Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/2004 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 20,2004 Minutes of the Apple Valley Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. PRESENT: Chair Russ DeFauw; Committee Members Loren Hegland, Charlie Maus, Lee Strom, Erica Robinson, and Tina Rankin; Parks and Recreation Director Randy Johnson; Park Maintenance Superintendent Tom Adamini; Community Development Director Rick Kelley; City Planner Torn Lovelace; Planning Commission Chair Karen Edgeton; Hartford Group representatives Patrick Sarver and Elizabeth Kautz; Larkin Hoffman Hartford legal council Bill Griffith. ABSENT: Jim Sheldon ITEM#I. Chair Russ DeFauw called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ITEM#2. Approval of Agenda. MOTION: by Charlie Maus, seconded by Lee Strom to approve the agenda as presented. VOTE: Yes—4, No—0 ITEM#3. Legacy Park Phase Two. The Planning Commission sent the Legacy Village Phase Two plan back to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee for further review,based on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee's previous recommendation of a five acre park in this phase of the development. Bill Griffith outlined Hartford's vision of the City's urban design central village plan for the development and gave background information on the overall project. He listed key elements of the plan as follows: • Square open space park of 2.07 acres. • Linear park land that feeds from the south (.3 and .5 acres) • Water features on the south to tie it into the park land. Patrick Sarver stated the park area is calculated from the right-of-way in. There is a mathematical error in the plan diagram as depicted. Adding another acre to the park would add additional area of 150% to the diagram. - 1 - CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 20, 2004 Bill Griffith said the plan shows about three acres of park land. The significant park area is about 2.5 acres (central park). Submittals were at 1.67 acres,but the developer enlarged those to maximize the utility of the land as potential multi-functional athletic field space, with a play area shown in the lower corner of the plan. The plaza area of just over %2 acre,by closing off the street, could be used for things like art fairs, etc. Mr. Griffith stated that the developer is trying to make this project work within the "spirit of intent" of the plan. The City has competing objectives that are to be met: a grid street plan,mix of housing types,buildings of mixed use, underground parking. He stated that it's hard to bring a complete package without some give and take. There isn't room for a five acre park with all the City objectives. Hartford has incorporated private green space and public walking spaces along the residential units. The Central Village Plan called for 5,000— 6,000 sq. ft. institutional community building of some sort. This would be too small for a senior center, so a larger building is suggested. The center 15,000 sq. ft. of the building located across from the park could potentially be used as a senior center. This is very conceptual right now. The building could be operated as a combined public/private partnership. Randy Johnson reminded the Committee of the previous meetings' references to a potential bond referendum for the City of Apple Valley, which could include a senior center for the City's expanding senior population. The senior center is an important part of the development, as much as the park land. Mr. Griffith stated that the master plan's intent is that the building units along Galaxie will be for sale and the senior building will have rental units. Hartford has come through with the site plan and building permit operations with the first two buildings. Elizabeth Kautz outlined the development's target market as empty nesters, senior assisted living, and those people seeking to build equity. Mr. Johnson stated that he is encouraged by the new plan design showing a larger park area. He's not too excited by the Yz acre on the south side...if that could be coupled with the other area... Karen Edgeton noted that the Planning Commission will be using the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee's recommendation for discussion at their Wednesday, April 21"meeting. She also stated that from a Planning Commission view, they determine what space is taken up by what. As far as the plan is determined, the calculation is the open space. Tom Lovelace stated that the .45 acres will be infiltration area, with piping underground. Once the pipe fills, water will percolate up and go into the "Home Depot" pond. The .45 acre/potential pond infiltration area is yet to be determined by engineers. - 2 - CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 20, 2004 Russ DeFauw suggested that the ideal park would be to take one 18 unit building out of the plan, move the park land to three acres, and it would be accessible from all four sides. Mr. Griffith stated that he wasn't aware of the ponding in the .5 acre area until tonight. If they