Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/2001 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PA S AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 11, 2001 Parks and Recreation Conference Room 1000 Krenek Tap Road College Station, Texas 77840 7:00 pm. Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; David Gerling, Recreation Superintendent; Kris Lehde, Staff Assistant. Board Present: Johri Nichols, Chair; Glen Davis; Glenn Schroeder, Don Allison; Larry Farnsworth; Bill Davis; Laura Wood,Alternate. B i ard Absent: Jon Turton. Guests: Jane Kee, City Planner;Natalie Ruiz, Development Review Manager. Visitors: Brett Davis, PO Box 4609, College Station, Texas 77844. L Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2® Hear visitors: No visitors spoke at this time. 3. Pardon—Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: Glenn Schroeder made a motion to accept the absence of Jon Turton as excused. Bill Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of minutes from Special Meeting of August 10, 2001; Regular Meeting of August 14,2001; and Special Meeting of August 27, 2001: • Glenn S. made a motion to approve the minutes from the special meeting of August 10, 2001. Larry Farnsworth seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. • Glen Davis made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of August 14, 2001, pending the amendment of the amount of$60 to $60,000 in item #10. Glenn S. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. o Glen D. made a motion to approve the minutes from the special meeting of August 27, 2001. Larry F. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Report and discussion concerning the City of College Station Development Process: Steve said that this item is a follow-up to a request by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for an overview of the development process so that they could obtain a clear understanding of how the Advisory Board fits into the process. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday,September 11,2001 Page 1 of 4 Natalie Ruiz (Development Review Manager) gave a presentation concerning the five main steps in the development process (see attached Power Point presentation): O Development Concept; • Predevelopment Meeting; O Zoning Process; • Platting Process; and O Permitting/Construction. Natalie feels that the development process will stay in the same format after the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is adopted. Glen D. asked approximately how many developers currently attend the predevelopment meetings. Natalie estimated that currently, approximately 80% attend the meetings, but it will become a requirement to have these meetings once the UDO is adopted. She also feels that the UDO will strengthen the current development process. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 6® Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning possible revisions to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance: Steve said that the Advisory Board was not being asked to take action on this item during the meeting. He added that the City would be having a focus group with developers on Friday, September 21, 2001, to discuss possible changes to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance and invited the Board to attend the meeting. He added that this item would be brought back to the Board in November 2001 for action, and would also be brought to the City Council in February 2002 for their consideration. Jane Kee (City Planner) gave a presentation pertaining to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance review (see attached PowerPoint presentation). The presentation related to the proposed changes to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance Methodology using the current 2000 census figures. The proposed changes pertain to the • Land dedication; • Fee in lieu of land; and O Development Requirements. Steve stated that one of the most difficult issues pertaining to the ordinance is trying to figure out the price per acre. This difficulty is due to the fact that prices vary drastically between open rural areas and land that is fully developed and closer to the City. Eric Ploeger obtained two recent real estate appraisal listings from the City's Land Agent, Mark McAuliffe (see attachment). One listing contained seven appraisals for rural areas on the easterly line of State Highway 6, north of Greens Prairie Road, in College Station (average sales price is $14,580). The other listing contained eight appraisals for land that is closer to College Station, on the northerly line of Krenek Tap Road, west of State Highway 6 (average sales price is $68,444). Bill Davis asked if it would be possible to have an acquisition cost that floats with the value of the land that is being developed? In other words, if the City accepts money in lieu of land, it has to be enough money for the City to develop a park in that area. Jane said that the concept of having a different fee based on the zone has been discussed in the past, but has not been reviewed with the City's Legal Department. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday,September 11,2001 Page 2 of 4 Glen D. felt that the $15,000 fee, stated in the methodology for the 2001 review, is too low, and feels that the methodology that is being approached should be reconsidered. He suggested making the fee $20,000, with the understanding that there would be a step-by- step increase. John N. suggested asserting a real cost for land in the more developed zones by weighing the average between how many single-family dwelling units have been developed compared to the number of multi-family units. Steve said that this item would be the main discussion during the joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 20, 2001, as well as during the focus group meeting that is scheduled with the developers the following day. Eric discussed several staff recommendations for potential changes to the ordinance: I. To incorporate language into the ordinance that would allow the land fee and the development fee to be spent on either category: Currently, both land and development fees go into one account, and there is no differentiation as to whether these fees can be used for replacement and repair in an existing park, or the actual development of a park. The Board was in favor of incorporating this language into the ordinance. II. Detention areas will not be accepted as part of the required dedication, but only in addition to req ired dedication. The detention area design must be approved by City staff and must meet Parks Advisory Board policy concerning detention area design: Eric said that City staff have been working on coming up with a policy and design criteria for the Board's approval. Glen D. suggested expanding the wording to include retention areas as well. The Board was in favor of incorporating this language into the ordinance. III® When dedication is below five acres, no floodplain or floodable land will be accepted as part of the required dedication. Additional floodable land will be accepted on a case-by-case basis: Eric said that this is being done now, but it has not been put into writing. Eric stated that adding this language could take some of the flexibility out of the ordinance. John N. suggested adding two statements to the ordinance; one that deals with dedication below five acres, and one that deals with dedication above five acres. Eric added that leaving the wording in the ordinance the way that it is written gives the Board the flexibility to ask for whatever they want on a case-by- case basis. The Board was not in favor of incorporating this language into the ordinance. IV. 10-F.2 (d) - Change the Ordinance to require that fifty percent (50%) of the perimeter of the park should abut a street: This is not a requirement in the current ordinance. Eric is concerned that if this was to be a requirement, then the developer may not be as willing to give as much acreage in the dedication. Steve added that this is where the possibility of offering incentives to developers may play a role. The Board was not in favor of incorporating this language into the ordinance. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday,September 11,2001 Page 3 of 4 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives: This item was tabled to the October 2001, regular meeting. 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Department's 2002 User Fee recommendations: Steve stated that the Fees Subcommittee met and gave their recommendations for approval of the 2002 Parks and Recreation Department User Fees. A draft of the fee schedule was presented to the City Council during the Workshop meeting on August 23, 2001, for an update, and would be presented to them again on September 27, 2001, for consideration. Glen D. made a motion to approve the 2002 Parks and Recreation Department User Fees. Bill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Steve said that there are four adult fees that were not able to meet the City's Fiscal and Budgetary Policy. He added that Council has asked that the City Manager and Finance Director review the policy due to the fact that there are other fees within the City that were not able to meet the policy as well. The City Council has also directed staff to investigate the potential of joint programming with the City of Bryan to look at ways of reducing costs. John N. asked that discussion of joint programming be brought to the Advisory Board in the future. 9. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's recommendations to the City Council (Reference: Memorandum dated May 2001): This item was tabled to the October 2001 regular meeting. 10® Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning City Council Vision Statements: There was no discussion on this item. 11. Consent items: Capital Improvement Project Report: John N. asked if the Department was meeting the timeline for the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, Phase I Development Project. Eric responded that the project went out to bid on September 10, 2001. There will be a pre-construction meeting on September 19th, and the bids will be due on September 27th. Award of the bid will be brought to the City Council for consideration on October 25, 2001. Next meeting date and agenda: The next meeting will be a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday, September 20, 2001. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 9, 2001. 12. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday,September 11,2001 Page 4 of 4