Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/11/2001 - Regular Agenda Packet - Parks Board
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PA' S AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting Tuesday,December 11,2001 Parks and Recreation Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road College Station, Texas 77840 7:00 pm0 1. Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. 3. Pardon—Consider requests for absences of members from vaeeting. 4. Approval of minutes from regular Ti fleeting of November 13, 2001.1) 5. Consent items: Capital Improvementilroject Report;and Next meeting date and agenda. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a subdivision sign for Edelweiss Gartens Park. 7. Discussion,consideration, and possible action concerning a proposed park land dedication for Holleman Village(Park Zone 7). 8. tiscussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a proposed park land dedication for beacon Condominiums (Park Zone 5). 9. Report,,discussion,and possible action concerning skate harks(City:Council Vision Statement#4, Strategy#5.b). 10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning proposed developer incentives (City, Council Vision Statement#4, Strategy#4.a). 11. Discussion,consideration, and possible action,concerning the Phase I,development,of Lick Creek Park, 12. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the draft Needs Assessment Study for Veterans Park and Athletic Complex (City Council Vision Stlitement#4, Strategy#4.b). 13. Discussion,consideration,and possible action concerning the Parks andiecreation Advisory Board's Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives. 14. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning whether the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board should conduct two(2) meetings a month. 15. Adjourn. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for si interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764, 3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website http://www.ciocollege-stationotx.us and Cable Access Channel 19. User 12/7/01 .,,,,.,.......:, I A MO .,..............,... ..........., . stls:-:::: Unified Development 4,,, .,.._„........... „...... 211177, consolidated reqUi.rements •,'-,i,,,,i':: .„..,..„._ Pulc 'Review Period 11101::::: TIIII--'IP e'US er-friendly „...„,_ 6 Prsceses, local legal reWts .., 309 211102 .::11.,,ZUR.,,'',..,,, $111 4'. e- eveoment.'focus A UDO ...,...,„,.,...„.„,„,.....„<„ . Lapcensing,,ii:operatonail of,operation -' Iiirli."-!! . -Streamine deV't pocesso96-'90 'M ,.,,. -Alcohol pe;-irrfits ,.,.„ it106,,,,,,,,,,, - No resources alliocated ., -811-71:::,;;„ - -Rental regulations „i.,-, Citizen complairats-infill 0 joint P--'4!,4f:Z/C4f)tmcl Workshop e1D'd - to be addressed r® f .,..,,... ",„,,,,,Ir,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,- 1111-'4' .' nsultn harged-widire • Coac ction ,,,,..,,,.. Dumgnster patrol ------- .., „:„.„,,...„,....„:„. „...._. '11111:::::::. * Streamil"ne ijilitt.:::: - Protootion of sf neighborhoods sa -User.friendy ii.., ,. . . ..._ , _ ,. iiiiiiii:::;;; -Suffersifpitrfor,,,,nan ci,measures .,:. ,„,,,,,,,,„,,,,,, -Address Inconsistencies ,,:::1 541.',01,„,,,,,,,,,,, -Similar front Setbacks ,,,t,, 0 „„.,..„....,...... .,......„, „.„ Pdaximur,r6 building coverage ._ ...,..„„,„.„..._ ..„.„,., Title goes here 1 User 12/7/01 ;Aio:;„,g,;,,;„:;,,,;:,;,;;:„,,;;;:;:,,;;.,-;.;.v;;,;;;;,,,,,-.,;:;,,,,,;:„,,,,;:;„:.::,,,,:;•;....::;,,,;,:;,,,,-;:;;,,,;;;„;„;..,,,:.;::,-;:,;,,,,y:;;;,;,..,;,:;,,,,,;;,:,,,,T,,o:;,„ Illr:::''''::''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''IE: ..., ,,,,..„,,,,„„,..,„, 6 All new zoning districts '''''' :4,1132-2! a Combines special district ..„,„,,,,,,,...,., . Coinbines multi4m57 felif:".;:::- .-COMbliiet light Corrnartercial A IIIIE.::: -NRB•DRB/PL:Z.: ',:,:::::::, ..„..,....,„,„...,,,,,,,.........„: '....•':1,,,,-:',:'i.2-.'...:::if.,,_..::,,,,,, -Clik,r-lt-ibines general commercial ,,,„„, c!"§"141„,,,,41.„ -DIRBIP&Z• IEP© . teI * Tre;its ,:s:',...;-desirable IMSOS as CUP's tri! „„:„.„.„„ , -•-I-giv,5-,,,,,,,, -PRC DRSP..1:,,L ............_ .Staff 4,--,,,c,,,,,,,7eraends spetific st© Bad© :?::„I .., .......,,,,,, NIllii6 Adds weeks to review-OV one to WPC ... ..., _ ,.....,,,,_...,,,... . 111111::: 6 ShDafts faca-sapons o Coat:evil ,"„,„_.„„,„...,„,..„„, . ,. liate,s-7 • :2 New eVe requiremt,.irzts .....,.„.„ ., •iiiiiiti.a.....„',..,,„ -Maxintum bldg.coverage cori'doii;ii :2, Pe?:,:irtfits ,: tit-:!:..i.;-:,-tilt.tiotit. ©tottlUtt.&hid. ,c,,'-ey. ,...,_,...._ '11121---N, 6 8ifts---dEgornpgrounds Loading areas standards uses pernlitted ill© district .::;::',. Iiiii:,,,,,,,,, -Vehicle stacking standiArds .., Open„space in st '41.111-, -Parking deterrninat.ion ©W B©©© © Staff-i-le -:"'".; w.:-',22,1ft-,:s- -.Architectural standards „...„..,....„,„ „.,..„.........„ ., e New devl„requirernents-cont'd :',1 fillti-',!! e Boards to conso-lid;,zte inpait ..„......„.„..., „, alli,,,,,;: -Lighting-standards -11101:-; • Written format • One r--,epresentative at P&Z Nov,. e DeVt comunity ineethig R9© ec. 13 tgiaii'''''','' L''' NOA meeting pending ,.., Title goes here 2 User 12/7/01 ,,,,,,.!:),!..,-„,,,,,r,,!:„,:_:,,,-,,,iii‘..:-iii,„.„„,,,,,,,,--.:_,..„.:,,-..-„,,,,,-„:„,„,..,,,..,,..:,. „,,,-..,,,,.-,,,-..„:...,„,:,,,,:,,:,,,,..„...„,..„.-,„...,...„„,,,,,,-....-,,„,,,,„,,,,_.-,„,...„,:,,,,„,...,-,„:„...,,,;.:,,,, -.,16-...I:gi,,---..2-, . All-day workshop P&Z&City -...":.;:fr:ft.i.:,--,,,,,,,,,- w ini t ii-,:,-IiiI,.--7,:: -,iiilli:::: 0 'CC-public-hearings-March ... ':,!'.:,!,,,,f,L.„-,,,;::::,,.,0.,,Final:7, 19on l Title goes here 3 1.arks and Recreation Department CP Project List FY 2002 (updated 12/5/01) L.--...........••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••—•••••,--------.............--.....-•••••••••••••••••---••••••••'•••••••....FtiOt.irag:.:.••-••••••••....PkPedt0::..........- Atii61::::.‘..••••• ••••- .•--••••••••••••:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:-:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:-.•:•:•:•:-:•:•:-••:••:•:•:-.-...•....... •:•:•:•:•:•:•:••:•:•:•......•••......:•:•::•:•::•:•.•.....-.....•.•.•:•:•:•:: ::.P.rior*::::P4,iOt::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::.::::::::.:::::::::.:..*::::.::.::.::::*::.::.::......:....:::.::'......::.:::.::-::.........::**::::.::'::*::.:16'titii,....::.::.::.:...:::':..::‘::........*::.:::PPOI04t:#:....:':*:.:':*:::':'01;iti.w.I H.:.:.:.:.:....:.:801.4r00.:.......:....:.......::.CO'1110t1011:00t0..:Cotripiotioli.Dow:. 1 Business Center Landscatint Pro"ect Com*tete GG9705 $250000 G.O. t 07/31/01 10/19/01 2 Millennium Winds Irritrovements(FrOl Com t lete Hikt10104 $7 195 FY'01 08/31/01 7/31/01 1 Veterans Park, Phase I Under Construction PK9941 $2,936,800 98 G,O, 11/31/02 2 Castle.ate Park Desion Under Construction 1111111111 03/31/02 2 Gabbard Park Imerovements Out to Bid PK0102 $78,000 98 G.O. 04/30/02 2 Hit h School Tennis Court Lit hts FY'01 Under Construction PK0109 $91 500 FY'01 04/01/02 2 Lincoln Ent Im trevements On Hold CD1292 $90 000 FY'01 CDBG. 3/31/01 2 Mer Oaks Imtrovements Out to Bid PK0103 $37,000 98 G.O. 03/31/02 2 Oaks Park Bride e On Hold PK0067 $28,000 98 G.O. 3/31/02 3 Brison Park Imtrovernents Out to ;id PK0100 $54,600 98 G,O, 3/31/02 2 Woodwa Park Develotrnent 'es otiatineLand Purchase PK9803 $800 000 11111111111MINI IIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM 3 Shenandoah Park Develatment On Hold $48,000 Park Land Dedication 111111111111111.111111 1 Hallaran Pool Filters In Construction PK0106 $120 000 FY'01 03/31/02 1 Cemeter Land Act uisition Search Undervva GG9905 $275,000 98 GO. IIMIMIMIE C,S,SC,At reement clubhouse IIIIIIMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIMIIIII Madele Park Conceit Pr-,taration PK9706 $48 000 98 G ° 0 *8/02 , . Lick Creek Park Develotment Net otiations with Ent ineer PK0069 $398 000 98 G.O. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIB Lick Creek Park Bricites Contract w/TP&W at'roved $126,265 Grant 98 G.O. 1111.01111111M Thomas Pool Shade Cover On Hold PK0104 $19 00098 GO. 11111111111111111111.1 Lincoln Center Extension/1m trovements $50,000 C,D.B.G, 9/1/02 Thomas Pool Renovation Net otiatint Desit n Contract $277 255 FY'02 3/31/03 Geortie Fitch Pla •round Retlacement In Desit n $30 000 FY'02 Retlacement Acct. 8/1/02 Hensel Park Pla t round Retlacernent Interlocal At reernent Uriderwe $40,000 FY'02 Fiet lacement Acct. 8/1/02 Park Land Dedication Pebble Creek Park Irritrovenients Iron Fence Installation PK0061 $27,000 Zone 11 Richard Carter Park Imorovernerits In Desi'n IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIII FY'02 General Fund 1111.11111111111111111111111 Jack&.Doroth Miller Jot tint Track Interlocal At reement Needed1111111111111111111111111111111111111111.111111111.111111.111. Oth.rs IIIIIN Skateboard Park On Hold PK0073 $162,000 FY'00 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Priorities: #1 -in progress currently or will be in progress before January 1,2001, #2-In progress before August 1,2001. #3-In progress after October 1,2001. The City of CollegeSt ation Texas Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O.Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue 0 College Station,TX 77842 • (979)764-3500 www.ci.college-station.tx.us MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Beachy, Director FROM: Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director DATE: December 6, 2001 SUBJECT: Madeley Park Development Attached is a probable schedule for the development of Billie Madeley Park. Development and dedication of the park must occur prior to August of 2002, in order to satisfy requirements listed in the deed when the property was donated to the City of College Station. The Beverly Estates Homeowners Association has indicated a positive interest in minor development within the park and has selected a subcommittee to meet with the two cities about the park. Staff has been working with the Bryan Parks and Recreation Department to coordinate with the area residents since access will only be available through Bryan. Also attached is a letter from the subcommittee of the Beverly Estates Homeowners Association outlining their support for the park and issues they would like to see addressed. Cc: Tom Brymer, City Manager Glenn Brown, Assistant City Manager Ed Feldman, Police Chief Dave Giordano, Fire Chief Parks & Recreation Board Home of Texas A&M University Madeley Park Development Schedule September 28, 2001 College Station and Bryan staff meet to discuss potential park development. October 15, 2001 Eric Ploeger and David Schmitz met and discussed the potential development of Billie Madeley Park with the Beverly Estates Homeowners Association (B.E.H.A.). October 29, 2001 Subcommittee of B.E.H.A. met and endorsed the concept of park development with access from Sunny Lane in Bryan. November 30, 2001 Bryan Engineering Department studies the potential entry to the park to recommend alternatives for changes to Sunny Lane. December 3, 2001 Meeting between Bryan staff and College Station staff to discuss further development stages. December January College Station Planning Department staff will develop park design 2002 options that fit within the budget ($48,000 '98 Bond) and deed restrictions. January, 2002 Meet with subcommittee of the B.E.H.A. to discuss development options. Meeting to include Bryan Parks and Engineering Department, College Station Parks, Police, and Fire Department staff. February 19, 2002 Public hearing with Bryan Parks and Recreation Board on the proposed site plan for Billie Madeley Park. March —July 2002 Park development. July, 2002 Billie Madeley Park dedication. November I, 2001 David Schmitz, Division Manager Bryan Parks and Recreation 201 East 29th St. Bryan, Texas 77803 Dear David: First, I'd like to thank you and Rick Ploeger for attending the Beverley Estates Homeowners Association meeting on Sunday, October 15,to seek input and explain possible plans for the proposed Billie Madeley Park located at the end of Su y Lane in Bryan. The subcommittee, fo ed at that meeting to study the advantages and disadvantages of this project, met on October 29 and unanimously agreed to support the development of a natural trails neighborhood park with the following provisions: * Sunny Lane vehicle turn-around and parking—We request that Bryan install a vehicle turn-around and parking spaces within the park. This is due to the proximity of two homes on either side of the proposed Sunny Lane entrance. • Fencing and trails - We request that fencing be installed and maintained on the southern and eastern borders of the park and that adequate buffer space is provided . between the trails and our Beverley Estates.properties. The trails should be. .de without the removal of live trees to the greatesf extent possible * Lights—We are proposing"dawn to dusk"park hours. Therefore, we ask that no lights be installed to deter unwanted night visitors. • Cooperative agreements -We would like to see an agreement made between the cities of Bryan and College Station for park maintenance, police and fire protection. We feel that the development of this natural neighborhood park will be beneficial to the aesthetic and market values of the neighborhood while providing essential "green space" in a central location for the entire co unity. We urge you and the City of College Station to act quickly before the August 2002 deadline and begin development of this park. John Ragsdale or Ray Grossman would like to hear back from you after you have reviewed these provisions. In the meantime, we will be notifying Beverley Estates homeowners about the status of this project. The City of Od College Station Texas Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O.Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station,TX 77842 (979)764-3500 www.ci.college-station.tx.us MEMO' ' NDUM TO: Chief Ed Feldman Chief Dave Giordano FROM: V teve Beachy, Director of Parks & Recreation DATE: • December 3, 2001 SUBJECT: MADELEY PA I am asking your assist cc in answering a question regarding public safety response to a small park site located adjacent to the City of Bryan. The site (Billie Madeley Park) is 5.16 acres in size and is entirely located *thin the College Station city limits. The main issue is related to the limited access to the site. The only access is from Su y Lane in the City of Bryan. There is no existing access from College Station. Please review the attached info ation and provide guidance as to the best way to respond to questions related to police and fire response. Also, representatives from CSPD d CSFD may be required at our next neighborhood meeting in January. Th you for your time and assistance. Copies: Ric Ploeger, CS P David Schmidtz, Bryan P Attachments Home of Texas A&M University . (5.. NN\ BCS CITY LIMIT 1/t 1 f tS \--\—\--.\--,,,.—,„„,,,, i : r ,I }ti BILLIE MADELEY PARK f ,� r W. Yom,• I��1•c.I., ate S)f SUNNY LN. ��M,`. U�r .Y.k,���� � � yyF J F i i A . ,,,......".„...,,,,,,,,,,,,,, /f „.„„...„.....,-4-_,--- i rid---,..\,,,,,/,/ ) .. 3 cs,,,,,,,/ riff \ 09- -,...,...„,) \A\\--- -,( 6 (-----,,,,,r(jr\ . cy\\\,‘ j ,,,,,,////// -----/ .q4c.-- kH,yI I)/ 1:p \ fl ,,,,,, M1's \ ‘0 CA—0........._, ONER ST. RANDALLS T TO SCALE CCUEGE• STATION. BILLIE MADELEY PAS • MDW [11) DIRECTUI Stephol Boachy PARK 08 November 2001 David Sc .tz Division Manager Bryan Parks and Recreation Dep. ent 201 East 29th Street Bryan TX 77803 Dear David: This letter is in support of the proposed Billie Madeley Park to be located at the end of S y Lane in Bryan. We very much look fo ard to the development of this neighborhood parldw ig t 1,and to a cooperative agreement between the cities of BCS. Your and Rick Ploeger's attendance at the recent meeting of the Beverley Estates Homeo ers Association was appreciated. Sincerely, ,Pry Bettye K. I an)and Clint Matcek 748 South Rosemary Drive Bryan TX 77802 copy: Steve Beachy, C.S. Parks and Recreation Depa ent Rick Ploeger, C.S. Parks and Recreation Dep ent John Ragsdale, Beverley Estates Ray Grossman,Beverley Estates Cathy Conlee,Beverley Estates PARK LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: Park Zone: 7 Name of Development: Holleman Village Addition Section 2 Applicant: Andy Resivio Address: 3001 Deerwood Drive City/State: Waco, Texas Zip: 76710 Phone Number: (254)753-0337 FAX: E-mail: Engineer/Planner: Galindo Engineers Address: 3833 South Texas Avenue City/State: Bryan, TX Zip: 77802 Phone Number: FAX: E-mail: REQUIREMENT COMPLIANCE SECTION 10-B-1: Land Dedication Single Family Dwelling Units: Multi-family Dwelling Units: 18 Total Land Requirement: .134 Acres Proposed Dedication: 0 Acres SECTION 10-B-2: Fee in Lieu of Land Has the Planning &Zoning Commission's approval been obtained?Yes Land Fee: Single Family Fee ($148/dwelling unit): Multi-family Fee ($112/dwelling unit): $2,016.00 Total Acquisition Fee: $2,016.00 SECTION 10-B-3: Park Development Fee Single Family Fee ($309/dwelling unit): Multi-family Fee ($233/dwelling unit): $4,194.00 Total Fee Amounts: Total Single Family Fee: ($457/Dwelling Unit): $6,210.00 Total Multi-family Fee ($345/Dwelling Unit): SECTION 10-B-4: Park Development in Lieu of Fee Required development cost: Staff review date and comment: Parks Board review and decision: SECTION 10-B-5: Minimum Park Size Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? If yes, staff recommends: SECTION 10-B-7: Prior Park Acquisition Is there an existing neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development? Yes, Zone 7 If yes, staff recommends: Woodway Park is across Jones Butler Road. SECTION 10-E: Comprehensive Plan Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Comments: SECTION 10-F: Additional Information 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? Percentage: a. Detention/Retention Size: Meets Board Policy: Acreage in floodplain: Percentage: Acreage in detention: Percentage: Acreage in greenways: Percentage: Comments: b. Does the location require users to cross an arterial road? c. Topography: d. Trees/Scenery: 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? b. Restricted access: c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends acceptance of the complete dedication fee. SECTION 10-G: Approval Parks & Recreation Board: Planning &Zoning Board: City Council: O:\Parks\Forms\Admin\Long FormPark Land Dedication Ordinance Project Review Checklist.dot Revised 11/29/01 isp (1 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION T DEVELOPMEN SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 *000 S441014 ii, College Station, Texas 77842 COLLEGE STATION Phone (979) 764-3570 / Fax (979) 764-3496 MEMO' ' NDUM December 6, 2001 TO: Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director, Parks & Recreation Department FROM: Bridgette George, Assistant Development Manager SUBJECT: Deacon Condominiums— 100 Fraternity Row 94-unit Blake Cathey has submitted a site plan application withaproposal condominium project. When property is zoned for single-familyto build a residential, developers are required to dedicate park land, orthe fee in lieu of land, priorissuance of to the filing ofthefinal plat. Since this property is zoned R-5, , the required dedication is due prior to the o f a building pe it. Mr. Cathey's property is locatedatthesinlieu corner DeaconDrive and Wellborn Road and proposing a feeof land in theamountof consistsofof 10A6 acres. Mr. Cate ey i (94 units x $345). Please let me know at your earliestBoard so that we convenience if thisfee in may lieu of land is acceptable the Parks and Recreation Advisory proceed with issuing the ybuilding pe its once the plans have been approved. Please call me at 764-3458 if you have any questions regarding this project. CC: File # 01-247 Home of Texas A&M University PARK LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: December 6, 2001 Park Zone: 5 Name of Development: Deacon Condominiums Applicant: Mr. Blake A. Cathey Address: P.O. Box 9517 City/State: College