delete the building, Hartford has to look as what cost item can be delete in the plan. They've pushed the buildings together to accommodate the larger park. This is a dense urban concept plan. Mr. DeFauw stated that the small park adjacent to the big park,becomes an outlot, adjunct. He questioned whether the building could be moved to the property outlined potentially as water holding area. Mr. Griffith stated that Hartford would then not be following the design plan, the City's concept of having separate green space. There was some discussion as to the timeline of this proposal, and the bringing of it before the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. Mr. Sarver noted the adjustment of streets within the latest plan version to accommodate the larger park as presented. Mr. Griffith stated that Hartford needs to take this information back to their staff,put pen to paper and...take those comments back to the central village urban environment design. Ms. Edgeton noted that the Planning Commission is interested in the small area, not necessarily green grass, but maybe paved with art sculpture, and/or a park bench. That's the vision of the City hired consultant on this development concept. The City is doing things differently than any other development in the city. A departure is that the 2 ''/z% could be met by art sculptures, fountains, etc. This is intended as a walking environment, not a driving environment. Galaxie Avenue will be narrower with the buildings built right up to the street, similar to the Stillwater downtown. Mr. Griffith gave the Summit Hill basic configuration comparison of a fountain, statuary, etc. Mr. Sarver stated that the function of the narrow streets is that they slows the traffic down. Tina Rankin liked that the park is square and multi-purpose. She noted that it's gotten smaller than the earlier information. She questions what part of the dedication is commercial vs. residential. Ms. Edgeton stated that the Planning Commission looks at how much land serves the purpose of recreational enjoyment, not the particular use of the land and who uses it. Lee Strom noted that the plan doesn't meet the Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee's recommendation of five acres. There isn't enough total acres in the plan overall to accommodate it. Tom Lovelace stated that the plan dated April 19, 2004 as distributed is not to scale. - 3 - CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 20, 2004 Mr. Griffith noted that if Hartford is providing land and a building (potential senior center),it has to be figured into the equation as part of the plan credit. Mr. Lovelace noted that the City received for review the most recent plan copies on Friday, April 16th. He outlined three points with these plans: • .45 acre infiltration area, is a depressed area (lower area). • Central Village, Park C was to be a public square with blvd. trees. Intended to be a more formal area. The original plan called it out as a more ornamental, passive area. • Plan vs. moving one of the buildings: requirements call for a minimum of three residential product areas. The developer could potentially remove the 18 unit building mentioned by Mr. DeFauw,make some adjustments and still accommodate the minimum requirements, vertical adjustments not being out of the question. Rick Kelley stated that as the City configures the park dedication, it is determined at different rates for commercial vs. residential. Mr. Strom stated that the problem stems from the fact that it's an intense development with little green space. Loren Hegland stated that having scattered green space doesn't meet good park planning. He sees no problem with small areas of open space. He doesn't see it as City owned property however. Mr. DeFauw stated that he can't remember another project on such a short time span,the process is lousy. Mr. Maus and Mr. Strom agreed. Mr. Strom noted that apparently 12 acres was the net focus, but it's not going to happen. He noted that he's disappointed with the process. He also noted that the most recent plan is better than earlier versions. MOTION: by Russ DeFauw to recommend approval of the project to City Council as presented. There being no second, the motion failed. MOTION: by Lee Strom to recommend approval of the project to City Council with recommendation that Hartford Group reconfigure the residential units and meet the requirements to increase the size of the 2 '/z acre park. There being no second, the motion failed. - 4 - CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 20, 2004 MOTION: by Russ DeFauw, seconded by Charlie Maus,to recommend approval of the project to City Council as presented. VOTE: Yes—0, No-6 Mr. Griffith thanked the Committee for their time and stated that Hartford Group will consider at all their comments. ITEM 4. Adjourn There being no further business, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting was adjourned. MOTION: by Lee Strom seconded by Loren Hegland to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. VOTE: Yes—6, No—0 - 5 -