational groups). This is a better option than the Outdoor Features because it is a small park.  too rustic  Two thumbs up!  Very natural Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 50 Outdoor Classroom: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 50 32.9% I am not sure 41 27.0% No, I don’t think this fits 53 34.9% No answer 8 5.3% Any other thoughts?  Anything to get the kids learning how to treat the earth.  Before man invaded the land... Animals roamed  Doesn't Tryon Creek State Park have this sort of area for group gatherings? We see Iron Mt. Park as being more for individuals and families, not large groups.  Flor outdoor education...perfect!  Good, but on the perifery of the Park, not in the interior.  Head to Tryon Creek to do this  I don't see having room for this. Too high maintenance.  I think a play area would be a better use of space. Tryon is maybe a better teaching environment.  I think the image below with just the logs (sans blackboard) achieves the same goal.  If you want to teach people how to step lightly on the earth, show them by not building areas that kill salamanders and snakes  I'm in favor of nature play where children discover nature on their own. I'm not in favor of large group activities like this outdoor classroom.  It would not be used that often and takes too much space ina natural area.  Nature class room for focused learning Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 51  The more that is built at Iron Mountain, the more someone in the future will want to improve upon it. They will want to redo it in hardscaping, add signage, etc. I say no, if an instructor needs visual materials, they can bring them for the day. The open air classroom idea is great, the wood chip floor is great.  The simple bench arrangement of the prior slide or the logs in the next slide is better  This feels cleaner on which to sit versus the option below.  This is like the ranger talk areas at campsites. I think it would work but I would like it more rustic  This one looks less comfortable for the kids than the second one, but I defer to outdoor educators who know more about such things.  Too formal and regimented.  Too formal. Their are many opportunities elsewhere for organized outdoor learning. Don't need lectures, need space to explore.  Too much for this property - this park needs to be kept quite natural and casual.  Will there be wildlife field trips or education? If yes good, if no it's a waste of space and money. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 52 Outdoor Classroom: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 94 61.8% I am not sure 32 21.1% No, I don’t think this fits 19 12.5% No answer 7 4.6% Any other thoughts?  As long as its proportionally sized for Iron Mt. Park  Could also be nature play area  For multiple ages, I think it's easier to sit on a stump individually than on a log. This option allows folks to sit closer together - a benefit sometimes.  How will the salamanders and snakes travel through this messof processed forest?  I think a play area would be a better use of space. Tryon is maybe a better teaching environment.  If an outdoor classroom feature were included, this type (rough logs) would be my choice.  Looks good to me.  need separation in space fore children  Not a place for kids to be bussed in. Better to use their own neighborhoods and grounds. I would much rather see families exploring rather than whole classes, here. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 53  Not sure where this would fit in the park.  Prefer this one because it allows people to sit together.  Properly informal and comfortable for this park.  Remember this kids as tomorrow will be a freeway  Same as previous.  Seems like kids are paying attention on the stumps rather than logs  simple but effective. Not so intrusive in the natural habitat.  Smaller scale.  These both would be very cool for a larger park, as outdoor classrooms. Not here though. Larger groups would be too much for this small area. The previous Gathering Circle option is enough.  This is a better alternative to the outdoor classroom. I like that it is in the trees, the wood chip floor, sharing logs. I like that the instructor has brought her own materials - nothing permanent needs to be built here. That means that it gets my yes vote.  This is also okay, on the perifery.  This is better  This looks better.  Tryon Creek State Park has more room and more staff to provide outdoor classrooms. I don't think we should try to do this in the limited space of Iron Mountain Park.  would not be useful at all Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 54 Picnic Area: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 61 40.1% I am not sure 43 28.3% No, I don’t think this fits 38 25.0% No answer 10 6.6% Any other thoughts?  Again, there are many other places to have a picnic outdoors. Share a snack on a log!  but no rain cover is needed, it's Oregon, we love the Rain  Certainly the above table and roof are on the smaller size--on the other hand LO has many parks with picnic tables and shelters that are lightly used. Do we really need another "picnic" area?  Could be ok but may overly encourage late night use  Could be okay, depending on the overall mix.  Don't like the cement and metal. I like a covered eating space.  I don't care for this style/design/materials/color for picnic tables. IF our Park has picnic tables, they must BLEND well into the natural surroundings and be placed where vegetation will not be easily trampled.  I don't think the picnic tables need to be covered  I like that its covered (rain!), but it's not very attractive.  I like the covering. I like that the picnic table is a modest size and not gargantuan.  I think a few picnic tables would be good but I do not like the samples presented here. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 55  I would rather not see picnic tables in this park. I'm concerned they would invite litter, noise, and vandalism.  If a picnic area is included, it should be lo cated near the bike/hiking trail along Iron Mt. Road, where it might be used by those users. It a picnic area is located deeper into the park, I fear it would be misused and trashed.  If picnicking is encouraged, then trash disposal must be provided for, and a plan for cleaning up litter.  If you want to picnic you can sit on the ground so the earth doesn't have to be paved over  I'm not crazy about picnic tables in general. With the canopy/cover, I dislike them even more.  It's ok. Why not put it under the trees if you want shade? That tiny awning is insufficient protection from sun or rain.  Keep it next to the parking area.  Maybe a bigger covered area.  Maybe just one such thing, and the signage, at each entrance.  Nice to have a shelter from the rain, but those that hike in the rain usually are already prepared to that. Same for sun.  Not necessary in such a forested park setting.  Not sure about the covering, if it's raining a visitor would still get wet. I like the idea of providing some picnic tables.  not sure that a roofed picnic area is needed  One or two simple [wood?] picnic tables is enough. Without roofs. There is a beautiful old willow tree there that a picnic table underneath would be wonderful, if it's not too close to the stream that needs to be restored. But it would be okay to leave out a picnic area altogether.  Only close to the road  Perhaps at one or two places but not very many.  Rain protection is important.  Seem like more natural materials should be used.  The table looks out of place. I like the wild, tall grass behind the table.  The viewing area already has a picnic bench. The only time it is in use is at the 4th of July. No need for more of it when it is barely in use, better for the wildlife.  Would prefer natural shade. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 56 Picnic Area: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 61 40.1% I am not sure 43 28.3% No, I don’t think this fits 38 25.0% No answer 10 6.6% Any other thoughts?  A more natural setting is better, like the view above.  A table on a concrete slab in the middle of a lawn does not fit this site. If we must have picnic tables, I hope there would only be a couple and that they be rustic and without any shelter or roof.  Barbecuing doesn't fit Iron Mt. Park  BBQ? The cement and trash containers are horrible.  Cover would be good so it could be used rain orcshone  Definitely NOT at Iron Mountain! Please resist the urge to pave, manicure (with sprinklers, mowing, blowing, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.), plant ornamental trees, and put up signs with stone - like the park is an entrance to a subdivision. I cherish all of the places in Lake Oswego that are wild.  Definitely not!!  Don't care for the groomed park, but like the idea of having tables and BBQ area for family outings  Good for non-rainy days. Need both types of picnicn table Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 57  good for summer use. maybe put a removable shelter on it in the winter time.  Heck, no.  I like a combination of covered and uncovered tables  I think incorporating picnic tables would be great but I'd prefer more rustic "heartier" tables.  Ick! Looks like a golf course. And with high fire danger in this park, we should NOT have fire pits of any kind.  Is that a barbeque? Will you have parking for people to bring all this in? I guess I'm still thinking of it as a walking type park but maybe the goal is more of a destination for drivers, down by Iron Mt. Blvd.  looks too. developed  Needs to stay a natural park.  no concrete  No open-fire grills.  not natural looking  Not natural. Too commercial.  Our of place in this park.  rain?  Really bad!  Reminds me of a rest stop on the freeway. Also, I definitely would not want to see a BBQ or firepit at Iron Mtn.  some type of picnic table area should be included, but does not need to be fancy  The concrete slab seems very large. Something less intrustive for picnic areas would be my first choice.  This feels really open and exposed, not always a good feeling, but great in the 10 days of sunshine.  This is like an ordinary city park not a nature play area. Visitors need to know that this is a special park.  This is much too barren and sterile. Lawns are definitely not appropriate!  This lloks like Bakersfield CA. Nothing natural, totally artificial  This would only work if the area toward town from the Hunt Club would be all cleared out and then need to be maintained.  Too built.  too developed  Too developed. Taking natural look away from it  Too formal - let's keep it casual and rustic.  Too industrial.  Too open for this site, in my opinion. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 58  Totally inappropriate!  Way too much development  We are have recreational parks similar to this. We do not need more Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 59 Shelter: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 37 24.3% I am not sure 33 21.7% No, I don’t think this fits 72 47.4% No answer 10 6.6% Any other thoughts?  A shelter defeats the purpose of exploring and enjoying a natural area. Let the elements in.  Again, in a nature park? Totally incorrect.  An unnecessary expense that doesn't fit in this park.  Any place where no humans can go  Covered areas are ideal for wet places like Portland/Lake O  dont need roofed picnic shelters for individual tables  Haha! Who the heck chose these options? We're almost 100 miles from salt water, and the only palm trees are ornamental ones. And the choice of a picnic table was already shown, at least twice.  I like that it is gravel rather than concrete and that there are several small shelters.  I like the individual nature of this set-up as well as the size of the awning.  I like the more natural look, but it does not look indigenous.  I love the natural materials and the design feature of the covering - it's very creative. dislike common designs.  In general I like some shelter from the rain.  incorporate this with the next larger pavillion Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 60  Keep the site natural with small play area. Not for large picnics.  More attractive  Scarry. We are trying to get away from man-made shelter for a second.  Shelter from rain is more important than shelter from sun.  Smaller scale  The ocean looks nice, although I don't think that there's room for it in that canyon..... I say no to a large man made picnic structure.  This plays to larger groups coming to picnic not to be active in a nature area  This small park cannot accommodate a large shelter.  Too Big.  Too large.  too much  Too much structure - use the natural canopy of trees.  Totally inappropriate! This is not Florida!  Way too much and too modern-looking. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 61 Shelter: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 74 48.7% I am not sure 23 15.1% No, I don’t think this fits 45 29.6% No answer 10 6.6% Any other thoughts?  Again, do we really want to encourage picnicing? This is NOT George Rogers Park!  best protection from the rain. Could be used year round. need a bar b que installed.  Better  don't need a shelter--its supposed to be a natural area and rain is natural!  for large parties this would be okay. i would think that mostly small parties would frequent the space so this would feel uncomfortable.  I am not sure a covered table shelter was ever discussed at the charrette.  I like the cement in the larger party type shelter and no cement at the singles. The cover looks good and appropriate for the rain.  I like the Pacific NW look of this one and that it has room for a group. Some single and some group picnic areas would be very nice!  I think this is too big for the space unless it can be used as an outdoor classroom.  just right  Like the simple covered gathering place for groups Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 62  Love that  More of a rustic look. Big.  More structure than necessary - do we need all this shelter?  Much too large. An unnecessary expense to build and maintain.  Neither of these designs seem "natural" to our area.  No picnic tables, no shelter. I envision this space to be as natural as possible.  No to concrete and large man made structures at Iron Mountain.  Nope. This might be nice in a big city park (like Laurelhurst in Portland for example) but large group picnic shelters is really a bad idea here. It's more appropriate for a family, not a large group destination.  OMG i can just see the masses assembling here and destroying the salamanders and snakes.  Please do not crowd in picnic tables, sitting areas and places for people and garbage, Trails and paths are desired to continue moving, not stay stationary  Prefer the larger scale and presence for balance.  Same comment as prior  the available space is too small to accomidate a large picnic area.  There are large shelters such as this at Waluga Park and I rarely see them in use. Waluga is what? 3/4 mile away?  There is no need for shelters in a small park like this. Keep the space simple, let nature be enjoyed with not so much man-made development.  