Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/2009 - Joint Minutes - Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee JOINT MEETING OF THE WOLF PEN CREEK TIF BOARD and the WOLF PEN CREEK OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MINUTES 3:30PM, MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2009 CARTER CREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT 2200 NORTH FOREST PARKWAY COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842 STAFF PRESENT: Marco A. Cisneros, Director of Parks and Recreation; David Schmitz, Assistant Director – Operations; Amanda Putz, WPC Oversight Committee Secretary; Brandi Whittenton, WPC TIF Board Secretary; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Sheila Walker, Wolf Pen Creek Supervisor; Donald Harmon, Engineer; Pete Vanecek, Senior Parks Planner, Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer, Mark Smith, Director of Public Works & Special Projects, Glenn Brown, City Manager; Lance Simms, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services; David Neeley, Assistant City Manager; Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects COMMITTEE PRESENT: Gary Erwin, Dennis Maloney, James Massey, Jody Ford, Larry Stewart, Scott Shafer BOARD PRESENT: Sharon Colson, Marc Chaloupka, Kenny Mallard, Randall Pitcock, Marsha Sanford COMMITTEE ABSENT: John Nichols VISITORS: Richard P. Cate, AIA – MC/CM Architects Jonathan Toavs, Studio Director, Aquatic Design Engineering Paul Weathers, ASA, Clark Condon Associates Landscape Architecture Andrew Konyha, Senior Associate, Clark Condon Associates Landscape Architecture Brett McCully, Blyle & Associates 1.Call to order: The meeting was called to order with a quorum present at 3:30 p.m. 2.Pardon and possible action concerning requests for absences of members: John Nichols sent in a request for absence. Mark Chaloupka made a motion to approve the absence request submitted, and Marsha Sanford seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 3.Administering the Oath of Office and Swearing in of new and reappointed Board members: New Board member, Randall Pitcock, was duly sworn in. Hearing no further discussion, this item was closed. 4.Presentation, possible approval, and discussion on the March 3, 2009 minutes of the Wolf Pen Creek TIF Board: Jody Ford made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted, and Kenny Mallard seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 5.Presentation, possible approval, and discussion on the October 29, 2009 Joint meeting with the Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee minutes: Sharon Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted, and Larry Stewart seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 6.Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the design of the Wolf Pen Creek Water Feature and Festival Area Project and receive input on the project from the Committee: Representatives from Clark Condon Associates, MC/CM Architects, and Aquatic Design Engineering discussed design ideas and plans for the Wolf Pen Creek Water Feature and Festival Area Project. Discussion followed. Sharon Colson asked if the Clark Condon Associates staff was familiar with the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan. Paul Weathers said they were familiar with the Master Plan. Paul Weathers explained the different views from all angles of the park, and would like to have visual aids to get to the park. Some of the items to think about would be how many parking spaces, daily use at the park and sight lines of the water feature. They explained the different design schemes they composed. (There were 6 Design Options) A brief description of each scheme: st 1 Scheme: Development Close to Dartmouth with 65 parking spaces (Impact on the Disc Golf Course) this is a formal design and does not recognize the Art Council Center. ndst 2 Scheme: The Opposite of 1 Scheme, development closer to the WPC Plaza area (Not too much impact on the Disc Golf Course). rd 3 Scheme: Greenery heavy behind the Arts Council building with the WPC Water Feature behind the trees, 90 parking spaces (minimal issues with the disc golf course) Multi – tiered water feature in this scheme, Open Area is smaller in this scheme than other schemes. th 4 Scheme: The Water Feature is in the back corner closest to the WPC Amphitheatre sitting grounds with greenery surrounding the entire festival area. The sound direction is directed toward the houses. th 5 Scheme: The location of this water feature is in the corner of the area between Colgate and the existing facilities. The trees would be planted more along Colgate with the sound directing toward the amphitheater. There are 45 parking spaces available in this scheme. 