Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes/Staff Reports CITY OF C'OLLIJGC STATION ~~ PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD Regular Meeting Tuesday, July 10,'2001 Parks Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road 7:00. p.m. Staff Present: Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation; David Wood, Parks Planner; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator; David Gerling, Recreation Superintendent; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent, Kris Lehde, Staff Assistant. Board Present: John Nichols, Chair; Glenn Schroeder; Glen Davis; Don Allison; Larry Farnsworth; Laura Wood (Alternate). Board Absent: Jon Turton; Bill Davis. Visitors: George Dresser. 1. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Swearing in of new members: Larry Farnsworth and Don Allison were sworn in to serve on the Parks and Recreation Board. 3. Hear visitors: No visitors spoke at this time. 4. Pardon ~ Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: Glen Davis made a motion to accept the absences of Jon Turton and Bill Davis as excused. Glenn Schroeder seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Approval of minutes from regular meeting of June 12, 2001: Glenn S. made a motion to approve the minutes of June 12, 2001. Glen D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a recommendation from the Senior Advisory Committee to appoint: Bill Lay, Chairman Carol Parzen, Vice-Chair Marci Rodgers, the staff liaison for the Senior Advisory Committee, stated that there are currently 15 members on the Committee, and that Bill Lay and Carol Parzen had both agreed to continue serving on it. Parks & Recreation Board Tuesday, July /0, 2001 Page / of 8 Glen D. made a motion to appoint Bill Lay as the Chairman and Carol Parzen as the Vice-Chair of the Senior Advisory Committee. Glenn S. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning Castlegate Park design: Eric Ploeger stated that the last time this item was presented to the Parks and Recreation Board was in June 2000, when the Board accepted park land for the Castlegate Subdivision. He stated that about two years ago, the Park Land Dedication Ordinance was updated so that the developer could either dedicate land, where there is a development fee requirement, or dedicate money in lieu of land. Eric went on to say that instead of paying the required development fee, the developer also has the option to develop the park themselves. Wallace Phillips, the developer of the Castlegate Subdivision, has chosen this option. Eric said that Park staff has been working with Mr. Philips on a design. Park staff and the Development Services Department staff have been working on who will design the park (Park staff or someone hired by Mr. Phillips). Eric stated he would be presenting the concept for the park design, and that no official action was required, but any comments that the Board had would be taken back to Mr. Phillips for consideration. Eric went over a map of the property. He stated that Tim Crowley actually owns the property, but the development of it has been turned over to Wallace Phillips. The developer's intention back in June 2000 was that there might be a total of 757 dwelling units developed. Currently, Mr. Phillips has platted for 391 dwelling units. He plans for the area to be single family housing, but he doesn't know the lot sizes or how many total dwelling units will end up being developed. The Park Land Dedication Ordinance requires a dedication of just over eight acres for 757 dwelling units. Mr. Phillips is dedicating approximately 12 acres. The Parks Department is working on calculating how much credit Mr. Phillips would receive back through the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. Glen D. asked who was responsible for maintaining the park once it was developed. Eric responded that maintenance of the park would be the responsibility of the College Station Parks and Recreation Department. He went on to say that since it would be a public facility, Mr. Phillips would be responsible for the same level of inspection and A.D.A. requirements that the City would responsible for. The Parks Department will also document the amount that it would have cost the City to build the park in order to satisfy Mr. Phillip's portion of the development fee. Glen D. asked what the amount of the dedication fee was. Eric responded that if Mr. Phillips develops the 757 dwelling units as originally proposed, the dedication fee would be approximately $270,000, which is about what the current budget is for the proposed park. Parks & Recreation Board Tuesday, July 10, 1001 Page 2 of 8 David Wood stated that Park staff came up with two design concepts for the park. One was a standard design for a park of this size, and the other had a few more amenities than a standard park would have. He showed the Board the latter of the two design concepts. The proposed park is approximately 4.35 acres and has some intergenerational features incorporated in it. Mr. Phillips would like for the park to be the focal point for the entire neighborhood. Some of the amenities in the park would include - a picnic unit - basketball courts - seating - a playground unit - sidewalk - a swing set - a shelter - a plaza - shade trellis - a sculpture - tennis courts Glen D. asked if there was a parking area included in the design. David responded that there would be on-street parking, where available, which is typical for a neighborhood park. Glen D. asked if there would be a sand volleyball court. Eric responded that this had not been discussed with Mr. Phillips, but could be. Glenn S. asked about adding more features to the park. David stated that with the proposed features presented, there is a possibility that the park will go over budget. Eric added that this would be a City park, so if funds become available in the future, there would be the possibility of using them to add additional amenities to the park. David also added that he had designed the park so that additional amenities could be added at a later time. Glenn S. asked about the possibility of incorporating bike lanes into the park. This could preclude some of the problems with on-street parking. Eric stated that this would have to be reviewed with the Development Services Department. John N. asked about practice space for sports such as soccer and softball. He is concerned that the Pebble Creek School would be the closest area to practice on. Eric stated that at present this is the closest space, although the Department could discuss the issue with Mr. Phillips. John N. asked who would be responsible for naming the park. Eric stated that he would need to look into the Park Policy for Naming City of College Station Parks and Recreation Facilities. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. Parks & Recreation Board Tuesday, July 10, 2001 Page 3 of 8 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning park land dedication funds by zone: Eric had distributed a memo to the Board that had a table of the park zones, the funds dedicated to each zone, and an explanation of the projects that the funds are dedicated to. Glen D. asked when the funds were dedicated to the specific projects. Eric responded that every year the Department turns in a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget that coincides with the City's budget process. The projects have to be budgeted through the City's budget process in order to have the funding available for the following fiscal year (October ls` to September 30`"). Eric added that the CIP budget had recently been submitted. He added that if there is not a specific project, then the funds are allocated to intergenerational features, which is a City Council priority. Eric discussed each zone with the Board. Glen D. asked what park land dedication funds are typically used for. Eric responded that they are typically used for neighborhood park improvements. John N. asked the Board to keep the budget schedule in mind in the future if they have specific visions for the zones. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 9. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning using park zone money for replacement of the playground equipment at Hensel Park: Eric stated that he had met with a committee from Texas A&M University that is trying to implement an improvement plan for Hensel Park. He said that in the early 80's the City built and funded a playground at the park, and that it is now at an age where it needs to be replaced. He added that there are park land dedication funds in that zone, but that Park staff have been given direction to use those funds toward a linear park in the Northgate area. He said that there is also the possibility of using the $50,000 replacement fund that the Department currently has in its budget. The Department typically replaces two playgrounds a year. He added that a budget request has been submitted to increase the replacement fund by $60,000, which would bring the total up to $110,000. George Dresser took the floor. He stated that he and John Nichols are currently serving on the committee that came up with approximately $56,000 to do various upgrades to Hensel Park, although there is not enough money to replace the playground. He passed around pictures of the current playground unit and the decking area around it. Curtis Bingham had inspected the playground and gave a report on its condition. He said that the playground unit is in poor condition, and noted some of the problems associated with it: The spiral slide is missing. The Department will not replace it because the manufacturer has gone out of business and it would be very expensive to have a slide custom made. Parks & Recreation Board Tuesday, July 10, 2001 Page 4 of 8 - The barrier that closes the area off where the spiral slide was located needs to be replaced as well. Currently, it is made of plywood and one would have to be specially fabricated to fit the area, which would be very expensive. - A tire swing is missing. The Department will not replace it due to safety standards. - The surface is currently made of pea gravel. This presents a problem, because adding more pea gravel would damage the root systems of the trees that are inside the playground pit. He suggested moving the playground unit away from the trees if it were to be replaced, and using a mixture of pea gravel and rubber to create a softer fall cushion. George asked if repairs are done using City crews. Curtis responded that repairs and maintenance are done in-house, but complete installations are usually contracted out. George asked how much it would cost to replace the entire playground. Eric responded that typically replacements cost approximately $25- $30,000. George recommended that the Board find a way to replace the playground. John N. asked Curtis if there was a playground replacement priority list. Curtis replied that there is a list, but he was not sure where Hensel Park is ranked on it. Eric stated that staff would review the list and come back to the Board in August. He added that by that time, staff should have a better idea of what next year's budget will look like. George said that the decking around the playground also needs to be replaced. Glen D. asked Curtis if he thought that the playground needed to be replaced or upgraded. Curtis replied that he felt that it should be replaced. John N. made a motion to direct Park staff to examine the options and come back to the Board. Glen D. added to the motion, directing Park staff to come up with a projected cost to replace the playground equipment and bring it up to standard. This would include replacement of the decking, the surfacing, and the playground equipment itself. Larry Farnsworth seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Glenn S. added that he was opposed to using park land dedication funds for this specific project. He realizes that the playground equipment needs to be repaired or replaced, but stated that every dollar that has been generated in that zone (Zone 1) has come from the Northgate area and should be used in that area. 10. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning Veterans Park and Athletic Complex timeline: Eric stated that Bob Schmidt from O'Malley Engineers submitted a timeline for the Phase I development of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. He said that staff would try to shorten the timeline by working on some of the steps listed simultaneously (the Development Services and Parks and Recreation Department review). Glen D. asked what projects were planned for Phase I. Eric responded that planned are: - two softball fields with associated parking; Parks & Recreation Board Tuesday, July 10, 2001 Page S of 8 - a portion of a maintenance building; - a portion of the drive leading to, and providing parking for, the Veterans Memorial area; - a restroom building; and - six soccer fields (Two of the six soccer fields, including additional parking, would be a part of an add-alternate plan directed by the City Council.) John N. said that the Board had voted to build the six soccer fields, and that any add-ons would be the softball fields. (Refer to item #7 of the minutes from the regular meeting of March 6, 2001.) Eric responded that he believes that staff had received different direction from the Council. Glen D. suggested reviewing what was actually approved by the Council. Eric said that he would research the actual motion and bring it back to the Board during the August meeting. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 11. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning City Council Vision Statements and implementation plans: Eric said that a draft of the Council Strategic Plan was included in the Board packets and that the Council would consider the plan at their July 12, 2001, meeting. The plan is a result of the Council Strategic Planning Retreat that was held in May 2001, and it is driving most of the Department's workload at this time. He said that Vision Statement #3 (relating to the Urban Forest Management Plan) and #4 both pertain to Parks and Recreation. Eric said that one of the strategic issues (strategy #4) under Vision Statement #4 deals with the Unified Development Code (UDC). The City is working with a consultant to review, update, and rewrite all of the development codes. Included in this review is the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. One of the strategic milestones is for the Parks and Recreation Board to meet with the UDC consultant in August to go over what effect changes in the UDC would have. He added that a special meeting would be set up in August to visit with the consultant. Glen D. suggested scheduling a special workshop to review the ordinance before the Board meets with the consultant. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 12. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a possible "bark park": Eric said this item was requested by one of the Board members, and the subject was also presented during a Hensel Park meeting that he attended. Park staff had contacted Kathryn Bice, the Executive Director of the Brazos Valley Animal Shelter. Ms. Bice was not able to attend the Board meeting, but the Department had gotten some information from her on the subject. He suggested asking Ms. Bice to talk about this topic at a future meeting, which would also give staff more time to research it. Parks & Recreation Board Tuesday, July 10, 1001 Page 6 of 8 Eric said that The Brazos Valley Animal Shelter is in the process of building a "bark park" on land in Bryan. They are forming a committee and trying to raise funds for the park. Laura Wood passed out information on "bark parks" that she had researched on the Internet. She suggested University Park as a potential site, because the wastewater treatment plant is in close proximity to it and the area already smells when the winds change. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 13. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the user fee study: The Board had received the Executive Summary of the study prior to the meeting. Eric said that he put this item on the agenda because he was unsure what the schedule would be for presenting any recommendations to Council. Eric said that the Department has done some review work on the study, but has not had the opportunity to meet with the City's Budget Office to discuss it. A meeting has been set with the Budget Manager for July 11, 2001, to come up with a plan for how the information would be presented to the City Council. Glenn S. asked if the copy that they had received was the final document. Eric responded that he understood that it was. Glen D. stated that the Fees Subcommittee and staff had previously met with the consultants to go over the initial report. He said that at that time there were apparent errors in the report and the consultants were to have gone back and corrected them; it appears that those errors had not been corrected. Glen added that he had no confidence in the document, and that if this was going to be the final document, he didn't feel that he could support it. He recommended that the Board not accept the report. He gave an example where Girls Fastpitch was categorized as an adult sport, when in fact it is a youth sport. Eric said that he understands that the document would only be used as a tool to provide suggestions; staff would actually make any fee recommendations to Council. Glen D. said that the study would also be forwarded to Council though. He added that during the subcommittee meeting, the consultant appeared very frustrated and defensive of his methodology and of the software program used to calculate the numbers for the study. He said that based upon his review of the document, and after meeting with the consultant, he felt that it was not a good document. Glenn S. said that the study needs to be accurate, and currently there are apparent mistakes that need to be corrected before it is presented to the City Council. John N. asked if staff could provide aone-page analysis of some of the issues that result from the staff s meeting with Budget. Parks & Recreation Board Tuesday, July 10, 200/ Page 7 of 8 This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 14. Discussion, consideration, and possible appointment of a Parks and Recreation Board member to serve on: Fees Subcommittee Veterans Park and Athletic Subcommittee Glenn S. volunteered to serve on the Fees Subcommittee and Larry F. volunteered to serve on the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Subcommittee. Both positions are to replace John Crompton who served on those subcommittees. Glen D. made a motion to approve the appointments. Don Allison seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Glen D. added that there is also a Master Plan Subcommittee. There was a question as to whether the subcommittee was a standing committee. Kris Lehde will research this question and bring an answer back to the Board at a future meeting. 15. Discussion concerning orientation for all board and committee members to be held at City Council Chambers on Monday, July 30, 2001, at 6:30 p.m.: Eric said that the Board would be receiving an invitation from the City Secretary's Office for board and committee orientation. There will be an agenda, and it is suggested that everyone attend. The Mayor, City Attorney, and City Manager will hold discussions about what roles boards and committees serve. There will also be a breakout session at the end for the boards and committees to meet with respective staff. * John N. and Glenn S. will not be able to attend the orientation. 16. Consent items: Capital Improvement Projects report: Glen D. asked if the CIP report could be categorized by status (ex. complete, on hold, etc.). Eric said that this could be done. Next meeting date and agenda: The next Parks and Recreation Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 14, 2001. John N. suggested scheduling a special workshop meeting to prioritize and strategize the Board's goals and objectives. 17. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Parks & Recreation Board Tuesday, July /0, 200/ Page 8 of 8 Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; David Gerling, Special Facilities Superintendent; Grace Calbert, Conference Center Supervisor; Lance Jackson, Lincoln Center Supervisor; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; Shannon Waddell, Recreation Supervisor; Tony Scazzero, Recreation Supervisor; Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator; Kris Startzman, Board Secretary. Board Members Present: Chris Barzilla, Chair; George Dresser, Co-Chair; Glenn Schroeder; John Nichols; Bill Davis; Jon Turton; Laura Wood, Alternate. Board Members Absent: Glen Davis; John Crompton, Alternate. Guests: Steve Smith, 1003 Dexter Drive, College Station, Texas Jim Wendt, 2201 Timberloch Place, The Woodlands, Texas Wallace Phillips, 5010 Augusta Circle, College Station, Texas Charles Ellison, P.O. Box 10103, College Station, Texas Mollie Guin, 1605 N. Blue Bonnet Circle, College Station, Texas Carter Hall, 1702 Amber Ridge, College Station, Texas Visitors: Larry K. Farnsworth, 4012 Hunter Creek, College Station, Texas 1. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. Swearing in of new members: Jon Turton, John Nichols, Glenn Schroeder, and Laura Wood were sworn in to serve on the Parks and Recreation Board. 3. Hear visitors: No visitors spoke at this time. 4. Pardon ~ Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: John Nichols made a motion to accept the absences of Glen Davis and John Crompton as excused. Chris Barzilla seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 13. 2000 Page 1 of 7 5. Approval of minutes from Regular meeting of May 9, 2000: John moved to approve the minutes from Regular meeting of May 9, 2000, with a minor editorial change. Bill Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 6. Discussion and possible consideration regarding alcohol usage at Central Park: Steve Smith took the floor. He said that the recent incident at Central Park at which a team player was beaten with a baseball bat prompted his letter of concern regarding alcohol usage at the park. He feels that drinking was probably a factor in the incident. Mr. Smith feels that the park doesn't have the same family atmosphere that first attracted him to it. He went on to say that he does not feel comfortable playing sports or bringing his family to a place where there is heavy drinking, flaring tempers, and swearing. Steve Beachy said that, to his knowledge, alcohol was not involved with the beating incident at Central Park. He said that rules at the parks are governed by a City ordinance, and at the present time, there is no prohibition on alcohol in the parks. To change this situation would require a modification of the ordinance. He went on to say that he doesn't know if it is feasible to ban alcohol in a particular park or area of a park, but he would consult the Legal Department and bring the answer back to a future Board meeting. Steve said that in the meantime, the Department would research the situation to see how extensive the problem is and report back to the Board. Glenn S. asked Steve if there is supervision during games at the park or if someone monitors the drinking problem. Steve responded that Parks employees are not at the park at all times during the games, but league officials usually are. He said that the Department would be able to express its concerns to the Leagues as well as try to come up with a solution to the problem. The Board agreed that they would like the Department to research this issue and report back at a future meeting. No motion was made on this item. 7. Discussion and possible consideration concerning Park Land dedication requirements for the Crowley Tract: Steve B. introduced Wallace Phillips (Developer), Jim Wendt (Planning Consultant), and Charles Ellison (Attorney). He said that the proposed development had been presented to the Parks and Recreation Board and to the Planning and Zoning Commission in years past. However, it has been a while since any development has occurred. He went on to say that it is the developer's contention that the previous Park Land Dedication Ordinance would still apply, wherein the requirement was one acre per 133 dwelling units. It is the City staffs contention that since there hasn't been Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 13, 2000 Page 2 of 7 development since the Park Land Dedication Ordinance was revised, the new ordinance would apply. The proposed development is located on Highway 6 and Greens Prairie Road, and is bisected by the proposed State Highway 40. The area is in Park Zone 10 and 13. The proposal includes approximately 757 single-family dwelling lots. Over