This looks like it would offer good protection, even in a solid rainstorm.  This seems a little too big and only provides one covered area . I prefer the multiple small ones without the concrete and massive structure  This small park cannot accommodate a large shelter.  Too big in scale  Too big.  Too large.  Way, way too big, structured, un natural Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 63 Restroom: What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 61 40.1% I am not sure 49 32.2% No, I don’t think this fits 32 21.1% No answer 10 6.6% Any other thoughts?  A modest toilet facility may be desirable - do safety issues, maintenance requirements warrant this investment?  A small restroom is needed, for children using the park and so the Hunt Club doesn't have people using theirs. But the simpler the better. Just 1 or 2 small rooms. Even something like the portapotties at the Luscher Farms community gardens might work well. They are surprisingly roomy and clean. The bigger and more substantial the restrooms are, the more they will invite inappropriate users [homeless, drug use, vandalism.] And from experience at the Brookside trailhead area, the location is important. It might be good to be located along Iron Mt Blvd and in view of cars going by.  A small rustic restroom seems right for this site. A standing seam metal roof would be nicer than fiberglass.  Composting toilet would be my first choice  everybody has to go sometime, the park should have bathrooms of some sort.  For the type and amount of use don't need a restroom  I like the image below better because it could potentially be safer to have a safely visible entry into an enclosed space with a full door/lock. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 64  I suppose every park needs a restroom, but it needs to be mimimal.  I would not mind public rest stop.  I would recommend a co-ed one-holer w/o plumbing or electricity, if any restroom facility is installed.  If a restroom is included, it should be a style that matches the natural feel of the park. It should be near the road and bike trail, where it could be easily serviced and where it might not attract vandalism.  If it must be, then smaller is better.  If restrooms are necessary, this better approximates what would fit in a mostly natural area. I'm ambivalent about any restrooms.  If this would be offered, then any and all maps of the park need to show at which entrance or entrances there are toilets, not just "the park has a toilet".  If we must have a restroom, it would be nice to keep it minimal, and unobtrusive, even.  it probably fits, I just question the sanitation of a structure like that.  It would be nice to have a rest room.  Keep it next to parking area. Easier for clean up.  Looks kinda old school.  Maybe not even this fancy, what about composting toilets?  No funny business  NO!  Park does not need bathrooms, too isolated will just lead to "crime"  Pee in the woods if you have to go. How does this help the salamanders and snakes?  Pretty cute, and small is good.  Restroom is important....but less intrusive. Just one uni-sex.  Seniors In particular are going to want flush toilets  simple and primitive  This looks pretty rustic. I think it depends on what the estimates are for usage, and the available budget.  This might be okay -- not too plush. People would use it out of necessity, not as a place to hang out.  too rustic  Unless it was in a highly visible area, I think it would get 'trashed'.  We will need a bathroom as so many people ...  will eventually stink. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 65 Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 69 45.4% I am not sure 21 13.8% No, I don’t think this fits 52 34.2% No answer 10 6.6% Any other thoughts?  Again, perhaps too big for the size of the park.  any type of discreet, not too big bathroom is a good idea  Are we living at the Mall?  Definitely not!!  everybody has to go sometime, the park should have bathrooms of some sort.  I like to more natural design  If we HAVE to add restrooms, I'd say solid like this makes sense  Looks kind of industrial and massive.  Looks more modern than first option  love, love, love the touch-less restrooms at Foothills Park! I feel like I'm in a cleaner facility and among civilization.  Make them very organic and simple to match the surroundings.  Nice, but best is low maintenance of materials & what will fit in with other details.  No to lots of paving and a large bathroom. The path up behind the bathroom looks inviting.  Not at all good material choices for our Park. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 66  Not natural enough. Will there be plumbing?  Restrooms should be nice enough to serve the people using the park, but not to attract people who want a secluded place for drugs or other illegal activity. If a bathroom is included, please make it out in the open, visible from Iron Mtn. Blvd.,and very small.  restrooms should feel rustic like the park, less finished stone work. This park is more natural than foothills park.  see above  This is an attractive restroom, but it seems a bit large for this site.  This looks more upscale than the first one. It would probably be appreciated more by the visitors, but its feasibility depends on the available budget.  This needs to be in easy view from the street to minimize vandalism  this restroom facility is way too big  Though at the charrette, more inclusion of nice port-a-potties was mentioned but not illustrated here.  Too big.  too fancy  Too large and elaborate for this small park. Would require utility hookups, etc.  Too much structure for this park - keep it simple - keep costs down.  too sophisticated for this park  Very pretty but much fancier than necessary. Reminds me of the nice restrooms at Foothills Park that unfortunately attract homeless people. Other ideas: Do you have any other thoughts, ideas or concerns you would like to share?  "A small amount of parking would be important.  Also, personally, I'd like to see the City purchase the land where the ""wetlands"" are so it can be a true feature of Iron Mountain Park and the little developed area."  Anyway to incorporate the Campbell native garden as an accessible feature of the park? An underground tunnel?  Bike trails! My teenage boys would love a place to ride in Lake Oswego!  Getting the watershed so that it drains properly without silting and cannot backup and flood with adequate and hopefully open culvert under the road and pedestrian crossing.  Given its location along the Iron Mountain bikeway, there should be a trail through this park that offers a less strenuous path for cyclists and walkers to finish the journey from downtown to Lake Grove. This would avoid the relatively steep uphill Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 67 after the roundabout where Iron Mountain and Upper meet. It would also make the travel more rustic and encourage more use of the park, and cut down on the need for car parking if walkers and cyclists could get to the park without a car.  Has anyone checked the effect on the animals, frogs, bees, birds etc? Oh they are all gone...  Hope maintenance cost - personnel & structures - is being factored in. We can create some nice park amen tires without making it so elaborate that it takes a lot of money to maintain. Also vandalism is important to consider in any of the areas that are not easily overseen by community.  I enjoy the solitude there so I wouldn't want to attract too many people with big shelters and bathrooms. It's a hidden gem. I'd like to see it kept natural like Tryon Creek. And focus on native plants and wildlife.  I favor restoration of the park's natural features, without significant development in the small area near the road. Any development should be natural in character and provide amenities to the park's primary users (hikers and bikers).  I have lived at the trail head for 25 years and have seen a dramatic decline in salamanders, birds, and snakes since the city developed the trail and the constant human activity has increased. How can this be good for the environment in the long run? I used to walk the trail when the grasses were over my head and the wildlife was prolific. Now it depresses me the see how it is graveled (the salamanders and snakes are gone because they can't cross the trail). It doesn't feel natural anymore, it's so wide and overly processed. I don't walk the trail anymore.  I think it should be kept in its natural state as much as possible.  I think LO really needs a full off-leach park, and the Iron Mountain property, much of which is steep, would be ideal. We have plenty of parks for families, strollers, joggers. Keep this one area wild and let dogs run free.  I think there is a great opportunity to create a more accessible pedestrian and bicycle path from Iron Mountain Boulevard to Brookside and Twin Fir as part of this project.  I think this park should be more natural and features should not be of a very refined character; but high quality design of the features should be a priority.  I think you need to include mountain biking, kid friendly trails and places for exercise  I want it to remain as close to a nature park as possible. Limit the vehicle traffic and keep it pedestrian/pet friendly. Kids love trails and exploring too. Keep the native birds and plants happy. Do not remove too much of what is there now except the awful construction vehicles. I live at Village on the Lake and walk to Iron Mountain weekly Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 68  I would definitely like to see some mountain bike trails added.  I would hope that it stays as "natural" as possible...especially in the look of the amenities and access areas.  I would like money and energy to go into restoration of the natural area including removal of invasives and re-establishing natives.  I would like to be able to ride my mountain bike there  I would like to see the park relatively unimproved other than minimalistic pathways and meeting places.  I would like to signage. Pointing out describing the flora and fauna, plus the history of the mine and other important info  I would love to be able to visit and walk trails at Iron Mt. I drive thru it all the time. As far as I have been able to tell, there is no trail or way into the park at this time. I have been a L.O. resident for 29 years.  I would love to see a DOG park on this side of the lake. The "FARM" is too far for the north side of lake oswego. Even an area like MARY S YOUNG park in West Linn is better than our parks. It has all the the things you are trying to incorporate. Picnic, trails, nature area, play area, and dog park. It is a great park.  I would love to see mountain bike trails developed in the area with wash facilities much like Stubb Stewart.  "I would love to see the mining history celebrated in the park. My vision would be to have an adit (maybe more over time) opened to the public periodically with tours and side events that explain that history to the community. The East Bay Parks, Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve provides an excellent example of how the history can be incorporated. See link  http://www.ebparks.org/parks/black_diamond"  I'd like to see mountain bike trails in the park, nothing too technical just some cross country trails that could be shared with other uses that would allow people to get some exercise.  I'd love to find a way to allow kids (mine are 11 and 5) free range play. My 11 year old already does this.  I'd love to see the new 2 acre area have 6 parking spots, with gravel or wood chip paths, a few picnic table. small restroom (if really needed) and a closed at dusk policy. In addition, a wood board walk crossing the wet areas only, and a connector path along the bottom Iron Mountain, along the North edge of the Hunt Club, thus connecting the Iron Mountain "new access" point to the existing Broodside Road trail entrance. Over all, keep it natural, wild but maintained. A place for talking a short walk, having a picnic; more of a neighborhood green space, than a recreational park. Thanks Daniel Work, 2855 Brookside Road Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 69  I'm excited to see the continuation of the process and the final product. This will be another feather in LO's cap! Please keep up the great work!  Iron Mtn. Park is nearly unusable as a normal park. It's narrow steep features limit its usefulness. What's really needed is a means to LINK all of the open spaces in LO. The Country Club is an elitist exclusion area that bans access or egress. A formal system of paths should be designed and implemented such that extensive walks and runs can be performed across the city. Right now it's a hodgepodge of islands of recreation disconnected by private property and no trespassing zones. Ugly.  It would be great to have an area set aside for birders!  It would be great to see some off leash dog areas there.  It would be nice if the Iron Mt area were managed with major attention to its value as a resource for plant and animal life. Native plants and wild animals have so few places of refuge in the metro area that each one is extremely important. Even the newts, shrews and mice need somewhere to live.  It would be nice to have some off-leash area(s) for dogs. Or a designated trail which is off-leash.  Just make sure there will be enough parking. In the summer, during hot days, that's a great place to go and I imagine others will too.  Keep as much of the natural feel as possible  Keep it safe for the horses and riders.  Keep it simple and natural.  KEEP THE PARK AS NATURAL AS POSSIBLE  Most of my comments indicate my desire to see this site retain as much of its natural character as possible, while also allowing visitors to gain access, mainly through trails on the hillside, and perhaps other features on the flatter areas near Iron Mountain Road.  Mountain Bike trail! There are no legal trails in the area outside of a 45 minute drive. The terrain in the park is well suited to hiking/ cycling loop.  Mountain bike trails would be a great fit.  "PARKING- [category not on the survey]  I think parking should be relatively small and natural- such as gravel, not asphalt or cement, and no fence/barrier around it. The current parking area on Iron Mt Blvd is probably the best location. It’s important that it be visible from the highway, not back in the staging area, to discourage inappropriate behavior. The more secluded parking area at the Brookside trailhead sometimes has evidence of nighttime activity (empty liquor bottles, used condoms, drug items.) A chain closing the parking area at night might also be helpful. [See previous comments under Restrooms.] Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 70  GENERAL COMMENTS: Thank you for asking for public input. The photos on this survey are very helpful and the categories are useful.  