No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-05 - MinutesPARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Meeting Minutes December 5, 2005 Opening: Mike Hill called the regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to order at 5:30 P.M. on December 5, 2005 in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Present: In attendance were Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members Hill, Bailey, Langsner, Marley, Davidson, Mauritson, Pawlik-Holmes and Park Staff Edmonston, Wright, Coles, Jumper, Mihalevich, Whillock and Audience. 1. Approval of November 7, 2005 regular meeting Minutes MOTION: Langsner moved to approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board November 7, 2005 meeting minutes. Bailey seconded the motion. Acceptance of the minutes passed on a voice vote of all 'yeas'. 2. Park Land Dedication: Development Name: Engineer: Owner: Location: Matt Mihalevich, Park Planner Soloman Apartments H2 Engineering, Inc. The Barber Group North of the Moore Lane and East of Deane Solomon Road. NW 420 Multi -family Units 25.235 7.14 $165,060 No parks within 1/2 mile radius. Bank approximately 2 acres of park land to be located at Wellspring and pay money in lieu fees for the remaining acreage. Bank approximately 2 acres of park land to be located at Wellspring and pay money in lieu fees with a waiver for the remaining acreage. The additional acreage at Wellspring December 5, 2005 / 1 Park District: Units: Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu Requirement: Existing Parks: Developer's Request: Staff Recommendation: Justification: will provide a minimum 50 foot wide trail corridor from the dedicated 19 acres of park land to the north property line of Wellspring near Hamstring Creek. Parks and Recreation staff will determine the exact acreage to be banked at Wellspring prior to preliminary plat of Wellspring. This recommendation would require a waiver of the Park Land Ordinance to the City Council due to the project including over 100 units. The proposed development will Include many park amenities including playgrounds, volleyball, basketball, grills and clubhouse with a pool. Additionally the Audubon wetland property is located adjacent to the development. Razorback Golf Course is located to the west. Fayetteville Public Schools purchased 70+ acres for a future school site northwest of this development. Mauritson inquired if the amenities planned by the developers will be available to the general public. Mihalevich said they would not be. They will be for the use of the development residents who will also be responsible for maintaining the facilities. Bailey asked if the proposed park and two acres of trail will provide connectivity to the future proposed trail areas. Mihalevich indicated that it will provide connectivity. PRAB Motion: Mauritson moved to accept staff recommendation to bank approximately two acres of park land to be located at Wellspring and pay money in lieu fees with a waiver to Council for the remaining acreage. There will be a Bill of Assurance to cover the developer's December 5, 2005 / 2 commitment to the recreation facilities as stated as well as the green space on the sewer easement. Pawlik-Holmes seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0-0 with Hill, Mauritson, Bailey, Langsner, Davidson, Pawlik-Holmes and Marley voting 'yes' and Harrison absent for the vote. 3. Park Land Dedication: Matt Mihalevich, Park Planner Development Name: Geneva Court Engineer: Critical Path Design, Inc. Owner: Critical Path Design, Inc. Location: East of 265 on the south side of Park District: Units: Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu Requirement: Existing Parks: Developer's Request: Staff Recommendation: Justification: Albright Rd NE 8 Single-family Units 2.97 acres .192 acres $4,400 Lake Fayetteville and Copper Creek Money -in -lieu of dedicating parks property to the city Money -in -lieu Lake Fayetteville Park and Copper Creek Parkland are both located within the 1/2 mile service area and will provide for the recreational needs of this development. PRAB Motion: Bailey moved to accept Staff recommendation for money - in -lieu of $4,400, and Langsner seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0-0 with Hill, Mauritson, Bailey, Langsner, Davidson, Pawlik-Holmes and Marley voting 'yes' and Harrison absent for the vote. 4. 2005 Annual Recreation Report: David Wright, Recreation Superintendent (report attached). Marley asked if there is any future possibility of a City basketball program. Wright explained that the City's contract with the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club provides for the 'outdoor' programs to be sponsored by the City and the 'indoor' programs, such as basketball, to be sponsored by the Boys and Girls Club. December 5, 2005 / 3 Pawlik-Holmes asked how the City's programs translate into dollars. Wright answered that in 2005, tournaments alone brought approximately a 1.8 million dollar benefit into the local economy in such areas as restaurants, hotels, entertainment and merchant profits. 5. Park Land Dedication Ordinance Proposal: Alison Jumper & Matt Mihalevich, Park Planners - (power -point presentation slides attached) Jumper began the presentation by answering a question that had been asked at the public meetings held in November. She said 33 parcels have been dedicated through the Park Land Dedication Ordinance process and of those six remain undeveloped at this time. Also, two are designated as natural areas and five are undeveloped trails. Ordinance Amendment Proposal #1 - lot splits, replats of subdivisions and large scale developments... PRAB Motion: Marley moved to accept proposed language. Mauritson seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0-0 with Harrison absent for the vote. Ordinance Amendment Proposal #2 - $555 for each manufactured home unit.... PRAB Motion: Mauritson moved to accept Staff's proposal to omit the manufactured home designation and calculate as single family homes. Pawlik-Holmes seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0-0 with Harrison absent for the vote. Ordinance Amendment Proposal #3 - The developer does not have the discretion to pay a cash contribution in lieu of the dedication of land for the establishment of this neighborhood or subdivision park. Staff recommends omitting the section in the ordinance requiring major developments to dedicate land unless approved by City Council. Hill asked if this passes will the need for these developments to go on to Council be waived? Pawlik-Holmes asked if the amendment takes away the waver requirement or does it also alter the requirement that land must be taken on developments over 40 acres or 100 units. Edmonston stated that it does both. Pawlik-Holmes stated that if it's not an exception to the rule any longer are we just December 5, 2005 / 4 going to review these to the criteria we use already, then it takes away the notice to the Council that here's a big development coming through and we're not accepting land and it also takes away the requirement to accept land in the first place. Edmonston said we review all requests under the same requirements. PRAB Motion: Mauritson moved to accept staff recommendation. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-1-0 with Pawlik-Holmes voting 'no' and Harrison absent for the vote. Ordinance Amendment Proposal #4 — Add the requirement of a written request to the section in the ordinance under 166(K)(1)(i) Dedication in excess. Staff proposes additional language. "The developer must present a written request for banked land for future development to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board." PRAB Motion: Mauritson moved to accept staff proposal for additional language. Pawlik-Holmes seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0-0 with Harrison absent for the vote. Land Dedication Formula Two Year Review: Hill asked if the sample properties in the spread sheet are all vacant land with no improvements. Jumper replied per the information from Washington County they are either residential vacant or agricultural vacant. Pawlik-Holmes asked if this study is the most thorough research on this piece of the formula that has been done for several years. Jumper indicated that is the case. Pawlik-Holmes asked what other pieces of the formula will change. Jumper said the land requirement per unit, price of fee in lieu, and, if the decision is made to change it, the 10 acres per thousand population. Edmonston said the City has requested a full-blown census in 2006 but the data won't be ready till the end of 2006 so it's important the fees be updated at this time. Hill stated the result of the census doesn't effect the decision on the formula. December 5, 2005 / 5 Edmonston said the ordinance states the formula shall be reviewed every two years. Mauritson asked if the consideration of using actual costs of the individual parcels of land to determine the amount has been ruled out. Jumper stated that it has been reconsidered. Pawlik-Holmes questioned the equitability of requiring the same fee in all parts of the City. She said is seems like a fairness issue due to costs of land being more or less in different quadrants of the City. Edmonston said using cost of land would cause an unequal issue for various quadrants and the City Attorney, Kit Williams, said it was to our best interest to go to an average cost of land per acre. Marley asked how difficult it would be to go with a different formula for each quadrant. Jumper said that is a possible method. Pawlik-Holmes reiterated that would raise the concern voiced by the City Attorney. Mauritson said he'd be interested in what the City Attorney has to say about the equity of a developer having to pay almost twice as much per acre for the park dedication then he actually paid per acre for the land. Langsner said the value of less expensive land today will most certainly go up in the future so costs will balance out over time. Pawlik-Holmes asked where the current figure of $23,000 per acre came from. Edmonston said the previous method to arrive at the figure for the formula was to call real estate agents and ask what the average price per acre was. Pawlik-Holmes inquired if that was an average city-wide. Edmonston said it was. At that time the price range was huge and therefore in today's environment that didn't seem the best way to rethink the formula. Hill suggested taking the list of properties used in the example to arrive at the $49,000 figure, take out the two highest and two lowest and refigure for the results. He reminded the Board that the figure they decide on will only be a proposal that will go to the Planning Commission for review and then on to City Council for approval. December 5, 2005 / 6 Hill opened the floor for public comment while Jumper reworked the average figure with the suggested chart revision. Tom Terminella introduced himself and complimented the Park Planners and Staff on the good job they are doing for the City. He said his interest falls into several areas. He suggested that not only the parks fee formula but also the various ordinances might need to be reviewed every two years to assure they work in tandem with the developers for the good of the community overall. He said trails, roadways and municipal services could be reviewed in order to be proactive with the growth rather than reactive to the needs of the citizens. He said he also wants to clarify what is acceptable ground for park dedication. He believes it's especially important on the larger developments to make sure there is land for the trail system connectivity. He said he also needs clarification on other green spaces in developments that are not trail areas. He referred to processes used in Tulsa, OK, and Springfield, MO. He said they are developing the detention areas for public spaces thereby using otherwise wasted space that could actually be used to create assets for the communities. He stated the formula based on the average overall property values overburden the developer that has done a responsible job of purchasing the land. He said that under the new formula it is creating an unfair situation for those who purchase the land early -on when prices are low but are now developing the area. He said that he had been appointed to speak for the other developers because he lives in Fayetteville and has an office here. He suggested the most fair way to achieve a figure is to use the revenue stamps. He said they cannot be manipulated because they reflect