Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2006 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES UNIVERSITY PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM, Tuesday, February 21, 2006 City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas ? Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; David Wood, Park Planner; Ross Albrecht, Forestry and Urban Landscape Manager; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; Pamela Springfield, Staff Assistant Members Present: Jodi Warner, Chair; Jeannie McCandless; Gary Erwin; Harry Green; Gary Thomas; Glenn Schroeder Members Absent: Carol Blaschke; John Crompton; Kathleen Ireland Visitors: Dr. Ted Stephenson; Donna Ray ~ Manager, Timbercreek Apartments; Trent Jacobs and Brad Angell ~ 1011 Autumn Circle, Apartment A; Corrine Norris ~ 1227-B April Bloom; Stuart Kling, Kling Engineering 1. Call to order. Jodi Warner, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 2. Pardon and possible action concerning requests for absences of members. Requests for absence had been submitted by Carol Blaschke, Kathleen Ireland, and John Crompton. Glenn S. moved to approve the requests as submitted and Gary E. seconded the motion. The vote was called; all were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. 3. Hear visitors. Hearing none this item was closed. 4. Consideration, possible approval, and discussion of minutes from the Regular Meeting of January 10, 2006 and the University Park Site Development Public Hearing of January 24, 2006. Gary T. moved approval of th the January 10, 2006 minutes of the regular meeting, as well as the January 24 minutes from the first University Park site development public hearing. Jeannie M. seconded the motion. The vote was called and the minutes were unanimously approved. 5. Presentation, Public Hearing and discussion regarding development of the University Park Site in Park Zone 2. Jodi called the public hearing portion of the meeting to order and turned it over to staff. Ric P. gave a brief presentation and went over a conceptual plan which had been developed by David Wood, Park Planner, based on the input received at the first hearing. The plan included: separate dog park areas for small and large dogs; a Page 1 of 6 pond for the dogs to play in; extensive walking trails; a parking area; a lighted basketball court; a playground and swings with a separate sidewalk leading to it away from the dog park area; and, a small shelter with shade cover. 2005 Needs Assessment responders a dog park as number ten on the list of what they would like to see in parks. Ric opened the floor for discussion and questions. Staff comments are in italics: Gary T. ~ Gary asked if the basketball court would be covered. There was not enough funding at the present time to do this, but it could possibly be done at a later time. Trent Jacobs ~ Trent felt that the overall plan satisfied a lot of the needs of the community. He expressed concern about the overhead power lines and the possible long-term effects of children playing under those lines. The lines belonged to the City of Bryan and there was not much staff could do. Neither Jodi W. nor staff knew of any studies about the possible long-term effects. Steve B. said that staff could talk to the Utility Department and get input on that. There were also overhead power lines in Southwood Athletic Park. Trent Jacobs ~ He asked if there would be regular grass around the pond and if it would be watered. The pond was for the dogs. It would be run-off water only and not supplemented at all. Bradley Angell ~ He asked if staff could engage Bryan to watch the park from the north end. The College Station Park crews would be there on a regular basis. Dr. Stephenson ~ He owns property on three sides of the park property separated by about 100 yards. There is a dead end at Autumn Circle that goes into his property. He was concerned about access into the park and said he was willing to work with staff however possible. Trent Jacobs ~ From the plan it looked like the boundary went through his back yard and he was wondering if the fence on his property would be torn down. Ric P. stated that he did not anticipate tearing down any fencing. Trent Jacobs ~ He thought that it was not good to have the lights turned off at 10:00 p.m. If they could still be turned on, it would encourage activity from the residents and discourage inappropriate activities. There are lights on timers in some parks. Dr. Stephenson ~ There have been problems with people parking and vandals at times, but generally the Police have had good patrols there. He has owned the property since 1982. Bradley Angell ~ He wanted to know if staff had given any consideration to the different cultures in that area and if amenities had been included in the park for their enjoyment. Staff works with the international community in several ways. This was a valid point – one that staff will keep in mind. Donna Ray ~ She stated that the apartments work with the International community and she does not see different toys for international children – they seem to have the same toys our American children do. Corinne Norris ~ Most of the children in the neighborhood were age 7 or younger. She suggested having a playground for younger kids. When there is room for only one playground, the one installed is designed for children ages 2-12. Trent Jacobs ~ He thought that perhaps it would be best to have some screening of the playground from the trails so as not to offend the various international cultures when women went jogging by in shorts or, if it was possible, to move the playground to another area. As far as the playground was concerned this was about the best that could be done in order to get the playground included as one of the amenities. Harry G. ~ The dog area was about four times as large as the play area and he asked if there were more dogs than children in that neighborhood. This was a good question. From surveys that were done there were a lot of people interested in having dog parks in College Station. Ten acres is the typical acreage for a dog park. This one will be about half that size. Corinne Norris ~ She stated that she had been a proponent of the waterplay area at the first hearing and was wondering if that could be done. If staff could determine where the water for it would drain to, it might be possible to install a piece of that type of equipment. Corinne Norris ~ She said that the park going in was a great thing and not to let the waterplay feature hold up the development of the park. Glenn S. ~ Asked if there was any floodplain in the park. There is some - the floodplain follows the tributary and the pond itself is in the floodplain. There will be no fencing in the floodplain. Hearing no further questions from the public or Board, Jeannie M. made a motion to approve the conceptual plan as it was presented. Gary E. seconded. Hearing no further questions, the vote was called. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. It would take approximately four to six weeks to complete the design and go out to bid, with four to six months for construction. Jodi thanked the visitors for their input and closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 6. Possible action and discussion of the University Park Site Development and Public Hearing. This item had been included in item #5. 7. Report, possible action, and discussion regarding a park land dedication request for Crescent Pointe ~ Park Zone 4. This was a follow- up from an item originally brought to the Board in 2003. Staff had just received the drawing that afternoon and so had not had time to analyze it. The development was off of Highway 30 and to the east of Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Just north of the site is the building that was being build by Don Adams. Both commercial and multi- family developments would be going in, with a potential dedication for a five-acre park. Two 14-acre pieces of property on either side of the potential park dedication was zoned for apartment developments. Stuart Kling, the engineer was present to answer any questions. Mr. Kling was hoping to come away from the meeting with direction to bring back to the developer, in order to be able to plat the property. Jodi W. stated that she would like to arrange for a site tour since this would be such a large development. Mr. Kling stated that this could be arranged, adding that the developer would like the park to be a buffer and act as an amenity to those two potentially large apartment complexes. His client may also be interested in having the option of paying for the development of the park in lieu of paying the fees. A potential date for a tour would be arranged to take place within the next two weeks. No action was taken at this time. 8. Report, possible action, and discussion of Providence Missionary Baptist Church Historical Site ~ Ross Albrecht. Handouts were distributed (see attached) with the site plan of a project that TxDOT was doing. The project would be located on the northwest corner of FM 60 and Turkey Creek Road on the opposite side of the highway from the entrance of Easterwood Airport. Acquired by TxDOT in the 1940’s, the site had been the location of the Providence Missionary Baptist Church established in 1858. At the time of acquisition, the church was no longer standing. The acquisition came with a provision that a roadside park or some feature would be maintained as a memorial to the church. In 1975 there was a roadside park on the site however through multiple expansions of Highway 60, the remainder 2.27 acres, was no longer large enough to support a typical roadside park. TxDOT has put together this project to address the provision that there be some type of memorial site there. TxDOT will do the construction but has requested that the city take over the maintenance of the site, and the city has agreed. The city has an interlocal agreement with TXDOT to maintain several sites around the city. Since the site is very small, maintenance and mowing would be minimal and would be added to our current maintenance contract. Ownership of the site will remain with TxDOT and the project should be completed by December 2006. There were several state historic sites in the park system inventory and this would be a nice attraction. The family that owned the original property was one of Stephen F. Austin’s original 300 Colony. Gary E. made a motion of support that the Board concurred and asked that the Parks Department move forward. Gary T. seconded and the vote was called. All were in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 9. Report, possible action, and discussion regarding the joint subcommittee with Planning and Zoning Commission. Copies of the draft “Resolution to Re-evaluate and Re-invigorate the Planning and Design of Streetscapes in College Station” were distributed to all members. Gary T., Kathy I., and John C. were members of the joint subcommittee. Steve said the subcommittee had met about three times. The subcommittee was going to work on several issues including streetscape issues, tree planting issues, the park land dedication ordinance; the issue of the vacant Greenways Coordinator position regarding where and how that position fits in with the departments, and what the duties of that position should be. The subcommittee had narrowed their focus to get one of these items completed - the city’s Streetscape Plan done in 1992, which needed updating. A resolution had been done and the subcommittee asked that Parks make a recommendation that could go back to Planning & Zoning (P&Z) who would then take a recommendation to Council at some point within the next few months. Since the members had just received the information Jodi read through the resolution (attached). Gary T. explained that the resolution was stating the need to develop standards and review landscaping and streetscape issues before a street is developed. He explained that sometimes what happens is pavement is torn out after it has been laid in order to do the landscaping. The plans for streetscapes should be done when the scope and budget for that project are developed. The streetscape plan also provides specifications as to what type of streetscapes there should be for the different levels of thoroughfares. Discussion followed, after which Gary T. moved that the board endorse the resolution. Gary E. seconded. Glenn said it was important to update the streetscape plan but felt that some of the other points of the resolution may be premature. If it is decided that the current streetscape plan is okay, then some of the other points in the resolution may or may not come into play. Hearing no further discussion, the vote was called. The motion carried 4-1, with Glenn S. opposed. 10. Report, possible action, and discussion concerning the writing of a history of the Parks and Recreation Department. Steve stated that the only additional information he had was that the Historic Preservation Committee was pursuing an update of the city’s history book, to be completed by 2008. He had asked that they consider that a chapter or portion of the book be about the department, but has not heard back on that. He felt that the book would be a good way to do a history of the department. He said he would pursue the idea and see if they will do it with the department possibly contributing a portion of the funding. He will update the Board once he has more information. This was an informational item only and no action was required. 11. Report, discussion and overview concerning the update of the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan and the Parks and the Recreation Department Five-Year Strategic Plan. Copies of the presentation regarding the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan 2006 Revision Process were distributed. The presentation described chapter by chapter what steps would be taken to do the revisions. Three parks board members, Kathy I., John C., and Gary T. were the board members on the subcommittee providing input. The plan revision should be complete by late 2006 or early next year and will help provide direction for the upcoming 2008 bond election. The subcommittee would probably meet with staff sometime later in the spring. Harry G. said he would be interested in serving on that subcommittee. Copies of the updated Parks and Recreation Department Five-Year Strategic Plan had been included in the members’ packets. Steve briefly explained that the plan gave some background about what the department does; financial forecast information and population estimates; a five-year CIP action plan; and, strengths and weaknesses of the department with strategies that could be used to address them. This was an informational item only. 12. Consideration and discussion regarding getting the remainder of the Board certified in the Open Meetings and Public Information Training. This was an informational item letting those who still needed to take the training know that it could be done online. 13. Report, possible action and discussion concerning Board and Departmental Goals and Objectives, and City Council Strategic Plan. Updated copies of the Board and Department Goals had been included in the member packets. Hearing no questions or discussion, this item was closed. 14. Report, possible action, and discussion concerning the Capital Improvement Program: Copies of the CIP and Park Land Dedication project lists had been included in the board packets. A lot of progress has been made with most projects either in design, out to bid or under construction. A few highlights: rd ? VPAC will go to council on Thursday Feb 23. The project came in about $900,000 under budget and we will be able to afford all of the alternates, with money left over. Staff anticipates coming back to the Board some time next year to find out how to spend that money. One request has already come in for additional trees. The VPAC subcommittee will also be meeting together for that. nd ? The VPAC groundbreaking ceremony will be held on March 2 and the Board should have received their invitations for that. There will be a designated seating area with some former members of the board present as well. ? May be able to hold public hearings for Edelweiss Gartens in the near future. More money was coming into that park zone. ? Jodi wants the Board to go over the park land dedication list and see what projects can be added to it. 15. Discussion of calendar, future meeting dates, and possible agenda items: Copies of the planning calendar had been included in the member’s packets. ? March 2, 2006 ~ Veterans Park & Athletic Complex, Phase II groundbreaking at 5:30 p.m. ? Site tour of the Crescent Pointe potential dedication ~ Date to be Determined ? March 21, 2006 ~ Regular Meeting ? April 5, 2006 ~ Dedication ceremony for John Crompton Park at 5:30 p.m. ? April 22, 2006 ~ Dedication ceremony for Wolf Pen Creek trails. There will be a day-long celebration for Earth Day with a 5K run, a senior run, and a concert at the amphitheater that night. 16. Adjourn. A motion was made by Jeannie M. to adjourn and seconded by Harry G. The vote was called and unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.