Yes, it is time to finally return the area along Iron Mt Blvd back to to the animals & people after so many years of being trashed by trucks & machinery. The junk dumped there during the city projects [including broken asphalt & other possibly toxic material] needs to be removed and the wetlands & stream there restored to a natural condition healthy for the animals to return.  What might be added there for neighbors to use should be in keeping with that natural character. It has educational potential for nature play for children, bird watching, informative plaques about the fascinating history, ecosystems, & wildlife of the park. Facilities built in that area should be simple, natural and few. Features such as skateparks, large picnic areas & shelters, dirt bike or asphalt jogging paths, etc. should be available in some LO parks but are not appropriate in this small area and in this natural park setting.  [Also, putting a thoroughfare bikepath from Iron Mt Blvd along the back of the wetlands & Hunt Club to Brookside & Douglas Circle would create a number of serious safety issues for pedestrians, bikers, dogs, horses & wildlife and is unnecessary, as the current pathway on Iron Mt Blvd to Upper & Boones Ferry is quite good.]  LO has a wonderful variety of parks which residents can use for exercise & entertainment. We would be wise and forward-thinking to recognize and preserve the unique character and value this park has as a wildlife sanctuary and place for people of all ages to experience the beauty of nature."  Parking lot should be small; overflow parking arrangement needs to be worked out with the hunt club. The bike path could be separated from the road along the park, but not pass through the park. A blind for bird viewing needs to be near the pond. A trail to the iron mine could include a "peek" into the mine (or a pseudo-mine). The name of the park could emphasize its function; e.g., "Lake Oswego Wetland Park," rather than Iron Mountain Park. Cooperation with the hunt club is important in order to try to save it. Connections to the existing nearby trails should be emphasized.  Parking should be right sized to meet other goals for limited access and habitat preservation. Parking should be located as far east and away from the core wetland area for habitat and wildlife preservation.  "Please consider some area for mountain biking. Just a few trails. That would be perfect. Thanks"  Please create a play park with SWINGS and activities for very little kids! Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 71  Please include a loop trail that is open to hiking and biking. There are virtually NO dirt surface trails open to biking in the Portland Metro area. Please keep the surfaces natural. It promotes a better nature experience  Please keep allowing bicycle access to the natural surface trails.  Please make it safe for dogs and children to be in attendance - so taking into account the wetlands/water swamp issue.  "Please make sure that trails are open to Mountain Biking so that kids in the neighboring areas can have a place to explore on their bike in a place far from cars.  Bike riding promotes an active life style and a healthy life style"  please, please, please build the nature play area! also would like hiking trails  Put a covered indoor sports arena for soccer, rugby, lacrosse, etc. and an indoor Olympic size pool (replaces LOSD pool) on the two developable acres.  seems like we have a lot of parks already.  Since it is a large space, my family would love a soccer field incorporated into plans, along with space for nature exploration.  Some have talked about putting a bike path through the park. I think this would disrupt the quiet of the place and make it less hospitable for animals, small children, hikers, and people who are there to watch the wildlife. Also, it would be more expensive to maintain.  Some of the seating areas here have been quite large. Bringing kids closer to nature is a wonderful idea. Maybe some talks, using the wetlands to teach kids? Also for them to learn a little about horses? For that the larger seating areas would be great. Combine learning with playing.  Some signage on the history of the mining operations a hundred years ago.  "STREAM RESTORATION & WATER PLAY -- I hope the stream presently confined to a ditch will be restored to a shallow meandering waterway with a gravel bed where children can wade and explore. It would also be wonderful if there were a sand area along one bank where wild animals that visit the stream at night will leave their footprints for children to find.  WILDLIFE VIEWING BLIND -- Instead of a picnic shelter, I would rather see a wildlife viewing blind overlooking the pond.  NATURE PLAY -- Some features that weren't offered in this survey: 1. large granite boulders, 2. fallen logs with roots attached, 3. an above-ground platform surrounding one of the large trees like the giant weeping willow so children could feel they are up in the tree.  PARKING -- Our group at the charrette preferred a small parking lot next to Iron Mountain Blvd. (NOT in the middle of the park). They also preferred a permeable parking surface." Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 72  Thank you for investing in this park. I enjoy living in uplands and hiking the trails and park. I look forward to bringing my kids more in the future. Keeping it natural and community like is important.  "The format of the survey does not seem to fit for Iron Mountain Park which is on a steep slope.  This survey format assumes a flat park."  The less commercial development (i.e., involving concrete/asphalt or large structures) the better. Maintain trails (as we do) and let the forest remain.  The property is really worthy of a city park due to its natural beauty, peaceful setting away from traffic and houses and convenience. Let's keep it rustic with minimal structures.  The trails need to be open to bikes.  The walking path on Iron Mountain Road must be addressed. It is rather scary to use due to the speed of traffic. It should be nice quiet pathway in the forest to the extent possible.  There are a number of parks in LO in which to picnic, play sports, take children to play on swings and slides. The fact that Iron Mountain is so treed, has a good deal of wildlife, is relatively quiet, where you can get away and just be solitary in the middle of a busy town, is of such value to me. Our mantra in America seems to be develop, develop, develop. Can we not keep a place where one can enjoy some solitude?  There are already several very structured parks, but rather few playgrounds for young children in Lake Oswego. This is a great opportunity to do something different, innovative, and exciting in the city.  Trails need some drainage and more gravel to remove some of the mud.  Try to keep the area as natural as possible.  Very excited about the new park. I think it will be a great addition to the park, trails, and pedestrian lane on Iron Mountain Boulevard.  We need more trails!!! Consider creating at least one trail as a loop  "We have an opportunity to provide families with a place to walk to (so maybe a restroom is a good idea). Parking has not been addressed? Some places to explore and walk give parents an opportunity to share nature with kids and let kids share with parents. Rachel Carson's Sense of Wonder comes to mind. Even more importantly, not every natural area has to be for human activities, of course. Let us keep wildlife habitat first and foremost in our plans.  My response to this survey is in 2 parts. I tried to hit the back arrow to return to a previous page and whoopsie! Hope they can be combined somehow." Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 73  We I live a few houses away from the west entrance to Iron Mountain Park with my mom, who has Alzheimer's. My kids, myself, and my mom frequent the park. The biggest concern in the park in the ivy, which is killing many trees. The community does it's best to pull/clear ivy, but if money is to be spent, can't it be spent on saving the park itself? There are only a few Madronas, a beautiful native tree, which are being drowned in ivy. This park is a natural place for beautiful varieties of birds, deer, and coyotes to live, and they travel between Iron Mountain park and Spring Brook park. I have even seen Flickers, but not nearly as many as I saw in King County and no Pileated Wood Peckers, which are supposedly there but very shy. People travel through too, on foot, not stopping for much because it's more of a travel through park than a destination. Making it a destination would force the animals out into the community even more, and they occasionally roam the streets even during daylight. The deer spook easily and aren't very smart, so if something scares them from the park they crash up into the street and that brings the coyotes out too. If the deer are spooked, it also makes it a lot more difficult to avoid hitting them even if you drive very slowly. I once followed one all the way up the hill while it zigged and zagged back and forth up Glen Eagles Road until it finally found the park entrance again. Many yards are highly landscaped and opened up, not many places for deer and coyotes to hide, and even dangerous since they also crash out upon walkers. I have heard them crashing around in hedges at dusk or dark especially in summer, when they get stuck outside the park, and have been glad I didn't have headphones on like a lot of the kids walking around, so I could watch for them and make sure not to get trampled by a deer. Once I was walking my dog at dusk and looked down to see a coyote walking on my other side, gliding along, until we walked by the park entrance and it ran off down the trail. The coyotes do come out in summer and have swarmed my fenced in yard, even using a decoy dog/coyote (a smaller friendlier looking one) to lure my dog to the fence (a 30 lb excitable indoor mutt, who is only outside with us). These animals need a space to call their own and only come out if the park cannot sustain them. There are plenty of rabbits and rodents in the park they can live off of if the park itself is healthy. None of the structures indicate the park health or plant/tree life, which is the only park of the park that isn't working right now. We, the residents, and the animals, need the park itself to be healthy! I see lots of people, families walking and cycling, using the park every day, especially weekends, to exercise and go through. Please don't make it just like any other old park in a city, it is special! Please use the money wisely, look at studies on urban wildlife, and please help us take care of it! Also, many people let their dogs off leash, which is hard on those of us with kids or dogs who get agressive on-leash when "sniffed" and greeted by a friendly well- intentioned off-leash pet. Do studies show anything about whether or not increasing Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 74 structures around parks makes it more of an off leash dog area? It would be awful if Iron Mountain park became an area where people sit down and talk on their cell phones and let their dogs off leash while they romp and poop, like the folks do over at the playground by the closed elementary school next to LOJH. They pull up, park, and let their dogs out and sometimes don't even seem aware of what their dogs are doing because they are so involved in what is happening with someone on their phones.  We really need more off-road cycling opportunities and bike paths in general.  We ride a lot of bikes and would more areas to ride trails in the LO area. There are opportunities to expand this area and create a local riding venue for people of all ages.  We would love a nature playscape at Iron Mountain. There is so much beauty along there that we could enjoy as a family.  What about a bike path coming off of Iron Mountain Rd through the park behind the Hunt Club and onto Brookside Rd. It would act as a bypass of the Round-about providing another way to access Upper Dr.  "What makes Iron Mountain park a special place is the fact that it is minimally touched by man. It is a place where I can go, close to home, and feel as if were out in the woods. I have seen deer, coyote, owls, red tailed hawks, numerous songbirds and a Cooper's hawk that crossed the trail right in front of me, maybe two feet off of the ground, expertly weaving it's way through the trees, at full speed. I have discovered wild white larkspur on this trail. When I went home to look it up, I found that it is a rare and endangered plant - right here, in town!  In my opinion, wild places are where discovery happens. A park is where a planner has decided and is telling you where to sit, where to play, what to see, what to do. It is controlled and maintained and restricted like every other public space: schools, roads. I think that it is important to have a place where we can just be. Iron Mountain is already that place, it would be a shame to pave paradise (and then put up a sign telling us how wonderful it is)."  Wildlife protection and ecology of area should override the public's desire for build- outs like playgrounds, picnic areas, restrooms, or trail development.  YES - I want to be able to mountain bike there. You need to allow riders again.  Yes! We need an off leash dog park north of the lake. There is one south of the lake and it is a dusty dirty mess. A recent visit to Colorado revealed an amazing dog park with swim feature and it was pristine. The park system should support the needs of the community it serves. There is no place for dogs to run and they need off leash time. Right now I drive to 1000 acres or west linn. They are serving the needs of our community which isn't right. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Design Charrette Online Vision Exercise Results (2/29/16) 75  "You need to find out the long range plans of the hunt club. I love the hunt club, but I don't know how well they are doing financially? They seem to be letting their barns deteriorate. If we get the chance, Lake Oswego should buy it and put in another community garden. I like all your ideas for Iron Mtn. Park. You are moving in the right direction. Just make sure you make the most use of the pond and clean up that ugly creek. Put a nice path behind the hunt club property. Encourage the hunt club members to welcome visitors. It is about time this property is put to good use. Maybe put in a little science area and show how rocks are turned into iron and then steel. Make everything wheelchair friendly. Install solar panels. Have bike racks. Install Wifi.  