Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/2001 - Regular Agenda - Parks Board***AGENDA*** CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PADS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 College Station Conference Center, Room 105 1300 George Bush 7:00 p.m. Call to order. 2. Hear visitors. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting. 4. Approval of minutes from Regular Meeting of January 9, 2001 and Special Meeting/Public Hearing of January 30, 2001. 5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning park land dedication for the Crowley Tract. 6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning park land dedication for the Bella Vista Subdivision. 7. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning intergenerational parks (City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy # 1). 8. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding proposed park maintenance standards (City Council Vision Statement #4, Strategy #5b). 9. Presentation, discussion, and possible action concerning a proposal for neighborhood park land dedication. 10. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding a possible skateboard or roller hockey facility. 11. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding the College Station Recreational Sports Association. 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 take arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website http://www.ci.college-station.tx.us and Cable Access Channel 19. ***Minutes"** City of College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory 13oard Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 2001 College Station Conference Center 1300 George Bush Drive 7:00 p.m. Ste ff Piregent- Steve peachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Curtis Bingham, Parks Operations Superintendent; Ross Albrecht, Forestry Superintendent; Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Ted Mayo, Assistant City Engineer; Judy Domms, Greenways Program Manager; Jessica Jimmerson, Staff Planner. Board Membem Prre5ent. Chris Barzilla, Chair (arrived during discussion of item #2); John Nichols; Bill Davis; Glen Davis; Glenn Schroeder; Jon Turton; John Crompton, Alternate; Laura Wood, Alternate. Board] bffembeir Abwnt.- George Dresser, Co -Chair. Gme5ts: Charles Ellison, P.O. Box 10103, College Station, Texas 77840 Tim Crowley, 1301 McKinney, Suite 3500, Houston, Texas 77010 Jim Whendt, 2201 Timberloch, Spring, Texas 77380 Wallace Phillips, 5010 Augusta, College Station, Texas 77840 Steve Arden, 311 Celina Loop, College Station, Texas 77845 Mike McClure, 9262 Brookwater Circle, College Station, Texas 7 7 845 Dr, Scott Shafer, 117 Pershing Ave., College Station, Texas 77840 Lauren Odell, 2402 Antelope, College Station, Texas 77845 Kelli Roberts, 1501 Stallings, #52, College Station, Texas 77840 Brett Weary, 105 B. Winter Park, College Station, Texas 77840 Gabrielle Hodges, 1802 Medina, College Station, Texas 77840 Jon Hallmark, 400 Nagle, #209, College Station, Texas 77840 V55i5toirs.- Karen Lott, 2701 Longmire Drive, #1201, College Station, Texas 77845 Rebekah Deaton, 701 A. Balcones, # 17, College Station, Texas 77845 Cody Miller, 303 Redmond, College Station, Texas 77840 Amy Myers, 804 Kalanchoe, College Station, Texas 77840 Chris Elliott, 500 Southwest Parkway West, College Station, Texas 77840 Kris Kurtz, 601 Luther Street, #1422, College Station, Texas 77840 Luke Anderson, 2305 Colgate, College Station, Texas 77840 Larry Farnsworth, 4012 Hunter Creek, College Station, Texas 77845 Paul Martin, 601 Cross Street, #33, College Station, Texas 77840 Jason VanDinter, PO Box 5937, College Station, Texas 77844 Chris Price, PO Box 15213, College Station, Texas 77841 Juel Nece, 800 Marion Pugh, #607, College Station, Texas 77840 Jamie Rae Walker, 907 Balcones, #114, College Station, Texas 77845 Page I of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 ,D trees and natural, scenic trails; ED natural looking lights at the parks; * natural gazebos that are not in the middle of parks; and ® natural looking signs at the parks. Kelli stated that most of the teens interviewed use Central Park because it "offers something for everyone". She stated that most of the teens visit the parks by walking, and wanted more parks that they could walk to. Brett stated that most of the teens were concerned about the sidewalks being broken and cracked because some of them like to rollerblade and skateboard to and through the parks. Kelli said that the one park that the teens didnt feel safe at was Brothers Pond Park because they felt that the park does not have enough lighting. Kelli went on to say that the teens were excited when asked about a skate park. Gabrielle Hodges and Jon Hallmark presented their findings on senior citizens. Gabrielle stated that they had interviewed a group of ten seniors. She said that most interviewed liked the differentiated uses of the parks. They would, though, like more of a meditational area that they could visit, as opposed to large recreational facilities. Jon stated that the seniors were also concerned with the issues of accessibility, lighting, and safety at the parks. They would also like a place where they could sit down and play board games. Gabrielle added that the seniors also wanted more drinking fountains in, the parks. Most felt that water is relaxing and had suggested more areas to sit down and watch the water and the ducks. John C. found it surprising that the groups had not mentioned flowers and ornamental plants at the parks. Gabrielle mentioned that a member of her focus group did comment about a crepe myrtle at Richard Carter Park. Dr. Shafer added that more details would be given once the reports were ready. Chris B. asked if the report could include which parks would be more advantageous to senior citizens. Dr. Shafer stated that that is the direction that they are headed towards. Pa-esentaflon, fflmuw� oim, P-nd puosIlWe Reflon iregsurdhmg piropoged pzu-k m0ntenznce stzndafrds (Cfty Couneth VWon ft0ement 94, Strategy #5b)- Steve stated that this item was placed on the agenda for Board input and would be taken to the City Council in March 2001. He added that once the standards are defined, the Department would need to determine what percentage of the standards should be met and the cost factor associated with them. Curtis Bingham and Ross Albrecht presented a PowerPoint presentation concerning the proposed park maintenance standards, as well as an urban forest management plan (see presentation). Steve asked the Board if the proposed standards were acceptable to them. Page 5 of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 After some discussion, John C. made a motion to endorse the proposed standards as a set of items that the Board would like to evaluate, and recommended that the Department should proceed to 1. identify the measurement level for the standards; 2. identify what level of measurement the standards will be based on; 3. determine how, and how frequently, the standards will be monitored; 4. determine who will monitor the standards; and 5. determine how the results will be incorporated into the budget process. ]dill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 9. Firege{tIathen, fflacIlIlWoim, %nd pow%Re acdfloa co nc@lanning a prropaBER foie nec ghborrhood p,%Tk l@mid c effle0ionno During the January Board meeting, parks and Recreation staff were asked to look into what the last five park land acquisitions were. This was due to the Board's concern regarding acquiring land for neighborhood parks prior to development. John C. had also created a draft memo to the City Council with the goal of trying to 1. develop a procedure for planning parks in advance of development; 2. establish criteria for defining park Hand; and 3. establish procedures to make parks the focal point for the City°s future growth. Eric ploeger took the floor and stated that the Department had pulled information regarding the last five park land dedications (Westfield, Bella Vista, Steeplechase, Shenandoah, Woodland Hills, and Edelweiss). He explained aspects of each dedication and explained that all five of the dedications had similarities, which include drainage areas, floodplains, detention areas, and limited open play areas. John N. asked Eric if the Department could put together a summary