Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/10/2001 - Special Agenda - Parks BoardCITY- OF COLLEGE STATION S AND ECREATION SA SpecialMcetig Friday, August 10, 2001 P 4rlis C. fere ,ce -roo 1000 I,- ek Tap Road. 12:00 p. City Staff Present; Steve eachy, Director tf Parks and Recreation; Eric Pioeger, Assistant Director; Kris Lehde, Park Staff Assistant; Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services; Jane Kee, City Planner; Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Development Planner. Board Members Present John Nichols, Chair; Don Allis n; Jon Tuiton; Larry Farnsworth; Laura Wood (Alternate). Guest: Lee Einsweiler, Project Manager/Senior Associate, Duncan & Associates. Visitorg Ben White, 1. COD to Order, The meeting was called to order t 12:08 p.m. Hear visitor Ben White introduced himself. Mr. White was the Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Board for the City of Georgetown. He is rns.ving to College St.ltion and has an interest in the Parks and Recreation field, Presentation, discussion, and possible action concertztinL the proposed Unified Development Code: Steve Beachy stated that this item pertains to City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy #4c (Improve the subdivision ordinance as it relates to park land location and park land dedication approval process). Jim Callaway stated that the Develosment Services Department had been asked by the City Council to put together a Request for Proposal to seek professional services to aid the City in the development of a Unified Development Code (UDC). They were also asked to review their current land development ordinances, primarily the zoning and subdivisions regulations. An Austin firm, Duncan & Associates, was hired to help with the development of the UDC, and they have been working on the project for slier a year. Jim said that about a year ago, there was a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Boar. to receive general policy input that was carried over into the project. The firm has been working with, and getting input from,Development Services staff and citizens, The Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council are currently reviewing and giving input on a draft of the new code and Duncan & Associates is preparing responses ftr them. A public release draft of the code is scheduled to Parks & Recreation Board Special Meeting Friday, August 10, 2001 Page 1 of 4 come out by August 20, 2001, and copies will be made available to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Jim went on to s4y that the Council would also like to have a planning workshop with the Planning and Zoning Commission to take a look at the public release draft before it goes ut. Once this draft is out, there will be a 50-day public review period before the Planning a d Zoning Commission will schedule any public hearings for consideration. Lee Einsweiler said t t turican & Associates has been charged with two primary responsibilities, which have nothing to di with the substance of the regulations for the City of College SMion. Those responsibilities are 1. T co 'thine all of the rules for development into a single document —this is what the UDC is all about. It allows for consolidation of definitions, elimination of conflicts between zoning and subdivisions, and smoothes out the bumps in the development process by streamlining procedures. * 2. To improve the look and feel of the document This includes the format, the user -friendliness, and the readability and understandability to the average person that is affected by land development in College Station. In addition'', as the City has indicated a desire for it, tuncari & Associates is changing the policy for the City pertaining to how it develops in the future, as compared to how it has develo,!ed in the past. They have identified certain areas that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board may need to look at once the public review draft becomes available. One of the primary suggestions they have is a cha ge irl policy that WO Id have a minimum open space requirement thr all residential subdivisions. This requirement would not just include the dedication of recreational land, but would also include an actual minimum amount of open space requirement for every residential development that will most likely be used for passive recreation, retention, and detention. By making this open space requirement an element of designing subdivisions, the City would bring forth an improved ability to make linkages between subdivisions and implement the City's Greenways Plan, In order to make the Greenways Plan work, the firm is als suggesting that the clustering of developments be allowed for smaller lots, * There are also proposed changes to standards that may effect how the City gets p4ek land, and how much other open space is on the property. Some of the proposed standards are as follows: > A standard for the implementation of a Zero Rise Rule, which is a scheme for designing storm water management on the site. A standard stating that developers cannot do any filling in the floodplain or in the floodway. Parks & Recreation Board Special Meeting Friday, August 10, 2001 Page 2 of 4 > A standard describing what acceptable park land dedication is. This is an attempt at getting away frim the probkrn of being given the most useless portion of the site as the park land dedication. > A standard for the amount of the dedication and the way that the dedication plays out, Mr. Einsweiler stated that medninically, the system that the City has for park land dedication is working fine, so it is unlikely that there will be any significant changes to it. However, it may not be providing enough park land. He went on to say that the actual rate at which park land is dedicated will be the City's decision. Jon Turton asked what would happen if the City were to adopt an open space requirement as part of the UDC. Mr. Einsweiler responded that he suspects that the City would get improved park land, even if it did not change the park land dedication requirement. This is because the open space requirement and the recreational spice requirement are two separate requirements. He added that developers would need to meet both of those requirements. Steve said that the City Council has directed staff to devel*p some type of incentive for and dedication. Keeping this in mind, the City is trying to incorporate money into the Fiscal Year 2002 budget that could be applied to trying to improve the type of land that is being dedicated. He said that right now, there is no str eture for how this will be incorporated. Jim added that he believes that the intention of this money wouli be ti improve the location, quality, and quantity of land that is being dedicated. Steve asked Mr. Einsweiler if he had any ideas in how to approach this, Mr, Einsweiler responded that he felt that this is a good idea, but did not feel that the City should mandate the quality of the land being dedicated. John Nichols reminded the Beard that the Park Land Dedication Ordinance gives the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board the authority to refuse land. Mr. Einsweiler added that mandating pre -application meetings might also affect the process. The clearer the standards are for the public to read and respond to, the easier it will be to get the right thing the first time ar und. John N. asked if the Zero Rise Rule would apply only to development in the fitodplain. Mr. Einsweiler responded that it would refer to the impact of the development *n the floodplaim Jane asked what would happen if there was a develipment that has floodplain and there is an open space requirement for it. Would the code encourage runoff or detention, and would it impact the floodpiain and be contrary to the Greenways Plan? She asked if there could be L.nguage in the code to ensure that this does not happen. Steve asked what steps the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board needed to take next. Jim stated that copies of the public, release draft would be distributed to the Parks & Recreation Board Specicti Meeting Friday, August 10, 2001 Page 3 of 4 Board after August 20, 2001. He added that the Board should mainly look at the areas pertaining to park land location and design. Planning and Zoning will need the Board's input before the public hearings are held. Mr. Einsweiler suggested that the Board also write a letter or attend the public hearings when they are held, to go on record that they are either in support of the draft, or that they feel that it needs some modifications. John N. asked if Parks Planning Staff would have a chance to review the language of the draft. Steve said that the language would be incorporated from the Park Land Dedication Ordinance. The Board would be reviewing the current riinance at the next Board meeting to see what areas may need to be revised. Einsweiler asked that the Board submit any suggestions they have between August 20th and up to a week before September 13th, to ensure that they would be included in the public release draft. He added that the draft could still be modified after that time period, but once it goes out to the public it would be a lot harder to do. s John N. added that it might be a good idea to offer proactive material t developers to help them understand the UDC, Adj urn: The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Parks & Recreation Board Special Meeting Friday, August 10, 2001 Page 4 of 4