|
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
SUMMARY REGULAR AGENDA - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM |
PC Staff
Report
ITEM NO. 6: AMENDMENT TO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING CHAPTER 9
– PARKS,
RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE (PGP)
CPA-2005-02:
ACTION
BY APPROVAL BODIES
On June
12, the
On June
13, the Lawrence City Commission, with a 3-2 vote, returned the Chapter 9 amendment
back to the
AMENDMENTS
Per
Section 20-1806 (Amendments – Action of City Commission on
“If the City Commission returns the
If the
TIMELINE OF AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 9 PARKS, RECREACTION AND
OPEN SPACE
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
ATTACHMENTS TO REPORT
A. HORIZON 2020, CHAPTER 9 PARKS,
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
B.
C.
D.
E.
G.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION/ALTERNATIVES
1. The
2. The
3. The
ATTACHMENT B,
Consider approval of CPA-2005-2: Chapter 9, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
to the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020.
The
The proposed amendment to Chapter 9 continued to use a
half-mile service radius standard for neighborhood parks, but in combination
with connection of greenways. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had also
discussed this on several occasions and continued to support the one-half mile
service radius standard for neighborhood parks.
Providing parks every one-quarter of a mile did not seem practical due
to the cost to tax payers of acquisition of the park land, plus initial
development and ongoing maintenance. The
Advisory Board encouraged the Parks and Recreation Department to emphasize
connectivity to parks, schools and neighborhoods with greenbelts and trails,
which the parks plan supported. The
one-half mile radius standard with connecting greenways was supported by
surveys from the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. The survey results indicated the most
important park improvements citizens want were walking and biking trails that
link neighborhood parks.
At the January 2006
The Board of County Commissioners met on June 12 and
adopted the amendment to Chapter 9 Parks and Recreation and Open Space. They did not discuss the standards for
neighborhood parks; as they left that to city for the City Commission’s
discussion. He said they would like to
meet with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to see where areas of cooperation
and coordination of the City’s and County’s park services made sense.
He said it was both the
Aida Alaka said she moved to
She said in
She believed that in East Lansing, Michigan, which was also
a college town like Lawrence, the developers paid at least in part, if not in
whole, for pocket parks as they developed new areas and that was something the
City Commission should consider getting more developer involvement in creating
not just greenbelts with bike paths, although she supported that 100%, but for
actual gathering spaces for the community.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like
Mayor Amyx asked if it would be a wise idea when looking at
mini parks to consider dedications as they look at new developments on those
mini parks. He said he believed those
mini parks would make new neighborhoods viable.
He thought the big neighborhood parks could stay at that half mile
distance, but he thought they could develop in the newer areas of development,
through dedication of the small one acre types of mini parks.
Vice Mayor Hack asked if the Mayor was suggesting accepting
this issue as written which was the ½ mile and further investigate the idea of
smaller parks in new neighborhood developments.
Mayor Amyx said yes.
He said he did not disagree with the one-quarter mile, but he thought
they could adopt this with the recommendation of the one-half mile and could
start having discussions about the necessity of the mini parks as the
developments occurred as being dedicated or some other plan.
Vice Mayor Hack said she could support that idea. She said what concerned her was the quarter
mile distance and the number of parks it created, along with the amount of
money it would take for maintaining those parks if they expanded those parks
over the long haul. She said she was
comfortable in supporting the way the chapter was written in Horizon 2020. She said they needed to take a look at what
they could do as new neighborhoods were created to emphasize the necessity for
those mini parks, gathering spots for communities. She said those parks would add to the sense
of place.
Commissioner Highberger said he could not support the plan
as written. He said looking at a map
that showed a quarter mile radius around all the City’s existing parks and when
looking at the older neighborhoods, they were all pretty much covered, but it
fell apart moving farther west. He
agreed that it was crucial that all of the new neighborhoods had some sort of
public gathering space, whether it was a small park or some type of public
facility.
He said with all due respect to City staff, the figure of a
million dollars for maintenance was based on full build out of the urban growth
area which they were not expecting for 25 to 30 years. He said if the City Commission approved a
smaller service area for parks, they needed to understand that it might cost
more for maintenance and might not be able to provide that money in future
budget years.
He said the information he had seen showed that a small
majority of people would walk a quarter of a mile to go to a park and a very
small percentage of people would walk half a mile to go to a park. He thought if they really wanted to build
livable neighborhoods for our future, he thought they would need to address
this issue. He said he would like to
work on the suggestions by the Mayor, but he was not willing to adopt this plan
in this form, at this time, because it would make it part of their long term
planning document.
Commissioner Rundle concurred with Commissioner
Highberger. He said the deficit that the
City had already out in the western areas of the communities was already pretty
glaring. He said this half mile standard
was a way to start addressing a very clear need, but they needed to be more
aggressive and one was to establish a more aggressive policy.
Commissioner Highberger said he did not want to denigrate
any of the work that had been done. He
said there had been a lot of hard work that had gone into this plan. In general, he thought it was a good
document, but only had a concern about one area of the plan.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to refer this
issue back to the
ATTACHMENT C, MAY 22,
2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 11: AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING
CHAPTER 9 – PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE (PGP)
CPA-2005-02:
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson presented a history of the amendment and gave
a recap of previous hearings. On
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
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
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
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 ¼ mile radius for parks: First, with more density more people will need and use park services;
the second is walkability, which applies regardless
of density. 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,
ATTACHMENT D, MAY 22,
2006 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC STAFF REPORT
At the
January
Fred De
Victor – City of
“The following from my Superintendent of Parks and
Maintenance is an estimate of operation and maintenance costs requested by the
“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 (
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
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
“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
§
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
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENT E.
PC minutes
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
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.
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
·
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
·
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
Motion
approved 5-3, with Commissioners Jennings, Eichhorn & Krebs voting against.
ATTACHMENT F,
PLANNING
The Douglas County Board
of Commissioners considered Item No. 20 of the minutes of the Lawrence-Douglas
County Metropolitan
Patterson stated that the
Lawrence City Commission discussed this at their
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
ATTACHMENT G,
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