of the dedications. }Eric said that the Department could, but added to bear in mind that some of the dedications took place before the revised park ]Land Dedication Ordinance. John N. had a few suggestions for the memo to the City Council. John C. stated that he would amend the memo, as well as incorporate the dedication information into it. This was an informational item only, and no motion was made, ROo con0 leimflopn, znd poosIlfle Reflon regnFrdIlng 2 P050 oe �3kntebozrrd or ofleir hockey &chUty. Steve asked the hoard for direction and a recommendation on whether to build a roller hockey or skateboard park. He stated that the location and size of the park would have to be determined at a later time. Laura good made a motion to build a skate park and include the following: 1, the facility should be staffed and supervised with restricted hours, and have a fence around it to accommodate safety rules; 2. the facility should be large enough to accommodate all skill levels (beginners through advanced for both bikes and boards), and a site should be picked to make room for expansion; and Page 6 of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3. a subcommittee of the board should be established to include eight to ten members of the skateboard community (including parents). Jon T. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. R. Discuss on, consWeraflon, and poWNe metion reg2rding the CoUeEe Statnon ec re2flom Sports Assoch%fio➢ .- Steve stated that the Recreation Sports Association was created by the Board a number of years ago to help coordinate some of the various user groups and organizations that use the Departments facilities. glen D., the Chairman of the Association, stated that the Association has gotten away from its original mission over the past several years and has become somewhat counterproductive. Steve said that the recommendation of the Department is to dissolve the Association and work with the user groups and organizations on a departmental basis. Steve also added that the Association is rewiring staff resources to post for, attend, and take minutes for the meetings. He feels that it is still important for the Department to meet with the individual user groups according to need, but does not feel that all of the user groups should meet on a regular basis. John N. asked if the user groups knew about the Departments intentions and if they had been given the opportunity to give feedback. Bill D. made motion to table this item to the next agenda. Chris B. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Steve B. will drag a memo to the Association seeking their input on the subject. R2o consent Ilt emrg. C,%pit@l ffmprrovement Pr°o�ect o Report-. There was no discussion on this item. DIlscbIlmIloa of mmei�t mmeeflag c zte znd aige nd,%o The newt parks and Recreation Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 6, 2001. 13. AdjouTa- The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Page i of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1. COR to order- The meeting was called to order at 7-05 p.m. 20 Hamm vlgltomoo No visitors spoke at this time. 3. Pnrdon — Coua50er requesto ff©y Rawness of membero from meetinF,o Bill Davis made a motion to accept the absence of George Dresser as excused. Galen Davis seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 4© Epp ov 1 of mIlnutes from Reg 0ar Meefing of J@auz �y- 9, 2001 %imd SpecW Meefing/-PubUc Hezring of J namiry 30, 2001. John Crompton made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of January 9, 2001. Bill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Galen Davis made a motion to approve the minutes from the special meeting/public hearing of January 30, 2001. Glenn Schroeder seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. o PresentntIlon, and pocqWe gaetlon c onaerntng pzr k, land dedIlcmflorm for the Crowley fi r Ecto Steve stated that the proposed dedication is located in park zone 10, and is in the vicinity of Greens Prairie Road and Highway 6 South. Eric Ploeger took the floor. He referred the Board to the park Land Dedication Ordinance Project Review Checklist included in the packets. He stated that some of the concerns of the parks and Recreation Department staff are that • 74% of the proposed dedication is in the 100=year floodplain; • there is very limited access to the area outside of the floodplain; and • the land is heavily wooded. Steve stated that the purpose of discussion was to prepare a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Board that would go to the planning and Zoning Commission and to the City Council. Tim Crowley took the floor and explained his concept for development of his land. He is proposing to dedicate 91 acres of green space to the City. He also plans to develop apartments and townhouses with play areas that could be connected by the green space. John Crompton inquired about the aesthetics of the 1 5-acre detention pond that would be included as part of the dedication. Mr. Whendt explained that the pond is being graded and could possibly be drained and excavated, and a portion converted into wetland space. They are also proposing to put a 1,000®meter jogging trail around the perimeter of the pond. There are also some opportunities for planting. He went on to say that when drained, it would also make a good recreational activity area. There was discussion over "tweaking`® the plan to give more acreage for a neighborhood park that would be outside of the floodplain. Steve stated that the primary concern of the staff is the access to, and visibility of, the park, especially for safety reasons. Page 2 of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 Laura good asked Mr. Crowley what would happen to the detention pond if the City didn't accept it. Mr. Crowley responded that he wouldn't do much with it. She asked if the City is responsible for maintaining the detention pond after it is dedicated. Steve replied that the City would be responsible for some maintenance work, but is not required to maintain it to any type of park standard. John C. made a motion to approve the proposed dedication in principle, pending I . satisfactory resolution on the issues of access; 2. visibility to ensure the safety of the users on the trails; 3. satisfactory landscaping of the detention pond; and 4. provision for continuous area out of the floodplain for a coherent neighborhood parr (five to seven acres). Dill D. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 6. Rreoentaflorm, mfiacnssgon, znd possible acti®n conceTming pzirk hind defflemdon fore the Be l@ V sft St bfflvWon. Steve stated that the proposed dedication is located in park zone 10, and is southwest of Victoria Drive (the street adjacent to the Edelweiss subdivision). Eric Ploeger took the floor. He referred the Board to the Park Land Dedication Ordinance Project Review Checklist included in the packets. He stated that the proposed site has two drainage ways and is out of the FEMA predevelopment floodplain. He went on to say that there is considerable street access, but one of the biggest concerns that Parks and Recreation Department staff has is the effect the floodplain would have on development of a neighborhood park. In other words, how much water storage would be needed to irrigate the park? Steve Arden took the floor. He handed out an updated map of the property, and stated that he is proposing to dedicate a combination of park land and a detention area that could help with irrigation. He went on to say that the proposed dedication fits in with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the Recreation, Park, and Open Space faster Plan. John Nichols asked h4r. Arden if there was a possibility of using the approximate 2.5 acres (out of the 7.74 being dedicated) outside of the floodplain to build a playground. Mr. Arden responded that in the worst flood situation, there would probably be about 2.5 acres outside of the floodplain. John C. asked if there were more City funds available, would there be any opportunity to purchase more land outside of the floodplain. Mr. Arden responded that they would be doing a phased -type development, but until they actually reach the end of the phase, there wouldn't be any opportunities. Olen D. noted that much of the land being dedicated is in the detention area and asked Mr. Arden if there was a possibility of recapturing some of the land outside of the floodplain. Mr. Arden responded that it is difficult to say until they get to the design phase. Page 3 of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 Steve B. related the proposed dedication concept to Derry Oaks and Oaks parks. He stated that both parks • are approximately the same size; • were built within floodplains; • have creeks running through them; • have good visibility; and • have developed facilities on them. He stated that the Recreation, Park, and ®pen Space Faster Flan indicates that more park land is needed in this area. John C. made a motion to approve the proposed dedication in principle. John N. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 70 dIlacn sgion, znd p©�pflhEe aef on concerning pnirks (CIlty Comacnl VWon Stzteunent N4, Sft-ztegy ll)o Steve stated that the City has an agreement with the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Sciences at Texas A M University to work on the issue of iiltergenerational parks. Dr. Scott Shafer°s RPTS 402 class has researched intergenerational park needs. Steve went on to say that the class would use the Board's feedback from the meeting to continue with their research and would ultimately take their recommendations to the City Council during their March 22, 2001 meeting. Dr. Shafer invited the Board to attend the class presentations that would be held on March 7, 2001, at Francis Mall, so they could offer their input before the issue goes to the City Council. He stated that the class has been working with Parks and Recreation Department staff, and surveys have gone out to senior citizens, young adults, college students, teens, and children in K-6 grades. The first step of the project was to determine what "intergenerational" means. To help define the concept, the class held three different focus groups (children in K®3 grades, teens, and senior citizens) that had actually gone out to the parks, surveyed them, and had looked at what currently exists in therrn. They looked at the physical characteristics of the parks and existing facilities, and at the trafflac patterns around therm. Each focus group was asked to look at various pictures of park benches, trails, and surrounding scenery. They were also asked to choose their favorite park in town and give feedback about the park. Student Lauren Odell presented her findings on children in K-3 grades. She stated that she had interviewed a group of approximately eleven children. Most of the children had talked about repairs that needed to be done at the parks. They mainly focused on Jack and Dorothy Miller Park because it is directly behind their elementary school, Lauren stated that children mentioned the difficulty in accessing some of the parks. Students Kelli Roberts and Brett Weary presented their findings on teens. Kelli said that a group of approximately seven teens were interviewed from 7"' and 8Ih grades (there was no high school representation). She stated that most of the teens wanted more Page 4 of 7 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2001 pet i Z, l :IL odNA,L� __- 5611 vahrhter 1-- Tu 77d`{_6 02/08/01 13: 29 V409 845 7548 T.T.I. TAMU 001 6 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS AND RECREATION Absence kequest Form For Elected and Appointed Officers 0 Name e,,g e, Request Submitted on (date) I will not be in attendance at the meoting of L for ffit reason(s) specified: Lv d e 1 S'p signatur'k, This request shall be submitted to the office of the committeelboard secretary prior to the meeting date. o:boar&abscntccform.doc City of College Station Parks & Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2001 u Investigate the feasibility of cooperative ventures with CSISD o Support the implementation of a Greenways Oversight Committee to support the Greenways Master Plan u Establish policies and standards for re -appraisal of existing parks, facilities, and services offered by the Department a Encourage arboretum/garden parks and color emphasis in existing parks u Work on plans to make current and future parks intergenerational u Set up quality standards to measure performance for maintenance and field use for neighborhood and community parks u Revision of the Surcharge Policy Li Review the Parks and Recreation Department Fee Policy u Intergenerational ideas spanning all age gaps Ej Develop programs and facilities for senior citizens Li Develop an Urban Forestry Plan for the City of College Station u Investigate the feasibility of cooperative ventures with TAMU on facilities and programs u Explore the feasibility of a commercial ice skating rink u More interaction between Parks Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission, and shared vision with City Council u Monitor code review and revision projects currently underway with respect to codes impacting parks. u Identify areas of common concern between Parks Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission. Li Review the parkland dedication ordinance. Keep current a file of other city parkland dedication ordinances and review every three years. u Develop criteria for parkland dedication. What are the desired characteristics of a neighborhood park with respect to size, amenities, pedestrian access, vehicle access, lighting, vehicle parking, trees, open space, connectivity to greenways, connectivity to bikeways, drainage and retention ponds, case of maintenance, location with respect to arterial streets and the neighborhoods served, etc. Li Explore further the concept of advanced planning for neighborhood parks well ahead of the development in an area. u Identify, as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the future general location of community parks. Determine time frames for when they will be needed. Estimate land acquisition costs. Develop community park acquisition strategy. Page I of ❑ Explore opportunities and identify locations where parks could serve as the focal point for a neighborhood, subdivision entrance, city gateway, or arterial corridor. ❑ Further explore opportunities for developer fees and/or parkland dedication for development of community parks. Find out what other Texas cities are doing. ❑ Identify obstacles to quality parkland dedication by developers. Work to remove obstacles that are within the control of the City. ❑ Schedule a joint meeting of the Parks Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission once a year. ❑ Schedule a joint workshop meeting of the Parks Advisory Board and the City Council once a year. On -Going Activities ❑ Implementation of the approved Capital Improvement Program. ❑ Implementation of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan. Page 2 of 2 Date Received: Feb. 1,2001 Name of Development: Crowley Tract Applicant:Tim Crowley Address:1301 McKinney Suite 3500 City/State: Houston Texas Phone Number: 713-651-1771 INS 111 Engineer/Planner: Jim Wendt Address: 2201 Timberloch City/State: Spring Texas Phone Number: 281-719-6128 E-mail: Park Zone: 10 FAX: 713-427-6154 FAX: 281-719-6154 Single Family Dwelling Units: 535 Multi -family Dwelling Units: 570 apartments, 123 townhomes Total Land Requirement: 10.46 Proposed Dedication: 49.82 SECTION 10-B-2: Fee in Lieu of Land Has the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? No Acquisition Costs: Single Family Fee ($148/dwelling unit): 535 x 148=$79,180 Multi -family Fee ($112/dwelling unit): 693x $112= $77,616 Total Fee: $79,180 + $77,616= $156,796 Zip: 77010 Zip: 77380 Acres SECTION 10-B-3e Park Development Fee Single Family Fee ($309/dwelling unit): 535 x $309=$165,315 Multi -family Fee ($233/dwelling unit): 693 x $233= $161,469 Total Single Family Fee: ($457/Dwelling Unit): 535x $457=$244,495 Total Multi -family Fee ($345/Dwelling Unit): 693x $345= $239,085 Have development plans and specifications been approved by the Parks & Recreation Board? No Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? No 49.82 acres If yes, staff recommends: 12.86 acres are out of the floodplain. It appears that all of this area is and will be very difficult to access. Locations for playgrounds and other park amenities will be difficult to locate.. Is there an existing neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development? No If yes, staff recommends: SECTION 10-E: Comprehensive Plan Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Yes, both