PC Minutes 7/24/06-DRAFT
ITEM NO. 6: 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.
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson, Staff,
introduced the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding Chapter 9. He stated this is the fifth time this Chapter
Amendment has been in front of the Planning Commission for review and
consideration. Most recently, on June
12, the Douglas County Commission adopted the Chapter 9 amendment but deferred
discussion on the park service radius to the Lawrence City Commission. On June 13, the City Commission discussed the
amendment and returned it back for reconsideration by the Planning Commission.
Discussion centered on the park service radius to be a more walkable ¼ mile
rather than the ½ mile service radius standard.
Patterson indicated a copy
of the prior minutes and Chapter 9 amendment is included in the packet for this
item.
The options available to
the Planning Commission are threefold:
1.
The Commission may resubmit the original recommendation with the ½ mile
service radius, giving the reasons therefore;
2.
The Commission may submit a new and amended recommendation and findings
of fact; or
3.
The Commission may take no action and fail to produce a recommendation,
which would be considered a resubmission of the prior recommendation.
PUBLIC HEARING
Betty Lichtwardt, League of Women Voters,
stated there are two issues but she will only address the one that was returned
to the Planning Commission. One of the
key League positions is to preplan developing the city as neighborhood units
and limit need for private automobile use.
They ask for walkable neighborhood planning that is inclusive and
located in neighborhoods in such a way as to support and provide for open space
and parkland. The League supports the
inclusion of smaller parks at closer distances especially in higher density
areas. Walking distance is now
calculated as ¼ mile and the perception of this problem is not just the
distance but the need for accessibility for pedestrians. The League feels the City should adopt
mandatory dedication of land for parks and this increasingly is a provision
that other communities are adopting.
Parks within walking distance are critically needed but are not going to
provide the function people need unless they are planned in advance.
No other members of the
public spoke regarding this item.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Erickson researched the
current parks and found her house is on the outer edge of a ½ mile service
radius but the closest park is 1 mile walking distance. She favors having smaller parks if there are
more of them and is willing to vote for ¼ mile service radius.
Patterson referenced page
9-4 which includes the descriptions and sizes of the park system. The Planning
Commission has previously directed that additional park descriptions (such as
smaller pocket parks) be provided in additional amendments to this Chapter in
the future.
Eichhorn stated that it is
essentially ½ lot to ½ acre. He stated
that he is the only person left on the Planning Commission that was a member of
the subcommittee and he would like to see the Amendment pass. It would allow the City to exact land or
money for parks from developers.
Eichhorn reminded the Commission that a Text Amendment can be passed to
change the standard at a later date.
Burress replied that a
range of park sizes is needed. The issue
is not the cost of land but the cost of maintenance. He continued that the plan is seriously flawed
but it cannot be fixed tonight.
Walkability needs to be back in the plan. He suggested sending the Amendment back to
City Commission and ask them to adopt it with the idea that it can be fixed
later. The City wants walkability and
this plan does not have it. Burress
suggested taking out language in 9-4 describing neighborhood “unique
recreational needs” and removing “de-emphasize because of cost effectiveness”
and “Parks and Recreation shifted its focus to existing…” as this is not about
Parks and Recreation, it is about what the community wants to do. Burress would
like to move to amend by striking out the three items mentioned.
Haase said the City
Commission made it clear they would like the skeleton document to say ¼ mile
radius and he is fully prepared to support it.
He suggested making the changes Burress mentioned, revise ½ to ¼ mile
and send it back as recommendation to the City Commission. Haase would like to pass a resolution to
preplan the parks system, and exact land from benefit districts.
Finkeldei questioned
whether the City Commission wants to change neighborhood parks and playgrounds
to ¼ mile radius without changing the existing size of the parks.
Eichhorn said it is
already possible to provide the ¼ mile radius. The provisions are within the
Amendment but the Parks and Recreation Department made it clear that it is
difficult for them to maintain.
Harkins asked if the
intent is that parks or other facilities, such as school playgrounds, would
fulfill the ¼ mile radius and if the school counts as a park.
Haase stated he personally
supports preplanning the entire UGA in respect to parks and school locations so
that everyone understands how public areas are going to function; a simple but
politically difficult concept. The issue
centers on the fact that the Planning Commission does not do long range
planning and stick by it.
Eichhorn agreed that it is
evident the City does not pre-plan.
Currently there is voluntary annexation and that may be some of the
frustration.
Harkins questioned whether
an earlier item, Mercato, had parks in the plan.
Eichhorn replied the parks
are not in that part of that plan and the City does not currently have the
ability to exact a park out of them.
Harkins asked if parks in
the area were a consideration in evaluating that project.
Haase stated the parks in
the area are north of
Patterson explained the
location of Mercato and park property in the area.
Eichhorn suggested the
current Amendment has the tools already in it.
The difference in what the City Commission sent down is that they want
neighborhood parks at ¼ mile radius.
Eichhorn feels this is a semantic issue; the ability to accomplish this
is in there. The Parks and Recreation
department does not like it but if they are forced to maintain it, they do not
have a choice.
Burress clarified that a
mini-park is defined as smaller than 2500 sq. ft.
Eichhorn asked if putting
1000 square feet per acre would solve the issue. He asked if calling a neighborhood park
something different would assist in creating a motion. He suggested “node” as a possibility.
Burress suggested a
resolution that there is green space within a ¼ mile.
Harris provided alternate
wording, changing the neighborhood play lots definition to “locations occur
within neighborhoods….within ¼ mile radius, sizes generally range from …”
Finkeldei asked where to
find the requirement for ½ mile radius and where it states there has to be a
park anywhere.
Harkins suggested making
the goal statement in number three clearer.
There is a possibility to expand the goal statement to have whatever
term is chosen for parks within a ¼ mile radius. It could be a school, small park or a large
park.
Eichhorn replied the
requirement of the City is that there have to be larger parks in different
parts of the City and the bigger parks are divided out in different parts of
City.
Haase agreed with Harkins
and stated the need for a qualification that states that unless a larger park
is currently located to serve this requirement so that a higher density grid is
built and taking into account other parks that meet this requirement, a
neighborhood park or some kind of park, should be within ¼ mile.
Erickson felt there should
be something in the goals section.
Eichhorn stated the
community needs to be in control of the location.
Burress agreed but felt it
was not too relevant. He suggested
language for the goal to include “within urban areas work towards providing
public green space within a ¼ mile of each residence.”
Burress restated his
earlier motion with an amendment to strike language on page 9-4 strike 1st
clause in box “used to address unique recreational needs”; also change 2500
square feet to 1000 square feet.
Eichhorn commented that
there are unique recreational needs which are illustrated by
ACTION TAKEN
Moved by Burress, seconded by Harris to strike 1st
sentence on Page 9-5 under description of need, strike “however” on 2nd
sentence and strike last sentence.
DISCUSSION ON
THE MOTION
Burress answered that
letting developers off the hook isn’t relevant.
There are places where smaller parks will work.
Erickson said if 1000
square feet is used it will drive up maintenance costs. She stated she would be more inclined to
leave it at 2500 square feet due to increased maintenance costs.
Harris suggested an
amendment to the motion to take square footage back to 2500 square feet.
Harkins pointed out the
standard does not match the goal. He
questioned why the City is trying to define the park by radius of service
rather than size. There is no
consistency in defining in terms of radius then indicating the goal is to have
all other assets counted.
Burress agreed with
Harkins and stated the Chapter is poorly drafted and cannot be fixed during
this meeting. The best that can be done
is to approximate what is wanted and fix it later.
Finkeldei also agreed with
Harkins and asked to take the definition out of the standards if it is within
the goal.
Haase suggested the
language could be clarified with a diagram including schools which would serve
to illustrate the parks need to be within ¼ mile of something. This language does not achieve that.
Harkins asked that a
revised copy of the Chapter be available to the Commissioners for Wednesday
night’s meeting.
ACTION TAKEN
Burress moved to recommend
approval with changes. Seconded by
Harris.
Change to page 9-4:
|
Facility Type |
Description |
|
Neighborhood Playlots/Mini-Parks |
|
Change to page 9-5:
|
Facility Type |
Description of Need |
|
Neighborhood Playlots/Mini-Parks |
|
Change to page 9-16:
GOAL
3: Expand the Existing Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space System
Acquire new parkland and
open space areas to stay ahead of growth and to meet anticipated community
demand and locate such areas in a manner that is consistent with the
coordinated planning and development efforts of the community. Within urban
areas, work towards providing public green spaces within ¼ mile of each
residence.
Motion passed 5-3. Harkins, Finkeldei and
Haase moved to extend Planning Commission meeting 30 minutes. Harris seconded.
Motion passed
unanimously, 8-0.