Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2001 - Regular Agenda - Parks BoardCITY OF COLLEGE STATION ARIAS AND RECREATION ADVISOR17 BOARD Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 11, 2001 *0 Farb and Recreation Conference Doom 1000 Krenek Tap Road � 10, College Station, Texas 77840 , 7:00 pamo 1. Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. 3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting. 4. Approval of minutes from regular meeting of November 13, 2001. 5. Consent items: — Capital Improvement Project Report; and Next meeting date and agenda. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a subdivision sign for Edelweiss Gartens Park. 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a proposed park land dedication for Holleman Village (Park Zone 7). 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning a proposed park land dedication for Deacon Condominiums (Park Zone 5). 9. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning skate parks (City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy #5. b). 10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning proposed developer incentives (City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy #4. a). 11. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Phase I development of Lick Creek Park. 12. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the draft Needs Assessment Study for Veterans Park and Athletic Complex (City Council Vision Statement 94, Strategy #4.b). 13. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives. 14. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning whether the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board should conduct two (2) meetings a month. 15. Adjourn. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764- 3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Valebsite http://www.ci.college-station.tx.us and Cable Access Channel 19. CITE' OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 11, 2001 Parks and Recreation Conference R 1000 Krenek Tap Road College Station, Texas 77840 7:00 p.m. 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. 1. 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. 20 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 Jolul 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. 3. 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 proj ects. • 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 (Y) 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 action 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 of fifty percent (SO%) 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. ffo 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 User 12n/O1 PubHo ReCsl wTu Fold l Movsmbw 59 2001 - damuavy 30, 2002 . __ UDJ SMflT - Hours ofoperaftw - Soo Parrft - Lomd3 pavve Una oa CS s„ © Address We] 55SUSS Council Direction Highlight RV Parking are2e - W. , : r-Overfmos Title goes here 1 User 12/7/01 HighiNghts o MY Raw 2goni g o gaesn4s Ogee desNrabb m es as C UP's o SqaW vaca menes specufic standard Aw Highlights ® ahifts 4e(ooaiona go counci9 AduAn iFago€f - MMUSP ROS83 psrrrroao4 ed on a d%teu64 III ® LLgg thug ztandarAz - pRC ff> DRB]ID&Z L%dda 3 weeks to rfed6o,"3 = (OV M, G Mono to: WPC C 0—W12 wequnlramsnft - 6i OM6MUD-N Wdoo COVOTMOS M318M rrs-SgUICI Ons En eouua� � o �030 RIW campgrounds ® Loadeng aireas s1landarrds - R9ehicos samcosbng] - opera spode off 01 T nwil e 00awds qo c onseiodalgo mput I'M&fl ffeg-Ma 056 -g Paz Now. 29 EDOVIt comrnunMy meaVag How. 28 _ IFOSURS t® p&Z Dgoo 13 FJOA meeting penciflng, "Title goes here 2 User 12I7/01 Timn#in © APR -daffy p&;E & City c®uncgo e K)QCo'04 - Speaphep'ss Bummu avmolabua 20 gg,Qupoh,�pmaWag b®arfdz _ Deco S _ Jan. 30 CC pmp�8ac h(PaYoK S _ map6h FPnaU ad®pNo f pr�o8 q Title goes here -,V CIP Project List FY 2002 (updated 12/5101) ................ . ............................. ....... ......... ........ .............. .. �7'-::7 itu : ...... :::..... :Rgot ... ............. ..4PP06.d ...... Actaaai 1 Business Center Landscaping Project Completel GG9705 $250,000 G.O. 07/31/01 10/19/01 2 Millennium Winds Improvements (FY'01) Completel HM0104 $7,195 FY'01 08/31/01 7/31/01 1 Veterans Park, Phase I Under Construction! PK9941 $2,936,800 98 G.O. 11/31/02 2 Castlepate Park Design Under Construction 1 03/31/02 2 Gabbard Park Improvements Out to Bid PK0102 $78,000 98 G.O. 04/30/02 2 High School Tennis Court Lights (FY'01) Under Construction PK0109 $91,500 FY'01 04/01/02 2 Lincoln Entry Improvements On Hold CD1292 $90,000 FY'01 C.D.B.G, 3/31/01 2 Merry Oaks Improvements Out to Bid PK01 03 $37,000 98 G.O. 03/31/02 2 Oaks Park Bridge On Hold PK0067 $28,000 98 G.O. 3/31/02 3 Brison Park Improvements Out to Bid. PK0100 $54,600 98 G.O. 3/31/02 2 Woodway Park Development Negotiating Land Purchase) PK9803 $600,000 3 Shenandoah Park Development On Hold $48,000 Park Land Dedication I Hallaran Pool Filters In Construction PK0106 $120,000 FY'01 03/31/02 1 Cemetery Land Acquisition Search Underway GG9905 $275,000 98 G.O. C.S.S.C. Agreement (clubhouse) Madeley Park Conceot Preparation PK9706 $48,000 I 98 G.O. *8/02 Lick Creek Park Development Negotiations with Engineer PK0069 $398,000 98 G.O. Lick Creek Park Brides Contract wl TP&W approved $126,265 Grant 98 G.O. Thomas Pool Shadover On Hold PK0104 $19,000 98 G.O. Lincoln Center Expansion/improvements $50,000 C. D. B. G. 9/1/02 Thomas Pool Renovation Negotiating Design Contract 1 $27:215 FY'02 3/31/03 Georgie Fitch Playground Replacement In Design $30000 FY'02 Replacement Acct. 8/1/02 Hensel Park Playground Replacement Interlocal Agreement Underway $40,000 FY'02 Replacement Acct. 8/1/02 Pebble Creek Park Improvements Richard Carter Park Improvements Jack & Dorothy Miller Jogging Track Others (Skateboard Park Iron Fence Installation PK0061 In Design Interlocal Agreement Needed Priorities: #1 - In progress currently or will be in progress before January 1, 2001. #2 - In progress before August 1, 2001. #3 - In progress after October 1, 2001. Mclml•- ��� Park Land Dedication $27,000 1 Zone 11 . FY'02 General Fund The City ®f (-�ollerve Station, Texas (�emjo 6 Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue 0 College Station, TX 77842 (979) 764-3500 www.ci.college-station.tx.us TO: Steve Beachy, Director FROM: Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director DATE: December 6, 2001 Attached is a probable schedule for the development of Billie Madeley Park. Development and dedication of the park must occur prior to August of 2002, in order to satisfy requirements listed in the deed when the property was donated to the City of College Station. The Beverly Estates Homeowners Association has indicated a positive interest in minor development within the park and has selected a subcommittee to meet with the two cities about the park. Staff has been working with the Bryan Parks and Recreation Department to coordinate with the area residents since access will only be available through Bryan. Also attached is a letter from the subcommittee of the Beverly Estates Homeowners Association outlining their support for the park and issues they would like to see addressed. Cc: Tom Brymer, City Manager Glenn Brown, Assistant City Manager Ed Feldman, Police Chief Dave Giordano, Fire Chief Parks & Recreation Board Home of Texas A&M University September 28, 2001 College Station and Bryan staff meet to discuss potential park development. October 15, 2001 Eric Ploeger and David Schmitz met and discussed the potential development of Billie Madeley Park with the Beverly Estates Homeowners Association (B.E.H.A.). October 29, 2001 Subcommittee of B.E.H.A. met and endorsed the concept of park development with access from Sunny Lane in Bryan. November 30, 2001 Bryan Engineering Department studies the potential entry to the park to recommend alternatives for changes to Sunny Lane. December 3, 2001 Meeting between Bryan staff and College Station staff to discuss further development stages. December —January College Station Planning Department staff will develop park design 2002 options that fit within the budget ($48,000 '98 Bond) and deed restrictions. January, 2002 Meet with subcommittee of the B.E.H.A. to discuss development options. Meeting to include Bryan Parks and Engineering Department, College Station Parks, Police, and Fire Department staff. February 19, 2002 Public hearing with Bryan Parks and Recreation Board on the proposed site plan for Billie Madeley Park. March — July 2002 Park development. July, 2002 Billie Madeley Park dedication. Novcniber 1, 2001 David Schmitz, Division Manager Bryan Parks and Recreation 201 East 29" St. Bryan, Texas 77803 Dear David: First, I'd like to thank you and Rick Ploeger for attending the Beverley Estates Homeowners Association meeting on Sunday, October 15, to seek input and explain possible plans for the proposed Billie Madeley Park located at the end of Sunny Lane in Bryan. The subcommittee, formed at that meeting to study the advantages and