the Citv comprehensive plan and Parks Master Plan calls for additional parkland in Zone 10 (Neighborhood and Communitv parkland are requested ) But.NO,the typical neighborhood park features will be difficult to insert and access for the public. Comments: 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? Yes Percentage: 74% Comments: F000dplain in the detention area does not appear accurate. b. Does the location require users to cross an arterial road? Some c. Topography: Steep near creeks and not sure where flatter areas are located. Topography difficult to determine. d. Trees/Scenery: Much of the property is heavily wooded 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? No b. Restricted access: Yes,access and visibility to greenways will be poor.Manv lots abut the park land. c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? Yes,wooded areas d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: Less than 5% Sect.1 of 2d in the Parkland Dedication ordinance calls for 50 % desirable street access. %. e. Do streets abutting the park comply with the Thoroughfare Plan? yes STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Need better access for visisbilitv,pedestrian and vehicular Need clear designation of areas out of the fioodplain with qood access for Neiqhborhood Park amenities. SECTION 10-G: Approval Parks & Recreation Board: Planning & Zoning Board: O:\Parks\Forms\Admin\Park Land Dedication Ordinance Checklist.dot City Council: PARK LAND DEDICATION ORPROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST DINANCE Date Received: January 24,2001 Park Zone: 10 Name of Development: Bella Vista subdivision Applicant: Steve Arden Address: 311 Cecillia Loop City/State: Colleqe Station,Texas Zip: 77849 Phone Number: 979-846-8788 FAX: Engineer/Planner: McClure Enqineerinq Address: 1008 Woodcreek Drive #103 Single Family Dwelling Units: 488 Multi -family Dwelling Units: 103 townhomes Total Land Requirement: 4.83+ .76= 5.59 Proposed Dedication: 7.74 acres SECTION 10®13-2: Fee in Lieu of Land Has the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval been obtained? NO Acquisition Costs: Single Family Fee ($148/dwelling unit): 488x $148=$72,224 Multi -family Fee ($112/dwelling unit): 103x $112=$11,536 Total Fee: $83,760 Acres Single Family Fee ($309/dwelling unit): 488x $309=$150,792 Multi -family Fee ($233/dwelling unit): 103x $233= $23,999 Total Single Family Fee: ($457/Dwelling Unit): 488x $457=$233,016 Total Multi -family Fee ($345/Dwelling Unit): 103x $345=$35,535 Have development plans and specifications been approved by the Parks & Recreation Board? no Is the proposed park less than five (5) acres? no 7.74 acres If yes, staff recommends: need more info /graphics on topo and retention pond area Is there an existing neighborhood park that can serve the proposed development? Westfield & Edelweiss If yes, staff recommends: Westfield is not developed and Victoria Ave would have to be crossed Edelweiss is nearbv but one would need to cross Graham road. SECTION 10®E: Comprehensive Plan Is the proposed park dedication in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan and the Park Master Plan? Yes,the Parks masterplan calls for additional Neiqhborhood parkland in Zone 10.The nark connects to the Lick Creek tributary and Greenway system. Comments: vECTION 10-F: Additional Reauirer ents 1. Is land in the 100-year floodplain? no Percentage: Comments: Need more information/qraphics on the topography .The drainage appears to be above the FEMA 100 yr.floodplain b. Does the location require users to cross an arterial road? some c. Topography: Topographic information not provided.. d. Trees/Scenery: A good percentage is heavily wooded 2. a. Is the land adjacent to a school? no , b. Restricted access: c. Is there screening if the park joins a non-residential use? N/A d. Park perimeter percentage that abuts a street: 90%+ e. Do streets abutting the park comply with the Thoroughfare Plan? yes STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Additional information needed related to topography and possible detention facility. SECTION 10-G: Approval Parks & Recreation Board: Planning & Zoning Board: O:\Parks\Forms\Admin\Park Land Dedication Ordinance Checklist.dot City Council: From: "Reyna Gonzalez" <info@prudentialbcs.com> To: <kstartzman@ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 2/6/01 4:15PM Subject: Bella Vista Addition About 50% of the proposed 7.74 acres park is wooded. Unfortunately, without leaves the pictures are not pretty but they are representative of the wooded areas. Thanks, Steve Arden Proposed STANDARDS FOR A. Turf 1. Turf has a healthy dense stand of grass and coverage is no less than 95% of playable area. 2. Appropriate grass for warm seasons is Common Bermuda or Hybrid Bermuda and for cool seasons is Perennial Rye Grass if required. 3. Play area has a uniform surface and well drained. 4. Turf is mowed at the appropriate height for the type of grass used, the time of the season, and the type of field use. (Appendix A) 5. Turf is free of any litter or debris. B. Skinned Infields 1. Infields have a uniform surface and is free of lips, holes and trip hazards. 2. Infields are well drained with no standing water areas. 3. Infields have proper soil consistency for intended usage. 4. Infields are free of weeds and grass. 5. Infields are free of rocks, dirt clods, and debris as per Little League and Amateur Softball Association rules and specifications.. 6. Bases and plates are properly installed, level, and are at the proper distances and anchored in accordance to manufacturer's specifications and league requirements. 7. Infields are watered, drug, matted, and properly lined on game days as per individual sports specifications. C. Bleachers 1. Hardware is intact. 2. Seating surface is clean, smooth, and free of protrusions and catch points. 3. Bleachers are secured to concrete pads or firmly anchored to the ground. 4. Bleacher areas have trash receptacles present and are in good condition. D. Li Vjits 1. Electrical systems and components are operational and in compliance with appropriate building codes. 2. 90% of lamps for each field are operational. 3. No electrical conducting wires are exposed. 4. Ballast boxes and components are properly installed and secured. 5. Lights provide uniform coverage on facilities and fixtures are adjusted to eliminate dark or blind areas. Updated: Friday, February 09, 2001 Standards for Parks Facilities Page 2 E. Fencing 1. Fencing material is galvanized chain link and is the appropriate gauge wire for specified use. 2. Fencing material is properly secured to support rails. 3. Support rails are properly connected and straight. 4. Fencing is free of holes, protrusions and catch points. 5. Fabric is straight and free of bending or sagging. 6. Gates and latches are operational. F. Restrooms 1. Restrooms are clean, sanitary, and properly stocked with paper products. 2. Lights and ventilation systems are operational. 3. Toilets, water faucets, stall doors, and hand air dryers are operational. 4. Restrooms are free of graffiti. 5. Restroom doors are properly marked according to gender. 6. Restrooms are in compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. IL PLAYGROUNDS A. Play EO)-IiDment 1. Play equipment and surrounding play areas meet ASTM and National Playground Safety Institute standards. 2. Play equipment and hardware is intact. 3. Play equipment is free of graffiti. 4. Age appropriateness for the play equipment is noted with proper signage. B. Surfacing 1. Fall surface is clean, level, and free of litter and debris. 2. Fall surface meets ASTM and National Playground Safety Institute standards. 3. Fall surface is well drained. 4. Rubber cushion surfaces are free of holes and tears. 5. Rubber cushion surfaces are secure to the base material and curbing. C. Borders 1. Playground borders are well defined and intact. 2. Playground borders meet ASTM and National Playground Safety Institute standards. D. Decks and Benches 1. Lumber is intact, smooth, structurally sound and free of cracking and splintering. 2. Nails and screws are flush with the surface. 3. Lumber on benches is smooth and structurally sound. 4. Hardware on benches is intact and structurally sound. 5. Bench nails and screws are flush with the surface. 