No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-02 - Agendas - FinalPARKS 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 Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu Requirement: Existing Parks: Developer's Request: 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 29 acres 6.48 acres $259,200 Ridgeway View Natural Area 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 westem 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: Justification: 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. The existing development is located within the 1/2 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 concem 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 altematives 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 concemed 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. Bitter 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'/ 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 concems 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 concem 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 adjoumed at 7:10 P.M. September 26, 2006 / 8 Park & Recreation Staff Connie Edmonston, Director David Wright, Recreation Superintendent Jeff Coles, Maintenance Superintendent Alison Jumper, Park Planner Kay Curry, Park Planner Cheryl Whillock, Secretary FAYETTEVILLE PARKS & RECREATION Parks & Recreation Advisors Board Wade Colwell, Chairman Jay Davidson, Vice Chairman Jerry Bailey Jon Bitter Milton Burke Bob Davis Fran Free Stephen Langsner Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting October 2, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. City Administration Building Room 326 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR AGENDA: 1. Approval of September 11, 2006 PRAB Meeting Minutes PRAB Motion: 2. Approval of September 26, 2006 special PRAB Meeting Minutes PRAB Motion: 3. Park Land Dedication: Development Name: Engineer: Owner: Location: Park District: Units: Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu Requirement: Existing Parks: Developer's Request: Staff Recommendation: Developer's Comments: Justification: PRAB Motion: Alison Jumper, Park Planner Train Depot Milholland Engineering Mansfield House, LLC Old train Depot site near intersection of West and Dickson Streets. SW 172 Multi -family 1.57 acres 2.92 acres $116,960 Wilson Park, Frisco Trail and future Scull Creek Trail Money in lieu Money in lieu, coordination with Trails Coordinator to accommodate the trail by the railroad if needed. The existing parks within the '/z mile service area of this development will provide recreational opportunities for the residents. Additionally the trail corridors in the area will provide recreational opportunities and will link to various parks throughout the City. 4. Park Land Dedication: Development Name: Engineer: Owner: Location: Park District: Units: Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu Requirement: Existing Parks: Developer's Request: Staff Recommendation: Developer's Comments: Justification: PRAB Motion: Alison Jumper, Park Planner Wyngate Townhomes Jorgensen and Associates Wyngate LLC North of Wedington, west of I-540 NW 40 Multi -family 4 acres 0.68 acres $27,200 Wildwood Park, Bryce Davis Park, and future Owl Creek trail Money in lieu Money in lieu The existing parks within the '/2 mile service area of this development will provide recreational opportunities for the residents. Additionally Owl Creek trail will provide recreational opportunities and will link to various parks throughout the City. 5. Legacy Pointe Subdivision Park Plan: Kay Curry, Park Planner Legacy Pointe Subdivision is located east of Double Springs Road and south of Owl Creek. This subdivision contains an 8.35 acre park that was deeded in phases as a Park Land Dedication Requirement in July of 2003 and June of 2006. On October 3, 2005 PRAB discussed this park and approved the following motion: Pawlik-Holmes moved to recommend that Staff proceed with development of the master plan for the park keeping in mind the $75,000 figure recommended by Parks for development of the park as a target figure and return to Parks Board for final approval. Mauritson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0-0 with Hill, Bailey, Harrison, Langsner, Davidson, Mauritson and Pawlik-Holmes voting 'yes' and Marley absent for the vote. Parks Staff held a public meeting on February 