ITEM NO. 11: AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING CHAPTER 9 – PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE (PGP)
CPA-2005-02: Planning Commission discussion on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 9 – Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. This item was returned from the governing body for reconsideration. This item was deferred from the April Planning Commission meeting.
At the January Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission requested additional information on park maintenance to determine what the desired service radius of a neighborhood park should be (1/2 mile or 1/4 mile service radius). A copy of the January Planning Commission minutes for this item can be found in the attachments.
Fred De Victor – City of Lawrence, Director of Parks and Recreation –
“The following from my Superintendent of Parks and Maintenance is an estimate of operation and maintenance costs requested by the Planning Commission at their January 25 meeting. We have developed maintenance standards based on the mode or maintenance level of particular parks. Using this information and average cost of $5,000 per acre (mode 4) and number of new parks needed in the urban growth area we have estimated the overall costs of operations and maintenance for parks with ¼ and ½ mile service areas. I hope this information from the Parks and Recreation Department may be helpful to the Planning Commission in answering some of the questions they had in regard to the update of Chapter 9 – Parks, Recreation and Open Space.”
Mark Hecker – City of Lawrence, Superintendent Parks and Maintenance. –
“As you requested, I looked at trying to estimate maintenance cost if we used a ¼ mile service area for new park developments. To do this we will need to make some assumptions:
1. All of these new parks would be maintained at the same level as our other neighborhood parks. Which would be maintenance mode 3 or 4.
2. The average cost to maintain these types of parks is about $5000 per acre, based on our maintenance standards that were last updated in 2004.
3. New parks would average about 3 acres in size (Veterans Park is 4 acres, Ludlam Park is 2 acres)
4. According to the attached map we would need to add 141 new parks if we use a ¼ mile service area.
5. 3 acres X $5000 per acre X 141 parks = $2,115,000 of annual operating & maintenance money will be needed for these additional parks.
If we applied some of the same thought process to bigger parks and ½ mile service areas here is what it would look like:
1. Approximate number of parks needed – 50 parks;
2. Approximate size of each park - 8 acres (park standards 5 – 10 acres);
3. Maintenance mode,
a. 3 acres at maintenance mode 3 ($5000/acre)
b. 5 acres at maintenance mode 5 ($1500/acre);
4. 3 acres X $5000 + 5 acres X $1500 = $22,500 per park for maintenance
5. $22,500 X 50 parks = $1,125,000 of annual operating & maintenance money will be needed for these additional parks.”
Annual Operation & Maintenance for ¼ mile service radius = $2,115,000
Annual O & M for ½ mile service radius = $1,125,000
-----------------
Annual increase in O&M cost for ¼ mile service radius= $990,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE PARKS AND RECREATION COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN 2000
The following are excerpts from the Lawrence Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Master Plan 2000. (The document can be located at http://www.lprd.org/masterplan.shtml). The excerpts deal with the service levels, different classification of parks, and maintenance.
Chapter 1, page 4 – Facility Analysis – “An accepted benchmark standard for level of service determination in communities today is 12 to 15 acres per 1,000 population. With a population of approximately 80,000 people, Lawrence should have in the range of 960 to 1,200 acres of parkland. It has 1,457 acres not including the leased Clinton Lake property (YSI, Eagle Bend Golf Course, Outlet Park and the Clinton Lake Sports Complex site) or the newly acquired property northwest of the City. The community feedback indicated a need to focus on maintaining what the department has, to develop trail linkages and to acquire some land. This intuitively reinforces the standards and will be reflected in the Action Plan. Because the City is continuing to grow, all opportunities to acquire flexible land areas for future use should be researched.”
Chapter 3, page 4 – Vision Action Strategies – Task 4: Develop consistent policies and procedures to facilitate land use planning, acquisition, and priorities to include sales tax usage as the primary funding tool.
“A. Establish acres per 1,000 population standards and service area standards as part of the Master Plan. The standard established is 12 to 15 acres per 1,000 people.”
“E. Create additional neighborhood parks facilities, and trails that provide safe community linkages and neighborhood connections. Responding to the public desires, the maps indicate potential new neighborhood, community, and natural parklands as well as new community centers.”
Chapter 5, pages 1 and 2 – Facility Analysis
Community Parks
· 2-mile service radius.
· Serves broader purpose than neighborhood park. Focus is on meeting community based recreational needs, as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces.
· Location Criteria. Determined by the quality and suitability of the site. Usually serves two or more neighborhoods and 1 to 3 mile distance.
· Size Criteria. As needed to accommodate desired uses. Usually between 30 and 50 acres.
Neighborhood Parks
· ½ mile service radius.
· Neighborhood parks remain the basic unit of the park system and serves the recreational and social focus of the neighborhood. Focus is on informal active and passive recreation.
