HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/2001 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board -'o''''''k-''"-o,''''',!''rl_,''I,::,i!::!'I,''','''!'.-'„:':'':':'':'lg:-:::'lnl„rr-„-,,-a,,','-':i,'„l,,,-:ga'.,,:,,:g:::iel'u:,:.,:.:i::ir::.l:a:,!i::;l.:.,,.,::::::ie::,,:,:!jq•::,:!,,,;:,::!,,,iF,,:!i,.ia,.!,;!,_T:!;!il!„.,,.:,:;„.,i.,i,4:ig::.„;f!l'!,r:i,,'i,',,:;i::g!g.i,.!l;i!,,i„!,dFtbt : —JSA "
AHS3 :M ! ;hREATION )A,
Ftg/ar* itlg
T!! a !jiir2er
tC9ge
'''''-------
ereittF "
--'-'—',',','442rIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII#00VAfggPP''''Por' ';Log'''mmm---------
kfTi,Raad----
, ,ric pioeger Ass__,istantD7pjtl„_..t'uerhiedegon: _L.,::..E:'r:,Eae:r:i'.i,c'cil'il:R!o:ldilg'fe!'frfsilsgill.11:11,
Staff Preseifit: E ' ector of Paxki-- and Recreation; David Wood,
Parks Planner; Peter Lamont, Recreation S
Services (Coordinator; David Gerling, Recreation Superintendent; Curtis t'in'gehnalm'°r,
Parks Operations Superintendent,Kris Lehde, Staff Assista
Board Present: To
Nhn eichols, Chaft; Glem ' oed r; Glen ra.vis; Don Alison-, Lar
1 Scy-
Farnsworth;L'aura Wood(Alternate). ' ry
Board bsent: kn Turton; Bill Davis.
Visitors: George Dresser.
1. Call to order: The meeth-,,,,:;.. was called to order at 7:00 p.m
2. sw G
eannt in of ra. Larry 17.----sworth and Don Ailison were swom in
on the Parks- and Recreation itoar-d'.
3. flear visitors: poke at this film.
4. Pardon - Consider a est for absences of mettb_ers worn meeting: Glen
Davis made a motionreto'''ac-c-sept the absences of kn Turt 1;1and Bill tavis as
5. exct:sed. Glerm Schroeder seconded the motion. All we°'.:e in favor, and the
motion passed unanimously.
Apo,roval of minutes from regub.r Iterling of June 12,2414)1: Glep,r, S. made a
I to approse the mitautes of ji, 12, 2001. Glen D. seconded the motion,
1/44,,,,, A:ilsewuesrsei:n favor: and the motion palsrsleed unanimously.
in_ a __econiniendation
from the S'erci°ionrs,":,:vraistoi°ryn'Caonmd mP7tstseiebiteoaacptpibon1net°.neern 2 r
-Bill Lay, Chairman .
Mi Rodgers, the staff alilarison for the Senior Advisor C Itee, stated 1
tpharere are currently 15 m-embers on the Cornmittee, andYtha°tnBlii Lay and Cart laotl
zen had both agreed to contm* ue'serving on it.
Parks&ReerPation Board
Tuesd,u,,,Jul;10'2001
Page 1 of 8'
Glen D. made a motion to appoint Bill Lay as the Chairman and Carol Parzen as
the Vice-Chair of the Senior Advisory Committee. Glenn S. seconded the motion.
All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning Castiegate 'ark
design: Eric Ploeger stated that the last time this item was presented to the Parks
and Recreation Board was in June 2000, when the 11 oard accepted park /and for
the Castlegate Subdivision. He stated that about two years ago, the Park Land
Dedication ;Ordinance was updated so that the developer could either dedicate
land, where there is a development fee requirement, or dedicate money in lieu of
land. Eric went on to say that instead of paying the required development fee, the
developer also has the option to develop the park the -elves. Wallace Phillips,
the developer of the Castiegate Su fiivision, h. chosen this option. Eric said that
Park staff has bn working with Mr. Philips on a design. Park staff and the
Development Services Depmt rent starF have been working on who will design
the park(Park staff or someone * d by Mr.
Eric stated he would be presenting the concept for the park design, and that no
official action was required, but miy comments that the Board had would be taken
back to Mr. Phillips for consideration.
Eric went over a map of the property. He stated that Tim Crowley actually owns
the pro oterty, but the development of it has been turned over to Wallace Philliss.
The developer's intention back in June 2000 was that there Gght be a total of 757
dwelling un ts developed. Currently, Phillips has platted for 391 dwell'
Is. He plans for the area to be single family housing, but he doesn't know the
lot sizes or how many total dwelling units will end up being developed.
