HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-04 - MinutesPRAB
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 48 1994
Members Present: Bell, Driver, James, Kimbrough, Savage, Waite,
Wright
Members Absent: Palmer
Staff Present: Clark, Cox, Edmonston
Guests Present: Dave Jorgenson, Richard Doyle, Kit Williams
Media Present: Beth Finzer, Lorie Powell, Ron Wood
The meeting was called to order by Susan Driver at 5:30 pm in
the City Administration Building Room 219.
I. MOTION:JAMES/WRIGHT
The minutes from the March 7, 1994 PRAB meeting were
approved unanimously 6-0.
II. DISCUSSION OF PRAB MEETINGS:
PRAB needs to decide if they would like to meet in room
111, 219 or 326. Once the Green Space Ordinance is
revised and approved, PRAB may need to meet twice a
month.
Edmonston:Harold Dahlinger would prefer we not meet in
326 due to security problems.
Driver: Cameraman, what is your opinion?
MOTION:DRIVER/BELL
The PRAB recommends to have the monthly meetings in room
219 of the City Administration Building.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0
III. NOISE PROBLEMS OF JAM BOXES IN THE PARKS
Driver: Don't know how we can get courtesy in the
parks if it does not exceed the decibel level.
We have had complaints. Maybe we could post
signs at the basketball courts especially
Wilson, stating to keep the music down.
Clark: We have had complaints, and we are usually
blamed even though it is a car or jam box. We
can call the police to come check the decibel
level. When people reserve the parks, we send
them to the police dept to get a permit or
information on the decimal level. "Pops in
the Park" gets permission to play amplified
music.
•
•
•
Page 2
Driver: It would certainly be in our bounds to post a
sign to keep the music down.
Wright: I think people will complain. It depends on
what type of music people like. I don't think
it is up to us.
Clark: We get complaints from Wilson Park, Root Park,
and even from the ballparks. Where would we
draw the line?
James: Does it usually take care of itself? I say we
leave it.
Edmonston:Park Patrol could help control it too.
Clark: I think we can have some control, but we are
not the solution.
IV. REVIEW OF PRAB COMMITTEES
Facilities: Kimbrough, James, Savage, Waite
Budget: Kimbrough, Palmer, Waite, Wright
Program/PR: Bell, Palmer, Savage, Wright
Kimbrough:Is there a meeting this Friday at noon? Was
the last meeting publicized?
Driver: Yes, the last meeting was publicized as far as
I know.
I knew about it.
Items not considered by City Attorney are
amounts I talked with Mark Marquess. He
wants to get some liaison going with our
board. Donations toward the naming of
Pinecrest. Connie, are you meeting with Mark
Marquess.
:Dale and I are supposed to meet with him at
2:00 tomorrow.
If we have a liaison group to work with the
already planned parks. I would like comments
from the board.
I am glad to hear the developers want to
donate time.
These group members are also members of the
Chamber of Commerce. The developers are
frustrated with the lag time between
developing.
I told Mark Marquess that I would be willing
the Chamber of
by the Chamber
of Commerce. We are not getting into a trade
off of green space are we?
No this was started by Mark. He was offering
this as a way the Parks Board can work with
the developer.
Do they want a shopping list, or specific
projects?
Wright:
Driver:
Edmonston
Driver:
Wright:
Driver
Wright:
Waite:
Driver:
Waite:
to help. I am also a member of
Commerce.
That was phrased as a donation
Driver:
Waite:
Kimbrough:
Driver:
Kimbrough:
Driver:
Edmonston:
PRAB Page 3
This came up because he has equipment on the
property at Pinecrest. While it is sitting
there, he would be willing to help with the
trail. If it were not sitting there, it would
be a different story.
So long as it is a donation and we are not
bargaining with the green space requirements.
We don't have a plan for this facility at this
time. Do we really know where we want the
trails at this time?
That is a planning issue. Its proximity to the
creek lends itself personally to a walking
trail. I think that was the intent when we
took the land dedication.
I certainly agree that it is easier done when
the equipment is there. I just don't want to
see anything removed that doesn't need to be.