9, 2006 to discuss the neighborhood's desires for the future park. A master plan was designed and a second public meeting was held on the park site on September 14, 2006 to review the proposed park master plan. Approximately 14 people from the neighborhood attended this meeting with their suggestions. The master plan was approved by the neighborhood at this meeting. Parks Staff attend the POA meeting on September 21 to once again review the plan and receive input from the approximately 13 people attending. It was the consensus of the neighborhood to approve the proposed park master plan and to have two separate playgrounds on one slab similar to the layout of the Finger Park new playground for a cost of $110,000. Other approved amenities included benches, a bike rack, a pavilion with picnic tables and grill, sidewalks, landscaping (limited), and a half -court basketball court to be a deductive alternate of the bid packet. (See attached estimated budget.) Additionally as part of the Owl Creek Trail, a 12 foot trail will traverse the park and be built and funded 2 by the Transportation Division's Trails Program. Parks Staff Recommendation: Approval of the master plan and the proposed plan to be bid. PRAB Motion: Legacy Pointe Subdivision Funding Request: Parks Staff recommends funding $150,000 from the Southwest Park District Park Land Dedication Fund for the development of the park located in the Legacy Pointe Subdivision. PRAB Motion: Legacy Pointe Subdivision Park Name Recommendation: Legacy Pointe Subdivision POA recommends Harmony Pointe Park as the name of the park located at Legacy Pointe. This name was chosen at their September 21, 2006 POA meeting. Other park names considered were Owl Creek Park, Tipton Park, and Harmony Grove. (See attached note of park name recommendation submitted by their POA President.) According to our Naming of Facilities Policy, the names are submitted for review to PRAB and are automatically tabled until the next month to allow for public input. PRAB Motion: Park names are tabled until the next November 6, 2006 PRAB meeting according to the Naming of Facilities Policy. 6. Park Entry Sign Proposal: Alison Jumper, Park Planner To establish uniformity and identity for our parks, Parks Staff is recommending the attached park entry sign. PRAB Motion: 7. Program Report: David Wright, Recreation Superintendent 8. Community Park Update: 9. Other Business: 10. Adjournment Attachments: PRAB Meeting Minutes: September 11 and 26, 2006 Development Maps and Letters (2) Legacy Pointe Subdivision Park Naming Proposal Legacy Pointe Subdivision Park Master Plan and Estimated Budget Park Entry Sign Proposal Park Land Dedication Ordinance Fund Monthly Report CIP Report HMR Monthly Report 3 PARKS 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, Whitlock, 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: Development Name: Engineer: Owner: Location: Park District: Units: Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu Requirement: Existing Parks: Kay Curry, Park Planner Ruskin Heights (RSF4) Critical Path Ruskin Heights, LLC South of Mission Boulevard, West of Hwy. 265 SE 185 Single Family Units 120 Multi -Family Units 29 acres 6.48 acres $259,200 Mount Sequoyah Woods, St. Joseph's Park 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 Developer's Request: • Staff Recommendation Justification: 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 :To conceptually accepting the Developers request as stated above. 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 2"d 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 POAs 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 5. 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 Whitlock September 11, 2006/ 5 PARKS 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 Total Acres: Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu Requirement: Existing Parks: Developer's Request: 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 29 acres 6.48 acres $259,200 Ridgeway View Natural Area 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: Justification: 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. The existing development is located within the'' IA 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 decided 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. 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. 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. 