There is a ton of flat area in the woods to the east of the clearing. Maybe not now, but eventually I would like to see more of this area landscaped and be more accessible for hiking or just hanging out. You could put in a loop trail all the way down to where the curve is on Iron Mtn. Rd." Please tell us a bit about yourself. Responses Count Percentage I live in Lake Oswego 135 88.8% I don’t know where Iron Mountain Park is 9 5.9% I have visited Iron Mountain Park 88 57.9% I visit Iron Mountain Park regularly 71 46.7% I live in one of the surrounding neighborhoods (Lake View/Summit, Lake Grove, Country Club) 85 55.9% I have youth/children under the age of 18 living in my household 58 38.2% If you would like to receive updates about the Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Planning process, please enter your name and email address below. Around 70 people expressed interest and submitted their contact information to receive updates about the Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Planning process. IRON MOUNTAIN PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN DESIGN CHARRETTE 01.30.16 Existing Conditions Presentation Reference Materials for Participants Table Discussion: Favorite things about Iron Mountain Park Results: Favorite things about Iron Mountain Park Table Exercise: Activity Images Table Exercise: Map Activity Report Back Report Back Report Back Report Back Results Results: Activities/amenities that fit in Iron Mountain Park ONLINE VISION EXERCISE RESULTS What is your favorite thing about iron mountain park? What features fit at Iron Mountain Park? Nature Play Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like it! 90 59.2% I am not sure 41 27.0% No, I don’t think this fits 15 9.9% No answer 6 4.0% Nature Play Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that!53 34.9% I am not sure 52 34.2% No, I don’t think this fits 35 23.0% No answer 12 7.9% Nature Play Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like it! 78 51.3% I am not sure 31 20.4% No, I don’t think this fits 32 21.1% No answer 11 7.2% Nature Play Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like it! 65 42.8% I am not sure 27 17.8% No, I don’t think this fits 48 31.6% No answer 12 7.9% Trailhead Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 110 72.4% I am not sure 22 14.5% No, I don’t think this fits 11 7.2% No answer 9 5.9% Trailhead Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 125 82.2% I am not sure 15 9.9% No, I don’t think this fits 4 2.6% No answer 8 5.3% Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 58 38.2% I am not sure 43 28.3% No, I don’t think this fits 42 27.6% No answer 9 5.9% Kiosk Kiosk Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 74 48.7% I am not sure 34 22.4% No, I don’t think this fits 32 21.1% No answer 12 7.9% Wetland Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 87 57.2% I am not sure 38 25.0% No, I don’t think this fits 19 12.5% No answer 8 5.3% Boardwalk Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that!96 63.2% I am not sure 25 16.5% No, I don’t think this fits 24 15.8% No answer 7 4.6% Boardwalk Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 90 59.2% I am not sure 38 25.0% No, I don’t think this fits 15 9.9% No answer 9 5.9% Boardwalk Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 82 54.0% I am not sure 27 17.8% No, I don’t think this fits 38 25.0% No answer 5 3.3% Gathering Circle Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that! 63 41.5% I am not sure 33 21.7% No, I don’t think this fits 48 31.6% No answer 8 5.3% Gathering Circle Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that!83 54.6% I am not sure 33 21.7% No, I don’t think this fits 27 17.8% No answer 9 5.9% Outdoor Classroom Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that!50 32.9% I am not sure 41 27.0% No, I don’t think this fits 53 34.9% No answer 8 5.3% Outdoor Classroom Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that!94 61.8% I am not sure 32 21.1% No, I don’t think this fits 19 12.5% No answer 7 4.6% Picnic Area Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that!61 40.1% I am not sure 43 28.3% No, I don’t think this fits 38 25.0% No answer 10 6.6% Picnic Area Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that!20 13.2% I am not sure 23 15.1% No, I don’t think this fits 102 67.1% No answer 7 4.6% Shelter Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that!74 48.7% I am not sure 23 15.1% No, I don’t think this fits 45 29.6% No answer 10 6.6% Restroom Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that!61 40.1% I am not sure 49 32.2% No, I don’t think this fits 32 21.1% No answer 10 6.6% Restroom Responses Count Percentage Yes, I really like that!69 45.4% I am not sure 21 13.8% No, I don’t think this fits 52 34.2% No answer 10 6.6% Tell us a bit about yourself Responses Count Percentage I live in Lake Oswego 135 88.8% I don’t know where Iron Mountain Park is 9 5.9% I have visited Iron Mountain Park 88 57.9% I visit Iron Mountain Park regularly 71 46.7% I live in one of the surrounding neighborhoods (Lake View/Summit, Lake Grove, Country Club) 85 55.9% I have youth/children under the age of 18 living in my household 58 38.2% IRON MOUNTAIN PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan 6:00 – 6:20 pm Welcome Introductions 6:20 – 6:40 pm Project Updates 6:40 – 7:45 pm Design Charette Review Design Charrette Findings Online Questionnaire Findings Discussion: Input for Design Alternatives 7:45 – 8:00 pm Next Steps Design Alternatives Review and Recommendations Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #2 Date March 3, 2016 Time 6:00 – 8:00 PM Location Santiam Room, Palisades Building, 1500 Greentree Road Agenda Visit www.ironmountianpark.org or https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/parksrec/iron-mountain-park-plan for more information Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan 6:00 – 6:15 pm Welcome and Introductions 6:15 – 6:35 pm Iron Mountain Concepts Presentation of refined concept design alternatives Questions and discussion 6:35 – 7:15 pm Table Exercise (On the map) Specific comments and concerns indicated on printed site concepts 7:15 – 7:50 pm Large Group Discussion Report back on table exercise (top five comments) 7:50 – 8:00 pm Next Steps Online feedback on concept design alternatives Community Outreach Event #2 Date May 12, 2016 Time 6:00 – 8:00 PM Location Palisades Building, Gym, 1500 Greentree Road Agenda Visit www.ironmountianpark.org or https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/parksrec/iron-mountain-park-plan for more information Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Summary 1 Community Outreach Event #2 Summary May 12, 2016 Willamette Room, Palisades Building, 1500 Greentree Road, Lake Oswego, OR Lake Oswego’s Parks and Recreation Department held a second community outreach event on May 12th to inform the Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan. The objective of this event was to elicit feedback from the community on the two alternative concepts developed from the earlier input. These comments will be incorporated into the draft concept plan in the following months. Around twenty community members participated in this event facilitated by Ryan Mottau of MIG Inc., and Mike O’Brien of ESA. A list of attendees is included at the end of this memo. This memo provides an overview of the various discussions that occurred during the outreach event organized into the following sections: •Outreach Event Overview •Outreach Results o Specific comments and concerns indicated on the refined concept design alternatives A and B. o Which alternative had features that would fit better at Iron Mountain Park? •Next Steps •List of Attendees Outreach Event Overview Ryan Mottau introduced the project team and welcomed the community members to the event. He then gave a brief summary of the park planning process till date. In January, a community design charrette and a follow-up online exercise were held to elicit feedback on design ideas and features that would fit at Iron Mountain Park. In March, the PAC members weighed in on two preliminary design concepts presented by the project team to ensure they exemplified the themes that emerged from the public engagement results. As the next step, the project team incorporated the public engagement results to refine the concepts to what was presented at this meeting. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Summary 2 Following the planning process summary, Ryan restated the recommendations pertaining to the Iron Mountain Park from the Parks Plan 2025 1. He highlighted that Iron Mountain Park would be a unique park in Lake Oswego: a park which would enable visitors to enjoy the wilderness, experience nature, serve an interpretive and educational role while preserving the habitat and wetland system. Amenities and features such as picnic shelters, play area, viewing decks and trails will be designed to enable users to enjoy the park while minimizing the ecological impacts at this site. Then, he asked participants to provide feedback and site observations that would help the project team achieve this objective. Mike O’Brien presented two refined concepts (Figures 1 and 2) to the community to incorporate feedback. He also presented a concept map of revised trail connections from the park to the surrounding neighborhoods (Figure 3). Figure 1: Draft Concept 1 1 Parks Plan 2025 is the City of Lake Oswego’s Parks, Recreation and Natural System Plan. It provides the Parks and Recreation Department system-wide direction and strategies for the next 15 years. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Summary 3 Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Summary 4 Figure 2: Draft Concept 2 Figure 3: Proposed Conceptual Loop Trail System Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Summary 5 Following the presentation on the two concepts, participants at each table discussed their likes and concerns about elements in each concept. Each group reported back their findings to the entire gathering. Community members recording their concerns and likes for each refined concept Event Outreach Results The following elements from Concept 1 and Concept 2 were mentioned by multiple groups as a good fit within the Draft Concept for this site: •Stream alignment: Most participants preferred the rerouted stream alignment as shown in Concept 1 for various reasons. Many participants felt the rerouting improved the visibility of the park and made the site safer. Some observed that the rerouting helped with the ecological restoration by allowing more space for planting buffers along the stream. Others observed that by rerouting the stream, stormwater management from the hills can be more efficient. A PAC member also suggested appropriate tree plantings (Oregon White Oak near the picnic area and Madrone on the hill slopes) to help with stormwater management from the hills. Rerouting the stream also allows for a bridge to access the loop trail in the hills. Some participants liked that this bridge will offer an elevated spot to view the stream and the park. •Loop trail, trailhead and regional trail: Most groups preferred the trail alignment as shown in Concept 1 within the park. Many participants liked the idea of connecting the park site to the existing city-wide trail system, as shown in Figure 3. However, they provided suggestions for realigning the trail connections at certain sections. For the west trail (north of the Hunt Club), participants preferred not to have it run all the way across the edge of the polo field. For the Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Summary 6 east trail connection, participants suggested removing the switchback to avoid redundant connections and preserve the wilderness. They also stressed closing down unsanctioned trail paths and having just enough pathways for connectivity. Photos of alternative trail alignments as suggested by participants Most groups mentioned incorporating more interpretive features and boardwalks that highlight the wetland features than what is currently shown in the concepts. •Kiosk or interpretive signage: Participants mentioned installing entry kiosks and other information kiosks throughout the site with interpretive signage. The entry kiosk could also integrate information about the location of different amenities/ features in the park. •Nature Play: Many participants expressed an interest in a boulder garden or using the rocks and loose material available at the site for nature play. Participants emphasized the need for balancing the wilderness of the park with site amenities and features. Many participants liked the nature play elements shown in the concepts. However, they stressed that nature play and education opportunities should also respect the ecological systems for their habitat value. One participant provided an example by explaining how children can play in the water, but that should be separate from the tributary feeding native species and the larger hydrological system. Westmoreland Park was cited as an example where children play in a great water feature that is separate from the Crystal Springs. •Wetland, restored stream and natural buffers: Most groups were interested in restoring the wetlands and improving water quality on the site. A participant suggested replacing water plantain instead of the invasive species that is currently present in the pond. Many groups suggested avoiding lawns and Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Summary 7 instead suggested meadowscaping or using native plantings in open areas. A participant member suggested native plantings (such as Aster, Checker Mallow, Mock Orange, Spirea, Oregon Grape, Thimbleberry, Wild Roses, Clarkia, Vine Maples, Twinberry, Currant etc.) for easy maintenance. Some participants suggested more boardwalks along the creek. A participant wanted more opportunities to have some open views of the creek for people to see it and also a path along the creek (a "Creek Walk"). •Picnic areas and shelters: Some participants observed the presence of animals in the north side of the park. They suggested moving the picnic shelter to the east in Concept 2 to minimize physical and visual disturbance to the site. Many groups indicated these facilities should be designed at an appropriate scale to respect the context of the site. •Parking: Many groups indicated preference for a smaller parking lot as shown in Concept 2 to minimize stormwater impacts and disturbance to the wilderness in this park. Some participants also suggested using permeable pavers for the parking area to help stormwater management. A few participants preferred the larger parking lot as shown in Concept 1 to minimize impact to on-street parking or the Hunt Club parking during peak seasons of park usage. The project team informed the participants that the park master plan, level-of-service standards and the draw to this park will determine the parking lot size. Participants suggested permeable parking treatments to help with minimizing stormwater runoff impacts. A desire for sharing parking with the LO Hunt Club, if feasible, was also voiced. •Dog use: Participants anticipate dog use at this site and suggested designing accordingly (such as adding signage indicating this is a dogs on-leash area). •Restrooms: Participants recommended installing restrooms that will be easy to maintain and also respect the ecological context of the park site. •Access: A recurring recommendation from many participants involved traffic calming along Iron Mountain Boulevard. Many groups advocated for safe crossings and reinforced connections to the nearby Campbell Native Gardens site. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Summary 8 Mike O’Brien presenting the two refined alternative concepts to community members Photos of participants reporting out aspects they like alternatives for the park Next Steps The project team will post an online exercise as a follow-up opportunity allowing additional community members a chance to provide their thoughts. The online exercise will enable participants to mark features that they like or find problematic in each of the refined design concepts. The results of this online exercise will be appended to this summary. For updates on the project, visit www.ironmountainpark.org. Inputs from this process along with technical expertise of the project team will inform the preferred design alternative and the Iron Mountain Park Concept Plan. Ryan Stee provided updates on the site funding. 50% of the funding for this site will be from System Development Charges (SDC) and the City is applying for grants or other sources for the remaining 50%. Ryan expects the park to be completed by 2018 or 2019, at the latest. List of attendees •Brian McLaughlin •Doug Hawley •Ellen Ludwig •Greg McMurray •Jan Wirtz* •Janet Buck •Janice Weis* Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Summary 9 •Jerome Duletzke •Jerry Nierengarten •John LaMotte* •Jonathan Snell •Joy Prideaux •Julia Wood •Kristin Engstrom •Mike Buck* •Paul Lyons •Rob Loesch •Sharon Hawley •Stacey Tardhery •Susan Nierengarten •Susanna Kuo* •Ryan Stee, Lake Oswego Project Manager •Ryan Mottau, MIG Inc. •Mike O’Brien, ESA •Mathangi Murthy, MIG Inc. *Denotes PAC members Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 10 Community Outreach Event #2 Online Exercise Results May 13th to May 31st, 2016 https://maptionnaire.com/en/1267 An online exercise was posted on the project website from May 13th to May 31st, 2016 after the outreach event. It provided an opportunity for community members who could not attend the outreach event and was also an additional follow-up opportunity for participants who wanted to provide additional comments on the alternative concepts. The online exercise enabled participants to make comments specific to each of the refined draft concepts. Participants were asked to place a series of pins to mark each of the concept drawings, indicating where their comments applied. They were first asked to place a pin on features they liked or features they felt appropriate for the site in each concept. Next, participants were also asked to place a pin on features they disliked or felt inappropriate for the site in each concept. Lastly, participants also placed pins to indicate and ask questions about a particular spot or feature on both the concepts. Around 62 respondents participated in this online exercise and a total of 282 points or pins were placed with comments, questions, etc. The results of this online exercise are summarized below. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 11 HEAT MAPS AND COUNTS OF FEATURES The heat maps below represent the density of pins placed by individual respondents to particular questions (What I like, What I don’t like) regarding Draft Concept 1. Draft Concept 1 What I like Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 12 What I don’t like Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 13 The heat maps below represent the density of pins placed by individual respondents to particular questions regarding Draft Concept 2. Draft Concept 2 What I like Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 14 What I don’t like Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 15 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES/ COMMENTS Please provide your thoughts about the trail concept 1.Like it! 2.Please add some mountain biking trails. Why not make a sustainable connection trail between the top and bottom? Abandon the old one, but use some IMBA guidelines to make a fun trail to ride a bike downhill that address the obvious need of people to get from the upper trail to the lower trail. Don't make the trail straight, add contour following and make it so bikes need to go slower by going around trees/obstacles. Avoid conflict through design. 3.Are the new trails necessary at the east end of the park? There is already a shoulder along Iron Mtn Blvd. It is not clear why there are two new entry points at the east end of the park. 4.Really lean towards concept 1 as it seems both more family friendly and less invasive at the same time. Eager for the outcome! 5.Love it. So glad these trails are being developed. Thank you. 6.Why are we doing this when so many of our parks are in need of maintenance? 7."Are these available for off road cycling? How many miles are there? Hills? Multi-use trails? thanks" 8.I like the design that moves the trail off of the road, and keeps the vehicles from crossing the path. If I had a nickel for every motorist who didn't look both ways before exiting a parking lot . . . then again, I make mistakes myself too. Thanks for listening! 9.I like the idea of the trail concept. My only concern is that trails can be dangerous for walkers if bikes are using them too. Since bikes can use surface streets, can we limit the trail to runners/walkers? Or can there be 2 lanes- one for pedestrians and one for bikes? 10.Can you incorporate children's play equipment that makes sense for all ages? 2-12 please 11.Why not include the current unsanctioned trails? If people and animals are using them, let's keep them. 12.The proposed new trails make the entire trail system more user friendly. 13.The idea of a loop trail is good. The existing trail needs some more gravel and some sloping of the trail so that rain does not create big mud puddles. 14.Keep the "non-sanctioned" trail. It's probably the most challenging (therefore most fun for many) in the trail system. 15.I agree with several people at the 2nd charrette who said they would prefer to see the west trail link angle up toward the Hunt Club trail rather than have it run all the way across the edge of the polo field. I also agree that the switchback on the east trail link Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 16 seems redundant where it parallels the Iron Mountain Trail. Perhaps it could connect to the upper trail more efficiently, if the grade allows. 16.It is important to allow horses on a portion of the trails. Does the plan for the trails make provisions for sharing the trails with horses? Restrict use to walking or horses, no mountain bikes and other types of use that would create hazards for people on foot or horseback. 17.I am not using this site properly, I fear. My only comment is voting for Concept 1. The parking was better; the layout was nicer. 18.Love the trail additions. I was unaware of the trails on the bottom right of the map. 19.Great idea, layout 20.What is not to like? 21.The trail connections on the east side look good. 22.I do not like the proposed new trail on the west side that would go behind the Hunt Club along the slope of the park. This would destabilize the steep slope of the existing trail above and there are already drainage issue in that area. Also, I have heard that wildlife uses that corridor and routing hikers there would interfere with this use. Maintaining a plant- and animal-friendly park is my most important request for the area." 23.Do not want a park 24.You can't remove the switchback, people use it all of the time, and how else are folks supposed to get up to the paths--drive all the way down to the country club? Instead, build better path access to open up the paths to more users. Connecting the park to paths is an excellent idea. However, the main regional path along Iron Mountain Road has serious safety issues and needs to be addressed urgently. 25.This concept will make this area look way better than before. I would like to propose though that when the Hunt Club does close or sells its land, that the city makes this area field space and turf and possibly use the historical building for indoor field space bc our city is in dire need of these amenities. Thank you for all your work on this project. It will make our city that much nicer to live in. Will there be a cross walk from Summit to this park across Iron Mtn Blvd? Thank you, Sara Lewis- resident of VOTL. 26.I would like to see off-road cycling as a sanctioned use. I have ridden the existing trails over the years, and want to ensure that cycling doesn't become a prohibited use. Additionally, I would like to see a couple of bike-only descents off the ridge. The non- sanctioned trail could easily form the beginnings of a bike only trail. The proposed trails shown (that complete the loop) are straight lines. The trails could easily be lengthened, and made much more interesting, if they meandered a bit. It would be great for LO families (like mine) who enjoy off-road cycling to have a place where the whole family could get out for a short ride right in town! Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 17 27.A great idea!!! 28.I really like the trail concept, I'm assuming it will continue through the park area. 29.I hope that the trails linking the existing trails will be of permeable materials. Otherwise I like this concept of linkage. 30.Is the trail a loop? That would be my preference as opposed to an out and back plan. 31.I am concerned about the potential danger of the proximity to the Lake Oswego Hunt Club. Horses are not "smart" and noise from the Park could scare the horses, which could result in serious injuries to the rider and those around. 32.Well, I found this box after I had already written my comments & concerns about the trails in the Concept boxes. (I find this feedback tool snazzy but frustrating to use.) I have very serious concerns about both the proposed eastside trail designs and the westside trail and I wrote my suggestions for improvement. Please see my comments in that section. I feel this is very important. 33.Are these trails bike friendly? 34.Please include access for off road cycling. 35.I'm interested in off road biking for me and my kids. I don't see anything designated for bikes. I know the existing trails allow bikes and I don't want to see those go away and I'd like to make sure the new trails allow bikes. I live in LO and am always looking for more local trails for my family to ride. It would be nice to have something downhill for bikes and a multi-use area for bike climbing. 36.I think these look fine. Low impact areas. 37.I think this is good overall, but why not keep the non-santioned part as a mtb-only section? I think that many of us in the MTB community would be willing to organize some volunteer work parties to make sure everything is built correctly. 38.I like the first design with the bridge 39.I would love to see the trails remain open and expanded for mountain bicycles. These trails should be shared by all. 40.Like the loop concept and having the connections 41.Please include more trails for riding bicycles. 42."Please email response to my Q's about the trail distance from I.M. Blvd. and the elevation per ft. to: [email removed] Thank you!" 43."Mtn bike trails please. We are responsible and courteous user group " 44.Definitely like the trail proposals, although I hope they are (as shown) in the woods and NOT on Iron Mountain Rd - the traffic on that road is really horrible for any kind of pedestrian activity. 45.There should not be any more fragmentation of trails than absolutely necessary. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 18 46.I support the plan to remove the non-sanctioned trail and the creation of a walker- friendly trail slightly removed from the roadway. However, I do not see the point of adding the new northerly trail that appears redundant since there's already a trail connecting those access points. Also, the trail along the north edge of the LO Hunt Club could be very problematic. LOH is already experiencing a lot of pressure being in an urban setting and more uncontrolled "traffic" (especially bicycles) along the grounds makes it increasingly difficult for LOH to operate its Riding Academy in a safe environment or to host horse shows which are one of their main sources of revenue. 47.I like the idea of the park a lot. It would be awesome if Iron mountain Blvd could be closed from say 1pm to 3pm on Sundays to allow the park to be more pedestrian and biker friendly. Also, reducing the speed limit to 25 mph on the "Iron Mountain Speedway" would be necessary to create and more user friendly area. Generally, what do you like about this place or feature of the concept? Positive Feedback for Draft Concept 1 Creek 1.I like the water layout here 2.I like that the stream is pushed back into the site, affording a more protected habitat, away from the noise of the road and parking lot 3.I like that the stream is set off at the rear of the green space with additional green space behind it. It seems like it will be more usable for wildlife if humans give it a little space. 4.I like that wetlands were preserved. 5.The realignment of the stream could be very nice if it is not prohibitively expensive. Gathering Circle 6.A simple gathering place with area where children can sit on the ground while hearing presentations or joining nature classes like Tryon Creek Park has would be great. Not sure of best location. 7.Small exercise groups might meet/ or warm up here. Nice! 8.The gathering circle could be used as a nature classroom or nature play and also as a picnic area using logs to sit on. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 19 Nature Play 9.A nature play area would be great in this park. Not sure exactly where it would be best located. 10.Play in nature! 11.well within view of other sedentary areas Parking 12.Adequate parking encourages the facilities to be used by more people! 13.I like concept one better, it has lots of parking and the design looks friendlier. 14.I think the larger parking area makes more sense 15.Love the idea to be prepared for a bus turnout! There aren't any more options in that neighborhood. Make sure there are bike racks too! Picnic Shelter 16.I like the covered picnic shelter as it gives families a place to picnic rain or shine 17.I like this plan the best. It is a more robust and usable park. 18.I think having restroom, picnic shelter, and nature play area adjacent to each other will be best for families with small children. 19.viewing area and moving stream bed Regional Trail 20.Bike trail brought off Iron Mountain is great. 21.connection of the street bike path to a nature trail will get more people into the wild part of the park. Also good for volunteers pulling ivy. 22.Fence will provide visual barrier between parking lot and trail. 23.Great choice for the path 24.I can see the advantages of having the Regional Trail swing into the park as long as it doesn't swing in as far as it does in this version. This takes a big bite out of the available park space. 25.I like that the trail leaves the busy Iron Mt Blvd and gives the pedestrian a sense of nature on the walk 26.i like the path diverting around the cars 27.Is this trail accessible by bicycles? 28.It's great that the trail is not crossed by automobile traffic. 