· Location Criteria. ½ mile distance and uninterrupted by non-residential roads and other physical barriers.
· Size Criteria. 5 acres is considered the minimum size, 5 to 10 acres is optimum.
Mini-Parks
· Less than ¼ mile service radius.
· Used to address limited, isolated or unique recreational needs.
· Location criteria. Less than ¼ mile distance in residential setting.
· Size Criteria. Between 2,500 square feet and one acre in size.
· No new mini-parks were proposed with the Lawrence Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 9, Page 1 Maintenance Levels Model
Chapter 9 includes a maintenance standards model, defining four levels of maintenance for parks. Level 1 is the most intense level of care, with level 4 being the most natural and least maintenance intense places. The Parks and Recreation Department have expanded upon the 4 maintenance level models and now use maintenance modes 1 to 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLANNING COMMISSION AD HOC COMMITTEE, Quarter-Mile Distance
The Planning Commission Ad Hoc Chapter 9 Parks Committee had discussed the ¼ mile distance standard for parks multiple times. The first memo from the committee to the Planning Commission and the City and County Commissions stated:
“The committee is aware of the debate over mini-parks and whether to place small parks within a quarter or half mile of everybody. The emphasis on greenbelts and greenways does offer the opportunity to place mini-parks throughout the city in the form of “nodes” within greenways. These nodes could be trailheads or larger, grassy areas within the greenways (ex. Burroughs Creek Rail-Trail project). This proposal continues to use the half mile standard for neighborhood parks, but in combination with connecting greenways.”
The committee continues to support the ½ mile standard in combination with connecting greenways. The reasons for the committee’s continued support for this option are:
§ From maps created by the Parks and Recreation Department it appears that the acquisition and maintenance of ¼ mile standard parks would be tremendous. These maps are included for the Commissioner’s evaluation. The first map shows (in gold) the deficient areas and how many additional sites would be necessary within the existing Lawrence city limits. The second map shows (in blue) how many more park sites would be required in the urban growth area to meet the ¼ mile standard.
§ The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has discussed this on several occasions and continues to support ½ mile distance standards for neighborhood parks. Providing parks every ¼ mile does not seem practical due to the costs to the taxpayer of acquisition of the parkland plus initial development and on-going maintenance. The Advisory Board has encouraged the Parks and Recreation Department to emphasize connectivity to parks, schools and neighborhoods with greenbelts and trails, which this version of the Parks Plan also supports.
§ The ½ mile standard with connecting greenways is supported by surveys from the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. The survey results indicate that the most important park improvements citizens want are walking and biking trails that link neighborhood parks.
§ The Parks Plan has been revised since its original draft. It now has standards for when mini-parks are acceptable, such as in places with higher residential densities.
§ Overall, the City of Lawrence is being developed at relatively low residential densities where the vast majority of homes have front and backyards. As a result, there is a decreased need for parks every ¼ mile. However, while front and backyards provide some open space, they do not address connectivity or large wide open spaces like neighborhood parks which is the goal of a system of ½ mile parks with greenways.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENT A - Planning Commission Minutes from January 2006
PC minutes 01/25/06
ITEM NO. 15: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 9 – PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACES (PGP/BE)
CPA-2005-02: Receive comments from City/County Commission regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 9 – Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. This chapter was considered at the May 25th Planning Commission meeting and referred to the Parks and Recreation Committee for further review. Planning Commission recommended approval on September 28, 2006, and forwarded amendment to governing bodies. This item was deferred from the December Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Lawson left.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Patterson introduced this item, an update to Chapter 9 – Parks, Recreation, and Open Space.
COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS
Commissioner Burress noted it is desirable from the point of view of walkability to have more but smaller parks closer together and that the main obstacle is cost. Population density is a red herring, because it is not a question of increasing total area dedicated to parks, but rather of breaking a fixed area up into smaller pieces. It is actually cheaper to assemble a given amount of land in small pieces than in one contiguous parcel. Therefore the only significant obstacle to a higher standard of walkability is the higher cost per square foot of maintaining and servicing smaller parcels.
Commissioner Eichhorn
· Parks had a survey completed, response was for trails connection of parks which received a high percentage
· Identified 4 major parks with trails to/from and new parking in locations with trail access.
· Parks Department cannot continue to keep up with maintenance and budget
· Community wanted trails to connect.
PUBLIC HEARING
Gwen Klingenberg
· Need for parks to be adjacent to schools. Concern if Schools are not in center of neighborhoods, should be walking distance
· Many parks needed in higher density areas
· Mini-parks should be reinstated if maintenance costs are concern, consider alternative methods such as benefit districts.
