No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-03 - MinutesPARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Meeting Minutes May 3, 2004 Opening: The regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was called to order at 5:36 p.m. on May 3, 2004 in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas by Chairman Colwell. Present: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members Colwell, Bailey, Eads, Hill, Marley, and Mauritson, Pawlik Holmes; City staff Coles, Ohman, Wright, Weber, Hatfield, Edmonston; and Audience. 1. Approval of April S. 2004 Minutes Bailey clarified his statement in the last PRAB meeting to read: Bailey stated this is a great way for the public to have better access to connect by a private property. MOTION: Hill moved to approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board May S. 2004 meeting minutes as corrected. Mauritson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0-0 with Colwell, Bailey, Eads, Hill, Marley, Pawlik Holmes, and Mauritson voting `yes' with Shoulders absent for the vote. 2. Park Land Dedication Development Name: Rupple Row Engineer: Chris Brackett, Jorgensen Owner: John Nock Location: West of the Boys and Girls Club along Rupple Road and South of the Meadowlands Subdivision. Park District: South West May 3, 2004 / 1 Units: Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement Money in Lieu Requirement: Existing Parks: Staff Recommendation: Justification: MOTION: 182 Single Family, 78 Multi Family 41.70 5.7 acres $131,664 Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club within 1/2 mile and Red Oak and Davis Park within a mile. Money in Lieu In October 2001, as part of the development of the Meadowlands Subdivision and Fayetteville Boys' and Girls' Club, WHM, Inc banked Tract 5, consisting of 5.37 acres, toward future development in the SW quadrant. Developer wishes to apply the 5.37 acres to the Park Land Dedication Requirement, leaving parks fees of $7,482.75 or a land dedication of 0.33 acres. Due to the development's location adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club and future trail connections, Parks and Recreation Staff recommend accepting money in lieu. Hill moved to accept Money in Lieu of a land dedication to satisfy the Park Land Dedication Ordinance for the proposed development. Mauritson seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 7-0-0 with Colwell, Bailey, Eads, Hill, Marley, Pawlik Holmes, and Mauritson voting `yes' and Shoulders absent for the vote. 3. Gregg Street Proposal Edmonston explained that the mayor has been in discussion with the owner to purchase the land between Center Prairie Trail that would agree with the master plan. Trees and Trials Taskforce met this afternoon and are willing to commit funds toward this purchase. Once May 3, 2004 / 2 the mayor negotiates the sell of this land this proposal will be reviewed by the task force and brought back to Parks Board. Pawlik Holmes asked what the status of the new classification of these lands. Edmonston replied at this time there is a recommendation and the classification will be established. Mauritson clarified the land to be purchased is that land east of the Gregg street property. Edmonston stated if this land is purchased then Park & Recreation will own land on both sides of the trail. Marley asked if it would help to just acquire the Gregg Street property before the other land is purchased. Pawlik Holmes stated the reason she questioned this acquisition is the lack of policy and is glad it is being established. Mauritson asked if there is a representative for the proposal present. Edmonston relied no, because she updated the involved parties as to the status of the request. Pawlik Holmes moved to table the proposal until June 7, meeting. Mauritson seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 7-0-0 with Colwell, Bailey, Eads, Hill, Marley, Pawlik Holmes, and Mauritson voting yes' and Shoulders absent for the vote. 4. Peace Poll Colwell reviewed attachments and determined that Dick Bennett's letter was not enclosed. Anita Schnee requested that the agenda item be tabled on ground that Dick Bennett letter had not had due consideration and secondly that Attorney Kit Williams produced a different opinion to give the item the consideration it deserves tabling the item would be suitable. May 3, 2004 / 3 Pawlik Holmes stated in regard to Mr. Williams correspondence dated April 29, she considered that to be a response to Anita Schnee's brief. Anita Schnee replied this may be a response to my brief but it does not give me ample time to adjust my argument which was aimed at that material that was public. Bailey replied in some research he had reviewed Omni Center and World Peace Prayer Society websites. He then clarified that Omni Center seemed to be more political than that other peace organization. He requested to accept these two poles based on the World Peace Prayer Society. At the same time the parks do not need to become cluttered. Also need to establish a commission to review what signage would be accepted in the parks. Anita Schnee replied she thinks this is extremely important to the legal understanding of this matters clarity. This question touched on first amendment rights. If this board makes a decision based on Attorney Williams representation that a court would find this to be political speech it is a poposterous statement. Bailey replied that this pole is acceptable in this case. He then referred to the pentagon and the UN that has a peace pole from an international group that remains non-political. Dick Bennett stated he believes the Omni Center seems to be the political part of the item. He stated it is important to communicate in advance of the concerns. He stated he was surprised by Attorney Kit Williams response to their correspondence and requested to table the agenda item. Pawlik Holmes asked if the positions have changed from the original opinions considering Mr. Williams latest correspondence. Hill stated this is not a legal proceeding that could continue for a long time. He clarified that these delays can not continue. Kit Williams stated his page and a half response is not a brief and does not view this as a legal brief. He was responding to the previous correspondence. The city can decide to put signs on their property. Once this board makes a recommendation it then can be reviewed by Administration. He stated he did not intend to start a debate but simply responded to the question "are peace poles political?" May 3, 2004 / 4 Joseph Regan responded that he feels the city is viewing political events instead of the general message of the peace that is necessary for a thriving community. Dick Bennett stated that the request is just for two more peace poles, one in walker and one is gulley. Edmonston replied the poles in question were discussed and it was determined to wait until the first poles have been in the parks a while. Marion Orton held a picture of