four acres are being proposed for the park, but additional land is also being proposed for greenbelts and walkways. The new Park Land Dedication Ordinance states that the park land dedicated should be a minimum of five acres. So the Department is recommending that if the developer establishes a neighborhood park, that it be at least five acres. Steve went on to say that there is not an existing neighborhood park in that area, so a neighborhood park is needed in the development. Steve said that the proposed dedication is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. Charles Ellison discussed the proposal. He stated that a goal of the project is to incorporate a park system early in the development. John N. asked what the Board is being asked to act on. Steve said that the developer would like to know, before they incur additional expenses, if the park configuration and conceptual plan that they are proposing is agreeable to the Board. Jim Wendt discussed the proposed development. He said that proposed are three separate parks that are linked by a trail system. The amenities would be a couple of tennis courts, a basketball court, a picnic pavilion, a children's playground, a trail system that would link the three parks, and a pond with a fishing pier. He said that the three proposed parks would be equivalent to approximately 12 acres and the proposed trail system would be approximately seven acres (totaling around 19 acres). It is the developer's intention to convey all of the acreage to the City of College Station. Steve said that the developer is proposing to develop the park, which is allowable under the ordinance, but the Board would have the ability to approve the design specifications prior to construction. Bill D. moved that the Parks and Recreation Board accept the conceptual plan with the proposed acreage. George D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 8. Committee Reports: Steve said that this item had been placed on the agenda as a follow-up to the City Council's similar request to their Boards/Committees to report what accomplishments they have made over the past year. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 13, 2000 Page 3 of 7 Conference Center: Mollie Guin, Chairperson for the College Station Conference Center Advisory Committee, said that the purpose of the Advisory Committee is to study concerns at hand, make recommendations, and advise the Conference Center Staff and the Parks and Recreation Board of areas of community interest. The Advisory Committee is especially useful when its members serve as facilitators of ideas and as messengers to the community. She talked about the Committee's accomplishments over the last twelve months: • Completion of the City of College Station Memory Lane Oral History Project -this was ative-year project involving approximately 400 citizens and 100 volunteers to preserve College Station History. • Review of the Mission/Vision Statements of the College Station City Council. • Revision of the College Station Conference Center's policies, rules, and regulations. • Revision and simplification of the wording on the Conference Center Fees Schedule. • Revision of letters from churches on renting facilities. • Revision of the monthly and comparison reports concerning the number of commercial and non-profit users. • Revision of the annual report over lost business. Lincoln Center Advisory Committee: Lance Jackson, the liaison for the Committee, said he feels that one of the biggest accomplishments is that the Committee is being heard. He went on to say that there has also been an increase in civic awareness. Some of the accomplishments of the Committee are as follows: • Drafted a mission statement similar to the City Council's Mission Statement. • Created Subcommittees-Public Relations and Education. • Implemented a Committee workshop that will be held twice a year. • Developed a customer service survey that will be implemented this next fiscal year. • Helped to implement afour-way stop at the intersection between Eleanor and Holleman. • Was instrumental in getting a lighted sign placed in front of the facility. Some of the accomplishments that they would like to achieve within the next twelve months are to • Become more active with city-wide activities. • Turn the Lincoln Center Facility into an alcohol-free facility. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, June l3, 2000 Page 4 of 7 • Improve the facility for the future -the Committee would like to review the facility, how to maintain it, and look at possible future expansions. • Become more active with the youth. College Station Recreation and Sports Association: Glen Davis was absent from the meeting. He will give a report at a future meeting. Senior Advisory Committee: Steve said that the Senior Advisory Committee is not a formal committee at this time, but that they have been very active. Marci Rodgers is the liaison for the Committee. She passed out a list of the accomplishments of the Committee for the last year (see attachment). Marci said that the senior program is up and running. She talked about some of the Committee's accomplishments: • The Senior Advisory Committee was formed in January 1999 -there are 17 members on the Committee that meet monthly. • Computer classes were organized at the Lincoln Center in Spring 1999. • Xtra Education classes are now offered to seniors. • They have hosted special events and day trips. • They have met with the City Council to express goals and visions from the Senior Advisory Committee. Marci talked about what the Senior Advisory Committee would like to accomplish in the future: • Become a formal committee under the Parks and Recreation Board and adopt by-laws. • Conceptualize, request, and establish a place for seniors to meet and function as a cohesive and constructive group. • Structure programs for seniors, which permit them to be a viable part of the College Station community. • Organize senior potential to make College Station a progressive, culturally active, and safe place to live. Teen Advisory Committee: Carter Hall, the outgoing President of the Teen Advisory Committee, said that the major accomplishment of the Committee was getting a teen center (The Exit) that they could call their own. Right now, they are trying to look at different avenues and goals. Some of the goals that they are looking at for next year are: • To meet with other youths on a statewide level to discuss youth-related issues. • To get involved with more community service activities. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 13, 2000 Page 5 of 7 9. Discussion and possible consideration of developing an urban forestry plan for the City of College Station: (see item #10) 10. Discussion and possible consideration of conducting a feasibility study to build a skateboard park: John Nichols made a motion to table items 9 c~ 10 until the July 11 `" Parks and Recreation Board meeting. Glem7 Schroeder seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed urla~timously. 11. Discussion and possible consideration of City Council Strategic Issues: Steve said that the City Council and key City staff attended a retreat earlier in the month to come up with and discuss issues related to the City Council's eight vision statements. Steve went on to say that parks were one of the main topics that were discussed during the retreat. Some other items of concern for the City Council were: • Having developers plan parks up front before developing subdivisions. • Coming up with intergenerational park amenities to accommodate senior citizens and the youth. • Having more interaction with the Parks and Recreation Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding neighborhood park development. • Having joint meetings with the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Board to discuss the Board's issues. Steve reminded the Board that even though some of the issues may not take up a lot of room on paper, they will in fact, take a lot of time and work to achieve. He went on to say that City Council and Management have indicated that these issues are top priority-other issues of concern that the Parks and Recreation Board may have will need to be weighed against these issues. Once the action plan is complete, it will be forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Board for their review. This was an informational item, and no motion was made. 12. Update, discussion, and possible consideration concerning a special venue tax for sports facilities: This item (whether the City should increase the hoteUmotel tax rate by 2% to help fund Veterans Park and Athletic Complex) has been discussed during previous meetings. Steve said that he had asked Parks staff to prepare cost estimates for development of the softball facilities and to prepare estimates for the operation and maintenance of those facilities as well. Steve said that when the numbers were added up, it appeared that there would not be sufficient funds to fully support the development and operation of the softball complex through this taxing source. Note: In order to use the special venue tax, it has to be self-supporting without the aid of ad valorem taxes, although, sales taxes can be used. A meeting has been set up with Parks staff, the Finance Director, and the Assistant City Manager to revisit the issue and to see if there are other tax resources available that could be used. This item will be brought back to Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 13, 2000 Page6of7 the Parks and Recreation Board at the next meeting. This was an informational item, and no motion was made. 13. Consent Items: Capital Improvement Program Projects Report: John N. asked if there had been any new development with Madeley Park (the land donated to the City of College Station to be used for park purposes). Steve said that he had informally spoken with City of Bryan officials to see if they would be interested in doing a joint project with the City of College Station, but he has no new information to report. Chris B. asked about the progress of the interlocal agreement between the College Station Independent School District and the City of College Station for the construction of four tennis courts to be located on the Willow Branch campus. Steve said that the School District would have to rebid the project and act on the bids at their June 19`h meeting. If approved by the School Board, it will go to the City Council for approval on June 22°d John N. asked at what stage Veterans Park and Athletic Complex was. Steve responded that it was in Phase I-the design phase. The Master Plan for the Park was approved by the City Council and now the Department needs to determine how much can be accomplished with the funds that are currently available. He went on to say that the grant for lights on some of the soccer fields was not approved. He said that the Department hopes to have the design of the park complete this year, have it under construction next year, and have the fields ready to play on the following year. The Department has requested $25,000 in the budget for the next fiscal year to hire consultants and lawyers to gain water rights to Carter Creek to irrigate the park (this would save around $40,000 per year versus using City water). Chris asked about the additional lights at A&M Consolidated tennis courts. Steve said that the Department has requested funds for them in the budget for the next fiscal year. Discussion of nett meeting date and agenda: George D. would like a Wolf Pen Creek Project report. He also asked if a Board member could be present during the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting regarding the Crowley Tract. Steve said that the Department would send the Board notification once the meeting has been set up. The next Parks and Recreation Board meeting will be held on July 11, 2000. 14. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 13, 2000 Page 7 of 7 STAFF REPORT Item: Consideration of a Master Preliminary Plat for the Castlegate Subdivision consisting of 338.27acres located on Greens Prairie Rd. west of the future intersection with Highway 40. (00-136) Applicant: Wallace Phillips Item Summary: • This proposal is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. • This plan is in compliance with the previously approved Master Development Plan and the Thoroughfare plan, with the one exception of the collector street that was to connect to Hwy 40. The decision to allow the removal of the street was made with the approval of the PDD rezoning. • The Parks Board has accepted the land dedication as proposed. The developer will however, need to return to the Board to receive approval of the development plan for the parks. • Several lots along the creek, with "A" designations, are not buildable lots and do not meet our subdivision regulation requirements. However, these lots are intended to contain the floodplain area, so that adjacent lots will not require flood insurance to be buildable. P&Z has granted variances to the subdivision regulations in similar situations. Staff supports this variance if a note is placed on the plat to the effect that these lots are not to be buildable lots. Item Background: This area was annexed in 1995. Soon after that, the developer began discussions with the City for the Master Development Plan. The Plan was originally approved by Council in 1997 and then modified in 1998. A 162-acre section of this master preliminary plat was rezoned in August of this year from A-O to PDD-H. The proposed plat is in compliance with the modified standards approved with the rezoning. This is the first area of the plan to begin platting Budgetary & Financial Summary: An oversize participation request for the waterline from Hwy 6 to and through this development is expected. The proposed development anticipates a need for only a 12-inch waterline. The City has determined that a major truckline, a 24-inch waterline, is necessary in this location to facilitate water service to future development. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the master preliminary plat with the deviation from the thoroughfare plan and the variance to the subdivision regulations regarding the undevelopable lots in the floodplain. Created on 07/06/95 7:56 PM Page 1 of 2 J: IPZTEX7ISRP. DOC Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Parks Board approved the proposed park areas on June 13th, 2000. The applicant intends to develop the parks and will return to the Parks Board for approval of the design specifications. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the master preliminary plat. The options regarding the master preliminary plat are approval as submitted or denial. Defer action or table only at applicant's request. Supporting Materials: 1. Infrastructure and Facilities 2. Copy of Offsite Improvements Plan INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: The City is requesting that a 24-in waterline be installed along the proposed Highway 40. This will be the main line providing water to the subject property. An oversize participation request is anticipated for this line. Sewer: Sewer is being provided to the site by an impact fee line that is currently under design/construction. Streets: The proposal meets the Thoroughfare Plan with the exception noted in the item summary above. Off-site Easements: An easement exists to cover the waterline out to Highway 6. Drainage: A regional detention facility is being proposed across Hwy 40. Flood Plain: It appears that the rear portion of several lots will have floodplain on them. A variance to the subdivision regulations is being requested to address this issue. Oversize request: An oversize participation request is anticipated for the waterline. Impact Fees: The subject area is within sewer impact fee area 97-01. The amount of the fee will be determined and assessed at the time of final platting. NOTIFICATION: None required. Created on 07/06/95 7:56 PM Page 2 of 2 J:IPZTEXTISRP. DOC « . STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 2 Project: CASTLEGATE SUB (MPP)-MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT (0-136) PLANNING 1. The applicant has previously requested that final platting be allowed for the PDD zoned area from this document. Final platting will be allowed if sufficient information is included to meet all preliminary platting requirements. Many dimensions are not readable, therefore full compliance cannot be determined at this time. Preliminary Plats will definitely be required for the reserve areas. 