6. Benches have no protrusions or catch points. Standards for Parks Facilities Page 3 111. PICNIC FACILITIES A. Pavilions 1. Pavilions comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. 2. Pavilions are clean, sanitary, and free of graffiti. 3. Electrical plugs, lights, appliances, fans, and hot water heaters are operational and in good condition and comply with current building codes. 4. Pavilions are structurally sound, cleanly painted with no rotten lumber or rusted metal and no loose siding or loose shingles. 5. Pavilions are relatively pest and rodent free and regularly treated for ants, wasps, termites and mice. 6. Interior kitchens are equipped with an operational fire extinguisher. 7. Doors, windows, screens, and locks are operational. 8. Water fountains, water faucets, exhaust vent fans, and hose bib connections are operational. 9. Signage with reservation and rules information and emergency telephone numbers is in a noticeable location. 10. Pavilion grounds are mowed and trimmed and free of litter, debris and hazards. 11. Vegetation around pavilions is trimmed back to reduce hazards and does not impede entry and regress. B. Shelters 1. Shelters comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. 2. Shelters are clean, sanitary, and free of graffiti. 3. Lights and electrical plugs are operational and comply with current building codes. 4. Shelters are structurally sound, cleanly painted with no rotten lumber or rusted metal and no loose siding or loose shingles. 5. Water fountains and hose bibs are operational. 6. Signage with reservation and rules information and emergency telephone numbers is in a noticeable location. 7. Grounds around shelters are mowed and trimmed and free of litter, debris, and hazards. 8. Vegetation around shelters is trimmed back to reduce hazards and does not impede entry and regress. C. Tables 1. Tables are clean, free of rust, mildew, and graffiti. 2. Table hardware is intact. 3. Table frames are intact, slats properly secured and tables secured to the slab or other tables to prevent tipping over or theft. 4. Table seats and tops are smooth and free of protrusions and catch points. D. Grills 1. Grills are operational and free of rust and metal deterioration. 2. Grills are clean and free of grease build-up. 3. Grill racks are operational and secure to main body. Standards for Parks Facilities Page 4 4. Grills are properly anchored to reduce hazards and theft. 5. Underbrush, low limbs, and debris are cleared away from grill area to reduce possible fire hazard. E. Trash Receptacles 1. Receptacles are clean and sanitary. 2. Receptacles are secured to the slabs to prevent theft and tipping. 3. Wood receptacles are painted and free of damaged or missing parts. 4. Hardware for wood receptacles is intact. 5. Concrete receptacles are intact and free of cracks or damage. 6. Roll -off containers and dumpsters are screened or hidden and placed in less intrusive areas. 7. Area around trash receptacles, roll -off containers, and dumpsters is free of trash and debris. F. Restrooms 1. Restrooms are clean, sanitary, and properly stocked with paper products. 2. Lights and ventilation systems are operational. 3. Toilets, water faucets, stall doors, and hand air dryers are operational. 4. Restrooms are free of graffiti. 5. Restroorn doors are properly marked according to gender. 6. Restrooms are in compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A. Surfacine 1. Surface is smooth, level, and well drained with no standing water. 2. Surface is free of large cracks, holes, and trip hazards. 3. Surface is painted and striped in accordance with the United States Tennis Association court specifications. 4. Worn painted surfaces do not exceed 20% of total court surface. 5. Surface is free of litter, debris, gravel and graffiti. B. Nets 1. Nets are free from tears and frays. 2. Nets are properly installed and secured to support poles. 3. Nets have center straps installed at the regulated height and are anchored to the court. 4. Nets are tight with no sagging at the top. 5. Support poles have hardware intact, properly anchored, and installed. C. Li2hts 1. Electrical systems and components are operational and in compliance with appropriate building codes. 2. 90% of lamps for each court are operational. 3. Timers are properly set for specific hours of operation. 4. No electrical conducting wires are exposed. Standards for Parks Facilities Page 5 5. Ballast boxes and components are properly installed and secured. 6. Lighting controls with operation instructions and information are conveniently located for easy access. 7. Lights to give uniform coverage on facilities and fixtures are adjusted to eliminate dark or blind spots. D. Fencing I. Fencing material is galvanized chain link and is the appropriate gauge wire for specified use. 2. Fencing material is properly secured to support rails. 3. Support rails are properly connected and straight. 4. Fencing is free of holes, protrusions, and catch points. 5. Gates and latches are operational. 6. Windscreens are tightly secured to the fencing and are free of tears and holes. 7. Fabric is straight and free of bending or sagging. A. Surfacing 1. Surface is smooth, level, and well drained with no standing water. 2. Surface is free of large cracks, holes, and trip hazards. 3. Surface is painted and striped as per court specifications. 4. Worn painted surfaces do not exceed 20% of total court surface. 5. Surface is free of litter, debris, gravel, and graffiti. B. Goals and Backboards 1. Goals and backboards are level with hardware intact. 2. Goals and backboards are painted. 3. Nylon nets are properly hung and are not torn or tattered. 4. Support poles are secure in the ground and straight. C. Lights 1. Electrical systems and components are operational and in compliance with appropriate building codes. 2. 90% of lamps for each court are operational. 3. Timers are properly set for specific hours of operation. 4. No electrical conducting wires are exposed. 5. Ballast boxes and components are properly installed and secured. 6. Lighting controls with operation instructions and information is conveniently located for easy access. 7. Lights to provide uniform coverage on facilities and fixtures are adjusted to eliminate dark or blind areas. VI. SAND VOLLEYBALL COURTS A. Nets 1. Nets are free from holes and are not torn or tattered. 2. Nets are hung tightly at the specified height. Standards for Parks Facilities Page 6 3. Nets are securely attached to the support poles. 4. Nets are straight with no sagging at the top. 5. Support poles to have hardware intact, properly anchored and installed. B. Surface 1. Court surface is loose sand. 2. Surface is smooth with good drainage and no standing water. 3. Surface is free of weeds, grass, litter, and debris. C. Borders 1. Borders are well defined and intact. 2. Borders meet ASTM and National Playground Safety Institute standards. A. Water 1. Aerators are operational. 2. Pond surface is at least 90% clear of vegetation. 3. Water area is free of trash and debris. 4. Bank areas are smooth and free of wash outs and erosion. 5. Ponds are stocked with appropriate species of fish. 6. Ponds are dyed to enhance appearance and assist in reduction of unwanted vegetation when applicable. 7. Pond/Waterways Management plan is developed and filed with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department as required. B. Piers and Decks 1. Lumber is intact, smooth, and structurally sound. 2. Nails and screws are flush with the surface. 3. Lumber on benches is smooth and structurally sound. 4. Bench nails and screws are flush with the surface. 5. Benches have no protrusions or catch points. 6. Handrails are present. 7. Piers and decks comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. A. Grounds 1. Grounds are mowed and trimmed. 2. Park is free of litter, debris, and hazards. 3. Parking lots are clean and striped. B. Drinking Fountains 1. Fountains are accessible and operational. 2. Fountains are in appropriate locations. 3. Fountains are in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4. Fountains are installed on solid surfaces and free of standing water and debris. Standards for Parks Facilities Page 7 C. SignaVe 1. Park identification signs are secure and properly installed in a noticeable location. 2. Handicap parking signs are secure, visible, and to code. 3. Park Rules signs are secure and in a noticeable location. 