disadvantages of this project, met on October 29 and unanimously agreed to support the development of a natural trails neighborhood park with the following provisions - Sunny Lane vehicle turn -around and parking — We request that Bryan install a vehicle turn -around and parking spaces within the park. This is due to the proximity of two homes on either side of the proposed Sunny Lane entrance. Fencing and trails - We request that fencing be installed and maintained on the southern and eastern borders of the park and that adequate buffer space is provided between the trails and our Beverley Estates properties. The trails should be made without the removal of live trees to the greatesi'extent possible Lights — We are proposing "dawn to dusk" park hours. Therefore, we ask that no lights be installed to deter unwanted night visitors. Cooperative agreements - We would like to see an agreement made between the cities of Bryan and College Station for park maintenance, police and fire protection. We feel that the development of this natural neighborhood park will be beneficial to the aesthetic and market values of the neighborhood while providing essential "green space' in a central location for the entire community. We urge you and the City of College Station to act quickly before the August 2002 deadline and begin development of this park. John Ragsdale or. Ray Grossman would like to hear back from you after you have reviewed these provisions. In, the meantime, we will be notifying Beverley. Estates homeowners about the status of this project. IRVIWIP The City of RNA College Station, Texas Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue 6 College Station, TX 77842 www.ci.college-station.tx.us fflfla'' • 1� TO: Chief Ed Feldman Chief Dave Giordano FROM- teve Beachy, Director of Parks & Recreation DATE: December 3, 2001 (979) 764-3500 I am asking your assistance in answering a question regarding public safety response to a small park site located adjacent to the City of Bryan. The site (Billie Madeley Park) is 5.16 acres in size and is entirely located within the College Station city limits. The main issue is related to the limited access to the site. The only access is from Sunny Lane in the City of Bryan. There is no existing access from College Station. Please review the attached information and provide guidance as to the best way to respond to questions related to police and fire response. Also, representatives from CSPD and CSFD may be required at our next neighborhood meeting in January. Thank you for your time and assistance. Copies: Ric Ploeger, CS PARR David Schmidtz, Bryan PARR Attachments Home of Texas A&M University 0 SUNNY LN. C0ONER ST l� 8|LUE MADEL[Y PARK RANDALLS BC8 CITY UM|T (/ COJ.EGE STATIOMEXAs 8|UUE ��DELEY � ( [ .�REC8EA%7ON I MDVV i� �� David Schmitz Division Manager Bryan Parks and Recreation Department 201 East 29hStreet Bryan TX 77803 This letter is in support of the proposed Billie Madeley Park to be located at the end of Sunny Lane in Bryan. We very much look forward to the development of this neighborhood park/walking trail, and to a cooperative agreement between the cities of B-CS. Your and Rick Ploeger's attendance at the recent meeting of the Beverley Estates Homeowners Association was appreciated. Sincerely, Bettye (Kahan) and Clint Mateek 748 South Rosemary Drive Bryan TX 77802 copy: Steve Beachy, C.S. Parks and Recreation Department<�- Rick Ploeger, C.S. Parks and Recreation Department John Ragsdale, Beverley Estates Ray Grossman, Beverley Estates Cathy Conlee, Beverley Estates Date Received: Park Zone: 7 Name of Development: Holleman Villaae Addition Section 2 Applicant: Andv Resivio Address: 3001 Deerwood Drive City/State: Waco, Texas Zip: 76710 Phone Number: (254)753-0337 FAX: E-mail: Engineer/Planner: Galindo Enqineers Address: 3833 South Texas Avenue City/State: Brvan, TX Phone Number: E-mail: Single Family Dwelling Units: Multi -family Dwelling Units: 18 Total Land Requirement:.134 Proposed Dedication: 0 1 : -= - AM Has the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? Yes Land Fee: Single Family Fee ($148/dwelling unit): Zip: 77802 Acres Acres Multi -family Fee ($112/dwelling unit): $2,016.00 Total Acquisition Fee: $2,016.00 Single Family Fee ($309/dwelling unit): Multi -family Fee ($233/dwelling unit): $4,194.00 Total Single Family Fee: ($457/Dwelling Unit): $6,210.00 Total Multi -family Fee ($345/Dwelling Unit): �- ..mmm- Required development cost: Staff review date and comment: Parks Board review and decision: Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? If yes, staff recommends: SECTION 10-113-7: Prior Park Acauisition Is there an existing neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development? Yes, Zone 7 If yes, staff recommends: Woodwav Park is across Jones Butler Road. Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Comments: 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? a. Detention/Retention Acreage in floodplain: Acreage in detention: Acreage in greenways: Comments: Percentage: Size: Meets Board Policy: b. Does the location require users to cross an arterial road? c. Topography: d. Trees/Scenery: 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? b. Restricted access: c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? Percentage: Percentage: Percentage: d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: Staff recommends acceptance of the complete dedication fee. Parks & Recreation Board: City Council: OAParks\Forms\Admin\Long FormPark Land Dedication Ordinance Project Review Checklist.dot Revised 11129101 December 6, 2001 TO: Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director, Parks & Recreation Department FROM: Bridgette George, Assistant Development Manager SUBJECT: Dencon Condomllums — 200 Rrzteirnfty Row Blake Cathey has submitted a site plan application with a proposal to build a 94-unit condominium project. When property is zoned for single-family residential, developers are required to dedicate park land, or the fee in lieu of land, prior to the filing of the final plat. Since this property is zoned R-5, the required dedication is due prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Cathey's property is located at the comer Deacon Drive and Wellborn Road and consists of 10.46 acres. Mr. Cathey is proposing a fee in lieu of land in the amount of $32,430 (94 units x $345). Please let me know at your earliest convenience if this fee in lieu of land is acceptable by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board so that we may proceed with issuing the building permits once the plans have been approved. Please call me at 764-3458 if you have any questions regarding this project. CC: File # 01-247 Home of Texas A&M University JJ • Date Received: December 6, 2001 Park Zone: 5 Name of Development: Deacon Condominiums Applicant: Mr. Blake A. Cathev Address: P.O. Box 9517 City/State: College Station, Texas Zip: 77842 Phone Number: (979) 485-0845 FAX: I:A Engineer/Planner: Hester Enaineerina Address: 7607 Eastmark Drive, Suite 253-B City/State: College Station, Texas Zip: 77840 Phone Number: (979) 693=1100 FAX: E-mail: REQUIREMENT COMPLIANCE Single Family Dwelling Units: Multi -family Dwelling Units: 94 Total Land Requirement: Acres Proposed Dedication:.70 Acres Has the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? Yes Land Fee: Single Family Fee ($148/dwelling unit): OAParks\Forms\Admin\Long FormPark Land Dedication Ordinance Project Review Checklist.dot Revised 11129101 Multifamily Fee ($112/dwelling unit): Total Acquisition Fee: $10,528 Single Family Fee ($309/dwelling unit): Multi -family Fee ($233/dwelling unit): $21,902 Total Single Family Fee: ($457/Dwelling Unit): Total Multi -family Fee ($345/Dwelling Unit): $32,430 Required development cost: Staff review date and comment: Parks Board review and decision: Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? If yes, staff recommends: SECTION 10-113-7: Prior Park Acauisition Is there an existing neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development? Yes If yes, staff recommends: Jack and Dorothv Miller Park is approximately .5 mile from the site althouth it is a longer walk than .6 of a mile because of the indirect route needed. Steeplechase is approximately the same distance but is a shorter walk (A mile). SECTION 10®E: Contarehensive Plan Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Comments: 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? a. Detention/Retention Acreage in floodplain: Acreage in detention: Acreage in greenways: Comments: Percentage: Size: Meets Board Policy: b. Does the location require users to cross an arterial road? c. Topography: d. Trees/Scenery: 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? b. Restricted access: c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? Percentage: Percentage: Percentage: d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends acceptance of the park land dedication funds. Parks & Recreation Board: Planning & Zoning Board: City Council: City of College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Fiscal Year 2002 Goals and Objectives (not prioritized) Establish policies and standards for re -appraisal of existing parks, facilities, and services offered by the Department. ❑ Review quarterly reports on park maintenance standards and develop recommendations regarding levels of service (VS4S2a). ❑ Review proposed park conceptual plans and make recommendations for intergenerational features (VS4S3a). ❑ Review and develop recommendations for Urban Forestry Plan (VS3S4a). ❑ Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. More interaction between Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission, and shared vision with the City Council (VS4S8a). R1 Assist with the review and preparation of the Unified Development Ordinance (Noveinber 13, 2001). 0 Review and recommend possible changes to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (October 9, 2001). R1 Conduct a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss goals (September 20, 2001). El Conduct a joint meeting with the City Council to confirm goals (December 61 2001). Implementation of the approved Capital Improvement Program. 0 Castlegate Park site review (November]3, 2001). ❑ Lick Creek Park site review. ❑ Woodway Park site review. ❑ Shenandoah Park site review. ❑ Madeley Park site review. Planning and coordination for the next bond issue. ❑ Identify and assess the needs for future park facilities. ❑ Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. ❑ Determine priorities for development. ❑ Develop a recommendation for consideration in the 2002 bond program. Review and update the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan. ❑ Review and update goals and objectives of the plan. ❑ Review and update facility concepts and standards. ❑ Review and update needs assessment. ❑ Review and update priorities. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board FY2002 Goals and Priorities Parks & Rec. Advisory Board Approval: October 9, 2001 City Council Approval: Last Updated. December 7, 2001 Page I of 2 1:1 Develop recommendation for plan adoption by the City Council. Veterans Park and Athletic Complex, Phase 11 Development. 1:1 Review needs for future facilities and programs. El Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff. 0 Determine priorities for development. El Develop recommendations for implementation. Skate Park facility planning (VS4S5b). • Develop recommendation for scope of project. (November 13, 2001) • Develop recommendation for facility use. (November 13, 2001) 21 Develop recommendation for implementation. (November 13, 2001) Review funding sources for the installation of two backstops and two batting cages at Bee Creek Park. 2 Review preliminary cost estimates prepared by Staff (A"ovember 13, 2001). El Determine needs for program requirements. 1:1 Develop recommendations for scope of project. 0 Develop recommendations for implementation. Review funding sources for the repair or replacement of the jogging track at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park. 0 Review proposed project cost estimates. EI Review funding alternatives (Completed by Staff). 0 Develop recommendations for implementation. Support implementation of the Greenways Master Plan. 2 Receive update report from Greenways Coordinator (October 9, 2001). El Review Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan as it relates to greenways. Support the City Council's Interagency Plan in any Park and Recreation related issues. 0 Continue dialog with the College Station Independent School District regarding future school/park developments. El Continue dialog with Texas A&M University regarding Hensel Park and Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. Develop programs and facilities for Senior Citizens. • Receive input from fall Eisenhower Leadership Development Program group. • Determine priorities for programs and facilities. • Develop recommendations for implementation. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board FY2002 Goals and Priorities Parks & Rec. Advisory Board Approval: October 9, 2001 City Council Approval: Last Updated: December 7, 2001 Page 2 of 2 Senior Advisory Committee Regular Meeting & Workshop Monday, November 26, 2001 0"U00111 Members Present: Phyllis Dozier, Annie Lee Finch, Laura Holmes, Gerald Jordan, Bill Kling, Billy Lay, Mary Jo Lay, Neal Nutall, Carol Parzen, Suzanne Reynolds, Joanna Yeager =1 71TIMETITOW, m I IN MIT MIMI 11 Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Peter Lamont, David Gerling and Marci Rodgers I. Call to order. The meeting was c . Effelre =Iqffl=A� �- �11 � II. Hear visitors. None LII. Approval of minutes from meeting of October 29, 2001. The minutes werl� approved as circulated. IV. Eisenhower Leadership Development Program reports. Michael Kemper, Julie Leake and Drew Neumeyer presented a power point presentation on their research. The project focus was on senior facilities, programming and transportation. The students conducted a survey of citizens in College Station who are 65 years of age and older. Five hundred surveys were mailed and 127 were returned and results recorded. The committee was provided with an executive summary and conclusion from the survey of College Station senior citizens. (Copy on file) The committee was given opportunity to respond to the report and make recommendations. V. Report from Senior Services Coordinator. (on file) VI. Lunch VIL Workshop Session Steve Beachy lead the workshop session and asked committee members to offer suggestions for programs they would like to see the city offer. Options for programs: ® Educational classes offered off the university campus such as art and politics ® Arts and crafts ® Games such as dominoes and cards • Listening to old radio shows ® Offer a meal with a speaker once a month using local resources for current events ® Lecture series utilizing Texas A & M professors ® Facilities in the park for seniors such as walking trails, games and all weather facilities ® Exercise classes, indoor weights and low impact aerobics ® Utilize representative groups of all ages in the community for dispersing information and receiving input for projects before they are put in place in order to improve communication from council to community ■ Exercise equipment, game rooms and pools ® Develop a Senior Resource Group which would act as an information center for all services available to seniors. ® Information Center could include information for senior veterans and other government programs ® Resource room that is inviting and comfortable for reading ® Meals ® Trips (museums, sporting events, shopping) ® Volunteer groups organized ® Outreach — seniors serving the needy Communication/Coordination The group discussed effective ways to communicate programs offered to the citizens and the following ideas were mentioned. ® Newspaper Web sites Interfaith organizations TV access channel Retirement Living Communities (Newsletters) Newcomers packet including information on senior programs Program information available in physician's waiting rooms Flyers at the grocery stores City newsletter/Utility bill insert TV news shows Radio & TV Public Service Announcements Movie Theaters Libraries Provide information on programs to local churches and their senior groups Develop relationships with the Pastors from black churches in order to promote programs to their members Town Hall type meeting for distributing information The Committee also looked into options for facilities and discussed options presented by staff. (on file) Other suggestions from the committee included: ■ Portable buildings from the school district ® Central Park most desirable setting VIII. Next meeting date and agenda. Monday, December 17, 2001 Review recommendation prepared by staff to be presented to City Council on January 10, 2002. IX. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 1:30pm � 1 6T1911 E 'I 1 118 ra- 1 I E um Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2001, 5:15p.m. College Station Conference Center MINUTES Staff Present: Grace Calbert, Conference Center Facility Supervisor Nita Hilburn, Conference Center Secretary/Event Coordinator Members Present: Mollie Guin (Chair), Ed Holdredge, Fran Lamb (Vice Chair) Member Absent: Eileen Sather Call To Order: The Meeting was called to order at 5:45p.m. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting: None Hear visitors - None Approval of the Minutes: Mollie Guin requested the minutes of September 11, 2001 regular meeting of the Conference Center Advisory Committee be reviewed and approved. Fran Lamb made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Mollie Guin seconded the motion. All were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. Revenue Reports: Revenue reports were reviewed for September 2001. Revenues for September 2001 were $8,593.13 versus September 2000 of $10,809.80. Number of clients served in September 2001 were 6,899 vs. September 2000 of 9,059. Adjourn: The Meeting was adjourned at 6:30pm. The next meeting will be held at the College Station Conference Center on Tuesday November 13, 2001, at 5:15pm. Respectfully submitted, Nita Hilburn, Recording Secretary iW : 17W1 Needs Assessment Veterans Park Athletic Complex In the 1998 Capital Improvement Project Bond election, funds were provided for the initial development of the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. (VPAC) In November of 2001, City Council awarded a contract the phase I development which includes the construction of six adult soccer fields, two of which are lighted, and two lighted adult softball fields. This report is intended to help guide the second phase of development of the Veterans Park Athletic Complex, including recommendations on the type and number of additional fields to be built. In order to evaluate the future needs of VPAC properly, it is necessary to determine how many users there will be. Normally, this would include evaluation of past participation history, growth trends and future population growth estimates. In this instance, however, we did not have access to all of the variables for each of the sports. In the case of youth soccer, the Department contacted the College Station Soccer Club and received a seven-year registration history. The soccer club did not provide a forecast of future growth, however. In this instance, staff reviewed the growth history and discovered that the youth soccer program had growth ranging between 1 % and 20% annually. Additionally, in a conversation with Mitchell Smith, President of the Brazos Valley Youth Soccer Association, it was stated that soccer is growing at an average of 10% annually, nationwide. According to the Development Services Department, the population in College Station is expected to grow at a rate of 3% per year for the next ten years. The College Station School District is projecting a 3% growth rate for the student population'. Given these factors, the Department estimated that soccer would continue to grow at a rate of 10% per year for the next 5 years. However, it is believed that the City's slower growth rate would not support this rate of growth for the full ten years. Therefore, the growth rate is estimated at 5% annually for years 6-10. With Adult Soccer, no trend data was available after numerous requests were made of the Brazos Valley Soccer Association. Therefore, growth for Adult soccer was estimated at 3% annually, in keeping pace with the City's growth projections. Likewise, the girls fastpitch softball program, while increasing in popularity and experiencing some growth, does not have enough history to adequately estimate a trend. The best estimate is that the program will grow at the same rate as the general City population, 3 percent. Adult softball has presented somewhat of challenge in estimating growth. Until 2000, the program was operating above capacity and turning teams away. In 2000 however, the City began charging an additional $75 per team Facility Replacement Fee. When this fee took effect, participation dropped for the first time in eleven years. Participation dropped again in 2001. Some of the teams that stopped participating in the College Station program started to play in the City of Bryan's program. However, that program has reached capacity. It is the Department's estimate that the downward trend in adult softball will end this year and the program will begin Per telephone conversation with Ann Ganter, Assistant to the Superintendent for Policy and District Foundation 12/06/01 1:35 PM 1 to recover its participation base. Because the program was once at capacity and lost participation due to factors other than population saturation, it is estimated that the program will, for at least the first 5 years, grow at a rate above the City's estimated 3%. This is especially true given the fact that the program had not only reached its maximum participation on the current complex, but also the fact that the Department was turning away approximately 100 teams a year. Given these factors, it is estimated that the adult softball will grow at a rate of 5% annually. Another factor to consider in determining the need for additional facilities at the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex is the capacity of the fields. This is the number of teams or individuals each field can support. In the case of the youth soccer fields, the College Station Soccer Club did not provide a number of teams or individuals that could use each field. Therefore, staff took the current registration number 1,551 and divided it by the current number of game fields, 11, to develop a ratio of 141 participants or 13 teams per field, at the current rate of usage. With the adult soccer program, they are currently playing with 21 teams on 3 fields. In the case of adult softball, we have previously had 45 teams, per field, per season. This is above our optimum level of 32 teams per field per season. We went to this type of scheduling to accommodate the demand for adult softball on the available fields. Even with the decrease in participation due to the fee increase in 2000, we are still above our optimum field use limit; this requires some teams to begin games at 10:15 at night. Additionally, due to changes in the rules governing the Amateur Softball Association, the national governing body for our softball program, the adult men's softball, which is the City's largest program, should be played on fields with a minimum field depth of 300 feet. The current fields at Central Park have a field depth of only 275 feet, and cannot be expanded. This severely limits the types of leagues the City can offer, even with local rule modifications, and prevents the City from hosting adult men's slow pitch tournaments. These tournaments can have a significant economic impact. In regards to girls' fast -pitch softball, games are currently played on four fields around town. These include the two fields at Bee Creek Park, one at Lemontree Park and one at Fairview Park. In the case of both Lemontree and Fairview parks, both of these are neighborhood parks on which we have been forced, by demand for services, to place activities traditionally held in community parks. Additionally, Fairview Park softball field is not lighted and has no parking or restrooms. At this time, the Department is recommending that the first priority for development in phase two of the Veterans Park Athletic Complex be the completion of the five field adult softball complex, including three lighted fields, concession area and restroom facilities. There are several reasons for this recommendation. First, the current adult softball complex at Central Park is over utilized. The maximum level of play on these fields in order to properly maintain them and not have players playing late at night, is four games a night. Currently, we are playing five games a night on some fields. While this is possible, it is detrimental to proper maintenance of the fields. Also it requires starting games after 10 p.m. during normal workweek nights. 12/06/01 1:35 PM 2 At the current level of participation, we have an average of 35.33 teams per field per season, and optimal is 32 teams per field per season. With the construction of the Veterans Park five -field complex, the average would be 28.27 teams per field per season. This would allow the program growth through 2006 before we may have to limit registrations or play 5 games per field per night again. Additionally, by moving the adult program to VPAC, the Department will be able to relocate the girls fastpitch program to Central Park. This will benefit the girls program in several ways. First, it will put the entire program at one complex, reducing the maintenance costs, a concern noted during the 2001 fee study. Secondly, it will increase the impression that the City is committed to the girls fastpitch program. Also, it will reduce the travel for parents who have children playing at more than one facility and provide more facilities. Finally, by having all of the games played at one facility, the participants would have a chance to see others play increasing the community atmosphere of the program. Finally, as the adult program grows, the Co -Recreational portion of the program could, if needed, play at Central Park and share the facility with the youth program. This particular portion of the program can still play on fields with 275 foot fences. There are currently 50 teams per season playing and would require two nights per week to play on four fields. The sample schedule would have the adults play on Monday and Wednesday and the youth playing on Tuesday and Thursday with Saturday available if needed. As a result of moving the girls fastpitch program to Central Park, the fields at Bee Creek, Lemon Tree and Fairview could be re -programmed to other uses. Lemon Tree and Fairview could be returned to neighborhood parks with less traffic impacting