Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/2004 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Tuesday, January 13, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. P. David Romei Arts Center 2275 Dartmouth College Station, Texas Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator; Ann Marie Hazlett, Secretary. Board Members Present: John Nichols, Chairman; Glen Davis; Larry Farnsworth; Ken Livingston; Don Allison; Jodi Warner; Gary Erwin, Alternate. Board Member Absent: Glenn Schroeder. Guests: Jane Kee, City Planner, Development Services Visitors: Joe Schultz, 3208 Innsbruck Marcus Hamilton, 3602 Dorchester Ct. Raymond Reed, 1601 Wolf Pen Creek Ct. Robert Meyer, 308A Pershing Joanna Yeager, 100 Mortier #1004 Suzanne & Brian Reynolds, 339 Landsburg 1. Call to order: John Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:58 p.m. 2. Pardon N possible action concerning requests for absences of members from meeting: There were no absentee requests submitted. 3. Hear visitors: Hearing none, this item was closed. 4. Discussion, consideration, and possible approval of minutes from the Regular Meeting of December 9, 2003: Ken L. moved to approve the minutes from December 9, 2003. Don A. seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 13, 2004 Page 1 of 7 5. Discussion, reconsideration, and possible action regarding a park land dedication request for the Villas of Harvey (Park Zone 4): This proposed multi-family, 576 dwelling-unit development is located north of Highway 30, east of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. The total land dedication requirement would be 4.6 acres. The total cash dedication requirement would be $92,160 for fee in lieu of land. The Park Development fee would be $168,192 for the 576 dwelling units. Glen D. made a motion to accept the park land dedication of 5.54 acres plus the additional 1.25 acres (see attachment #1). Don A. seconded the motion. John N. expressed his concerns regarding accepting the proposal with most of the parkland in the floodplain. After some discussion, all were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action on a report from the Senior Advisory Committee concerning future usage of the Central Park Office Building: Dr. Raymond Reed, member of the Senior Advisory Committee, made a presentation regarding transforming the Central Park Office Building into a Senior Center. He asked that, on behalf of the Senior Advisory Committee, the Parks Board recommend to the City Council when the Parks and Recreation Department headquarters becomes available, that it be renovated and be dedicated for use as a Senior Center. He expressed the importance of having a Senior Center in this community and believes that the existing Central Park Office would be a great place to have one: a. It has close parking with handicapped access to all facilities; b. Options for easy and economic conversions for meeting rooms and activity rooms; c. Nearby pathways, picnic tables, benches, fishing ponds; d. It is in a park setting, which will encourage interaction between all ages, races, and cultures; and e. The presence of seniors in children's play areas increases the security of those areas. The building has roughly 6,500 gross square feet. Some of the renovations discussed included adding a small elevator for upstairs access, installing an upstairs restroom facility, removing some non-load bearing walls to make bigger meeting/activity rooms, repainting, having a full service kitchen, and doing some minor electrical work. These renovations are estimated to cost around $150,000. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 13, 2004 Page 2 of 7 Glen D. asked what discussions had been held about what would happen to the Central Park Office once it was vacated and what the other options would be. Steve B. replied that there has not been any discussion regarding the future of the building. Other alternatives could include some kind of retreat center, but he stressed that it would be important to keep the building for some type of park use. Dr. Reed added that although this is being proposed as a Senior Center, rooms would be available for other uses as well. Don A. made a motion to recommend to the City Council, that when it becomes available, the Central Park Office be renovated and be dedicated for use as a Senior Center. Ken L. seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. 7. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning updates to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance: Jane Kee, City Planner, explained that this discussion was generated by requests from developers that want to do their own park improvements. The language in the current regulations implies that the land has to be improved before it is dedicated to the city. The way Development Services administers the regulations in another section is that the park land has to be dedicated before the first plat. The purpose of this discussion was to try and remedy this confusion with the attached amendments (see attachment #2). One of the things Development Services was trying to do was to correct the Ordinance so that developers could install park improvements regardless of whether the park land had been dedicated yet or not. Also, the Ordinance currently stated that parkland must be dedicated before the first plat is filed. Some provisions had been written in Section 10-B-1, which would allow parkland phasing to be considered by the Parks Board and recommended to the Planning and Zoning Board when they consider a plat. Furthermore, a section had been added that states that the Parks Board would consider all dedications of five acres or more, and/or if there was any floodplain or greenway as part of the development. If the dedication is less than five acres and there is no greenway or floodplain, then the Parks Director or designee could approve only the fee in lieu of land. It was stated that five acres might be too large for the Director to accept the fee in lieu of land and that two or three acres might be preferable. Finally, if a developer chose to make improvements to a park, the plans would have to come to the Parks Board. A manual of neighborhood park development standards, which would be adopted by the Parks Board, would serve as a guide for developers to use. Improvements would have Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 13, 2004 Page 3 of 7 to be guaranteed by a bond or a Letter of Guarantee. The improvements would have to be completed within two years from the time that the guarantee was filed. Additionally, there would be a one-year warranty period by bond, which would be in the amount of 25% of the original bond for any type of warranty work that may need to be done. Glen D. asked if there had been any thought regarding the time of completion of the park, to the completion of the development. Jane K. answered that language could be added to say that the park must be completed within two years or upon completion of the development, whichever came first. This was a discussion item only and no motion was made. 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a policy for Soccer Field Use: Various soccer groups have been requesting the use of soccer game fields for practices due to their growing needs for more practice fields. Currently, the Soccer Field Rental and Use Policy states that there will be no practices on game fields. Suggested changes to the policy would allow for limited use of game fields for practices. However, the number of practices that would be allowed on the game fields would not be determined until a game schedule from each of the soccer organizations (BCS Soccer League, Aggieland Soccer Club, Brazos Valley Youth Soccer Association, College Station Soccer Club) was submitted to the Parks Department. Once schedules have been submitted, Parks staff would determine how much additional use the fields could handle before they start to deteriorate. The policy does allow for the Parks Department to close soccer fields at their discretion due to weather and/or turf conditions. The Parks Department is requesting schedules from each of these groups as soon as possible after their registration time because the Parks Department reserves the right to rent these fields to others at times when they are not in use. Each group will have a league authorized representative which will coordinate all field usage with the Parks Department. Each organization was asked to keep their website current with rainout information. Additionally, the Parks Department would supply a list of locations that have goals and are available for practices. Also, maintenance schedules will be distributed which will show approximate dates that fields will be closed for routine maintenance. Furthermore, any soccer clinic that will be held at College Station facilities must be approved by the Parks Department no less than 10 days prior to the start of that clinic. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 13, 2004 Page 4 of 7 Also, league advancement tournaments that are to be held at College Station facilities will be covered under the User Agreement Policy instead of applying for and paying for a separate tournament agreement. However, a fundraiser tournament, invitational, or any other outside tournament, would require a regular Tournament Agreement as well as payment for all tournament fees. Don A. asked if the competitive soccer teams pay for use of the fields. Peter L. answered that they do not. Don A. brought up that the competitive girls softball teams have to pay to practice on the softball fields and expressed his dislike of having some groups paying and some not. Glen D. agreed that there needs to be discussion regarding equity among how all user groups are charged. This issue will be discussed when fees are talked about in the spring. Glen D. made a motion to adopt the Soccer Policy as written. Gary E. seconded the motion. John N. had a few comments regarding language use, and added that with those changes he was in support of the policy. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 9. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning park issues in Park Zones 10 and 13: The Board asked that this issue be discussed as a result of the school district locating a new elementary school in Park Zone 13 instead of Park Zone 10. Prior to this school district decision, most discussion had been dedicated to park issues in park zone 10. Steve B. did state that the land in Park Zone 10 which the school district owns could still be used as a park site even though the elementary school would not be located there. One of the Department's goals is to try and locate parks near schools where possible. However in this case, it does not seem like a logical conclusion. The new elementary school will be close to the Castlegate Subdivision which already has a neighborhood park. Also, if a park were to be next to the school, it would not be accessible due to its location to Highway 40. This was a discussion item only, and no motion was made. 10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a report from the Park Naming Subcommittee: Jodi W. reported that City Council was reviewing a naming policy that could possibly affect how the Parks Board names facilities. One of the concerns in this potential naming policy is that a facility could only be named after a person that had been deceased for one year or more. The draft policy would be presented in a Council workshop on February 12, 2004. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 13, 2004 Page 5 of 7 The Subcommittee identified several parks that were to be named and prioritized those parks. They tried to identify names of people that might have a particular relation to the area that the parks are located in. The four parks discussed were as follows, along with the potential person the park could be named after: a. Zone 10 Park (Shenandoah Park) - North Bardell former City Manager. b. Zone 7 Park (Woodway Park) - Lowell Denton who was the attorney who took the park land dedication ordinance to the Supreme Court. c. Zone 6 Park (Southwest Park) - O.D. Butler d. Zone 2 Park (Eastgate Park) - O.C. Cooper This was a discussion item only and no motion was made. 11. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the design process for Woodway Park: Woodway Park is the only park located in Park Zone 7, which is undeveloped. The city was working to acquire additional property for this park, which was contingent on the City being able to extend Jones-Butler Road. City staff was ready to move forward with the design of this park and was recommending holding at least one public hearing in February regarding this park. Pete V. showed the board a couple of potential concepts for this park (see attachments #3 & #4). This was a discussion item only and no motion was made. 12. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Capital Improvement Program: a. Park Land Dedication Project List b. Current Capital Improvement Project List - Glen D. asked for an update regarding the Bee Creek lighting project. Eric P. replied that the big problem is the ability to get the poles delivered. The poles have been cast, and they need a ten-day curing process, and should be shipped around January 20th. Pete V. reported that hopefully the project would be completed by February 1st c. November 2003 Bond Election Project - John N. asked if the $310,000 dedicated to park facility upgrades would be done in the first year. Steve replied that in the first year, approximately $150,000 is to be used. John N. wanted to see a priority list of what items would be done with the first $150,000. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 13, 2004 Page 6 of 7 Don A. asked if anything was being done about placing lights in the Jack and Dorothy Miller Park behind Rock Prairie School. Glen D. asked that this be an agenda item in the future. 13. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning Board and Departmental Goals and Objectives, and City Council Strategic Plan: John N. would like for Parks goal #7 (Develop recommendations for botanical gardens in existing or proposed parks) to be addressed in the next couple of meetings. He also reported that goal #6 (Restore the Arboretum at Bee Creek Park to its former value) would be discussed in February. 14. Discussion of calendar, future meeting dates and possible agenda items: The next meeting will be on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 at 7:00 PM at the Exit Teen Center. A public hearing will also be scheduled in February regarding Woodway Park. Additionally, a joint tour with the Bryan Parks & Recreation Board of the Regional Park (TMPA) site will be on April 15, 2004. 15. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 13, 2004 Page 7 of 7