HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2001 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,December 11,2001
Parks and Recreation Conference Room
1000 Krenek Tap Road
College Station, Texas 77840
7:00 pm.
Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Peter
Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Kris Lehde, Staff Assistant.
Board Members Present: Bill Davis; Don Allison; Glen Davis; Larry Farnsworth; Glenn Schroeder;
Jon Turton.
Board Members Absent: John Nichols, Chair; Laura Wood(Alternate).
Guests: Steve Arden, local developer.
L Call to order: Bill Davis made a motion to appoint Glenn Schroeder as Chair of the meeting.
Glen Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Glenn S.
called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Hear visitors: There were no visitors present at the meeting.
3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: Glen D. made a motion to
accept the absences of John Nichols and Laura Wood as excused. Bill D. seconded the motion. All
were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
4. Approval of minutes from regular meeting of November 13,2001: Don Allison made a motion to
approve the minutes from November 13, 2001. Larry Farnsworth seconded the motion. All were in
favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
5. Consent items:
Capital Improvement Project Report: The Capital Improvement Project Report was
included in the Board packets. Eric Ploeger asked if the Board had any questions on existing
projects.
• Glen D. asked for a status report on Veterans Park and Athletic Complex(VPAC). Eric
said that the contractor is proceeding with Phase I of the project.
• Bill D. has concerns about traffic safety during large events at VPAC, and feels that
there should be a right turn lane into the park from Highway 60. Steve responded that
the City Council is aware of the traffic problem and has been looking into funding
sources to widen Highway 60 from Carter Creek to Highway 158.
• Glen D. asked for a status report on Gabbard Park. Eric said that the playground
replacement is complete. There will also be lighting improvements, and walks and trees
will be installed. He added that the Gabbard, Brison, and Merry Oaks Park
improvements were bid together. The original bid was over budget, so Staff reconfigured
the project. The project will go back to bid in late December or early January and will
then be brought to the Council for consideration during the second week of February.
• Glen D. asked about the four projects that are listed "on hold" (Lincoln Center
Expansion, Oaks Park Bridge, Shennendoah Park, and the Thomas Pool Shade Cover).
- Lincoln Center Expansion: Eric said that there had been a problem with the
funding. The problem has since been straightened out, and should be out to bid
during the first week of January.
- Oaks Park Bridge: There was also a funding problem with this project. The
problem has since been straightened out, the contract is being signed, and the
Department is moving forward with the project.
- Shennendoah Park: Eric said that this project would probably be taken off of the
project list. Currently, there are no streets to the park. He does not feel that there
would be a point to building a park without the proper access to it. Glen D. asked
if there were funds budgeted for the project. Eric responded that the funding
source would be park land dedication funds in that zone, and that those funds
would not go away.
- Thomas Pool Shade Cover: Eric said that there are funds budgeted in the Fiscal
Year 2002 operating budget to renovate Thomas Pool. The project will start with
the removal of the baby pool, which hasn't been used in five years. A contract for
design work will be taken to the City Council for consideration during the first
meeting in September, and the project will start after the completion of the
swimming season next year. The Department will hold off on doing the shade
cover until all of these renovations are complete.
• Eric stated that the Department has met with the City of Bryan Parks and Recreation
Department in order to come up with a design proposal for Madeley Park. There was a
meeting with the Beverly Estates Homeowner's Association, and a subcommittee has
been formed to work on the project. There will also be a meeting with the Bryan Parks
and Recreation Board to discuss the concept, and a public hearing will be held after that.
The intent is to have the park under construction by this spring. Eric added that the park
would need to be dedicated by August 2002.
Steve said that a draft list of potential future bond projects had been sent to the Board. He
emphasized that the list was a draft only, and that the projects had not been prioritized. Glen D.
asked if Staff had come up with cost estimates for the projects. Steve responded that Staff had
done preliminary cost estimates,but that nothing had been fully scoped for cost yet.
Glenn S. asked the Board to review the list and let Staff know if there were any projects that they
would like added. Jon Turton asked if there should be consideration of park development around
the new high school.
Next meeting date and agenda: The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,
January 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., at the Central Park Conference Room.
6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a subdivision sign for Edelweiss
Gartens: Steve said that the actual park site was dedicated to the City in the spring. The issue
during the meeting would be to consider the location for a proposed sign for the subdivision.
