HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-06 - Minutes (3)PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Meeting Minutes June 6, 2005 Opening: The regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was called to order at 5:30 p.m. on June 6, 2005 in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas by Mike Hill. Present: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members Hill, Bailey, Langsner, Davidson, Harrison, Pawlik-Holmes and Park Staff Hatfield, Edmonston, Wright, Jumper, Mihalevich, Dutton, Whillock and Audience. 1. Approval of May 2, 2005 regular meeting Minutes MOTION: Davidson moved to approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board April 4, 2005 meeting minutes. Bailey seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0-0 with Hill, Bailey, Harrison, Langsner, and Davidson voting 'yes' and Pawlik-Holmes, Mauritson, and Marley absent for the vote. 2. Approval of May 31, 2005 special meeting Minutes MOTION: Harrison moved to approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board May 31, 2005 special meeting minutes. Bailey seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0-0 with Hill, Bailey, Harrison, Langsner, and Davidson voting `yes' and Pawlik-Holmes, Mauritson, and Marley absent for the vote. 3. Arkansas Parks and Tourism Outdoor Recreation Grant Program Board member Monroe Harrison reported on the public meeting held at 5:00 P.M. prior to this PRAB meeting. All speakers were in favor of the grant application to be prepared in conjunction with The Botanical Gardens of the Ozarks. June 6, 2005 / 1 PRAB Motion: Harrison recommended approval and moved to approve the application of the grant. The motion was seconded by Langsner. The motion was approved 5-0-0 with Hill, Bailey, Langsner, Davidson, and Harrison voting `yes' and Pawlik-Holmes, Mauritson and Marley absent for the vote. 4. School Park Lease Agreement: Mike Hill and Connie Edmonston, Parks & Recreation Director Mike Hill and Connie Edmonston met with School Administration to discuss joint usage of land. Attached is the proposed agreement. The proposal includes to lease Asbell Elementary School and Holcomb Elementary School grounds as indicated on the attached maps, in exchange of the 200 acres leased to the School System at the Environmental Study Center. The proposal is for a 10 year lease with a one year cancellation notice. PRAB Motion: Harrison moved to approve the lease proposal and forward on to the School Board and subsequently to the City Council. Bailey seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0-0 with Hill, Bailey, Langsner, Harrison, and Davidson voting `yes', and Mauritson, Marley and Pawlik-Holmes absent for the vote. 5. Park Land Dedication: Development Name: Architect: Owner: Location: Alison Jumper, Park District: Units: Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu Requirement: Existing Parks: Developer's Request: Staff Recommendation: Developer's Comments: ...However, if the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board determines that a neighborhood park is not feasible or advisable, it may recommend to the City Council that a cash contribution pursuant to our ordinance be accepted in lieu of land dedication. The City June 6, 2005 / 2 Park Planner Wedington Townhomes Cooper Architects Cope Gracy, Aaron Stahl On the north side of Wedington Dr., west of Rupple Road NW 90 Single Family 9 2.16 acres $49,950 The future Bryce Davis Park expansion and Red Oak Park are within a half mile service area. Money in lieu Money in lieu Council will either accept the recommendation for a cash contribution or return the subdivision plat to the Parks Board with instructions or further study.. (Unified Development Ordinance No. 166.03K) Justification: The existing parks within 1/2 mile service area of this development will serve the recreational needs of this development. Both Rupple and Wedington are shown on the FATT plan as on street linkages which will provide pedestrian access to the future Bryce Davis park expansion. PRAB Motion: Davidson moved to accept staff recommendation of money in lieu. Bailey seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0-0 with Hill, Bailey, Langsner, Harrison, and Davidson voting `yes', and Mauritson, Marley and Pawlik-Holmes absent for the vote. 6. Park Land Dedication: Development Name: Architect: Owner: Location: Alison Jumpe Park District: Units: Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu Requirement: Existing Parks: Developer's Request: Staff Recommendation: Developer's Comments: ...However, if the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board determines that a neighborhood park is not feasible or advisable, it may recommend to the City Council that a cash contribution pursuant to our ordinance be accepted in lieu of land dedication. The City Council will either accept the recommendation for a cash contribution or return the subdivision plat to the Parks Board with instructions or further study.. (Unified Development Ordinance No. 166.03K) r, Park Planner Leverett Apartments Project Design Consultants, Inc. SCB Investments, LLC On the west side of Leverett Ave., between Poplar and Ash streets. NW 34 Multi -family 1.68 acres .578 acres $13,362 When constructed, Scull Creek Trail will be located in close proximity to this development. Money in lieu Money