Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/2006 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 7:00 p.m. College Station 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; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; David Gerling, Special Facilities Superintendent; Bryan Cook, OTIS; Pamela Springfield, Staff Assistant Advisory Board Members Present: Jodi Warner, Chair; Kathleen Ireland; Glenn Schroeder; Gary Thomas (No quorum present). Visitors Present: Jordan Neidinger Tanner Holamon Jason Merritt Corby ?? Jose Marin Megan Costello Todd Carcer Steve Hendricks Michael Hawkins Jarret Brelsford Corrinne Norris Dustin Moore Felix Gutierrez Laura Wilensky Russell Millican Donna Ray Trent Jacobs Monica Griffith Danielle Peevy Joey Rider Nancy Berry, Council Member Michael Countryman Jen White 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Jodie Warner, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Chair. She turned the meeting over to Eric (Ric) Ploeger, Assistant Director of the Parks and Recreation Department. 2. Presentation and discussion of ideas regarding development of the University Park Site in Park Zone 2 (presentation and handout attached). Ric welcomed the visitors and members of the Board. The primary purpose of the hearing was to hear from residents who lived in the area about what amenities they would like to see go into University Park. From the input received, staff would create a master plan and a second public hearing would be held. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board would provide input and approve the final design (see presentation). Ric stated that the park site was on the border between Bryan and College Station and was located in Park Zone 2. Access was limited, with only two ways into the park. He went through the potential elements that could go into the park, adding that there would be additional funds in the budget for dog park amenities. The park amenities were not limited to the suggestions provided. He explained the difference between the types of amenities that went into neighborhood versus community parks. Ric opened the floor for public input. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made at least 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. The following is a list of the visitors’ comments and questions. When possible the visitor’s name is given with all of his/her input listed together and not necessarily in the order it was given. Staff responses are in italics. Unknown Speaker(s): Would there be large, open areas for passive recreation if there was a dog park area? Staff has tried to determine how much space would be available for this if there was a dog area and wanted to hear from the residents regarding how much space they wanted. When fencing for the dog area is added, it will not function as an open play area for children. Have there been specific requests from residents in that area for a dog park? There have been requests, but not from that specific area. Trent Jacobs – 1011-A Autumn Circle: There were a lot of dog owners and dogs in that area and he felt that the dog park idea was a positive thing. He was a graduate student of architecture at Texas A&M University and he had several questions. He was concerned that the lack of access points would encourage inappropriate activities. He wondered if there would be a way to interconnect the park either through to Bryan or with one of the other branch roads. He was also concerned about a water retention area on the property that holds run-off from the nearby apartment complex, as well as illegal dumping on the property. Ric was aware of the dumping issue but did not think that it was on the park site. The park was closed in and staff did have some experience with that. Some of those problems would need to be mitigated from a design standpoint. The idea of other access points was a good idea and would be looked into. He wanted to know if there was any way to establish an interactive connection with either the School of Architecture or the School of Landscape Architecture at A&M. It was possible to look at that and see how it would affect the schedule. The department and staff have done that on other projects in the past and it could possibly be done again. He was wondering if there were ways to help make the connection between Bryan and College Station stronger. Parks has a very good, active relationship with other departments in Bryan. Programming and athletic events are done with Bryan and, as far as the parks system is concerned, there will be a strong connection between the two in a long-range trail system that will tie into Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. The two cities had worked together to provide access to College’s Station’s Madelely Park and have also jointly committed to acquire a large regional park in Grimes County. He wanted to know if certain landscape plantings would be used to help mitigate the smells from the dog park and the sewage treatment plant. Ric said that as far as the dog park issue was concerned, the city would require dog owners to pick up what their pets left behind. Regarding the treatment plant, staff can get with Bryan to see if they have done anything to mitigate the smell. These were all good points and staff was aware of the smell issues, although not sure what could be done. He would like to see as much of the trees and woodland left as was possible. There would be more than adequate open space without removing trees. He asked about the timeframe for the park. The intention was to work through the design phase in the spring and possibly start construction this summer. Michael Countryman – 621 San Mario Court: He had a dog that could climb chain link fences and wanted to know how high the fence around the dog park area would be. The height has not been decided on, but it would be at least six feet high. He asked about ideas that would draw the right people to the park. Athletic programming is not typically done in neighborhood parks but there are neighborhood groups that meet in the parks for different functions. The National Night Out Program is one event that is held in neighborhood parks. Donna Ray – Manager Timber Creek Apartments and Mill Creek Condominiums: She was there on behalf of the owner of the two complexes. Over the last couple of years, management and the owner have noticed more graduate students with families moving into the area. Approximately 50% of the residents in the apartment complex were families with children. Since there is no playground in the area, they are forced to play and ride their bicycles on the tennis courts, keeping other residents from using them for what they were intended. In the early 1980’s, fees had been assessed for a park that was never built. She asked if this was a continuation of that process. That would have been a requirement of the developer based on the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. A study had been done some years back that showed the need for a park in that area. The city owned the land but did not have the money to develop it, so the City Council has approved the funding to do that. Ric understood her interest in a facility for children and reassured her that if a dog park area went in, the two areas would be kept separate. Felix Guttierez – 4345 Carter Creek Parkway: He lives right around the corner and when driving in the area, there are always people exercising and jogging on the roads. He wanted to know if it would be possible to include elements for exercise in the park. Yes - walkways and exercise equipment are in certain parks. Loop trails around parks are also very popular. He wanted to know if the park could be connected to the Bryan bike and running trails along the creek. That would be easy to do. He thought it might be better to build the dog facility in a larger park such as Veterans Park and Athletic Complex (VPAC). He felt the primary functions of University Park should be to take care of the children and the people wanting to exercise. Ric stated that the point was well taken. The Master Plan had already been done for VPAC. The funds were budgeted for the dog facility because requests had come forward (although not for a specific location) and because the city wanted to see if it would work. If the residents felt the dog facility should be located elsewhere, staff wanted to know this. The Parks Board would then need to decide if it wanted to put the facility in another location. He had seen (in Bryan) parks built without amenities for children, which drove the teens to congregate there. His concerns were not unusual and one of the things done is that neighborhood parks are very well lit. Unknown Speaker: He felt it was a great idea to put the dog facility in this park because it is close to the sewage facility and it already smelled bad in that area. Corrinne Norris - 1227 April Bloom: She had two small children and there was no place to take them to play within walking distance. She was there to ask that something be built for children. She did not know if it would be within the scope of a neighborhood park, but she would also like to see a fountain that they could play in to cool off. She did not want to see anything with standing water, but something with a button that could be pushed so the water would come on for a few minutes. She also liked the idea of a covered area like the one shown in the pictures presented and the idea of the walking trail. She felt that there needed to be areas in the park for exercising. The city was in the process of building its’ first spray park over at Lincoln Center, so staff was familiar with those features. There are units that could be installed that are very small and similar to what she was describing. Jen White – 200 Winter Park: She was concerned that the dog park would draw people who would drive to the park, making the parking of cars along Spring Loop worse than it already was. Staff had discussed this and decided that if there was a dog facility installed, there would need to be a parking lot. Jodi Warner, Chair: She asked how many of the visitors present actually lived in that neighborhood. Six people raised their hands. She commented that she had not been aware that there were as many children living in that area as there were. Hearing no further questions, Ric added a few final comments. The budget for the project was $400,000. Staff would establish priorities for the amenities and would try to stretch that money as far as possible. He thanked the visitors for their input and invited them to attend the next public hearing. That meeting was tentatively scheduled to be held in conjunction with the next regular Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting on February 21, 2006. David Wood stated that contact information had been included in the handouts and asked that anyone with additional ideas or comments contact him. 3. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.