2 December 14, 2009 Joint Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee and Wolf Pen Creek TIF Board Meeting Minutes th 6 Scheme: More of an urban theme, utilizing the existing Arts Center parking lot, sound direction toward the amphitheater. On Schemes 1-3 and 5, 6 the sound is directed downhill and seen from Dartmouth. Scheme 4 sound is directed towards the house and not seen from Dartmouth. Jonathan Toavs, Aquatic Studio Engineering, reported on the different types of water features that can be incorporated into the park. He explained the following: Classifications of Water Features Interactive Type Water Feature (Wet Play, Playground): This water feature can be sequenced and have choreographed animation, and can also light up at night. It can serve as a playground during the day, while also showing brilliant lights at night. This feature takes advantage of some of the topography of the land. It can have water cascading down a wall, with jets on the walls at various heights and distances. It serves as something fun. The nozzles can have a laminar type nozzle effect which means a rope of water that is very interactive. The water can go in circles, and waves. The layout of the design was Circular. The Grid (Square Layout) can create a virtual maze with this type of feature, or could also be described as a virtual hop scotch type layout. Typical Architectural: This type of water feature is modern in design, and is a simple, circular shape. Water features can be incorporated into this design and art can augmented into this feature. There is a possibility for much larger and taller volumes of water in this feature because people in play are not designed for in this feature. A classical type structured water feature is a multi-bowl, multi-tiered design. It can include a variety of architectural elements (bowls, urns, water spurting down) with a vision that is a majestic night time element. This feature can be a night time icon for the community. Natural Water Feature: This feature is more in line with the theme of this site. It is hidden within the wooden portion of the site with a natural appearance. This feature can have a high point with welling water lit at night. It also allows for a lower main catch pond with possible bridge amenity and look points. This feature can also have picture points with a small overlook area. The natural water feature gives a serene, natural feel, and takes advantage of the topography. Mr. Richard Cate explained the possible pavilion shapes, concepts, orientation, and roof shapes. Three different schemes were presented, and all of the pavilion sizes were about 2,500 square feet. He explained a roof structure that could collect rainwater for recycling to use in 3 December 14, 2009 Joint Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee and Wolf Pen Creek TIF Board Meeting Minutes the water feature. He also explained the different type of pavilion layouts for functions such as meetings, weddings, and parties. Dennis Maloney explained that he would like a pavilion that you could set up with flexibility. A place where you could have variety in the set-up. Also discussed was a storage facility for chairs, tables, etc. -Associates reported that storage design can be incorporated into the pavilions. James Massey reported that in his opinion in some of the designs people would have to know about the feature and know the access, because there is no visual perception from the roads in some of the drawings. Dennis Maloney explained that he wants at least double the 2,500 square footage for the pavilion, because that is not enough room for a public gathering. Marsha Sanford asked, “What about the size of the water feature?” She likes the interactive water feature the best. -Jonathan Taovs explained that he is working with about 3,500 square feet, but a lot of the size could change due to other factors. (For ex. nozzle selection.) He can place minimal, $10,000.00 nozzles in the very center or he could place a lot of $10 nozzles all around the water feature. Larry Stewart explained that he would like sun shelters due to the high temperatures that we receive in the summer season. Sharon Colson explained that the Water Feature is the most important element with the Pavilion as being the least important element. Dennis Maloney said that he envisioned the fountain to be in the middle of the site with everything else circled around it. The fountain would serve as “The Centerpiece” for the project. Jody Ford said, “Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the lawn area being used adequately.” Dennis Maloney explained that it will draw everyone into the park. Scott Shafer is worried about embedding things into the middle of the park, due to people not being able to play Frisbee, etc. So people do not trip over things etc. Would like to see a more temporary solution for extension cords and such. Marc Chaloupka – Schemes 1 and 4 were the two designs that were brought to them by staff. Scheme 1 was the one that came back to them preference design, for Fire Safety we would need a second entrance. The design of Scheme 4 came about to fix the Fire and Safety issue. Mark Smith said that it did not have to be a fire lane but needs to have some way for Fire to get into the area. ~ Scott Shafer left at 4:48PM. ~ 4 December 14, 2009 Joint Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee and Wolf Pen Creek TIF Board Meeting Minutes Sheila Walker spoke about different events held at the Wolf Pen Creek site. Sound travel is the number one concern, and we can address the fire issue and have done so with the current ampitheater. ~ Kenny Mallard left at 4:50PM. ~ Sheila Walker explained that the big issue is flexibility and use of designs. She explained that traffic flow and the vendors are of major concern. The ability to accommodate