The Park Lanai Dedication Ord*, .nce requires a dedication of just over eight acres
for 757 dwelling units. Mr, P, Tips is dedicating appro iately 12 acres. The
Parks Department is working on calculating how much credit Mr. Phillips would
receive back through the Park Land Dedication Ord' :nce.
Glen o. asked who was responsible for , intaining the park once it was
developed. Eric responded that ; tenance of the park would •n. the
responsibility of the College Station Parks and Recreation Department. He went
on to say t since it would be a public facility, Mr. Phillips would be responsible
for the same level of inspection and. A.D.A. requirements that the City would
responsible for. The Parks Department will also document the .n iount that it
would have cost the City to build the park in order to satisfy Mr. portion
of the development fee. Glen D. asked what the amount of the dedication fee
was. Eric resptnded that if Mr. develops the 757 dwelling units as
originally proposed, the dedication fee would be approximately $270,000, which
is about whut the current budget is for the pro posed park.
Parks&Recreation Board
Tuesday,July 10,2001
Page 2 of 8
David Wood stated that Park staff came up with two design concepts for the park.
One was a standard design for a park of this size, and the other had a few more
amenities than a standard park would have. He showed the Board the latter of the
two design concepts.
The propose.. park is appro rilately 4.33 acres and has some intergenerational
features incorporated in it. Mr. Phillips would like for the park to be the focal
point for the entire neighborhood. Some of the amenities in the park would
include
a picnic wit a shelter
basketball courts > a plaza
seating > shade trellis
a playground unit > a sculpture
sidewalk > tens courts
a swing set
Glen D. asked if there was a parking area included in the design. David responded
that there would be on-street parking, where available, which is typical for a
neighborhood park.
Glen D. asked if there would be a sand volleyball court. Eric responded that this
had not been discussed with Mr. Philips, but could be.
Glen],S. asked about adding more features to the park. David stated that with the
proposed features presented, there is a possibility that the park will go over
budget. Eric adted that this wtuld k a City park, so if finds become available in
the future,there would be the possibility of using them to add additional amenities
to the park. David also added that he i designed the park so that additional
amenities could be added at a later time.
Glenn S. asked a'tut the possibility of incorporaf g bike lanes into the park.
This could preclude some of the problems with on-street par * g, Eric stated that
this would have to be reviewed with the ,evelopment Services 11-epartment.
John N. asked a*tut practice space for sports such as soccer and softball. He is
concerned that the Pebble Creek School woult be the closest area to practice on.
Eric stated that at present this is the closest space, although the Department could
discuss the issue with Mr. Phillips.
John N. asked who would be responsible for nai ig the park. Eric stated that he
would need to look into the Park Policy fig Naming City of College Station
Parks and Recreation Facilities.
This was an informational item only,and no motion was made.
Parks&Recreation Board
Tuesday,July 10,2001
Page 3 of 8
8. lEiscussion, consideration, and possible action concerning park land
dedicathn funds by zone: Eric had distributed a memo to the Board that had a
table of the park zones, the funds dedicated to eaczone, and an explanation of
the projects that the thuds are dedicated to. Glen D. asked when the thuds were
dedicated to the specific projects. Eric responded that every year the Department
in a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget that coincides with the City's
budget
rocas® The projects have to be budgeted through the City's budget
process in order to have the funding available for the following fiscal year
(October rt to September 30th). Eric added that the CIP budget had recently been
sub Ited. He added that if there is not a specific project, then the funds ..e
allocated to intergenerational features, which is a City Council priority.
Eric discussed each zone with the Board. Glen D. asked what park land dedication
funds are typically used for. Eric responded that they are typically used for
neighborhood park improvements.
John N. asked the Board to keep the budget schedule in mind in the future if they
have specific visions for the zones.
This was an informational item only, and no motion was made.
Discuss4n, consideration, and possible action concernin using park zone
money fir re?Iacement of the plarrtu,:d equipment at Hensel Park: Eric
stated t: he d met with a committee from Texas A&M University that is
trying to implement an improvement plan for Hensel Park. He said that in the
early 80's the City built and funded a playgro: d at the park, and that it is now at
an age where it needs to be replaced. He added tht there are park land dedication
thuds in that zone, but that Park staff hive been given direction to use those funds
toi d a linear park in the Northgate area. He said that there is also the possibility
of using the $50,400 replacement fund that the Department eminently has in its
budget. The Department typically replaces two playgrounds a year. He added that
a budget request has been sub rutted to increase the replacement thud by $60,000,
which would bring the total up to $110,000.
George Dresser took the floor. He stated that he and ;John Nichols are currently
serving as Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Liaisons to the coumiittee that
came up with appro nately $56,000 to do various upgrades to Hensel Park. He
said that there is not enough money to replace the playground, and passed around
pictures of the current playground u nit and the decking area around it.
Curtis Bingham had inspected the playground and gave a report on its condition.
He said that the playground unit is in poor condition, and noted some of the
problems associated with it:
The spiral slide is missing. The Department will not replace it Iecause the
manufacturer has gone out of business and it would be very expensive to have
a slide custom made.
Parks&Recreation'Board
Tuesday,July 10,2001
Page 4 of 8
• The barrier that closes the area off where the spiral slide was located needs to
be replaced as well. Currently, it is made of plywood and one would have to
be specially fabricated to fit the area, which would be very expensive.
> A tire swing is missin!. The Department will not replace it due to safety
standards.
• The surface is currently made of pea gravel. This presents a pro ilem, because
adding more pea gravel would damage the root systems of the trees that are
insi•e the playground pit. He suggested moving the playground u t away
from the trees if it were to be replaced, and using a mixture of pea gravel and
rubber to create a softer fall cushion.
George asked if repairs are done using City crews. Curtis responded that repairs
41 maintenance are done in-house, but complete installations are usually
contracted out. George asked how much it would cost to replace the entire
playground. Eric responded that t :ideally replacements cost approximately $25
S30,000. George recotsuended that the Board find a way to replace the
playground. John N asket Curtis if there was a playground re.lacement priority
list. Curtis replied that there is a list, but he was not sure where Hensel Park is
ranked on it. Eric stated that staff would review the list and come back to the
Board in August. He 1.ded that by that time, staff should have a better iiea of
what next year's budget will look like.
George said that the decking around the playground also needs to be replace
Glen D. asked Cu 1 is if he thought that the playground needed to be replaced or
upgraded. Curiis replied that he felt that it should be replaced.
John N. inde a motion to direct Park staff to examine the options and come back
to the Board. Glen B. added to the motion, directing Park staff to come up with a
projected cost to replace the playground equipment d bring it u • to standard.
This would include replacement of the decking, thc, surfacing, and the playground
equipment itself. Larry Farnsworth seconded the motion. All were in favor, and
the motion passed unanimously.
Glenn S. added that he was opi-tsecl to using park land dedication funds for this
specific projectIe realizes that the playground equipment needs to be repaireo or
rv-ced, but stated that every dollar that has been generated in that zone (Zone 1)
has come from the Northgate area and should be used in that area.
10. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning Veterans ',ark and
Athletic Complex timelite: Eric stated that Bob Sckmidt from O'Malley
Engineers submitted a timeline for the Phase 1 development of Veterans Park and
Athletic Complex. He said that staff would try to shorten the tk neline by working
on some of the steps listed s' ultaneously (the Development Services and Parks
and Recreation Department review,). Glen D. asked what projects were planned
for Phase 1. Eric responded that planned are:
> two softball fields with associated parking;
Parks&Recreation Board
Tuesday,July 10,2001
Page 5 of 8
• a portion of a inintenance building;
> a portion of the drive leading to, and providing parking for, the Veterans
Memorial ares;
a restroom building;and
> six soccer fields (Two of the six soccer fields, including additional parking,
would be a part of an add-alternate plan directed by the City council)
John N. said that the oard had voted to build the six soccer fields, and that any
add-ons would be the softball fields. (Refer to item #7 of the minutes fron the
regular meeting of March 6, 2001) Eric responded that he believes that staff had
received different direction from the Council. Glen D. suggested reviewing what
was actually approved by the Council. Eric said that he would research the actual
motion and bring it back to the Board during the August meeting.
This was an informational item only, and no motion was made.
11. 4leport, 'fiscasio , and possible action concerning City Ccinneil Visioii
Statements and implernentatioy plans: Eric said that a draft of the Council
Strategic Plan was '1,cluded in the loard packets and that the Council would
consider the plan at their July 12, 2001, meeting. The plan is a result of the
Council Strategic Plaanhi .t Retreat that was held in May 2001, and it is driving
most of the Department's workload at this time. He said that Vision Statement #3
(relating to the Urban Forest Management Plan) and #4 both pertain to Parks and
Recreation.
Eric said that one 4 f the strategic issues (strate: #4) under Vision Statement #
deals with the Unified Development Code (' JC). The City is working with a
consultant to review, update, and rewrite all of the development codes. Included
in this review is the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. One of the strategic
milestones is for the Parks and Recreation toard to meet with the UDC csasultant
in August to go over what effect changes in the UDC would have. He added that
a special meeting would be set up in August to visit with the consultant. Glen B.
suggested scheduling a special workshop to review the ordinance before the
toard meets with the consultant.