29.It's nice to pull the trail off of the roadside 30.Love the idea of continuing the trail. Wish there were bike trails too! Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 20 31.Sensible addition for people who want to stroll along Iron Mtn Blvd. Be sure to keep the main pathway next to the road for cyclists just wanting to get from point A to point B. 32.The regional trail moving AWAY from the road is VERY welcome - road is hazardous 33.Trail is more part of park 34.walkers and bikers will be treated to the inside of the park. Restroom 35.A restroom is always useful but it should be small only two toilets. 36.Thanks for the restroom. Trailhead 37.Bridges add a fun element! 38.Great design interest! 39.I also like the bridge over the stream. 40.I appreciate it's only a trail and not a road crossing the water 41.I like the location or separation of the trailhead from the rest of the park 42.I like the trailhead and the ease of which you can connect to Iron Mt trail 43.Like the creek here. 44.Love bridges! 45.More trails in the area, and please make them open to mountain bikers. 46.The bridge over the stream, as a (quotation)gateway(quotation) to the mountainside trails could be a very nice feature. 47.The stream running on the north side will be more natural with bridge to cross it. 48.The trails will be bicycle friendly? Viewing Deck 49.Appreciate the dedicated access to waterview 50.Definitely want a nature viewing deck, given the amazing wetlands in the area 51.Everyone loves a board walk, especially at the end of the park. It makes it someplace to walk to! 52.I like the viewing deck feature - could be a nice addition 53.It is important to view the wildlife in the pond. 54.It would make a great launch point for a future interpretive boardwalk 55.It's a nice touch Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 21 56.Restoring the wetlands and having a "blind" where a few individuals at a time can look out over the water at wildlife is a great way to educate people, yet not allow dogs, children etc. to scare the wildlife. Care needs to be taken in designing and placing it. 57.The viewing deck encourages people to view and appreciate wildlife and the natural setting. 58.Viewing Deck! A place to stop! Positive Feedback for Draft Concept 2 Creek 1.I like the water layout here Nature Play 2.If there has to be a nature play area, this is a better location than the location near the wetland in version 1. If the stream is realigned to skirt the base of the mountain, the play area could be moved south a little to be near the stream, but 3.Near tree line. Not too far from water. 4.Safer for horses and riders at LO Hunt Club 5.Should retain as much of the natural habitat as possible. Parking 6.Great for school kids -- or birders, photographers, etc. -- on field trips. 7.I like 12 spots better than 30 8.I like fewer parking spaces 9.I like the reduced size of this parking area. 10.I like the smaller size of this parking lot and closer location to Iron Mountain Blvd. If the Regional Trail were to swing around the back side of this parking lot, at least it wouldn't intrude quite so far into the park. 11.parking spaces seem more appropriate 12.positive is for the # of parking spots 13.See no need for a 30 space lot. 14.Some, but not too much, parking. 15.the smaller parking lot is good. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 22 Picnic Shelter 16.I like this Concept #2 better than #1 because it is simpler and less developed, but as stated above, I limited my comments to #1 because the creek is routed through it, and that affects the overall design. (I noticed at the second charrette meeting). Regional Trail 17.I like that the regional trail doesn't use greenspace. 18.Keep the regional trail along the roadside. This prevents high-speed cyclists from whizzing through the middle of the park. Restroom 19.I like the restroom but it should be nearer the parking lot. 20.Should be visible from the street. Generally, what do you not like about this place or feature of the concept? Negative Feedback Draft Concept 1 1.Bicycles, loose dogs, etc. will be disruptive to horses at the LO Hunt Club. Either eliminate this path, reroute it, or take measures to guarantee that it is impossible to any kind of wheeled vehicle. 2.I think this space should have an art feature. 3.IMPORTANT: There should not be a green strip and vegetation between Iron Mt Blvd and the parking lot and restrooms. This developed area is not near houses/shops and is fairly remote. Ask Ranger Ben and the Work family who live next to the Brookside Iron Mt parking lot about problems we've had with late night parties, drugs, homeless people, etc. Clear visibility by cars along Iron Mt Blvd without vegetation would help discourage unwanted behavior at night. 4.MOST IMPORTANT COMMENT OF THE WHOLE PLAN: A new trail should NOT be built from the Brookside trailhead parking lot. There are already problems with cars parking there for partying/drugs etc and another trail leading from there may encourage more. And it is NOT a good option for bikers/joggers etc to become a thoroughfare between Iron Mt Blvd & Boones Ferry. The sharp curve onto Brookside road where Hunt Club trucks come, the danger of crossing Twin Fir road's fast traffic, and the very narrow Douglas Circle, all make for safety issues for increased bike & foot traffic. In addition, a trail following along the north side of the Hunt Club property would create conflict between dogs & Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 23 horses, and disturb the high number of wildlife that use that particular area. There are continual flocks of Canada geese which stop over in the field in their migration; it is a corridor for deer coming to drink; a resident redtail hawk family and a heron hunt there regularly, etc. If a loop is necessary, the trail connecting the developed area to the west side should angle up above the picnic/nature play area and connect sooner to the existing horizontal trail, bypassing the Hunt Club & Brookside trailhead parking lot. 5.See comment about need for parking lot & restrooms to be next to Iron Mt Blvd. To have the path swing inward there sounds nice, but bicyclists do not currently use the existing inward swinging pathway as they prefer to stay on the road, so not sure this feature would actually be that affective. 6.Too much grass. Kept the park natural a restore the wetlands with boardwalks throughout. Gathering Circle 7.Again, too much danger to equestrian riders at LO Hunt Club 8.I don't see the point of a gathering circle - doesn't really make sense to me and I don't see anyone realistically using this. 9.I think the number one priority in this park should be preservation of wildlife habitat. All these human activity areas, especially those placed right next to the wetland, place noisy human activity above the goal of keeping this a quiet natural area. Nature Play 10.Again, too much danger to horses and riders at the LO Hunt Club 11.I think that the nature play should be integral to the park itself not something artificially set up. 12.The nature play area is too close to the wetland area. I am concerned that human activity will drive away the wildlife. I also question why an artificially designed nature play area is necessary in a park that is already (quotation) natural. Parking 13.30 spaces is a lot for this small part 14.I dont feel this park needs so many spaces. It should be a park with limited use. 15.I don't see any mountain bike trail heads or road bike parking, will that be included? 16.I don't think 30 spaces are needed. Twelve is much better. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 24 17.I don't think it needs 30 parking spaces 18.I don't understand why the parking area and the regional trail are pushed so far into the park. The green space between the parking lot and Iron Mountain Blvd. is just wasted in an area that is already pretty small. 19.Seems like too much parking. 20.That might be a lot of land used for parking spaces. 21.This parking lot is way too big. This small park is a place where families can come to picnic or play with their children. It can't handle large groups such as reunions, parties and church groups. 22.Too many parking spaces 23.too many parking spots 24.Too much parking for such a small area. Also too much paved space. Better to have dirt/gravel for drainage. 25.Too much parking, should be more for neighborhood, hikers, bikers, etc...than cars 26.Way too much parking. Park cannot handle this number of visitors at one time. Please don't encourage them with so much parking. Picnic Shelter 27.I am not in favor of any picnic shelters. They signal that this is a party place where people are being invited to socialize, not a place for quiet walking and observing of nature. 28.I don’t think this park needs to have a picnic shelter. Many other parks have picnic facilities. 29.This map is very frustrating! I can't see what's underneath the explanation. Anyway, I believe 4 or 5 picnic tables disbursed east of the restrooms would be more pleasant and appropriate. There is a beautiful willow tree on the east side which a picnic table under would be wonderful. A big developed picnic shelter with a bunch of tables under would be ugly and not appropriate, encouraging large groups partying with loud music etc instead of small families enjoying nature, which is what this park can offer so uniquely. Regional Trail 30.I love this trail! I would just make sure the runners on it can still run fast as they go around the parking lot. Maybe a cross walk for pedestrians so they know to Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 25 look for oncoming foot traffic and bushes and trees that are shorter to not hinder their view as the trees grow. 31.The trail should be continuous...You should be able to continue the walk without cutting through the park area. Route the trail around the park area. Restroom 32.Too hidden, presents a safety issue. Should be closer to the road/parking area and visible. Trailhead 33.Liable to be expensive. Also, if it's made of wood it's liable to rot and need replacing -- unless it's a covered bridge which would definitely be expensive -- and full of spiders. Viewing Deck 34.I am really surprised and deeply disappointed that, inspite of the number of people who expressed interest in a boardwalk through the wetland, no boardwalk has been presented as an option in either Draft Concept. This little platform is not a "walk." Also, it's location is angled to give people a view toward the road rather than the much nicer view across the pond toward the mountain side. 35.Too close to the LO Hunt Club - potential of scaring horses, and causing injuries to riders. Generally, what do you not like about this place or feature of the concept? Negative Feedback Draft Concept 2 1.both concept have too much grass. The park should be wild not cultivated. 2.Don't like the path configuration 3.I don't like this plan. It is not very usable and doesn't appear to have many common areas. 4.Native vegetation would be much more appropriate than lawn. 5.No viewing area in second plan seems like a missed opportunity, given wetlands nature of area 6.NO viewing area!!! :( 7.Overall, I prefer the park layout and parking configuration in draft concept 1.... 8.This one does not seem as well thought out. 9.why so much paving? use boardwalks instead please. Gathering Circle 10.A Redtail hawk has his favorite perch near here. Don't encroach on his territory. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 26 11.I'm not in favor of having a gathering circle in this park where the emphasis should be on walking and quiet observation of wildlife. 12.Seems (quotation) exposed (quotation) 13.The noise at this site is potentially dangerous to the horses and riders at the LO Hunt Club. Nature Play 14.Nature play should be the park itself from careful observation by children and adults. 15.while still visible - the play area seems to miss out on views? Parking 16.Doesn't seem like enough parking 17.Less than adequate parking if you want to encourage people to use the facilities. 18.Would think we would need more than 12 spots... Picnic Shelter 19.As I said in my comment on draft concept 1, I don't think there should be a picnic shelter because of the kind of human activity it will invite. 20.I'd favor a small number of picnic tables scattered in the eastern part of the park which could be a kind of meadow with a few large trees. This is Oregon; we take our chances with the occasional shower. 21.the picnic shelter and the gathering circle could be combined and that would have a lower impact on the park. Regional Trail 22.Don't have the trail along Iron Mountain Road 23.I do not like the straight parallel to Iron Mt Blvd for the path/trail. This shows no imagination on the planning team and it is just a very busy path to walk down with cars zipping by. 24.the path crosses the car entrance 25.The trail is crossed by automobile traffic, which could cause accidents with pedestrians. 26.Trail along road is BAD IDEA - road is too high speed, too dangerous. Restroom 27.Should be closer to the road/parking area, and visible. For safety reasons. What is your question? Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 27 Draft Concept 1 1.What is the best for dogs in this area? How will they affect other park users such as horses, wildlife, the wetland vegetation, etc.? Thought needs to be put into dog traffic. Despite signs & frequent reminders, this park has traditionally be before LOTW project there was wet land here. Will that be restored? 2.Can we encourage the City to purchase the rest of the wetlands so it can be restored and become the crowning jewel of this park area? 3.Is there any dog area? 4.What is the concept plan for the actual park itself? There is a whole mountain side above these two concept drafts that I am not seeing plans for. 5.Where is this road? I can't seem to find it on a map 6.Why is LO not putting in a turf field like Hazelia in the middle of LO, couldn't this property accommodate some field space or perhaps the hunt club? 7.Will there be enough natural vegetation to reduce/block road noise? Nature Play 1.Not sure about this nature play area - is it just some rocks and bark chips or showing natural elements? We do have the natural park across the street from Iron Mt with native plants so don't feel we need to duplicate that in this space. Parking Area 2.Do you have data from other parks (George Rogers?) to guide the decision on 12 or 30 spaces? More spaces might be best if it doesn't use up significant useable park space. 3.This seems like a big lot. Is it necessary to be this big? Also, don’t forget to treat the runoff. 4.Will there be available bike racks to pause, lock up the bike, and enjoy the area? Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 28 Picnic Shelter 5.what is the shelter capacity? Creek 6.Is this a new stream channel? Why is this in Concept 1 but not Concept 2? 