The City of Warren Parks and Recreation Commission has directed a consultant developing a conceptual site plan that includes mountain biking opportunities at Washington Park.

What that does not mean, however, is that development at the 65-acre site overlooking the City of Warren will start tomorrow.

To the contrary, it will likely be years before a project, if any at all, is undertaken at the side.

The commission held a special meeting on Tuesday to specifically discuss Washington Park. A public hearing was held earlier this year but Tuesday marked the commission’s first opportunity to discuss the future of the park in any depth.

What the commission ultimately approved in a split vote was to direct the consultant – Mackin Engineering – to prepare the site plan including all three options presented or, as Commission member Kris Whittaker put it, “the whole pie.”

That action is limited to guidance provided to the consultant.

“We can take pieces out of that pie down the road,” Whittaker said, should a project be funded. “At some point in time (there) may be grant funds. In the meantime, we also have options of removing items. (This is) not something that is cast in stone.”

Matt Lokay, a senior landscape architect with Mackin Engineering, outlined three options for the park.

“We’re limited on development potential” by the steep slopes, he said. “It’s a great view, one of the best I’ve seen in a park.”

The first option he outlined would be limited to improving the roadway and establishing formal parking, potentially creating a small trail with sensory-friendly nature play elements on the top of the ridge, potential for a waterless restroom and Americans with Disabilities Act improvements for parking and a path to the overlook.

Option two would include the items in option one but enhance and expand the trails, creating 2.5 miles of walking trails.

“This idea keeps the park passive but accommodates a broader group of users,” he explained.

The third option would make the trail shared use and, as a result, open the majority of the 2.5 miles to mountain bikes.

Each commission member was then given an opportunity to speak.

Mark Zavinski said he has “always seen this as a passive park” and questioned the value of expanding a park while “struggling to maintain the parks as they are.”

Judi Wilson, who is heavily involved with the local Daughters of the American Revolution chapter, highlighted the DAR’s role in the park’s history. “The park should be a passive park,” she said. “I think it’s been a wonderful park all these years and it should continue to be a wonderful park.”

Kirk Johnson said he would “attempt to give voice to the voiceless” and explained Washington park is an “ideal destination for the clients he works with as a direct support professional. “There are more than enough places for mountain biking elsewhere,” he added.

Whittaker raised concerns about liability relating to the oil wells on the site.

“It’s beautiful up there,” Jackie Angove said. “Anything we can do to maintain it, keep it safe, I’m all for it.”

The commission’s chair, Mike Suppa, said he’s been going to the park since he was a child and “always thought Washington Park could be a magical place.”

He said one of his “long laments” is the park’s “under utilization” and argued that the park is “not an untrammeled wilderness…. Any attempt to portray it so lacks its basis in facts.”

“I would like to see something done to reinvigorate the park and make it more than a 15 minute destination. “I’m willing to consider any initiative that makes (the) park a vibrant place to be…. (We) can continue to let it be a place few people know about, care about or utilize…. We have that choice.”

Varying views from the public were also expressed that raised concerns about parking, security and other issues.

Department of Public Works Director Mike Holtz said the city contracted with Mackin to develop the conceptual plan so if funding came available in future the city would be “able to write a (grant) application that was a decent application.”

“I would think,” he added, “you would want to try to get as much as possible from this scope of work.” He said the conceptual plan would be an “active document. Whatever we pick now… that’s not what’s going to come to Washington Park…. It may never happen.

“This is really a ‘paint the picture’ (of) what we would like to see.”

Johnson suggested he was “hearing what I would call confirmation bias from representatives from the city where by the power of suggestion” there would be development done. “One of the options is largely missing – a no action option. I think that members of the public… need to know that we don’t have to develop the park.”

Freenock noted that the commission agreed to accept a grant to fund the conceptual design and that a no action option would be a “waste of money.”

“I just don’t see how we can move forward with any overt developments,” Johnson said, when the adjacent property owners don’t want “grandiose development.”

“There are viewpoints across the board,” Suppa countered. “There is certainly a viewpoint that you characterize correctly but you continue to characterize it as a 90 or 100 percent viewpoint and that’s not fair.”

Johnson and Zavinski voted in opposition to Whittaker’s motion, which passed 3-2.

Johnson said he doesn’t “think option three should be a part of it. (It) can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

The commission also approved a motion to instruct the city’s staff to explore a potential gate for Washington Park for consideration at a future meeting.