Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/2008 - Regular Minutes - Parks Board (3) for (ier,"*.114.4 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD CAPRA MINUTES 'f CITYof COLLEGE STATION 1111111aPel *clitecnatW PARK LAND DEDICATION PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PTuesday, July 8, 2008 Room 127 College Station Conference Center, 1300 George Bush Dr. College Station, TX 77840 STAFF PRESENT: Marco A. Cisneros, Director; David Schmitz, Assistant Director - Operations; Amanda Putz, Board Secretary; Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Curtis Bingham, Park Operations Superintendent; Marci Rodgers, Senior Services Coordinator; David Gerling, Special Facilities Superintendent BOARD PRESENT: Jodi Warner, Chair; Shawn Rhodes, Wayne Williams, Billy Hart, Jody Ford, Gary Thomas BOARD ABSENT: Kathleen Ireland, Gary Erwin, Joan Perry VISITORS: Bill Lero, Citizen Jerry Ponzit, Citizen Charles Thomas, Citizen Paul Lepra nes, Citizen Gordon LeBleu, Citizen Bo Miles, B.L.D.F Kim Jacobs, Bryan College Station Homebuilders Association Glenn Thoms, Bryan/College Station Homebuilders Association Brent F et m yer, Realtor Randy French, Stylecraft Builders Todd Carnes, Developer, Creek Meadows Sondra Meyer, Realtor and CPA 1. Cali to order: Jodi Warner, Clair, called the meeting in o order with a quorum present at 7:13 PM. 2 Roll call and po4sible action concernin. re. nests for absences of members: Amanda Putz, Board Secretary, commenced with roll call confirming that there was a quorum present to start the meeting. Kathleen Ireland, Gary Erwin, and Joan Perry had sent in requests for absence. Jody Ford moved to approve the absence requests submitted, and Shawn Rhodes seconded. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. Hear visitors: Hearing none, this item was closed. 4. Consideration iossible a 'royal and discussion of minutes from the Regular Meeting of June 10 2008: Shawn Rhodes moved to approve the minutes as submitted, and Billy Hart seconded. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Presentation • ublic hearing and discussion regarding 'ark land dedication: Marco A. Cisneros gave a brief overview regarding park land dedication and why the public hearing had been called. A presentation was given on the items that would be open for discussion. The meeting was opened for public comment. - Charles Thomas, Citizen - He believed that contractors would be cheaper and would do a better job constructing parks than the city could do. He said that there were already 50+ parks, yet the City was trying to add more parks and was looking for the money to maintain them. Response: Jodi Warner explained the history of Edelweiss Gartens Park. She explained that the City was two years behind in building the park due to the revision of the park land dedication ordinance. Randy French, Developer and Builder - Mr. French asked how developers would know how much the fee would be if it was based on an appraisal. He also asked how he would know how much land would be attached to the appraisal. He stated that currently he knew how much to pay and it was a big concern for him that if changed, it would be a moving target. He added that developers look at impact fees, park land dedication, traffic impact analyses, etc., all at one time. The biggest amenity is affordability and he asked staff to please consider the developers when looking at the revision to the park land dedication ordinance. Response: This was still in the planning process and staff was unsure of the exact answers. The park land dedication fees were trying to be made more equitable. Gary Thomas said he could sympathize with what both gentlemen had said regarding the fees. He did not think that it was unreasonable to ask for higher fees because a park could not be built for any less than you can build a home. Having a park near your homes you can sell your home for more because of that. The City is under the ordinance and having to abide by that ordinance. July 8, 2008 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes Charles Thomas - Mr. Thomas asked what the normal procedure for building a park was and if certain price factors were looked at. Response: The procedures for planning and developing parks were explained (public hearings, bid process, etc.). Bo Miles, 241 Landsburg Lane in Edelweiss Estates - He said that he liked his park and commended the Board and staff. He stated that he would like to see how much money had been collected by zone and what has been done in the zone (basically tracking of the money). He asked what the length of time was between when the money was dedicated and when it was spent. Response: Typically it takes approximately six years. If the money has not been spent by then, the developer could petition the city for reimbursement of the money. The process of park zone monies was explained and how it was not always feasible to be able to shorten the development timeframe. There were times when it was due to the development of other projects in the same zone or it could be due to a lack of money in the city's General Fund to maintain the park if it were to be developed. Bo Miles - Stated that he would like