Dee, I would like you to serve as the liaison
and explore the different types of help the
committee is going to provide.
Dee, if you want to meet with Mark tomorrow at
2:00, let me know.
V. GREEN SPACE
GEHAR HEIGHTS
Owner/Developer:
Location:
Park District:
Total Acres:
Units:
Sterling Investments
N. of Ramay Junior High School, on
Stone St
Southwest
13.23 acres
50 duplex (100 units)
Land dedication: 2 acre
Money in lieu: $18,000
Proposed Park Plan: No priority (Neighborhood 10;
existing 38 acres; need 54.5 to 109 acres 1990 Needs)
Existing Park Plan: No Priority
MOTION:WRIGHT/BELI,
The PRAB recommends to the Planning Commission to accept
money, $18,000, in lieu of land for the green space
requirement for Gemar Heights.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0.
DISCUSSION:
Kimbrough:Why is the staff recommendation money in lieu
of land?
Clark: It is 13.23 acres, has steep terrain, is close
to Ramay Junior High School, and it will be
apartment buildings which will probably be
college students more than families.
APR 0 41994
•
•
•
PRAB Page 4
Driver: Has the Master Plan been on the City agenda
yet? do we need to make sure it gets there?
Edmonston:We need to submit it to them after our changes.
BRADLEY ACRES SUBDIVISION
Owner/Developer:
Location:
Park District:
Total Acres:
Units:
Land dedication:
Money in lieu:
Proposed Park Plan:
0 acres; need 7 to
Bill Graue
South of Wyman Road, North of Hwy 16
East
Southeast
3.9 acres
4 single family
.1 acres
$900
No priority (Neighborhood 5; existing
14 acres 1990 Needs)
Existing Park Plan: Priority 2
MOTION:SAVAGE/KIMBROUGH
The PRAB recommends to the Planning Commission to accept
money, $900, in lieu of land for the green space
requirement for Bradley Acres Subdivision.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0
CREEKWOOD HILLS PHASE I
Owner/Developer:
Location:
Park District:
Total Acres:
Units:
Land dedication:
Creekwood
Corporation
South of Mt. Comfort, West of Rupple
Road
Northwest
23.58 acres
58 single family units
1.45 acres
Hills Development
Money in lieu: $13,050
Proposed Park Plan: No priority (Neighborhood 12;
existing 9 acres; need 7.5 to 15 acres 1990 Needs; 18 to
36 acres 2010 Needs)
Existing Park Plan: Priority
MOTION:WRIGHT/WAITE
The PRAB recommends to the Planning Commission to accept
a land dedication for s green space requirement for
Creekwood Phase I.
AMENDED MOTION:WRIGHT/BELL
The PRAB recommends to the Planning Commission to accept
a land dedication for Phase I, II, and III and the size
of the dedication being between 5.2 and 5.8 acres.
APR 0 41994
PRAB Page 5
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0
DISCUSSION:
Edmonston:There is a new concept plan for Creekwood in
your agenda packet.
Jorgenson:The owner has agreed to dedicate property. We
have a concept plan of the whole project.
This is only phase I. Creekwood will go all
the way to Mt. Comfort. It will eventually
connect Mt. Comfort to Highway 16.
Doyle: Our property is 20 acres short of Mt. Comfort.
Jorgenson:If you will refer to the plat, the scratched
area is the area we are referring to for a
park.
James: Is the 5.8 acres for all phases?
Doyle: We would like to donate it all up front and
hopefully if the funds are there, we can start
developing. You can make one big park for all
three subdivisions.
Wright: Is this floodplain?
Doyle: There is water that runs down there when it
rains.
Jorgenson:Has land been set aside for Fieldstone? It
might be hard to give that much of our land
that meets Fieldstone. NW Acres IV has a lot
at the cul-de-sac where a park could be if you
talk to the right person.
Bell: What are your plans? You said you would
donate money.
Doyle: We know there is not always money. We want to
see it done. We will pay x amount of money
now or designate what needs to be done and we
will pay for it so the park can be started. I
just don't want the property to sit there for
years.
Driver: We do have plans for each of our parks. I am
concerned we would get into a political
struggle if we jumped a park ahead. There is
a lot that could be done with planning to make
the park a place that people could enjoy
themselves without too much expenditure.
Waite: I see clearing of the brush, and a small
playground apparatus. A trail would not be
much until we could link it up.
Doyle: This is an ideal situation. I purchased the
land with the vision of a park, etc. We are
going to put a small bridge across the park.
We want to help with the park and we will
abide by your rules.
James: If we take money what would you do with the
land?
Doyle: I would make a park out of it
•
•
•
APR 0 41994
PRAB Page 6
Rimbrough:You can't do anything with the rest of that
draw to Hamestring Park.
Doyle: No, just a park. The first phase will have 68
lots, second will have 50
phase will have 94 lots.
With that many homes, I
park.
You could make a t shaped
all the subdivisions.
:Can we table this until we talk with the other
developers to see if this will work.
:The Planning Commission meeting is next week.
:Can there be a contingency approval on land.
:I don't think that would be fair to developer.
We should table it, rather than do that.
Why don't you take land in the first phase and
buy time for the other phases?
That would be fragmented. We would be taking
little pieces of land.
I think we would want to take land whether we
work it out with the other developers or not.
This is 5.8 acres by itself. This property
will have three phases.
Wright:
Doyle:
Kimbrough
Jorgenson
Kimbrough
Edmonston
Doyle:
James:
Clark:
lots, and the third
see the need for a
park with land from
WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN
Owner/Developer:
Location:
Park District:
Total Acres:
Units:
ESTATES PHASE I
Harold Johnson
East of Finger Park
Southwest
11.67 acres
20 single family units, 13 duplex
(26 units)
Land dedication: 1 acre
Money in lieu: $9,180
Proposed Park Plan: No priority
Existing Park Plan: No priority (Neighborhood 8; existing
18 acres; need 3.2 to 6.4 acres)
MOTION: RIMBROUGH/WAITE
The PRAB recommends to the Planning Commission to accept
money, $9,180, in lieu of land for the green space
requirement for Washington Mountain Estates Phase I.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0
HUNTCLUB SUBDIVISION
Owner/Developer: B & V Development
Location: South of Hwy 16 East, on Hunt Lane
Park District: Southeast
Total Acres: 9.97 acres
Units: 29 single family units
•
•
•
PRAB Page 7
Land dedication: .73 acres Y ./ Oe�,�'01/46)Money in lieu: $6,525 F"'q\
Proposed Park Plan: No priority
Existing Park Plan: No priority (Neighborhood 6; existing
211 acres; need 15 to 30 acres)
MOTION:WRIGHT/SAVAGE
The PRAB recommends to the Planning Commission to accept
money, $6,525, in lieu of land for the green space
requirement for Huntclub Subdivision.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0
DISCUSSION:
Driver: Will this subdivision have more phases?
Clark: We do not know at this point.
SOWDER PROPERTIES
Owner/Developer: Glenn Sowder
Location: South of North St., West of Gregg Street
Park District: SW
Acres: 2.40 acres
Units: 50 multi -family
Land Dedication: 1 acre
Money in lieu: $9,000
MOTION:KIMBROUGH/WRIGHT
The PRAB recommends to the Planning Commission to accept
money, $9,000, in lieu of land for the green space
requirement for Sowder Properties.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
(This was voted on previously at the February 7, 1994
meeting and the recommendation is still the same)
MEADOWLANDS PHASE I AND II
Jorgenson:Land dedication is about 3.2 acres. The whole
project will be about 10 acres. We thought it
would be nice to set aside the whole 10 acres
in the south corner. We just want to put it
all in the southeast corner of the project,
not 3.2 now, 3 later, etc. We are not
promising it all now, but we will make it all
adjacent. This road will go into Willow
Springs and eventually Creek wood and tie into
Mt. Comfort.
Wright: Would the developer have any amenities?
Jorgenson:Probably not. There would be access to the
property.
Clark: This gets us there before the development.
They don't haveto replat the area.
DRAB Page 8
Edmonston:This also shows where the park will be.
Edmonston:That is what the revised GS will do.
Jorgenson:I see a problem with not being able to do
anything with all the land.
MOTION:WAITE/BELL
The PRAB recommends to the Planning Commission to accept
a land dedication for Meadowlands Phase I and II and
succeeding phases if the land is in a continuous parcel.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0
VI. PARK MASTER PLAN REVISION
PRAB members Susan Driver, Bill Waite and Dee Wright met
with Planning Commissioners Phyllis Johnson, Jerry Allred
and Chuck Nickle to review the Park Master Plan. See
proposed revisions and memo from Alett Little, Planning
Division.
Edmonston:In the revisions by the Planning Commission, a
resolution was passed that the U of A will be
included in the concept of open space.
Driver: What inventory of open space is that?
Edmonston:We inventoried only city owned or city leased
land. We did not go into the private sector.
I don't know if the U of A would rightly want
us to inventory them. We have the Lewis
property from the University, but it is a
park.
Kimbrough:What kind of response do we need? I don't see
it necessary to include land on our master
plan that does not belong to us. Should we
make a draft back?
Driver: It was the idea that the public walks around
Old Main, agri park, etc. But what
responsibility do we have to inventory private
property?
I think they meant it for statistics.
It might be appropriately footnoted somewhere.
I just don't see it appropriate for our master
plan.
The master plan is not a guide to the public
to decide where they want a picnic.
Wright: We can footnote it.
Edmonston:We would need to get permission from the
University.
Waite: We should respond first to the Planning
Commission. We need to decide what we want.
James: Can we table this until we get a clear
understanding?
Waite: How do we include this as a footnote? What is
a footnote?
Clark: Let's see if I can resolve it with a memo.
Wright:
Clark:
Waite:
Driver:
•
•
•
Driver:
Waite:
Wright:
Edmonston:
Driver:
Waite:
Edmonston:
Bell:
Driver:
Waite:
Driver:
Driver:
Edmonston:
Kimbrough:
PRAB Page 9
The major changes that the Planning Commission
pushed for are on page 40. The Planning
Commission could not understand why acquiring
park land in a developed area was a first
priority and in a developing area a second
priority. They want to change that. Any
questions on these three priorities?
Are we going to lock ourselves in to soft
trails? There are different circumstances.
Don't put any restrictions.
Just don't say soft trails.
I don't think this was for hard or soft, but
for the economy of development.
I don't like getting down to length of trail
and type of trail. That is too specific.
We can just say in parks.
Where feasible.
Any comment on the third priorities?
It is hard to see developed areas drop clear
down to third priority.
I do not see a holdup. If good land came
available I don't see this holding us up.
Are there any other things we need to look at?
Park benches, are they a priority by themselves
or are they with picnic tables grills and
fireplaces, etc? There is a bullet just to
install park benches.
I would like to mention the sports complex. Do
these priorities allow discussion for this? I
interpret the first one to be inclusive of a
sports complex.
VII. GREEN SPACE FUND REQUEST
The City Street Division is paving the remainder of the
main parking lot at Lake Fayetteville Softball Complex.
They are only charging material cost, no labor cost.
Currently in the CIP there is $15,000 for the project.
An additional estimated $4,000 is needed to pave the
walkway between fields #2 and #3. This hard pathway is
needed to provide handicap accessibility to these fields
as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
current balance of the Green Space Northeast Park
District is $45,798, minus $13,180 committed to the
Gulley Park restrooms, leaving a balance of $32,618.
Park staff recommends PRAB's approval of using Green
Space Funds for this project.
Clark: We are mandated for ADA and this will clean up
the area. Green Space is the only way.
PRAB Page 10
MOTION:WRIGHT/JAMES
The PRAB approved Green Space expenditures of $4,000 for
completion of the parking lot project at Lake
Fayetteville Softball complex.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0
VIII. GREEN SPACE REVISION PROPOSAL
PRAB members Susan Driver, Bill Waite, and Dee Wright met
with Planning Commissioners and the City Attorney to
discuss changes in the Green Space Ordinance. The
enclosed revision was drafted by the City Attorney for
your consideration. The Planning Commission discussed
the proposal at their March 28th meeting. Their revision
to the proposal is hand written on page 4. (See
newspaper article) Also attached is the information on
the average fair market value of land for your
consideration of a fee increase.