in lieu Justification: Scull Creek Trail will provide a connection for residents of this development to existing parks including Wilson Park and Gordon Long Park. The university farm and Agri Park are located within 1/2 June 6, 2005 / 3 miles from the proposed development. Additionally the park land requirement is not adequate for a neighborhood park. PRAB Motion: Bailey moved to accept staff recommendation of money in lieu, seconded the motion. Davidson The motion was approved 5-0-0 with Bailey, Langsner, Harrison, and Davidson voting `yes', and Mauritson, Marley and Pawlik-Holmes absent for the vote. 7. Park Land Dedication: Alison Development Name: Architect: Owner: Location: Park District: Units: Jumper, Park Planner Zion Gardens Cooper Architects Clark, Carlton, Lamberth Along the north side of Zion, West of Hwy, 265 NE 78 Single Family, 16 Multi Family Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu Requirement: Existing Parks: Developer's Request: Staff Recommendation: Developer's Comments: ...However, if the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board determines that a neighborhood park is not feasible or advisable, it may recommend to the City Council that a cash contribution pursuant to our ordinance be accepted in lieu of land dedication. The City Council will either accept the recommendation for a cash contribution or return the subdivision plat to the Parks Board with instructions or further study.. (Unified Development Ordinance No. 166.03K) 13.2 +/- 2.14 acres $49,578 Lake Fayetteville is within a half mile service area. Money in lieu Money in lieu Justification: This project is very close to Lake Fayetteville which will serve the recreational needs of its residents. In addition, Zion is identified on the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trail master plan as an on street linkage PRAB Motion: Bailey moved to accept staff recommendation of money in lieu, Harrison seconded the motion. June 6, 2005 / 4 The motion was approved 5-0-0 with Bailey, Langsner, Harrison, and Davidson voting `yes', and Mauritson, Marley and Pawlik-Holmes absent for the vote. 8. Park Land Dedication: Alison Jumper, Development Name: Architect: Owner: Location: Park District: Units: Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu Requirement: Existing Parks: Developer's Request: Staff Recommendation: Park Planner Vu Tara Subdivision Paradigm Development Tracy Hoskins East of Crossover (Hwy 265) between Hwy 16 and Hwy 45, just south of Lovers Lane. SE 27 Single Family 15 +/- .648 acres $14,985 None Money in lieu Money in lieu Developer's Comments: ...However, if the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board determines that a neighborhood park is not feasible or advisable, it may recommend to the City Council that a cash contribution pursuant to our ordinance be accepted in lieu of land dedication. The City Council will either accept the recommendation for a cash contribution or return the subdivision plat to the Parks Board with instructions or further study.. (Unified Development Ordinance No. 166.03K) Justification: The park land dedication requirement is not adequate for a neighborhood park. Additionally, there is no potential for future expansion. PRAB Motion: Bailey moved to accept staff recommendation of money in lieu, Harrison seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0-0 with Hill, Bailey, Langsner, Harrison, and Davidson voting 'yes', and Pawlik-Holmes, Mauritson, and Marley absent for the vote. 9. Transfer or sale of property: Madison Street Natural Area/Hays Estates Matt Mihalevich, Park Planner Background: Dr. J.B. Hays is developing Hay Estates to the south of Madison Drive Natural Area. On April 4, 2005 PRAB agreed to the dedication of a street easement from Madison Drive south to Hays Estates. Since the meeting, Dr. Hays is interested in acquiring the land adjacent to the street easement for an entry June 6, 2005 / 5 feature to the subdivision. He has proposed to purchase the property or trade part of the property in exchange for providing park amenities to be located on the remaining park land south of Madison Drive. Staff Recommendation: Sell the 1.6 Acres of Madison Drive Natural Area south of Madison Drive. Crystal Goederis representing Dr. Hays presented pictures of suggested ideas for the small parcel of land in question. She said Dr. Hays believes this request would provide an opportunity for a private individual and the City to work together. The castle area at Wilson Park would be a good example of the design idea presented. This improvement by the developer would be in exchange for the balance of the parcel to be included in the proposed development in order to extend the street and become the entrance to the neighborhood. Should the City decide to sell the land they would ask that a provision in sale would be the purchaser would do something to improve the drainage on the piece as well as improve the appearance. The trade would be the developer paying for the improvement of the small area of land in exchange for the balance of the property. This small area would be maintained by the POA in the new neighborhood. Hill stated that since there's little the City can do with this small piece of land the best idea will be to allow the developer to put a pleasant spot that looks nice at the entry to the development. He said that