the neighborhood. Bee Creek Park could be re -developed into either an adult fastpitch complex or into a Pony League baseball complex. There have been past requests for Pony League or other, older age, baseball fields in College Station. With regards to soccer fields, there will be a need for some additional fields, however, the exact number is hard to determine. This is because the fields that are being built are full size adult fields. As such, these fields can be subdivided into a greater number of youth fields with the simple addition of marking paint and goals. The exact number of fields that can be marked will depend upon which size field is needed for that season. However, each adult field could be subdivided into two youth fields and give the City 12 new game fields for the youth. This will bring the total to 23 youth game fields, which fulfills the projected youth soccer field needs through 2010. For the adult soccer program, teams are currently playing on 3 fields in the fall and 5 fields in the spring. Here, we have applied the same 141 participants per field standard that we used with the youth program. This is reasonable given the fact that adult soccer averages 18-20 players per team and youth teams have a maximum of 11 players, resulting in fewer teams in the adult program trying to use the fields. Using these assumptions, the adult program can continue to play on the existing fields through 2010. Therefore, any new soccer field development could be delayed until 2006-2007 with completion in 2009-2010, when the current and new fields have reached capacity. 12/06/01 1:35 PM 3 DRAFT Adult Softball Year teams lost number of number of Number of Number of Percentage due to teams participants softball fields Softball Increase capacity needed to Fields meet demand 1981 0 120 1,980 2 4 0% 1982 0 120 1,980 2 4 0% 1983 0 160 2,640 2 4 33% 1984 0 180 2,970 2 4 13 % 1985 0 I 240 3,960 3 4 33% 1986 0 280 4,620 + 3 4 17% 1987 0 340 5,610 4 4 21% 1988 20 460 ' 7,590 5 4 41 % 1989 40 520 8,580 6 4 17% 1990 60 520 8,580 7 4 4% 1991 90 520 8,580 7 4 6% 1992 100 520 8,580 7 4 2% 1993 100 520 8,580 7 4 0% 1994 100 520 8,580 7 4 0% 1995 100 J 520 8,80 7 4 0% 1996 100 520 8,80 7 4 0% 1997 100 520 8,580 7 4 0% 1998 105 520 8,580 7 4 1% 1999 105 520 8,580 7 4 0% 2000 0 474 7,821 5 4 m9% 2001 0 424 6,996 5 4 -11 % 2002 ? 445 7,346 5 4 5% 2003 ? 467 7,713 5 6' 5% 2004 ? 491 8,099 6 6 5% 2005 ? 515 I 8,504 6 6 5% 2006 ? 541 8,929 6 92 5% 2007 ? 568 9,375 , 6 9 5% 2008 ? 597 I 9,844 7 9 5% 2009 ? 626 1 10,336 1 7 9 5% 2010 ? 658 I 10,853 I 7 9 5% 1) First two fields at Veterans Park and Athletic Complex 2) Completion of five field VPAC complex; Shares four field complex at Central Park 12/06/01 1:35 PM 4 with youth program 12/06/01 1:35 PM FT Girls Fastpitch Softball Year number of teams turned away number of number of Number of youth Number of teams participants softball fields youth needed to meet softball demand Game Fields 30 360 2 I 3' 34 408 I 2 3 32 384 2 3 33 396 2 3 34 407 2 3 35 420 2 3 36 432 2 3 37 445 3 4L 38 459 3 4 39 468 3 4 40 + 482 3 4 41 I 497 3 4 Percentage Increase 1) Bee Creek —2 Lemon Tree-1 2) Completion of five field VPAC complex; Shares four field complex at Central Park with youth program 0% 13% -6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 12/06/01 1:35 PM 6 3) Adult Soccer Year number of number of number of Number of soccer Number of Percentage teams teams participants fields needed to Soccer Increase turned meet demand Fields away 2001 0 19 i 313 3 + 5' I 3% 2002 0 20 322 3 I 5 3% 2003 I 0 ( 21 ' 332 f 3 11` 3% 2004 0 I 21 I 342 I 3 11 3% ! 2005 0 + 22 352 3 11 I 3% 2006 0 23 + 363 3 11 3% 2007 0 23 374 3 11 + 3% 2008 0 24 385 ' 3 9' 3% 2009 I ? I 25 396 3 9 3% 2010 ? ( 26 408 ' 3 9 3% 1) Central Park — 3 Fields Southwood Athletic Park — 2 Fields (Spring Only) 2) VPAC — 6 fields, 2 with lights 3) Two Adult fields converted to four youth fields 4) Youth Soccer Year number of number of number of Number of soccer Number of Percentage teams teams participants fields needed to Soccer Increase turned meet demand Fields away 2001 ! 0 119 ! 1,551 11 13' 10% ' 2002 i ? 131 1,706 f 12 + 13 10% 2003 ? 144 1,877 + 13 192 10% 2004 ? 159 2,066 15 19 ( 10% 2005 ? I 175 2,273 16 1 19 10% 2006 ? 192 2,500 18 19 10% 2007 ? 210 , 2,625 I 19 I 19 I 5% 2008 ? 212 2,756 20 I 226 5% 2009 ? 223 + 2,894 21 ( 22 5% 2010 ' ? ( 234 I 3,039 22 I 22 i 5% 1) Anderson Park —5 Fields Southwood Athletic Park — 5 Fields (3 during fall season, 5 during spring season) Central Park - 3 Fields 2) VAPC — 6 Fields 3) Two adult fields converted to four youth fields 12/06/01 1:35 PM 7 PARK LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST Date Received: Park Zone: 7 Name of Development: Holleman Village Addition Section 2 Applicant: Andv Resivio Address: 3001 Deerwood Drive City/State: Waco, Texas Zip: 76710 Phone Number:1254)753-0337 FAX: E-mail: Engineer/Planner: Galindo Engineers Address: 3833 South Texas Avenue City/State: Eryaln, TX - - -- Zip: 77802-- - - Phone Number: FAX- E-mail: a SECTION 10-B-10 Land Dedication Single Family ®welling Units: -_ -- -- Multi-family Dwelling Units: 36 Total Land Requirement:.268 Acres Proposed Dedication: 0 Acres SECTION 10-B-2a Fee in Lieu of Land Has the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? Yes Land Fee: Single Famiiy Fee (148ldwelling unit): Multi -family Fee ($1121dwelling unit): $4 032-- Total Acquisition Fee: $4,032 SECTION. 10-B-3o Pavk Develovn�eit Fee Single Family Fee ($3091dwelling unit): Multifamily Fee ($233/dwelling unit): $8,388 TOM Fas Amounts: Total Single Family Fee: ($457/Dwelling Unit): Total Multi -family Fee ($345JDwelling Unit): $12,420 SEC T nW 10= -4o Pave Devoe orom nt in Lieu of Fee Required development cost: Staff review date and comment: Parks Board review and decision: ECT 10® ®5m Minimum PaPV, Size Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? If yes, staff recommends: SECTION' C-B-7o Pftrr Park Acquisition Is there a4 � eAAng neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development? Yes, Zone 7 If yes, staff recommends: Woodwav Park is across Jones Butler Road. SECTION ®Ea Comorehensive Plan Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Comments: SECTION 1 ®F: Additional Information 1. Island in the 100-year flog plain? . Percentage: -- - a. Detention/Retention Size: Meets Board Policy: - - - Acreage in fioodplain: -- -- -- _-- - Percentage: Acreage in detention: Percentage: Acreage in greenays: - - -- --- Percentage: -- Comments: b. Does the location require users to cross an arterial road? c. Topography: -- -- d. Trees/Scenery:- 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? b. Restricted access: c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: -- Staff recommends acceptance of the complete dedication fee. Pares & Recreation Scam: Planning & Zoning Board: City Council: From: "John Nichols" <jpn@ag.tamu.edu> To: <klehde@ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 12/3/01 1:33PM Subject: Re: Joint Meeting with City Council — Dec. 6th Kris, I will be there. Per our earlier discussion and a conversation with Steve, lets send an e-mail to the Council members and relevant staff indicating that, in addition to the CPSBoard goals for the year, we want to discuss several specific items: 1. The Council's view of the Board's role in the development of priorities for the upcoming bond election. 2. Veterans Park and Athletic Complex development .3. Development and funding of a skate park A. Open spaces concept in the UDO; Parkland Dedication Ordinance as part of UDO b t5. Board Goals and Objectives and Council's Strategic issues r Kris, format this as a memo from me and the Board, check with Steve, and transmit to the Council and others who will be there. Thanks, John >>> "Kris Lehde"<klehde@ci.college-station.tx.us> 12/03/01 10:06AM >>> Just a reminder of the joint workshop meeting with the City Council that will be held this Thursday (from 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.) at the City Hall Council Chambers (I will forward an agenda to you, once it is available). To ensure quorum requirements, please let me know as soon as possible if you will not be able to attend this meeting. I will be forwarding you the minutes from the November 13th meeting, but the Board had recommended that the following items be discussed with Council: - Capital Improvement Program; - Discussion of a Skate Park; - Board Goals and Objectives; - Discussion of previous topics presented to the Council (May 10th, 2001); - Discussion of the Board's acceptance of the changes to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance and discussion of the Unified Development Ordinance Public Release Draft; and - The status of the strategic issues pertaining to the Parks and Recreation Department. I sent you this information via e-mail last week. Please let me know if you would like any additional information. Thanks, and hope you have a great week:-) Kris Lehde Staff Assistant College Station Parks & Recreation (979) 764-3414 College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. IiC/ `IIIY111 The use of the recommendations made by the Texas Municipal League in the Public Skating Facility Guidelines, along with the protection given the facility under Chapter 75 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, give the City of College Station a good deal of liability protection. Therefore it is the Department's recommendation that these guidelines be followed as closely as possible in the desien of the facility and operation of the facility be unsupervised with recommended rules posted. The current funding plan is to issue $162,000 in Certificates of Obligation in FY03 to build a skate facility. These funds could be used to build the initial 10,000 square foot phase. Funding for the second phase could be either through the issuance of Certificates of Obligation or through inclusion in the next Capital Improvement Program. Monument, CO 14 12111101 11:29 AM Skate Park Feasibilitv Stuft FETUS and Hweafien Department 7TIFT"W"r, = Began investigatong 90 1988 In FY 2000 $162,000 awaved ac construct roller hockey rink At January public bearing wacammemd build skatepawk October 2001 Surveyed other Cities Resented to Parks Board him HoueambeF and December 2001 Staffing V& NOR -Staffing Non -Skateboard use Equipment requirements Design and Construction + Design should involve participants Poured in Place • More expenslue • static - Notsuitablefov reorganization '; mil. [flow Hama Method • less costly • Expandable • can VefiffFOR90 obstacle 'Bev now experience Maintenance q� 0811V Visual Inspections MouthlY In depth Inspections Documentation • Inspections • repairs Life spans Financial Impact $162,000 in Certificates of Obligation planned in FY 03 R8Se facility as Planned 10,000 Sq.fL • B1111tWith Planned $162,000 • limited equipment ` phase * Man I — 5,000 additional Sq.fL — $134AOO • Oution2 — 10,000 additional sq. M —$195,000 Options include • Southwood Athletic Park © Bee Creek Park • Central Park • Wolf Pen Creek • WATarrowPark Liability Low rate of reported iniury Protection under Texas Civil Code Ch.75 Limitation of Landownevilahilitu TML recommendations - TML Puhlic Skating Guidelines, RUM 2909 seweval phases 9fluclueyouth community Unstaffed Signed caasgdev allowing bicycles and pollen blades , Maintenance • Bally Inspection for general condition • Monthly Inspections for unseen issues • Document per TML recommendations Liability • Sign ov state law Funding Initial phase in FY03 as planned Following phases in CIP as needed 0 0011011S Accept Report and Recommendations Provide further direction for staff Well Light Isla" I I I I I 1" Diameter Steel Rod (blunt tip) 6" Diameter Hollow Steel Sphere 3" Diameter Collar 4" Diameter Ring 1Y2" x Q2" Tubular Steel Frame IY2" x IY2" Tubular Steel Frame Cap Stone (Cast Stone Flat Base - 36" x 36" x 3") Cap Stone (Cast Stone Flat Base - 34" x 34" s 1h") Engraved Lettering Cast Stone Side Panel Needs Assessment Veterans Park Athletic Complex In the 1998 Capital Improvement Project Bond election, funds were provided for the initial development of the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex. (VPAC) In November of 2001, City Council awarded a contract the phase I development which includes the construction of six adult soccer fields, two of which are lighted, and two lighted adult softball fields. This report is intended to help guide the second phase of development of the Veterans Park Athletic Complex, including recommendations on the type and number of additional fields to be built. ��MA In order to evaluate the future needs of VPAC properly, it is necessary to determine how many users there will be. Normally, this would include evaluation of past participation history, growth trends and future population growth estimates. In this instance, however, we did not have access to all of the variables for each of the sports. In the case of youth soccer, the Department contacted the College Station Soccer Club and received a seven-year registration history. The soccer club did not provide a forecast of future growth, however. In this instance, staff reviewed the growth history and discovered that the youth soccer program had growth ranging between 1 % and 20% annually. Additionally, in a conversation with Mitchell Smith, President of the Brazos Valley Youth Soccer Association, it was stated that soccer is growing at an average of 10% annually, nationwide. According to the Development Services Department, the population in College Station is expected to grow at a rate of 3% per year for the next ten years. The College Station School District is projecting a 3% growth rate for the student population'. Given these factors, the Department estimated that soccer would continue to grow at a rate of 10% per year for the next 5 years. However, it is believed that the City's slower growth rate would not support this rate of growth for the full ten years. Therefore, the growth rate is estimated at 5% annually for years 6-10. With Adult Soccer, no trend data was available after numerous requests were made of the Brazos Valley Soccer Association. Therefore, growth for Adult soccer was estimated at 3% annually, in keeping pace with the City's growth projections. Likewise, the girls fastpitch softball program, while increasing in popularity and experiencing some growth, does not have enough history to adequately estimate a trend. The best estimate is that the program will grow at the same rate as the general City population, 3 percent. Adult softball has presented somewhat of challenge in estimating growth. Until 2000, the program was operating above capacity and turning teams away. In 2000 however, the City began charging an additional $75 per team Facility Replacement Fee. When this fee took effect, participation dropped for the first time in eleven years. Participation dropped again in 2001. Some of the teams that stopped participating in the College Station program started to play in the City of Bryan's program. However, that program has reached capacity. It is the Department's estimate that the downward trend in adult softball will end this year and the program will begin ' Per telephone conversation with Ann Ganter, Assistant to the Superintendent for Policy and District Foundation 12/06/01 1:35 PM 1 R'• to recover its participation base. Because the program was once at capacity and lost participation due to factors other than population saturation, it is estimated that the program will, for at least the first 5 years, grow at a rate above the City's estimated 3%. This is especially true given the fact that the program had not only reached its maximum participation on the current complex, but also the fact that the Department was turning away approximately 100 teams a year. Given these factors, it is estimated that the adult softball will grow at a rate of 5% annually. Another factor to consider in determining the need for additional facilities at the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex is the capacity of the fields. This is the number of teams or individuals each field can support. In the case of the youth soccer fields, the College Station Soccer Club did not provide a number of teams or individuals that could use each field. Therefore, staff took the current registration number 1,551 and divided it by the current number of game fields, 11, to develop a ratio of 141 participants or 13 teams per field, at the current rate of usage. With the adult soccer program, they are currently playing with 21 teams on 3 fields. In the case of adult softball, we have previously had 45 teams, per field, per season. This is above our optimum level of 32 teams per field per season. We went to this type of scheduling to accommodate the demand for adult softball on the available fields. Even with the decrease in participation due to the fee increase in 2000, we are still above our optimum field use limit; this requires some teams to begin games at 10:15 at night. Additionally, due to changes in the rules governing the Amateur Softball Association, the national governing body for our softball program, the adult men's softball, which is the City's largest program, should be played on fields with a minimum field depth of 300 feet. The current fields at Central Park have a field depth of only 275 feet, and cannot be expanded. This severely limits the types of leagues the City can offer, even with local rule modifications, and prevents the City from hosting adult men's slow pitch tournaments. These tournaments can have a significant economic impact. In regards to girls' fast -pitch softball, games are currently played on four fields around town. These include the two fields at Bee Creek Park, one at Lemontree Park and one at Fairview Park. In the case of both Lemontree and Fairview parks, both of these are neighborhood parks on which we have been forced, by demand for services, to place activities traditionally held in community parks. Additionally, Fairview Park softball field is not lighted and has no parking or restrooms. At this time, the Department is recommending that the first priority for development in phase two of the Veterans Park Athletic Complex be the completion of the five field adult softball complex, including three lighted fields, concession area and restroom facilities. There are several reasons for this recommendation. First, the current adult softball complex at Central Park is over utilized. The maximum level of play on these fields in order to properly maintain them and not have players playing late at night, is four games a night. Currently, we are playing five games a night on some fields. While this is possible, it is detrimental to proper maintenance of the fields. Also it requires starting games after 10 p.m. during normal workweek nights. 12/06/01 1:35 PM 2 At the current level of participation, we have an average of 35.33 teams per field per season, and optimal is 32 teams per field per season. With the construction of the Veterans Park five -field complex, the average would be 28.27 teams per field per season. This would allow the program growth through 2006 before we may have to limit registrations or play 5 games per field per night again. Additionally, by moving the adult program to VPAC, the Department will be able to relocate the girls fastpitch program to Central Park. This will benefit the girls program in several ways. First, it will put the entire program at one complex, reducing the maintenance costs, a concern noted during the 2001 fee study. Secondly, it will increase the impression that the City is committed to the girls fastpitch program. Also, it will reduce the travel for parents who have children playing at more than one facility and provide more facilities. Finally, by having all of the games played at one facility, the participants would have a chance to see others play increasing the community atmosphere of the program. Finally, as the adult program grows, the Co -Recreational portion of the program could, if needed, play at Central Park and share the facility with the youth program. This particular portion of the program can still play on fields with 275 foot fences. There are currently 50 teams per season playing and would require two nights per week to play on four fields. The sample schedule would have the adults play on Monday and Wednesday and the youth playing on Tuesday and Thursday with Saturday available if needed. As a result of moving the girls fastpitch program to Central Park, the fields at Bee Creek, Lemon Tree and Fairview could be re -programmed to other uses. Lemon Tree and Fairview could be returned to neighborhood parks with less traffic impacting the neighborhood. Bee Creek Park could be re -developed into either an adult fastpitch complex or into a Pony League baseball complex. There have been past requests for Pony League or other, older age, baseball fields in College Station. With regards to soccer fields, there will be a need for some additional fields, however, the exact number is hard to determine. This is because the fields that are being built are full size adult fields. As such, these fields can be subdivided into a greater number of youth fields with the simple addition of marking paint and goals. The exact number of fields that can be marked will depend upon which size field is needed for that season. However, each adult field could be subdivided into two youth fields and give the City 12 new game fields for the youth. This will bring the total to 23 youth game fields, which fulfills the projected youth soccer field needs through 2010. For the adult soccer program, teams are currently playing on 3 fields in the fall and 5 fields in the spring. Here, we have applied the same 141 participants per field standard that we used with the youth program. This is reasonable given the fact that adult soccer averages 18-20 players per team and youth teams have a maximum of 11 players, resulting in fewer teams in the adult program trying to use the fields. Using these assumptions, the adult program can continue to play on the existing fields through 2010. Therefore, any new soccer field development could be delayed until 2006-2007 with completion in 2009-2010, when the current and new fields have reached capacity. 12/06/01 1:35 PM 3 DRAFT Adult Softball Year teams lost number of number of Number of Number of Percentage due to teams participants softball fields Softball Increase capacity needed to Fields meet demand 1981 I 0 120 ( 1,980 ( 2 ( 4 ( 0% 1982 ( 0 120 1,980 2 ( 4 ( 0% 1983 0 160 2,640 2 4 33% 1984 0 ( 180 2,970 2 4 13% 1985 0 ( 240 3,960 3 4 33% 1986 0 ( 280 ( 4,620 ( 3 ( 4 17% 1987 ( 0 340 ( 5,610 ( 4 ( 4 21 % 1988 ( 20 460 7,590 5 ( 4 41 % 1989 ( 40 520 8,580 6 ( 4 ( 17% 1990 ( 60 ( 520 ( 8,580 7 ( 4 ( 4 % 1991 ( 90 520 ( 8,580 7 ( 4 ( 6% 1992 ( 100 520 ( 8,580 ( 7 ( 4 ( 2% 1993 100 520 8,580 7 ( 4 0% 1994 100 520 8,580 7 ( 4 0% 1995 100 520 8,580 7 4 ( 0% 1996 100 520 8,580 7 4 ( 0% 1997 100 ( 520 8,580 7 1 4 0% 1998 105 ( 520 8,580 7 ( 4 1% 1999 ( 105 ( 520 8,580 7 4 0% 2000 0 ( 474 7,821 5 4 -9 % 2001 ( 0 ( 424 6,996 5 ( 4 ( -11 % 2002 , ? ( 445 7,346 5 ( 4 ( 5% 2003 ? ( 467 7,713 5 ( 6' ( 5% 2004 ? 491 ( 8,099 ( 6 ( 6 ( 5% 2005 ? 515 ( 8,504 ( 6 6 5% 2006 ? 541 ( 8,929 ( 6 91 5% 2007 ? ( 568 ( 9,375 ( 6 ( 9 5% 2008 ? ( 597 ( 9,844 ( 7 ( 9 5% 2009 ? I 626 ( 10,336 ( 7 ( 9 5% 2010 ( ? ( 658 ( 10,853 ( 7 ( 9 ( 5% 1) First two fields at Veterans Park and Athletic Complex 2) Completion of five field VPAC complex; Shares four field complex at Central Park 12/06/01 1:3 5 PM 4 with youth program 12/06/01 1:35 PM DRAFT Girls Fastpitch Softball Year number of teams turned away 1999 0 2000 0 2001 0 2002 I 0 2003 0 2004 0 2005 0 2006 0 2007 0 2008 0 2009 ? 2010 + ? number of number of Number of youth Number of Percentage teams participants softball fields youth Increase needed to meet softball demand Game Fields 30 360 2 3' i 0% 34 I 408 2 3 I 13 % 32 384 2 + 3 -6% 33 396 i 2 I 3 3% 34 407 I 2 3 3% 35 420 I 2 + 3 ( 3% 36 432 2 I 3 3% 37 445 3 42 3% 38 459 3 4 3% 39 468 3 4 2% 40 482 3 ' 4 3% 41 497 3 I 4 3% 1) Bee Creek —2 Lemon Tree-1 2) Completion of five field VPAC complex; Shares four field complex at Central Park with youth program 12/06/01 1:35 PM 6 DRAFT 3) Adult Soccer Year number of number of number of Number of soccer Number of Percentage teams teams participants fields needed to Soccer Increase turned meet demand Fields away 2001 0 19 313 3 5' 3% 2002 0 20 322 3 5 3% 2003 0 21 332 3 11` 3% 2004 0 21 342 3 11 3% 2005 0 22 352 3 11 3% 2006 0 23 363 3 11 3% 2007 0 23 374 3 11 3% 2008 0 24 385 3 9s 3% 2009 ? 25 396 3 9 3% 2010 ? 26 408 3 9 3% 1) Central Park — 3 Fields Southwood Athletic Park — 2 Fields (Spring Only) 2) VPAC — 6 fields, 2 with lights 3) Two Adult fields converted to four youth fields 4) Youth Soccer Year number of ' number of number of Number of soccer Number of Percentage teams teams participants fields needed to Soccer Increase turned meet demand Fields away 2001 0 119 1,551 11 13' 10% 2002 ? 131 1,706 12 13 10% 2003 ? 144 1,877 13 19` 10% 2004 ? 159 2,066 15 19 10% 2005 ? 175 2,273 16 19 10% 2006 ? 192 2,500 18 19 10% 2007 ? 210 2,625 19 19 5% 2008 ? 212 2,756 20 2Z' 5% 2009 ? 223 2,894 21 22 5% 2010 ? 234 3,039 22 22 5% 1) Anderson Park —5 Fields Southwood Athletic Park — 5 Fields (3 during fall season, 5 during spring season) Central Park - 3 Fields 2) VAPC — 6 Fields 3) Two adult fields converted to four youth fields 12/06/01 1:35 PM 7 u STRATEGY. To pion for community growdh, we Wiii mairug2in COMPTehensivO Park piaraning processes and documentation. GOAL. To create incengives for deveiopers to provide adequage parks glut are She food point �,Iyig ih the neighborhood. Background Neighborhood parks should provide leisure facilities within easy walking distance of residents. These parks should also provide a sense of safety and community identity within the neighborhood. Two key requirements to achieve this concept are accessibility and visibility. The location of the park is greatly affected by the street alignment within the subdivision. The design of the street layout is an economic -based process, and developers must maximize their return on investment through the sale of lots or apartment units. 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- .2(d). "it is desirable that minimum of fifty (50%) percent 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" (Attachment A). Gabbard Park represents a neighborhood park with approximately fifty (50%) percent street frontage and houses facing the park on two sides (Dexter and Haines). This park is a good i j �,J !' `,� W Woodcreek Park (Shadowcrest Drive) represents the lower end with regard to this issue, having approximately 240 feet or approximately ten (10%) percent of the perimeter in street frontage. To improve upon the guidelines set forth by the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, a financial incentive to the developer is necessary. The costs to the developer include the actual construction of the street and sidewalk, as well as the potential loss in revenue from a reduced number of lots available. This potential loss may be mitigated through the subdivision planning process. Also, it is conceivable that the value of those units facing the park may be enhanced through this process. This leads to the conclusion that the major factors affecting the successful achievement of making the park a true focal point for the neighborhood are the central location of the site, and a high percentage of street frontage. Therefore, to enable the developer to plan their subdivisions with this goal in mind and without undue financial burden, the incentive should be directed to the cost of the streets abutting the park site. Method'MoqX The Park Land Dedication Ordinance establishes what is "desirable" in that regard, at the present standard (i.e. Gabbard Park). To improve upon the current trend, the incentive is proposed to be financial assistance for all street frontage above fifty (50%) percent of the park perimeter. This incentive amount is recommended to be at the rate of two-thirds of the actual cost of that street and related walks, curbs, gutters, etc. The two-thirds rate is recommended to partially address the vo-tenUM loss of lot sales for the developer. Page 2 of 5 Revised January 4, 2002 OYStrategic Planning Vision Statement 4IDeveloper Incentives Two examples of parks with greater than fifty (50%) percent perimeter are Thomas Park and the new Castlegate Park. Both have 100% street frontage and are true focal points for their respective neighborhoods. Thomas Park was acquired in 1938 and is a key element of the College Hills area. Thomas Park is divided into a north section and a south section, and each has a separate identity. The south section has 100% street frontage; however, the houses do not face the park. The north section also has 100% street frontage and all houses face the park. Those homes on the north end tend to be better maintained than those on the south end. Also, the "sense of community" appears greater on the north end. Castlegate Park is a more recent example of a good focal point. This park is approximately 4.35 acres and has 100% of the perimeter abutted with streets. This park is being constructed by the developer as part of the subdivision infrastructure as an added feature to attract customers to his development. No financial incentives were provided in this case. The proposed incentive should apply when the proposed park site meets those requirements stated in the Park Land Dedication Ordinance, is at least five (5) acres in size, and at least fifty (50%) percent of those dwelling units on streets abutting the park are oriented towards the park. These additional criteria will help to address the issue of creating the focal point and sense of community implied by the strategic issue, The recommended process for awarding the incentive will be administered in the same manner that is currently used for "oversize participation" for streets (Attachment B). This involves the preparation of engineer's estimates by the developer, which is then reviewed by City engineering staff, as set forth in section 9-EA of the current zoning ordinance. The payment, if Page 3 of 5 Revised January 4, 2002 O./Strategic PlanningNisfon Statement 4/Developer Incentives approved, is made in accordance with current City fiscal and budgeting policies. Incentives An example of potential costs is illustrated using the following assumptions. The park site is approximately five (5) acres in size and has a total perimeter of 1,868 feet. The cost of the abutting streets includes twenty-eight (28') feet of pavement with a six (6') foot sidewalk, curbs and gutters. The engineer's cost estimate for this street is approximately $95 per linear foot (Emerald Forest Phase 11, May 2001). The cost of placing streets around the entire perimeter is approximately $177,460. The cost for the portion above fifty (50%) percent of the perimeter would, therefore, be approximately incentive, the developer could receive approximately $59,153 for the additional frontage. Each proposal will require individual analysis to determine levels of eligibility and potential payments to the developer. This process should be incorporated into the preliminary planning phase for the proposed development. Staff' recommendations along with recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board should be prepared prior to submission to the Is concept provides i definable and manageable format :o encourage the development of more useful parks within the community. The process is based upon the long-standing precedent of the existing over size participation program for other infrastructure as defined in the subdivision ordinance. It can be implemented with minimum of additional t�rne requirements Paige 4 ®V 5 Revised January 49 2002 OYStrategic PianninglVision Statement 4/Developer Incentives for either the staff or the developers and will be easy to explain to potential users of the program. Page 5 of 5 Revised January 4, 2002 OYStrategic Planning/Vision Statement 4/Developer Incentives ATTACHNC7 EHT "A" 1 O-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. �;- • - -.�i f•` �r1�!� ,�ici�E: �' ""J �1 t'��? .•�Ct'li Win- W.. -: •c7-c.3 ��-�r�� t1r� �> JC .CI -lily' `c�i l'i 00i 1F'1 r�; �i l•. ��`3 C1•�Cci �i (l C�i rjiCCF�SS �•00 ,`S i• iflL'- N ,��', • r•! '�:1� �)`. t��''.� 1.1!�• c`3 �, jG � �G 1111SSI��f1 If f��. ,i!r� F�)K'�a'It IG it S i�It�S' ��'I'� +1i�:t = �! 11f;`% ���Cr 1i 1 � • - ECiI r-lcl ��1 �-�� ��-� K S 10�'i�r �r•/�!� c� ��li? ICI .I. ��. r- � y' �,C��i� t fry ?'� C•��1 ii:, ��, r1 r i�l tiC"c�t� [•'taiil l�; i �c�3i S11dii ��� •,_ Ifs ;(l c.CC�riii�3(1" � '�i"'i ` 1��1!1'yi,fcii' Ica 1 3 i11� tits �����15 tJf CIS ',�; • I;.fIC�, 0 r��r- 1 - � 'r�l',1 a cell` f� r'I��11 c� cr �} � 11! �:�;!�� -11f • - ��r, 1 t0 •6 �: - � �, • _ F�,r r j��l' �(! F rvlSllr�' c�CCPSS efl;• ��e' FN 1f hrc; ;0!i•,�5 10011 ��JCV..SiOf��C - �y fC•;1;�. ? 0 � Silo ATTACHMENT "B" :!-s�.Fi �1 '• =�it i! �ai`� �•: 1 �'`_it to-�I �1 �'-. - - .��Y !:�' �3f�•i �.-" •. �r3 i'o .�1a.�r-• ,�) � ;:: i-i - -.�• -- _ - :.�i.'=". �� _ • • •- �� - - '! • - C � • • it t ioe � ��r � '�tl �•j"',:1C�f f;r �a �' �atl�'' 111 i-i�� ca�):��lo� �C• t�• - •'. "ear soli CO! �C � �o.•�i ,i a,l�' �Of" ,•III'•;` �•,f + �� `f`,o1olJ�, "�ta'e 'le •- • a`��1 r�` t1�` ~� • � •�� 1 ai��,��ro� _,� .�,'oI"Ct r? a� 'I�( ��e•;� `r� �,� � . •.o �, • r • - -•, � ': oar:, �a� �iyr�a`�� `�` - ,oi ICI a�•'• !i)a lal;:� - • =:�� '� .�,� � I� 'i)E - -• r - 00 �jr I e F•�I'(i:%F 'l f1t� . fly r!r'ill �� a %�ila`� - • - - !e�l.ieSir`�ifter r le •) ���� of = e 0ltlfli l I f''t: �I'i J -Ce a e u io 'lr' i 'i� �}�fC��e!�l'el?� �,� li•Iic =''� - �i��' .:!;�� � 'l >11�C•i �,I'•,ati^(lS rol �.� le':CP. S i�le �•, �c �= _ �iti •� • � •. lac ii�C.= ,a - ?� �t (�i �;�� U��-- Y t �Wj• a lateil II VOIRTORMOT& I I A IZI-4 ':SLIfflat 9-E.5 The City's participation shall be limited to a percentage of construction costs only. S-E.G At the time of the preliminary request, the City Council e es the Ig, t to evaluate to tilt overall economic benefit of the proposed bridge - ; t., the City. The Cit`. Council may elect not to participate or it mayelect to limit participation. 9-E.7 The CityS participation f'lli be based on - percent bra capacity required in excess of the capacity needed to serve property •- owned a d or controlled y the developer. The amount of participation by the C'+'` shall be limited to a maximum,: thirty percent 1'. of the cost of the bridge. L other participation payment lent shall be made on the same request. Priority Selection Lmick CreeK Park De 1. Entry road/Parking lot/engrg.fees/3 lights $ 265,000 2. Trail development,Deer Run trail,VS41S7.69gravel $87,500 3. Signage(entry sign+trail id signs) $10,000 4. Trail development (Copperhead Cut) $10,000 5. Kiosk(bulletin board/map) $3,500 6. Bike racks (4) $2,000 SUBTOTAL $3789000 Picnic units (5) $10,000 Elm circle trail (concrete) $19,500 Post Oak loop trail (gravel) $225000 aupon trail (natural earth) minor clearing 0 Raccoon Run (natural earthininor clearing Equestrian parking lot +2 solar light $12%000 Pavilion w/restrooms(w/sewer & water lines) $145,000 Electrical service to pavilion $3,500 Bridge (60'-70') $100,000 Bridge �4 ' g ,000 Outdoor , ,000 TOTFAL WS91000 A) Lc , 2 � � �,, � t From. "John Nichols!' <jpn@ag.tamu.edu> To- <klehde@ci.college-station.tx.us> Date- 12/5/01 5:26PM SubjecR. Request for Pardon Dear Kris, Please forward this request for pardon to the Board. i will be out of town on business on December 11, 2001 and will be unable to return in time for the regular Parks Board Meeting. Please accept my request for pardon regarding this absence. Thank you. ItI IF -I W; John P. Nichols Professor and Associate Head Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843-2124 Tel: 979-845-8491 Fax: 979-862-3019 Email: <jpn@tamu.edu>