7.I don't understand where this creek originates and goes. Does it feed into Springbrook Creek? Restroom 8.Can the toilets be unisex and self-composting? Trailhead 9.Where is the trail connector walk east? Should be able to walk around the park area and make a continuous loop!! 10.Where can we comment on the trail design?? I have concerns about it. I don't actually believe another trail through this steep hillside is a good idea. But especially, having a second parallel horizontal trail so close to the existing one. What is your question? Draft Concept 2 1.What is the best for dogs in this area? How will they affect other park users such as horses, wildlife, the wetland vegetation, etc.? Thought needs to be put into dog traffic. Despite signs & frequent reminders, this park has traditionally be How many feet from Iron Mt. Blvd. is the end of the trail? What is the elevation per foot of the trail? 2.The wetland is the most interesting feature of this little triangle of land. After several of us expressed interest in a boardwalk, why wasn't a (dog- and bike-free) boardwalk ever presented as an option? 3.This trail will be bicycle friendly? There is a lack of off street riding opportunities in LO. 4.Where would the trail to the east link up? 5.why are we doing this when so many of our existing parks need maintenance? Parking Area 6.I prefer #2 but where will overflow parking be? 7.See above bike parking question. Picnic Shelter 8.what is the shelter capacity? Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 29 Regional Trail 9.Can we have a nice crosswalk that makes it easy to get to the Campbell Nature Garden? And make it a combo crosswalk/speed bump like the one near Waluga Park (west). They need to be easy for horse trailers to negotiate. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Community Outreach Event # 2 Online Exercise Summary 30 Trailhead 10.What will the trailhead look like? 11.Where can we comment on the trail design?? I have concerns about it. I don't actually believe another trail through this steep hillside is a good idea. But especially, having a second parallel horizontal trail so close to the existing one. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan 6:00 – 6:20 pm Welcome Introductions 6:20 – 6:40 pm Project Updates 6:40 – 7:45 pm Outreach Event #2 Review Outreach Event Findings •Specific comments and concerns for alternatives •Specific comments and concerns for loop trail system Online Exercise Findings Discussion: Input for Preferred Alternative 7:45 – 8:00 pm Next Steps Preferred Alternative Review and Recommendations Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Date June 23, 2016 Time 6:00 – 8:00 PM Location Santiam Room, Palisades Building, 1500 Greentree Road Agenda Visit www.ironmountianpark.org or https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/parksrec/iron-mountain-park-plan for more information Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary 1 Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary September 28, 2016 | 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm Santiam Room, Palisades Building, 1500 Greentree Road, City of Lake Oswego, OR Lake Oswego’s Parks and Recreation Department held a fourth PAC meeting on September 28th to present the Iron Mountain Park “Preferred Master Plan Concept” Plan. The objective of this event was to elicit feedback from the community for how the plan has evolved through the process to the current design. These comments will be incorporated into the draft concept plan in the following months. Around 12 community members participated in this event facilitated by Mike O’Brien of ESA. A list of attendees is included at the end of this memo. This memo provides an overview of the various discussions that occurred during the outreach event organized into the following sections: •PAC Meeting Overview o Stream Restoration Update o Specific comments and concerns indicated on the preferred master plan concept design. •Next Steps •List of Attendees Some of the key points brought up during the discussion are summarized below: Stream Restoration: Ivan Anderholm from Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation gave a brief summary of the restoration design process. In short, the design process is moving forward. Traffic Safety: There is a strong desire from PAC members for the design team to incorporate a summary of traffic safety issues that have been brought up in the PAC meetings in the narrative of the Master Plan. The main issue is vehicle speeds on Iron Mountain Boulevard. The primary mitigation strategies discussed were to provide additional speed bumps and to lobby the City to reduce the speed to 25 where it runs along the park. A PAC member requested that the design team coordinate with Amanda Owens (LO Traffic Coordinator?) prior to the next submittal. Fire Hydrant: The Fire Marshall will require the fire hydrant supply line to be up-sized from 2” to 6”-8”, and move closer to the footbridge. A PAC member asked if it could be connected (daisy-chained) to the hydrant on the Hunt Club property. Staff said that this would likely not be allowed under code requirements, unless it was supplied by its own main line. Either way, it seemed that the consensus would be to locate the hydrant close to the footbridge. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary 2 Small Animals: There was some discussion about how to save the small amphibians (XXX Salamanders, primarily) that currently reside in the ditch and near the old foundation. Some thought that a catch and release program to the pond area might be a good alternative. Others felt that once the overstory and shrub layer was removed that they would find their way to more suitable environs. More study by the stream restoration designers was desired. Site Interpretation: The PAC requested that interpretive panels or similar be spread throughout to tell the story of the iron industry that was a major part of Lake Oswego’s history. It could be designed with existing Iron Heritage trail system. There were others that felt it important to include Native American history as well. More discussion later in the meeting suggested that placing an interpretive panel at the site entry near the parking lot should be the first location considered due to the fact that most of the park users would pass through that area and that would allow maximum visibility for the story to be seen. Trail Location: PAC members expressed the desire to see the trail connection heading west from the footbridge to push high enough on the slope to get as much distance and screening from plant material to make sure that horses will not be spooked by trail users and their pets. Later in the meeting there was discussion about how to achieve the screening and prevent dogs from bolting off the trail towards the horses. A combination low fence and dense plantings was thought to be a good solution. The design team was advised to make sure that the Master Plan narrative include this information. Parking Lot Paving: There is a desire to have permeable parking in the parking lot if feasible. Mike O’Brien suggested that the drive aisle should be standard asphalt, and the parking bays would be where to use permeable paving. It could be precast pavers or permeable asphalt or concrete. Parking Lot Exit: A PAC member asked if the exit out of the parking lot should be “right out only”. The discussion in the group did not reach consensus on whether this would be something for the design team to pursue. Fine Lawn Area: There was a discussion around the appropriateness and size of the manicured lawn area in the park. There was concern over the presence of lawn in the plan and questions about whether it was an appropriate element in the park. Others felt that lawn would be useful for children and families that use the park. Mike O’Brien suggested that providing a relatively small area of lawn would concentrate activity in that area and lessen the impact to the surrounding, more naturalized environments. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary 3 Drinking Fountain: PAC members thought there should be more than one drinking fountain in the park. There seemed to be concensus on having one at/near the restroom, and another at the trailhead. It was also suggested that the trailhead fountain also include a bottle filler. Dogs: There were questions about Dogs on the boardwalk and the possibility of them jumping into the pond/wetland to chase other small animals. Staff said that technically dogs are required to be leashed, but that there is no real way to enforce that rule. The group discussed ways to mitigate this issue and some of the ideas included signage, more enforcement, or a low barrier on the boardwalk. LOPR staff and the design team will develop a plan for dealing with this issue. Restroom Location: There was nearly universal agreement about moving the restroom further into the site to lessen the possibility of it becoming a de facto “rest area” for people travelling on Iron Mountain Boulevard. Next steps The project team will incorporate comments into the draft final Concept Plan and solicit public feedback via an internet survey, as had been previously done. Following that the design team will be presenting what we heard from the public and to present the final Concept Plan to the PAC to receive final feedback. List of attendees (PAC #3 Meeting) 1.Lisa AddatoMegan Big John 2.Janet Buck 3.Mike Buck 4.Babs Hamachek 5.Susanna Kuo 6.John LaMotte 7.Anthony Macuk 8.Doug McKean 9.Jeff Munro 10.Joy Prideaux 11.Bill Ward 12.Janice Weis 13.Julia Wood 14.Ivan A. Anderholm, LOPR 15.Mike O’Brien, ESA Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary 4 Figure 1: Preferred Master Plan Concept Figure 2: Boardwalk Sketch Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary 5 Figure 3: Nature Play Sketch Figure 4: Picnic Shelter Sketch Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #5 Date Wednesday, December 14, 2016 Time 6:00 – 8:00 PM Location Santiam Room, Palisades Building, 1500 Greentree Road Agenda Visit www.ironmountianpark.org or https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/parksrec/iron-mountain-park-plan for more information 6:00 – 6:20 pm Welcome Introductions 6:20 – 6:40 pm Project Updates 6:40 – 7:00 pm PAC Meeting #4 Review Changes to concept plan Specific comments and concerns for Master Plan 7:00 – 7:45 pm Master Plan Narrative Presentation Presentation and review of MP Narrative 7:45 – 8:00 pm Next Steps Master Plan Document IRON MOUNTAIN PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN Online Review Results 12.14.16 Respondent Profile 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 I don’t know where Iron Mountain Park is I visit Iron Mountain Park regularly I live in one of the surrounding neighborhoods (Lake View/Summit, Lake Grove, Country Club) I have visited Iron Mountain Park I have youth/children under the age of 18 living in my household I live in Lake Oswego Tell us a little bit about yourself (check all that apply) Overall Comments 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Questions What I Don't Like What I like Number of Responses What I Like ■Pond as a focal point or signature feature ■Nature play ■Connections to the existing trails 0 20 40 60 80 100 I like where it is located! This is a great feature! Number of Responses What I like: Detail What I Like: Great Feature! What I Like: Great Location! What I Like: Comments ■I hope it is near but not too close to the water. ■Always nice to have water. ■Being able to walk around the entire pond would be fabulous. Including being able to see the horses on the other side. ■Being able to walk out to stream and see fish ■Close connection to stream ■Dogs either need to be on leash and/or not allowed in this vicinity. ■Extends hiking area . Kids like looking over edge of bridge ■Good to see a bike rack ■great to connect to existing trail ■Great to have safe nature play area. Will definitely bring my grandkids here ■I like everything about this entire plan...nothing I don't like. It all looks wonderful! ■I like that is made from natural materials or at least looks that way. Very creative design. ■I like the boardwalk, but it is very short. The boardwalk should be off-limits to dogs, horses, bicycles, skateboards, and scooters. ■I like the rerouted stream near the edge of the forest where wildlife will be able to use it. ■I like the separation of picnic tables but hope that trash receptacles are located nearby each or we have clear instructions on disposing of trash. ■Incorporating the giant boulders already on the site is a great idea. ■like the street buffer! ■Location of the bridge is nice, but it should be a rustic bridge signaling that on the other side is a natural area that should be respected. ■More benches near play areas would be great ■More native plants and flowers. How about expanding this into the area now marked for a lawn (5)? What I Like: Comments ■More natives!!! ■not sure this creek is as big as drawn, but possibly with the land design... ■parking and future parking is great. ■preserve the beaver pond, it would be great to be able to them build and how they live, also great habitat for birds ■providing ample parking is great ■Relocated stream and enhanced wetland ■Thank you for using a little permeable paving. But this lot is still way too big. ■The entire pond should be purchased by the city. ■The overall design of the parking area is very nice, but it is just too big. ■The pond is a habitat to a lot of wildlife and should be preserved and a focal point to this park. ■The pond is the signature features of this site. It would be great if the city could purchase it from the Hunt Club ■The whole pond would be a great feature to include with a boardwalk and possible nature outings for school groups. I'm afraid that without the entire pond, folks may walk around on their own without being incorporated into the park, and trample/disrupt the natural borders. ■There is never enough parking, good to see increasing it. ■This is a nice location for a picnic table, near the forest and the stream. ■This trail should continue all the way to summit w/i the trees, or better, slightly further to the hydrant. Beyond that the slope is likely too steep. ■Using this as a demonstration of restoration principles would be great! Is there a way to let people interact with the stream that isn't in conflict with the restoration? ■Wetland appreciation window What I Don’t Like ■Amount of parking ■Lawn ■Appropriate access 0 20 40 60 80 100 I think this feature should be moved elsewhere in the park I don't think this feature should be in this park Number of Responses What I Don't Like: Detail What I Don’t Like: Feature What I Don’t Like: Location What I Don’t Like: Comments ■This trail should not exist. It is a corridor used by wildlife, and will not be available to them if people or vehicles are on it. Please remove. I am most strongly against this feature. ■Access to the other side of the waterway should not be allowed. This is the entrance to a corridor animals use, and should be preserved for them. There are plenty of trails for people on the other side of the park. ■Again, why are gathering areas being place so close to where wildlife have