what the Board decides is simply a recommendation to City Council. Edmonston explained that selling it or trading it will have to go through the Council for a resolution. Langsner asked if it can be sold to someone besides the developer and the answer was "yes it could". Baily suggested that if it was to be sold to someone other than the developer of the property stipulations for the type of improvement should be included in the sale. Davidson asked if the proceeds from any sale of the property can be directed to other park development. Edmonston explained that this land was purchased from Water & Sewer and the proceeds may go back to that department's fund. Hill suggested that input on the use of the larger piece of the land should be from all citizens in the general area, not just the neighbors. Hill asked if the Board recommends taking this request forward for City Council to decide. PRAB Motion: June 6, 2005 / 6 Pawlik-Holmes moved to send Staff's recommendation to sell the 1.6 acres of Madison Drive Natural Area south of Madison Drive to Council. Bailey seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0-0 with Hill, Bailey, Langsner, Harrison, Davidson and Pawlik-Holmes voting `yes', and Mauritson and Marley absent for the vote. 10. Dog Park Discussion: Alison Jumper, Park Planner Jumper provided a brief overview of the history of the process of establishing the dog park. Hill stated that a recent trip to Austin, Texas, afforded him the opportunity to see and compare the two parks in that city, one which was fenced and one bordering the lake which was not fenced. Harrison expressed that he was fully in favor of a dog park, but not at the currently proposed area at Gulley Park. He feels there will be considerable opposition to the close proximity to the walking trail. He recommended a reconsideration of either the north or south area at Lake Fayetteville. After a request from Davidson, Jumper elaborated on why the Gulley Park area was chosen. She stated the specific area was chosen because of the central location, as well as it's proximity to neighbors, and the possibility of getting more of the public interested and involved. The plan is to provide a dog park for each of the City's quadrants. Wade Cauldwell, a citizen, spoke in support of Gulley Park but suggested a smaller area with some shade and more distance from the trail would be more acceptable. He said the currently proposed area as marked is one of the only open areas in the Fayetteville Park system where such activities as kite flying is possible. He would like to see this area left open and choose another part of the park. He also agreed Gulley is a good central location for such a facility. Pawlik-Holmes asked if the area of Gulley Park south of the creek had been considered. Jumper assured that it had been considered, but was currently one of the few areas available for the public parking during the Concerts in the Park held during the summer months. Edmonston agreed saying the area south of the creek is used for additional parking as well as other open space sports activities. Rebecca Harrison, a citizen, agreed the south side is best as well due to fewer activities occurring there. She stated the dog park is certainly a much needed facility. Robert Ferrell, a Fayetteville City Alderman, spoke saying he has received many calls in support of Lake Fayetteville. He suggested listening to the comments from June 6, 2005 / 7 the citizens. He said the area at Gulley on the south side of the creek is used for parking only seven days a year during the concerts and a dog park would be used every day and is much needed. However the current proposed location could cause concern due to dogs making a mess and owners failing to pick up after their dogs. Edmonston stated dog owners are required by law to pick up after their dogs and if the area is not kept clean it could possibly become necessary to close the dog park. David Bruce, a resident living near Gulley Park, stated his support for the location and suggested use. Coy E. Brown, a homeowner on Township, said his home overlooks the park. He doesn't believe a city treasure such as Gulley Park should have this type of facility. A chain link fence is a detriment to the view. He said he doesn't believe dogs have created a problem thus far in the park. He believes a dog park should be located somewhere besides the middle of town adding that this amenity will create more parking problems at Gulley and the parking issues at the park should be addressed first. Harrison asked about considering another park such as Finger Park or Greathouse Park which are not highly used by the public. Michael Akins, past director of the Humane Society of Northwest Arkansas, stated the existing dog park is located at Animal Services. There's a need for a more central location. The Society holds the Dogwood Walk each year at Gulley Park to raise funds and everyone enjoys the location. The Humane Society will be working with Parks to get donations for the endeavor. Ann Wilder, citizen, stated since dog parks need to be fenced she believes chain link essentially `disappears' due to the structure of the fencing material. She also said she seldom sees people in the currently selected area at Gulley Park and also believes most people pick up after their dogs. Jill Hatfield, Director Fayetteville Animal Services, state the