HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-26 - MinutesPARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Special Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2006
Opening:
The special meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was called to order at
5:35 P.M. on September 26, 2006 by Committee Chairman, Wade Colwell. The
meeting was held at City Hall in room 1111.
Present:
In attendance were Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members Burke, Bailey, Free,
Bitler, Davis, Davidson, Colwell and Langsner. Also attending were City staff members
Jumper, Curry, Edmonston, Coles and Whillock.
1. Park Land Dedication:
Development Name:
Architect:
Owner:
Location:
Park District:
Units:
Kay Curry, Park Planner
Ruskin Heights (RSF4)
Critical Path
Ruskin Heights, LLC
South of Mission Boulevard, West
of Hwy. 265
and Berry Streets
SE
185 Single Family Units
120 Multi -Family Units
Total Acres: 29 acres
Land Dedication Requirement: 6.48 acres
Money in Lieu Requirement: $259,200
Existing Parks: Ridgeway View Natural Area
Developer's Request: Dedication of the following:
• The Ruskin Tower and associated .11 acres of
surrounding land - a thirty foot by thirty foot viewing
tower to be built at a cost of no less than $260,000
(the developer will be responsible for all cost in
excess of the $260,000). Additionally, maintenance
of the tower will be the responsibility of the POA
and the developer will work with city staff to develop
a contract to this effect. The design and
development of the tower will meet the approval of
Park staff.
• A trail corridor located near the western boundary
of the site through the tree preservation area will be
placed into a permanent public access easement
with the POA retaining ownership. The developer
shall work closely with the Trails Coordinator and
September 26, 2006 / 1
Urban Forester to develop this connection.
A public access easement for the Spanish Steps,
which will lead from the Market Pavilion near the
entrance to the neighborhood, up the hill through
the commercial area of the neighborhood and
terminate at Ruskin Tower
A public access easement for the village green; the
central green space of Ruskin Heights
Staff Recommendation: To conceptually accept the Developer's request with
the following modification:
The maintenance of the tower and the dedicated .11
acres of land are the responsibility of the City with the
P.O.A. required by contract to pay a fee for
maintenance. The contract shall be a non -amenable
maintenance contract with an inflation clause.
Justification: The existing development is located within the'/2 mile
service area of Ridgeway View Natural Area.
Topographical constraints of the site are not conducive
to the development of a traditional park and the
developer is proposing a unique idea with a unique
feature and experience for the public.
Bailey began the discussion by expressing his concern that the public will view
the tower as a private community structure. And at 30'x 30' it will be so small
it will have limited use at any given time due to its size. He stated he isn't
interested in subsidizing the developers "selling point" for the development. He
continued by saying he doesn't want to approve something that isn't going to be
used by the public because it is viewed as private property.
Edmonston asked Curry, Park Planner, to read the questions Staff was directed
to research at the September 11 PRAB meeting.
Curry proceeded by reading the following questions:
1- Who owns the tower where they currently exist? Most structures are
federally owned and maintained by National Park Service, Coast
Guard, etc.
2- Is vandalism a problem? Very little vandalism occurs at current
structures and what does occur is minimal.
3- Who can use the towers? Most are open to the public with various
restricted hours and seasons of the year.
4- Are there and liability problems? Some minor incidences.
5- Is there any criticism regarding the appearance of the tower? In most
cases the answer was 'No'. The public viewed the tower as an
amenity and liked them.
September 26, 2006 / 2
6- What is the height range of existing towers? The various towers
range from 30'— 216'.
7- Who manages the tower? The owner is the manager; U.S.
Government, Coast Guard, National Park Service.
8- What materials were used in the construction of the tower? A
multitude of materials have been used; many are built of stone, brick
and concrete.
Colwell stated he feels the development is offering too much density for the
amount of green space available. Having talked to several people in his
neighborhood he found that most felt the planned community will have too
much density. They felt the commercial areas along Mission are a good use of
the land. He said he is not in favor of the tower and feels it won't be an ongoing
recreational destination for the public.
Van Veen, with Ruskin Heights, said the Fayetteville 20/25 Master Plan
encourages the planning of this type of neighborhood; a community within a
community. He feels it is necessary to 'think outside the box'. The tower is
another kind of park. Fayetteville wants to stop sprawl and create more
urbanization as indicated by the 20/25 Plan.
Ward Davis, with Ruskin Heights, stated urbanism is part of the plan. In their
plan for Ruskin Heights they have utilized the most desirable location in the
development as public space. He said they are trying to attract people to the
project. They don't want this development to be exclusive of the public.
Colwell said he is not in favor of the money going into a tower in lieu of more
green space.
Bailey inquired of the developers what they will do if the Parks Board doesn't
approve the tower what would they put in its place.
Ward Davis the public civic building would probably be moved over and they
would not build a tower. The steps would remain available to the public, but
would not be a permanent public easement.
Edmonston stated the easement with the steps will be public access forever. If
the City has the public access they will always be open. She said if the steps
aren't a permanent public easement the neighborhood might decide at some
point in the future to close them off and prevent public access to the area.
Van Veen stated the project has been planned to be an open and very public
utilized area and not have the feel of a private, exclusive area. He said
normally an exclusive community, as it becomes more desirable, will close the
public access areas to be used for the residents only. In that case if the stairs
and currently proposed public accessible areas could be lost to the public. He
said conversations with various organization leaders brought the idea of
September 26, 2006 / 3
utilizing the area for public festivals and events. The presence of the retail
space requires this community to have easy access and use by the public.
There are currently many areas surrounding this location that can't get to the
proposed development area without going onto Mission Boulevard. However, if
the three trail and four street access areas are included in the plan, there will be
more and safer access points.
Bob Davis said the base tower base of 30'x 30' is small. If the POA is funding
the maintenance they could be pulled into any court case resulting from
personal injury. He wonders if .11 acres for $260,000 is fair to the citizens of
Fayetteville. He said if the City needed to have an employee on site that would
be added expense to the City. He asked if it wouldn't be better to bank the
money for future projects. He said after speaking to several people in the
surrounding communities he discovered many people were unaware of the
tower structure plan. He said he feels the City should not support the tower
and the developers should foot that expense.
Teague, Ruskin Heights, said the public meetings resulted in the tower idea
because of requests by citizens who attended. He did not see signs the public
disagreed with such a structure. He asked Edmonston if she considered this
something needed by the Parks Department.
Edmonston said a viewing platform such as a tower has come up in the past for
Mt. Sequoyah Gardens, but funding didn't exist to pursue the building of such a
structure.
Ward Davis said the developers wanted to fund a project the City doesn't have
the money for.
Bob Davis said he believes the developers can field this project to the Planning
Commission where there will be more opportunity for public input regarding the
tower. He said his biggest concern is he hasn't had enough input from citizens
to really get their ideas.
Free said she has talked to several people and many were hesitant at first but
eventually said they like the idea of a tower.
Bailey said the photos of towers brought forth by the Park Staff show towers in
forests and green spaces. He said he believes the consensus is favorable
toward a tower as an accessory in a larger park, but not to be the park in itself.
Ward Davis said one should think of the experience of this place. One goes
shopping or to one of the restaurants and then climbs the stairs to the tower as
part of the overall experience. He said he doesn't apologize about this being
an urban setting with no expansive, open field park, but there are experiences
and opportunities to hold the attention of the people for long periods of time as
an open park will It's a different experience.
September 26, 2006 / 4
Curry mentioned Eureka Springs offers a similar experience with its shopping,
dining and many small areas of green space.
Ward Davis stated there are areas of property owned by the city between
Ruskin Heights and Gulley Park that could provide an access all the way from
Shadow Ridge through to Gulley Park.
Bailey inquired how people would be able to safely cross Mission Boulevard to
use such a trail.
Van Veen said with plans to improve Mission to a boulevard with trees down
the middle it will be easier to cross single lanes of traffic at a time.
Teague stated he believes this is an opportunity to give Fayetteville something
it doesn't currently have. Dinner in the evening and then a place to go that
doesn't require getting back into the car and driving. He said they have been in
the planning stage for two years and the first plans contained only tree
preservation areas with no large chunks of green space. The grade of the site
offers only the top as suitable for open green space.
Burke reported his contact with citizens made it clear to him that it's important
to ask the right questions. If the people saw a picture of the tower they would
say they liked it. But when asked if they would want $260,000 put into the
tower or have green space instead, to a person the answer was green space.
He wondered if the people at the public meetings really understood what their
alternatives were.
Ward Davis said through all the discussion that's taken place it comes to
whether the Board would rather have the money or the amenity for the City.
Using six open acres on one side of the development would prove to be
catastrophic, it's just not feasible.
Colwell stated again he's just concerned about the number of people affected in
the community.
Ward Davis replied he's doubtful there would be as many people as a standard
development of nuclear households. This community is geared toward non-
nuclear type households currently not adequately served in this area.
Colwell inquired if the residents will maintain their own yards or will the POA
handle.
Ward Davis said there will be small, bungalow type areas with POAs that will
provide for yard maintenance for the residents.