to see the process streamlined. Glenn Thomas, Builder and Citizen - Mr. Thomas asked what the park land dedication fee included. He would rather see nice community parks rather than tiny parks the size of his back yard. Response: The park land dedication fee, the level of service, and what the expectations were by and for the citizens was explained. Sondra Meyer, Realtor and CPA - From a budget standpoint, she felt it would be better to leave the park land dedication as it was, and not go with the appraised value option due to the hardship it could cause for the developer. Paul Levantes, 9007 Sandstone - Mr. Levantes asked what percentage of the 80,000 Texas A&M University students had been included in the presentation that had been shown, and how the $950 dedication fee compared to other cities. It was explained that population estimates were received from development services and that the percentage was approximately twenty percent. Some comparisons were given. Todd Carnes, Developer, Creek Meadows - Mr. Carnes felt it would be fairer to base the park land dedication fee on frontage rather than on the lot and asked if that had ever been thought about before. 3 July 8, 2008 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes Response: No, it had not been considered before. It was explained that the ordinance was calculated by the dwelling unit. The higher the square footage of the home (the larger it is), the fewer number of houses can be built If smaller houses are built, you will be able to build more homes. Charles Thomas and Kim Jacobs, 1000 Charleston Court - Both asked what recommendations staff would be bringing to Planning and Zoning and what they would be presenting. Response: Staff will do a presentation with all of the comments that had been received at this meeting. Open-ended options would be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Kim Jacobs - Ms. Jacobs stated that she would like to see places such as Waco included in the presentations. She felt that some of the cities in the presentation were not comparable to College Station. Glenn Thomas - Asked if the Board was comfortable with the larger number of pocket parks being considered rather than a smaller number of regional/community parks. Response: The Board said that they were. Charles Thomas - Stated that one of the biggest concerns as a developer was that they felt unappreciated for what they do as developers. 4 July 8, 2008 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes Letter sent in from Steve Arden from BrazosLand Realty regarding his park land dedication concerns. July 7, 2008 Mrs. Jodi Warner, Chairperson Parks and Recreation Advisory Board College Station, Texas Re: Consideration of parkland requirements Mrs. Warner, For several reasons College Station is at the cross roads in policy for parkland dedication requirements based on the present or considered increases in acreage dedications from residential development. Major municipal policy changes must be considered to provide satisfactory management, improvements and maintenance of open land prior to anticipating even more property. College Station has fallen far behind improving new parks while providing only substandard maintenance to existing open areas. There is little reason to consider adding more open areas until the community can determine new direction for the following issues. Dedication of new parkland has progressed at a faster rate than the City can accommodate. Accumulated deposits at $358 per household were at a level to have constructed the park two years prior to actual construction of Edelweiss Gartens. With streets on four sides of that park, it was located to be the focal center of the neighborhood. Not only was it not constructed on a timely basis, but the mowing has been so infrequent that even City ordinances for the private sector have not been met. Rather than being a nice visual feature for the neighborhood families, it has become a question that sellers must explain away. Apparently, parkland has outgrown the City's maintenance ability. As residential development continues to occur further south, more and more fingers of the Brazos and Navasota river tributary flood plains extend into the City. College Station has yet to address the utilization of what will become huge open areas. To date, these drainage ways have not been features but at the rear of houses as in Southwest Valley subdivision or a difficult bridge as Longmire Drive unattractively crosses Lick Creek. These wooded open areas should be features in the community, not just something to be avoided. Consider the potential benefit to the homes that face the Lick Creek tributary on Chesapeake Lane vs. the lost 5 July 8, 2008 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes opportunity that backs to the same drainage way along Starling Drive. In addition to the aesthetics, Chesapeake Lane has plenty of space for small children playgrounds at much less cost than our present system. Carter's Crossing is probably not unusual i m many future land dwhere approximately u rt r of the total land area is open area due to natural, heavily wooded drainage ways. There are over 1,000 acres of similar land within