Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2001 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Regular Meeting Tuesday,November 13,2001 1::.,5;IESIMIER,g,iv.gtoiatggigxgg::;;::pafw:!*oolgoito*tio?icogoioukj,..4o:,1000 Krenek Tap Road ":itoEpygglggggIunggq 'qnilii:'OE,Riis',:g-IRV:::ioa:gg:3EN:iwioigogzago,:gtnCollege st4:ti6ApTet*li1784WEN,IVRMIESEE,EEE.SBEBIeutEsu - - 7:00 pm Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Plarmer; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; David Gerling, Recreation Superintendent; Grace Cattert, Conference Center Supervisor; Jane Kee, City Planner; Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner;Jessica Jimmerson, Staff Mailmen Board Members Prsent: Glen Davis; Larry Farnsworth; Don Allison; Bill Davis; Glenn Schroeder; Jon'Turton; Laura Wood(Alternate). Board Member Absent: John Nichols, Chairman. Visitors: ten Miller,2,001 Holleman Drive W.,#914,College Station,Texas Cristen Ratcliff, 800 Marion Pugh,4807,College Station,Texas Jonathan McLavey, Hart Hall on TN\IU Campus, College Station,Texas Teresa ';."-!suncaw, Eppright Hall on'TAMU Campus, College Station, Texas Zach Knight,2002 Longmire Court, #411, College Station,Texas 1. Call to ordrr: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Glen Davis taade a motion to appoint Glenn Schroeder as Acting Chairman of the meeting. Bill Davis seconded the motion. Allwere in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. Hear visitors: No visitors spoke during this item. 3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: Bill made a motion to accept the,absence of John Nichols as excused. Larry Farnsworth seconded the motion. All were in favor,and the motion passes unaninTously. 4. Approval of milt utes from regular meeting of October 9,2001: Don Allison made a motion to approve the minutes from October 9, 2011. Larry F. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanilliously. 3. Report, discussion, and possilitle action concerning the public release draft of the Unified Development Ordinance(UDO): Steve 1 eachy said that the UDO is a comprehensive project that the City has been working on for over a year. He added that there is a public ret- se draft available and that staff is looking for input from citizens and appointed board and committee members. This item was put on the agenda to solicit written comme;its fro the 1})oard that will !se forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission during their workshop meeting on November 29, 2001,at 5:30 p.m. Senior Planner Sabine Kuenzel took the floor. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman had requested to have one or two members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board present to discuss the Board's comments during the workshop meeting. Parks and Recreation Advisory toard Chairman John Nichols had previously stated that he would be able to attend the meeting. Glen D. also volunteered to attend. Sabine reviewed a 1owerPoint presentation concerning the infor ation that the 110 covers. She explained that the public review period would be from November 5, 2001, to January 30, 2002. She also went over the expected timeline for the 110 adoption (see attached PowerPoint Presentation). Sabine discussed some of the highlights of the UDO. One highlight was the section pertaining to Open Space. She added that greenways currently are not addressed in the City's ordinances, and feels that the section pertaining to open space will help address them. The open space requirement would not just include the dedication of recreational land, but would also include an actual minimum a ount of open space requirement for every residential development, that will most likely be used for passive recreation, retention, and detention. y making this open space requirement a element of designing subdivisions, the City would improve its ability to make linkages between subdivisions and to implement the City's Greenways Master Plan. t ill is concerned that if o ten space becomes a r •uirement, developers may wish to builsI on smaller plats so that they will not have to develop as much land. He asked if the requirement would apply to the development 4f small lots or units. Sabine replied that the UDO dm* currently states that if the lots are residential, the open space requirement will apply. Glen D. asked if developers would have the option of paying a fee in lieu of the open space requirement. Sabine replied that currently there is not a provision in the UDO that would allow a fee in lieu of the open space requirement1Iill asked if the open space requirement would require that there be public access to the dedication. Sabine replied that currently there is not a require nent, Glenn S. asked if there would be a standard for the type or quality of land that could be dedicated to the city through the open s•ace requirement. Steve added that there would need to be policy guidelines on acceptance of open space, and further definition of what the open space requirement is intended to do. In summary of the above, in reference to Article 7, Section 7.4a (Open Space Criteria) of the PO, the Board showed concern that there is no provision to allow for those developments with a small number of lots or units. They felt that there should be some kind of thought process to establish a minimum size development for the open space requirement, as well as to provide further definition of an open space. Steve pointed out that the Park Land Dedication Ore inance revisions that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board a•proved on October 9, 2001, had not been incorporated into the 11 draft under Article 8, Section 8.5 (Park Land Dedication). Jane Kee stated that the revisions were approved by the Plan ing and Zoning Commission during their meeting on November 8, 2001, and would be incorporated in the UDO. She added that the UDO Consultant and the City's legal staff have advised that the Park Land Dedication fees be approved by a separate resolution in order to keep them separate from the UDO. That way, if the fees need to be updated, the 110 would not have to be amended. Steve also pointed out that the recent policy information pertaining to the acceptance of detention/retention facilities should also be ii corporated into the UDO. In summary, the Board would like for all of the current elements of Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday,November 13,2001 Page 2 of 7 the revised Park L.nd Dedication Ordinance that the Planning and Zoning Commission passed to be included in the UDO. Steve referred to Article 7, Section 7.3 (Sign Regulations). He noted that city parks were not specifically listed in the regulations,and asked what flag and sign regulations would apply to park development In su ary, the t oard feels that there should be better explanation in the UDO of how these regulations will pertain to park development. The it oard was in conse sus on the above. Kris Lehde will put the Board's corn ents into draft format for the Bout to review prior to t ,e joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission en November 29, 2001. No motion was made on this item. Presentation, discussion, and s ossible action regarding park la d de•i.'cation requirements for the Westfield artdiii©n Steve said that t is item is a follow-up on previous action that the Board took regarding the Westfield Village Subdivision. At the October 9, 2001, Parks and Recreation Advisory Loard meeti g, the Board had approved 4.299 acres as the park land dedication for two(2)tracts of land: the originl Westfield Subdivision, Phases 1 through IV, and a tract of land adjacent and to the south. In addition to the motion, the Board had asked to review the developer's (Randy French) plat for connectivity and accessibility between the two (2) tracts before it was presented to the 131..a ing and Zoning Commission. Pete Vanecek reviewed a checklist that staff had prepared, and also showed a site map that includes the original park land dedication, as well as the 5.9-acre proposed plat between the two tracts of land. Steve asked the Board to keep in mind that Mr. French is not requesting to dedicate the 5.9-acre plat of land as a public park; he is only showing, as the Board had requested, the accessibility between the two(2)tracts of land th.t had been dedicated. After some discussion, Bill made a motion to only approve the access plan as presented, not to recommend that the plat become public park land at any point in the future. The motion was also contingent upon the expectation that there will be sidewalks and .ccessibility as presented in the plan. Don A. seconded the otion. All were i favor, nd the motion passed unanimously. 7. Report,discussit n,and possible antis n co,icerni kg skate p La: Steve stated that this item is a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and City Council Strategic Issue. Recreation Superintendent, Peter Lamo: t,has been given the responsibility of he'lementing this issue. Steve referred to the draft report that was included in the I nerd packets (Skate Park Feasibility Study Draft Report). He added that the report had also been given to the City Manager's Office, as well as to the Risk Management, Legal, Budget, and Fiscal Services Departments for review. The final report will be presented to the City Council on December 20, 2001. Peter Lamont stat-* that the report was based upon res.- rch from national organizations and magazines, and also from a survey conducted within cities in Texas that have municipally owned and operated skate parks. Peter reviewed the report with the Board. The City currently has $162,000 pia ed for the Parks and Recreation Department for the construction of a skating facility. These funds are to be raised by issuing certificates of obligation in fiscal year 2003. The approximate cost to construct a facility would be anywhere from $279,400(for a 15,000 SF facility)to $357,500 (for a 20,000 SF facility). Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday,November 13,2001 Page 3 of7 Jon T. suggested constructing the park now with the $162,000 budget, and working with the community to build what they want. He added that any additional cost could be a barrier to getting the park constructed. Steve responded that the original $162,000 budget was established for the construction of a roller hockey rink based upon what it cost the City of Bryan to build their facilities. The public hearing that was held on January 30, 2001, revealed that the community was in favor of constructing a skate park, rather than a roller hockey rink. Steve added that the feasibility report recommends funding the additional amount of the project through future capital improvement funds. Glen D. suggested constructing the facility in two (2) phases by using the budgeted$162,000 for the first phase, and expanding the facility using future capital improvement funding for the second phase. He added that a 15,000 sq .re foot facility could be const, cted in the first phase. The cost would include concrete, professional fees, fencing, signage, lighting, and benches. Any remaining fu ds from this phase could be used to purchase equipment. The facility could be constructed in such a manner that additional footage and amenities could be added during the second phase of the project. Glenn Schroeder suggested constructg a 10,00042,000 square foot facility during the first phase, rather than a 15,000 square foot facility. This would mini ize the cost of the concrete, and provide flexibility to purchase more equip e t and/or amenities. Steve pointed out that the $162,000 would not be available until fiscal year 2003 Bill suggested trying to accelerate the project by go' t to the Council and asking for the $162,000 prior to fiscal year 2003. Glenn S. pointed out the fact that the budget for Fiscal Year 2002 had alrealy been approved. To get additional funding ow would require Council to amend the budget. He added that the Board could ask that Council issue certificates of obligation. Glen D. made a motion recom ending constructing the facility in two phases, the first being the construction of a 10,000 SF facility, and using $162,000 issued frocertificates of obligation requested by staff of the City Council, and the second being the construction of an additional 10,000 sq are feet (to total a 20,000 SF facility) using future capital improvement funds. The motion included a recommendation to direct staff to come up with cost alter ates and a ti dine to construct a 10,000 SF, 15,000 SF, a d 20,000 SF facility. Jon T. secondeo, the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Steve stated that the report would be a ended to include the g oard's reco endations, along with feedback from City staff, and would be bro ght back to the Board during their regular meeting on December 11, 2001. Discussion, consideration, and o rrJblla a-opointment if members to the C4 nference Center Advisory Committee: Jon T. made a motion to appoint Glenda Elledge and reappoint Fran Lamb to the Conference Center Advisory Committee. Don Allison seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Park Land Dedication checklist and detention/retention pond criteria: Steve said t .t staff had been directed to develop a checklist that developers would be required to fill out for proposed park land dedication. The checklist would then be distributed to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning a d Zoning Commission prior to their meetings, in order to provide ore information on the dedication being presented. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday,November 13,2001 Page 4 of7 Staff had also been directed to develop criteria for the acceptance of detention/rete tion ponds. The criteria states that detention/retention ponds will not be accepted as part of the required park land dedication, but only in addition to required dedication. This change to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance would require that the detention or retention pond design would have to be approved by City staff and meet the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's policy concerning detention/retention area design. Glen D. made a motion to accept the park land dedication checklist and the detention/retention pond criteria. Don A. seconded the notion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Glen D. recommended t at staff distribute the park land dedication checklist prior to the meetings. That would give the Board time to visit the proposed site if they wished. Steve stated that there are times when the developer may not have the dedication information until right before the meeting. He added that the Planning and Zoning Commission meets twice a month, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board only meets once a month, so at times, it puts a crunch on the developers to get their information submitted. Glen D. recommended that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board move to two meetings a month in order to coordinate with the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting schedule. 10. Discussion, comb eration, and possible action concerning the possibility of putting batting cages and backstops at Bee Creek Park: Steve said that this is a follow-up item. Staff had previously been directed to come p with cost estimates for put-tint batting cages and backstops at Bee Creek Park. Steve referred to a site map of the park. He said that staff has come up with preliminary cost estimates,but have not done an analysis of the site in order to determine specific locations for these amenities. However, one idea would be to put them i the area that is itcat.t between the te nis courts and the parking lot, adjacent to the softball fields. He added that it is important to ensure that the placement of these amenities does not cause problems for park users. Larry Farnsworth asked wh,t funding source would be used for the project. Steve replied that the project is currently not budgeted for. He added that there might be the possibility of researching whether park land dedication funds could be used to purchase the backstops. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made. 11. Discussio 1, consideration, and possible action concer ing City Council Vision State t ents: Steve said that the Department is on schedule with all of the strategic issues that they are responsible for. Vision Statement #3, Strats #4a levelop an Urban Forestry Plan): There was no discussion on this ite > Vision Statement#4(Cultural Arts and Recreational Opportunities): Strategy#1 (Performitg Arts Ce I ter): There was no discussion on this item. > Strat #2(Parks Maintenance Standards): The first quarterly report will be submitted to the Board prior to January 1, 2002. • Strategy #3 Intergenerational Parks): Intergenerational amenities are being incorporated into existing and future capital improvement projects. > Strategy #4 (Comprehensive Parks Planni ): This issue relates to updating the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. The Department has started the initial review Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday,November 13,2001 Page 5 of 7 of the plan, and will try to incorporate different components of the plan for discussion on future agendas. > Strat a #5(Comprehensive Leisure Pro' rams):This issue has two compone ts. 1.) Skate Park Feasibility Study: The findings of this study will be presented to the City Council on December 20, 2001. 2.) Senior Facility Feasibility Study: There is a student oup from Texas A&M University working on this study. They will present their initial findings to the City Council on December 6, 2001. A final report with recommendations will be taken to the Council for consideration in January. > Strategy #6 (Enhance Cultural Opportunities through Existing Art Program): There was no discussifx on this item. • Strat1,4k #7(Connect Greenways):There was no discussion on this item. > Strate,. #8 (Improve Co t munication between Boards): There was no discussion on this item. 12. Consent items: Capital Improveme4t Project Repo it Jon T. asked what the status was on Madeley 'ark. Steve said that there had been a neighborhood meeting held, with re tresentatives from Bryan ant College Station Parks and Recreation Departments in attendance (see attached letter from neighborhood meeting). There is potential t do a joint project with t e City of ryan for access to this park. Gie asked for an update on Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Steve said that the groundbreaking for the Phase I construction of the park and the Veterans Memorial project was held on Hove ,ber 12, 2001. He added that the City Council had directed staff to find alternate funding sources to provide six soccer fields. The contracts have been signed and construction for Phase I will start soon. Glen D. asked what the status is on resurfacing the Jack and Dorothy Miller jogging tract. Steve said that it was suggested that the resurfacing be done with an interlocal agreement between the City of College Station,the College Station Independent School District, and the Parent/Teacher Organization. ® Larry asked what the timeline was for the Board to give their input for the next Capital Improve ent Progr,m. Steve responded that staff had turned in their initial project list that day, and he wasn't sure at what point the City would be soliciting recom endations from the Board. Glen D. asked to see a list of what the Department has submitted at the December meeting. Next meeting date and agenda:There will be a special joint meeting between the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Advisory oard on Thurs I y, Dece, ber 6, 2001, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p. . at the City Hall Council Chambers. The Board recommended that the following items be discussed at the meeting: - Next Capital Improvement Program; - Skate Park; - Board Goals a d Objectives; - Previous topics presented to the City Council(May 10, 2001); The Board's acceptance of the changes to the Pail Land Dedication Ordinance and the Unified Development Ordinance Public Release Draft;and - The status of the strategic issues pertai ing to the Parks and Recreation Department. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday,November 13,2001 Page 6 of 7 Kris will e-mail this information electronically to the Board prior to the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board would be held on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. at the central Park Conference Room. Glen Davis recommended that the following ite be included on the meeting agenda: - Review of the Parks and Recreation Advisory bard Goals and Objectives; and - Consideration of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board moving to two (2) meetings a month. Glen also requested that the Capital Improvement report be moved to the top of future agendas. 13. A s journ: The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday,November 13,2001 Page 7 of 7