Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Keizer Rapids Masterplan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Keizer residents urge council and consultants to protect Keizer Rapids Park from large enclosed pavilion
Summary
Residents told the Keizer Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Dec. 9 they oppose a proposed enclosed structure in Keizer Rapids Park, saying it would shrink open space and could be closed to the public; council and consultants plan town halls to gather more input.
Keizer — Residents urged the Keizer Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on Tuesday to guard Keizer Rapids Park’s natural character and to press the city for broader community input before amending the park’s master plan.
David Frederick, a longtime Keizer resident, told the board a proposal to build a large enclosed structure in the park would ‘‘effectively remove’’ publicly accessible parkland and could be used to monetize space that would otherwise be open to all. ‘‘An enclosed structure that detracts from the natural beauty of the park and is not open to and needed by the public for general use whenever the park is open, would be highly detrimental to the park,’’ Frederick said.
Kathy Filbrick said a pavilion would draw traffic, often be rented for private events and be locked ‘‘much of the time,’’ and she urged officials to consider other uses such as a library. ‘‘Keizer has the money to make a building? Well, it should be a library,’’ Filbrick said, arguing that library services would serve a broader segment of residents.
Councilor Parsons and other board members told speakers the council has asked consultants from MIG to gather more information and public comment. Parsons said the location and size of any facility have not been decided and that the council plans town halls and written comment opportunities so residents’ views can be incorporated into the master plan process.
Board members encouraged residents to submit written comments to Don or to staff so the consultant can aggregate those views for the council. The board emphasized that, because this advisory body lacks land‑use authority, the public engagement process led by the council and consultants will be the appropriate forum to shape any eventual recommendation.
The board did not take formal action on the master plan at the meeting; members instead reiterated the need for public hearings and consultant review before any changes are advanced.
