HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2005 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board (3) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
The EXIT Teen Center
1520 Rock Prairie Road
College Station, Texas
Staff Present: Steve Beachy; Ric Ploeger; Peter Lamont; Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator;
Curtis Bingham; Pete Vanecek; Pam Springfield
Members Present: Jodi Warner (arrived late); Jeannie McCandless; Glenn Schroeder; Carol Blaschke;
Don Allison; Larry Farnsworth; Gary Erwin; and Gary Thomas
Members Absent: Kathleen Ireland; Ann Ganter, CSISD Liaison
Guests Present: Robert Meyer, Frank Camplone, Yvonne Stevens, Joanna Yeager, Laura Holmes,
Senior Advisory Committee members; Joe Schultz, TEXCON; Wallace Phillips, Forest of Castlegate
1. Call to order. Jodi Warner, Chair would be late arriving, therefore the meeting was called to order by
Don Allison as acting Chair at 7:05 p.m.
2. Pardon - possible action concerning requests for absences of members from meeting. One
request for absence had been received from Kathleen Ireland. Larry Farnsworth made a motion to
accept the request as submitted and Gary Erwin seconded. The vote was called and the motion
passed unanimously.
3. Hear visitors. Hearing none this item was closed.
4. Discussion, consideration, and possible approval of minutes from Regular Board meeting of
March 8, 2005. Larry F. moved to accept the minutes as presented and Jeannie McCandless
seconded. Hearing no discussion, the vote was called. The minutes of the March meeting were
unanimously approved.
5. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding park land dedication requests for the
following protects.
■ Williams Creek Subdivision Amended Master Plan - Park Zone 14. This subdivision had come
before the Board in 2004, at which time a cash dedication had been made. The land dedication for
the current seventeen lots would be .168 of an acre, therefore, staff was recommending acceptance
of the $9,452 fee in lieu of the land. Another thirty-six lots have been platted and the money for
those lots should be received within the next few months. This neighborhood is close to what will
eventually be the park that will be built when the landfill closes. After further discussion, Larry F.
moved to accept the staff recommendation of the cash dedication in lieu of land and it was
seconded by Gary Thomas. Hearing no further discussion the vote was called. The motion
passed six to one, in favor of the cash dedication.
• The Forest of Castlegate - Park Zone 10. The land dedication for the 295 units of this
development would be 2.92 acres, however, the developer, Wallace Phillips, was proposing to
dedicate 4.19 acres - all the land required for the entire development - and the development fee of
$105,610. He would like to build the park himself if he can work through the legal issues with the
city as he did with Castlegate Park.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Page 1
May 17, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes
A previous dedication of 1.5 acres had come from the Spring Creek Townhomes and with this
dedication the total park would be 5.86 acres. Staff was recommending acceptance of the land and
the dedication fee. Steve stated that discussions would be taking place regarding greenway area
along the creek. If the City could acquire that greenway area, it would provide a connection to
Southern Oaks Park.
Street frontage is only about 27% of the perimeter of the park. Wallace Phillips suggested that
perhaps the land dedication fee could be put toward the development of a parking lot for the park
since there were a lot of people that came from outside the development to use the park. Glen S.
moved approval of the changes and the reconfiguration of the park. Larry F. seconded. There
being no further discussion, the vote was called and passed unanimously.
6. Review, discussion, and possible action from the Senior Advisory Committee regarding a
Senior Center. This item was moved up from item #7. Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator
introduced six of the fourteen Senior Advisory Committee members in attendance and then turned the
meeting over to Bob Meyers.
Mr. Meyers was there to introduce the idea of building a senior center. He stated that the seniors do a
lot of things, which were summarized in Section 3 of the report the members had received. Originally
their proposal had been to take over the Central Park headquarters. Since then, there has been
indication that not all of the building will be vacated so they had to go to another plan. He stated that
the Senior Advisory Committee was not impressed with a multi-generational building, as they felt that
it would be designed for use by younger people. Therefore, the seniors would like to have a building
specifically designed for ages 55 and older. They were there to ask for the board's support and help to
get a senior center, and to present their petition to Council.