Steve Arden pointed to a site map of the development and handed out the proposed design of the
sign. The proposed sign would be located at the intersection of Hartford and Victoria. It would
be landscaped with roses and jasmine and have a sidewalk around it. If the Board approves the
sign, then the subdivision's homeowner's association would take back possession of a small piece
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,December 11,2001
Page 2 of 7
of land where the sign would be placed, that had been part of the original dedication to the City.
Eric added that he had met with Mr. Arden and that they did not see a problem with the sign.
Eric also discussed the concept with the City's Development Services Department and learned
that the final plat for the subdivision had not been completed. If the Board approves the sign, the
plat could be amended to trim out that small portion of land from the dedication so that it would
not be the City's responsibility to maintain it. Steve Beachy added that the original park land
dedication had been above the required acreage.
Glen D. asked were the City's park sign would be located if the subdivision sign were approved.
Eric responded that the name of the park had not been determined, but there were other places
around the park that the sign could be placed. Glen suggested adding the park name to the
proposed subdivision sign (i.e. Edelweiss Gartens and Park). Mr. Arden responded that the City
already has an Edelweiss Park, and questioned whether the Board would want to use the same
name for the other park. Glenn S. said that putting the park name on the same sign could be
confusing; it may be beneficial to come up with another name for the park. Bill D. added that he
wouldn't want there to be any kind of misconception of whose responsibility it would be to
maintain the sign.
Pete Vanecek asked Mr. Arden if he thought that the sign would be appealing for children to
climb on. Mr. Arden responded that the landscaping around it should deter children from
climbing on it. He added and that there would be no sidewalks to the sign, and that any climbing
parts would be three feet (3') off the ground. Eric said that the sign would also be in a prominent
location with good visibility. Steve added that when the park is developed, the Board may be
able to incorporate the same design features for the park sign that the subdivision sign has.
Don A. asked if the height of the sign would be unusual for the surrounding area. Steve
responded that the height would not be too unusual, and referenced the signs for the Foxfire,
Woodcreek, and Castlegate Subdivisions.
Don made a motion to approve the proposed sign for the Edelweiss Gartens Subdivision. Bill
seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
7. Discussion, consideration, and possible ction concerning a proposed park land dedication
for Holleman Village(Park Zone 7): Eric said that the proposed site for a potential development
is bordered by George Bush Drive, FM 2818, and Wellborn Road, and is across the street from
Woodway Park (refer to project review sheet). In this case, the developer is recommending the
dedication of the fee in lieu of land, and Staff is in favor of the recommendation.
Glen D. asked how much money the City has in Park Zone 7. Eric responded that he would have
to research the actual amount, but most of the money has already been dedicated to the
development of Woodway Park.
Glen D. made a motion to accept the dedication of the fee in lieu of land for Holleman Village.
Bill seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
8. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a proposed park land dedication
for Deacon Condominiums (Park Zone 5): Eric stated that this item is similar to item #7. The
potential development is located at Wellborn Road and Deacon. Zone 5 contains Brothers Pond,
Steeplechase, Georgie K. Fitch, and Edelweiss Parks (refer to project review sheet). The
developer is also recommending the dedication of the fee in lieu of land, and Staff is in favor of
the recommendation due to the fact that there is access to other parks in that zone.
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,December 11,2001
Page 3 of 7
Bill made a motion to accept the dedication of the fee in lieu of land for Deacon Condominiums.
Don seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
9. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning skate parks (City Council Vision
Statement #4, Strategy #5.b): This item is a follow-up from the November 13, 2001, meeting.
Recreation Superintendent Peter Lamont went over the updated draft report and a PowerPoint
presentation that would be presented to the City Council on December 20, 2001 (refer to updated
draft report and PowerPoint presentation). He stated that the only changes that had been made
to the report are in the Financial Impact Section that requests Certificates of Obligation for
$162,000 be issued in the Fiscal Year 2003 budget to start construction of the facility, and
recommends that the park be constructed in phases, and the Liability Section that recommends
that the operation of the facility be unsupervised with recommended rules posted at the entry of
the park in accordance with Texas Municipal League's Guidelines for Operation, and State law
changes that indemnify the City from liability.
Steve added that he had since discussed the report with the City Manager, Finance Director, and
Budget Manager. Instead of requesting the issuance of Certificates of Obligation in the Fiscal
Year 2003 budget, they are recommending that the first phase be done through unappropriated
funding, which could initiate a budget amendment in Fiscal Year 2002. The remaining phases of
the development could then be funded through the Capital Improvement Program process.
