PC Minutes 5/22/06

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.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson presented a history of the amendment and gave a recap of previous hearings.  On January 25, 2006 the item was discussed and then deferred due to neighborhood park service radius standard for Parks and Recreation whether it should be ¼ mile or ½ mile service radius.  Information has been provided by Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks and Recreation and Mark Hecker, Superintendent of Parks Maintenance, dealing with the cost difference of ¼ mile service radius and ½ mile service radius in the Urban Growth Area as the city develops.  It would cost approximately one million dollars more for operation and maintenance to have a ¼    mile service radius.  Within the Parks 2000 master plan, they talk about the neighborhood parks having the ½ mile service radius standards. It is the Staff recommendation to approve with ½ mile service radius and send to the City Commissioners and Board of County Commissioners for approval of Chapter 9.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Burress questioned whether the cost differential of the ¼ mile radius versus the ½ mile radius is due to less intensive forms of maintenance being required for the larger parks. Burress compared multiple smaller parks to fewer larger parks and noted they would be similar in acreage.  He contends that if the City finds a way to use less intensive maintenance on the smaller parks it would be comparable to maintaining the larger parks and maintain ¼ mile radius walkability.

Mr. Patterson explained that mini-parks are generally less than 3 acres, neighborhood parks are 5-10 acres.  The 8 acre standard was used for the study. The larger neighborhood park would have some areas requiring less maintenance and that is the main reason for the cost differential in the analysis submitted by the Parks Superintendent. 

Burress asked if the two models assume retrofitting the entire city and if it covered the entire UGA.  Burress noted that the 1 million dollar figure for park maintenance is a projection for 30-40 years from now, not the current cost of maintenance. 

Patterson replied that the cost difference was explained by the difference between the ¼ mile and ½ mile radius, for the maintenance and operation costs of the smaller parks. 

Burress continued that if you use the ¼ mile radius as the definition for walkability and ½ mile is actually used, there will not be much of a gathering point.  ¼ mile encourages walk ability. Burress noted that a greater majority of the population is served by a great number of parks.

Patterson rebutted that a larger number of parks could mean more people are accessing parks that are less standard than the current neighborhood parks with fewer amenities. Citizens would be served with a mini-park standard rather than a neighborhood park standard.

Burress concurred larger parks with more services were needed in addition to the smaller parks but stressed that walkability is still defined by a ¼ mile radius.

Commissioner Harris questioned how the 3 acre park standard developed as an alternative in the cost analysis study.

Mr. Patterson replied that Parks staff’s analysis was based on an average of 3 acres when considering a ¼ mile service standard.  Park staff’s study used Veterans Park which is 4 acres and Ludlow Park at 2 acres as a standard.

Burress stated that small green spaces with benches within the ¼ mile radius standard would not be costly to maintain. 

Patterson agreed that it would not be costly to maintain such areas and noted that this is not an “all or nothing” proposal.

Commissioner Haase asked if surveys of other communities were performed.

Mr. Patterson indicated surveys were performed by an ad hoc committee and that the ½ mile radius is an ambitious standard for a community the size of Lawrence.  He also noted that the ¼ mile radius is generally used for larger density cities such as Chicago.

There was a discussion regarding what verbiage to use for small green spaces and benches within the ¼ mile radius standard.

Ms. Stogsdill added that street furniture and amenities are added to parks as use increases.  She used Naismith Park as an example and noted that the rec path is 10 years old and benches were just put in this year.  Ms. Stogsdill continued that there is a now a maintenance issue as Parks has to weed around the benches; there is a tradeoff having to bring more equipment to the park and spend more time on maintenance. 

Commissioner Krebs stated the distinction is ¼ mile radius is for neighborhood parks and the parks provide a destination and place to stop.  She wondered whether a ¼ mile radius for mini-parks instead should be considered.  Krebs recognized there are increased maintenance costs per square foot as compared to larger parks. 

Commissioner Lawson advised there are compelling arguments for considering the ½ mile radius interval and noted Krebs’ statement was appropriate. 

Commissioner Riordan noted that city staff believes the ½ mile radius standard should be used and that the commission should proceed using the ½ mile standard.

Commissioner Ermeling recognized the potential in creating a comprehensive plan and noted no new mini-parks have been proposed.

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on this item.

ACTION TAKEN

Krebs moved to recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment and added a recommendation of further study for the concept of smaller resting stops that are in a smaller service radius.  The motion was seconded by Ermeling.

Burress moved to amend the motion to set a standard for mini-parks at a ¼ mile radius in residential areas. 

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Krebs recognized that further study and discussion of the ¼ mile radius is necessary.  She continued that she would like Staff to research the concept and present suggestions that are more specific about various park sizes.  Krebs did not feel that the current description of mini-parks do not meet “limited, isolated, unique residential situations.”

ACTION TAKEN

Motion to amend died for lack of second.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Ermeling called attention to page 9-5 that included revised language and spoke to the need for mini-parks in denser areas.

Krebs reiterated that additional language that had been discussed at previous hearings needs to be added for mini-parks to address unique and dense residential situations and would like specific numbers in the report.

Harris stated two issues with the parks;   there is more density and more people using park services.  The second issue is walkability.  She is in favor of continued study and recommended voting on motion that is on the table.

Ermeling felt the wording for the unique, limited and isolated urban areas could be simplified.

Haase concurred with Commissioner Burress’ vision and the challenge of how to implement this plan.  He identified the need to find a mechanism to identify property owners that would benefit from the parks.

Krebs said there should be recommendations for land dedication or fees in lieu of land from land developers.  This would provide a certain portion of land or money to acquire parkland for that neighborhood.

Patterson noted there is an implementation chapter in H2020 which addresses funding mechanisms. 

Burress stated if you believe in walkability there must have ¼ mile standard.  If the majority are to walk, there must be a ¼ mile standard. He thought there was nothing in the current language to allow the standard to occur.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion carried 7-1, with Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in the affirmative.  Burress voted in opposition