Steve explained that some of this started when the City Council had a strategic issue that dealt with
issues for seniors and talk of a senior center was discussed. As part of that initiative, the Senior
Services Coordinator position came about. Using the EXIT Teen Center had been an interim solution
for a meeting place, but the time had come to move forward with the idea for a senior center. A
master plan would have to be developed with a public input phase. Steve recommended that the
board accept this report and take it to Council. He applauded the seniors for their work on this.
Mr. Meyers felt that everyone would agree that they have a good program going that reaches quit a
few people. With a senior center, it would be possible to have all the senior information brought
together in one place. Mr. Meyer thanked Steve and Marci for all the work they do and asked for
support from the Board in the form of a motion that could then be brought to Council in the near future.
Steve added that Council was aware of the topic and were anticipating a report coming to them.
Glenn S. made a motion to accept and support the report, adding that at the time the City Center
master plan is developed, that this be included. Larry F. seconded and the vote was called. All were
in favor and the motion passed unanimously.
7. Review, discussion, and possible approval of the Steeplechase Park Master Plan. Ric Ploeger
stated that the city had accepted the land for this park in 1999 and that City Council had approved
$315,000 in 2005 budget to develop it. Two public hearings had been held in February and March,
and although not a lot of people had shown up, a lot of ideas had been received. At the second
hearing, staff had come back with a plan based on the suggestions from the first public hearing, with
most of the recommendations included in the design. Staff was ready to move forward with the
bidding and construction of the project.
Pete Vanecek briefly went over the plan. The citizens had requested a dog park because there were
a lot of college students living in the area with pets. There are two bus stops there for A&M, so staff
proposed a bus shelter there with a roof and plexi-glass walls. There will be fencing around the dog
park and some fencing around the main entrance, lights around the 'h - 3/ mile walking/jogging trail, a
fabric covered playground, and a basketball court. There will be no restrooms or parking lot. A sewer
line was going to be installed running under what will be the playground and staff will find out when the
sewer work will be done (staff had been told summer 2005) and how deep the line will be buried.
Normally they are buried 8'-10' deep. A bridge will also be installed in the park (probably steel and
wood) to go over the low water crossing. It will cost approximately $315,000 to do everything,
including the addition of some trees.
Don A. stated that he liked the idea of putting the dog space in the retention pond.
Glenn S. moved approval of the Master Plan for Steeplechase Park. The motion was seconded and
the vote was called. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.
8. Park Playground Replacement Report, discussion, and possible action. Curtis Bingham stated
that this item had come about as a result of a question posed by Kathleen Ireland at a previous
meeting. She had asked how Parks replaced playgrounds and if there was a program for that. A
report had been included in the packets and Curtis went over it. In the packet, the first section was a
brief history referencing all playground replacements and the manufacturer of the playgrounds. He
explained how detailed, formal, playground inspections were done one time per month by the Parks
Operations maintenance crews. The supervisors also check them over when they are on-site. A
playground inspection sheet had also been included in the packets. Steve stated that Curtis and his
folks do a very good job of keeping track of the playgrounds, with the replacements now being
forecast out.
Don said the report was very informative and he would like to see it included in the notebooks for new
board members.
9. Report, discussion, and possible action regarding the second quarter Park Maintenance
Standards. Curtis B. stated that the standards were still at 89%. With the issues relating to volleyball
courts and the ponds it is hard to reach that percentage. He explained that pond maintenance is
difficult because you have to have a certified person to administer chemicals — even pond dye.
However, Parks Operations would be certifying some of its crew members to administer chemicals.
Also, in the near future, staff will be looking at some of the maintenance standards and may be
removing or including some items. Steve stated that the Department was in its fourth year of
maintenance standards implementation and added that it has been an excellent tool. This was an
informational item only and no action was required.
10. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Capital Improvement Program. Ric
stated that the regular reports had been included in the members' packets. There were a number of
projects in progress:
• Thomas Park rubber surfacing should be complete soon.
• The intergenerational parks project and John Crompton Park were under construction.
• VPAC soccer lights were installed, being tested, and the project was nearing completion. The
installation at Central Park was complete. There had been some damage done to the fields when
the lights were installed at VPAC, but those fields were scheduled to be taken out of service for the
summer anyway.