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 Mitzettal p pan, 6ftgttt erttzq r...1!(F'veyi 9 Melvin L. Milholland, PE, PLS Thomas M. Jefcoat, RLA, REM, CPESC, ISA -CA REGISTRATIONS: PE: AR, MO PLS: AR RLA: AR September 20, 2006 Project No. E-821 City of Fayetteville - Parks and Recreation Division 113 West Mountain Street Office: 1455 Happy Hollow Road Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 ATTN: Park Staff RE: Trail Depot Site Dear Allison: I assume that you will be the contact person concerning this request for review approval by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. The attached proposed plan (2 hard copies and disk file) indicate a mixed use development that has been in the evolving design process, presented and discussed with the City Planning Division for over a year. While the final numbers are not really determinable until final building construction plan are being prepared, acceptance by the Parks Advisory Board of monies in -lieu of land dedication can be made. Please place this project on schedule for the next available review by the Board. Since this is a familiar downtown site and dedication of land is not a consideration a site visit should not be necessary nor meeting with staff to discuss the site, plan, etc. Therefore, the earliest possible review by the Board is requested, October 2nd. There should be no reason to postpone the review until their next meeting date, November 6w. Your assistance in getting this project scheduled is appreciated. Phase One of this project, installation of the current temporary parking, was approved by the City in August 2005. At that time, questions of Tree Preservation and Drainage - Detention were resolved. A trails corridor is along West Avenue and will need future planning separate from this project. The current zoning for this project is C-3, Central Commercial, and permits the uses indicated. While this project does not fit into the normal checklist of required items for approval processing, I do believe that all needed information is provided or with simple reasoning can be understood. If however, additional information or data is needed, please advise and I will immediately provide or explain. As currently proposed, there are 172 residential units. Thank you for you cooperation and assistance, and understanding with this project. Sincerely Mil Thomas M. efcoa ASLA Senior Projects Manger cc: G. House, Steve Mansfield, Robert Sharp; Jeremy Pate (plat) 205 W. Center St., Fayetteville, AR 72701; phone: (479) 443-4724; fax: 443-4707; e-mail: MCOengr@swbell.net; web: www.mcotigr.com 0 O O O 0 111111111111111, ®-1 �mozl4 16 3 R (f1 -, p 3 In Q N 0 � O ® Q 0 r n -0 F fl 0 F ® 1 tz N SI 0 6 D m >0 0 0 = ©IIIA, CJI_ PillWan ' CROSS �'i _� . ig by e am= rAa_li .nar Malt= �� X11 3�uZJ�'� r • , I�LAiuf2S1r1 ���11� ma ���II - 1 MIS Ill _ EMIT"_ two1 ��` *� �tyI j111LG1�\� `T III Ulli 111% a•I Hain SAM 111 - 1�I.7 • 11..,..111 r 111111111 1 J t k. ►'i i1ii: II1�1�.+11l .�..1. � Iw�isl ii trM IIIIIIIIimiel jl_,.,-;:' 2 j III inti1411�rl nri illi. 1 Iii � __ �hallllllll���l��II,L'Gil II ft 1 _-__lir -I 11111P 1._ '1.11111111111111117111 Wino Ipl n nun r �P1111111 mil 41111 F-1111011 11 1111111 1111111111111111 111111 F7111 1;1111 111 ft Mott ninillMi11111111111111 ISG 11 III Warn pml umm�un -- -- - �IIIIIII r, N =I K= NM (Alll11111 �I � 1.31- -I- -I- I �llllllllE 11 �111u11 11 Ilf 4 1111111111u 111111 III 11 II q SOMElIL111 n1I nlm nm1 �riilllll:d nil n r, deal.. X111111111►�E ul ami yf� ,.n1 pull I 11_IIll, brat li lllllllf illialJltl�! 000 r a-7 Im_IIIIIIIIII-I� 1111► � InIIpI1Il �I I! I';i IIIII�r13u ♦III nml 11 1 111111 _-_FILill.1 sdlI• 1L119 I11IIIIIIIw:lII -- M f W ��� ©, I IIIIAosta J�LIE3 I.IIIJIIIIIIIIIIII' -- Jm IIS _ m a -. IIII is+ ■ ap0110'��il ®II r1111111 lr� il :47I .!u. IFS 5��j� 1,11 e' F,�+° " mire lig lIaI�"_da.. ,1m!,'liP Ir ; C.L, ��E31!Eff71111L1461�1 El NM IIpII1� n� ����� \`31II1In Pt El NM EI I lIIgIIIIIramai Gp'�� III-1♦IQ'� ���� � i IIIII 1911®�111111� r n Iww !i rI�I�h11 III I III GIPII� lrEi In En ®Ia Igri Ems. Iwo .x1'11 �� I I _ .1i1 mra wl� . i E711\IIS IIIII C. 111 -Mgt �•■ MIN nunl ��� !j i "1 i ailJI!. i-. I�gol�w11111P I 'nnv. ii111w��luiti�� Irr�I ni IIII II L■ Q��,�I. a�`iin I�`'�IIII\n III k 111E MN r�111 9111�I �' -I� �. I �Illlld 1I II I II \.. \m 1111I¢'I�I EM �frr,1 �1-I�1 14 IalI = - `�11111 Cm IOle NATE Tfimu •u. f Ir1i r :I mum X00 �1 ■ �1.