HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/2003 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board aid 1:0--*!
10* .
Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant
Director (arrived during Item #7); Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner;
Ross Albrecht, Forestry Superintendent; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations
Superintendent; Kristin Lehde, Staff Assistant.
Board Members Present: John Nichols, Chairman; Don Allison; Jodi Warner;
Larry Farnswroth; Bill Davis.
and Members Absent: Glenn Schroeder; Glen Davis.
Guest:
Mike McClure, Engineer.
1. Call to order: Chairman John Nichols called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. Pardon — possible action concerning requests for absences of mebers fro,E,
meeting: Larry Farnsworth made a motion to accept the absences of Glenn Schroeder
and Glen Davis as excused. Jodi Warner seconded the motion. All were in favor,
and the motion passed unanimously.
3. Hear visitors: Steve Beachy stated that he had received an e-mail from Mr.
Jason Fikes, Chairman of the Alexandria Neighborhood Association, who had
addressed the Board at previous meetings concerning a request for the City to place a
playground on a greenway adjacent to the Alexandria Subdivision in Zone 10. Steve
stated that there is a tour of Zone 10 scheduled with the Board on April 22, 2003, and
that the greenway would be one of the sites visited.
4. Discussion, consideration, and possible approval of zp,mutes from the ft•eg;:hr
Meeting on March 4, 2003, 3tnd the Joint Meeting between the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission on MAI 6,
2003:
Bill Davis made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting on March
4, 2003. Larry F. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed
unanimously.
Larry F. made a motion to approve the minutes from the joint meeting on March 6,
2003. Bill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed
unanimously.
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,April 8,2003
Page 1 of 6
5. iscussio.n, c. nsideration9 and posse l le ction cone•ening park land dedieatl.�}n
requests fter t
• Gateway Subdivision, h ses 2-4 (Zone 2): Pete Vanecek pointed to a location
map of the proposed development. This proposed multifamily, 124-unit
development, is located on University *rive, West of Highway 6. Pete stated that
the land requirement would be approximately one (1) acre, which is too small to
build a neighborhood park on. Staff is recommending the acceptance of the
proposed cash dedication of$56,048 in lieu of land. Steve stated that there was
not connecting greenway between the proposed development and the University
Park site. Steve suggested that the Board recmnend to the Planning and Zoning
Commission that there be potential pedestrian access to the University Park site.
Bill .D. is concerned with accessibility, and suggested looking into ways of
working with the City of ryan to address that issue.
After some discussion, Bill D. made a motion to accept the fee in lieu of land for
the Gateway Subdivision, Phases 2-4, with a recommendation to the Planning and
Zoning Commission to review access issues. Don A. seconded the motion. All
were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
• 3earden Addition (Zone 15): This item was removed from the agenda because
the proposed development is outside the city limits.
• Westfield Village, Phase 6 (Zone H 1): Pete V. pointed to a location map of the
proposed development, which is located on Victoria Avenue and Mountain
Breeze Way. The land dedications for the Westfield Subdivision, totaling 4.299
acres, have already been met through prior park land dedications. The priposed
Phase 6 development includes 30 single-family dwelling units, and would add
three (3) parcels of land, totaling an additional .34 acres, to the existing park land
dedication. The developer would also be required to pay the Park Development
Fee, which is $10,740. Steve stated that the developer has aligned the streets to
provide significant access to the park site.
After some discussion, [rill D. made a motion to accept the three (3) proposed
parcels of land for Westfield Village, Phase 6, in addition to the Park
iDPevelopment Fee. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion
passed unanimously.
6. eport, disc nssi°ern, an possible ,ctii n concerning tbhe Urban Forest
Man Ages=gent Plan: Ross Albrecht said that an Urban Forest Management Plan was
presented to the City Council on September 26, 2002. The direction that staff
received at tht time was to use Fiscal Year 2003 as a planning opportunity, and to
develop implementation recommendations.
Ross referred to a memorandum that was included in the Board packets (refer to
memorandum from Ross Albrecht dated April 2, 2003), which included staff's
recommend.ttions for the initi.' steps to implement the plan. He said that the
implementation steps are incremental in nature, prim.• ly because of budget
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday%,April 8,2003
Page 2 of 6
constraints. The City currently has methods in place for tree preservation and
reforestation on multi-family and commercial projects, ,dd is proactive in
reforestation efforts. Staffs recommendations for implementation are aimed at
addressing the o Trent City inventory.
Ross discussed staffs recommendations, which are divided into policy related items
that could be implemented with little input, and action related items that would
require additional resources to Adress.
