Loading...
02/27/1981 PAR AD Hoc A Naples, Florida , February 27 , 1921 LET IT BE IMOWN, that the Parks and Recreation Ad Hoc Committee net on this date at 9 : 15 A.M. Building "F" with the following members present : Fred Keyes, Chairman Jane 'littler Mary Evans Linda Duever Dan Breeden Ben Plummer Leigh Plummer ALSO PRESENT: Director Rollie Rice , Parks and Recreation Department; Richard Henderlong , Planner, Terry Clark, Planning Department; Tish Gray, Naples Star. AGENDA 1 . Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Addenda 4. Old Business 1 417) A. Selection of community park site in District II . B. Report on Board of County Commissioners decision for the citizen recreational survey. 5. New Business 6. Adjournment MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6 , 1981 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED The minutes of the February 6, 1981 meeting by motion and second were approved as presented by unanimous vote . ADDENDA - NONE 44D Page 1 • • Parks & Recreation Ad Hoc Committee February 27, 1991 Chairman Keyes noted that there was no addenda to ` 4 the agenda , and suggested that the committee consider Item B. under Old Business before Item A. REPORT ON BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' DECISION FOR THE CIi'IZEN RECREATIONAL SURVEY Parks and Recreation Director Rollie Rice reported that the Board approved the Citizen Recreational Survey and he thanked the Committee members who went to the February 24, 1931 meeting to support this program. He said with the available funds the survey details can now be completed; added that he had a stamp made for the return envelope to facilitate a quicker survey return from the women' s clubs; and he noted he looked to the second week in March for the surveys to be sent . 410 Responding to Mr. Rice, Mr . Henderlong said the date for the survey return will be included in the cover letter accompanying the survey, and will be approximately two weeks from the date the survey is received by the people. In response to Mr. Henderlong, Mr. Rice said he would speak with Supervisor of Elections Mary Morgan to see how the precinct districts can be used for the survey mailing list. A short discussion followed during which Chairman Keyes noted that the Board is currently thinking of Page 2 Parks 4 Recreation A.0 Hoc Committee February 27 , lnnl having a referendum in May on the Charter and he 0 suggested this committee might include the land acquisition question for parks on that referendum. After some mention was made regarding a bond issue to be included, Mr. Henderlong noted that he felt all this committee would be ready to include is its concern for community parks and nothing beyond that point. He added that later in today' s meeting he would address the Naples Cay site, as it might relate to the overall plan. In response to Mr . Leigh Plummer ' s request for clarification, a discussion ensued whereby Mr . Henderlong explainer: how the voter precinct statistics would he utilized for the random selection of names 4:) which will comprise the survey mailing list . He noted that it is the voters' opinions which this committee would tap in order to have a meaningful survey. When Ms. Hittler asked if the voter ' s record is going to be considered , Mr . Henderlong responded negatively. SELECTION OF COMMU'-ZITY PARK SITE IN DISTRICT II Planner Henderlong located on an overhead map Sites A, B, C, D, E, and F, which he explained were the sites this committee evaluated at the last meeting. In terms of points and choices made by the committee, he listed the following results : 0 Page 3 Parks & Recreation 7c1 Hoc Committee February 27 , 1931 1. Rink '.`•1 , Site F 482 points 2. Vanderbilt Beach, Site A 471 points 3. Site E, east of sewer plant 4'39 points. 4. Site B, the elementary school. 453 points 5. Site D, cast of R. R. , south of Immokalee Road 44 points 3. Site C , south of River Oaks Sub- division 440 points Mr.. Henderlong noted that looking at these figures and since there are many variables, he said he was interested in the 42 point spread; he pointed out the closeness in terms of points between choice 2, 3, and 4 . He suggested the committee might want to reconsider broadening the point spread criteria to 5 - 3 - 1 . He briefly explained the average values for the various sites, and since his explanation further emphasized the close vote for the community park site in District II , '41r. Henderlong offered two suggestions to the committee members : 1 . The committee members could review the six sites again using a broader point criteria , or 2. If the committee wants to accept the criteria that the Planners used as the identifier for choices 1 , 2, and 3 , does the committee feel that Rink No. 1, Site F is the best choice for a community park in North Naples? A general discussion ensued during which mr . 