Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes03 - Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director (arrived during Item #7); Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Ross Albrecht, Forestry Superintendent; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; Kristin Lehde, Staff Assistant. Board Members Present: John Nichols, Chairman; Don Allison; Jodi Warner; Larry Farnswroth; Bill Davis. Board Members Absent: Glenn Schroeder; Glen Davis. Guest: Mike McClure, Engineer. 1. Call to order: Chairman John Nichols called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Pardon — possible action concerning requests for absences of members from meeting: Larry Farnsworth made a motion to accept the absences of Glenn Schroeder and Glen Davis as excused. Jodi Warner seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. Hear visitors: Steve Beachy stated that he had received an e -mail from Mr. Jason Fikes, Chairman of the Alexandria Neighborhood Association, who had addressed the Board at previous meetings concerning a request for the City to place a playground on a greenway adjacent to the Alexandria Subdivision in Zone 10. Steve stated that there is a tour of Zone 10 scheduled with the Board on April 22, 2003, and that the greenway would be one of the sites visited. 4. Discussion, consideration, and possible approval of minutes from the Regular Meeting on March 4, 2003, and the Joint Meeting between the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 6, 2003: Bill Davis made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting on March 4, 2003. Larry F. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Larry F. made a motion to approve the minutes from the joint meeting on March 6, 2003. Bill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 8, 2003 Page / of 6 5. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning park land dedication requests for the Gateway Subdivision, Phases 2 -4 (Zone 2): Pete Vanecek pointed to a location map of the proposed development. This proposed multi- family, 124 -unit development, is located on University Drive, West of Highway 6. Pete stated that the land requirement would be approximately one (1) acre, which is too small to build a neighborhood park on. Staff is recommending the acceptance of the proposed cash dedication of $56,048 in lieu of land. Steve stated that there was not a connecting greenway between the proposed development and the University Park site. Steve suggested that the Board recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission that there be potential pedestrian access to the University Park site. Bill D. is concerned with accessibility, and suggested looking into ways of working with the City of Bryan to address that issue. After some discussion, Bill D. made a motion to accept the fee in lieu of land for the Gateway Subdivision, Phases 2 -4, with a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to review access issues. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Bearden Addition (Zone 15): This item was removed from the agenda because the proposed development is outside the city limits. Westfield Village, Phase 6 (Zone 10): Pete V. pointed to a location map of the proposed development, which is located on Victoria Avenue and Mountain Breeze Way. The land dedications for the Westfield Subdivision, totaling 4.299 acres, have already been met through prior park land dedications. The proposed Phase 6 development includes 30 single - family dwelling units, and would add three (3) parcels of land, totaling an additional .34 acres, to the existing park land dedication. The developer would also be required to pay the Park Development Fee, which is $10,740. Steve stated that the developer has aligned the streets to provide significant access to the park site. After some discussion, Bill D. made a motion to accept the three (3) proposed parcels of land for Westfield Village, Phase 6, in addition to the Park Development Fee. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 6. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Urban Forest Management Plan: Ross Albrecht said that an Urban Forest Management Plan was presented to the City Council on September 26, 2002. The direction that staff received at that time was to use Fiscal Year 2003 as a planning opportunity, and to develop implementation recommendations. Ross referred to a memorandum that was included in the Board packets (refer to memorandum from Ross Albrecht dated April 2, 2003), which included staff's recommendations for the initial steps to implement the plan. He said that the implementation steps are incremental in nature, primarily because of budget Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 8, 2003 Page 2 of 6 constraints. The City currently has methods in place for tree preservation and reforestation on multi - family and commercial projects, and is proactive in reforestation efforts. Staffs recommendations for implementation are aimed at addressing the current City inventory. Ross discussed staff's recommendations, which are divided into policy related items that could be implemented with little input, and action related items that would require additional resources to address. Policy Related Items 1. Development of a "Risk Management Program for Urban Trees" and identification and removal of hazardous trees and hazards caused by trees along street right -of -ways. 2. Review existing ordinances to identify and strengthen requirements that affect the urban forest. 