Policy Related Iter
1. Development of a "Risk Management Program for Urban Trees" and
identification and removal of hazardous trees and hazards caused by trees along
street right-of-ways.
2. ;' eview existing ordinances to identify and strengthen requirements that affect the
urban f Test.
3. Increase public education efforts.
Action Related Items
1. Develop a street tree inventory for hazardous trees, .ed hazards caused by trees.
2. Implement park land, municipal facility, and greenways tree management.
Ross stated that a key to successful proactive management would be an annual review
process.
Steve stated that implementation of the plan would be a multi-year, long-term
process. Bill D. asked if staff conid seek out grants to help fund the implementation
of the plan. Ross responded that there are recommendations for the plan's
irnplementatien that are eligible for grants (i.e. developing a Risk Muagement
Policy, conducting a street tree inventory, and hiring an Urban Forester), The
)epartment had applied for, and received, a $10,000 grant from the Texas Forest
Service to hire a consultant to assist the Ilepartment in the development of the Urban
Forest Management Plan. ill encouraged staff to continue to seek grant opportunities
for the implementation of the plan.
John N. asked if legal review would be required of a risk management policy before
the Department could begin the steps to imple;pent street tree management. Ross
resp'tided that he would recommend that the Department ask for funds in the Fiscal
Year 2004 budget process to hire a consultant to develop the policy and conduct a
street tree inventory.
After some discussion, Don A. made a motion to endorse staff's recommendations as
a working plan for the implementation of the Urban Forest Management Plan, and to
support staff in their efforts to obtain funding for ineplementAion. Jodi W. seconded
the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
7. liscussion, consideration, and passible :ection concerning a draft pliey
stateent for potential schoolineighb,,rhitod park evelopmet: This item is a
follow up from the March 4, 2003, meeting, at which the Bad d requested sto i to
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,April 8,2003
Page 3 of 6
come up with a conceptual policy statement that could be presented to the City
Council during the joint meeting between the Council and the zoard on
April 24, 2003, and could govern potential requests for joint school and neighborhood
park projects with the City (refer to "Partnership in Parks Grant Funding and
Technical Assistance Program" guidelines and "Project Application" that were
included in the Board packets). The guidelines were derived from those used by the
Lower Colorado River Authority.
The Board discussed the conceptual policy statement and was in consensus on 1)
changing the wori:ng on one of the bulleted items under "Eligibility Criteria" from
"The applicant must have a 1:1 value match of City funds" to "The applicant must
have a minimum of a 1:1 value mach of City funds", 2) changing the wording in the
statement under "Objectives" from "The partnerships in the parks grant program
have three (3) major objectives..." to "The partnerships in the parks grant program
are intended I- meet one or ins,re of the following three (3) objectives...", and 3)
changing the wording in one of the bulleted items under "Application" from
"Funding for grants will be li -ited to a uaxiuium of $25,000..." to "Funding for
grants will be ge,erally limited to a maximum of$25,000."
Steve stated that the proposed process w.uld be set up to include the following
provisions: 1) if an entity requested a joint project with the City 4f College Station,
then that entity would be required to fill out the grant application prior to April lst, 2)
there would also be a standard interlocal agreement attached to the gra t application
that would have to be signed by the entity before the grant application would be
accepted, and 3) after receiving the grant application and the signed interlocal
agreement, the Department would then develop a budget request for the proposed
project to be i 'chided in the annual budget process.
After some discussion, Don A. made a motion to approve the policy statement with
the vvordil g changes discussed by the toaed. jill . seconded the motion. All were
in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. The concep, al policy will be included
in the list of the Board's issues and concerns that will be presented to the City
Council during the joint meeting between the Board and the Council on April 24,
2003.
;0 iscussio,, considerati,,p, -,.nd i„pssi:lik action colceriaill the shenandoah rerk
Deveflopment Process: Steve stated that the Board has been presented with the
dedication of the Shenandoah Park site over the past year. The process now is to
begin the actual design and development of that park. He added that the developer is
interested in doing a development project in which he will actually build the park,
similar to the process that was used ie the development of Castlegate Park. For this
project, staff would need to 1) develop a site plan for the park, 2) conduct public
hearings to solicit input from residents living in Zone 10, id 3) determine the
approximate development fee that would be required to build the park. Steve added
that there are also prk land dedication funds available within Zone 10 that were
generated by phases of Shenandoah as well as by surrounding residential
neighborhoods, and that these funds can be spent anywhere within that zone.
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,April 8,2003
Page 4 of 6
Steve suggested that the Board hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 6, 2003. He
further suggested that this item be placed on the Regulir Meeting agenda on Tuesday,
May 13, 2003, for discussion, and on the June 10, 2003, agenda for p•ssible Board
approval of the conceptual design of the p. k.
