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