existing dog park associated with the City's animal shelter is mostly used by Animal Services. Some people come as regular users and she believes most citizens are looking for and needing a central location. She believes Gulley Park is a good location for such a facility. Pawlik-Holmes said she has received calls from citizens who voiced support but have concerns as to the location within the park. Langsner stated he had also received calls from citizens with negative comments. He also inquired if the `money -in -lieu' received could be used for parking improvements at Gulley Park. Bailey stated perhaps an area with shade would be a better idea. He said he doesn't believe the area will be damaged by the dog park. He also said since fencing materials have not been decided at this time, there is still time and need for input and ideas. Edmonston said there are no funds for the project to date, but citizens who want the dog park have committed to raising those funds. June 6, 2005 / 8 Hatfield stated that this is the location the Parks staff feels is best suited for the project. He said fencing material has not been chosen and the staff will research various products. He also said they would be looking at other areas at Gulley Park. Hill said having heard the objections and suggestions it appears the parking issue does need to be addressed. He said what he heard from the citizens indicates a need for a closer look. Harrison stated again that he is in favor of a dog park but believes other locations and other alternatives are available that will be better. Langsner asked how we would know what works till it's tried. He said it appears no one wants it in 'my back yard'. Pawlik-Holmes reminded everyone that the same issues that exist at Gulley Park were also raised as concerns about Lake Fayetteville. She said she believes Gulley Park is a good central location that will encourage more public use and the project should be continued at that location. Davidson agreed that Gulley is the best park but would be open to looking at a smaller area or perhaps the area south of the creek. He said perhaps a smaller dog park would be a good pilot project and after the community sees the results there will be less opposition. Edmonston stated the size currently planned is needed and was arrived at after researching dog parks in other cities. Hill asked for a motion. PRAB Motion: Pawlik-Holmes moved to have Park Staff continue to focus on Gulley Park when configuring the proposed dog park and to provide a defense for the chosen area. Langsner amended the motion to propose a couple of alternative plans with the pros and cons for each. The amendment was accepted and Bailey seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1-0 with Hill, Bailey, Langsner, Davidson, and Pawlik-Holmes voting `yes', Harrison voting 'no' and Mauritson and Marley absent for the vote. 11. Park Land Dedication: Alison Jumper, Park Planner Development Name: Scull Creek Apartments Architects: Cooper Architects Owner: AEB Investments, LLC Location: Along the west side of Scull Creek, north of Ash St Park District: NW Units: 15 Multi -Family June 6, 2005 / 9 Total Acres: 1.75 Land Dedication Requirement: .26 acres Money in Lieu Requirement: $5,895 Existing Parks: Gregory Developer's Request: Land Staff Recommendation: Money in lieu and donation of a 30' trail corridor on the west side of Scull Creek. Justification: PRAB Motion: Gregory Park is located within a half mile service area of this development. Additionally, the Scull Creek trail corridor as identified in the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trail master plan runs through the southeast corner of this property. This trail corridor is a very high priority trail. Langsner moved to accept staff recommendation of $5,895 and land for a trail to be donated. Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0-0 with Hill, Bailey, Langsner, Harrison, Davidson and Pawlik-Holmes voting `yes', and Mauritson and Marley absent for the vote. 12. Park Land Dedication: Alison Jumper, Park Planner Development Name: Mountain Development Engineer: H2 Engineering Owner: Lamberth - Carlton Investments, LLC Location: East of Dead Horse Mountain Road and Combs Park, south of Goff Farm Road. Park District: SE Units: 257 Single Family Total Acres: 127 acres Land Dedication Requirement: 6.17 acres Money in Lieu Requirement: $142,632 Existing Parks: None Developer's Request: Land Staff Recommendation: Land Justification: Currently there are no neighborhood parks within a 1/2 mile radius of the proposed development. With 257 units, this major development creates a strong need for a neighborhood park. Additionally, this land would provide a unique recreational experience for its residents. June 6, 2005 / 10 A conversation among Board members led to a determination that since the Board's job is to recommend land on this issue per the Staff's recommendation, a tour of the location was not needed. The actual selection of the land used is up to the Park Staff. PRAB Motion: Langsner moved to accept staff recommendation of land and Bailey seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0-0 with Hill, Bailey, Langsner, Harrison, Davidson and Pawlik-Holmes voting `yes', and Mauritson and Marley absent for the vote. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Cheryl Whitlock June 6, 2005 / 11