• The Wolf Pen Creek Multipurpose Building design was underway.
• The Boy Scouts had built a Frisbee golf course at Lemontree Park, which had turned out very nice.
Pete Vanecek had coordinated the project with the scouts.
• The design firm was putting the final touches on the conceptual plan for the Veterans Park & Athletic
Complex, Phase II, which will drive everything once it has been approved. Steve and Ric had
approved some final footprint concepts several months prior and once the conceptual plan was
worked up it would come back before the board.
This was an informational item only and no action was required.
11. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning Board and Departmental Goals and
Objectives and City Council Strategic Plan.
• The proposed Grimes County regional park site appraisal process was nearing completion and
should be ready within the next couple of weeks. A meeting would be held in June with TMPA to go
over that appraisal. The Brazos Council of Governments was working with a non-profit organization
for possible funding. This project was still in the preliminary stages but once the appraisal was
received, it would give a dollar amount to start shooting for. There is a lot of interest in doing the
project as well as interest from state and elected officials. Another tour will be arranged at a later
date for Council members and any board members interested in going to the site.
• Urban Forest Management Plan - There has been no new word on this plan. There is the possibility
that may be a dead issue.
• Park Land Dedication Ordinance update - The revised draft is tied in partially with the Unified
Development Ordinance, but staff thought it best not to wait on the UDO, and will move forward with
the Park Land Dedication updates, which are further along.
• The Castlegate and Edelweiss Gartens developers were interested in developing those parks
themselves.
• City Center Project - Steve stated that he has become more involved in this process and he has
recommended that the Parks Board and Planning & Zoning Commission get together to discuss this
and then perhaps hold town hall meetings for input into the process. Every bond issue since 1976
has included some item related to that area - not called city center - but there has been interest in
that area for the better part of thirty years by the city, who has a significant investment in the area.
This has been a long term project.
• Steve and Jodi will need to get together to do a report on the board's goals for Council when they go
on their retreat.
12. Discussion of calendar, future meeting dates, and possible agenda items:
• Regular meeting - June 14, 2005
• Memorial Day celebration -This program will have the first memorial pathway dedication and it will
be for the War on Terror. Chet Edwards will be the guest speaker.
• There will be a bike loop report at the next meeting.
• A joint meeting with Planning and Zoning will need to be scheduled for sometime in the near future.
13. Adjourn. Glenn S. moved to adjourn and Gary E. seconded. The vote was called. All were in favor
and the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Park Land Dedication Ordinance
Project Review Checklist
Date Received: April 4, 2005
Park Zone: 14
Current Zone Balance: $13,344
Project Location: Rock Prairie Rd.
Name of Development: Williams Creek Estate Subdivision
Phase: 2
Applicant: Stan & Jean Stephen Family No. Two, LP
Address: 2514 Memorial Drive.
City/State/Zip: Bryan, Texas 77802
Phone Number/Fax: Fax Number:
E-mail:
Engineer/Planner: Texcon
Address: 1707 Graham Rd.
City/StateZip: College Station, TX 77845
Phone Number/Fax: 764-7743 Fax Number:
E-Mail:
REQUIRED COMPLIANCE
Section 10-B-1: Land Dedication
Single Family Dwelling Units: 17
Multi-Family Dwelling Units:
Total Land Requirement: .168 Acres
Proposed Dedication: 0
Section 10-B-2: Fee in Lieu of Land
Has the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? NO
Land Fee:
Single Family Fee ($198/dwelling unit): $198 x 17 = $3,366
Multi-Family Fee ($160/dwelling unit):
Total Acquisition Fee:
Section 10-B-3: Park Development Fee
Single Family Fee ($358/dwelling unit): $358 x 17 = $6,086
Multi-family Fee ($292/dwelling unit):
Total Fee Amounts:
Total Single Family Fee ($556/dwelling Unit): $556 x 17 = $9,452
Multi-Family Fee ($452/dwelling Unit):
Section 10-B-4: Park Development in Lieu of Fee
Required development cost:
Staff review date and comment: April 4, 2005
Parks Board review and decision:
Section 10-B-5: Minimum Park Size
Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? N/A
If yes, staff recommends: acceptance of fee
Section 10-B-7: Prior Park Acquisition
No, Lick Creek Park is
approx. 1 mile away but not
Is there an existing park that can serve the proposed development? a neighborhood park.