4. Restroom signs are secure and visible. 5. Signs are clean, painted, and free of protrusions. D. Ornamental Plants 1. Plants are healthy. 2. Plant beds are free of litter, debris, and weeds. 3. Plant selection is appropriate for season and area usage, E. Walkways 1. Walkways have a uniform surface and are level with the ground and free of trip hazards. 2. Walkways are free of litter and debris. I Walkways meet the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. 4. Walkways have unobstructed accessibility, i.e. free from low and protruding limbs, guide wires, etc. 4. Walkways are neatly edged. 5. Walkways are clear of weeds and grass growth in cracks and expansion joints. F. Trash Recei )tacles 1. Receptacles are clean and sanitary. 2. Receptacles are secured to slabs to prevent theft or tipping. 3. Wood receptacles are painted and free of damage or missing parts. 4. Hardware for wood receptacles is intact. 5. Concrete receptacles are intact and free of cracks or damage. 6. Roll -off containers and dumpsters are screened or hidden and placed in less intrusive areas. 7. Area around trash receptacles, roll -off containers and dumpsters is clean and free of trash and debris. G. Fencing: Ornamental Steel and Wood Fences 1. Hardware, gates, and latches are intact and operational. 2. Fences are properly installed and anchored. 3. Wood fences are intact, structurally sound, and free of deterioration and splintering. 4. Nails and screws are flush with the surface on wood fencing to eliminate catch and hang points. 5. Ornamental fencing is free of rust and properly painted. H. LiL-hts: Security and Exterior Facility Lights 1. 90% of security and facility lights are operational. 2. No electrical conducting wires are exposed. I Lights comply with current building codes. 4. Electrical components are operational, properly installed, and secured. Standards for Parks Facilities Page 8 Bridges 1. Bridges have a uniform surface and are free of trip hazards. 2. Lumber is structurally sound, free of cracking, deterioration, and splintering. 3. Bridges comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. 4. Bridges have handrails intact and is properly installed and anchored. 5. Bridges are free of litter and debris. J. Athletic Practice Areas 1. Athletic practice areas are free of litter and debris. 2. Areas are mowed at the appropriate height and is trimmed. 3. Area has a uniform surface and well drained. 4. Areas have trash receptacles present that are in good condition. 5. Turf coverage is no less than 75% of play area. 6. Practice site soccer goals are properly installed and anchored. 7. Soccer nets are in good condition and free of holes, tears, and fraying. 8. Baseball backstops are properly installed, anchored, and in good sound condition. 9. Support poles are straight and properly connected. 10. Backstop fencing is galvanized chain link and is the appropriate gauge wire. 11. Backstop fencing is properly installed to support rails and is free of bending and sagging. 12. Backstop fencing are free of holes, protrusions, and catch points. K. Irrigation 1. Irrigation system is fully operational with complete uniform coverage. 2. System is free of leaks. 3. Heads are installed according to intended use. 4. Heads are properly adjusted with rotations and arcs set to reduce water run off 5. Systems are set to run at specific times to minimized water evaporation and waste. L. Trees 1. Standards to be addressed in the Urban Forestry Plan. (BEING DEVELOPED BY CS FORESTRY DEPARTMENT) Proposed SPECIFICATIONSMAINTENANCE r PARKS 1` FACILITIES Io ATHLETIC FACILITIES® COMPETETIVE FIELDS, A. Turf 1. Mow outfield turf twice per week during league play at a height of 1.5" to 2". Mow turf at least once per week during non-league play. 2. Mow baseball turf infields 3 times per week at a height of 1/4" to 1.5 " during league play. 3. Mow athletic field alleyways and grounds at least once per week at a height of 2" 4. Aerate athletic turf areas 4 to 6 times per year and more often for heavily used areas. 5. Top -dress athletic fields twice per year with a clean sand/organic mixture. 6. Fertilize athletic fields 6 times per year (2 times during the spring green -up, 2 times during the summer, and 2 times during the fall) with 1 pound of nitrogen per 1,000 sq. ft. Coincide 1 fall application with winter over -seeding. Test soil annually to determine the proper ratio of fertilizer needed. 7. Over -seed athletic fields in the fall when scheduled play is during the winter/spring months. Use seeding rate of 8 to 10 pounds of Perennial Rye seed per 1,000 sq. ft. on baseball/softball outfields and soccer fields. Over -seed baseball infields with Perennial Rye seed at 15 to 20 pounds per 1,000 sq. ft. Apply Bermuda seed to declining turf at a rate of 1 to 2 pounds per 1,000 sq. ft. in the spring for recovery. 8. Apply 1 pre -emerge herbicide application in the spring and 2 post -emerge applications in mid -summer to athletic turf as per manufacturer's instructions. 9. Apply fire ant bait to athletic fields at a rate of 1 pound per acre once in the spring and once in the fall. Use pesticides as needed on the fields. 10. Apply pelletized gypsum annually to athletic fields at the rate of 1 ton per acre. B. Skinned Infields 1. Construct skinned infields using a sand/clay mixture to form a solid uniform surface for each sport to be played on. 2. Use amendments on infield soil and surface, as each sport and the budget will allow. 3. Grade infields to allow for proper drainage. 4. Water, drag, line, and rake out skinned infields for games during league play. 5. Rake, level, fill holes, and pack pitcher mounds and home plate for games during league play. 6. Remove rocks, dirt clods, and debris from the play areas daily. 7. Inspect bases, home plates, and pitching rubbers daily for damage and wear. Replace damaged bases as needed. 8. Broom, rake, or power wash dirt build-up and lips around the fields as needed. C. Bleachers 1. Inspect bleachers weekly for damage and repair as needed. Maintenance Standards Page 2 2. Clean bleachers and trash receptacles daily during league play and weekly during non -game times. D. LiQhts 1. Inspect lights monthly and repair as needed, depending on availability of a Bucket Truck. 2. Check ballast boxes and controls weekly for operation and damage and repair as needed. 3. Lighting audits are the responsibility of the facility user or league. E. Fencing 1. Inspect fences once per week and record damage. 2. Repair damaged hardware, gates, rails, and fabric as needed. 3. Replace bent fabric fencing as budgets allow. F. Restrooms 1. Clean and restock restrooms with paper products daily. 2. Repair to lights and restroom facilities as needed. 3. Inspect restrooms daily for damage. 4. Remove graffiti immediately. 5. Restrooms will be brought into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act as the budget allows. IL PLAYGROUNDS. A. Plav Eaumment 1. Check play equipment and surrounding play areas weekly and repair as needed. Notify supervisor of follow-up work or materials needed. 2. Perform official monthly inspections on play equipment and surrounding play areas. Record any deficiencies and schedule repairs. 3. Isolate any hazardous deficiencies from use and repair as soon as possible. B. Surfacing 1. Check fall surfaces weekly; remove debris and level the surfaces as needed. 2. Add fall surface material as needed to stay within ASTM and NPSI standards. 3. Repair or replace damaged rubber cushion surfaces as soon as possible. 4. Inspect fall surface for drainage problems after heavy rains. Fall surface should be free of standing water within 24 hours. C. Borders 1. Inspect playground borders weekly and repair as needed. D. Decks and Benches, 1. Inspect decks and benches weekly and repair as needed. 2. Repaint or restain benches every 3 years. Maintenance Standards Page 3 III. PICNIC FACILITIES A. Pavilions 1. Inspect monthly for any structural, electrical, plumbing, and equipment damage and make repairs as needed. Isolate any hazardous conditions from use and repair as soon as possible. 2. Clean facility before every rental. 3. Mow and trim the grounds weekly during the growing season. 4. Repaint interior every 3 years or sooner depending on deterioration. 5. Repaint exterior as needed. 6. Perform monthly pesticide treatment for ants, mice and other pests. E. Shelters 1. Clean weekly or after each use. Pick up ground litter, debris, and remove any hazards. 2. Inspect weekly to ensure that lights, electrical outlets, and fountain/hose bibs are operational. Isolate any hazardous conditions from use and repair as soon as possible. 3. Inspect weekly to ensure it is structurally sound and has no loose, damaged, or missing parts and repair as needed. 4. Mow and trim grounds around shelters on the same 10-day schedule as the rest of the park. C. Tables 1. Clean tables weekly. 2. Inspect weekly for loose, damaged, or missing parts and hardware and repair as needed. D. Grills 1. Clean grills and remove old coals weekly. 2. Inspect weekly for worn, damaged, or missing parts and repair as needed. 3. Inspect weekly for fire hazards such as low limbs and debris and remove it immediately. E. Trash Receptacles 1. Empty trash barrels (pull liners) if more than half full or sooner if it has a strong odor or is attracting numerous insects. 2. Wash out barrels monthly or more often if needed. 3. Inspect receptacles weekly for worn, damaged, or missing parts and repair as soon as possible. 4. Clean areas around receptacles and roll -off containers as needed. F. Restrooms 1. Clean and restock restrooms daily during pavilion or shelter use. 2. Inspect restrooms weekly to ensure that lighting, electrical, and plumbing fixtures are operational. Isolate any hazardous conditions from use and make repairs immediately. 3. Paint restrooms and make other repairs as needed. 4. Remove graffiti from restrooms immediately. Maintenance Standards Page 4 IV. TENNIS COURTS A. Surfacing 1. Clean litter and debris from court surfaces weekly and remove any hazards. 2. Repaint or resurface courts when worn areas exceed 20% of court or when scheduled as per "resurfacing plan". B. Nets 1. Inspect nets weekly to ensure they are properly hung with no tears or missing hardware. 2. Replace nets if they are tattered or excessively worn. C. Lights 1. Inspect lights monthly and repair as needed, depending on the availability of a Bucket Truck. 2. Check ballast boxes and controls weekly for proper operation and damages. 3. Replace burned lamps when 10% or more are out. 4. Conduct lighting audit as needed to ensure uniform coverage. D. Fencing 1. Inspect fencing weekly and repair as needed. 2. Replace fencing that is bent, sagging, or excessively damaged as funding is made available. 3. Inspect windscreens weekly to ensure they are tightly hung with no tears and replace tom or tattered screens as needed. A. Surfacing 1. Clean litter and debris from court surfaces weekly and remove any hazards. 2. Repaint or resurface courts when worn areas exceed 20% of court or when scheduled as per "resurfacing plan". B. Goals and Backboards 1. Inspect goals and backboards weekly and repair as needed. 2. Replace tom or tattered nets as needed. C. Lights 1. Inspect lights monthly and repair as needed, depending on availability of a Bucket Truck. 2. Check ballast boxes and controls weekly for proper operation and damages. 3. Replace burned lamps when 10% or more are out. 4. Conduct lighting audit as needed to ensure uniform coverage. VI. SAND VOLLEYBALL COURTS. A. Nets 1. Inspect nets weekly to ensure they are hung properly with no tears or missing hardware. 2. Replace tattered or worn nets as needed. Maintenance Standards Page 5 B. Surface 1. Inspect court weekly to ensure a level surface and that it is free of trash and debris. 2. Add sand and till surface as needed. C. Borders 1. Inspect borders weekly and repair as needed. 1II In 7e►T i A. Water 1. Check aerators weekly and repair as needed. 2. Remove trash and debris from the around the ponds edge weekly. 3. Remove trash and debris from the pond water as needed. 4. Stock ponds according to the Department's Urban Fishing Program. 5. Pond vegetation will be addressed in the Pond/Waterways Management Plan. (To be developed for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department) B. Piers and Decks 1. Inspect piers and decks monthly and repair as needed. 2. Remove trash and debris weekly. 3. Isolate hazardous deficiencies from use and repair as soon as possible. A. (wounds 1. Mow and trim grounds on a 10-day rotation. 2. Pick up litter and trash weekly. 3. Sweep and stripe parking lots as needed. 4. Check for hazards and correct them as soon as possible. B. DrinkmL- Fountains 1. Inspect fountains weekly. 2. Repair water leaks as soon as possible. 3. Install fountains in appropriate location and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. C. Signage 1. Inspect signs weekly. 2. Replace or repair damaged or worn signs as needed. 3. Repaint wood signs every three years or as needed. D. Ornamental Plants 1. Change out plant beds with seasonal color twice per year. 2. Check irrigation systems weekly and repair leaks as soon as possible. 3. Remove trash and debris weekly. E. Walkways 1. Inspect walkways weekly. 2. Remove trash and debris weekly. Maintenance Standards Page 6 3. Edge walkways on a 10-day rotation. 4. Remove weeds and grass from sidewalk cracks and expansion joints as needed. F. Trash Receptacles 1. Empty trash barrels (pull liners) if more than half full or sooner if it has a strong odor or is attracting numerous insects. 2. Wash out barrels monthly or more often if needed. 3. Inspect receptacles weekly for worn, damaged, or missing parts and repair as soon as possible. 4. Clean areas around receptacles and roll -off containers as needed. G. Fencine: Ornamental Steel and Wood Fences. 1. Inspected fences monthly and repair as soon as possible. 2. Paint ornamental fences every 3 years or as needed. H. Liahts: Security and Exterior Facility Lights 1. Inspect lights monthly and repair as needed, depending on availability of a Bucket Truck. 2. Report electrical problems to Facility Maintenance or the Electrical Department for repairs. 3. Isolate hazardous deficiencies from use and repair as soon as possible. I. Bridizes 1. Inspect bridges monthly and repair as needed. 2. Isolate hazardous deficiencies from use and repair as soon as possible.. 3. Pick up trash and debris weekly. Athletic Practice Areas 1. Pick up litter and debris weekly. 2. Mow and trim grass every ten days or sooner at a height of 2 to 2.5 inches. 3. Top -dress practice areas with dirt as needed to maintain a uniform surface. 4. Inspect soccer nets, goals, backstops, and fencing monthly and repair as soon as possible. K. Irria-ation 1. Inspect irrigation weekly; repair leaks and adjust heads/rotation as needed. 2. Isolate hazardous deficiencies from use and repair as soon as possible. L. Trees 1. Maintenance of trees is being addessed in the Urban Forestry Plan. (BEING DEVELOPED BY CS FORESTRY DIVISION) TO: College Station City Council THROUGH: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: The Parks and Recreation Board SUBJECT: Acquisition of land for neighborhood parks prior to development. Introduction In an earlier meeting with the City Council in October 2000, the Parks Board presented a proposal requesting that the City Council consider acquiring land for neighborhood and community parks prior to development. The Council was concerned about the amount of money involved and had some questions about the general principle. This revised proposal is confined only to neighborhood parks which substantially reduces the costs, and provides the rationale for the general principle that the Council requested. In their strategies relating to Visions #4 and #8, the City Council requested the Parks and Recreation Board's input on the proposed strategy of acquiring land for neighborhood parks prior to development. The interpretation of the Council's strategy given to us by Mr. Calloway and Mr. Beachy was that it consisted of three charges: (1) Development of a procedure for planning parks in advance of development; (2) Establishment of criteria for defining desirable parkland; (3) Establishment of procedures for making parks the focal points for the city's future growth. In our view the accomplishment of elements #2 and #3 is dependent upon a commitment to accomplish #1. Only if the city acquires parkland ahead of development will it be in a position to select optimum park sites in terms of design criteria, and ensure that parks are focal points. Neighborhood Park Requirements The city's current size requirements