After some discussion, Don A. ride a notion for the Board to hold a public hearing
to solicit input from residents of Zone 10 conceiring the design and development of
Shenandoah Park. Bill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion
passed unanimously.
9, Preentfiin, iseusio , possible ,t ctiifflconcerning the S 'cod Quarter
Mai ,tenance Sianthrds Ile:tort for Fiscal Year 2003: Curtis gingh,.m updated the
Board on the status of the Parks Maintenance Standards. He stated that at the end of
Fiscal Year 2002, the 0!apartment hd met 81% of its stated mainten ice standards.
The Department met 84%of its standards in the first quarter 4f Fiscal Year 2003, and
is currently meeting 85% in the second quarter. However, he added that the 1%
increase between the first and second qu. 'ors is somewhat misleadi ig because the
second quarter was conducted by another staff member. Curtis estimated that the
actual second quarter percentage of standards met should be around 84%.
Cn rtis anticipates an increase in standards being met on playgrounds, tennis courts,
and basketball c lifts in the third and fourth quarters, that would be ..ttributed to the
upcoming projects:
• The Hensel Park pl..yground replacement;
• The installation of a rubber cushion surfacing on the two (2) playground units at
Jack and Dorothy Miller Park;
• The resurfacing of the tennis courts at Bee Creek and Central Parks; al.cl
• The resurfacing of the basketball courts at Oaks Park.
Curtis stated that the Dep.- ment is having trouble meeting overall stand,-ds met set
for the p,nd category, primarily due to the pod at Wolf Pen Creek.
till D. asked if the Department has enough staff to reach the desired maintenance
level (which is to meet 90% of standards set, by the year 2006). Steve responded that
as facilities are added to the park inventory, the Department will bring on resources to
maintain them. This will be done through contracts or requests for additional
personnel.
John N. asked if a column could be added to the report that would reflect the previous
fiscal year's quarters of overall standards met, to c mpare to the c rrent fiscal year.
Curtis said that he would add a column to the report.
This item was a repot only, and no motion was made.
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,April 8,2003
Page 5 of 6
10, *iscussi,td, consideration, Tud pissible action consenting a ,,,enaorad,t dm fro'
the .:",,lt ,s an, Recreation Advisory iL o rd to the Ci Council listing the l'drd's
issue's and comcerns hi pre$ar.dtion for the Jdint Meeting between the Barsand
Council on Aril 24, 2003: A draft of the memorandum from the Advisory Board to
the City Council that lists the Bo. d's issues and concerns for the Joint Meeting on
June 24, 2003, w.s included in the oard packets for review. After some discussion,
the Board was in consensus on accepting the memorandum. The memorandum will
be forwarded to the City Council for the meeting.
This item was intended for discussion o ly, and no motion was made.
11. !'eport, discussion, ,tossiirle ction concerning the future Capital
id,prove,'ent Pr grhr: Eric Ploeger had attended the Citizen's Advisory
Committee's project !ling meeting earlier this evening (April 8, 2003), and handed
out the 2003 Citizen Advisory Committee Capital Project Ranking sheet for the
prop.sed projects for the upcoming bond election (see attached) He stated that the
cut-off point was at $31,633,000, with the proposed Northgate Street Rehabilitation
project included. Eric added that the Committee felt as though the cut-off represented
the amount for which projects could be completed within the next five (5) years
without hving to raise taxes.
The ranked list of proposed projects will be pres•nted to the Planning and Z•laing
Commission, and then to the City Council fir consideration, prior to being presented
to the voters.
This item was a report only, and no motion was made.
12, r ep•trt, discussion, an possible ,action cincerning the current C..pital
ent r ,gral ‘: Steve discussed the current capital improvement projects.
This item was a report only, . d rri motion was made,
13. Review, discussidd, and prssibh action concerning 4:dard ,kep.4rtrinedtal
Cr,b Obj.-ctives, City Council Strategies: There was ro discussion on this
item.
14. Discission weeting dates and pilsible gendr itcms: Refer to attached
Board calendars for meeting dates.
The following items are scheduled for the May 13, 2003, Regular Board Meeting:
• eport on Shenandoah Public Hearing.
• Approval of the Parks and Recreati n Department CY-04 User Fees.
• Update on the Greenways Program. (Note: This item has been moved to the June
agenda.)
15. A, ur, Bill D. made a motion to adjourn. Larry F. secoded the motion. All
were in favor, d the meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m.
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,April 8,2003
Page 6 of 6