If yes, staff recommends:
Section 10-E: Comprehensive Plan
Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the
Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan?
Comments:
Section 10-F: Additional Information
1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? Percentage:
a. Detention/Retention? Size:
Meets Board Policy?
Acreage in floodplain: Percentage:
Acreage in detention: Percentage:
Acreage in greenways: Percentage:
Comments:
Section 10-F (of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance)
10-F. 1 Any land dedication to the City under this section must be suitable for park and
recreation uses. Consideration will be given to land that is in the floodplain or may be
considered "floodable" even though not in a federally regulated floodplain as long as, due
to its elevation, it is suitable for park improvements.
(a) Neighborhood park sites should be adjacent to residential areas in a manner that serves the
greatest number of users.
Comments:
(b) Neighborhood park sites should be located so that users are not required to cross arterial
roadways to access them.
Comments:
(c) Sites should not be severely sloped or have unusual topography which would render the land
unusable for organized recreational activities.
Comments:
(d) Sites should have existing trees or other scenic elements.
Comments:
(e) Detention/retention areas will not be accepted as part of the required dedication, but may be
accepted in addition to the required dedication. If accepted as part of the park, the
detention/retention area design must be approved by the City staff and must meet specific
parks specifications.
Comments:
10-F. 2 Parks should be easy to access and open to public view so as to benefit area
development, enhance the visual character of the city, protect public safety, and minimize
conflict with adjacent land uses. The following guidelines should be used in designing
parks and adjacent development:
(a) Where physically feasible, park sites should be located adjacent to greenways and/or schools
in order to encourage both shared facilities and the potential co-development of new sites.
Comments:
(b) A proposed subdivision adjacent to a park may not be designed to restrict reasonable access
to the park from other area subdivisions. Street and greenway connections to existing or
future adjoining subdivisions may be required to provide reasonable access to parks.
Comments:
(c) Where a non-residential use must directly abut a park, the use must be separated by a
screening wall or fence and landscaping. Access points to the park may be allowed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission if a public benefit is established.
Comments:
(d) It is desirable that a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the perimeter of a park should abut a
public street. In all cases, the City shall approve the proposed street alignment fronting on city
parks.
Comments:
(e) Streets abutting a park shall be built in accordance with the thoroughfare plan and the
standards of this ordinance; however, the City may require any residential street built adjacent
to a park to be constructed to collector width to ensure access and prevent traffic congestion.
The developer may request oversize participation in such an instance.
Comments:
Staff Recommendations: Acceptance of Parkland dedication fee.
Section 10-G: Approval:
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Planning & Zoning Commission:
City Council:
(a) Where physically feasible, park sites should be located adjacent to greenways and/or schools
in order to encourage both shared facilities and the potential co-development of new sites.
Comments:
(b) A proposed subdivision adjacent to a park may not be designed to restrict reasonable access
to the park from other area subdivisions. Street and greenway connections to existing or
future adjoining subdivisions may be required to provide reasonable access to parks.
Comments:
(c) Where a non-residential use must directly abut a park, the use must be separated by a
screening wall or fence and landscaping. Access points to the park may be allowed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission if a public benefit is established.
Comments:
(d) It is desirable that a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the perimeter of a park should abut a
public street. In all cases, the City shall approve the proposed street alignment fronting on city
parks.
Comments:
(e) Streets abutting a park shall be built in accordance with the thoroughfare plan and the
standards of this ordinance; however, the City may require any residential street built adjacent
to a park to be constructed to collector width to ensure access and prevent traffic congestion.
The developer may request oversize participation in such an instance.
Comments:
Staff Recommendations: Acceptance of Parkland dedication fee.
Section 10-G: Approval:
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: At the regular meeting on May 17, 2005, the Board voted
six to one to accept the cash dedication of$9,452 in lieu of the .168-acre land dedication.
