HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-11 - MinutesPARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Meeting Minutes September 11, 2006 Opening: The regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was called to order by Chairman Wade Colwell at 5:30 P.M. on September 11, 2006 in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Present: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members Bitler, Colwell, Davis, Bailey, Free, and Burke; Langsner and Bailey were absent; Park Staff Jumper, Curry, Edmonston, Whillock, Wright, Cole and audience were in attendance. 1. Approval of August 7, 2006 PRAB Meeting Minutes PRAB Motion: Davidson moved to accept the minutes as written and Davis seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by a vote of 6-0-0. 2. Approval of August 17, 2006 special PRAB Meeting Minutes PRAB Motion: Bitler moved to accept the minutes for the Special Board Meeting as written and Davis seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by a vote of 6-0-0. 3. Park Land Dedication: Alison Jumper, Park Planner Development Name: Happy Hollow PZD Engineer: Critical Path Owner: Broyles Location: North of Hwy 16 E, West of Happy Hollow Rd. Park District: SE Units: 8 Single family units Total Acres: .94 acres Land Dedication Requirement: .19 acres Money in Lieu Requirement: $7,680 Existing Parks: Happy Hollow Trail Corridor, Mount Sequoyah Woods, future park land at Fairlane Developer's Request: Money in lieu Staff Recommendation: Money in lieu Justification: The existing parks within the 1/2 mile service area of this development will provide recreational opportunities for the residents. Additionally, the acreage September 11, 2006/ 1 requirement for this development is not adequate for a neighborhood park. PRAB Motion: Davis moved to accept Staff recommendation of money in lieu. Free seconded the motion and it was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Bailey and Langsner were absent for the vote. **PRAB and Parks Staff proceeded with a visit after in -office discussion to Ruskin Heights on the City Van. 4. Park Land Dedication: Kay Curry, Park Planner Development Name: Ruskin Heights (RSF4) Engineer: Critical Path Owner: Ruskin Heights, LLC Location: South of Mission Boulevard, West of Hwy. 265 Park District: SE Units: 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: Mount Sequoyah Woods, St. Joseph's Park 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 Urban Forester to develop this connection. • A public access easement for the Spanish Steps, which will lead from the Market September 11, 2006/ 2 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 accepting the Developers request as stated above. Justification: The existing development is located within the 1/2 mile service area of Ridgeway View Park. Topographical constraints of the site are not conducive to the development of a traditional park and the developer is proposing an exceptional idea with a unique feature and experience for the public. Developer, Dirk Van Veen, detailed various aspects of the commercial as well as public access areas of the proposed development. When asked what phase of construction would include the tower, he stated it is planned for late in the 2nd phase which is slated to be completed in two years. All green spaces will be open to the public. Only the swimming pool area will be private for the POA members. Bitler inquired if there is any precedence to having this sort of development with open public access. Edmonston explained this is very different than anything Parks Board has seen before. She said this would be a great addition to the park inventory and would be a neighborhood containing everything a community needs. She said any issues concerning possible vandalism to the tower should be addressed by the close proximity of the homes. Bob Davis expressed concern over potential liability resting with the POA members instead of the City should injuries around the tower occur. The POA will be taking the responsibility of maintenance of the tower. He said he wants to know more about the tower before he gives his approval to the project. Burke asked if there will be public use of the tree preservation areas. The developers explained the trail corridor will traverse the larger area designated for tree preservation on the western side of the development. September 11, 2006/ 3 Burke expressed concern about the cost of the tower and wondered if that type of expenditure is actually serving the citizens well. Bitler inquired if it is becoming common for PDAs to maintain City parkland and also if there is sufficient recreational area to serve the surrounding community? Van Veen explained there are various areas for many uses and small green spaces throughout the development. Free asked how big the homes will be. The developer there will be a large spread of sizes from 1100 square feet to 5000 square feet and all will be intermingled with each other. Colwell asked about the height of the homes. The developer stated the homes will have a much lower profile than most new home developments. Burke said when it comes down to it all we're getting is the tower. No land or money. He feels the citizens won't want the tower. Therefore he can't vote his approval. Edmonston suggested calling a special meeting in the near future so the Board can have more time to query citizens and get information on the various aspects of the project. She believes the Board hasn't had enough time to seriously consider the project. It was decided to list the following points for more information: 1) Check with the City Attorney regarding liability issues as relates to the tower. 2) Find out if there are any cities that have towers and what, if any, issues of liability have occurred. 3) Parks Board member visit with citizens regarding their feelings on the proposed tower. 4) Discuss issue of height with Planning. 5) Determine precise amount of green space in the development. PRAB Motion: Davis moved to adjourn and meet in 2 weeks to further discuss the points mentioned and vote on Ruskin Heights. Free seconded the motion and the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-0 with Langsner and Bailey absent for the vote. September 11, 2006/ 4 S. Community Park Update: Bitler requested an update on status of the park. Edmonston said she has met with the developers who indicated they have secured a design team to work on the plan. Free asked if it would be possible to have the development team attend the next PRAB meeting. Edmonston said it would be. Bitler inquired about the Sharp property and the request by Frank Sharp to put it in a conservancy. 6. Other Business: 7. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned on-site at 7:30 P.M. Minutes prepared by Cheryl Whillock September 11, 2006/ 5