0 Page n Parks .. ^.ecreation Ad Hoc Commitee February 27, 19°1 Henderlong noted that there was some concern at the last meeting among the committee members, because the park users would have to cross Immokalee Road . He said he felt the committee needs to take another look at the way the criteria relates to the choices; but aided if the committee is comfortable with this response and the way the Planning Department evaluated the sites against the criteria used , Site F will be the recommendation which will be brought before the Board as the best site for the North Naples area . He said that he would like feedback today from the committee members as to acceptance of the results of the criteria used , or if the committee feels Site F is inappropriate and another site would be more satisfactory. Planner Henderlong noted that most of the criteria is weighted toward looking at factors of cost, accessibiity, etc . ; that the planners took each site and worked inviduelly with the 12 criterias; and since the committee members did not have the benefit of the approach that the planners took, Mr. Henderlong said he felt this was the reason for such a close variance between the park choices. He mentioned he was a little concerned because he said he felt Site F appeared as the first choice of the committee because of the land cost. He noted, however , the second choice , Site A, had the *vow Page 5 Parks F. Recreation 'v3 Hoc Committee February 27 , 1091 highest land cost, and added that because of Pelican • Bay, this area is where all the young users will come from. lie asked the committee for a straw ballot . %1r . Rice said he felt important factors are immediate need and use; noted a park at Site R is still within the realm of the three mile radius , but there will be a very serious problem with the "kids crossing U.S. 41" and he said that personally he felt, with regard to land acquisition negotiations, that Site E, in front of the sewer plant, would be easier to obtain. ;ie added that piece of property has been available to the County before . Mr . Breeden stated he felt immediate need is on the west of J.S. 41 and that should he priority ';1; he added • the other sites, i .e. Site E could be a later park choice . Mr. Henderlong stated when the criteria was prepared, the planners assumed all the factors were equivalent; now he said he felt more points should be assigned to immediate need. Mr. Rice said if this "thing gets off the ground" , he looked to what the situation will be in two years ' s time; added the population is there now; approximately one year is needed for processing and building a park site; and he concluded with the speculation that in two years, another referendum might be held. If that Page i Parks & Recreation '\d :loc Cot mitte, February 27, 19'll reflected the need , a park could he put on the other ® side of the road , he said. Mr. Hen_'erlong offered the following suggestions for the committee: I . Review the criteria , reevaluate the assigned numbers, and place more weight on the range where the committee feels the need is . 2. With regard to present criteria , drop the sub-categories, '1. ,B. , and C, and just deal with the g_neral heading , which would throw all the weight on that specific criteria . Mr. Henderlong said this procedure would be much more restrictive in terms of the choices and what could be clone with a particular site. Ms. Duever agreed . Mr. 'ienderlonci referred the committee to their criteria sheet entitled FOR EVALUATING ALTERiJATIVE SITES . tie note-' there are twelve criteria headings and in item 1 5, the sub-headings A through E refer basically to the ease of access and population density. He suggested a 10 point weight to item "C , with the particular site being rated according to the following classifications :classifications : poor, fair, good, excellent and superior. Therefore , he said, if a committee member felt a site was best suited for item r , Proximity of Users to The Recreational Resource Site as Determined By Travel Distance, that site would be given 10 points. Mr. Henderlong asked the committee, for example, to look at item IC to determine if Site A is the best choice in relation to the other five sites in terms of Page 7 . l Parks & Recreation Ad Hoc 'Committee February 27 , 1981 access to the primary users. Ms. Duever asked for a 411 little raore guidance from staff as far as the proximity neighborhood is to a site , since the staff are in a better position to know the numbers of people involved . Mr. Henderlong explained there was no appreciable difference between the first three sites, and he added in Sites F. , E. , an:' D. the numbers of persons serviced by a park declined. He said he would be glad to provide the information ms . ': lever requested . As the committee reviewed the twelve categories , in the appended Criteria material, v,r. Henderlong suggested the following categories as the most important : 3. Adequate Site Size For Intended Use 4 . Access to Community Facilities and Services • (Water and Sewer) 5. Ease of Access to Existing Road Network 6. Proximity of Users to The Recreational Resource Site as Determined By Travel Distance 7. Population Density 8. Relative Land Cost As defined By Assessed Value Of Land On Tax Roll 11. Improvement Cost Mr. Henderlong stated he felt the following categories address environmental concerns or admini- strative costs associated with preparing the land for its intended use : Page 8 P 1 Parks & Recreation Ad Hoc Committee February 27, _l901 1 . Unique Conservation Features and Scenic Value ® ? . Competibility With Adjacent Land Uses 9 . Preservation Of Fresh 'Water and 'natural Surface :Water Flow Way 10 . Physical Elevation 12. Compatibility With Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Ms. Duever said she was still bothered by the idea that operative procedures and improvement costs would cancel each other out , and she state-' she felt it was a matter of individual analysis as far as what potential a certain site had. `4r. Henderlong agreed her point was well taken. A short discussion centered on active and passive parks and the variables of lend improvements in Cheavily forested sites in Golden Gate as compared with another site fairly devoid of trees . He explained he felt the 1-3-5 point range system would reflect the restrictive nature of a park , as opposed to equally identifying, through the range , which criteria is more important than others in determining a site in relation to intended use . Chairman Keyes said the committee is looking for a park that the people are going to use. After further discussion , at Ms. ?:uever ' s suggestion, the committee agreed to combine items f`1 and 19 with a maximum point range from 10 to 1 , and with the word "Unique" replaced by the word "Appropriate" in the verbage in item {El . 401) Page 9 Parks & Recreation ?Y Hoc Committee February 27 , 1831 Items 12 and i`12 were discussed , and m r . Henderlong noted that item 12 , Compatibility With Adjacent Land Uses addressed the point of how a chosen park site would be affected by the zoning ordinances and the Compre- hensive Plan and the type of park would also be considered . He said since item 112 is similar , and because all of the sites need to be amended with regard to zoning ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan, he suggested that this item could be deleted . After some discussion which considered conservation features , access and proximity of users to sites , Mr. Henderlong asked for the committee ' s decision for a maximum point designation. Mr. Rice said since the Committee has already rated 0 some proposed sites under the original "1 to 10" criteria point designation, he asked that "for the record legally" would the Committee have to stay with said point assignment. Mr. Henderlong answered negatively, and he explained a different point designation would simply mean one criteria is of some importance but not as significant as another item. The general consensus of the members was for a 1 to 5 maximum point designation on item 42 which combines that item with item 112, thereby deleting 112. During the discussion regarding item k3 , Ms . Deuver "'""o Page 10 Parks & recreation Ad Hoc Committee February 27, 1c?"1 observe-I that the Committee has picked. sites w:,ich already -';pat the minimum size requirements, ?nd she felt what should he considered is to balance how much land_is being a suired for the money, to which %Ir. Henderlong concurred. He referred the members to appended material comparing four proposed sites, and after a short discussion , the point designation for item 3 was 1 to 5 maximum. The discussion for item 14 , Access to Community Facilities and Services (iVater and Sewer) resulted in point conjecture as follows: A) Access to city water and sewer 5 R) Only access to one of the facilities 3 C) No access to facilities 1 However , after continued discussion, the members agreed that the staff would assign the points for this category based upon the preceding factors. Item F5, Ease of Access to Existing Road Network was assigned the maximum point range of 5 to 1 . Since item r?, Population Density, was similar to item 16, which had been discussed , the point range was assigned to maximum 10 to 1 . Item 'r8 , Relative Land Cost As Defined By Assessed Value Of Land On Tax Roll , was assigned a point range of maximum 5 to 1 . 41) Page 11 Parks & Recreation ?;d '-ioc Committee February 27, 1931 At 'its. Duever ' s suggestion, the Committee agreed to r_ombininq items " 10 and '-.`11 , deleting '`10 and including that item, Physical Elevation with '`1I, Inprovement Cost, with the point valuation to be maximum 5 to 1 . SELECTION OF CO-A'r'J 'JITY PARK SI1'E T^7 DISTRICT III The Committee :decided to use the agreed criteria and point designation just determined to relate to the sites under consideration for Commissioner Kruse' s District III . Using the above revised criteria with the new point range c?esi ]n Lions, the committee members reviewed and rated the four proposed park sites for District III , while 'r . Henderlong presented a slide presentation and gave =. narrative regarding each site , and with the aid of maps placed on overhead boards he • compared the following proposed park sites in the Golden Gate City and Estates area: 1. Green Blvd. & Logan Blvd. Approximately 33 acres; realignment of area road into "S" curve would bring right-of- way land factors into con- sideration; heavily forested . 2. South Side of Green Blvd . & East of Sunshine Blvd . & Canal . Approximately 23 acres , features are canals to south & east; site would have no direct negative effect upon property in said directions; zoned "RM-1B" , high density; 900 ' the depth of property; site has • Page 12 Parks & ; ecreetion ?d Hoc Committee February ?7, 1')?1 0 been cleared . ^ , green M_v•l. & 14th Avenue S.'''. 1\pproxi' ately 30+ acres; one house which would be affected.; heavily foliated; 2 projected entrances to site. A . South of Santa Barbara Blvd. , South of Canal . Site "high and dry" ; near the I-75 bridge which County will construct with Federal Govt. carrying burden of cost near 'Maples Christian Academy and proposed Catholic High School . Mr. Henderlong xplained that the 4 square miles of Golden Gate City as well as the Estates area have a growth of between 500 and ;00 hones per year , which 4:) indicates, he said, that this area is equal , in terms of the rate of growth, to 'north Naples and Marco Island. He said that since there was no available land within Golden gate City, the planners had to seek land outside the City to serve two purposes - the City residences and all the land along S.R. 951. Mr. Henderlong related the following factors for consideration by the Committee members with regard to park site selection : 1 . Of the 500- 00 homes currently being built in this area , approximately half the growth is in Golden Gate City and half is in the Estates. 2. Approximately 20% of the projected growth is occurring east of S.R. 951; approximately 30% is happening west of S.R. 951. CI) 3. The immediate growth is anticipated to occur Page 13 w Parks & Recreation Ad Hoc Committee February 27, 1931 north; the secondary growth is projected to be • west of I-75. 1 . Land acquisition cost will range from n1 , 000 down to $n ,000. 5. Proposed Site "4 is t4 closest in terns of direct access road. There will be an interchange at 1-75 and S.R. 951 (Mr. Henderlong indicated the position of same on overhead map. ) 7 . The County is in the process of acquiring land for a 10 million gallon water treatment plant with proposed construction and "close to completion" within two years; water lines intended to serve Fast Naples and Marco Island. A lengthy discussion ensued with regard to point designation during which the members individually gave point preferences for the proposed sites, and the staff agreed to designate the points for criteria items 4 , 5, • and 8 . Mr . Henderl.ong thanked the members and collected their marked sheets for staff compilation . DISCUSSION RE PROPOSED CLAM BAY PAR?: PLAN Mr. Henderlong gave a lengthy presentation of the proposed Clam Bay Park Plan. He explained the Fora gave the directive and the staff formulated an analysis of the Maples Cay site as its potential for a County beach park. He located the property on an overhead map and explained that the approximate size of the Clam Bay Park plan is 31 acres, which includes a parcel to come to Collier County through a Pelican Bay "PUD" commit- ment . He elaborated on the proposed details of the park Page 34 , . narks 'zecre tion Ad? Hoc Committee February 27, 1981 110 and noted that the State of Florida provP:e. technical assistance and met with County staff during the conceptual c'evelo cent oL the plan. 'ir. Henderlong said that the State is very much in favor of the proposed plan . Mr . Henderlong stated that when his department adopted this plan, the staff accepted the idea that beach access is the number 1 priority for a recreational facility on the ;zt;lf . Discussion also covered the priorities for par!; selection, as they relate to the Naples Cay site and the method of presenting this plan to the public. ' r. . ';enlerlong noted that the Board will have the final policy decision as to funding the various 411 aspects of the overall County park needs, and he said he looks to an integrated approach with regard to all the park sites which are presented to the Board. AJOURNME'd - 11:00 A.M. Mr . Henderlong noted the next meeting will be held on March 13, 1981 in the same room at which time the staff will bring the results of the Co:imittee ' s District III park choice compilation; a review of District I proposed park choices as they relate to new criteria point designation will be on the agenda; and the committee will continue with a discussion of the C Page 15 R • f • Parks & Recreation Ac? Hoc Committees February 27, 1';` remi: j 'districts IV, V, ' I for new proposed park • sites. The meeting, was adjourne-1 by direction of Chairman Keyes at 11 : 00 A.ti' . Parks and Recreation Al Hoc Committee Fre^ Keyes, Chairman • s Page 16