3. Increase public education efforts. Action Related Items 1. Develop a street tree inventory for hazardous trees, and hazards caused by trees. 2. Implement park land, municipal facility, and greenways tree management. Ross stated that a key to successful proactive management would be an annual review process. Steve stated that implementation of the plan would be a multi -year, long -term process. Bill D. asked if staff could seek out grants to help fund the implementation of the plan. Ross responded that there are recommendations for the plan's implementation that are eligible for grants (i.e. developing a Risk Management Policy, conducting a street tree inventory, and hiring an Urban Forester). The Department had applied for, and received, a $10,000 grant from the Texas Forest Service to hire a consultant to assist the Department in the development of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Bill encouraged staff to continue to seek grant opportunities for the implementation of the plan. John N. asked if legal review would be required of a risk management policy before the Department could begin the steps to implement street tree management. Ross responded that he would recommend that the Department ask for funds in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget process to hire a consultant to develop the policy and conduct a street tree inventory. After some discussion, Don A. made a motion to endorse staff's recommendations as a working plan for the implementation of the Urban Forest Management Plan, and to support staff in their efforts to obtain funding for implementation. Jodi W. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a draft policy statement for potential school/neighborhood park development: This item is a follow up from the March 4, 2003, meeting, at which the Board requested staff to Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 8, 2003 Page 3 of 6 come up with a conceptual policy statement that could be presented to the City Council during the joint meeting between the Council and the Board on April 24, 2003, and could govern potential requests for joint school and neighborhood park projects with the City (refer to "Partnership in Parks Grant Funding and Technical Assistance Program" guidelines and "Project Application" that were included in the Board packets). The guidelines were derived from those used by the Lower Colorado River Authority. The Board discussed the conceptual policy statement and was in consensus on 1) changing the wording on one of the bulleted items under "Eligibility Criteria" from "The applicant must have a 1:1 value match of City funds" to "The applicant must have a minimum of a 1:1 value match of City funds ", 2) changing the wording in the statement under "Objectives" from "The partnerships in the parks grant program have three (3) major objectives..." to "The partnerships in the parks grant program are intended to meet one or more of the following three (3) objectives...", and 3) changing the wording on one of the bulleted items under "Application" from "Funding for grants will be limited to a maximum of $25,000..." to "Funding for grants will be generally limited to a maximum of $25,000." Steve stated that the proposed process would be set up to include the following provisions: 1) if an entity requested a joint project with the City of College Station, then that entity would be required to fill out the grant application prior to April 1 st, 2) there would also be a standard interlocal agreement attached to the grant application that would have to be signed by the entity before the grant application would be accepted, and 3) after receiving the grant application and the signed interlocal agreement, the Department would then develop a budget request for the proposed project to be included in the annual budget process. After some discussion, Don A. made a motion to approve the policy statement with the wording changes discussed by the Board. Bill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. The conceptual policy will be included in the list of the Board's issues and concerns that will be presented to the City Council during the joint meeting between the Board and the Council on April 24, 2003. 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Shenandoah Park Development Process: Steve stated that the Board has been presented with the dedication of the Shenandoah Park site over the past year. The process now is to begin the actual design and development of that park. He added that the developer is interested in doing a development project in which he will actually build the park, similar to the process that was used in the development of Castlegate Park. For this project, staff would need to 1) develop a site plan for the park, 2) conduct public hearings to solicit input from residents living in Zone 10, and 3) determine the approximate development fee that would be required to build the park. Steve added that there are also park land dedication funds available within Zone 10 that were generated by phases of Shenandoah as well as by surrounding residential neighborhoods, and that these funds can be spent anywhere within that zone. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 8, 2003 Page 4 of 6 Steve suggested that the Board hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 6, 2003. He further suggested that this item be placed on the Regular Meeting agenda on Tuesday, May 13, 2003, for discussion, and on the June 10, 2003, agenda for possible Board approval of the conceptual design of the park. After some discussion, Don A. made a motion for the Board to hold a public hearing to solicit input from residents of Zone 10 concerning the design and development of Shenandoah Park. Bill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 9. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the Second Quarter Maintenance Standards Report for Fiscal Year 2003: Curtis Bingham updated the Board on the status of the Parks Maintenance Standards. He stated that at the end of Fiscal Year 2002, the Department had met 81% of its stated maintenance standards. The Department met 84% of its standards in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2003, and is currently meeting 85% in the second quarter. However, he added that the 1% increase between the first and second quarters is somewhat misleading because the second quarter was conducted by another staff member. Curtis estimated that the actual second quarter percentage of standards met should be around 84 %. Curtis anticipates an increase in standards being met on playgrounds, tennis courts, and basketball courts in the third and fourth quarters, that would be attributed to the upcoming projects: :• The Hensel Park playground replacement; The installation of a rubber cushion surfacing on the two (2) playground units at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park; :• The resurfacing of the tennis courts at Bee Creek and Central Parks; and :• The resurfacing of the basketball courts at Oaks Park. Curtis stated that the Department is having trouble meeting overall standards met set for the pond category, primarily due to the pond at Wolf Pen Creek. Bill D. asked if the Department has enough staff to reach the desired maintenance level (which is to meet 90% of standards set, by the year 2006). Steve responded that as facilities are added to the park inventory, the Department will bring on resources to maintain them. This will be done through contracts or requests for additional personnel. John N. asked if a column could be added to the report that would reflect the previous fiscal year's quarters of overall standards met, to compare to the current fiscal year. Curtis said that he would add a column to the report. This item was a report only, and no motion was made. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 8, 2003 Page 5 of 6 10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to the City Council listing the Board's issues and concerns in preparation for the Joint Meeting between the Board and Council on April 24, 2003: A draft of the memorandum from the Advisory Board to the City Council that lists the Board's issues and concerns for the Joint Meeting on June 24, 2003, was included in the Board packets for review. After some discussion, the Board was in consensus on accepting the memorandum. The memorandum will be forwarded to the City Council for the meeting. This item was intended for discussion only, and no motion was made. 11. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the future Capital Improvement Program: Eric Ploeger had attended the Citizen's Advisory Committee's project ranking meeting earlier this evening (April 8, 2003), and handed out the 2003 Citizen Advisory Committee Capital Project Ranking sheet for the proposed projects for the upcoming bond election (see attached). He stated that the cut -off point was at $31,633,000, with the proposed Northgate Street Rehabilitation project included. Eric added that the Committee felt as though the cut -off represented the amount for which projects could be completed within the next five (5) years without having to raise taxes. The ranked list of proposed projects will be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and then to the City Council for consideration, prior to being presented to the voters. This item was a report only, and no motion was made. 12. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the current Capital Improvement Program: Steve discussed the current capital improvement projects. This item was a report only, and no motion was made. 13. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning Board and Departmental Goals an Objectives, and City Council Strategies: There was no discussion on this item. 14. Discussion of next meeting dates and possible agenda items: Refer to attached Board calendars for meeting dates. The following items are scheduled for the May 13, 2003, Regular Board Meeting: Report on Shenandoah Public Hearing. :• Approval of the Parks and Recreation Department CY04 User Fees. Update on the Greenways Program. (Note: This item has been moved to the June agenda.) 15. Adjourn: Bill D. made a motion to adjourn. Larry F. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 8, 2003 Page 6 of 6 MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 17, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for Westfield Village Phase 6 consisting of 30 lots on 7.3 acres generally located at the southern end of Victoria Avenue across from Edelweiss Gartens Subdivision. (03 -76) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the staff report and recommending approval with the Parks Board recommendations. The modifications allowed will provide additional amenities to the area and the plat is in compliance with the modified standards and conditions approved with the rezoning and also with the land use plan. Commissioner Trapani motioned to approve the preliminary plat. Commissioner White seconded the motion which carried unanimously, 5 -0. FOR: Floyd, Trapani, White, Shafer and Williams. AGAINST: None ABSENT: Hall and McMath.