Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/30/2003 - Joint Minutes - Parks Board : \.e¢tt,.,t,/3 MINUTES ° Joint Meeting * Planning and Zoning Como fission Parks and Recreation Advisory Board College Station Thursday, October 30, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future The EXIT Teen Center 1520 Rock Prairie Road College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Shafer, Commissioners White, Davis and Reynolds. COMMISSI•NERS ABSENT; Commissioners Hall, Trapani and Williams. PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY OAL D MEMBE1•S ;''RESENT: Chairman Nichols, Board Members Schroeder, Warner, Allison, Livingston, Farnsworth and Erwin. PA KS RECREATION ADVISORY BOA' IF MEM Aa SENT: Glen Davis. PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF PRESENT: Parks and Recreation Director Beachy and Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Ploeger. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STS-FF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Transportation Planner Fogle, Senior Planner Battle, Staff Planners Fletcher and Prochazka, Development Manager Ruiz, Development Services Director Templin, Graduate Civil Engineer Thompson and Staff Assistant Hazlett. OTHER CITY STAFF PRESENT: Greenways Program Manager Downs, Diane Strom, Public Works Intern (Greenways), and Assistant City Attorney Nemcik. CITY COUNCIL ME 'BE 'S PRESENT: Anne Hazen. VISITOi S: Mark Barker, Jennifer Lorenz (Executive Director, Legacy Land Trust), Carolyn Vogle (Texas Parks and Wildlife), Charles Ellison (PC), and members of the Brazos Greenways Council Jennifer Nations and Sherry Ellison. 1. Cali to order. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Chairman John Nichols and Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Scott Shafer called the meeting to order at 5:54 p.m. 2. Pardon possible action concerning requests for absences of members from meeting. Advisory Board member Farnsworth motioned to approve the absences of Advisory Board members. Advisory Board member Warner seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the Commission absences. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion, which carried 4-0. w. Hear visitors,. Introductions were made around the room. P2v.Z Minutes Joint Workshop Page 1 of 7 Chairman Shafer opened the Hear Visitors portion of the meeting. Because no one Spoke, he closed the public hearing. 4. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning Conservation Easements. Carolyn Vogle, a representative of the Department of Texas Parks and Wildlife, explained that a conservation easement is land that is deed restricted, has tax consequences and is restricted of all or some future development. She added that it is property owned by a city or county government or a charitable organization through negotiations of a purchasing organization with a landowner. Once the , agreement of purchase is reached a hold is placed on the design of the land and agreements on the land for the future are then determined. Thereafter, each subsequent landowner is bound to the agreement. Ms. Vogle pointed out the three types of tax benefits for land that is designated as a conservation easement: (1) Property Tax Benefit, (2) Wildlife/Agricultural Income Tax Benefit, and (3) Inheritance Benefit. In closing, Ms. Vogle stated that the responsibility of the land trust company is to monitor and enforce the land easement agreement, making annual visits to the site to ensure that the land remains as preserved. Jennifer Lorenz, Executive Director, Legacy Land Trust, stated that the 8 year old organization has 10 conservation easement, 7 of which are mitigation projects, and are spread out over a number of counties around Houston. She distributed a brochure of the Montgomery County Preserve that is one of the first county land easements in the country. The land trust company also assists the county with the park development by putting in and maintaining trails. In addition, butterfly counts, bird counts and other similar ecological interests will be part of the New Texas Parks and Wildlife Trail that is partly owned by The Woodlands. The Woodlands also made \ � four land swaps for wetland mitigation for property that the county wanted to preserve. Ms. Lorenz reported that The Village of Wimberly is the first municipality that has a conservation easement. She reiterated that a conservation easement is land that can never be developed but provides trails and access to the area 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Ms. Lorenze gave a diagram of purchase development rights and explained that the property can change hands but that the easement remains on the land. Additional information regarding supplemental environmental projects, which allows you to do strategic conservation, was discussed. There is no minimum size for conservation easements and you may add property to the size of the easement through amendments. Further discussion ensued regarding other ways conservation easements have been used. Mark Barker, Legacy Land Trust, stated that the City of Brazos Bend is working with landowners regarding a park that houses an observatory. The City of Houston is building adjacent to the park. Light pollution from the observatory is an issue they are trying to address by working with the landowners to build a buffer through a conservation easement. Ms. Lorenz added that Texas Parks and Wildlife offers great grants and bonus points for doing an easement. She told of the City of Cleveland's canoeing and launch site � ) that has been provided through a conservation easement. P&Z Minutes Joint Workshop Page 2 of 7 Commissioner Davis asked how an easement is established, whether by the landowner or the land trust company and who retains the title? Also, is there a tax benefit to the owner and how do we facilitate this for a fair market value or tax break? Ms. Lorenz advised obtaining the services of an appraiser that is familiar with conservation easements. Chairman Nichols asked how much value a landowner would get out of a floodplain area that isn't developable. City Planner Kee interjected that under the City's current drainage ordinance; a landowner can reclaim floodplain if it is properly engineered. Parks and Recreation Director Beachy asked if there was anything that would speak to lessen the liability of the owner, i.e., and trails. Ms. Lorenze stated that having a