PRECA 06-02-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- 1~,, County states that since construction plans for those facilities have not been prepared, it is difficult to show exactly how the problem will be treated. Park master plans, adopted at the concept leve 1, do not normally show such details of construction. These details are shown in construction documents prepared for contractors bids on facilities. Likewise, grading plans for a beach or picnic area, which would direct run-off to wetland or ponds rather than the lake, are prepared when engineering for the facility is being done. At the concept level, only the rudimentary surveying has been done, data adequate to a final grading plan is not in hand. The county points out that. in both of the regional park developments its done to date (Keller Regional Park is an example) road and parking run-off is ponded in settling basins and enters main water bodies via wetlands. CAPACITIES -.Capacities for various facilities are summed up by the petition and .advanced as "overdevelopment." The County responds that the plan's discussion of capacities was extensive and reasonably reflects the needs of the service area and of a regional park in the system. The County noted that the peak capacity of the park, an absolute limit of users in all capacities, with several daily .turnovers in some facilities, is the number that the petition presents. In fact, the park will never contain that number at any one time. Also, the controls exerted by the smallew amount of provided parking and the county's willingness to close off entry when parking is full, guarantees that the capacity will never be reached. The high number is the absolute number which may use the park without, at least by professional p}arming standards, causing {? a degradation of the resource. The park's actual peak use will be lower and its usual use level much lower. NOISE LEVELS Nuisance noise levels are cited, principally coming from a swimming beach and large picnic area in the west parcel of the park. The County is requested to repond with specifics of what noise will be generated and of its impact. At the technical hearing the LLIA attorney conceded that state noise standards would probably not be violated. The county points out that it currently operates 10 other beaches on lakes, of the same general capacity, in which residents live closer or at the same distance (about 1,000 feetl. The County has received no noise complaints about the beaches. The picnic area is somewhat closer (600 feet). In responding about anticipated noise problems, the county pointed out that the picnic area is basically only used by large groups on weekends, during active daytime hours and without large noise generating actions such as organized sporting events. It maintains that the facility would not produce noise levels different from any other similar park. RESOURCE DEGRADATION/WILDLIFE LOSS The general degradation of the resource is principally couched in terms of wildlife impacts and habitat loss. The county responds that the plan includes _~ a major natural resource analysis and a plan to manage and to improve natural resource .aspects of the park's environment. If developed as .planned, the final park will contain more wetland acreage than at present, more forested acreage, a managed native prairie and equal, if not expanded, edge area for nesting use