for neighborhood parks is 5 to 15 acres. Given the Council's desire to expand their use to include a broader range of intergenerational activities and more passive park areas, we recommend that future neighborhood parks should be at the upper end of the present range i.e., 12-15 acres (this is approximately the same size as Thomas Park). Problems with Present Practice Through its revisions of the parks dedication ordinance in 1999, Council established the principle that neighborhood parks should be financed by development in the neighborhood, since development creates the demand for parks. The existing ordinance requires that developers dedicate an acre of land per 100 single homes (or 134 multi -family units). Given this standard, the only individual developments required to dedicate 12 acres of land for a neighborhood park are those which plan to build 1200 single family homes. Developments of this size are unusual in College Station. Most are much smaller and, hence, the amount of land they are required to dedicate for neighborhood parks is too small to be used for that purpose. Consequently, the city usually accepts the alternative dedication of cash in lieu of the land from developers. When sufficient cash accrues from these payments, then the city can purchase land for a neighborhood park. however, experience over the past 5-10 years has shown that by that time, all the land most suited for a neighborhood park has been acquired for development. Invariably, the only land available for a neighborhood park is floodplain or retention pond land that developers cannot use, but which is also often inferior for use as a neighborhood park. A Recommended Solution We recommend the city issue Certificates of Obligation to purchase neighborhood park sites of 12-15 acres in advance of development. At $10,000 an acre, this would involve a commitment of $120,000 - $150,000 per park. These purchases would be made 5-7 years in advance of projected development using a similar timeframe to that used by the school district. The CO's would be repaid over time by the cash in lieu payments that the dedication ordinance requires developers to contribute for neighborhood parks. Concluding Comments 1. In our view, this recommended approach is the only realistic way to accomplish the goals laid out in strategies #4 and #S. 2. Such a foresighted investment will have a substantial positive impact on the quality of life in College Station in 2030. 3. There is precedent in the city at the community park level- -Central Park, Southwood Athletic Park and Lick Creek Park are good examples of proactive planning in the past. This approach has also been adopted in the development of the city's existing and proposed new business parks, and is used by the school district. 4. At this time we ask the Council to consider this proposal in principle. If it is consistent with the Council's aspirations, then we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Planning and Zoning Commission to bring forth detailed suggestions on how it would be implemented. CITY OF •STATION LINCOLN RECREATION•RCOMMITTEE MondayRegular Meeting Minutes Ir Lincoln 1000 Eleanor 5:45 PM Committee Members Present: Carolyn Williams, Debra Thomas, Barbara Clemmons, Mabelene Robinson,s Dan Franklin and Eleanor Alternate Committee Member: None present MembersCommittee Watson Staff Present: Lance Jackson LFS Representative: James Steen 1. Call • order- - meeting was called to order by • Recreation Cent Committee Chairperson Carolyn Williams at 5:50 p.m. 2. Hear visitors- There were no visitors present. 3. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting- A Request for absence -d from Cathy Watson. 4. Approval of minutes from Regular December 4, 2000 Meeting- The December 4th Meeting Minutes were approved with the noted correction of date on minutes needed to be December 4, 2000. 5. Discussion of follow-up for Committee workshop held in February 2000. Barbara Clemmons suggested that the follow-up workshop be planned around outreach. The Committee members concurred and the date set for the workshop is March 3, 2001 from 9:00 am to 12:00 p.m. Carolyn Williams will prepare a draft agenda for the workshop based on minutes from the February 2000 Workshop meeting. 6. Committee discussed donation of refreshments for the Martin Luther King, Jr. program on Saturday, January 13, 2001. Cake and punch will be served to program attendees. A meal consisting of beef tips over rice with vegetables will be served to program participants. Cost for this meal will be $70.00. Reverend Joe Dan Franklin and the Freedom Church will sponsor the meal. 7. The Committee received a request for donation from Vernieca Goodin for the Black and White Scholarship Ball. Debra Thomas motioned that the Committee take out a 1/4 page ad containing the LRC Mission Statement for this event to help Ms. Goodin. Eleanor Williams seconded and the motion carried. 8. Lance Jackson informed the Committee of an anonymous donation received for the LRC. Jackson proposed that these funds be used for outreach, education and programs for building character and leadership development. $1500.00 will be used each year for four years. 9. Debra Thomas presented to the Committee, Adolescent Outreach Workshop information. Thomas suggested having Daisy McIlveen promote the workshop at the MLK Program. Mr. Steen suggested to the LRC Advisory Committee that funds fro m this anonymous donation could be used to support the outreach workshop. 10. Thomas suggested that all sub -committees be listed on the agenda each month for discussion/updates. 11. Jackson gent over the MLK program. 12. Barbara Clemmons asked Committee members to look at the upcoming TAAS Buster event flyer and approve funds to have the flyer fully developed. Thomas motioned that the funds be approved for the flyer®s development. Robinson seconded and the motion carried. Report(s) Treasury Report.- Current balance of $1,498.25 was reported by the Treasurer. 13. The meeting was adjourned at 7; 1 1 pm 7 11;COLA RECREATIU1111 C01i VC Regular Meeting Agenda Monday, February 12, 2001 Lincoln Recreation Center 1000 Eleanor Street 5:45 PM Hear visitors 2. Pardon — Consider requests for absences of members from meeting- Request for absence was received from Eleanor Williams 3. Approval of minutes from Regular January8, 2000 Meeting 2111= 0 � — Treasurer — Quarterly Report (a) African American History Report for LRC Activities (b) Special Event Program Evaluation — MLK Program- January 13, 2001. (c) Juneteenth Teen Summit Proposal from Mr. Al Prentice of Def Jam Communication, Houston, Tx. (d) Miscellaneous — Education Committee (a) Update on February 10 TAAS Buster (b) Tutoring Promotion (c) Mentorships — Girls Outreach -Update on Conflict Resolution Workshop — Public Relations Subcommittee - Facilities Committee -Advisory Committee Spring Workshop — Update on Agenda 7, Consent Item (s): None 8, Future Agenda Items: 9. Adjourn NOTE: It has been requested that the Committee members be prepared to meet 15 additional minutes following our regular meeting to hear a discussion presented by Ms. Lillian Haynes, of the Brazos Valley Council on Alcohol and Substance Abuse. - Next LRC Advisory Committee Meeting Monday,, March 12, 2001 at the LRC. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Senior Advisory Committee Regular Meeting Monday, January 29, 2001 10:00am Minutes Members Present: Annie Lee Finch, Bill Kling, Florace Kling, Bill Lay, Carol Parzen, Joanna Yeager, James Boone, Mary Jo Lay, Mary Lancaster, Bill Lancaster, Vallie Broussard 1. Bill Lay called the meeting to order at 10:05arn 11. Approval of December 18, 2000 minutes: Bill Kling made the motion that th4 minutes be approved. Mary Jo Lay seconded the motion. The minutes were approved. Marci Rodgers introduced Courtney Jester, an A&M student who will be serving as an intern in public relations for the senior programs and Rebecca McAlphin a member of the Eisenhower Leadership group which is helping the city with a needs assessment and feasibility study for a senior facility. III. Review final draft of "Senior Friendly" brochure: The following changes were recommended. Cover page should ask the question, "Why should every business be senior friendly?" The middle section should read: second bullet, "Appropriate waiting areas" and omit the rest of the statement. