No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-02 - MinutesMONDAY, MARCH 2, 1998 REGULAR PRAB MEETING Art sit .................. . NAME (Please Print) GROUP REPRE 9 NTING A64el &vv [s 646)44iw Ott ib� A v S� 6 5, 1, 1 iviiie, ./ C6�'9rn^do rpropos d _107/on S/ A f U ,) I A ., '2. / • / ,% , • S(cJ& -i /9 life- d '.%.r. _,\ (PA14 62.E C,t_`. ziAttdL��nr, Al 74 Sim in ms FoR Sq 0., 54 Irk (.kr is "/ / 1 (A112 G ..vn a 0v ✓' �"� noted f(. a0?CS,Ne_- W or }-LAS SVt SoN k Peary_ 4.I 1 / 77/ hi. 6A - AP- (� �l&,_ G�if,e.Is kR 19 . ru tt, PQ.-�- Rrn,v5� I ; W G --( vs -7•7 �w AMA- Jnr Art sit FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS • DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION February 20, 1998 PRAB MEETING ON MONDAY, March 2, 1998, AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 219 OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING I. Approval of PRAB Minutes - February 2, 1998 Meeting II. Babe Ruth Baseball request for - Mark Taylor concession stand Holcomb School matching funds request - John Colbert IV. GREEN SPACE Development: Engineer: Owner: Location: Park District: Priority: Total Acres: Units: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu: 1990 Needs: 2010 Needs: Existing: Outstanding Dinerstein Apt. Development (unnamed) East of Razorback Road, South of Cato Springs Road SW None 20 156-180 multi family units 3.12 - 3.6 acres $46,800 - $54,000 10 - 20 acres 12 -24 acres 5 acres ( Greathouse Park Features: • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Page 2 March 5, 1998 V. Sutton Street property public input - Dugwyler VI. Annual Report - Rogers VII. OTHER BUSINESS Bill Ackerman, before the meeting, spoke with Jerry Rose, City Attorney, and decided himself to go ahead and nominate and elect Chairman and Vice Chairman without us having the 8th board member elected yet INFORMATION: PLEASE NOTE IN YOUR CALENDAR THAT WE WILL BE VISITING TWO GREENSPACE PROPERTIES - SERENITY PLACE AND DINERSTEIN APARTMENT • DEVELOPMENT (UN -NAMED) ON MARCH 4TH AT 5:OOPM. WE WILL MEET AT THE PARKS DIVISION OFFICE BEFORE VISITING THE SITES. • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Page ,a March 5, 1998 *PLEASE READ THROUGH THESE ATTACHMENTS BEFORE THE BOARD MEETING ON MARCH 2ND! ATTACHMENTS: • Monthly Green Space Report by Kim Rogers • •February 2, 1998 P.R.A.B. Minutes • Aaron Bleidt's newspaper article - Neighborhood oriented parks becoming popular topic in the NWA Times • Special Meeting minutes dated 2/11/98 - Easton green space, Square Gardens, Serenity Place green space, Fall Baseball League's request for batting cages at Walker Park, school lease update, Sutton Street property update, and proposal brought to the board members again on updating the softball fees • Letter from Donna Porter on the Botanical Garden Society of the Ozarks dated January 26, 1998 • Holcomb school request from John Colbert for two outdoor basketball poles, backboards, and rims • Green Space information packet on Dinerstein • PRAB REGULAR MEETING MARCH 2, 1998 The meeting was called to order by acting chairman Ackerman at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building. Members Present: Staff Present: Guests Present: Ackerman, Bleidt, Charboneau, Judy, Luttrell, Staggs, Thiel Dugwyler, Nelson, Rogers Harold Heady - Dinerstein Co.; Mark Taylor - Babe Ruth League; Sarah Leflar - Friends For Fayetteville; Nancy Burris, Jennifer Alexander, Fran Alexander, Nancy Seward, Richard Briggs, Kathy Thompson, Orland Maxfield, Nan Simmons, Chris Huggard, Quin Thompson, Roxanne Worthy, Chris Krueger, Dick Keating, Stella Keating, Jeanie Wright, Cynthia Peven, Angela Stevens, Richard Alexander, Harriet Jansma, Wyit Wright, Kitty Gay, Constance Clack; Peggy Smith - Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce; Tonya Johnson Media Present: Rusty Garrett, Northwest Arkansas Times Jill Rohrback, Morning News BUSINESS: I. MOTION: BLEIDT/THIEL The Minutes from the February 2, 1998, PRAB regular meeting were approved as presented, 7-0. II. Babe Ruth Baseball request for concession - Mark Taylor Babe Ruth Baseball President, Mark Taylor, redistributed facilities capital improvements outline [PRAB originally March 2, 1998 • Page 1 received this outline during its regular November 3, 1997 meeting]. Mr. Taylor reiterated that the Babe Ruth Park would be hosting a state tournament this year. He has researched and aquired costs associated with the construction of a new concessions facility (est. $45,000). Currently, the number enrolled in the program is a 14% increase from last year. Mr. Taylor reported that two games on two fields were played each night with thirteen players on each team and fifty-two mothers; there is only one toilet for the mothers to share. The Babe Ruth organization has outlined their capital improvements over a period of three years and request assistance over that period of time. Mr. Taylor said two L screens had been purchased, and he has covered the sprinkler system. He requested help with the construction of a 900 sq. ft. concession stand. Mr. Ackerman said the PRAB would take this request under advisement; the committees would meet and examine the projects for the ongoing year. III. Holcomb School matching funds request - John Colbert Holcomb Elementary School Principal, John Colbert, said they were trying to enhance the outside playground/park area because the usage has increased over the past three years. He requested assistance in providing an outdoor basketball area. The school district has supplied the asphalt area and requests assistance in the purchase of two basketball poles, backboards, and rims. The outdoor basketball area would be used by the local school as well as the community youth and adults. Mr. Colbert encouraged the PRAB to continue to stress the ongoing partnership between the city and the schools. Staff reported that the requested amount is $1650; green space funds are currently available in the NW quadrant. [The two goals provided by this proposal would replace inadequate goals installed earlier by the school district.] MOTION: JUDY/BLEIDT Ms. Judy moved to support the Holcomb Elementary School request for green space funds of $1650 for the purchase of two basketball poles, two backboards, and two rims. The motion carried 7-0-0. Page 2 • March 2, 1998 • IV. GREEN SPACE Development: Engineer: Owner: Location: Park District: Priority: Total Acres: Units: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu: 1990 Needs: 2010 Needs: Existing: Dinerstein Apt. Development (unnamed) East of Razorback Road, South of Cato Springs Road SW None 20 156-180 multi family units 3.12 - 3.6 acres $46,800 - $54,000 10 - 20 acres 12 - 24 acres 5 acres ( Greathouse Park ) Outstanding Features: Harold Heady, a representative for Dinerstein Co. based in Houston, Texas, reported that Dinerstein had entered into a contract with the City of Fayetteville for the purchase of 20 acres on Cato Springs Road where a Public Works facility is currently located. Heady: My request of you tonight is for consideration in lieu of land dedicated by way of park fee for a major development such as required by ordinance, that you would accept $300 per unit constructed as a fee in lieu of land. We have been in touch with the city, and we understand that there is a youth hospice located out there on the track of land as well. One of the things we also propose is that we leave the youth hospice in place, and the deed for the land would go back to the city. Ackerman: You have entered into a contract for the purchase of the ground from the city. There are green space requirements which you would like to fulfill in this manner. This would be to perhaps offset a portion of those green space fees with deeding back the land on which Children's House is located along with paying any additional fee which might be required to satisfy the green space requirement. Is that correct? Heady: Yes. In my initial proposal, I mentioned that we are going to be building somewhere between 150-180 units. Since that proposal was submitted, we have confirmed 180 units. The March 2, 1998 • Page 3 green space fee would be $54,000. Right now the way the land is utilized by Public Works, there's really not anything out there that appears to be what I would expect you to perceive as a park area. I don't think the parcel itself lends itself very easily to a park without major infrastructure. You would have to spend more money than you would get to make it useable. Thiel: How much land does Children's House sit on? Heady: I'm not sure. We're in the process of having it surveyed. I would guess one to two acres. Bleidt: Were this to be a normal situation to where we took land as required by ordinance due to the number of units, is that the 3.12 to 3.6 acres that would be required? Dugwyler: Yes, based on the number of units. Bleidt: With apartments it is based on the number of units as well? Dugwyler: Yes. Ackerman: Knowing a little bit about the Children's House program, I understand that there might be some expansion in the not -too -distant future of that facility. Would you entertain maybe adding a little extra land to what is already there in order for us to expand that facility in the future? Heady: Yes, we might entertain that. I would like to put a codicil on that—if it ever ceased to function as a youth hospice that it would revert back to our ownership. Ackerman: I don't know that we could do it specifically like that. You may have the opportunity to buy it back if the city so chose, but if we make a trade the city will own the land. Regardless of what the future use might be, it might be difficult at this point of time to commit to it voluntarily coming back to your possession. I think that what you are asking is not unreasonable. I think it would be in the best interest of the city, from what little I know about your project, to consider a swap and negotiate the arrangement for whatever amount of land would be reasonable for you and still reasonable for the future growth of the facility that is there and try to work out the arrangements subject to the approval of the City Council. Dugwyler: Of course the reason for the green space ordinance is to provide parks for our residents. Can you tell us a little bit about what kind of amenities you will be providing in your development that would suffice in place of us doing a Page 4 • March 2, 1998 • park? Heady: We typically encompass basketball or tennis courts if we have the opportunity to have the space. In this development, if we did not have to give up the almost four acres, it would allow us to develop more infrastructure on site. In a lot of our properties we do golf practice areas. Judy: Is this going to be a family-oriented or student - oriented development? Heady: Student -oriented. The requirement we understand is for facilities. We need to provide them for the students. We're not looking to the city to provide them. We want to keep the space, so we can provide them ourselves. Ackerman: I think this board would probably be willing to consider your proposal. I think you would need to come forth with details, exact measurements of the property, and let's be specific of what we are speaking. Then if it's agreeable with you and you can afford to give up a reasonable amount of land, I think there would certainly be some favorable comment in that regard. City staff has been visiting with Children's House in regards to their needs. Peggy Smith stated that the director of Children's House had appeared at an earlier City Council meeting where the impression was given that the organization would move from the current site. Mr. Ackerman said recent conversations with Children's House indicated they would be ameniable to this arrangement. The objective is to accommodate Children's House and enlarge their facility with the least disturbance to their program. Mr. Ackerman said he thought there was a way to do that and accomplish what the developer wanted as well. V. Sutton Street property public input - Dugwyler Neighborhood residents appeared at last month's meeting proposing the purchase of this property for a park. They were asked to survey the community in which they live where this park would accommodate and serve. The PRAB asked people who are interested in seeing a park as well as those opposed to the idea to speak tonight. March 2, 1998 • Page 5 PROPONENTS: Kathy Thompson: My name is Kathy Thompson, and I live at 507 North Walnut. I have lived in the historic district for nineteen years. I came before the Parks Board a month ago along with Cindy Long to propose that the PRAB buy the Sutton Street walk -by historic park. We were sent away with an assignment to find out how the neighborhood felt about this. So the first thing Cindy Long and myself did was poll the households surrounding the park. Out of those households we found one person we could not contact, seven people for it, two people "no", and two people who where undecided. That was three weeks ago. We have those people's signatures on our poll sheet with their decision. After that encouraging information, we got together a group of ten people and divided our neighborhood into sections. Our boundaries are Fletcher/Olive on the east, Dickson/Spring on the south, Washington/Willow on the west, and Rebecca/Johnson on the north. What we took around were what we are calling Sutton Street Walk -By Historic Park Petition, but actually, in reality, it is not so much a petition as it is a survey. Because all we asked people to do was sign their name, their address, and indicate yes or no. We gave them the choice of how they felt about the park. By then someone had brought around a sheet of paper all over the neighborhood without signing it against the park. People were aware of it, and we tried to explain to them about our proposal. Out of all of those people we have 182 people on our petition sheets. Out of all of those households the ones that are not on it are just people who simply were not at home. If they were not at home, we left a sheet explaining there was a meeting tonight so they would be aware. We left our name and address on each sheet, so if they were interested they could call. Out of those 182 people, 165 were for the park, 13 were against the park, and 4 were undecided. All of the people who went around and surveyed individually told me that the people who were for the park were overwhelmingly for the park. The people who did that are very much aware of the fears and the problems people have who are against it. It seems like to me that we have come up with four basic problems. One, they are Page 6 • March 2, 1998 • • • worried about the traffic. Part of that is because they already have so much problems with St. Joseph's traffic. Two, some are concerned with lighting. I tried to explain that we are going to propose that there be lighting up in the trees, so it would not only be safe but beautiful as well. Three, the future of the park. We would make sure that the park was not changed. It would be kept natural and only improved historically. It would be a park that would have no recreational equipment brought it. It would be kept and maintained as it is. Four, the criminal element. We believe that these problems can be overcome, both as a neighborhood and as a neighborhood working with the city. Basically it seems like what has really come out of this for most people in trying to understand how everyone feels, is that a basic fear is really the problem I think that is a problem we have in our society today; people are afraid of what they do not know. It's easy to make things up. It's easy to fear things that you really don't know will happen. We have decided that we are really hopeful that people would much prefer to try to work on the problems that arise rather than to get rid of something that is really important to our neighborhood. There are many more things that I could say, positive things that have come up and positive things that people have told me: what it was like to go around and actually meet your neighbors that you had never seen before but had always wondered who lived in their houses; stories that they told us about playing in the park; but I know there are other people who want to talk. The last thing I would like to say is that I feel like we really hope that it does not disappear. Because once it disappears it never comes back. It is the only historic district that we have in our city. There has already been a lot of it taken away. Ms. Thompson also read a letter written by Joan Smith, an art historian and neighborhood resident. [See attachment "A" following this page.] Ms. Thompson also submitted signed poll sheets as supporting information. Sarah Lefler: My name is Sarah Leflar, and my address is 1495 Finger Road. I am here on behalf of the 300 members of Friends March 2, 1998 • Page 7 Attachment "A" submitted by Kathy Thompson TO: The Parks Board FROM: Dick and Joan Smith corner of Sutton and Washington Due to a family illness, we couldn't be here tonight, so we are writing this letter in support of converting the private park on Sutton St. into a public historic landmark. We live on the corner of Sutton and Washington, a one -minute walk to Mrs. January's property. Many of us to this neighborhood with permission from the owner, have used Mrs. January's property for a number of years Both of our children have enjoyed nature and sledded with their friends there. And, for a long time we have wanted the historic district to have a neighborhood park for our families to use. Although Mrs. January always has been very generous about letting people use the area, we are concerned that if it is sold for development it will be unavailable for use any more. In addition, we feel there is enough historic and aesthetic value to the location that it definitely merits being saved and preserved in its current state. It would be a perfect addition to the historic district. We contacted Mrs. January a couple of weeks ago to find out what she knew about the history of her property, and she told us that Roberta Fullbright had named the area "The Woodlands." Mrs. Fullbright even wrote a poem about it that was published in the newspaper at the time. Unfortunately, we haven't had time yet to find a copy of the poem, but apparently there also were several newspaper articles published about "The Woodlands." Mrs. Lighton, also a resident in the historic district, said that when she was young the park was called "Big Spring" and that many neighborhood children spent time playing there. Mrs. January told us that the people who cleared the area and had all the rock work done were Van and Mary Howell. Mrs. Howell was around 90 when she died about 10 years ago. Mrs. January believes that the Woodlands was constructed beginning around 1910 or 15. She was told by Mrs. Howell that one man built all of the rock work for the Howells. When the January family bought the property in the mid-1970s, they embarked upon a restoration effort that brought the Woodlands back to its original state. Working from old photographs and apparently with some help from the original owner, Mrs. January and a New Zealand mason, Ian Dickey, embarked on the restoration. They excavated areas that had been walls, the well, and so on, and used the original rock that was still on the site to repair and rebuild the Woodlands into what it still is today. The Woodlands was used in both a private and public way for its entire existence. Mrs. January said that picnics and church and community gatherings frequently have been held on the grounds for the last 80 or so years The spring -fed well was used to chill watermelons for community picnics. Special openings were built into the rock walls to hold torches to light the grounds for evening events. We hope to locate the newspaper articles, photographs, Mrs. Fullbright's poem, and other memorabilia related to the Woodlands to put into the archives at the Washington County Historical society. Page 8 • March 2, 1998 • • • Attachment "A" submitted by Kathy•Thompson We have heard concern over potential noise and safety for surrounding residents if this is made a public property. We contacted the Fayetteville police department to find out if there was any reason for concern, since we live in such close proximity to the park. They told us that at Headquarters House on Dickson St., a historic site comparable to the Woodlands, they only had been contacted 3 times and one of those was a fire alarm. We are satisfied that it will not become a nuisance to neighborhood property owners, and are very much in support of the city acquiring this property. In order to discourage any potential problems, we would like the Woodlands to be kept and maintained as it is, without additional parking or recreational facilities. The question of lighting, we think, should be left to the people in the homes that back up directly to the park. It is our opinion that signs with the park's name should be very small and unobtrusive or left off altogether. Thank you. March 2, 1998 • Page 9 For Fayetteville. We support the city purchase and preservation of the historic Sutton Street park. We feel that the preservation of this lovely public space would promote the values that we represent, in particular, environmental quality, beauty, sense of community, the preservation of our unique heritage here in Fayetteville, and those are key values to us. We think it is clear that the preservation of the park would support that. It is a lovely, unserviceable green space. We hope that the city takes this opportunity to purchase and maintain it for generations to come. Ackerman: Do you have a referendum of some kind from your board in a written document for you to make this presentation in support of this proposal? Lefler: The Board has approved the statement I just read. I can get a copy to your committee tommorrow. Orland Maxfield: I'm Orland Maxfield, I live at 533 North Willow. I am going to speak really twice while I am up here because of the difficulty of going back and forth. First, I am here as Chair of the Fayetteville Historic District Commission. I am speaking now on behalf of that commission. I would point out first that I don't really think that anyone has a question of this property, but in the article that came out just three or four days ago in the paper it commented that the property is near the Washington/Willow historic district. I want to correct that: it is in the district. I have a map here if anyone has any question about that. I am going to read this statement, and then I will give copies to you and I will say a few other words. "The Fayetteville Historic District Commission passed the following resolution relative to the property in question at its regular meeting on February 18, 1998. `Be it resolved that the Fayetteville Historic District Commission supports the purchase of The Woodland, the January property located east of Walnut Avenue and north of Sutton Street, by the City of Fayetteville for use as a neighborhood park.'" I am authorized by the Page 10 • March 2, 1998 • • • commission to give this. You have already heard that actually this has served, though a private property, in a somewhat quasi -public way. People in the neighborhood have been using it, apparently with the Howell's and January's blessing, so that use by those other than those that own it would be nothing new. It has been going on for a long time. I would say more to the point even perhaps, that having neighborhood parks is really a part of the character of historic districts of the vintage of the Washington -Willow district. We have a lot of buildings in that district from different dates. My house was built in 1895. To go back to that time and up to the 1920's, neighborhood parks were very important. We do not have one in that district. In fact, we have almost no green space in the district. That property, and what I would refer to simply as the somewhat enlarged lots on North Willow between Rebecca and Prospect, are really the only open areas we have. Those lots are privately owned, there are houses on them, and they are not for public use at all. Certainly the acquisition of this, not only I think would benefit the people who live in that neighborhood, but it certainly would be in accordance with the nature of historic districts of this type. Speaking as a private citizen, divorced from this district commission, I'm the old timer. I've lived in Fayetteville since 1946. I have lived in my house at the corner of Davidson and Willow, directly across from Betty Lighton, since 1956. This makes me certainly someone who has lived about as long as anyone else around in that neighborhood. I have observed the neighborhood fairly closely, I would say, in all of those years. We need a neighborhood park; I am speaking simply as a neighbor of other people. We need a neighborhood park. In the time that I have lived there there have only been, I would say, two or three empty lots that now are built on other than the little bit of green space that I referred to earlier. We do not have a formal neighborhood organization; I certainly do not pretend to speak for people with whom I am in contact from time to time about the neighborhood. Others have expressed to me their concern about this issue, the need for this, and I certainly applaud the efforts of Kathy [Thompson] and others who acquired all of those signatures. What a job this amounts to. I am giving you the support of the Fayetteville Historic District Commission, and I am giving you my own support as a private citizen. March 2, 1998 • Page 11 Mr. Maxfield distributed a resolution approved by the Historic District Commission [see attachment "B" following this page] Chris Huggard: My name is Chris Huggard, and I live on North Willow Avenue. I have lived there for sixteen years. I am an avid walker and, as Orland Maxfield has mentioned, I also have paid attention to what has been going on in the neighborhood. I strongly support the park. I think it would add something to the neighborliness of the neighborhood. It would also be nice to permanently protect, in the operative term these days, green space that would include trees, grass, and the historic landscape architecture. I would also like to say that we should keep parking away from it; we don't need parking there. It's very narrow there. Just keep it as a walk in; that will limit the traffic. As Kathy Thompson said, the lighting probably should be determined by the people who live there; however, I think lighting would be a security measure. It would actually make it more secure to have the lighting rather than to keep it dark as it is now. The other point is, if it were to be sold, someone might build a new home. Being in the historic district, by the way I am a professional historian, I think that would take away from the quality of that area. Building a new 2 x 4 home I don't think would add to this. I would like to go on record as saying I strongly support a walk-in park at the January property. Jeanie Wyant: I am Jeanie Wyant, and I live at 424 Johnson. I wasn't home when they came by and didn't sign anything, so I wanted to put my word in. I've walked around in that area a lot, and I've not ever gone into the park because I assumed it was a private person's place. I am in favor of it being a walk -by neighborhood park; I'd love to go in on my walks or take some time just to sit. I agree with the comments on the lighting and the parking that have been made. Cynthia Peven: My name is Cynthia Peven, and I live at 514 North Mission, down around the corner by Mission and Maple Street. I am simply here to argue as a resident and a home Page 12 • March 2, 1998 • • • Attachment "S^ 299 n UM WELL Off a VOVIN4LDOLLCD OR 0E3 2, /998 -ao,Ce_ _ J eL1 --L a -r oC EGccaz--K- A- • 0 cru tom.- ✓ -c recrtin • i I}'ly ry - rtc%i /c /998. CJ /CaL:yt-c.ict- fri,�L.L t_ -a-4-- -a— .t o "�' r . : • March 2, 1998 • Page 13 owner of the area that I would very much like to see this open space preserved. I greatly fear that if it is not preserved as a park then like very much of the other property surrounding the historic district and the Mt. Sequoyah area, then it is going to be developed into houses. Three or four houses are capable of fitting into a space that size, and we've seen it happen all around on the Mt. Sequoyah hillsides and so on. My argument is please make this a park. Let's not let this opportunity pass us by so that this becomes more developed private space. I have a few hopefully logical arguments in favor of making this a park area. The first is location, that important element of real estate; the only really sizeable green space in this entire neighborhood area is the Wilson Park area and there is no equivalent on the eastern side of College Avenue and there is no equivalent on Mt. Sequoyah. I am very much in favor of all of the various efforts that the Parks Board is considering to conserve and preserve some of the open spaces that are up there already. Because if we do not hang on to them, the burgeoning value of the land is going to force the next generation of people to develop them. They are very desirable locations to build and reside in. Keeping this an open park area, however, helps preserve the value of the living space of all of those houses that already exist there and that are being added to the area. My second argument really doesn't hold much water and that is the terrain of the area; it's a very beautiful natural creek. We have seen houses hung on hillsides much steeper than this with much worse drainage problems, but it would be nice to see this really unique small area of terrain preserved because it has a lot of charm. The third argument has been made for me by some of the other people up here—the weight of tradition. It has been a unique, beautiful area that people have already enjoyed as part of our historic heritage. It already exists as a green space and as such it already attracts traffic to it. People already go into the area and use it as a walk-in park, a park that is put there without driveways into it, without playground facilities, but just as a park that people would walk to with sidewalks and so on. I don't see that much of an increase in people going into the area over the ones that already use it. It exists now as an asset and a buffer to the people who reside around it, and I really do understand and honestly say that with them I would like for it to remain what Page 14 • March 2, 1998 • • • • • • it is. I would like for it not to change. But I fear that change is inevitable, and that they're not going to be able to piggyback the use of that area onto their residences as long as it remains a private space. Without it being a public space, the residents around it actually have no control over what happens to the property. My fifth argument would be conservation. The size and beauty of the trees and plants in existence there is worth saving. If it is developed, many of those trees will go. I would like to see it change somewhat because I know it is full of poison ivy, so it does need a little care and maintenance. My final argument is purely selfish. I want this space to stay open in my neighborhood. We need more parks in the city of Fayetteville that you do not drive to, that you do not drive through, that you walk to on a sidewalk. It's unique to the neighborhood, and I would like for it to stay there. Once there was plenty, and there still is plenty, of green space in the historic district and on Mt. Sequoyah, but this is filling in very, very rapidly. And when it is all filled in and there are new large and expensive houses on small yards in all of those spaces then the unique character of the area will be lost. While I am up here beating my drum for the Sutton Street property, I'd also like to go on the record as supporting the purchase or the development of the area around the water tanks on Fletcher Street, and I would someday like to see the Parks Board look into the acquisition or some kind of cooperative arrangement on the gas company warehouse property that is on Maple Street. Ms. Dugwyler stated that she had received voice mail from Dr. Samuel Hucke, a resident of 365 N. Olive Avenue, which adjoins the Sutton Street property, pledging his support in acquiring this property as a public park. Angela Stevens: My name is Angela Stevens, I live at 429 Sutton Street, my house sits directly across the street from the Sutton property. I feel so blessed to live there and to be able to look out at that beauty. I have three little boys. We don't use it that often out of respect for the Januarys. My whole family loves it very much. I would love to see it preserved. I'm for it one hundred percent. I cannot find any March 2, 1998 • Page 15 negativity in it. All the fear that you hear coming out; I don't live through fear. I live through positive thought, and I feel like that if the community is positive about it then it will be a positive, wonderful place for everyone. As far as the traffic, my understanding is that St. Joseph's is building a church and middle school east of Highway 265, which will alleviate a lot of traffic in the neighborhood. Richard Alexander: My name is Richard Alexander, and I live in the historic district next to the public library. I'm very much in favor of the park. A lot of my arguments have already been well stated by the people who have preceded me. A couple of things I would like to say: it already is a park. There is a tremendous amount of infrastructure there, it is frankly a historic place and probably if it were a building would be placed on the national register. It is that old and that significant. The historic district does not have a park. This is Fayetteville's historic district. I think as a public body one of the things you are charged with is looking into the future not just making decisions for today. Fayetteville is growing. Green space like this will be a premium in the future both with respect to desirability and affordability. This is an opportunity, in my opinion, for the Parks Board to do the right thing and make a wise investment at a very reasonable price. Not so much for the present, because we live in a nice town that is not so crowded, but twenty or thirty years from now. That is what I am talking about. I think our town is going to be a lot more crowded, and this type of green space is going to make our city one of the desirable places to live that we are repeatedly voted for in various surveys and polls. I work in town, and I've been lobbying to have the Sutton Street property considered for a park for about a year. I've met very few people who are opposed to the idea both within and outside the historic district. I think that the survey that Kathy [Thompson] and others did proves the point that the majority of the people are for this as a park. The arguments that I have heard against the park, and I know some of these people who are making these arguments because they're my neighbors and good people who do not have a bad motive, are arguments that could be used against all of our parks. I would ask which ones would we not have: Wilson Park? Gulley Park? I Page 16 • March 2, 1998 • • • live next to the public library. On the one hand it would be nice not to have the library there because people park next to • • my house when they use it. On the other hand it is a great facility and a great asset for our town and my neighborhood. I think sometimes we have to consider the overall and the broader picture, and I think that is certainly the case with this park. Harriet Jansma: My name is Harriet Jansma, and you saw me a few weeks ago speaking on the issue of the city property on Mt. Sequoyah which is much closer to my house. I live about six blocks from the Sutton Street property, but I walk by it several times a week during the winter, spring, summer, and fall. I've seen pileated woodpeckers come into that area from way out in the countryside in the winter time when the birds have larger territories when there is snow on the ground. We haven't had that this year because it's been such a warm winter. Because this area is a bowl and is a very wind protected place it would be a great place to sit in the winter as well as in the summer when the property is nicely shaded by the trees. Because the property is a very short city block from the public library it forms a nice asset in relation to the public library. I'm not too far from retirement and can picture myself walking of the morning to the public library to get a book and walking over to that park to start that book. That is the kind of use that I can envision that park having. Thankfully the historic district has many more young children than it did for awhile, but it also has a great many adults who will use that park in the way I have mentioned. I would urge you to consider the purchase of the property. OPPOSITION: Nancy Burris: My name is Nancy Burris, and I live at 315 Sutton Street. I am not a public speaker, and I wasn't sure all day if I would be able to make my feet walk up here, but here I am. I am going to leave it up to my neighbors who do not want the park. I've given each board member a copy of the March 2, 1998 • Page 17 reasons that I am opposed to having a park on Sutton Street [see attachment "C" following this page]. I am the one who put out copies around the neighborhood. A wise woman that I talked to said `don't go too deep, you're the ones who have to live with it', so I polled the immediate area and left it at that. I'm also passing on a letter from a Tina Buxton who keeps the grounds and does the landscaping for the public library. Wyit Wright: My name is Wyitt Wright, and I live at the corner of Walnut and Sutton which is immediately adjacent to the park. I've lived there since 1986, so I think I have a reasonable idea of what the park is about. Bobbie January and I have been good friends and neighbors for that entire period. I have mowed the park myself, so I am intimately familiar with the terrain of the park. And having lived by it, literally for twenty-four hours a day for all of those years, I very much know what goes on in the park and what sort of things the park is suitable and not suitable. The issue here is not really • about Bobbie selling the park, but simply whether the city should buy it. She certainly has the right to sell it to anyone she wants. What I am here to address is whether it is appropriate for the city to buy the property. I feel it is unsuitable as a park for a number of reasons. One of them is location. As it was mentioned, it is in a bowl shape which retains noise and sound. It is surrounded by houses, very closely, unlike a Wilson Park which has a street around it there is no street around this one. This park is twenty-five feet away from my house. It is very tightly surrounded by houses. There is no natural barrier of any kind between this park and the houses surrounding it. If you sit in that park and talk I can hear you. It is unsuitable partly because of the terrain. There is almost no level space in that park. It Page 18 • March 2, 1998 • • • • Attachment "C" submitted by Nancy Burris ATTENTION ALL RESIDENTS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT The Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Department is currently entertaining a proposal that would establish a public park on the east end of Sutton Street (on the January property that is currently for sale). The matter was discussed at their last meeting on Monday, February 2, and will be discussed again early in March --most likely on Monday, March 2 at 5:30 p.m. Please try to attend this meeting and make your opinions known to the board. They want very much to hear from the people who would live in the immediate vicinity of the park—they are the ones who will be most affected by the establishment of such a park. The idea of a quiet, neighborhood park is, at first glance, an attractive one; but there are other concerns that the residents of this area need to address. 1) As the residents of Sutton Street and Willow street know, parking is at a premium on these streets. With the growth of both St. Joseph's School and the congregation of the church, this will become more of a problem. Although the park is to be set up as a `walk -by" park, and No Parking signs are to be posted, enforcement of this rule would be difficult, at best. And the No Parking signs, if they are effective, might well encourage people to park further down on Sutton, or Olive, or Willow, thereby exacerbating the problem they were designed to solve. 2) The January property, which has been so beautifully maintained and managed over the years, will become public property the moment it becomes part of the park system. When this happens, the neighborhood relinquishes its ability to control those who use the park and even, to a degree, the manner in which they use it. 3) If lights of any sort were installed—a real possibility—it would encourage usage of the park at night, and this would not be conducive to the atmosphere of a quiet neighborhood that generally predominates in the area. 4) The terrain of the lot is such that small children would need increased supervision. 5) It is important to remember that if the city purchases this lot and converts it into public property, the park as well as any problems that accompany it, would be permanent additions to the lives of those who live in its immediate vicinity. There is no feasible way to make a trial run. How certain are we that the advantages of having such a park would outweigh the potential disadvantages? March 2, 1998 • Page 19 is a gulley, there is a creek running through it, and for the most part it is not an easy park to play frisbee in or something because it is all hill. There is a creek which flows through the park which tested positive for e -coli [sic]. It was tested four years ago; this is not the sort of creek in which little children should be playing. There is a natural erosion problem there. The park has very poor soil, and it does not have a good ground cover. For a number of years, Jim January tried to get vinca to grow there. It grew reasonably well, but it was always a problem. It is so heavily shaded because of the trees that there is no good ground cover. It's a trade off—you can get rid of the trees and have good ground cover, or you can have trees and not have good ground cover. With heavy usage erosion would be a real problem in this park. Even though it has been a private park people have been allowed to use it. Mrs. January has always been able to maintain some control over it, and I have assisted her with that. When things happened in the park I could step out and say this is not appropriate. There are people here who do not have an idea of what goes on there. The comment was made that we are afraid of what we don't know. But I do in fact know what goes on there. Rather than using my own words, I'll read an excerpt of the letter written by C.M. Buxton [see attachment "D" following this page] you have before you. `I see public grounds at a much more intimate level than most—I have to clean them up! I am saddened to say I have found hypodermic needles and countless liquor bottles at the library. I have witnessed public urination and defecation much closer to home than I care to admit. Add to these incidents a layer of cigarette butts, used prophylactics, fast food trash, dirty diapers, used tissues and cue [sic] tips, and wads of chewed gum, and you have a "public use" area. This is an irrefutable fact of life that I deal with daily. To introduce this to an established neighborhood is unthinkable.' Those are the types of things I have, from time to time, picked up on Mrs. January's property. Children use this property to smoke dope, people fornicate out there, they leave liquor bottles. This is private property, this is a property that I or Mrs. January or other neighbors which are concerned, can go out and say something about. As a public property it would be much, much more difficult for us to do that. I'm sure we can call the police, but the fact of the matter is you can be sitting Page 20 • March 2, 1998 • • • Attachment "D" submitted by Wyatt Wright C•rel • 8w>cton 312 N. W; Wow Fay eill•Wille, 4t2 1210 i 5Xi-bo3'7 Dove 'Parks Boa.-cl = hat lived of. 3la- Nor+h Willow fo.... _. nine yeateS 2 home ac do ree in Rorhicu.l+xre from -she, (4, 14 a t.d own M IattAccape aa.d. inainttl40i4ce .- ecmPa.ty • S have. +a.te.& ea.. -e• 0f +he. Foci vkw'•I I .. Qu.4e1ic- I. -;bra -r•) 5roi.4"41.s. -For Sc./6va-4 years, and -Nie ..I4asking40n.Cottni (awr+-hoitse is o. VA, new accaun+• `(Bolin an abosk +wo blocYs frowt ++ie proposed park• ) r set ptblie 5 rands a4 - rri«Lh more in+imale leveI 4Mgn Most --- 1 have 4o clean +he.n•4F I r a," "saddevted +o Say 1 ha&+e SivalAi Iypode✓mi c .netdles .am -4 c.en,nkl-less 'Iry be es amt- 4I1c.- 1.461-04e,, • ..•L.. {ta.sc ..wifnesse•. pLAS! ic. µrim 'len n.+td dafeta-Won mitch closer +v home +ha.t r ca.-o.+o ad..t;+• field 1, i$tese .incides*s ai I ayes• of c 9arelte btotfs “sect Q.-orhylar ls_es, fast •Fd •h. ooashi olir+y dio.Pe.-s. K.sed } u isses a,..d Ott +irs, AMA W0.44 of chewed 9e4.41t, .&M CL yaw have cciP«.b..lCc Use-" avea.• "chis i5 an iweftt•+able fac+of Ilfc fka?'S ..deal wi+h doily•.To.in�ti..y4ua.-i_+0. a... tnis esf-abk•Sked__ Ye. t.444.126. -hook is « n+him ka ble• • .. o Hy second acct eraily realistib objcol•fon .1-o 4141 pa"k is �vx.(FC. a.wd• pct. -Liu we Srito.♦l.parf-..of. ill is ttcijhberhoo4..is...._. .knisttt•.24-is eGsexti'a11j am. .islawo( of .three. .. blocks _ come+ -td by Three o5-l-heb«siet* .s• reMs.._in._.Fay "ui'lle: .Colle3e Avrnwte,Dicicsos.,.aviik 1a aWeft..5freafs.•_._____. .140e 4,1 so {.cwe +tic dis+inefient. ohay in j The_ gvstc .'eV pam..A,l 6+. rose -ph '5 school a ` atkurcKn i3Oitr .Milds+. tit +-raifio a.n.d. cornrno+ion cause! `lai.ly by iYiiS ttii,f;+i vnusi be lt' rtntiZ2d in ordev to make March 2, 1998 • Page 21 Attachment "D" submitted by Wyatt Wright .infe(Iia.,nk otecisio-n et,bowf• add( rt anog-her.-_Possible ,...Sokviceaooi more .Q,aAomobiles... _... _. My StreeF. (Willow) is essewFia.11b a_ parkin,, lot - for St. Joseph's. The _ i:c problem. _5vhs__ worse Wei) Near Gvud S resew*this 9rea,}'lb • / heve are d s when a. Yowfil& stter bus is .pavke4f (runn.ny) _on cont oy my hoose !_ low bc*wcev'_.Dicksovi _an4.. Salton is extrovele.l _narrow ..._re...residents_.. _,ave.-parkeol..clown .one. Side, anwt.wiu+2nj pow_en.ots ...Owe pa...eke-etclown -1-he other) rwy St -reek .is._irnpn.sSa61e• This happe is o f tett _ __..---_.. _ _.---------... Trnfffc...sirs .aloe ijnored._— S-rorn._s.ta P_5iy-ns to 110 pa.vkiny'. Signs._ Tlheve._.is...no...hfir . fror+ti police•__ - Know - ✓✓_' .hare __Called._thew Swevcr.I -h•mes • = . ;-klot -Wits pa-rk.- . win .hawe. ±'no .pa.rkCa , ._si_711-52. .Wheve olo you thin k- .people .are Joirt3c 4-o_Pa,rk? .Tl -1c pavk paAtrans will ?Ott ..ori.._ocx✓._a.Inea.ciy .. .over- bkrjoeoneat s+rerts •._t hove is. no ..i v •vata-ee_t'ha ' :+1.ic police. .will_vnonikor.._rarkinjo._prv.b.lr�.v<5_or viola-fi'oxs . Tud in9 from Moir. -lrazk_record , Cam doutAftkA flekey As The crowning 31ory .}o okr_co n•es±iori problems _bus . Sfree4l has beta one a_ynajov ��GwFh/ro!h_„scree t for _those wishlr' 1-o_avoict_dlte__Co.:too e=l-csfa .e7.{fe. S+opli •. Maw, o f these_.people- fly down- ovr vevj buoy , very rtawow si-reef-•_Again,_no help from lou/ ein f o✓cenlewt is evicteauf.._ Z tis hawd. +-o say' n0"_+-47- .a. Park-'.- _kin- r+14144 -e4 y / _Pt+..irese+vt, . the (Ms advaaet)psar ow+,Nei _ e adrawFo�es ,Ou•v Neighbovhooet is already tits la ed. -Fo floe Iivnifs • Sincsvely N, 3 U.x-ro,“ Page 22 • March 2, 1998 • • • there with your cooler and boom box at 10:30 at night, making all the noise in the world, and I don't have much to stand on. I know we have a noise ordinance, but when you are twenty-five feet away, it doesn't take much of a noise to penetrate my house and the neighbors around us. You have a copy of this neighborhood map on which you will notice the people surrounding the park who oppose it. These people are the people who are the closest to the park. Many of the people who spoke here tonight live at some distance from the park. I don't think they have a sense or a feel of what type of impact this could have on our neighborhood. I think these people who live this close by and who are willing to sign this piece of paper have that kind of insight. Before Jim January died, he and Bobbie January had talked about fencing the park because of some of the problems there. It was a concern to them even at that time. Those who are concerned about four houses or more being built there, Bobbie January has told me that she has talked with her lawyer and if this property sells for private home usage that the stipulation would be that only one house could be built there. Her lawyer has assured her that that could be done. It's easy to see that those who bear the brunt of this project are those who are opposed to it. Others who live at a distance will not be affected by the park. People like myself and others indicated on the map will be the ones who bear the impact and the noise, the vandalism, and the lowered property values that this park will produce. I think I speak for all of my neighbors who signed this petition when I ask that this board reject this proposal. Chris Krueger: My name is Chris Krueger, and I live at 317 Sutton Street at the bottom of the hill. I wanted to bring up a few other concerns we have living in the proximity of the property. People in our neighborhood do not want to absorb any more traffic and congestion. St. Joseph's Catholic Church and school are our neighbors, they are part of our neighborhood, and since the church's on-site parking is not sufficient then parking can be bumper to bumper on Lafayette, Walnut, Sutton, and Willow. The school also brings more traffic into the neighborhood, and there are safety issues here. Within the last year a child was hit by a car at the corner of Lafayette and Walnut while walking home from school. From what I've seen March 2, 1998 • Page 23 many of Fayetteville's smaller parks are located at the ends of streets where they are out of the way of traffic. Sutton Street, however, is part of a gridded street plan and it already gets its share of traffic from outside of the area. That includes people driving through the historic district, parents, church members, and people cutting through from the top of the mountain. Whoever sees this property would want to use it because it is so beautiful. Many have already seen it and asked about it. The people here tonight want to make this lot a walk -by area with the city providing no parking. I can tell you that the lot already draws its share of drive-by lookers, and I feel it would certainly draw people if it were to become a public park. While many would walk, many would also drive. That means that they will look for parking on the nearest available streets, and that's down the hill on Sutton, Walnut, and Willow. I understand that the rules governing neighborhood parks are no different than those governing the large community parks? Dugwyler: It depends on what rules. Krueger: The hours that they are open. Dugwyler: They are the same. Krueger: That means you can't legislate who can use the neighborhood park, the size of groups, nor how it could be used. We couldn't implement more strict rules on park hours? Judy: You can have stricter hours. Dugwyler: We have three parks which are closed at dark and opened at daylight. I think this is determined on a park by park basis. It depends on the needs of the park. Krueger: I understand that lighting is also an issue that is negotiable. We could also not require people to walk in. They could drive in if they wanted to, correct? Ackerman: Whatever curb side parking that is there now would be all that there would be unless we took an entirely different view of it. I don't anticipate that being the case. Certainly I do not think that geographically there would be any place to add additional parking. Krueger: There are no definitions of a historic park in city ordinances? Ackerman: Not currently, no. Krueger: Let's not lose sight of the fact that to our knowledge the Sutton Street property has always been privately owned. You have been told that this property has essentially Page 24 • March 2, 1998 • • • been used as a park by neighbors for years, and if that is indeed true, it has been subject to the restrictions of the private property owners. That would not be the case if it were to become a public facility. There are already three parks within a short distance of our neighborhood. Those include Wilson Park, Washington School Park, and the Square Gardens. You are also exploring the old water treatment plant as a possible park site. Could you please comment on the status of that project? Dugwyler: I don't think at this time the city has made a final decision on what to do with that piece of property. Krueger: But it is still under consideration? Dugwyler: Yes. Krueger: My neighbors are concerned about traffic, about safety, and they are concerned about lighting. Some feel that lighting will draw people to the park at night. Some do not want lighting. Our area is not free of crime. Just because it is the historic district doesn't mean that it doesn't have its share of problems. Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts, and please consider our concerns as you decide whether a city park is truly a good fit for this piece of property. Dick Keating: My name is Dick Keating, and I live directly across from the proposed park in question. I'd like to say a few words in opposition of the city's acquisition of this piece of property. First of all I don't want to come across as being against parks in general. We were instrumental in the city obtaining the property which is now the entrance to Gulley Park. When we bought the property from the church, we had the church deed lots 4 and 5 of that subdivision directly to the city at our expense. We thought enough of the park, but then we built seven houses directly in front of it. I have an argument in general against these postage stamp -sized lots. When you speak against the parks the problem is it's like speaking against motherhood or apple pie. It seems like such a wonderful idea that people don't understand where you are coming from. A person walks down the street, and they see that beautiful piece of property with the trees and the green space and the creek, and they think of a place where children can play, mothers can bring their toddlers, I could sit under an March 2, 1998 • Page 25 oak tree and soothe my withered soul. The problem is these small parks dilute the city park funds because they are very expensive to maintain. And when that happens, the reality of the picture involves trash, vandalism, criminal mischief, and the opening up of another place in the city where nothing goes on good after dark. I think the cost of the parking, or this stopping people from parking, with the lighting, such as it would be, the general maintenance, the ADA requirements, the upgrading of the facilities to meet city building codes, the guardrails over the creek, the well that is there, and most especially the security requirements are such that it becomes a very expensive proposition for the city if the park were donated to the city. It's the continual maintenance and upkeep that is the problem. I think that is just a matter of logistics. There is just too much time when city employees are running around from one little pinpoint park to another and the city doesn't get the real bang for its buck when you're doing that as a general way of operating. The other argument specifically against this park is that the street is such a narrow street, and the traffic is very heavy right now. Ironically, I think this park works right now because it is not a piece of public property. The people asked to leave. This doesn't happen on city in closing I would say that the city has the use its funds in the most effective manner to spend tax dollars on something like this in the most effective manner, and the city from it. Fear has been the reason for a lot who misbehave are property. I guess • responsibility to possible. I think is not using them should steer away of the opposition to the park. I submit that the fear of change has been a lot of the reason for the support of the park. It has been inferred that all the history would be lost, disappear, if this park is not sold to the city. It has been my experience that responsible private ownership also serves history well. Kitty Gay: My name is Kitty Gay, and I live at 324 Sutton Street which is basically across the street from Chris Krueger. I am in the middle block of Sutton Street. The traffic is the thing that really concerns me. For those of us who live on Sutton Street it is a terrible, terrible problem. I come home sometimes when there are functions at the church, and the street is so narrow that one car can barely drive Page 26 • March 2, 1998 • • • through because both sides are lined with cars. I have problems turning into my own driveway. I'm certain that if this becomes a park there will be more traffic problems. The fact that the city doesn't provide parking doesn't mean people will not drive from somewhere else and try to park there. They're going to park in front of my house and walk up to the park, or even along the dangerous ditch in front of the park. Trash is another concern. My house backs up to St. Joseph Church, and they have a basketball goal in the parking lot of the church that is used sort of as a public park. In the middle of the night people will come there with their music blaring loud and shoot baskets; that is annoying. They also throw their trash over my fence. It's a weekly chore at my house to go out in the back yard and pick up the candy wrappers and coke cups and things which have been pitched over the fence. If we have a public park we are going to have more of that in the neighborhood. I also would like to say that I do not like to live in fear either, but we do have crime in our neighborhood. I have been subjected to crime in my home, someone tried to break in, and at least one other house that I know personally has had the same problem. I have never been in the park, and I have lived in this house since 1985. I raised a child there and a bunch of her friends, and they were under strict instructions to not go into the park. That is private, and you do not go play in other people's yards. My daughter did tell me that she has been there. She said there is a culvert you can go under; there are a lot of dark, hidden places in the park which you cannot possibly watch and police. I feel like it will be a place where people will come and hang out and do things we do not want done in our neighborhood. As far as a concern about whether there is one or two or three houses built on that piece of property, Mr. Keating's house is a prime example of how you can build a beautiful home on those steep hillsides and not destroy the character of the property. The Woodland character, as far as the animals and birds which come there, I don't feel like a home development would change the character of that neighborhood. I wouldn't be unhappy to see several homes go on that piece of property. I would much rather see a couple of private homes with people who could maintain control of what went on in the area than to have it be a public park. Finally, I haven't done nearly as much research as most of my neighbors have done, but I was March 2, 1998 • Page 27 intrigued to hear of some of the other sights that are being talked about for development as parks. Some of those sites that were mentioned need to have something done because they are eyesores. It seems to me that the money of our community could be much better spent by taking some place ugly and making it beautiful so it could be useful. Constance Clack, a resident of 228 E. Dickson, submitted the following for the record: `I would like to register my opposition to making the Sutton Street property a city park, my objection being chiefly the traffic situation, especially parking.' PRAB DISCUSSION: Thiel: I would like to say that I for many years have seen the site and thought it would be great if the city owned it so that we could control that amount of green space. But then again, because our funds are not inexhaustible, I do feel like the amount of money that we would be spending on such a small area would be extreme. I think it would remain a neighborhood park; I cannot see people driving far and wide to this little park because there is not much to do there. I think once St. Joseph has moved it will eliminate a lot of the parking problems. I think our funds might be better spent if we could possibly get the site on Mt. Sequoyah. I'm very mixed about it; I want the green space, but that is a big price to pay for green space and to maintain it. Bleidt: I too am seriously mixed on this. As I was hearing the comments from the proponents of this issue, I got really excited when I hear that 165 people are for it, and when I hear about Friends For Fayetteville and the Fayetteville Historic District Commission. You really hear, through other people, really the comments from someone as great as Ms. Fulbright and the history behind all of this. I too go by it and see one of the most beautiful places in Fayetteville, and I want to preserve that. I think that's what we've been hearing—the preservation of this site. But the issue of traffic, the issue of the expense; then again you say well we should spend that sum of money for such a great place Page 28 • March 2, 1998 • • • regardless of its size. There are pros and cons on this, and I think I could fight myself until the very end on it. This is an issue I will personally have to think about very, very strongly. I would like to thank everyone on both sides; it's a blessing in my eyes to have citizens who will put so much work and effort into an issue like this. Without it, we wouldn't be Fayetteville. Charboneau: The Fayetteville Historic District Commission: are you a dues paying group like a property association? Maxfield: No. We actually have three districts in Fayetteville. These districts are established under federal and state guidelines. They are on the national historic register in Washington. The guidelines come under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior of the federal government. Charboneau: My only point is, it is a beautiful piece of land, but I don't think it's practical for the city to purchase this property. If the city buys this and it becomes public property it will change. The land itself may not change, but the use of the facility will. For those of you who do not want it to, I don't think that's being practical. In my subdivision we had a property association and if we wanted to do improvements within our neighborhood we could assess our members dues and do that. Is there any kind of option for that district to try to raise the money, finance through the district and pay it out over time, using dues from the home owners? That way it will never be developed, the home owners will own it, and it will remain private. I want everyone to understand that if the city becomes involved, the property will change. Maxfield: There is no way that a national historic district can do what you are saying. You are speaking of neighborhood associations. As far as change, it is always inevitable. Having a neighborhood park is very consistent and compatible with neighborhoods of this vintage. Alexander: I think the change the people who proposed the park are concerned with is the loss of green space. Absent of the city owning the park, there is no guarantee to what will happen. In my opinion it will be developed, and you will lose the opportunity to preserve that green space permanently. I think the majority of the citizens in the neighborhood as well as groups like the Fayetteville Historic District Commission and Friends for Fayetteville understand that it will change with city ownership, but I think they are comfortable that it would change for the better in the fact that the city would guarantee that the green March 2, 1998 • Page 29 space would remain a green space. I think people are asking the city to make that change. I think there are more proponents than opponents by any calculation. Dugwyler: We know what the asking price is; we have not negotiated with the owners, so we do not yet know the selling price. It's very distressing to me to hear what terrible reputations our Fayetteville city parks have and that they are such terrible places. I just didn't realize that. Ackerman. With the Board's indulgence, I think we should take the information we have received tonight and digest the facts and do a little more research on our behalf. Certainly we need to talk to the property owner to see if we should agree with some of the public to attempt to acquire this property. That will still have to be negotiated at a level that we feel would be reasonable if it were to come to fruition. We need some time now to digest the information presented, and we certainly appreciate all of the hard work and interest which has gone into this presentation. We will take all of this into consideration as we move forward and evaluate the comments that were made. I think the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board were impressed with the property when they toured it, and we are all atuned to the quality of green space and what it lends to our individual communities. These are all factors that will be part of the equation. Certainly we understand and give strong consideration to those who live immediately in the proximity of the park and the concerns that you have. I know first hand, having lived near parks with small children, some of the problems you face. All of these things are important to us. Your show of support for your position tonight will give us strong input and help us make the decision that would be appropriate for our community. This is a complex issue, and it will take a little time to resolve it. We would like the opportunity to take a little time to evaluate it properly and make our recommendations. Judy: I've always felt like it was very important to protect our heritage, and that is just a part of our heritage. It's what Fayetteville is all about. I feel very strong about it. I live near Wilson Park and the direct traffic, but it has never really been that much of a problem. I do feel like initally there might be more traffic, but after a few months things would settle down. Bleidt: I think it is very important for us all to remember that this is not any neighborhood park, in my opinion, she said a very, very important word: heritage. This is our historic district, one of the three, so this is very important. The last thing I want to Page 30 • March 2, 1998 • • • • Bleidt: I think it is very important for us all to remember that this is not any neighborhood park, in my opinion, she said a very, very important word: heritage. This is our historic district, one of the three, so this is very important. The last thing I want to see us do is lose this. I don't think we can just go down some check list of things to look at and things to not look at because this is different. This is our historic district. • • VI. Annual Report - Rogers Ms. Rogers commented on the distribution of the 1997 Parks & Recreation Annual Report completed by staff. An agenda request has been submitted to present the report to City Council at its' March 17 meeting. Mr. Ackerman asked that the request be resubmitted for a later date, and he would make the presentation. VII. OTHER BUSINESS A report from the Nominating Committee, comprised of Bleidt, Judy, and Thiel, was presented nominating Mr. Ackerman for Chairman and Mr. Bleidt for Vice Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board. MOTION: LUTTRELL/JUDY Mr. Luttrell moved the nomination cease and the slate of officers be elected by acclamation. The motion was approved unanimously 7-0-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: APR 6 1998 MINUTES TAKEN BY: 5,?m4n /a John Nelson 477 March 2, 1998 • Page 31