2. Some of the lots do not meet the modified standards for lot sizes that were approved with the PDD. Recalculate all the lots to ensure compliance. (Some examples are: Section 1, Block 2, Lot 2 and Section 3, Block 1, Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, Lots 4,5 & 6) 3. The modified standards submitted with the application are not same as the ones approved with the PDD. 4. Note that street connecting Hwy 40 to Greens Prairie is to be built with the commercial piece labeled Reserve Tract B. 5. Note zoning of reserve tracts and platting status of adjacent properties. 6. Label the connector trails. Are the P.U.E.'s and D.E.'s also going to be used as connectors? If so, label them. 7. The general location and alignment of the future Victoria ROW is in accordance with the previously approved MDP. Per Council's direction in 1998, staff continues to pursue the possibility of a future overpass at SH40 and Victoria with the MPO and TXDot. Reviewed by: JESSICA JIMMERSON Date: ~ 17~~b~ ENGINEERING 1. Drawings have so much information coupled with such small type that quite a bit of it is very difficult to discern. 2. Storm sewer sizes are not shown. Routing is hard to follow and discharge points are unclear. 3. Channel cross-sections are not detailed. 4. Need to provide information on off-site water line required to supply potable water to this development. In 1998 there was an understanding that a 24" line would be installed from SH6 @ Greens Prairie Road along J: \PZTEXT\PZ03571. DOC Page 1 of 2 .. the north and east ROW of planned SH 40 with the City providing oversized participation. 5. Provide information on pipelines carrying flammable gas or fuel. Show sizes, design pressures, and product. Reviewed by: Ted Mayo Date: 08-23-00 ELECTRICAL 1. Developer installs conduit per city spec and design. 2. Developer responsible for providing easements to cover all primary electric and equipment. 3. Developer responsible for providing and installing street lights per city spec and design. 4. Developer responsible for providing a 5' easement to cover street light services where they are necessary. Reviewed by: Jennifer Reeves LAND MANAGEMENT Date: 1. Need to remove all directionals from each street (north, south, etc.) 2. Need to rename Scarborough Place and Cambridge Loop (duplicate names) Reviewed by: Melissa Rodgers Date: 7/31 /00 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. J:\PZTEXT1PZ03571. DOC Page 2 of 2 ~° P ~"„ ti '~ `^ 'd ~~ ~ x ~* ~~_` t ,~~-.:, ~tiu-~~ C~vv~ ~~~~L~ STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 2 Project: CASTLEGATE SUB (MPP)-MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT (0-136) PLANNING 1. The applicant has previously requested that final platting be allowed for the PDD zoned area from this document. Final platting will be allowed if sufficient information is included to meet all preliminary platting requirements. Many dimensions are not readable, therefore full compliance cannot be determined at this time. Preliminary Plats will definitely be required for the reserve areas. 2. Some of the lots do not meet the modified standards for lot sizes that were approved with the PDD. Recalculate all the lots to ensure compliance. (Some examples are: Section 1, Block 2, Lot 2 and Section 3, Block 1, Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, Lots 4,5 & 6) 3. The modified standards submitted with the application are not same as the ones approved with the PDD. 4. Note that street connecting Hwy 40 to Greens Prairie is to be built with the commercial piece labeled Reserve Tract B. 5. Note zoning of reserve tracts and platting status of adjacent properties. 6. Label the connector trails. Are the P.U.E.'s and D.E.'s also going to be used as connectors? If so, label them. Reviewed by: JESSICA JIMMERSON Date: ~ I ZZ ENGINEERING _- ~._._ _ ~ , Drawings have so much information coupled with such small type that quite a bit of it is very difficult to discern. „2:f Storm sewer sizes are not shown. Routing is hard to follow and discharge points are unclear. ~,3' Channel cross-sections are not detailed. ~'° %"~'"~`~~'~=-4. Need to provide information on off-site water line required to supply c' ~~~ ~~~ ,, x~~ _4~ ~ potable water to this development. In 1998 there was an understanding ,-_ ~~~~ that a 24" line would be installed from SH6 @ Greens Prairie Road along the north and east ROW of planned SH 40 with the City providing oversized participation. Provide information on pipelines carrying flammable gas or fuel. Show sizes, design pressures, and product. J:IPZTEXT~PZ03571.DOC Page 1 of 2 Reviewed by: Ted Mayo Date: 08-23-00 ELECTRICAL 1. Developer installs conduit per city spec and design. 2. Developer responsible for providing easements to cover all primary electric and equipment. 3. Developer responsible for providing and installing street lights per city spec and design. 4. Developer responsible for providing a 5' easement to cover street light services where they are necessary. Reviewed by: Jennifer Reeves Date LAND MANAGEMENT 1. Need to remove all directionals from each street (north, south, etc.) 2. Need to rename Scarborough Place and Cambridge Loop (duplicate names) Reviewed by: Melissa Rodgers Date: 7/31/00 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. J:\PZTEXT\PZ03571.DOC Page 2 of 2 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 1 Project: CASTLEGATE SUB (MPP)-MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT (0-136) PLANNING 1. STOPPED REVIEW, inadequate information provided to review the plan. Must include all affected property, as well as infrastructure. Reviewed by: JESSICA JIMMERSON Date: 8/4/00 ELECTRICAL 1. Developer installs conduit per city spec and design. 2. Developer responsible for providing easements to cover all primary electric and equipment. 3. Developer responsible for providing and installing street lights per city spec and design. 4. Developer responsible for providing a 5' easement to cover street light services where they are necessary. Reviewed by: Jennifer Reeves LAND MANAGEMENT Date: 1. Need to remove all directionals from each street (north, south, etc.) 2. Need to rename Scarborough Place and Cambridge Loop (duplicate names) Reviewed by: Melissa Rodgers Date: 7/31/00 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1 OCR ~ !3(~ C;l'1'Y Ur' C:ULLI:CUL S"1'A" PARKS AND RECREATION ADVL Tuesday, October 9, 2001 Parks and Recreation Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road College Station, Texas 77840 7•nn n m Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; David Wood, Park Planner; Jane Kee, City Planner; Jessica Jimmerson, Staff Planner; Judy Downs, Greenways Coordinator; Kris Lehde, Staff Assistant. Board Members Present: John Nichols, Chairman; Larry Farnsworth; Glen Davis; Don Allison; Glenn Schroeder; Laura Wood (Alternate). Board Members Absent: Bill Davis; Jon Turton. Guests: Randy French, Developer Wallace Phillips, Developer David Scott, President of the Brazos Greenways Council Visitors: Debbie Hammon, P.O. Box 5206, Bryan, Texas 77805 Kourtney Rogers, 2910 Normand, College Station, Texas 77845 Aaron Melsohls, 1105 Hawk Tree Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 Kari Klafkin, 4924 Spearman Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 Elizabeth Caldbrese, 117 Holleman Drive, College Station, Texas 77840 Buty Bows, 117 Holleman Drive, College Station, Texas 77840 Jaimie Hachett, Southwest Parkway, College Station, Texas 77840 Justin Smith, 401 Anderson #12 N., College Station, Texas 77840 Jennifer Bishop, 1800 Holleman, #608, College Station, Texas 77840 Christy Moug, 401 University Oaks, #1305, College Station, Texas 77840 Ashley Griffin, 1315 Mullins Loop North, College Station, Texas 77845 Rachel Lyons, 950 Colgate, #167, College Station, Texas 77840 1. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. Hear visitors: No visitors spoke at this time. 3. Pardon ~ Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: Larry Farnsworth made a motion to accept the absences of Bill Davis and Jon Turton as excused. Glen Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of minutes from the regular meeting of September 11, 2001, and the joint meeting of September 20, 2001: Don Allison made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of September 11, 2001. Larry Farnsworth seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 200/ Page 1 of 6 maintenance contract that the City has. He added that the cost of maintenance of the park may be a little higher than for a typical neighborhood park, due to the cost of electricity to light the tennis courts, and the cost to resurface the courts every six (6) to seven (7) years. He added that funds have been approved in the fiscal year budget to include the contract maintenance for the park. Glen D. made a motion to approve the site plan for Castlegate Park. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding parkland dedication requirements for the Westfield addition: Steve stated that this item involves a tract of land for which a dedication was approved in January 1998 (under the old Parkland Dedication Ordinance) where land was dedicated in excess of the requirements needed for the phases of the subdivision being developed. At that time, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had moved to reconunend that the Board accept the proposed dedication, with a stipulation that future development must occur within a ten year timeframe for the credit to be valid on future dedication requirements. The initial dedication had 219 dwelling units, which equated to a dedication requirement of 1.65 acres for Phases I through IV of the development. The dedication that was made on the plat was actually 4.299 acres, which was in excess of the requirement. The intent was that as future phases came up, the dedication would be met up to that point. Steve said that since the time the original dedication occurred, the property has changed ownership. The question now is, does the dedication credit follow future tracts, or does it follow the owner? Steve presented a map of the property, which is located in the southern portion of the City in Park Zone 10. Jane Kee added that the original developer was John Szabuniewicz. Mr. French picked up the third and fourth phases of the development from Mr. Szabuniewicz, and also an additional tract of adjacent land to the south. The decision at present is whether or not the excess dedication credit will be applied to the adjacent tract of land to the south. Mr. French said that when he purchased the land, he obtained a written document that states that Mr. Szabuniewicz dedicated all of his credits to Mr. French. After some discussion, Glen D. made a motion to approve the 4.299 acres as the parkland dedication for both tracts of land (the original Westfield Subdivision, Phases I through N, and the tract of land adjacent and to the south). In addition, for verification, Mr. French will provide the written documentation that he received when he purchased the property from Mr. Szabuniewicz, indicating acknowledgement of the transfer of any parkland credits to Mr. French. Any excess parkland credit from Westfield, Phases I through IV, will be applied to the remainder of Westfield at the original rate of one acre per 133 dwelling units and to the new development to the south at the current rate of one acre per 101 dwelling units. The current development fee will apply only to new development to the south (the tract south of the future east/west feeder road). Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Larry F. made a motion requesting that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board review Mr. French's plat for connectivity between the existing park and the tract adjacent to the south before it is presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Glen D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, l00! Page 3 of 6 John N. asked who was responsible for maintaining the greenways in College Station. Steve replied that both the Public Works and the Parks and Recreation Departments would be responsible for the maintenance. John invited Judy to come back to the Board with future updates. Glen D. suggested having greenways reports on asemi-annual basis (i.e. fall and spring). This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 9. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding possible revisions to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance: Steve said that this item has been discussed by the Board during the last several meetings. The Parkland Dedication Ordinance was last revised in January 1999, with the strong reconunendation that it be revised every three (3) years. Revisions to the ordinance will be presented to the City Council in February 2002. He added that the ordinance would be forwarded to the Legal Department after the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had given their input. The ordinance would then be taken to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their approval in November 2001. Steve referred to the handouts that included the proposed changes to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, as well as the proposed Parkland Dedication Fee Methodology for 2001 Review (a) and (b), and a comparison table (see attachments). He pointed out the proposed changes to the ordinance, and asked Jane to comment on the methodology. Jane said that Methodology (a) is based on the assumption that one acre costs $15,000 to purchase, and that Methodology (b) is based on the assumption that one acre costs $20,000 to purchase. She referred to the handout that showed a comparison for single and multi-family dwelling units at the current dedication, the proposed dedication if the land cost were left at $15,000, and the proposed dedication if the land cost were increased to $20,000. The question was asked how the $15,000 for the average land value was originally determined. Jane responded that the figure was determined through staff research, as well as from input from a focus group meeting with local developers in 1998. Steve said that the intent at the meeting was to get the Board's feedback and possible approval of the wording of the ordinance so that it can be taken to the Legal staff, and then to the Planning and Zoning Commission. There was a consensus of the Board to have staff explore the possibility of having variable zone rates incorporated into the methodology during the next three (3) year review cycle of the ordinance. Glen D. made a motion to approve the proposed revisions to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance as presented by Staff, as well as the proposed Methodology (b), based on the $20,000 average land value in the City, and the $300,000 as a reasonable cost for neighborhood park development. Larry F. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Jane added that support from the Board is welcome when the ordinance revisions are presented to the City Council for their approval in February. 10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives: Glen D. made a motion to approve the Board's Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives that were included in the Board packets. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 11. Discussion, consideration, and possible appointment of members to the Conference Center Advisory Board: Glen D. made a motion to table this agenda item to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2001 Page 5 oj6 November 13, 2001, meeting in order to give staff more time to recruit new members to serve on the committee. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 12. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's recommendations to the City Council (Reference: Memorandum dated May 2001): This item is related to a request that was made by one of the Board members for an update of the Board's recommendations that were presented to the City Council during the joint meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Council on May 10, 2001 (refer to memo titled "Response to Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's Recommendations to Council, "dated September 11, 2001). Steve went over the memo with the Board. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 13. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning City Council Vision Statements: This is a standing item, and there were no updates to report during the meeting. 