This was an informational item only, and no motion was made.
12. iscussion, consideration, and possible action concer4F1 a possible "bark
park": Eric said this item was requested by one of the Board members, and the
subject was also presented during a Hensel Park meeting that he attended. Park
staff bad contacted Kathrun Bice, the Executive Director of the Brazos Vt I Icy
Animal Shelter. Ms. Bice was not able to attend the toard meeting, 'tut the
Department had gotten some hnórmation from her on the subject. He suggested
asking Ms. Bice to talk about this topic at a future meeting, which would also give
staff more time to research it.
Parks&Recreation Board
Tuesday,July 10,2001
Page 6 of 8
Eric said that The Brazos Valley Animal Shelter is in the process of building a
"bark park" on land in Bryan. They are forming a co mnittee and trying to raise
funds for the park.
Laura Wood passed out information on "bark parks" that she h.c.d researched on
the Internet. She suggested University Park as a potential site, because the
wastewater treatment plant is in close proximity to it and the area already smells
when the winds change.
This was an informational item only, and no motion was made.
13. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the user fee stu*y: The
Board had received the Executive Summary of the study prior to the meeting.
Eric said that he put this item on the agenda because he was =sure what the
schedule would •e for presenting any recommendations to Council, Eric said that
the S ep.n tment has done some review work on the study, but has not had the
opportunity to meet with the City's Zudget Office to discuss it. A meeting has
been set with the Budget Manager for July 11, Mil, to come up with a plan for
how the information would be presented to the City Council.
Glenn S. asked if the copy that they had receive* was the final document. Eric
responded that he understood that it was.
Glen D. stated that the Fees Subco ii ittee and staff had previously ,-t with the
consultants to go over the initial report. He said that at that time there were
apparent errors in the report and the consultants were to have gone back and
corrected them; it appcm thnt those errors had not *-en corrected. Glen added
that he had no confidence in the document, and that if this was going to be the
final document, he didn't feel that he could support it. He rear ended that the
Board not accept the report. He gave nn example where Girls Fastpitch was
catego -ed as an adult sport,when in fact it is a youth sport.
Eric said that he understands that the document would only *e used as a tool to
provide suggestions; staff would actually make any fee reconu nendations to
Council. Glen D. said that the study would also be forwarded to Council though.
He added that during the subcommittee meeting, the consultant appeared very
frustrated and defensive of his methodology and of the software program used to
calculate the numbers for the study. He said that based upon his review of the
doe uirent, and after meeting with the consultant, he felt that it was not a good
ocument.
Glenn said that the study needs to be accurate, and currently there are apparent
mistakes that need to be corrected before it is presented to the City Council.
John N. asked if staff could provide a one-page 4mJysis of some of the issues that
result from the staffs meeting with Budget.
Pb&Recreation Board
Tuesday,July 10,2001
Page 7 of 8
This was an informational item only, and no motion was made.
14. I iscussion, cowsideration, and possible appointment of a Parks and
Recreation hard member to sem on:
Fees Subcommittee
Veterans Park and ACt letic Subcommittee
Glenn S. volunteered to serve on the Fees Subcommittee and Larry F. volunteered
to serve on the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Subcommittee. Both
positions are to replace John Cromston who served on those subcomniittees.
Glen D. made a motion to approve the appointments. Don Allison seconded the
motion. All were in favor, nd the motion passe* unanimously.
Glen D. added that there is also a Master Plan Subcommittee. There was a
question as to whether the subcommittee was a standing committee. Kris Lehde
will research this question and bring an answer back to the Boa d at a future
meeting.
15iscussion concerning orientation for all board an committee cvembers to
be held at City Council Chambers o ':oraday, July 30, 2001, at 6:30 pm :
Eric said that the Board would be receiving an invitation from the City Secretary's
Office for board and committee orientation. There will be an agenda, and it is
suggested that everyone attend. The -ayor, City Attorney, and City :4,* iger
will hold discussions about what roles boards and committees serve. There will
also be a breakout session at the end for the boards and co mttees to meet with
respective staff.
* John N. and Glenn S. will not be able to attend the orientation.
16. Consent items:
Capital Improvement Projects report: Glen D. asked if the CIP report could
be categorized by status (ex. complete, on hold, etc). Eric said that this could be
done.
Neat meeting tate and agenda: e next Parks and Recreation Board meeting
will be held on Tuesday, August 14, 2001. Jol N. suggested scheduling a
special workshop meeting to prioritize and strategize the Board's goals and
objectives.
17. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Parks&Recreation Board
Tuesday,July 10,2001
Page 8 of 8