Williams: Jorgenson and Doyle's plans go along with my
proposal. This would tell other developers
they have to cooperate. They would have the
right to appeal to City Council. I am glad
you took the 5.8 acres from Creekwood. People
are concerned with Property Owners
Associations owning them. Will people have to
wear name tags and put fences around the park.
The public shall not be denied access during
daylight hours, although no parking spaces
should be included in the plan. The
alternative would be that the City own the
land like it is now.
Driver: The discretion of the land dedication would be
up to the City?
Williams: I think the City should have the final say
whether it should be land or money. In my
opinion if a subdivision is over 100 units,
there should be a park. The City Council
might decide to take money over land if there
is already a park there. etc.
Driver: That is the function of the board now. I am
so confused.
Williams: Right now Planning Commission recommends to
the City Council. In my plan, there will be a
park unless an exception is granted. I don't
want you to pause and hesitate at five acres.
I want the developer to expect to give land.
Kimbrough:There are current revisions that need to be
done. We have fixed those. Our current
ordinance has been tested in the courts. I
don't think there is a need to completely
•
•
•
•
Williams:
Kimbrough:
Williams:
Clark:
Williams:
Driver:
Williams:
Wright:
Williams:
Wright:
Savage:
Williams:
Waite:
Williams:
Driver:
Bell:
Kimbrough:
PRAB Page 11
revise and make a new set of Green Space
ordinances.
My proposal only looks at the large
developments. It will not change anything
else. There have been problems on whether to
take land or money.
There are lots of reasons why you might not
want to take land in a certain area.
Why did you not take land for Jackson Heights?
The agreement was they would put a trail
there. Ask Dale
We just looked at the land. We were surprised
that something had not been worked out around
that spring fed pond. They are going to fill
it in. Instead of reserving what could be a
perfect spot, the developer will build houses.
It seems this may be an issue the Planning
Commission overlooked. The springfed pond.
The PRAB has no control over density.
Tract housing means to have a tract of land
and divide it up evenly between all the houses
and its full of front yards and back yards.
We want the village concept. This includes
the fact that not all the land in a
subdivision will be all houses and yards.
Some will be common ground(green space) which
would happen with my plan unless there is a
special circumstance.
What if the developer cannot give land?
They can appeal to the City Council.
It is very difficult to appeal. This could be
threatening to developers.
We had a large subdivision that we voted on
and Planning Commission and City Council
overrided it.
I appealed it. If my proposal were in place.
it would fix problems like this.
I have a question on the Property Owners
Association. I would like to very much see it
City ownership.
We can still change that.
Who is in favor of City Owned or POA?
PRAB member in favor of City is 6
PRAB member in favor of POA is 1
I lived where there were POA's. Who is
getting to pay for it? What if they decide
they don't want to. It should be in the
developers hands if there are POA's, not the
City's.
If the developer wants a POA that is his deal.
I don't think that meets the Green Space
requirement. That is a different issue from
•
•
•
Williams:
Waite:
Williams:
Wright:
Kimbrough:
James:
Waite:
Driver:
Williams:
James:
Kit:
Williams:
Driver:
Williams:
Waite:
Driver:
Edmonston:
Waite:
Kimbrough:
Edmonston:
Waite:
Driver:
Edmonston
Savage:
PRAB Page 12
this Green Space ordinance. I am for POA owned
if it is the developer's responsibility.
So you would take money in lieu if they had a
POA also?
Yes, that does not meet the Green Space
requirement.
Does it matter how big their POA land is?
If they give money, it doesn't matter how big
the POA is. That would be outside of our
decision.
That is totally different from the Green Space
ordinance.
Your plan says that if a POA slides the land
goes back to the City?
They should not be able to count any money or
land that isn't public towards the green space
requirement.
The developer can build an eiffel tower on
their property and it is not an issue of this
board.
I understand this board does not want POA
owned, but city owned.
