The Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District Board of Directors discussed the district’s role in planning South Cooper Mountain’s development and addressed a request to lower age limits on district classes during its most recent meeting.
Three scenarios for the South Cooper Mountain Planning Area — which includes South Cooper Mountain, North Cooper Mountain and the Urban Reserve Area — were recently presented to city leaders. Those scenarios came before the park district’s board of
…
The Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District Board of Directors discussed the district’s role in planning South Cooper Mountain’s development and addressed a request to lower age limits on district classes during its most recent meeting.
Three scenarios for the South Cooper Mountain Planning Area — which includes South Cooper Mountain, North Cooper Mountain and the Urban Reserve Area — were recently presented to city leaders. Those scenarios came before the park district’s board of directors on Monday, Oct. 14.
Board members are less than thrilled with some of the initial options outlined for South Cooper Mountain. They weighed in on preliminary ideas for trail networks, park standards and housing density.
“I think we need a lot more information, and relatively soon in the process,” board member Larry Pelatt said.
These early scenarios will be the foundation of a concept plan that looks at the area’s infrastructure.
The scenarios identify possible park locations, along with future school sites and other community landmarks. The options also look at potential trail networks, mainly for bicycle and pedestrian commuting.
There are still a lot of questions about how the trail planning will play out, said Aisha Willits, deputy planning director for THPRD. City planners hope to keep trails alongside roadways, which board members said could create problems.
It comes down to the design for trails that trace along streets, board members said. Sharing a sidewalk and calling it a regional trial doesn’t work.
“To me, that kind of defeats the purpose of the trails,” board member John Griffiths said. “You’re talking about a glorified sidewalk here.”
However, if the trails are planned parallel to major roadways but separated by some kind of a greenway or median, the could become a key commuting option, board members said.
At this point, exact designs for the roadways and trails are nonexistent. Willits said the park district will have opportunities to chime in throughout the planning process.
Trails were not the board’s only concern.
Board members worried the number of housing units proposed in the third scenario, which features the highest density development, would strain resources in the South Cooper Mountain Planning Area.
“It’s not the highest and best use of the land,” board president Joe Blowers said.
The existing nature park in the planning area would become an island in a sea of development, he said. Cutting Cooper Mountain Nature Park off from other wildland habitats will deplete the wildlife there for future generations, the board noted.
Board member John Griffiths added that the habitats between sensitive stream corridors need to be protected along with the streams themselves. However, it could be difficult to find a way to defend areas that don’t already fall under stream corridor and wetland protections.
Aside from South Cooper Mountain discussion, board members also listened to a request from a mother and daughter who want to see the age limit lowered for classes and weight rooms in the district.
Liz Moorhead and daughter Anne, 12, asked that the park district consider lowering age limits for classes and weight rooms to 11 years old rather than 14.
In a prepared statement, the two focused on the risk of obesity, especially for children and teens. They said options are limited for parents to work out with their middle-school-aged children.
“As a full-time working parent, I have very little precious time with my daughter in the evening,” Liz Moorhead said.
She suggested that there could be some restrictions, such as requiring an adult to accompany children between 11 and 14 years old.
Pelatt said “there is some science behind the age brackets.” However, the district offers exceptions. He commended the Moorheads for coming forward and said they are the perfect example for a reasonable exception.
Lowering the age limit across the district might not be practical, board members said.
“We’re a very litigious society, and all we need is someone to get hurt and we’re in trouble,” Pelatt said.
The board does not normally drill down to the level of setting age limits and other requirements, Blowers said. They will likely defer to staff.
THPRD General Manager Doug Menke said the age limits are under review by the district. Board members asked that staff bring more information back to the board and stay in touch with the Moorheads.
“There’s a balancing act here,” Menke said.
Also at the Oct. 14 meeting:
- The board voted to accept the Citizen Bond Oversight Committee’s annual report regarding the use of a $100 million bond approved by voters in November 2008. The district has passed the halfway point in spending those funds. Marc San Soucie, chair of the oversight committee, walked the board through a brief overview of the 17-page report. Now that the board has accepted the report, the document will be converted into an online format the public can access and review. Print copies will also be available.
- Board members approved a $372,198 contract for consulting services related to the redevelopment of Cedar Hills Park.The contract is with MacKay Sposito, a firm that was originally selected for the work in 2009 before the project was put on hold pending a study of potential expansion options for William Walker Elementary, according to district documents. The board has already paid the firm $86,126 in a previous contract for initial planning work, bringing the total cost up to $458,324.
–Kari Bray