heavy usage? Don't develop where the deer and redtail hawk hang out. No gathering areas over here. Move them elsewhere in the park, far, far way from here. ■Almost half the usable land in this park area is consumed by the parking lot and paved trails. This is too much. ■An irrigated lawn is not appropriate for a nature park and it is not sustainable to be watering and irrigating lawn grass. ■Bus stop I don't think is necessary as there is one up street ■Concrete paving is not appropriate in a rustic park. ■Did you know that there is a dead snag tree located right here that the Red Tail Hawk perches at all the time? I do, because I am a nature park user. I say no foot traffic here where the redtail hangs out. ■Do not create a path to attach to the path on the upper hill. ■Don't think this extra parking needed this should be a walk up park and a few parking spaces it is not the size of Westland so parking should not be equal in lot ■I am not in favor of this bridge or trailhead. I see no purpose for it. The slope is too steep and it is dense forest. Why bother it? There is a small nature park across the street. Go there if you want a loop. Not everyone needs a loop. An out and back can accomplish the same thing. Not sure why City is so determined to have a loop at our beloved nature park. People can walk out and back and do it everyday. What I Don’t Like: Comments ■I am not sure that we need lawn. That means irrigation, mowing, fertilizer, etc. Rarely, if ever, do you see lawn at any of Metro's parks. Why not just put native plants, rocks and bark chips? ■I am very concerned about the safety of equestrian riders at the Lake Oswego Hunt Club. Horses tend to be frightened when they hear noise, or they see unexpected things/people. When they are in that state, the safety of the rider is in jeopardy. ■I don't think there's enough parking as is, expand parking early on :) ■I question if this large shelter is even needed. I would also like it moved to the east, towards the bathroom on the far side ■I would move this picnic area over to the irrigated lawn area because of the impact noise will have on the wildlife in the pond and the deer and redtail hawk which I keep mentioning that use this area. ■I'd put the restrooms closer to the bike path and include a drinking fountain for riders on the trail. Having it where it is would require people to drag their bikes up into the park ■If there is already a regional trail, why do we even need this trail? Makes no sense to me to cut through the forest for this trail. ■If this is a bench, it should not be located here. Put one closer to the bathrooms so parents can sit while their children use the restrooms. This is extremely close to where the redtail hawk perches--my vote is no development anywhere near that area. ■Irrigated lawn is not earth-friendly, and doesn't fit within a nature park. Why are we introducing invasive species and pesticides into this area at all? ■Irrigated lawn no. Natural landscape/lawn. ■No left turn at the footbridge. We don't need a steep path going uphill when people and animals already fall off steep slopes. ■Safety concerns. These areas should be visible from the street. Otherwise, with a covered shelter and enclosed bathrooms, the buffer could encourage illegal behaviors in the park. ■Safety hazards. What I Don’t Like: Comments ■Should be gravel or soft surface, not a paved sidewalk. Not appropriate in a nature area. ■The effect of this large deck with a bench will probably be to frighten away the herons, widgeons, teal and other shy birds that use this pond. ■The nature climb area might be okay, or might be a weak element if too small or token. How bout a rock climbing wall or something more substantial. ■The plan is missing a dedicated one-way mountain bike trail. Please add it. ■This concrete paved path should be smaller and shifted to the south towards the road. There needs to be more of a buffer for wildlife. It is smack dab in what used to be the tall grassy area that the deer would lay down in. Can't we just make this wood chips and tie in more with the nature park that it is? Why all this development. Makes no sense to me. Will Springbrook paths be paved next? ■This feature isn't appropriate in a place where the focus is on nature rather than human activities. ■This giant deck is not what we had in mind when we requested a boardwalk. It is an invitation for many people to gather, and possibly picnic, on the edge of the pond, frightening away sensitive waterfowl. This is not the quiet experience of nature offered by a boardwalk that winds descretely through a wetland like those at Camassia Preserve, Lost Lake, and Trillium Lake. ■this is currently a natural area, no need for another artificial lawn in lake O. ■This should be down-scaled and pulled back from the water's edge. Now, there is a huge buffer at water's edge, let's keep that. I would like to see this much smaller, less obtrusive. It will get slick when wet. ■This should be gravel or another permeable surface. We don't need paved areas within a nature park. ■This wide planting area makes it hard to see the restroom from the road, a security concern, and it pushes the whole parking area deeper into the park, reducing the recreational area. ■too much development, the natural space in tryon creek is small enough. ■Whoa! Way too much parking. This was supposed to be a nature area. ■Why is it necessary to have a pedestrian sidewalk running parallel to the Regional Trail and the parking lot. Essentially 3 paved areas eating up half the natural area of the park. Too much! Questions ■Can you identify what aspect of nature play these concentric circles are? ■Can we have more information about this trail? Many of us have major concerns about how to minimize the negative impact on the environment. How will this connecting trail be designed to minimize impact on native plants, wildlife and erosion? What restrictions will there be on its use? Can horses or cyclists use it? ■Can you be more specific on the design of this area? It is too bad the Nature Play Area isn't near the stream where children could possibly wade. ■Cost for parking ■Could the restrooms with drinking fountain go here instead? ■i don't know where on iron mountain this is located. ■i dont know where the trail goes ■I like the idea of a climbing area. Climbers call it bouldering, low altitude natural rock for practice. ■I would like clarification on the boulders: will there be a pile for climbing on? ■Is the Lake Oswego Hunt Club on the other side of the pond/ property line? ■Is there going to be any intrepretive signage about geology/biology/history of the park? ■Is this area also native meadow or shrubs? ■Just would like to see the planting palette for this area especially for trees. ■Overall, I'm pretty impressed, and I have been exploring that area and running past it for a long time. Highlight (and contain) the wetlands. A better connection to the high trail would be nice. People should be encouraged to hike and explore the higher part of the park from here. ■Specifically, you are using the boardwalk to overlook property (wetlands) that are not owned by the city? ■This seems far too small for all this pavement. Better to remove the pavement and make a smaller parking area without solid surface sidewalks. But if they have to stay, this stormwater area needs to be bigger. ■This site makes it very difficult to see the plan...unless you click on one of the options to make a comment, you can't see the whole plan. Hard to make a reasonable comment if I don't know what I'm seeing. ■What can be done to make this park appropriate for older kids (tweens and teens), too? Questions ■What does this blue rectangle represent? ■What is going to be located here? I assume the black line in the middle means something. ■What is the purpose of the buffer on the map? Normally a buffer is an area between development and a protected area. Why is there so much development within the buffer? Personally, I would like to see ALL development for this park within the buffer. That means down scaling this drawing significantly, which I think is a good thing. ■What will distinguish the "plaza"? Will this be a *place* or just a wide spot between parking and park? ■Why does the Regional Trail extend so far into the park? This increases the impact of traffic on the natural area. ■Why doesn't the boardwalk wind through the wetland? This is what most people expect of a wetland board walk. ■Why doesn't the boardwalk wind through this part of the wetland? ■Why is this bridge so large? The stream is very small. ■Why not just put all the picnic tables over in this area, together, away from the wildlife and near the bathrooms? ■Why not leave this a native meadow also and use this as a public gathering area with all the picnic tables on this far side of the park ■Will horses be allowed on the trails/ in the park? ■Will this be screened? Birds in the water and wildlife need some protection from dogs. ■Will this trail be suitable for the horses? ■Will this trail connect at some point to the upper traverse trail? Route? ■Will we have welcoming park signage and also inviting words of respect for this environment? ■Will you have a fire pit or options for outdoor cooking? ■Would like to know thoughts about having wood/timber capable of being moved: pros and cons. IRON MOUNTAIN PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary 1 Planning Advisory Committee Meeting #5 Summary December 28, 2016 | 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm Santiam Room, Palisades Building, 1500 Greentree Road, City of Lake Oswego, OR The Public Advisory Committee (PAC) met for the final time on December 28th to review the second online survey results, and to provide comments on the Draft Master Plan Narrative and the Park Conceptual Plan. The intent of this meeting was to solicit feedback for the narrative and concept plan, to allow for finalizing both in anticipation of creating documentation suitable for submission to Lake Oswego’s Land Use Approval process. Four PAC members attended this meeting along with Jeff Munro of LOPR and Mike O’Brien of ESA. The meeting was originally scheduled on December 14th but safety concerns over weather necessitated it to be rescheduled. Due to the small size of the group the discussion was relatively loose and informal. A list of attendees and other meeting materials are included at the end of this memo. Mike O’Brien shared a PowerPoint presentation created by MIG that summarized the results from the second online outreach exercise. Nearly 130 respondents participated in the online exercise. Nearly 80% (103 respondents) of the people who participated in the online exercise live in Lake Oswego and 25% of respondents regularly visit the park. 31% of respondents live in one of the surrounding neighborhoods. The PAC felt that the comments received during the online outreach were very similar to previous outreach efforts. Some of the key points brought up during the discussion are summarized below: Hunt Club Improvements: There are potential Hunt Club access improvements being considered along the Iron Mountain Boulevard Right-of-Way. It was asked that as the design for Iron Mountain Park moves forward that the designers coordinate with Hunt Club to integrate the aesthetics of each properties approach relating to materials and landscape along the ROW. Endangered Species: It was asked if introducing endangered species (e.g. western pond turtle) into the restoration efforts would increase the mitigation value. Mike O’Brien did not know, but would verify and advise. UPDATE: Introduction of endangered species is not recognized by permitting agencies as a path for mitigation of impacts. It could, however, help enhance the resource and provide for an interesting story to tell about the development of park amenities. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary 2 Signage: There was a request to include a site map within the park showing locations of amenities and trails in the area. Interpretive signage relating to Hunt Club history was also proposed. Other members of the PAC asked that the iron history of LO and the site be included. Fire Safety: BBQ grills or fire pits were brought up. PAC members and LOPR all agreed that the danger of fire in the forested slope was too high to allow for any fire in the park. Wildlife Impacts: The PAC asked that ESA provide language in the narrative that addresses the impacts to the existing fauna near the proposed improvements. Restrooms: ESA confirmed that the intent is for 2 single stall restrooms only. The PAC would like to see the restrooms and the shelter to be in closer proximity to each other. CPTED: The PAC asked that ESA include language about how Community Policing Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles were applied to the design of this park. Fertilizer: The question of lawn maintenance and use of fertilizers was brought up. PAC members were assured by LOPR that any fertilizer used would be natural. Language in the narrative should reflect this as a requirement. Nature Play: The PAC asked questions about the nature play portion of the design. ESA gave a brief rundown of the basic principles and some of the possible elements that could be used. The PAC recommended that the Arts Council of Lake Oswego could be involved in any continuing design and development of the nature play area. A OAC member suggested that a rain gauge in the nature play are would be interesting and educational. Trails: The PAC asked that the narrative have more mention of the Metro Regional trail and how it is to be funded. They also desired more information about how to decommission the rogue trail to the east. A question was also asked about trail use and what will be allowed. ESA said that due to the nature of routing a trail through the existing trees that it would necessitate that it be a narrow, soft-surface trail. This would most likely limit its safe use to foot traffic only. Boardwalk: The PAC wanted to discuss the boardwalk shown on the concept plan. One member felt that it was too wide (looked like a “dock”) and wasn’t long enough. After discussion it was agreed that making it narrower and having more extensive reach would be preferred. ESA sketched an alternative on the plan and the PAC agreed on the general layout. Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary 3 “Next Steps” in Narrative: Add language in the Next Steps section relating to providing for a safe street crossing at the Campbell Native Garden. The PAC also asked for a timeline of the next phases of the project is included in the narrative. It was discussed that this be described in the amount of weeks to accomplish each task (Master Plan, Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Permitting, and Construction would be the phases that apply). List of attendees (PAC #3 Meeting) 1.Mike Buck 2.Susanna Kuo 3.John LaMotte 4.Jeff Munro 5.Julia Wood 6.Mike O’Brien, ESA Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan Project Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary 4 Figure 1: Iron Mountain Park Conceptual Plan