Bill asked what the cost would be to install an emergency phone. He feels that if the facility is to
be unsupervised, an emergency phone should be at the facility, or the location of nearby phones
should be posted on the rules. Steve said that the cost had not been included in the estimates and
would have to be researched.
Glen D. feels that Staff should be comfortable with the cost estimates for the project to avoid the
project cost exceeding the bid. Eric responded that the Department would be careful to try to
meet the stated dollar amount and to provide alternates to take to the City Council before the
project was bid out.
Jon T. made a motion to approve the draft report in order to continue the process of constructing a
skate park. Larry seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning proposed developer incentives
(City Council Vision Statement#4, Strategy #4.a): Steve said that the purpose of this item is to
brief the Board on the draft proposal, and that there would be no action required from the Board
at the meeting. This item is a City Council Strategic Issue, and the intent is to create incentives
for developers to provide adequate parks that are the focal point within neighborhoods (refer to
draft of Proposed Developer Incentives).
Steve said that there would be two key requirements to ensure that a future park would be a focal
point for the neighborhood: Visibility and Accessibility. To maximize the visibility and
accessibility for a neighborhood park, the street frontage must also be maximized. The Park Land
Dedication Ordinance addresses this issue in section 10-F.2(d). "It is desirable that a minimum
offifty percent (50%) of the perimeter of a park should abut a public street. "
In coming up with the concept for developer incentives, Staff tried to figure out a system that
would have some of the common components that developers currently deal with. The
recommended process for awarding the incentive will be administered through "oversize
participation,"which is commonly used in the construction of streets and utilities. An example of
"oversize participation" would be if a twenty-eight foot (28') street is required, but the City is in
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,December 11,2001
Page 4 of 7
need of a larger street. Then a method could be used in which the City could participate in the
cost of adding additional width to the street. Steve added that the proposed incentive would apply
where the park site meets the requirements that are stated in the Park Land Dedication Ordinance:
the site should be at least five (5) acres in size, and at least fifty percent (50%) of those dwelling
units on streets abutting the park are oriented towards the park in order to make the park the focal
point of the neighborhood.
Steve B. said that there is $200,000 in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget to start an incentive program.
Glenn S. feels that the way that the proposal is structured could turn out to be a costly endeavor
for the City. Steve B. responded that the incentives would be subject to available funding.
Mr. Arden said that often there are components like neighborhood collectors that would make it
difficult to meet the Park Land Dedication clause of fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units
abutting the park. He suggested having a local engineer such as Mike McClure look at the
proposal. Mr. Arden suggested that the developer incentives be included as part of the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO). Steve said that had been discussed, but nothing has been
determined. Steve suggested creating a subcommittee of the Board and the local development
community to work on the concept of including the incentives in the UDO. He added that the
UDO is scheduled to go to the City Council in February, so a meeting would have to be set up
soon. Don and Bill volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. The topic of developer incentives
will be placed on the February Board agenda for discussion.
11. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Phase I development of Lick
Creek Park: Eric said that the purpose of this item is to discuss possible priorities for the initial
phase of the construction of Lick Creek Park. He referred to the master plan for the park that was
approved prior to the 1998 Bond Election. During that election, there was an item on the bond
issue to fund half of the amount that was in the budget developed for the master plan. The
anticipation was that the City would receive a matching grant for the other half from the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). The Department applied for the grant, but did not
receive the funding. The Department did apply for, and receive, a trails grant through TPWD.
The grant is in the amount of $80,000, and the City's local match would be in the amount of
$46,265 for a total amount of$126,265 available for trails. Eric added that the trails grant could
also be used for the overall project.
Eric said that the money that was authorized in the 1998 Bond Election is now available to spend
this Fiscal Year and that the Department needs to get started on the project. There is
approximately$384,272 available for construction, which includes the money for trails. Eric feels
that the actual amount may be a little less than this due to administrative costs and the cost of the
trails project.
Eric said that the Department has taken the majority of the features that are listed in the master
plan, prioritized them, and given them cost estimates. Eric went over the priority list with the
Board (refer to priority list).
Glen D. asked what the possibility would be of applying for more grants. Eric said that he feels
that there would be the possibility of applying for another trails grant, but that the City should
wait until the current trails project is complete. He added that it would be more difficult to
receive the larger TPWD grants because of the high competition and the rating system.