College Station's growth pattern that will require some level of maintenance. Before we extend policies that are no longer working, there must be a paradigm shift to determine how best to handle the lands that we can expect to be given to the City. How can those areas be assets, rather than continue as waste land? Please do some longer range thinking and planning before simply extending existing present out dated policies. Sincerely, Steve Arden Jody Ford made a motion to approve the park land dedication presentation as presented including the projected ordinance revisions listed, also not putting any dollar amounts, and Billy Hart seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. The public hearing portion closed at 8:55 p.m. r. A short break was taken and the meeting reconvened p.m. 6. Consideration ossible action and discussion r i . the a • •ointments of the Chairman Vice Chairman and new or rea Jointed members for the Senior Arir -Committee: Marc' Rodgers reported on the appointments to the Senior Advisory Committee. She explained that four of the members will be new, and the other four are up for reappointment. She reported that the Senior Advisory Committee requests that Ron Silvia be appointed as Chairman and that Rick Heaney be appointed as Vice Chairman. Discussion followed. Wayne Williams made a motion to accept Ron Silvia as Chairman and Rick Heaney as Vice Chairman, as well as all the other six appointments. Gary Thomas seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the appointments were accepted. July 8, 2008 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes 7. Consideration Possible action and discussion rePardin. the a • 'ointment of a member to the Joint Parks Plannin • and Zonin• Sub-committee: Marco A. Cisneros asked that the Board appoint a member in the vacant spot for this sub-committee. This member would take the place of Billy Hart. Due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Hart was not able to serve on the sub-committee. The Board requested that all sub-committees be reviewed in two months. This item was tabled, and moved to a future agenda. 8. Discussion rep ardin• the proposal for the CoHese Station Trees Foundation: Marco A. Cisneros explained that this item had been placed on the agenda at the request of the Mayor. Jodi Warner asked for more information or a presentation regarding this issue. Jody Ford felt it would be beneficial to have a representative come and speak to the Board about operations in the Trees Foundation, such as advocacy and fundraising. The Board requested that they hear from the foundation within a year. This was an informational item only, and no action was required. 9. Consideration possible action and discussion rePardinp the removal of the Raintree Park voile ball court: Marco A. Cisneros explained that this item was a specific request from the homeowner's association to have the volleyball court removed from Raintree Park. The volleyball court was described as being a hindrance and a maintenance drain. Wayne Williams made a motion that the volleyball court be removed and Billy Hart seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 10. Re port possible action and discussion re.ardin. the Parks and Recreation Advisor Board B -Laws: Marco A. Cisneros reported that action from the Board was needed in order to recommend the proposed By-Laws amendments to City Council. Jody Ford made a motion to recommend the proposed By-Laws amendments as submitted, and Wayne Williams seconded. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 11. Re port possible action and discussion re.ardin• Park Maintenance Standards for FY 2008: Curtis Bingham gave a brief overview of the third quarter Park Maintenance Standards. This was an informational item only, and no action was required. 12. Discussion and possible action concernin. Parks and Recreation Adyisory lipard Goa* Hearing none, this item was closed. 13. Presentation possible action and discussion concernin. the current Ca p ital Im •rovement Pro' ram: July 8, 2008 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes • Current Ca•Rai Im rovement and Park Land Dedication Pro'ect Lists: Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner, reported on theap ital Improvement and Park Land Dedication Project lists. This was an informational item only, and no action was required. • Dedications of Less than 3 acres: 2818 Place, Phase 2 ev Park Zone 15 Pete Vanecek, senior Park Planner, briefly reported on the dedication, This was an informational item only, and no action was required. 14. Presentation :i ossible action and discussion on future a a:a da items: Board Member ma in•uire about a sub:-e for which notice has not been •.iven. A statement of s.'ecifk factual information or the recitation of e r fin': •olio. ma be •{len. An deliberation shall be limited to :•ro.:•°sal to :•'lace the sub"ect on an a•.a rda for a subse:•uent meeting. + Next Regular Meeting iv August .2, 2008, The Green Room 15. Adjourn: Shawn Rhodes made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Wayne Williams seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. July 8, 2008 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes