Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/2000 - Joint Minutes - Parks Board MINUTES ii ni ng and Zoning Co --,:-,-17ssion/Parks & Recreation Board JOINT WORKSHOP CITY OF COLLEGi STATION, TEXAS July 20, 2000 5:00 PNI. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Coniriussioners Floyd, H irris, Happ, W en, and COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chaixmn Mooney and Commissioner Horlen. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Pia,,-ers Jiminerson, U4uwe, and Hitchcock, irector of Development Services Callaway, Development Services Csordinator Ruiz, Assistant Development Services Coordinator George, City Planner Kee, Neighborhood Services Senior Planner Battle, Neighborhood Services Intern Flanery, Tr,(rispottation Planner Hard, Assistant City Attorney Ladd, and Staff Assistant Hazlett PARKS AND RECREATION TOARD Director Steve Iiii,eachy, toard Members BIU Davis, Glenn MEMBERS AND STAFF PRESENT: Davis, Turton,Nichols, Schroeoer, and Wood. L Discussion and possible actions of criteria for future neighborhood park loctisns Mr. Steve Beachy, Director, *'-arks and Recreation,. City of College Station opened the meeting on ehUi of the Parks and Recreation Department and Parks t oard Members and introduced Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services. Mr. Beachy explained that today's meeting was an initial step in attempting to a4dress some of the strateic issues outlined during the June retreat of the City Council. He referred to the handout made available charting out eight vision statements, thin -two strategies, and seventy-five action plans established by the City Council and has now directed staff to begin the process of implementation. Mr. Beachy pointed out that iii y of the issues are related to the sphere of authority of the PLinning and Zoning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Board as well as members 4f both staffs. Jim Callaway, Director, Develop ient Set ices said three concepts were indicated by the City Co ed ctu n g their retreat as pliority issues. The first being advanced pia s for parks well ahead of the development of an area;the second being parkland criteria;and third, establishing parks as a focal point for an area. He explained that while the code review and revision process is currently uncle; -ay, any comments with respect to 4_,-y Parks and Recreation toard or other issues would be appreciated and forwarded to the consultants. P&Z Joint Workshop Minutes July 20, 2000 Page 1 of 5 Mr. John Crompton said unless there is advance plannit-,g for a park in an area, the criteria could not be established. He explained that in the past, the park pl nn g came well after the development in an area leaving the city to use whatever pieces .f land that is left undeveloped to establish a parkland area. He suggested that the city .purchase parkland locations in areas prior to the developers' purchases. Mr. John Nichols said that develo.ers should submit development pk for an area to include parkland areas with regarai to schools, traffic, etc. M.. Crompton stated that live acres is too s[e,,,'11 for neighierhood parks. He said with a 15-acre park site the opportunity for more pro-active pla!mmg is [-e,ide possible. Mrtal'eachy pointed out that Tho,e4is Perk is a 16-acre park. Mr. Gle[,[1 Davis said *me of the struggles for the parks board when there is a land dedication is that the piece of land typically dedicated as park land is the least [iesirable, i.e. dra:[4ge ditch, flood etc. He ex.lained that the Parks ? oard attempts to manage the process by increasing the [-flier of acres, understanding that this has an economic Tact on the develoeer. Mr. Zeachy said another issue that is !frequently brought up is how the street lay[uts ailtëct the parks an(..f the accessibility to them. Commissioner Floyd asked the Parks and Recreation [Ioard to chart out the identified •bstacles preventing them from doing the things they would like to do in regards to city parks and encouraged the board members to communicate to the Planning and Zoning Co',-e[H'ssion the way in which they could help to eiiminite the obstacles. Commissioner Wee-en said if the land criteria were accepted that the develo.ers would have an idea of the cost and wo [ki[have a better idea of what the!' requirements would be. Mr. !ill Davis said the developer has a choice of either dedicating land or money when developing an area. He explained that if the developer chooses to give money instead of land, there is no possibility of a INrk located for the area. John Crompton said he would like the City Council to hire consultants to purchase four 15-acre sites and two 10e-acre sites for neighborhood nd co:em,,,,ely parks. He stated that when the developers came to begin building, they would build around the park sites as the focus for the development. Mr. Davis said that knowing where the growth of the city is currently and where it will be in the future should give the city the opportunity to purchase HId obtain land easily for future parkL2 sites. Conm issioner Warren said she believed this strategy would equalize the accessibility to parks across the entire city, whether the neighborhood consists of large or small lots and regardless of where you rive, and it would equalize the shared taxpayer's paymei,ts as well. Mr. Beachy said a large subdivision would have a better chance and availability for park sites. MZ Joint Workshop Minutes July 20, 2000 rage 2 of 5 Jn Callaway stated that this would always be a problem if we continue to rely solely on the dedication of land or money as the land develops. Commissioner Warren said the Plaiuihig and Zoning Connuission should look into different corridors and overlays s a logical extension in hying to detert e the areas and land for parks. Jim Callaway said it was possible to do that and knowing the type, location, size, and other factors the Parks Board non n.11y considers when deten iinig if a specific tract of land is suitable for a parkktnd site, would be helpful. Beachy reiterated the fact that if the parkland site was obtained prior to the development of the area,the reaction by the developers regarding all the infrastructure issues directly relates back to the vision statements developed by the City Come* . He po* ted out the area SUIT unding Thor ras Park as an example of having done that and how the homeowners are consistently upgrading their homes and lots. Jim Callaway sail a significant difference in the v.lue; tenure, mintenrnce, and condition of the homes in and around Tho n n.rs Park are evident. Mr. Crompton said there is substantial evidence to support the fact that the homeowners in the Thor u0rs Park area, though they are spending money on the upkeep of their home sites, will actually receive a return by way of dedication payments from developers nd from the increase in eroperty values. Co m n lissioner Warren asked Mr. Callaway if the consultants revealed any approaches or policies that would address this concern. Jin 1 Ca .way explained that the focus of the consultants currently involves the evaluation of the cnrrent city codes and ordirrr0n ces, b t s id that additional strategies relating to acq isitions, financial develo*merits, and other development incentives is something the city would have to rely on the consultants for. Mr. Crompton explained that the lani dedication currently extends only to neighborhood parks, but said a ther cities, the land dedication included community parks as well. He explained that this consideration should be corning up for renewal in 2002. Mr. Nichols asked how the parkland criteria would be estabflrhed, He asked if there were bencNrrirrk city comparisons or other literature used to deterri inc the criteria. Mr. Beachy explained that this was included in the Parks Ioard action plan strategies. Mr. Nichols expressed a concern regardingenerational parks an1 the expansion of the list of passive activities. Mr. Beachy said there was not a list at this time but that the process was underrray of detern ininga list of various activities that could be considered for the local neighborhoods while taking into consideration the age group of the park users in each particul park' d area. P&Z Joint Workshop Minutes July 20, 2000 Page 3 of 5 Gle Davis wanted to know the P&Z role T the park functions. Jim Callaway explained that the PlinTng & Zonig Conrnission rely on the Parks Board when it comes to park issues. He said questions relating to parks And park sightings beg:H before the development proposals get to the Plaell ;-:g & Zon g Commission by forwarding questions and issues to the Parks Board. Jane Kee said the lit ng 41d ZO ;.1g Con imIssion has concern about Parks Board Issues and a well-defined role in the ordinance regarding parks. Mr. Nichols asked for verification in the itrocess of the Parks Board recoremendations to the is ng and Zo rig Co sion He asked if a developer could take his case to the and Zo g Col-11--i- ssion regarding any Parks Ba.ird issues. Jane Kee said a developer could present a case involving r'arks Board issues to the Plawi g and Zo g Con-) 111:--sion. She also said that the Plait ig and Zo i g Coln nITssion's decision on Parks Board issues that are different than the recoliiicenclation made by the Parks Board, can be done only with vote of more ti in a simple majority. Mr. rill Davis said he believes an overlay requirement is needed for an area so developers are working towards a goal. For sr iller developments, since there is a !-11111T mum requirement of only 1- acre fir park-lend dedication, it's (Aim& to envision the parldied site being developed unless the land is purchased for the park land site prior to the reneincler of the develorment in the area. Commissioner Floyd agreed with Mr. Davis. He pointed out situations where developers have presented plans to the Plating and Zipli';i1g Co,emission for a sit-411 portion of a larger tract of land rider corrimon ownership and the reen47aLg portions of the tract either never developed or not developed for a long period of f me. Mr. Nichols asked if there was an inventory of undevelopei land in the EMT areas. Mr. Glenn Davis asked if the City Council was willing to allocate money for the Parks loard to purchase land for parkland sites. Mr. Crompton stated that for four 15-acre parks, the estimated cost would be $600,000 and $2,600,000 for two 100-acre parks. He explained that this is not a lot of money considering the values and the way of thin king of our community in regards to greenways, etc. He feels that the City would have full co )nti; !i'cty support in purchasing and setting aside land for parkland sites. Mr. 1eachy wanted to know if there was a mechanism in place to buy land options that would allow the landcy„,,ner to rta® use of the 1m id in itil the city is ready to develop the area designated for parks. Jane Kee explained that the larger tracts present a lesser problem because, whether the tract of land has one or more co,,L,i,ers, in either case, the city refers to the n Aer development plan. Mr. Callaway said problee in are lesser in new developments as well. He pointed out that Pebble Creek is actually an older development with the appearance of a new one. Mr. Callaway explained '&Z Joint Workshop Minutes July 20, 2000 Page 4 of 5 that the parkland issues were dealt nth under a totally different set of regulations in ten of dedication and b c. ter pla g requirements. Con ssioner Warren expressed a concern regarding the review of predeveloprnent proposals by the Parks Board about the demographics and uses of the neighborhood parks. Mr. Gle Davis said that the Parks Board does try to look at the area and the possible uses of the park by the people in the area and detennues to create a park site that is accessible to all with facilities that would meet the needs. Mr. Nichols also expressed a desire to meet the recreational needs of the area within the park land site. Mr. Crompton expressea a concern regarding the lack of action by the City on the bond issue for the greenways© Jim Callaway acknowledged the concern of Mr. Turton and members of the Parks .oard. Mr. Beachy reiterated the issues that were mentioned or discussed. Encourage the acq isition of Parkland advance development Study the size of neighborhood parks for possible increase Define obstacles Issue regarding some type of dedication requirements for community parks Study the st dards for neigha•rhood parks for possible upgrade .t is the inventory of undeveloped land in the ETU by size ud tracts Jane Kee added that a need to investigate, from a legal standpoint, other points in the development process where the dedication could be gained other than at the final plat stage. The meeting adjourned at 6:25 nm. APPROVED: Chair , Karl Mooney ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett 1:)&Z Joint Workshop Minutes July 20, 2000 Page 5 of 5