Bill made a motion to approve the priority list for the initial phase of construction of Lick Creek
Park with the amendment that the outdoor classroom item be offered to either or both Texas
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,December 11,2001
Page 5 of 7
A&M University and the School District as an opportunity for them to participate in the project.
Don seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
12. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the draft Needs Assessment Study
for Veterans Park and Athletic Complex (City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy #4.b):
Steve said that Peter Lamont has been working on a needs assessment study for VPAC (refer to
draft Needs Assessment). The scope of the study is to determine the needs for the Phase II
development of the park, specifically the needs of soccer and softball. In a recent discussion,
Steve said that Chairman John Nichols had requested that Staff look into other needs within the
park such as pavilions and playgrounds.
Peter Lamont said the Department has contacted the College Station Soccer Club and the Brazos
Valley Soccer Association in an attempt to obtain both historical participation data and any future
projections that they may have. Currently, the Department has not received all of the information
they had requested, so they are researching history and are working with the information that has
been provided to them.
Peter discussed the draft report. He said that at this time, the Department is recommending that
the first priority for the Phase II development of the park be the completion of the five-field adult
softball complex. Additionally, by moving the adult softball program to VPAC, the Department
would be able to relocate Girls Fastpitch, Co-Recreational, and youth softball to Central Park. He
added that projected youth soccer field needs through 2010 are 23 fields. This will be met if the
current fields and the addition of the six soccer fields at VPAC are subdivided.
Steve reminded the Board that the report was in draft format only. Glen D. feels that the Central
Park fields should be converted to youth fields after the Phase I development of VPAC. He
suggested maintaining the softball fields at Bee Creek Park for any overflow, and Co-
Recreational softball. He also suggested that the Pony League could possibly play at the new
Community Park once it is developed.
Jon T. feels that the report should recognize other parts of the community(i.e. soccer), to assist in
getting the bond issue passed. Glen D. feels that the needs assessment should be followed.
Steve said that more research will need to be conducted to determine the most efficient use of the
existing facilities. Larry suggested that there be more discussion in the report concerning the
hosting of tournaments. Glenn S. stated that these facilities should not be designed specifically to
host tournaments. Glen D. agreed and said that the facilities should compliment the league
programs. Steve added that the purpose of building the facilities is for the citizens to be able to
use them—being able to host a tournament brings added value.
Bill suggested overlaying graphics of the existing facilities for visual clarity.
This item was for discussion only, and no motion was made.
13. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board's Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives: Glen D. asked for this to be a
standing item under the consent agenda. He feels that there should be a status or timeline
associated with the goals in order to accomplish them. He added that work should start on the
Board goal to update the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. Steve said that the
Department is working on updating the Departmental Strategic Plan, which ties into the
Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan and supports the City Council Strategic Plan. The
Department Strategic Plan will be presented to the Board in February. Steve added that another
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,December 11,2001
Page 6 of 7
Board goal is to review quarterly reports on park maintenance standards and develop
recommendations regarding levels of service. That report will be brought to the Board in
January. Steve said that the Department also has goals that support the City Council Strategic
Issues.
This item was for discussion only, and no motion was made.
14. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning whether the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board should conduct two (2) meetings a month: Jon T. does not feel that the Board
should meet twice a month. He feels that Boards should be more efficient during their meetings
in order to get through the agenda, and should not be in the business of approving every aspect of
the Department. Glen D. feels that the Board wouldn't be doing its judiciary duty if it were to
rush through the agenda without informed discussion. Glenn S. feels that the Capital
Improvement Project report is more of an informational report that the Board should look at, but
feels that it is primarily a Staff issue and does not really warrant discussion during the meeting.
He does feel that more emphasis should be placed on the Board's Goals and Objectives.
Steve suggested having a workshop meeting prior to the regular meetings in order to discuss
goals and objectives and Council Strategic Issues. Glenn S. suggested establishing a timeline for
the agenda items.
After some discussion, the Board came to the consensus that there would be a workshop meeting
starting at 6:00 p.m. prior to the regular meetings to discuss the Board's Goals and Objectives, the
Capital Improvement Project Report, and the City Council Strategic Issues.
This item was for discussion only, and no motion was made.
15. Adjourn: Glenn S. made a motion to adjourn. Don seconded. All were in favor, and the
meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Parks&Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday,December 11,2001
Page 7 of 7