Station, Texas Zip: 77842 Phone Number: (979) 485-0845 FAX: E-mail: Engineer/Planner: Hester Engineering Address: 7607 Eastmark Drive, Suite 253-B City/State: College Station, Texas Zip: 77840 Phone Number: (979) 693=1100 FAX: E-mail: REQUIREMENT COMPLIANCE SECTION 10-B-1: Land Dedication Single Family Dwelling Units: Multi-family Dwelling Units: 94 Total Land Requirement: Acres Proposed Dedication: .70 Acres SECTION 10-B-2: Fee in Lieu of Land Has the Planning &Zoning Commission's approval been obtained?Yes Land Fee: Single Family Fee ($148/dwelling unit): O:\Parks\Forms\Admin\Long FormPark Land Dedication Ordinance Project Review Checklist.dot Revised 11/29/01 Multi-family Fee ($112/dwelling unit): Total Acquisition Fee: $10,528 SECTION 10-B-3: Park Develo•ment Fee Single Family Fee ($309/dwelling unit): Multi-family Fee ($233/dwelling unit): $21,902 Total Fee Amounts: Total Single Family Fee: ($457/Dwelling Unit): Total Multi-family Fee ($345/Dwelling Unit): $32,430 SECTION 10-B-4: Park Development in Lieu of Fee Required development cost: Staff review date and comment: Parks Board review and decision: SECTION 10-B-5: Minimum Park Size Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? If yes, staff recommends: SECTION 10-B-7: Prior Park Acquisition Is there an existing neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development? Yes If yes, staff recommends: Jack and Dorothy Miller Park is approximately .5 mile from the site althouth it is a longer walk than .6 of a mile because of the indirect route needed. Steeplechase is approximately the same distance but is a shorter walk(.4 mile). SECTION 10-E: Comprehensive Plan Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Comments: SECTION 10-F: Additional Information 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? Percentage: a. Detention/Retention Size: Meets Board Policy: Acreage in floodplain: Percentage: Acreage in detention: Percentage: Acreage in greenways: Percentage: Comments: b. Does the location require users to cross an arterial road? c. Topography: d. Trees/Scenery: 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? b. Restricted access: c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends acceptance of the park land dedication funds. SECTION 10-G: Approval Parks & Recreation Board: Planning &Zoning Board: City Council: City of College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives (not prioritized) Establish policies and standards for re-appraisal of existing parks, facilities, and services offered by the Department. O Review quarterly reports on park maintenance standards and develop recommendations regarding levels of service (VS4S2a). O Review proposed park conceptual plans and make recommendations for intergenerational features (VS4S3a). O Review and develop recommendations for Urban Forestry Plan (VS3S4a). O Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. More interaction between Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission, and shared vision with the City Council (VS4S8a). El Assist with the review and preparation of the Unified Development Ordinance (November 13, 2001), CI Review and recommend possible changes to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (October 9, 2001). El Conduct a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss goals (September 20, 2001). El Conduct a joint meeting with the City Council to confirm goals (December 6, 2001). implementation of the approved Capital improvement Program. El Castlegate Park site review (November 13, 2001). O Lick Creek Park site review. O Woodway Park site review. O Shenandoah Park site review. O Madeley Park site review. Planning and coordination for the next bond issue. O Identify and assess the needs for future park facilities. O Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. O Determine priorities for development. O Develop a recommendation for consideration in the 2002 bond program. Review and update the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan, O Review and update goals and objectives of the plan. O Review and update facility concepts and standards. O Review and update needs assessment. O Review and update priorities. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board FY2002 Goals and Priorities Parks & Rec. Advisory Board Approval: October 9, 2001 City Council Approval: Last Updated:December 7, 2001 Page 1 of 2 Q Develop recommendation for plan adoption by the City Council. Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, Phase II Development O Review needs for future facilities and programs. O Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff O Determine priorities for development. O Develop recommendations for implementation. Skate Park facility planning (VS4S5b). 2 Develop recommendation for scope of project (November 13, 2001) El Develop recommendation for facility use. (November 13, 2001) • Develop recommendation for implementation. (November 13, 2001) Review funding sources for the installation of two backstops and two batting cages at Bee Creek Park. E Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff(November 13, 2001). O Determine needs for program requirements. O Develop recommendations for scope of project. O Develop recommendations for implementation. Review funding sources for the repair or replacement of the jogging track at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park. O Review proposed project cost estimates. Cl Review funding alternatives (Completed by Staff). O Develop recommendations for implementation. Support implementation of the Greenways Master Plan. l Receive update report from Greenways Coordinator (October 9, 2001). O Review Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan as it relates to greenways. Support the City Council's Interagency Plan in any Park and Recreation related issues. O Continue dialog with the College Station Independent School District regarding future school/park developments. O Continue dialog with Texas A&M University regarding Hensel Park and Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Develop programs and facilities for Senior Citizens. O Receive input from fall Eisenhower Leadership Development Program group. O Determine priorities for programs and facilities. O Develop recommendations for implementation. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board FY2002 Goals and Priorities Parks & Rec. Advisory Board Approval: October 9, 2001 City Council Approval: Last Updated: December 7, 2001 Page 2 of 2 Senior Advisory Committee Regular Meeting & Workshop Monday,November 26, 2001 I TES Members Present: Phyllis Dozier, ie Lee Finch, Laura Holmes, Gerald Jordan, Bill Kling, Billy Lay, Mary Jo Lay,Neal Nutall, Carol Parzen, Suza e Reynolds, Jo a Yeager Members Absent: Valle Broussard, Helen Siegel and Haskell Monroe Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Peter Lamont, David Gerling and Marci Rodgers I. Call to order. The meeting was called to order by Billy Lay at 10:10am IL Hear visitors. None III. Approval of * utes from meeting of October 29, 2001. The utes were approved as circulated. IV. Eisenhower Leadership Development Program reports. Michael Kemper, Julie Leake and Drew Neumeyer presented a power point presentation on their research. The project focus was on senior facilities, progra ing and transportation. The students conducted a survey of citizens in College Station who are 65 years of age and older. Five hundred surveys were mailed and 127 were returned and results recorded. The co ittee was provided with an executive summary and conclusion from the survey of College Station senior citizens. (Copy on file) The co ittee was given opportunity to respond to the report and make reco endations. V. Report from Senior Services Coordinator. (on file) VI. Lunch VII. Workshop Session Steve Beachy lead the workshop session and asked co ittee members to offer suggestions for progr. they would like to see the city offer. Options for programs: ® Educational classes offered off the university campus such as art and politics 111 Arts and crafts • Games such as dominoes and cards • Listening to old radio shows a Offer a meal with a speaker once a month using local resources for c ent events a Lecture series utilizing Texas A& M professors a Facilities in the park for seniors such as walking trails, games and all weather facilities a Exercise classes, indoor weights and low ° pact aerobics I Utilize representative groups of all ages in the co unity for dispersing infor tion and receiving input for projects before they are put in place in order to * prove co unication from council to co unity ® Exercise equipment, game rooms and pools a Develop a Senior Resource Group which would act as an information center for all services available to seniors. ® Information Center could include information for senior veterans and other gove ent programs ® Resource room that is inviting and comfortable for reading a Meals a Trips (museums, sporting events, shopping) ® Volunteer groups organized a Outreach—seniors serving the needy Communication/Coordination The group discussed effective ways to co unicate progra offered to the citizens and the following ideas were mentioned. M Newspaper m Web sites M Interfaith organizations ® TV access cha el El Retirement Living Co unities (Newsletters) m Newcomers packet includ g information on senior progra ▪ Progra information available * physician's waiting roo a Flyers at the grocery stores m City newsletter/Utility bill insert TV news shows Radio & TV Public Service A ouncements a Movie Theaters a Libraries a Provide information on progr s to local churches and their senior groups a Develop relationships with the Pastors from black churches in order to promote programs to their members ® To Hall type meeting for distributing information The Co ittee also looked into options for facilities and discussed options presented by staff. (on file) Other suggestions from the co ittee included: a Portable buildings from the school district a Central Park most desirable setting VIII. Next meeting date and agenda. Monday, December 17, 2001 Review reco endation prepared by staff to be presented to City Council on January 10, 2002. IX. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 1:30pm CITY OF COLLEGE STATION CONFERENCE CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2001, 5:15p.m. College Station Conference Center MINUTES Staff Present: Grace Calbert, Conference Center Facility Supervisor Nita Hilburn, Conference Center Secretary/Event Coordinator Members Present: Mollie Guin (Chair), Ed Holdredge, Fran Lamb (Vice Chair) Member Absent: Eileen Sather Call To Order: The Meeting was called to order at 5:45p.m. Pardon—Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: None Hear visitors -None Approval of the Minutes: Mollie Guin requested the minutes of September 11, 2001 regular meeting of the Conference Center Advisory Committee be reviewed and approved. Fran Lamb made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Mollie Guin seconded the motion. All were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. Revenue Reports: Revenue reports were reviewed for September 2001. Revenues for September 2001 were $8,593.13 versus September 2000 of$10,809.80. Number of clients served in September 2001 were 6,899 vs. September 2000 of 9,059. Adjourn: The Meeting was adjourned at 6:30pm. The next meeting will be held at the College Station Conference Center on Tuesday November 13, 2001, at 5:15pm. Respectfully submitted, Nita Hilburn, Recording Secretary D ' AFT Needs Assessment Veterans Park Athletic Complex In the 1998 Capital Improvement Project Bond election, funds were provided for the initial development of the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. (VPAC) In November of 2001, City Council awarded a contract the phase I development which includes the construction of six adult soccer fields, two of which are lighted, and two lighted adult softball fields. This report is intended to help guide the second phase of development of the Veterans Park Athletic Complex, including recommendations on the type and number of additional fields to be built. Methodology In order to evaluate the future needs of VPAC properly, it is necessary to determine how many users there will be. Normally, this would include evaluation of past participation history, growth trends and future population growth estimates. In this instance, however, we did not have access to all of the variables for each of the sports. In the case of youth soccer, the Department contacted the College Station Soccer Club and received a seven-year registration history. The soccer club did not provide a forecast of future growth, however. In this instance, staff reviewed the growth history and discovered that the youth soccer program had growth ranging between 1% and 20% a ually. Additionally, in a conversation with Mitchell Smith, President of the Brazos Valley Youth Soccer Association, it was stated that soccer is growing at an average of 10% annually, nationwide. According to the Development Services Department, the population in College Station is expected to grow at a rate of 3%per year for the next ten years. The College Station School District is projecting a 3% growth rate for the student population'. Given these factors, the Department estimated that soccer would continue to grow at a rate of 10% per year for the next 5 years. However, it is believed that the City's slower growth rate would not support this rate of growth for the full ten years. Therefore, the growth rate is estimated at 5% annually for years 6-10. With Adult Soccer, no trend data was available after numerous requests were made of the Brazos Valley Soccer Association. Therefore, growth for Adult soccer was estimated at 3% annually, in keeping pace with the City's growth projections. Likewise, the girls fastpitch softball program, while increasing in popularity and experiencing some growth, does not have enough history to adequately estimate a trend. The best estimate is that the program will grow at the same rate as the general City population, 3 percent. Adult softball has presented somewhat of challenge in estimating growth. Until 2000, the program was operating above capacity and turning teams away. In 2000 however, the City began charging an additional $75 per team Facility Replacement Fee. When this fee took effect, participation dropped for the first time in eleven years. Participation dropped again in 2001. Some of the teams that stopped participating in the College Station program started to play in the City of Bryan's program. However, that program has reached capacity. It is the Department's estimate that the downward trend in adult softball will end this year and the program will begin Per telephone conversation with Ann Ganter,Assistant to the Superintendent for Policy and District Foundation 12/06/01 1:35 PM 1 D ' AFT to recover its participation base. Because the program was once at capacity and lost participation due to factors other than population saturation, it is estimated that the program will, for at least the first 5 years, grow at a rate above the City's estimated 3%. This is especially true given the fact that the program had not only reached its maximum participation on the current complex, but also the fact that the Department was turning away approximately 100 teams a year. Given these factors, it is estimated that the adult softball will grow at a rate of 5% annually. Requirements Another factor to consider in determining the need for additional facilities at the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex is the capacity of the fields. This is the number of teams or individuals each field can support. In the case of the youth soccer fields, the College Station Soccer Club did not provide a number of teams or individuals that could use each field. Therefore, staff took the current registration number 1,551 and divided it by the current number of game fields, 11, to develop a ratio of 141 participants or 13 teams per field, at the current rate of usage. With the adult soccer program, they are currently playing with 21 teams on 3 fields. In the case of adult softball, we have previously had 45 teams, per field, per season. This is above our optimum level of 32 teams per field per season. We went to this type of scheduling to accommodate the demand for adult softball on the available fields. Even with the decrease in participation due to the fee increase in 2000, we are still above our optimum field use limit; this requires some teams to begin games at 10:15 at night. Additionally, due to changes in the rules governing the Amateur Softball Association, the national governing body for our softball program, the adult men's softball, which is the City's largest program, should be played on fields with a minimum field depth of 300 feet. The current fields at Central Park have a field depth of only 275 feet, and cannot be expanded. This severely limits the types of leagues the City can offer, even with local rule modifications, and prevents the City from hosting adult men's slow pitch tournaments. These tournaments can have a significant economic impact. In regards to girls' fast-pitch softball, games are currently played on four fields around town. These include the two fields at Bee Creek Park, one at Lemontree Park and one at Fairview Park. In the case of both Lemontree and Fairview parks, both of these are neighborhood parks on which we have been forced, by demand for services, to place activities traditionally held in community parks. Additionally, Fairview Park softball field is not lighted and has no parking or restrooms. Recommendations At this time, the Department is recommending that the first priority for development in phase two of the Veterans Park Athletic Complex be the completion of the five field adult softball complex, including three lighted fields, concession area and restroom facilities. There are several reasons for this recommendation. First, the current adult softball complex at Central Park is over utilized. The maximum level of play on these fields in order to properly maintain them and not have players playing late at night, is four games a night. Currently, we are playing five games a night on some fields. While this is possible, it is detrimental to proper maintenance of the fields. Also it requires starting games after 10 p.m. during normal workweek nights. 12/06/01 1:35 PM 2 A FT At the current level of participation, we have an average of 35.33 teams per field per season, and optimal is 32 teams per field per season. With the construction of the Veterans Park five-field complex, the average would be 28.27 teams per field per season. This would allow the program growth through 2006 before we may have to limit registrations or play 5 games per field per night again. Additionally, by moving the adult program to VPAC, the Department will be able to relocate the girls fastpitch program to Central Park. This will benefit the girls program in several ways. First, it will put the entire program at one complex, reducing the maintenance costs, a concern noted during the 2001 fee study. Secondly, it will increase the impression that the City is committed to the girls fastpitch program. Also, it will reduce the travel for parents who have children playing at more than one facility and provide more facilities. Finally, by having all of the games played at one facility, the participants would have a chance to see others play increasing the community atmosphere of the program. Finally, as the adult program grows, the Co-Recreational portion of the program could, if needed, play at Central Park and share the facility with the youth program. This particular portion of the program can still play on fields with 275 foot fences. There are currently 50 teams per season playing and would require two nights per week to play on four fields. The sample schedule would have the adults play on Monday and Wednesday and the youth playing on Tuesday and Thursday with Saturday available if