Letter from Bob Mikesic in support of ¼ mile radius standard.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress concerned with impacts to handicap persons and distances to parks.
Commissioner Haase concerned with how ½ mile & ¼ mile radius standards compare with other communities.
Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks & Recreation
More communities are going to ½ mile standard, very few have ¼ mile standard.
Commissioner Haase concerned – gathering spaces that are public – might waive park standards where other public spaces are available.
Commissioner Krebs – revision to permit mini-parks in high density areas – seems not to be there.
Commissioner Eichhorn presented examples of how close ¼ mile radius is; 8 parks between 6th/9th Streets and Massachusetts/Maine, and this would be a huge expense.
Commissioner Ermeling
· Need additional language
Commissioner Burress
· Walkability is ¼ mile
· Not going to be retrofitting, but should establish ¼ mile for new development areas.
· Maintenance cost, if organized differently, could affect cost.
Commissioner Harris
· ½ mile distance between, no service radius.
Commissioner Burress
· ADA – equal access only provided by ¼ mile
Commissioner Haase
· Cost information would be helpful
· Supports school/park locations in center of neighborhoods
· Defer decision until information on maintenance costs are available, but based on cities organized to deal with small parks.
· If costs for ¼ mile standard are equal to or less than ½ mile – should consider for social benefit.
Commissioner Krebs
· In low density neighborhood, not good use of limited resources.
· Allowance for mini-parks in higher density areas.
· New development paying way for parks, new development wouldn’t pay the same for maintenance
· Argument is that there is a substantial cost differential, ask the Parks Director if they can provide additional information on costs
Fred DeVictor
· Additional windshield time, travel time to get to smaller parks, unload and load equipment.
Commissioner Ermeling
· Cost to community for persons to have everyone drive places, deferral or ¼ mile.
COMMISSION ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Haase to defer and request additional information on cost difference for maintenance and return item to Planning Commission.
Motion approved 5-3, with Commissioners Jennings, Eichhorn & Krebs voting against.
ATTACHMENT B
DOUGLAS COUNTY COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2005
PLANNING 10-19-05
The Douglas County Board of Commissioners considered Item No. 20 of the minutes
of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission dated September 28, 2005. This item is CPA-2005-02: Hold public hearing on Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020,
Chapter 9 -- Parks, Recreation and Open Space. This chapter was considered at
the May 25th Planning Commission meeting and referred to the Parks and
Recreation Committee for further review. Paul Patterson, staff member of the
Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, presented this item.
This item comes to the Board with a recommendation for approval.
Patterson stated that the Lawrence City Commission discussed this at their October 18, 2005 meeting and referred it back to the Planning Commission with respect to radius (of neighborhood parks).
McElhaney noted that we needed to be very careful with our parks -- we can't seem to maintain what we have.
The Board directed staff to put together a proposal to consolidate city/county parks.
The Board then made editorial comments to the document. Jones made a motion to receive the plan and return it to the Planning Commission requesting them to consider the suggested amendments. Motion was seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously.
ATTACHMENT C
CITY COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2005
Mayor Highberger pulled from the consent agenda for discussion, the approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Horizon 2020 (CPA-205-02), Chapter 9 – Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. He commended the committee for their hard work on this issue, but he was concerned about the proposed service radius for neighborhood parks. He said that issue had been a concern for a long time.
The current plan continued the Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommendation of ½ mile service radius for neighborhood parks, but he thought that was too large for a neighborhood park. He said when looking at the older parts of town, almost all of those neighborhoods were served by very close to a ¼ mile radius. The numbers he had seen indicated that 50% of people would walk a ¼ mile to a park, but very few people would walk their children ½ mile to a neighborhood park. He said accessibility to parks was a real important quality of life issue and he suggested that the City Commission reconsider this item. He said obviously if there was not a majority of Commissioners who shared his concern, then he would go ahead and approve this amendment.
Commissioner Hack asked if that issue came up in the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board conversations.
Mayor Highberger said it was his understanding that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board allowed for mini parks, but set them aside as an unusual category for unusual circumstances. He said there was also a recommendation at some point that consideration be given to the Homeowner Associations maintaining parks or smaller areas. He said given their experience with Homeowner Associations, doing anything complex, he thought that was not an option that the City Commission would want to encourage. Also, he thought parks should be public and not privately operated.
Commissioner Schauner said sending this issue back to the committee for reconsideration was a good idea and he supported the Mayor’s proposal.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to send this item back to the Planning Commission to review the issue of quarter mile radius for neighborhood parks instead of the proposed half mile radius in proposed (CPA-2005-02) to the Comprehensive Plan Horizon 2020, Chapter 9-Parks and Recreation, and Open Space. Motion carried unanimously.