Planning & Zoning Commission:
City Council:
•
"ms,,., r 1 /
I I r
rte. r , ✓ r I Iji r
JJ�� tl aese/,''/,rcJ r i M Z ' .y I t / f`// f l i' `/ / J /',;,,;;;',,;%",%'',;,;',';%''-';'
I r
� or y°�.'..,sfprr� / e I ( ,/,/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/,/,,,-, f r r.,r r / ''',/,';';'/,'2,-;;;"'`,/,;;•,/,/,:
< ONOERSDN91 t, - / r f '�` ` `+ r r I f f (J-JJ r I / r r
.-:. .'� ,L4,1',1.;,, ,',-'-/r0,4'• `' r` •",;/•:/4','///,'..;,'/:://,',•',/,'"/"/,',.—
I ' J,2 /t' I r /Ir rj r //t ffJl r r I/f r,/-;','%:---/,''',/,',;;;''-',"%<",'
..,�/ Y J I �wr I / i f / t '/•.•, r /, ,' r/ r r if r
-`p e 1; I 3 r rJi / r j
^� ! A r',,',A.";,'-i'•,I..,r r j • s •� ��NW t -�4i ., r r j J .r r r i r r r J r r j -
:1 �� t. ? • f `•ti',, /'///'/-/,'/,'•%,-/./',-%-,/,',/,'/,',/,///1,/,I `/:///-://,
r I I r Jr 1
f l�+, �. ( I \ , / / J rr rr /r I Irr f r
l
, .447. - • f I i i r" :tJ / -J r r i r ri f /
`\.% _ r'-'t^ G.ER%P..'x / r7 4. ,,,,,,,,,,',/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,.,,.r' /1 r J /Ji J
>,,- 7i ANN/
.AN§'I:ER -'..on..os N� ,,+.-I'. ..,,,...7,://,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.../"..,,,,,,,,,,;,/,,/,
.t ,r . r I r rr f„,„,„/„„,„/„„,,,,,„,„,,„,,,„
\ fjor j�Ian,. - '{,hi',i :. �. X rr r I r- ''/'/'',',,,z';',.,rIJr
py `fJ RESERVE TWIT J l ',/,./".• J r
-" ,�,-°",.'A�f ncRcs "; r, J ,TIr r f r ',/,/,',(//,',,',""/',
•
OF c wzr.Acro -,,,..."-",,,-,;,•,-,,, '
w MAOF THE STEIrtt:"ACRE
. ..... r r ry { J r r/f
iiiiiiiii
i ..r+wamn.r.
J 1..y •. j 1
r rI
Aar ‹Ir
�1�/ .. w.. nisi- ( �... t Dx;nr an rye��cl p- \\ orEsrnwres� �' • ,.i ,'JJr / /.
4 THE 51
^ sowsrEwe ' r I
-�. " ' .... — a�- - ..ai ae zGr�D AaN G' , ',(////',',/,'///'r r
.
AND
MUNE xr wDNr-aF-war •-
-- e _
frSiM lir "^•" DEDICATION P.N.) _ -
P FUTURE 35 RIGHT OF WAY M A
..�
VICINITY NOrl
DEDICATION .11
DERG,RFWAY , �'.►`.�� it f
OED GAT aH(01352AC) / .+e-
•
\ l/ - -- _— SCALE M FEET•
——
--\-
r M.pl mC Aw,a..r.rnmw MM•Amlls..lY w1 .+.v Gn. �••'��.al LTA 1.--•••
... u1 L i 4---_l �Tl7 4 ..T` i 'M t:.- -Ant/ .• t... -.JV_../ .• I.___ C..0 -45L T. 4 LL/i• MI
''"'r..m.v.r:war..®.®.mwKM.Ia.'4..sI.A A ..•
6....Kfy.iv.,R4w.Ry,R1f.,N. w.aYln; w i. � � T
T..J.M.4_.T. T.t ow.Yrt Ma..""T",............7,... -
�:. .. r--vr�'KI. AMENDED
DO MOM 41144100�114{120.MM. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
��of.R..0.0 ,,,.K •....wM:, -._rr 642.51 ACRES ,,
WILLIAMS CREEK SUBDIVISION
' "'' V"V" '" 211.14 ACRES
'""101' '" WILLIAMS CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION
m..,......�.�w m.