needed. As a result of moving the girls fastpitch program to Central Park, the fields at Bee Creek, Lemon Tree and Fairview could be re-programmed to other uses. Lemon Tree and Fairview could be returned to neighborhood parks with less traffic impacting the neighborhood. Bee Creek Park could be re-developed into either an adult fastpitch complex or into a Pony League baseball complex. There have been past requests for Pony League or other, older age, baseball fields in College Station. With regards to soccer fields, there will be a need for some additional fields, however, the exact number is hard to determine. This is because the fields that are being built are full size adult fields. As such, these fields can be subdivided into a greater number of youth fields with the simple addition of marking paint and goals. The exact number of fields that can be marked will depend upon which size field is needed for that season. However, each adult field could be subdivided into two youth fields and give the City 12 new game fields for the youth. This will bring the total to 23 youth game fields, which fulfills the projected youth soccer field needs through 2010. For the adult soccer program, teams are currently playing on 3 fields in the fall and 5 fields in the spring. Here, we have applied the same 141 participants per field standard that we used with the youth program. This is reasonable given the fact that adult soccer averages 18-20 players per team and youth teams have a maximum of 11 players, resulting in fewer teams in the adult program trying to use the fields. Using these assumptions, the adult program can continue to play on the existing fields through 2010. Therefore, any new soccer field development could be delayed until 2006-2007 with completion in 2009-2010, when the current and new fields have reached capacity. 12/06/01 1:35 PM 3 D ' • FT Adult Softball Year teams lost number of number of Number of Number of Percentage due to teams participants softball fields Softball Increase capacity needed to Fields meet demand 1981 0 120 1,980 2 4 0% 1982 0 120 1,980 2 4 0% 1983 0 160 2,640 2 4 33% 1984 0 180 2,970 2 4 13% 1985 0 240 3,960 3 4 33% 1986 0 280 4,620 3 4 17% 1987 0 340 5,610 4 4 21% 1988 20 460 7,590 5 4 41% 1989 40 520 8,580 6 4 17% 1990 60 520 8,580 7 4 4% 1991 90 520 8,580 7 4 6% 1992 100 520 8,580 7 4 2% 1993 100 520 8,580 7 4 0% 1994 100 520 8,580 7 4 0% 1995 100 520 8,580 7 4 0% 1996 100 520 :,580 7 4 0% 1997 100 520 8,580 7 4 0% 1998 105 520 8,580 7 4 1% 1999 105 520 8,580 7 4 0% 2000 0 474 7,821 5 4 -9% 2001 0 424 6,996 5 4 41% 2002 ? 445 7,346 5 4 5% 2003 ? 467 7,713 5 61 5% 2004 ? 491 8,099 6 6 5% 2005 ? 515 8,504 6 6 5% 2006 ? 541 8,929 6 9 5% 2007 ? 568 9,375 6 9 5% 2008 ? 597 9,844 7 9 5% 2009 ? 626 10,336 7 9 5% 2010 ? 658 10,853 7 9 5% 1) First two fields at Veterans Park and Athletic Complex 2) Completion of five field VPAC complex; Shares four field complex at Central Park 12/06/01 135 PM 4 0 A I D T with youth program 12/06/01 1:35 PM D ' AFT Girls Fastpitch Softball Year number of number of number of Number of youth Number of Percentage teams turned teams participants softball fields youth Increase away needed to meet softball demand Game Fields 1999 0 30 360 2 31 0% 2000 0 34 408 2 3 13% 2001 0 32 384 2 3 - -6/ 2002 0 33 396 2 3 3% 2003 0 34 407 2 3 3% 2004 0 35 420 2 3 3% 2005 0 36 432 2 3 3% 2006 0 37 445 3 42 3% 2007 0 38 459 3 4 3% 2008 0 39 468 3 4 2% 2009 ? 40 482 3 4 3% 2010 ? 41 497 3 4 3% 1) Bee Creek —2 Lemon Tree-1 2) Completion of five field VPAC complex; Shares four field complex at Central Park with youth program 12/06/01 1:35 PM 6 1FT 3) Adult Soccer Year number of number of number of Number of soccer Number of Percentage g teams teams participants fields needed to Soccer Increase turned meet demand Fields away 2001 0 19 313 3 513/0 o 2002 , 0 20 322 3 5 /o 0 3 2003 0 21 332 3 112 3% 2004 0 21 342 3 11 30 /o 2005 0 22 352 3 11 3% 2006 0 23 363 3 11 3% 2007 0 23 374 3 11 3% 2008 0 0 24 385 3 9`3 3% 2009 ? 25 396 3 9 3% 2010 ? 26 408 3 9 3% 1) Central Park — 3 Fields Southwood Athletic Park —2 Fields (Spring Only) 2) VPAC — 6 fields, 2 with lights 3) Two Adult fields converted to four youth fields 4) Youth Soccer Year number of number of number of Number of soccer Number of Percentage 9' teams teams participants fields needed to Soccer Increase turned meet demand Fields away 2001 0 119 1,551 11 131 10% 2002 ? 131 1,706 12 13 ' 10% 2003 ? 144 1,877 13 192 10% 2004 ? 159 2,066 15 19 10% i 2005 ? 175 2,273 16 19 10% 2006 ? 192 2,500 18 19 10% 2007 ? 210 2,625 19 19 5% 2008 ? 212 2,756 20 22i 5% 2009 ? 223 2,894 21 22 5% 2010 ? 234 3,039 22 22 5% 1) Anderson Park —5 Fields Southwood Athletic Park — 5 Fields (3 during fall season, 5 during spring p g season) Central Park - 3 Fields 2) VAPC — 6 Fields 3) Two adult fields converted to four youth fields 12/06/01 1:35 PM 7 PDRK LAND DEDC'x T1 tr-N ODU1ANCE i'''OJECT REVIEW C ECKL1ST - Date Received: Park Zone: 7 Name of Development: Holleman Viflase Addition Section 2 Applicant: And Resivio Address: 001 Deerwood Drive City/State: Waco Texas Zip: 76710 Phone Number: 254 753-0337 FAX: Email: Engineer/ lanner: Galindo Engineers Address:333 South Texas Avenue City/State: B- an TX Zip: 77802 Phone Number: FAX: E-mail: QUIREME T • " LIANCE SECTION 10-B-1: L',5° d Single Family Dwelling Units: Multi-family Dwelling Units: 36 Total Land Requirement: 268 Acres Proposed Dedication: 0 Acres SECTION Fee L. Lieu of Land Has the Planning &Zoning Commission's approval been obtained?Yes Land Fee: Single Family Fee($148/dwelling unit): Multi-family Fee(1112/dwelling unit): (4032 Total Acquisition Fee: '4 032 SECTION 10B3: Park Develo•ment Fee Single Family Fee($309/dwelling unit): Multi-family Fee($233/dwelling unit): 38 388 Total Fee A ,ourits: Total Single Family Fee: ($457/Dwelling Unity Total Multi-family Fee($345/Dwelling Unit): $12 420 SECTION 10-:4: Park lievellopment in Lieu of Fee Required development cost: Staff review date and comment: Parks Board review and thcision: SECTI•N Minimum Park Size Is the proposed park less than five(5)acres? If yes,sta recommends: SECTIO 10B-7: Prior Park Ac uisition Is there an existing neighborhoss park that can serve the proposed development?Yes,Zone 7 If yes,staff recommends: Woodwa Park is across Jones Butler Road. SECTION 1 $ E: Comprehensive Man Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Comments: SECTION OF: Additk.nalI inficrmation 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? Percentage: a. Detention/Retention Size: Meets Board Policy: Acreage in floodplain: Percenge: Acreage in detention: Percentage: Acreage in greenways: Percentage: Comments: b. Ltoes the location require users to cross an arterial road? c. Topography: d. Trees/Scenery: 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? b. Restricted access: c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: STAFF RECOMMENDTIONS: Stpftrecommends acceptance of the complete dedication fee. , SECTION 10-0: Aontroval Parks&Recreation Board: Planning&Zoning Board: City Council: From: "John Nichols" <jpn@ag.tamu.edu> To: <klehde@ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 12/3/01 1:33PM Subject: Re: Joint Meeting with City Council — Dec. 6th Kris, I will be there. Per our earlier discussion and a conversation with Steve, lets send an e-mail to the Council members and relevant staff indicating that, in addition to the CPSBoard goals for the year, we want to discuss several specific items: 1. The Council's view of the Board's role in the development of priorities for the upcoming bond election. 2. Veterans Park and Athletic Complex development 3. Development and funding of a skate park 4. Open spaces concept in the UDO; Parkland Dedication Ordinance as part of UDO Board Goals and Objectives and Council's Strategic issues Kris, format this as a memo from me and the Board, check with Steve, and transmit to the Council and others who will be there. Thanks, John >>> "Kris Lehde" <klehde@ci.college-station.tx.us> 12/03/01 10:06AM >>> Just a reminder of the joint workshop meeting with the City Council that will be held this Thursday (from 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.) at the City Hall Council Chambers (I will forward an agenda to you, once it is available). To ensure quorum requirements, please let me know as soon as possible if you will not be able to attend this meeting. I will be forwarding you the minutes from the November 13th meeting, but the Board had recommended that the following items be discussed with Council: - Capital Improvement Program; - Discussion of a Skate Park; - Board Goals and Objectives; - Discussion of previous topics presented to the Council (May 10th, 2001); - Discussion of the Board's acceptance of the changes to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance and discussion of the Unified Development Ordinance Public Release Draft; and -The status of the strategic issues pertaining to the Parks and Recreation Department. I sent you this information via e-mail last week. Please let me know if you would like any additional information. Thanks, and hope you have a great week :-) Kris Lehde Staff Assistant College Station Parks & Recreation (979) 764-3414 \-\„, ",„ College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. LIABILITY The use of the recommendations made by the Texas Municipal .L.eague in the Public Skating Facility Guidelines,. along with the protection. given the facility under .Chapter 75 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, give the City of College Station a good deal of liability protection. Therefore it is the Department's recommendation of that these guidelines be followed as closely as possible in the design of the facilityand operation the efacility be unsupervised with recommended rules posted. FUNDING The current fundingCertificates plan is to issue $162,000 in ofObligation in FY03 to build a skate facility. These funds could be used to build the initial 10,000 square foot phase. Funding for the second phase could be either through the issuance of Certificates of Obligation or through inclusion in the next Capital Improvement Program. 