a peace pole and stated that she would like to get these poles in parks before school is out. She describes the art project from the students. Colwell stated the first adhesive U.S. stamp was a white dove with "peace on earth" on the front. This did not start as a political topic until people raised the political issue. Colwell stated his favor of the two poles because the children worked hard on the project. Mauritson responded that everyone has been eloquent in corresponding; a great legal presentation had been raised. Peace is a good thing in its literal terms. The fact is setting a president for the future sign or art work requests. This is a wonderful idea but there are other parameters to it. Mauritson stated people will make these signs political by holding rallies near the peace poles. He agrees that the poles should be placed in the parks however; explain to the audience that the parameters will come in the future. Kit Williams replied to the constitutional issue, is the politics or not. He reviewed a Inc. Vs. Pryor case from the past and stated if peace is an idea or had content then the city can most determine what signs would be allowed by the content. The government should not control the content of the signs that are installed. Content based regulations have been determined by the court to be unlawful. The government is restricted to base decisions on content. Pawlik Holmes stated despite the beauty of the poles, the board does have a responsibility. Motion to accept staff recommendation to not allow any more peace poles in the parks. Hill asked had we known the policy before the first poles would they have been accepted. May 3, 2004 / 5 Edmonston stated probably not, the first poles are at square gardens and Walton Arts Center before it became parks responsibility. She stated the poles could be placed in other parts of the city. Anita Schnee stated the Boulder City Attorney had a peace pole. This is not written in stone like Attorney Williams will have you to believe "please don't make us go suit, please." Hill addressed Attorney Williams and responded regarding the ordinance. Then clarified that the group requested these poles to be placed in parks since the poles have been given as a gift, will that abide by the ordinance. Kit Williams replied this is not an issue of who put the signs in the parks, but what the decision was based upon. The city government can not make contend based decisions. Anita Schnee stated you can not just say an idea is content. Joseph Regan stated peace is an essential element of a functioning society. This is not about content. All organizations must be organized and maintain peace to function. Carol Tarvin stated she is from Green Party of Washington County that is political and embraces peace. She asked if the city had not already crossed the line by allowing the other to be installed. Kit Williams responded with existing peace poles. The line has been crossed by allowing content based signs are placed in the parks. Once the poles are installed then a public forum will be formed to allow other content base signs. Mauritson suggested allowing these peace sculptures. A decision must be reached following this 45 minute discussion. From the realistic approach of peace and the art work on these particular poles is an artistic contribution to the parks. There have not been any complaints thus far. Edmonston replied since there has been discussion of these peace poles there have been comments from citizens. Pawlik Holmes moved to follow staff and council recommendation to not allow any additional peace poles in the parks that are not already in the parks. May 3, 2004 / 6 Hill seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion failed 2-5-0 with Hill and Pawlik Holmes voting `yes', Colwell, Bailey, Eads, Marley, and Mauritson voting `no', and Shoulders absent for the vote. Mauritson moved to allow these two peace poles in the parks with locations to be determined in with staff's approval. Colwell seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 5-2-0 with Colwell, Bailey, Eads, Marley, and Mauritson voting `yes', Hill and Pawlik Holmes voting `no', and Shoulders absent for the vote. Hill stated his view on this vote is not against peace signs. It is primarily related to placing signs in the parks. Mauritson stated his view is not to conflict with staff and councils recommendations. S. Dirt Bike Proposal The Mountain Bikers and the BMX Riders of Fayetteville are requesting for Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to allow them to develop a Dirt Jump Park to be located behind Grinders Skate Park, between the BMX and the trail that is currently under construction. Nathan Woodruff will present on behalf of the interested parties. Parks and Recreation Staff Recommendation: Approve the Dirt Jump Park at Walker Park based upon the following conditions: • Parks and Recreation approval of construction and site plan provided by Nathan Woodruff. • Abide by the City's Planning Office guidelines. • Provide a construction schedule. • Maintenance agreement to be signed by both parties. • Provide a free demonstration educating bikers about course etiquette, safety technique and equipment at the grand opening of the Dirt Jump Park. • Provide equipment and tractor. Nathan Woodruff summarized the proposal by stating the park would only be an addition to the existing park. Hill moved to accept the proposal with conditions recommended by staff. Mauritson seconded the motion. May 3, 2004 / 7 Upon roll call, the motion was approved 7-0-0 with Colwell, Bailey, Eads, Hill, Marley, Pawlik Holmes, and Mauritson voting Ayes' and Shoulders absent for the vote. Pawlik Holmes asked who will maintain this land. Wright stated this land will be maintained the same as the existing park that is by the organization. Woodruff requested a sign to display regulations and a dry dirt bike cleaning station with brushes. Edmonston stated staff will work with this group to accomplish these requests. 6. Community Park Update Ohman stated that Parks staff has received a signed MOA with ADEQ to fund $42,800 of the site characterization study which is due tomorrow. Edmonston added that the mayor is in discussion with the developer and should know more next month. 7. Trail Update Hatfield stated Center Prairie Trail groundbreaking will be this week. Lake Fayetteville Spillway Bridge project will bid May 7, 2004. PRAB and staff discussed the excellent job that Parks Maintenance crew is doing. Colwell asked about the upcoming Gulley Park concert series Wright replied there are some new people in the line-up. The regular performers will be rotated year-to-year to not become repetitive. Edmonston stated staff is still working on public land reviews to schedule site visits. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:23 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Rachel Weber Note: These minutes are verbatim due to the controversial discussion. May 3, 2004 / 8