The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-03-01 - MinutesPRAB REGULAR MEETING MARCH 1, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Bill Waite in Room 326 in the City Administration Building. PRAB Members Present: Driver, Kimbrough, Palmer, Waite PRAB Members Absent: Anderson, McConnell, Wright Staff Present: Clark, Cox, Edmonston Media Present: Guests Present: BUSINESS: Phyllis Rice -NWA Times, Patricia May - Morning News Stephen Miller, See attached guest list I. MOTION:DRIVER/KIMBROUGH The minutes from the February 1, 1993 meeting and the February 24, 1993 special meeting were approved unanimously 4-0. Driver: What is the status of Davis Park and the United Way land. Clark: There is a meeting set with Harry Gray on Wednesday, March 3, 1993. United Way has not contacted us since the last meeting. II. PARK MASTER PLAN Larry Wood presented a draft of the park master plan. Recommendations and maps were not included in this draft in case there are any requests for changes. The draft includes introduction, population information, park plan background, park goals, park classifications and standards, existing park facilities, needs assessment/trends, and park plan. DISCUSSION: Wood: Look at the classifications of the parks and see if you are satisfied with them. Next meeting I will pull the trend information by year. Waite: Please add your sources for the standards. We will be asked where we got the information. Kimbrough:I would like to see copies of these standards. Edmonston:Currently, I am working on a report analyzing each park. Driver: How do we get land in the heavily populated areas? Wood: Kimbrough Wood: Edmonston PRAB Page 2 That will be included in the recommendations. One response would be to install sub neighborhood parks. :We appear to be on the high side of where we need to be with acreage in 20 years. Yes, that is true. The problem is distribution. There is not enough acreage in certain park districts. :Another question is do we classify a park as it is now, or the way we see it in the future? III. ASBELL PTA REQUEST Asbell PTA President requested for the Parks Division to assist in funding a small playground apparatus to replace the existing one on the northease side of the school.. School Maintenance will assist in installing the apparatus. The cost is $4,215. This does not include the costly ground surface covering that must abide by A.D.A. standards. Clark: I recommend that we help, even though we assisted with a purchase not too long ago. It is a high usage area. Waite: It is more heavily used than other playground equipment. It is used by soccer participants, softball participants, nearby apartment children, and many others. MOTION:DRIVER/PALMER The PRAB recommends to cooperate with Asbell PTA to purchase playground equipment with a $2,500 maximum to be expended from the Parks Division Green Space account. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. IV. HIGH SCHOOL PROPOSAL Vance Arnold: We want to build a baseball field on the existing soccer fields and renovate Harmon playfield. We share the fields with the Kiwanis football and other Youth Center programs. Frank Conners and Alan Davison are here to back the High School. They will be able to use the fields for the 30 year and over Baseball League. The School Board voted at their last meeting to go ahead with plans. The first step is the drainage plan. Both projects will go together as one. Waite: We need initial cost estimate so we can justify any recommendation we make. Palmer. I would like legal counsel on what we can and cannot do. Dick Johnson: Waite: Johnson: Arnold: Palmer: Waite: Clark: Palmer: Clark: Driver: Waite: Johnson: Driver: Johnson: Edmonston: Johnson: Arnold: PRAB Page 3 If we have to pay and maintain the whole project ourselves, we will have to change the rules on usage. Yes, but we will still have to have firm justification. We have to be careful of lawsuits. We would include the field prices, only. The school would cover the dressing rooms, concessions, etc. that your programs do not use. We would include sod prices, etc. Dale, could we get a summary from the Youth Center on what programs use the Harmon playfield facilities? There is also community usage. Many people use the track to jog. We probably use the fields a"s much or more than the High School. Are there any grants possible? Not for this particular kind of project. This sounds like a great idea, both for you and the community. Our agreement and cooperation with the school is great. Our High School has been expanded. We cannot continue to steer new people around the athletic facilities to the High School. What fund raising are you going to do? There will be advertisements in the facilities, themselves. Also, we will ask civic groups to borrow money and make the payments for us. We have to raise all of the money before starting the project. Is anything going to be done for the parking lot? Not with these projects. This item goes back before the School Board next Tuesday. V. GREEN SPACE PLATS Georgian Place Subdivision Owner/Developer: Tom Bailey Location: Corner of Leverett and Melmar Park District: NW Acres: 5 acres Number of Units• 48 multi -family Land Dedication: .96 acres Money in Lieu: $8,640 PRAB Page 4 MOTION: KIMBROUGHJPALMER The PRAB recommends to the Planning Commission to accept money, $8,640 in lieu of land for the green space requirement for Georgian Place Subdivision. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 Horseshoe Addition Owner/Developer: C & B Land & Cattle Location: S of Sycamore & W of Porter Park District: NW Acres: 17.36 acres Number of Units: 17 duplexes and 42 single family Land Dedication: 1.39 acres Money in Lieu: $12,510 MOTION:PALMER/DRIVER The PRAB recommends to the Planning Commission to accept money, $12,510 in lieu of land for the green space requirement for Horseshoe Addition. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 Breckenridge Estates Owner/Developer: Helen Kirby/Caston Construction Location: S of Starr, off of Hwy 45 Park District: SE Acres: 29 acres Number of Units: 52 single family Land Dedication: 1.3 acres Money in Lieu: $11,700 DISCUSSION: Larry Long: I represent the neighbors of the proposed Breckenridge. We have a petition from approximately 50 neighbors. We are not against development, but are for proper development. This area is rural and the nearby lots are 5.5 acres. The county lots are 1.5 acres. Right now there are 52 units going into this new subdivision and possibly more. Mel Milholland:If a lift station is added, more units will be developed, otherwise it will stay 52. Long: The land dedication would go from 1.3 acres to about 1.4 acres if the units increase. I grew up close to an elementary school and a park. The closest park to us is Gulley with two major highways to cross. The closest school is four and one half miles away. Edmonston: Palmer: Edmonston: Milholland: Kimbrough: Edmonston: Milholland: Long: Edmonston: PRAB Page 5 We are concerned about liability when 100 new children move into our neighborhood. Right now they have lots of space, ponds, and cliffs to play on. But all of that property is private property. We feel 1.3 acres would be adequate. We also think you should ask for the 1.3 acres plus a donation from the developer to equal a total of three acres. Only if this property is annexed will we be able to take green space. Why are we voting on this if it is not annexed? Everyone makes their recommendations at plat review. The Fire Dept, Water, Sewer, etc. make their recommendations. If the property is not annexed, the recommendations that don't apply are considered null. This property is surrounded on the east, south, and west by City limits. Everyone that is adjoining this property has been notified. At plat review the Parks Division, sanitation, etc. gives their recommendation. When and if it is annexed, the recommendation go through. This is common, not a new procedure. Our purpose is to put in a nice development. We have no problem donating to the Green Space fund. A majority of petitioners are not in the City limits and don't have the right to say anything. We don't feel our land is appropriate for a park. Gaddy Acres or another subdivision might be more appropriate. We feel this is not out of procedure. "Time is of Essence." I don't feel the number of people added would dictate a park. It would be nice, but not necessary. Have we done this procedure of making a recommendation before annexation? I will have to check, but this is the way it is to be done. Timbercrest was like this. No, it was annexed and rezoned before recommendation. We make our decisions according to the Green Space Ordinance. We have to answer two questions: 1. Is the land suitable for park land? 2. Does the area abide by our park master plan? Then, we make a recommendation to the Planning PRAB Page 6 Commission, and they can approve it or change it. Waite: The only person that can comply with a land donation is the owner. Why don't you ask them? We go with land that will be used by the largest population. It seems like in this case, the subdivision developer does not want this park, but the people not in the subdivision that might not use the park, want one. Long: We are a long way from any public green space. Stephen Miller:Is there any three acres you have in mind for a park? Long: We have a specific five acres that should be negated as an option. Helen Kirby: Why don't you put a park in Gaddy Acres? Long: There is a raging river through there. Palmer: If we took land, do you know where it would go? Milholland: No, there is no suitable area. Guest: This area is growing. Where is it going to stop? Rosann Gonzales:We were told a park was going to be put in the Sequoyah Woods area years ago. I have moved and there still isn't a park there. Waite: There isn't much you can do with one acre. We wait for a big subdivision and sometimes we have to purchase more land. If we took every little parcel of land, we would have many little parks we could not maintain. How many times have we taken land in lieu of money? Three. There are many small parks. There are things that can be done to 1.3 acres. I wish there was a park in every subdivision. Until we get more funding for