1 ':_:_-.:,:.:i!'':!.!::.,':;::,;.!,..':i17,,:,,.:,;,:;f:.:,:,..::,:.:,,::.,E,;,:'..''ii'.;,,,*,,':.;',i:.,:;:,:!i,:i.,i'!iit.'1.i:,5'':Ei'i-,,inE:,'ii:ii:.,,i1,,•,:'i'.!.,'!':,:.:,,'',.',.:0'.i'.:,:'.,,:;1,.',:.,:;.:,i'::,:''::,,,;i,_1,;,,,::'1',:,;i:!1;,.;,',,:,.:P,I.,i,,,.!1,,,i'''''.,:,:'.1.;,.':,.lil',,,:,:'',i::i,:,,,,':;:,.i''',.,,i,:.'::!,';14'r,,!'i'.:!::.'..,,:,.',.,,,:,,;.',,:':,,.,,,::,:,,:,,,111,,,.,',,'':‘,,',,,,,.,,'',.,:'.,,'''.,, '..-.s -...:.:-:,..:,,,:i.,...:,',,:;.,.:''.:,...',..,,'„',..e''':':',.,:'.!:.*:',:,•:':,,',,'„,,',!:;,,,::ii.':::'ii'j::i..''L:,,.i::':::.:::,:"i:::.',:s::''':':':,':,:'E::.....,':.:,p:,r:::!:::,,,.':::,:!,i'!:.::,..:',,,,,,,'':,..:.::,..','!':::''"'I.'..:'':;::,.,',,,..,.::'k;.'::,',n.,:':...,''.i::':•:::.:1.'''':.i:nIe.-,.!,..,':',,..i,„'..,;:'',;i:',.E,:,,':,!,..,.,''.:i,..,,.:::'',:.,:,:.''I:,,,',.:,„.',:,'..,:':.,,!,.,..',.*::','i',''';,:.:“,:.,''..,:,','',,:'''r,;:,:::':.,,-.,,'..,..::.:',.,:.;'.,:':;:!'*':'7...''':'.'.::'i,,z,!;t:.:.',.ii''.,..,,':''.:,::'..,::,1'''':',.:.;,':.:,.''.i.,::-:',.:::'::'i::,..'i:-';',.i.::-:',.'':':'•'''''-:i:.„.::,,.,.''.:.„:'''.'.,':::',..':',.'''.'''i:''Ii,'!',i,':'',..i:l.i''''j':''','','',:.'':'.'',.,'iE:ii':',•''::i':''':,,,':::''::.:::':'*i:'i:''i.''':',':'i'.:I.:',.. Monument, CO , ..,.......____.. , ......,......,_.— ...:..... .....,.....--- .::...: ....—t.. , ... 61itr414..,!::.;::4 .EZE;;;11111111.::::tiniiill::::,„:-.:::i::..:-.!:',:.:::: :Zi::•:.:.';'::::::;,.;411111111 06 ,.:,,,,,.........,,,,...,30,7 ....„,„„,...,,,,„ .iii.niat•tia ' -.:' '- , .., ,,,•,....._ .,„7...0.,,,,,,,,,,,..; ,..•,,.:-..,,,,,,. .'- : ..............-.--,,,-.„.... -,,,.. . ..•....„.„........„ -...„.......--- . - ...„. .„......_....,...„. ....„........,.....__,.. ,,, , . ---....„........ ---,........,,„,...„,,„ .,,_... . . .. .,...,..:. ..,,„ „. .::-,11.M.n .C.,, 1•1111,11•41011 111111111444.::::i',ii.iic!:';•:::ik',,..'4fleailIlltRlrtgitllIl '::::'::),::::::::1: ::::!:*!..!ii.,,A:li..E .;:::i..•.•:: tri::„.„:7,,,:in!!!:!„..:!.,,,,!7.:, ::,,::::::::i ,.,, 14 12/11/01 1129 AM 4111-4*: rtipik bli*,Skate Park Feasibility Study ...Air Parks and Recreation Department Background Alogi 'ilet 4)Began investigating in 1000 In FY 2000$162,000 approved to construct roller hockey rink itiso 4)At January public hearing recommended build skatepark 4111111 4)October 2001 Surveyed other Cities -%kw, gir, 4)Presented to Parks Board in November and December 2001 Jr 4.00 4:1011 Operation thinp (i)staffing vs.Non Staffing :..h) Non Skateboard use Equipment requirements Design and Construction .41,)Design should involve participants “Itti Poured in Place More expensive Static Not suitabl Financial Impact $162,000 in Certificates of Obligation - planned in Pi 03 4,Base facility as planned 10,000 sit ft. Builtwith planned$152,000 knuted eumpment $ ,• ;NEL Financial Impact(coal • (i)Phase 2 Optionl '441111L, 5,000 additional soil. —$134400 '1111 Option2 —10,000 additional sift. —$185000 taitik„, Location <i)Options include e Southwood Athletic Park 4:01 Bee Creek Park Ito; Central Park Wolf Pen Creek talit o WA Tarrow Park ktgle 3 Liability Low rate of reported infury q..)Protection under Texas Civil Code otp Ch.15 Limitation of Landowner Liability TML recommendations clir TML Public Skating Guidelines,April 2000 Recommendations {i)Construction Several phases Atib,„ Involve youth community kolti,1:: 10,000 so.ft Operations Oilt Unstated kik* Signed ‘111. Consider allowing bicycles and roller blades Olt titilk Recommendations Maintenance VII Daily inspection for general condition ,,,,kpj • Monthly inspections for unseen issues Document per TR recommendations + Liability • Sign per state law 4,11P' Funding Initial phase in FY03 as planned Following phases in CIP as needed ^ ' | �_- \ ) 5 N C C N CJ - ---- I" Dicnieter Steel Rod (blunt tip) 464, "Pg8" Diameter follow Steel Sphere 3" Diameter Collar 10010tf 4" Diameter Ring .tit At,dly }4 Rd' ika DOKOMOMMIKOZIONAMMO L.1` .. .ryrLbJ AO' try 9,� � ���`+� ••fir° `•�{t'?*e5'cI}lu.;a`�'N{r���Y iSlz�s!{'`I�i'?�-zr+�;(' 4001 „If Nell Light 11/2 x Ifs Tubular Steel Frame l i 1/2" x i Y2" Tubular Steel Frame N. = Gap Stone (Cast Stone Flat Base - 36" x 36" x 3") yam+ pi 1" �1 �c mum Cap Stone (Cast Stone Flat Bose - 34" x 34►1 5 I ") • r F C Ftr 3 C C --Engraved Lettering :;;fir:•.3,. i� �' T 3 -Mi jai z'y!`jir"tr-- _ =f�- t;,:t:•;�i��:L �'�'. t r s ,::z.:^:;;: {.; .,,r`•. •:, �, Gast Stone Side Panel 3e±0" DAFT Needs Assessment Veterans Park Athletic Complex In the 1998 Capital Improvement Project Bond election, funds were provided for the initial development of the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. (VPAC) In November of 2001, City Council awarded a contract the phase I development which includes the construction of six adult soccer fields, two of which are lighted, and two lighted adult softball fields. This report is intended to help guide the second phase of development of the Veterans Park Athletic Complex, including recommendations on the type and number of additional fields to be built. Methodology In order to evaluate the future needs of VPAC properly, it is necessary to determine how many users there will be. Normally, this would include evaluation of past participation history, growth trends and future population growth estimates. In this instance, however, we did not have access to all of the variables for each of the sports. In the case of youth soccer, the Department contacted the College Station Soccer Club and received a seven-year registration history. The soccer club did not provide a forecast of future growth, however. In this instance, staff reviewed the growth history and discovered that the youth soccer program had growth ranging between 1% and 20% annually. Additionally, in a conversation with Mitchell Smith, President of the Brazos Valley Youth Soccer Association, it was stated that soccer is growing at an average of 10% annually, nationwide. According to the Development Services Department, the population in College Station is expected to grow at a rate of 3% per year for the next ten years. The College Station School District is projecting a 3% growth rate for the student population'. Given these factors, the Department estimated that soccer would continue to grow at a rate of 10% per year for the next 5 years. However, it is believed that the City's slower growth rate would not support this rate of growth for the full ten years. Therefore, the growth rate is estimated at 5% annually for years 6-10. With Adult Soccer, no trend data was available after numerous requests were made of the Brazos Valley Soccer Association. Therefore, growth for Adult soccer was estimated at 3% annually, in keeping pace with the City's growth projections. Likewise, the girls fastpitch softball program, while increasing in popularity and experiencing some growth, does not have enough history to adequately estimate a trend. The best estimate is that the program will grow at the same rate as the general City population, 3 percent. Adult softball has presented somewhat of challenge in estimating growth. Until 2000, the program was operating above capacity and turning teams away. In 2000 however, the City began charging an additional $75 per team Facility Replacement Fee. When this fee took effect, participation dropped for the first time in eleven years. Participation dropped again in 2001. Some of the teams that stopped participating in the College Station program started to play in the City of Bryan's program. However, that program has reached capacity. It is the Department's estimate that the downward trend in adult softball will end this year and the program will begin Per telephone conversation with Ann Ganter,Assistant to the Superintendent for Policy and District Foundation 12/06/01 1:35 PM 1 AFTto recover its participation base. Because the program was once at capacity and lost participation due to factors other than population saturation, it is estimated that the program will, for at least the first 5 years, grow at a rate above the City's estimated 3%. This is especially true given the fact that the program had not only reached its maximum participation on the current complex, but also the fact that the Department was turning away approximately 100 teams a year. Given these factors, it is estimated that the adult softball will grow at a rate of 5% annually. Requirements Another factor to consider in determining the need for additional facilities at the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex is the capacity of the fields. This is the number of teams or individuals each field can support. In the case of the youth soccer fields, the College Station Soccer Club did not provide a number of teams or individuals that could use each field. Therefore, staff took the current registration number 1,551 and divided it by the current number of game fields, 11, to develop a ratio of 141 participants or 13 teams per field, at the current rate of usage. With the adult soccer program, they are currently playing with 21 teams on 3 fields. In the case of adult softball, we have previously had 45 teams, per field, per season. This is above our optimum level of 32 teams per field per season. We went to this type of scheduling to accommodate the demand for adult softball on the available fields. Even with the decrease in participation due to the fee increase in 2000, we are still above our optimum field use limit; this requires some teams to begin games at 10:15 at night. Additionally, due to changes in the rules governing the Amateur Softball Association, the national governing body for our softball program, the adult men's softball, which is the City's largest program, should be played on fields with a minimum field depth of 300 feet. The current fields at Central Park have a field depth of only 275 feet, and cannot be expanded. This severely limits the types of leagues the City can offer, even with local rule modifications, and prevents the City from hosting adult men's slow pitch tournaments. These tournaments can have a significant economic impact. In regards to girls' fast-pitch softball, games are currently played on four fields around town. These include the two fields at Bee Creek Park, one at Lemontree Park and one at Fairview Park. In the case of both Lemontree and Fairview parks, both of these are neighborhood parks on which we have been forced, by demand for services, to place activities traditionally held in community parks. Additionally, Fairview Park softball field is not lighted and has no parking or restrooms. Recommendations At this time, the Department is recommending that the first priority for development in phase two of the Veterans Park Athletic Complex be the completion of the five field adult softball complex, including three lighted fields, concession area and restroom facilities. There are several reasons for this recommendation. First, the current adult softball complex at Central Park is over utilized. The maximum level of play on these fields in order to properly maintain them and not have players playing late at night, is four games a night. Currently, we are playing five games a night on some fields. While this is possible, it is detrimental to proper maintenance of the fields. Also it requires starting games after 10 p.m. during normal workweek nights. 12/06/01 1:35 PM 2 FrIl At the current level of participation, we have an average of 35.33 teams per field per season, and optimal is 32 teams per field per season. With the construction of the Veterans Park five-field complex, the average would be 28.27 teams per field per season. This would allow the program growth through 2006 before we may have to limit registrations or play 5 games per field per night again. Additionally, by moving the adult program to VPAC, the Department will be able to relocate the girls fastpitch program to Central Park. This will benefit the girls program in several ways. First, it will put the entire program at one complex, reducing the maintenance costs, a concern noted during the 2001 fee study. Secondly, it will increase the impression that the City is committed to the girls fastpitch program. Also, it will reduce the travel for parents who have children playing at more than one facility and provide more facilities. Finally, by having all of the games played at one facility, the participants would have a chance to see others play increasing the community atmosphere of the program. Finally, as the adult program grows, the Co-Recreational portion of the program could, if needed, play at Central Park and share the facility with the youth program. This particular portion of the program can still play on fields with 275 foot fences. There are currently 50 teams per season playing and would require two nights per week to play on four fields. The sample schedule would have the adults play on Monday and Wednesday and the youth playing on Tuesday and Thursday with Saturday available if needed. As a result of moving the girls fastpitch program to Central Park, the fields at Bee Creek, Lemon Tree and Fairview could be re-programmed to other uses. Lemon Tree and Fairview could be returned to neighborhood parks with less traffic impacting the neighborhood. Bee Creek Park could be re-developed into either an adult fastpitch complex or into a Pony League baseball complex. There have been past requests for Pony League or other, older age, baseball fields in College Station. With regards to soccer fields, there will be a need for some additional fields, however, the exact number is hard to determine. This is because the fields that are being built are full size adult fields. As such, these fields can be subdivided into a greater number of youth fields with the simple addition of marking paint and goals. The exact number of fields that can be marked will depend upon which size field is needed for that season. However, each adult field could be subdivided into two youth fields and give the City 12 new game fields for the youth. This will bring the total to 23 youth game fields, which fulfills the projected youth soccer field needs through 2010. For the adult soccer program, teams are currently playing on 3 fields in the fall and 5 fields in the spring. Here, we have applied the same 141 participants per field standard that we used with the youth program. This is reasonable given the fact that adult soccer averages 18-20 players per team and youth teams have a maximum of 11 players, resulting in fewer teams in the adult program trying to use the fields. Using these assumptions, the adult program can continue to play on the existing fields through 2010. Therefore, any new soccer field development could be delayed until 2006-2007 with completion in 2009-2010, when the current and new fields have reached capacity. 12/06/01 1:35 PM 3 D " 1-41: Adult Softball Year teams lost number of number of Number of Number of Percentage_ due to teams participants softball fields Softball Increase capacity needed to Fields meet demand 1981 0 120 1,980 2 4 0% 1982 0 120 1,980 2 4 0% 1983 0 160 2,640 2 4 33% 1984 0 180 2,970 2 4 13% 1985 0 240 3,960 3 4 33% 1986 0 280 4,620 3 4 17% 1987 0 340 5,610 4 4 21% 1988 20 460 7,590 5 4 41% 1989 40 520 8,580 6 4 17% 1990 60 520 8,580 7 4 4% 1991 90 520 8,580 7 4 6% 1992 100 520 8,580 7 4 2% 1993 100 520 8,580 7 4 0% 1994 100 520 8,580 7 4 0% 1995 100 520 8,580 7 4 0% 1996 100 520 8,580 7 4 0% 1997 100 520 8,580 7 4 0% 1998 105 520 8,580 7 4 1% 1999 105 520 8,580 7 4 0% 2000 0 474 7,821 5 4 -9% 2001 0 424 6,996 5 4 -11% 2002 ? 445 7,346 5 4 5% 2003 ? 467 7,713 5 61 5% 2004 ? 491 8,099 6 6 5% 2005 ? 515 8,504 6 6 5% 2006 ? 541 8,929 6 92 5% 2007 ? 568 9,375 6 9 5% 2008 ? 597 9,844 7 9 5% 2009 ? 626 10,336 7 9 5% 2010 ? 658 10,853 7 9 5% 1) First two fields at Veterans Park and Athletic Complex 2) Completion of five field VPAC complex; Shares four field complex at Central Park 12/06/01 1:35 PM 4 D AFT with youth program 12/06/01 1:35 PM D ' Eli Girls Fastpitch Softball Year number of number of number of Number of youth Number of Percentage teams turned teams participants softball fields youth Increase away needed to meet softball demand Game Fields 1999 0 30 360 2 3' 0% 2000 0 34 408 2 3 13% 2001 0 32 384 2 3 -6% 2002 0 33 396 2 3 3% 2003 0 34 407 2 3 3% 2004 0 ' 35 420 2 3 3% 2005 0 36 432 2 . 3 3% 2006 0 37 4 445 3 42 3% 2007 0 38 459 3 4 3% 2008 0 39 468 3 4 2% 2009 ? 40 482 3 4 3% 2010 ? 41 497 3 4 3% 1) Bee Creek —2 Lemon Tree-1 2) Completion of five field VPAC complex; Shares four field complex at Central Park with youth program 12/06/01 1:35 PM 6 D '' Fry 3) Adult Soccer Year number of' number of number of Number of soccer Number of Percentage teams teams participants fields needed to Soccer Increase turned meet demand Fields away 2001 0 19 313 3 51 3% 2002 0 20 322 3 5 3% 2003 0 21 332 3 112 3% 2004 0 21 342 3 11 3% 2005 0 22 352 3 11 3% 2006 0 23 363 3 11 3% 2007 0 23 374 3 11 3% 2008 0 24 385 3 93 3% 2009 ? 25 396 3 9 3% 2010 ? 26 408 3 9 3% 1) Central Park — 3 Fields Southwood Athletic Park— 2 Fields (Spring Only) 2) VPAC —6 fields, 2 with lights 3) Two Adult fields converted to four youth fields 4) Youth Soccer Year number of number of number of Number of soccer Number of Percentage i teams teams participants fields needed to Soccer Increase turned meet demand Fields away 2001 0 119 1,551 11 131 10% 2002 ? 131 1,706 12 13 10% 2003 ? 144 1,877 13 192 10% 2004 ? 159 2,066 15 19 10% 2005 ? 175 2,273 16 19 10% 2006 ? 192 2,500 18 19 10% 2007 ? 210 2,625 19 19 5% 2008 ? 212 2,756 20 223 5% 2009 ? 223 2,894 21 22 5% 2010 ? 234 3,039 22 22 5% 1) Anderson Park—5 Fields Southwood Athletic Park— 5 Fields (3 during fall season, 5 during spring season) Central Park - 3 Fields 2) VAPC — 6 Fields 3) Two adult fields converted to four youth fields 12/06/01 1:35 PM 7 DRAFT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPER INCENTIVES Vision Statement 4, Strategy 4na STRATEGY: To plan for community growth, we will maintain comprehensive park planning processes and documentation. GOAL: To create incentives for developers to provide adequate parks that are the focal point within the neighborhood. Background Neighborhood parks should provide leisure facilities withi easy walking distance of residents. These parks should also provide a sense of safety ant community identity within the neighborhood. Two key requirements to achieve this concept are accessibility and visibility. The location of the park is greatly affected by the street alignment within the subdivision. The design of the street layout is an economic-based process, and developers must maximize their return on investment through the sale of lots or apartment units. To maximize the visibility and accessibility for a neighborhood park, the street frontage must als• be maximized. The Park Land Dedication Ordinance addresses this issue in section 1 O-F.2(d). "It is desirable that minimum of fifty (50%) percent of the perimeter of a park shoult abut a public street. In all cases, t e City shall approve the proposed street alignment fronting on city parks" (Attachment A). Gabbard Park represents a neighborhood park with approximately fifty (50%) percent street frontage and houses facing the park on two sides (Dexter and Haines). This park is a good example of the upper end of the typical neighborhood park with regard to visibility and frontage. Woodcreek Park (Shadowcrest Drive) represents the lower end with regard to this issue, having approximately 240 feet or approximately ten (10%) percent of the perimeter in street frontage. To improve upon the guidelines set forth by the ParkIan. Dedication Ordinance, a financial incentive to the developer is necessary. The costs to the developer include the actual construction of the street and sidewalk, as well as the potential loss in revenue from a reduced number of lots available. This potential loss may be mitigated through the subdivision planning process. Also, it is conceivable that the value of those units facing the park may be enhanced through this process. This leads to the conclusion tLat the major factors affecting t e successful achievement of making the park a true focal point for the neighborhood are the central location of the site, and a high percentage of street frontage. Therefore, to enable the developer to plan their subdivisions with this goal in min. and without undue financial burden, the incentive should be directed to the cost of the streets abutting the park site. Methodology The Park Land Dedication Ordinance establishes what is "desirable" in that regard, at the present standard (i.e. Gabbard Park). To improve upon the current trend, the incentive is proposed to be financial assistance for all street frontage above fifty (50%) percent of the park perimeter. This incentive amount is recommended to be at the rate of two-thirds of the actual cost of that street and related walks, curbs, gutters, etc. The two-thirds rate is recommended to partially address the potential loss of lot sales for the developer. Page 2 of 5 Revised January 4,2002 0:/Strategic Planning/Vision Statement 4/Developer Incentives Two examples of parks with greater than fifty (50%) percent perimeter are Thomas Park and the new Castlegate Park. Both have 100% street frontage and are true focal points for their respective neighborhoods. Thomas Park was acquired in 1938 and is a key element of the College Hills area. Thomas Park is divided into a north section and a south section, and each has a separate identity. The south section has 100% street frontage; however, the houses do not face the park. The north section also has 100% street frontage and all houses face the park. Those homes on the north end tend to be better maintained than those on the south end. Also, the "sense of community" appears greater on the north end. Castlegate Park is a more recent example of a good focal point. This park is approximately 4.35 acres and has 100% of the erimeter abutted with streets. This park is •eing constructed by the developer as part of the subdivision infrastructure as an added feature to attract customers to his development. No financial incentives were provided in this case. The roposed incentive should apply when the proposed park site meets t ose requirements stated in the Park Land Dedication Ordinance, is at least five (5) acres in size, and at least fifty (50%) percent of those dwellin units on streets abutting the park are orie ted towards the park. These additional criteria will help to address the issue of creating the focal point and sense of community implied by the strategic issue. The recommended process for awarding the incentive will be administered in the same manner that is currently used for "oversize participation" for streets (Attachment B). This involves the preparation of engineer's estimates by the developer, which is then reviewed by City engineering staff, as set forth in section 9-E.4 of the current zoning ordinance. The payment, if Page 3 of 5 Revised January 4, 2002 0:/Strategic Planning/Vision Statement 4/Developer Incentives approved, is made in accordance with current City fiscal and budgeting policies. Incentives would be available in accordance with approved budget levels and availability of funding. Exam ele An example of potential costs is illustrated using the following assumptions. The park site is approximately five (5) acres in size and has a total perimeter of 1,868 feet. The cost of the abutting streets includes twenty-eight (28') feet of pavement with a six (6') foot sidewalk, curbs and gutters. The engineer's cost estimate for this street is approximately $95 per linear foot (Emerald Forest Phase 11, May 2101). The cost of 'lacing streets around the entire perimeter is approximately $177,460. The cost for the portion above fifty (50%) percent of the perimeter would, therefore, be approximately $88,730. Based u s on the recommended two-thirds incentive, the developer could receive approximately $59,153 for the additional frontage. Summa Each proposal will require individual analysis to deter ine levels cf eligibility and potential payments to the developer. This process should be incorporated into the preliminary planning phase for the proposed development. Staff recommendations along with recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board should be prepared prior to submission to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. This concept provides a definable and manageable format to encourage the development of more useful parks within the community. The process is based upon the long-standing precedent of the existing over size participation program for other infrastructure as defined in the subdivision ordinance. It can be implemented with minimum of additional time requirements Page 4 of 5 Revised January 4, 2002 0:/Strategic Planning/Vision Statement 4/Developer IncentWes for either the staff or the developers and will be easy to explain to potential users of the program. Page 5 of 5 Revised January 4, 2002 0./Strategic Planning/Vision Statement 4/Developer Incentives ATTACHMENT "A" ORDINANCE NO. 2368 10-F.2 Parks should be easy to access and open to public view so as to benefit area development, enhance the visual character of the city, protect public safety and minimize conflict with adjacent land uses. The following guidelines should be used in designing parks and adjacent development. (a) Where physically feasible, park sites should be located adjacent to schools in order to encourage both shared facilities and the potential co-development of new sites. (b) A .roposed subdivision adjacent to a park may not be designed to restrict reasonable access to the park from other area subdivisions. Street connections to existirg or future adjoining subdivisions may be required to provide reasonable access to parks. (c) Where a non-residential use rust irectly abut a park, the use must be separated by a screening wall or fence and landscaping. Access points to the park may be allowed by the Planning alio Zoning Commission if public benefit is established. (d) It is desirable that a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the •erimeter of a park should abut a public street. in all cases, the city shall approve the proposed street alignment fronting on city parks. (e) Streets abutting a park shall be built in accordance with t e thoroughfare plan and the standards of this ordinance; however, the city may require any residential street built adjacent to a park to be constructed to collector-width to ensure access and prevent traffic congestion. Developer may request oversize participation in such instance. ATTACHMENT "B" 9-EA A preliminary request for oversize bridoe and culvert partici.ation based on an engineer's estimate for the project must be presented to the City Council prior to beginning construction. Upon approval of a preliminary request, funds will be encumbered through a purchase order with the total not to exceed the City's share plus a ten percent (10%) contingency for participation in the approved project. Council approval and participation shall be contingent and subject to commencement within one (1) year of Council approval and completion of the thoroughfare ,ty the date so designated by the Council. If construction of an approved project has not begun within one (1) year of Council ap*roval, or completed by the date designated by the Council then Council approval shall be automatically revoked, the funds will be returned to the oversize bridge fund and will be available for the next request. After the bridge or culvert has been completed and accepted by the City Engineer, payment may be requested. Payment will be contingent upon the City 's receipt of a deed for the lend and im•rovements, and updated title report, and lien s tordinations from all lenders. The cost of the City's participation shall not increase more thai ten ercent (10%) over the amount calculated usi, g the engineer's estimate. 9-E5 The City's articipation shall be limited to a percentage of construction costs only. 9-E6 At the time of the preliminary request, the City Council reserves the right to evaluate the overall economic benefit of the •ropose• bridge or culvert to the City. The City Council may elect not to participate or it may elect to limit participation. 9-E®7 The City's participation will be based on the percent hydraulic capacity required in excess of the capacity nee ed to serve pro ierty owned or controlled by the developer. The amount of participation by the City shall be limited to a maximum of thirty percent (30%) of the cost of the bridge. No other participation payment shall be made on the same request. Priority Selection Lick Creek Park Development I . Entry road/Parking lot/engrgJees/3 lights $265,000 2. Trail developmentDeer Run trail,VS4,S76,gravel $87,500 3. Signage(entry sign+trail id signs) $1 0,000 4. Trail development (Copperhead Cut) $10,000 5. Kiosk(bulletin board/map) $3,500 6. Bike racks (4) $2,000 SUBTOTAL $378,000 Picnic units (5) $10,000 Elm circle trail (concrete) $1 9,500 • ost Oak loop trail (gravel) $22,000 Yaupon trail (natural earth) minor clearing 0 Raccoon Run (natural earthinor clearing 0 Equestrian parking lot +2 solar lights $1 26,000 Pavilion w/restrooms(w/sewer & water lines) $145,000 Electrical service to pavilion $3,500 Bridge (60'-70') $100,000 Bridge (40') $50,000 Outdoor classroom X5,000 TOTAL $8 ' 9s000 2 From: "John Nicholls" 1pn©ag.tamu.edu> To: <klehde©ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 12/5/01 5:26PM Subject: Request for Pardon Dear Kris, Please fonNard this request for pardon to the Board. I will be out of town on business on December 11, 2001 and will be unable to return in time for the regular Parks '. oard Meeting. Please accept my request for pardon regarding this absence. Thank you. Sincerely, John P. Nichols John P. Nichols Professor and Associate Head Deartment of Agricultural Economics Texas AMA University College Station, Texas 77;432124 Tell: 9794454491 Fax: 979-862-3019 lion@tamu.edu>