, � �M • 116.81 ACRES
AND
�M..MMw. :::�
• �'or�M•'"�°^^-'M "R""^—"° "'r : " " r REMAINDER OFANDERSON-STEPHEN TRACT
•---/--.----------.-----..---------- - 314.56 ACRES
Rw, r- r—
wwwM..r..r.......Mr,�....M.N.w. ..
1:7- NATHAN CLAYPHT SURVEY,A-90
r+'"P1M"•'m"®""""^�'""•""^�*'� - S.W.ROBERTSON SURVEY,A-202
" ` COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY,TEXAS
s$ ..'.�"'1,;"'',....-
.-.u::
STRATEGIC PLANS IMPLEMENTATION CALENDAR
APRIL 2005 - JUNE 2005
STATEMENT SUBJECT TEAM APRIL MAY Jjeer:
NE
PrQY �� SfB S Design firm gathers input from Cemetery Committee completes
(Ore Services tie Effective ` staff,Ceme i Committee and
S 1 enlefe S@NiCes � � with proposed operational issues for new
the community site.
Presentation to City Mgr.for approval.
Corp Services nlogy er1li'Ces ' Pe F In#egration' finance software
� � �f � i7aUi �L begins.
S 1 r,r , Begin oledit cards.
Core Services City Miarketing Plan
Care Services Employee,I -•
5.3 Communication Plan
• Core Services Advisory Boardr fi
S 3 Communication
Core Services r Cooperation with
S 5 • TxDOTfor ��
•
landscaping Capital
iProjects`.. 5, ,
if'0
Core Services Employee
• $6` f4:'Re4ognition;Systems,
Core Services Performance IN ;i4
S 6- 6valttation Sy$tems x' ' .,,
Parka Lfsisure Parks do ..,tenallC@ %te e, 6 Present results of 2ndquarter park
Rig,GtlrUs r: maintenance surveys to Parks
Services Standards SRC s and Recreation Board
S 1 �.,.
Parks •&Leisure Ufban Forest Steve,
Services Mans ement Plan Ross
g
Pa Services ure •Greeny t Bikeway F
5
Plans
S 1 e . s.
z
Parks&Leisure,.
Services Public',Pr,arance A
ssues 1 A.n
'
Parks&Leisure intergenerativriai
Sieve,Ric1 Construction begins
Services Parks 4Pete ti,DeVid
52 - 0 W
Program evaluations due Needs Assessment report from Needs Assessment report to Parks
Parks&Leisure isure Service Steve Division 81 Program Evaluations A&M Boa
Services Progr s 7y!pPefer l `, Complete
S 2 .,, '3`'i1� : David Gs.
Planning underway for Senior
Parks&Censure" Coope'a#Ive Efforts $'t ire Games
Services with the,City of kryan Pe L, y,
$2x: Ii ivd(
Parks:x&Leisure' ' Veterans Park Steve /7i ,1
Services Phased Development4 !viiia,,, ossk
$2; s • ..,Pete.L
Five=year Parks '
P,_,H.,,,';,-',s,rLeisure .. Capttai improvement ;�Steve fZif,
Services Projects P v„1:
$ ' • DIdW
r
NOTE: Shaded items have been completed.
Parks$ elstlre Lights installed Programming sites
Services .i. ocppf Field tight
t)irection. W
�v
sure
Aiit* tha
tParka&Rei ' h ,Sarve
heServl, , nity
< Starlight Series begins Commun ,S " Starlight Series ends
Harks La�sure
,Sa 3 es Prformmg"Arks 11�
L--4,1,1,1,1,1::.!1:11:11:1.1,-'W, �
Parks&L&sureF"
5twat6gicvP*Jacement '�
Services _ csf �ibiic Art "„.
$3
Parks&Leisure t, Regional Planning& Steve;Rkc,
Se,flees Development Parks"B'a Yck
lnitiatives ''
Planning ;Update Park;Land, ug teye, ,
Development Dedication ?rd nanoe Pio
SI
Ecanprnic Promote Commewciai
Development Development in the
$ , , WPC District �- �