Does your ordinance say the Planning
Commission makes the decisions?
Yes, although the PRAB should make the
decisions. I can change it but I don't know
what the Planning Commission will think.
It will be on City Council agenda tomorrow.
It has to go through three readings.
The Green Space committee will be meeting
Friday.
Ask Planning Commission what they think about
private and public ownership.
Shouldn't PRAB have some appeal right like the
developer does?
Where is the appeal?
He didn't put it here. It is left unsaid.
There is a section on appealing for
developers. If there is a disagreement, we
should have equal appeal rights.
Was the City Attorney instructed to add this to
the ordinance?
We can clarify this on Friday.
What did we jointly recommend if it wasn't
money or a land dedication?
Only a joint recommendation if they were in
agreement.
:I received the fair market value from area
developers. It would be a 33 percent increase
in Green Space fees.
This increase won't solve the problem with
Barrington Parke.
Driver:
Wright:
Clark:
Wright:
Kimbrough:
Waite:
Edmonston:
Waite:
Wright:
Driver:
Waite:
Wright:
Waite:
Kimbrough:
Waite:
James:
Edmonston:
Waite:
Edmonston:
Wright:
Edmonston:
Wright:
Waite:
•
PRAB Page 13
If you read Len Eden's proposal. By raising
Green Space fees, it will not give us any more
money to maintain parks. I think there is a
misconception that Planning Commission and
City Council do not think Green Space can be
used for development. We could develop more
rapidly if we increase fees.
I like the idea of real estate transfers going
to parks.
We get some of this money when we receive
state grants.
Can we receive some of this money on our own?
We need to address our current situation.
On page four, I have a problem with the
designation of a private park. Take those two
paragraphs out, strike B. Same problem with
Kit William's.
That is only in a variance.
Why specify how to design a private park to
avoid green space fees?
We could end up with the property.
I want you to read this carefully and make a
proposal on Friday.
Does this have a place in the Green Space
revision?
I think it does.
We do need some type of provision. We should
strike type of park, but state that it does
revert back to the City.
This is in the event that City Council make a
waiver. A -Consistent with the park plan B -If
it does not work out.
Why should we define something we are not sure
we want? It is like we are suggesting it.
What about Park Place? They have a POA.
Park Place paid their Green Space fees. The
only exception is Butterfield Trail Village.
With the Attorney's current revision, they
would have gotten the waiver. If it is a
courtyard of an apartment with a leak in the
pool, do we want it?
? maintenance is iffy. I think we would be
challenged. If a waiver were granted, here
are the guidelines.
If we removed the guidelines and a waiver were
issued, where would we be?
I do not know.
It might cause legal problems if we evade it
all.
I think there are more legal problems with it
there.
PRAB Page 14
Edmonston:On item four, the last sentence needs to be
struck. The City attorney is concerned.
Resolution, we take land and make commitment
to maintain?
MOTION:KIMBROUGH/JAMES
The PRAB recommends to the Planning Commission that the
Green Space Fees be raised to reflect the fair market
value of $12,000 per acre.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0
IX. OTHER BUSINESS:
Driver: What is the chain of command in parks
maintenance? I would like to ask for funds
for a system analysis.
Kimbrough:I understand two years ago, the City spent
money on a study of operations, etc. I
question if we should do this for one
division.
Clark: It never got into our division that we know
of. Public Works was evaluated and
restructured.
I know Connie and Dale would welcome this.
We have spent 90 percent on parks and 10
percent on recreation. We have not talked
about youth. We need to evaluate the total
program.
The University of Arkansas conducts studies
through the Youth Center.
Who would do the selection?
There would be a selection committee appointed
by PRAB.
Name the results you want. Are we efficient
verses what are we attempting to provide? I
think we are pretty efficient in light of the
money we have.
Driver:
Bell:
James:
Waite:
Driver:
Waite:
LETTER FROM DENNIS KELLY ON BASEBALL
Driver: The letter was not dates.
MOTION:WRIGHT/BELL
The PRAB approved the fundraiser as requested by Dennis
Kelly on behalf of the Bambino Baseball League.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0
Meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm.
Minutes Approved