Bitler asked the Staff if there is enough recreational opportunity for this
neighborhood.
September 26, 2006 / 5
Curry said the Staff had discussed and concluded there is enough green space
for this neighborhood.
Edmonston stated the reason Parks often waits to develop a park until
residents have moved in is to provide the type of park the people living there
want and need. With the clientele targeted by the developers for this
community, we feel the various green spaces throughout the neighborhood
provide sufficient recreation areas for the residents. Edmonston said the
reason Staff doesn't take the larger green space area south of the tower is
because the developers intend that open area to host public and private events
in conjunction with the community building what potentially would include the
serving of alcohol which is not permitted on City owned land.
Bitler stated he is generally supportive as it is infill and conventional parks
probably won't fit there. The six acres the density of this community would
require as a land dedication would be too much of the small acreage of the
development. To him the issue comes down to the parkland credit. He's not
convinced '/4 million dollars is a good use of money.
Ward Davis said they are trying to come to the best of both worlds. This is an
urban space with a group of small green areas and it's costly for the City to
maintain these types of park areas.
Bailey inquired about the development timeline. What is the actual time frame
for the tower's construction?
Ward Davis outlined on the projection of the completed project the area
incorporated into phase one which also includes the .11 acres and tower.
Langsner voiced his concerns over liability issues.
Colwell stated he is concerned that all that money is going into a tower at the
exclusion of open areas.
Curry replied to Langsner's concern saying the City has sovereign immunity.
Jumper stated if the POA pays the City to maintain the property the City will
absorb the responsibility in case of lawsuits. This way the POA is not put in a
position to become negligent.
Bob Davis said that would be up to a court of law.
Free asked Staff as information was received from other cities was there
anything addressed about the relationship between a POA and the city?
Edmonston remarked this type of project is really outside the box for Parks
September 26, 2006 / 6
Langsner asked if the tower is approved does this condition of public access
also cover the easements and trails and will these areas remain open to the
public.
Edmonston reiterated the public access areas will be open to the public forever.
What Staff is proposing has uniqueness not present in any other parks. This
would be a non -amendable clause in the agreement that the POA will provide
funds to the City to cover upkeep and maintenance. There will also be an
increase annually to absorb the increases due to cost -of -living.
Langsner asked about the amount of parking that will be available to the public.
Ward Davis said there is in the plan 220 street -side parking spaces plus an
area of structured parking.
Edmonston said this type of development supports the 20/25 Plan for a
community within a community.
Langsner asked if open times were to be decided by PRAB.
Edmonston said yes, as with all parks and any changes to the open times
would go through City Council.
PRAB Motion: Because this request was tabled at the September 11
PRAB meeting, Langsner moved to take the proposal off the table. Bob Davis
seconded the motion. A roll call resulted in an 8-0-0 vote and discussion
continued.
Burke asked if there is any distinction between having a permanent easement
and having ownership in the long-term use of the area.
Edmonston stated without a permanent non -amendable easement the POA
could decide to close it off.
Davidson said he likes the idea as part of the 20/25 Plan which he is in favor of.
This project shows that an urban area can be built outside the city proper. He
mentioned that compared to what has been spent on other parks and park
amenities the amount doesn't seem all that much. At first he didn't like the idea
of a tower but he does like the development.
Free expressed concern about the cost to the City of maintaining the property.
However since it appears the POA will be responsible for pay the City for the
costs it will work.
September 26, 2006 / 7
Coles said responsibilities and costs will be legitimized upfront and will be part
of the agreement. The biggest areas of concern will be the internal areas of the
tower and rock walls.
Bob Davis requested a reading of the motion from the September 11 meeting.
Curry re -read the list of questions requested by PRAB members that was
included in the motion.
Bitler inquired if the Board should decide to take the tower and wants a little
money too, would the developers be open to that request?
Van Veen stated the $260,000 to build the tower is a lot and would consider the
request for more money excessive.
Bitler asked if a somewhat lower structure were planed would that be
acceptable to include some money -in -lieu.
Ward Davis said they want the structure to be important in size and height.
They want to build something substantial of stones, wood beams and concrete.
PRAB Motion: Davidson moved to accept the Staff recommendation including
an amendment stating if the full $259,200 is not used in the building of the
tower the balance will revert back to Parks. The public easements will remain
as public access and there is to be a 150% bond for completion of the tower
and plaza if not built during phase one of the development. The architectural
design is to be approved by Park Staff. Colwell seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed 6-2-0 with Bailey, Langsner, Davidson, Davis, Bitler and
Free voting 'yes', Burke and Colwell voted 'no'.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 P.M.
September 26, 2006 / 8