conservation easement on private land would increase the liability. Therefore, the trust company tries to have the landowner give ownership over to a municipality or county. However, we do work with landowners to open the area for birding and butterfly observation, native plant society, etc. Most landowners will not open up their property for trails, and it may be possible to have them give some property for connected easements that are donated to the municipality and receive a tax deduction for doing so. Mr. Beachy pointed out that the City has approximately 11 acres in Veteran's Park designated as a conservation easement as well as the Arboretum, off Southwest Parkway which is also a conservation easement Chairman Nichols suggested that since there is a demand in Texas for conservation easements, resources should be explored and our efforts should be concentrated on the areas of priority. Chairman Shafer concurred. Ms. Lorenz stated that the Brazos Valley Council of Governments is exploring the possibility of help in funding acquisition processing with TxDOT. It was pointed out that by using Trusts, the land would be saved from becoming fragmented. Ms. Lorenz encouraged City Staff to look closely at their 2003 anal photos and determine the important areas in and around Brazos County, Grimes County and Robertson County. It would be beneficial to speak simultaneously with 4-5 landowners about conservation easements. On behalf of the City of College Station, Council Member Anne Hazen, presented Carolyn Vog|e, Mark Barker and Jennifer Lorenz a gift of appreciation for their informative presentation. 5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the current status of Greenways. Greenways Program Manager Judy Downs made the presentation. She opened her remarks by referring to the maps in the back of her report, which she distributed to those present. She presented an update of the Greenways Program that included properties that have either been acquired or dedicated to date as vved| as the P&2 Minutes Joint Workshop Page 3 of 7 program budget. She followed with an explanation of the proposed Greenways Conservation Master Plan Update which she, Scott Shafer, Nanette Manhart and Jane ,^- Kee had begun. Ms. Downs covered each section of the program update. She reported that a meeting is scheduled for November 10, 2003 to receive public input regarding the Update. She also recommended changing the title from The Greenways Plan to the Conservation Plan. Ms. Downs briefly explained the inception of the Greenways Plan as a flood control program, adding that sometimes streams have been disturbed and the habitat value is not known. Connectivity issues have been addressed through other plans but still, other issues remain. It is important that land is acquired as it becomes available. Operations and maintenance has not been addressed and is an issue with both the Public Works and the Parks and Recreation Departments. If the City takes the Army's Conservation areas, maintenance will be needed. This project is proposed for mitigation. Ms. Downs also pointed out the status of the implementation program and the accomplishments thus far. There was some discussion about determining if bond money can be used for the ETJ. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that it would depend on how the bonth share is written. Further discussion ensued regarding rezoning cases and properties that are proposed at the time of the rezoning for greenway space but are actually never dedicated. Ms. Downs suggested that areas specified as greenway should remain as A-0 Agricultural Open zoning districts. When the final plat is submitted to the Commission, the public and/Or private greenway should be depicted on the plat at that time. To accomplish this, Ms. Kee stated that the City Council would need to approve the change in the platting language, which is being considered at the City Council meeting on November 13, 2003. Ms. Downs reported that the City has received 16 acres of greenway and 40 acres for parks in greenways. Chairman Nichols interjected that several times plans have been reviewed and the developer didn't have usable land for the Parks Board. Further, the fact that land was accepted doesn't mean the land needed was obtained. He questioned the Parks Board's options in regards to accepting fees in lieu of land dedication and if the developer has the option to choose to pay the fee rather than dedicate land. Ms. Kee stated that the Parks Board, and not the developer, decides to accept money in lieu of land dedication. Mr. Beachy added that parks may have some greenway but that not all greenways are parks. Ms. Downs pointed out that some connectivity is being created in some areas but many people do not want their greenway areas open to the public. Parks Board Member Warner added that in some instances where the Parks Board voted to accept land thinking that connectivity would result, proved to be an assumption, as the connectivity did not come to fruition. Ms. Downs encouraged the Parks Board Co consider the whole and not one particular piece of property when mapping out connectivity. Chairman Shafer asked if the floodwater impact was known. Ms. Downs stated that the City is negotiating with some developers regarding storm water needs. She added that velocity control must be conducted. She pointed out that more water is being held in gn2enway5than before a development begins. This will kill the trees and could take as much as 50-100 years for the habitat to correct itself. P&Z Minutes 3oint Workshop Page 4 of 7 Mr. Beachy added that there are no requirements explaining how a greenway should look. 6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning the update of the Greenways Master Plan (Judy Downs, Greenways Coordinator). This item was discussed in combination with Agenda Item No. 5, preceding. 