them at events is necessary. She said that several designs are good. Schemes 1, 3 and 5 are her top choices. However, between all of the designs, Scheme 3 is her favorite design scheme. She explained that the existing Master Plan favors Scheme 3, because she thought Option 3 captures everything. Dennis Maloney feels that with Scheme 3 that we are cutting off the Arts Council and would like to see connective with the Arts Building. Sheila Walker explained that there is still a trail connection between the water feature and the Arts Building, and maybe applying some type of Art Feature would help connect the two better. Discussion followed. Randall Pitcock and Gary Erwin reported that they like Scheme 3 of the drawings. James Massey likes the smaller areas behind the Arts Council for event set ups to place different smaller exhibits. He wants to keep as much green open space as possible, and favors the trails behind the water feature. Jody Ford says that Scheme 3 gives the centerpiece look to the water feature that Dennis Maloney and others like. Sharon Colson explained that she likes the interactive quality of the water feature, however this water feature involves children, and she does not want to present a hazard to children with the amenities and surrounding amenities. She also explained that she wants this location to be vendor friendly. Would like what staff recommends be considered heavily for the designing of this water feature and festival area. James Massey likes the light feature incorporation in the night time hours for the water feature, because that also creates a place that people would want to go to. This feature is something that is more secluded for people to go and enjoy themselves. (For ex: read a book, etc.) Marc Chaloupka said that connectivity from the Festival Area site and the current bathrooms is a must. The Amphitheater needs more trees. We have to look at what is going on in the Amphitheater are as well to keep the whole park connected. ~ Randall Pitcock left at 5:05PM. ~ Marco A. Cisneros (Tony) explained that restrooms are a MUST at the pavilion that is being designed, because it is much too long of a walk for people to walk back to the current restroom facilities. 5 December 14, 2009 Joint Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee and Wolf Pen Creek TIF Board Meeting Minutes James Massey suggested that Clark Condon go look at the pavilion at Veteran Parks and see if they can do something like that. This will be a very large open area and does not want to undersize the pavilion in any means. Dennis Maloney suggested that all of the maintenance/equipment/chemical rooms be above ground to help with a sound barrier and also help with maintenance issues. -The Condon Associates staff agreed that they could design the rooms to be above ground, and it would be more cost effective. Peter Lamont explained that the current location of where the pavilion and the water feature are located in Scheme 3 is where the crest is. That being said the Water Feature and Festival Area Project is visible from just about any direction on the crest. He explained the advantages of Scheme 3. The advantages are that staff can work with: Vendors,  Operations,  Sound Issues,  Multiple bands  Loading/Unloading Vendors  Discussion followed and it was decided to leave the Water Feature in the same place as shown on the drawing. Dennis Maloney asked that they try and squeeze a little more green space into Scheme 3. It was also asked of the Clark Condon present some more interpretation of how actually big the green space actually is in Scheme 3. Marc Chaloupka explained that he would also like a presentation on the cost of maintenance on the water feature. Mr. Jonathan Toavs gave a quick note that the day and night time show of the water feature runs off of the same system that includes the water and lighting. Marsha Sanford reported that she would like more interpretation of the actual size of the water feature at the next meeting. The decision was made that Scheme 3 and an interactive water feature was everyone’s choice. The firm will go back with the suggestions and comments and try to edit the drawing to include those. They also explained that they will come back with more options of larger square footage pavilions. The associates explained that they will come back in later January with the new drawings. Board, committee, and staff reported that they would like for the Condon Associates staff to also review the Master Plan to help incorporate the current theme of Parks, Arts, and Commerce. 6 December 14, 2009 Joint Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee and Wolf Pen Creek TIF Board Meeting Minutes 7.Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding creating a project specific website for the Wolf Pen Creek Water Feature and Festival Area Project: This item will be addressed at the next meeting. 8.Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: A Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting: Next Design Workshop Meeting ~ January 26, 2010, Carter Creek Waste  Water Treatment Plant, 1:30PM 9.Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 5:30PM. 7 December 14, 2009 Joint Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee and Wolf Pen Creek TIF Board Meeting Minutes