14. Consent items: Capital Improvement Project Report: - Eric reported that there is money budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget to concrete the surface of the jogging tract at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park. Staff have met with the College Station Independent School District and the Parent Teacher's Organization to discuss the possibility of coming up with an interlocal agreement to pay for rubber surfacing to be put over the concrete. If approved, the intention is to complete the work during the Christmas break. Eric reported that bids were opened for Phase I construction of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex on October 3, 2001. There were five (5) bidders, and the low bid was Acklam Construction. He added that the total cost for all of the alternates to the project totaled just under $3 million dollars. There was approximately $2.7 million available for construction, so at this time, the City would not be able to pay for the entire project. He added that the only alternate that the City would be able to fund was the landscaping alternate. The additional two (2) soccer fields and parking would not be funded at this time (there would only be four (4) soccer fields, instead of six (6)). The cost for this alternate was estimated at $300,000, which is significantly above what the engineering firm estimated that it would be. Next meeting date and agenda: The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. at the Central Park Conference Room. John N. added that he would be out of town on business and would not be able to attend the meeting. 15. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Parkr and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 1001 Page 6 of 6 7. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding potential parkland donation in the Pebble Creek Subdivision: Steve said that this item does not pertain to a dedication requirement, and that there was no action required of the Board at the meeting. The developer of the Pebble Creek Subdivision has indicated a desire to donate some land to the City for the use as a neighborhood park. He added that the Pebble Creek Subdivision has no additional dedication requirements because of the initial land trade deal that took place when the Subdivision and the College Station Business Park were created. Steve showed a map of the proposed parkland donation, which is in the southern boundary of the Subdivision, and is approximately 4.4 acres. The property will have frontage on one of the future streets and has connections to cul-de-sacs. He added that the property is heavily wooded, and the intent of the developer is to keep it that way, with the possibility of building a small play unit on it. Eric and Steve have visited the site with the developer, and suggested scheduling a site tour with the Board as well. Steve added that the City does not have an obligation to accept the parkland donation, but he does feel that the park would help service access to some of the new neighborhoods. Steve added that by accepting the park, the City would incur future operation and maintenance costs for the park. The Board was in consensus on having a site tour of the property in the future. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 8. Presentation and discussion of the College Station Greenways Program: Steve said that this is an item that the Board had requested. He introduced Judy Downs, the City's Greenways Coordinator. Judy passed out several handouts: an educational brochure about the College Station Greenways Program, the Proposed Greenways Education Program, and a printed PowerPoint presentation of the Project Status of the College Station Greenways Master Plan (see attachments). She added that the City has hired a Transportation Planner and a Transportation Engineer to help with the Greenways Program. She pointed to a GIS map that showed the City's Greenways, and explained several projects that were currently underway. Judy said that one of the purposes of having greenways is to connect people through natural trail systems, and asked the Board to consider keeping greenways and parkland dedication separate. She added that there are several grants available that can assist with the acquisition of greenways. Judy introduced David Scott, the President of the Brazos Greenways Council. Mr. Scott stated that he hopes that College Station Parks and Recreation and the greenways fully integrate, because he feels that the greenways will become good recreation amenities for the community. He pointed to several studies that encouraged recreational trail activities (i.e. bicycling, walking, running, jogging, and in-line skating activities). He added that these types of trail activities supercede activities such as baseball or softball. Laura Wood asked how the Greenways Master Plan would fit into parkland dedication. Judy responded that she tries to attend all of the predevelopment meetings to ensure that the Greenways Master Plan is being followed. Steve added that staff is also in the process of creating a review checklist for parkland dedication that would incorporate greenways into it to ensure that the proposed dedication is supportive of the Master Plan. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeling Tuesday, October 9, 200/ Page 4 oj6 Don A. made a motion to approve the minutes from the joint meeting of September 20, 2001. Larry F. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the Castlegate Park site plan: Steve Beachy said that the current Parkland Dedication Ordinance has a provision in it, under Item #lOb, that gives the developer an option to construct a neighborhood park in lieu of paying the development fee. Wallace Phillips, with the development of the Castlegate Subdivision is taking this option. Steve said that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board have already approved the dedication for the park. The action during the meeting would be to approve the site plan that will release Mr. Phillips to begin construction of the park. Eric Ploeger said that a draft of the site plan was brought to the Board during the July 10, 2001, meeting as an informational item with the intention that it would be brought back to the Board as a proposed site plan. He added that with the proposed site plan, Mr. Phillips is more than satisfying the amount that he would have been required to pay for the dedication fee. David Wood discussed the essential elements proposed for the park: - Tennis courts; - Basketball court; - Playground unit with rubber surfacing; - Shelter with stone columns to match the entryway theme; - Expanded walk with handicap ramps; - Shade trellis; - Drip irrigation system; - Benches; and - Sculpture. Steve stated that the park site incorporates intergenerational features and has maximum visibility and accessibility. Part of the dedication will also include the two (2) detention ponds that are at the entranceway to the subdivision. Mr. Phillips said that there would be lit sidewalks that would go through the park and in front of the tennis courts, and that there would also be a handicap drinking fountain. There will be no off-street parking. He said that the park would be a showcase for the City of College Station, as well as the Castlegate Subdivision, and that the intent is for the park to be more of a community-type park for the subdivision. Mr. Phillips pointed out on a map the property that would become a future City park as well. Steve said that Parks and Recreation Department staff recommends approval of the site plan. John Nichols asked if the signage of the park would be recognizable and comparable with the standard style that is currently being used in other City parks. Steve said that the signage would be more consistent with the theme of the subdivision than with what would typically be put in a neighborhood park. John asked if there would be signage that would identify the park as part of the City park system. Mr. Phillips stated that he is proud that Castlegate Park is a City park, and would not have a problem incorporating the City's logo into the park signage. John asked about the maintenance of the park. Steve said that due to the fact that the park is in a fairly remote area, the City has opted to include the park in the landscaping Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2001 Page 2 of 6