the sale price recorded at the County Court House. He said the spread of costs of property is great across the area ranging all the way from $10,000 to $60,000 and in many cases even more. He agreed that the $23,500 per acre figure needs adjustment but suggested that more than doubling it in the 24 month period since the last review is excessive. He asked that more consideration be given on the task of picking a dollar figure for the formula. He said he is supporting the department overall but asked for a fair methodology for determining the new figure. He suggested allowing the use of trail corridors be applied toward the parkland dedication requirements. Bailey asked if he was recommending the original consideration by the Board of going with the sale price of land to determine the new value. Terminella stated that he was and regretted not staying current on the discussions. He said he believes market value is a better way to arrive at a figure than blended (average) rates. December 5, 2005 / 7 Pawlik-Holmes asked how he would suggest dealing with side-by-side tracts of land that have a large sale price difference thereby affecting the parkland dedication amounts for each tract at time of development. She stated though the dedication amounts would be very different, the impact on the citizens of those communities would be the same. Terminella said perhaps different formulas based on density issues could be utilized. Pawlik-Holmes stated that from the citizen's perspective the issue of lower priced land in one quadrant compared to higher priced land in another quadrant means that area won't have the quality or quantity of park area that is available in another part of town. The Park Board has to come up with a figure that is fair to all citizens and she asked how that can be reconciled from the developer's standpoint. She said she believed Terminella has suggested a formula that is best for developers but not necessarily the best for citizens. Terminella reiterated that he doesn't believe the currently suggested formula is fair to the proactive developer. He said the fees currently necessary to build a house are pricing the average family out of the market in the Fayetteville area. Mauritson asked if it's possible to determine how much land has appreciated in the last two years. Edmonston said she believes the average can be determined. She said that since she has been with the City, each year the ordinance was reviewed they went extremely low just to promote developers in the area and to help handle the impact of the various fees. Mauritson clarified the figures on the spread sheet are only for land sold within the city limits and does not include any land outside the city limits. Hill said he has some concern in passing on the decision at this time and feels a figure needs to be determined because four of the current Board will term -out at the end of December and will be replaced by four new members. Those four new members will need to get up -to -speed on the issue and that would further delay a decision. Therefore he feels this Board needs to come to a decision. Pawlik-Holmes asked Jumper what the new figure is after throwing out the two highest sale prices and two lowest sale prices. Jumper said the figure is $39,407 per acre. Davidson said he has always considered the purpose of the ordinance is to either get land or money to buy land and if the money taken in isn't at market value of the December 5, 2005 / 8 acreage in the quadrant there wouldn't be enough to buy additional park land. He said he would like to understand the City Attorney's perspective on the overall fairness/constitutionality issue. Hill stated the Board needs to come to a decision on a number and send it on to Planning Commission for review. He said there are two ideas - 1) market value per acre and 2) average price per acre. Pawlik-Holmes says market value doesn't provide equal treatment for all quadrants due to diverse property values. She said the Board knew it was going up substantially but probably didn't know it would go up as much as the figures in the spread sheet indicate is necessary. Edmonston said she would like the Board to pass to Planning Commission what they believe is best. She volunteered to have the City Attorney meet with Board members to explain his take on the fairness issue. Mauritson said he agrees the Board needs to put something forward to Planning. Edmonston said the Park Ordinance had to go before the Arkansas Supreme Court at one time and was upheld by that court. Several changes were made at that time. The way it has been done in the past has been upheld by the Court and so probably the City Attorney is interested in continuing this approach. Pawlik-Holmes said the figures on the spread sheet can be looked at in many ways. Hill suggested this is a starting point and simply coming up with a figure to pass on would be the best way to go. Terminella suggested a $35,000 figure would be acceptable to him. Hill closed the floor to public comment and asked for a motion. PRAB Motion: Davidson moved to send the following motion to Planning Commission - The Parks Board recommends using a market value based formula unless that process is deemed unconstitutional in which case a fee of not less than $40,000 per acre be set for Park Land Dedication. Mauritson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-1-0 with Hill, Mauritson, Bailey, Langsner, Davidson, and Marley voting 'yes', Pawlik-Holmes voting 'no', and Harrison absent for the vote. 6. Community Park Update: Edmonston reported the survey has been completed on the land and they are now working on the park land area. December 5, 2005 / 9 Langsner asked who will be responsible for cleaning up the landfill area. Edmonston said Parks and Recreation has had communication with the ADEQ for grant funding to bring the land up to code. 7. Other Business: Hill announced that four members of the Parks Board have termed -out: Hill, Pawlik-Holmes, Marley & Mauritson will be stepping down as of December 31, 2005. Edmonston thanked the outgoing members for their hard work and dedication to the City of Fayetteville. 8. There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned by Hill at 7:45 P.M. Minutes submitted by Cheryl Whillock. December 5, 2005 / 10