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning Pedestrian Access policies and criteria (Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner). Transportation Planner Fogle presented a policy guideline for pedestrian access ways. He explained that the Commission can require a pedestrian access way, but that this policy will give them a better guideline on where the access ways should be placed and how often they should be provided. He requested further direction from the boards to continue and complete his research. Mr. Fogle gave three examples of pedestrian access way locations: • Between the bulbs of two cul-de-sacs ▪ At mid-block locations between long blocks • At mid-block locations or dead end streets that abut a public land use or a public street Commissioner White asked if the emergency access way between Woodland Hills Subdivision and the new subdivision being developed to the east would be an example of a pedestrian access way. Mr. Fogle responded that this is an example, but it is oversized since it must also accommodate fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. Mr. Beachy interjected that this is a real problem. He pointed out that Woodcreek Park only has one access and that the new phase that will back the subdivision has no additional access. He added that through a study conducted a few years ago, significant access issues were brought to light. He requested the Commission's assistance in addressing these issues. Mr. Fogle further explained design consideration issues in the proposed Pedestrian Access Way Policy Guideline. Points of discussion included the maximum length, width, landscaping, adjacent fencing requirements, compatible adjacent land uses and requirements based on future or existing adjacent land uses. Other considerations were voiced, i.e., (1) Should the City require an access way when existing development is going on next to each other or should we plan and require the area to be fenced off until the property is developed out? (2) How do we regulate it? (3) Do the requirements become part of the Subdivision Regulations, Code and Policy Statement? (4) Do we want to provide some sort of incentive? Commissioner White stated that he thought this concept was a great idea and would enhance the sale of lots. Mr. Beachy pointed out that a recent study of Pebble Creek residents revealed that 7O% of the residents purchased their lots because of the golf course. While most of them do not use the golf course, they purchased their lot for the visual image. Chairman Nichols spoke positively of the Pedestrian Access Way Policy Guideline, saying that it seemed to be something that is manageable. Chairman Shafer concurred and feels that this is the way to address these particular issues. P&Z Minutes Joint Workshop Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Davis expressed concern whether or not bicycles would be able to traverse the pedestrian access ways. Chairman Shafer reiterated the benefit from this type of connectivity. He believes it will lead to a richer and better community and provide a better quality of life. 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning bikeways. Commissioner Davis deferred comments, stating that he was satisfied with the presentation that was made during the presentation of the preceding agenda item No. 7. No further comments were made. 9. Discussion and possible action concerning Park Land Dedication Ordinance revisions. Parks and Recreation Director Beachy stated that his staff has begun the process and will be working on provisions over the next several months, particularly regarding Item 101).4 that deals with the developer's option in the building of the parks. The current ordinance creates a conflict that precludes using that option at this time and it is important to have it working correctly in order to make the option usable for the developer. 11. *Iscussion, consideratim n, and possible action ccncerning the Unifie Developmnt Ordinance. Development Services Director Templin asked the Parks Board members if there were any issues or actions that needed to be revisited and discussed. He suggested that several meetings may be necessary in order to address and define these issues for inclusion in the updated version of the UDO. The Board noted several items that were issues of concern: • Open space - Water and sewer line sizes • Thickness of pavement - Parkland dedication funds - residential vs commercial. Mr. Beachy reported that Article 8 has been drafted and will be coming before the Commission in the near future. Mr. Templin interjected that the current UDO can be modified to carry through to Article 8. A brief discussion regarding open space ensued. Mr. Templin added that the City is attempting to negotiate density transfers and encourage developer not to develop in the floodplains. Ms Downs reminded the Parks Board and the Commission to encourage clustering in order to provide more open space and which is permitted through the UDO. Chairman Nichols asked who owns and maintains properties obtained through clustering and that he would like to see an example of that and see how it fits in with parks. 1. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items — A Pianning and Zcning ember or Parks an Recreation &.divisory ,:.coard Member may P&Z Minutes Joint Workshop Page 6 of 7 inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an Parksagen dafoBoardr a subsequentmembe r Warner meeting. Commissioner Davis asked for further information regarding the use of bond money for the ETJ. Chairman Shafer suggested forming a subcommittee to research this prospect. He directed Staff to place this item on a future agenda for further discussion. Chairman Nichols thanked the members of the Commission for the opportunity to meet with them. Mr. Beachy echoed his sentiments also to the Commission, and to the staff of Development Services, Ms. Downs, Councilwoman Hazen and all the members of the Parks Board. Commissioner Shafer reiterated the compliments for the work Ms. Downs has done, commenting on the great strides in the greenways project that have been accomplished. 12. Adjourn. Commissioner White motioned to adjourn the meeting. His motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis and carried by a vote of 4-0. FOR: Shafer, White, Davis and Reynolds. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Trapani, Williams and Hall. motioned to adjourn the meeting. Parks Board alternate member Erwin seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. FOR: Nichols, Schroeder, Warner, Allison, Livingston, Farnsworth and Erwin. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Davis. The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. C .-2 Approved, Scott Shafer Chairman, Planning and Zo ing Commission / ,/11, — 7 i• John Nichols Chairman, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Attest: / /, = i . z( _ Susan flazlett, Staff,Assistant Development Services P&Z Minutes Joint Workshop Page 7 of 7