� C7�ILg�1 vs �I t �,�1�;�j�111111111 I id ""II I 111=I �'1�� �II'� 9.�-IIIJ_L�11111 IGI%e A!]1iT\�li"1f1' I'll III mi�Sli 1I 209 F• woeu on . n 1Eu1_����/ �i/� 6111111 III 11 I ■�I II 1 � �Ifi11i�111U—P•1;�11 1111 II II nuuul@IIIIIIIIIpI ft 11 4 elll¢�il�tllll� IIIII 91111111111` . .+�IIt�I�IIIh�� — v\ �U minit II ; III 1� 11� 1111 1 IIIIIIIII�I III 10,-...,,,,e,a n I �lCl$�I I�ll�lll�61�,� ����EuII ;Il /C 1 11 =' I I�, ral X11 II:IIe, II I I II u I I ih�nwar. fel ��� IIGI I��� 111;;II,a1.1 1 11 /1lnmml a ni 1h�� 111I.�1�7111111S�.j�nui ��le II 111 r- III ®��kilkillgilitmz" n1 R i' jmal n n ' 1 �1,E I��filit�wl� 11111=X111111111911�� ■El I-�-I 111111 [� o h� 1 11 1 1 1 `I� =11�r1 l11 III 1 v 111111111111111: Ii III Alllll IIIIIII�111119111111111[111,1111111=1111 E711111111� L �i L I 1� IIIII �PIII11111�1� �I� � h�I,r.111I 1: I hl 'I' 1T9�7��'�=ll IIIII_�1 — ����� , �I u'uioli III IIII ;,�n�..�11 111 ��IIIIIlI1 �1111��_i��l'I. I. III ! I ii! 111 it l Il i l l 111 11 ill 11 ld l u l ii l I U 111 llllhlll�l � ' 11 � I�c•---z-..-1111111,11 III I 1 1 11 II I I 11111 III III I 1 I I ' IIIIIIU Allll �lll -� \ II 'll 11111 6 1I n,� p1�� I - 11 I Iol IIIII ��I�-�I� 3p �IIE�II ill III ,I' 1 111 ,� I 11111\�7�r.��14,11, rllll III III II1IIIII11I1111 II III �� 1 ���I��crwrul IIIII I Ill II IIIII w� II �I 111 'dill lllplll� iQ 119 11, 1111 Gi11 'III 1 1111 I III III III 111, ��►� ir�'1� IIII. II 1 1 IIII ����Ix;111�2 ��eit 1i llli �I II III III 1I Illi I SII III 'Q Y pp �orvl 1 III-' 1111111111 11 I'11111111111 1 Ili II III 11 II 1 I�� II : IIII III lull I' o 1 1 III : II 11 1 1IVdII911I l u r l 11 1 1 III I!I111 I HI Illnl ,1 - I II p llllll ll 11 III ,1 II I1 II I AMME IIIIMEMI11111 IIIII: I I I Hum! SI�I IIIIIIIIIIII iC`IIII €=111111► I:,Gjaf I'IIIIII1I1111'I IIIII mr111111 JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (479) 442-9127 • FAX (479) 582-4807 DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S. CHRISTOPHER B. BRACKETT, P.E. September 22, 2006 City of Fayetteville Parks & Recreation Division 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Attn: Alison Jumper Re: Concept Plat for Wyngate Town Homes Dear Alison: Enclosed herewith please find two copies of the Wyngate Town Homes concept plat. Please place this project on the agenda for the Parks Meeting on October 2"d. The owner is requesting money in lieu of land for the parkland requirements for this project. The following is the developer's name, billing address and phone number. Wyngate, LLC Jon Brittenum, Member Mitchell Massey, Member 397 West Poplar Street, Suite 5 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 (479) 575-0010 Please call concerning any questions you may have. Thank you. Sincerely; FRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SYSTEMS • LAND SURVEYING gat co, N. COLORADO DR I N 00°08'38" E 350.93' 1248-- 1248— v / SEDVdS L ITU .1, SOO°00'3 0 O O O O o o 1111111111111111 'Ili, 11111111111111'1 01111 tn 61- 11 1 1 -‘,1,4156..11;7111111 1 11 ,giA,141j81,11.1 II 1 1 II 1 i ii 1 1 11111 1 1 1 1 1 u. 1 1 11 1 I 1 iii il1 II III 1 11 I HI 1 1 1 '''-`111,11111 11 1 111 11 1 I I 1 m , 1 III, 1 11' 1 1 1 , 1 11 "1111 1 "F,Ili'11111,1111'11111111' 1,11,r , , 111 1 ' l' '1 1 ..,. loill 1 111 1 1 ii 1 11 ,111 1 1, 1 1 , 1 1 , , 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jai 1 1 1 1 1 _-_...scome.111111111111 II 1 1 1111111111111111111 1E111 11 1 I ,Gaa, I 111 --"55,55.145 Fr ill eN II 11 111111111111 1 1 ale I II 1 1111111\9% ,...-- I II I .• Wasmilptc,4144* eiklfiii:0 II 1 I I III I I II 11111 I I 1111 DI III Ilittiliaavte. 0 LI 110111 uj,4,4111111a0.41.... St I II I Il II a=.-- faTilliM.1 rala 671 MIMI am " 4 5.. 11 11' 11111111111 11 1,11 111 II In ,1 11 11( :%:11,---giL 1 II 0 :::- • E hi • ,_!..mmiiiitati-: _______,____-_,..F.2, , 1, tote. -1,..-111/4__,„&q• "Mk ,-.. ,..17,1111 wiz, v..14 1 II! Mien OM ma 1 I OS PA. ' • er2Soll!ingiirt ma " NM • 1 I 5 12 3 .to rt r r0 IIImeLIt NsmaralplUnlit. 1111 ."'N NIP rams L-471 in IFAVI iski mir, ea mmu awarizi WOW II" pl en Mt elle IRMO - Mila fal III22411 SiS .;;71:111\111rTil ful ' 6 nniWtr "LOW I Ur -5 talinetalifeit 1101111L1N4 0310iii"gi1 Egnir11111.1 ranal ,-,..11 arm rin•In WES im. LI= num' Min Me lag WWI IMIIMI 'WI. alml I I ail =iN S' =WI ON akhlmaki:41.1 2=1111111.1111,1al erti arzi =raw • mit LI mom .N nal", a .....51611141111E112:11,111141111111 MUM