maintenance, we have to take the land that is most needed. Mel, why are you opposed to a park? There is no place, here! Any place is going to be next door to a house. These lots are worth a lot. The developer would be crazy to lose that much. This area is not a flood plain, just poorly drained. What is the exact process? We go to Planning Commission Monday. The first thing at the meeting is to act on Palmer: Edmonston: Long: Edmonston: Driver: Milholland: Edmonston: Milholland: PRAB Page 7 annexation and rezoning. If these are approved, they proceed to approve the preliminary plat. Park fees should be included with the plat. After this, comes the design and bidding. Palmer: I am not comfortable voting on this now with all the opposition. MOTION:PALMER/ The PRAB recommends to table this item until annexation is approved. MOTION DIED FROM LACK OF SECOND Waite: Planning Commission could come to us Tuesday and want our recommendation. Milholland: If you don't make a recommendation, Planning Commission will have to meet again to approve the Parks recommendation. Edmonston: We need to look at the land and then make a decision. Driver: I understand the neighbor's feelings and I want to view the land, first. Dick Rogers?: This is not a lot different from Timbercrest. Waite: We have been trying to acquire land, but we haven't been able to get enough together in this area. Driver: Our philosophy is to acquire land that will serve the largest group of people as possible. This area is fairly close to a proposed elementary school. Our parks and school agreements have served their purpose. Guest: The elementary school could be in the year 3000. Driver: The School Board is supposed to make a decision at their next meeting. Guest: Joe Fred Starr Drive is very dangerous. People have to jump in ditches when cars go by. Long: I lived in a neighborhood of 60 houses. We had a park 120' x 200'. It had a tennis court, basketball court, swings, slipper slide, and play area all on one half acre. Waite: They had a bigger budget than we do. Long: A neighbor donated the land. Debbie Berkedite:I live in the City limits. I am from Houston, and was very active in the Homeowner's Association. The developers' had to put in green space, green belt, clubhouse, swimming pool, etc whey they built a subdivision. • Edmonston: Waite: Palmer: Long: Edmonston: Waite: Kimbrough: Driver: Waite: Clark: Long: Long: Kimbrough: Guest: PRAB Page 8 That would be ideal. How long after annexation would you be willing to vote? I don't feel it is appropriate before. We have a great deal to present at the Planning Commission. They approve all recommendations with the plat at one time. William, are you prepared to vote? I don't feel it will have a bearing on the Planning Commission's vote on annexation. The parks recommendation is separate from the annexation vote. I don't mind voting prior to Monday, but I do want to see the land first. We can have a special meeting on Thursday, March 4 at 5:00 p.m. to vote on whether or not to vote before the annexation. Providing this vote passes, we will then make our recommendation. We have been trying to acquire land in this area. Look at the land, and we need to decide if it is a priority area. There is some suitable land on the ease and west side. If Parks could buy part of that land, and have the developer dedicate land on the edge of his property, this would be enough land to make a suitable park. MOTION: DRIVER/KIMBROUGH The PRAB recommends to table the Breckenridge Estates recommendation until the special meeting on March 4, 1993. MOTION APPROVED 3-1 (PALMER NAY) The Mayor and an Alderman have voiced a concern about recommendations before annexation. We should call the Planning office and make sure this is the proper procedure. If it is not, we can disband Thursday's meeting. Milholland said we should not have a voice if we are not in the City limits. It is only a matter of time, and we are "neighbors." PRAB Page 9 VI. SIGN REGULATIONS MOTION:KIWBROUGH/DRIVER The PRAB recommends to accept the sign regulations for the softball/baseball fields. MOTION APPROVED 3-1 (PALMER NAY) DISCUSSION: Palmer: When did softball come into the recommendation? Kimbrough:We discussed and voted on it at our last meeting. Waite: Softball is still an option for the future. Clark: If the Softball Board becomes stronger, they could do it, too. Palmer: How do we keep Adult softball from having signs, now? Waite: Tell them they have to have iron clad place for money to go. Clark: Softball is going to have to get to where they are self-supporting. Palmer: Why does the same person have to paint the signs. Edmonston:They need to look uniform. These regulations are not part of the ordinance. Clark: They can try these regulations. They may be back next year to modify. OTHER BUSINESS: Edmonston reported that there will be an ISTEA (Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1992) meeting on March 8, 1993 at Continuing Education for anyone interested. MOTION:KIMBROUGH/DRIVER The meeting adjourned at 7:50 pm MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 Minutes Approved Secretar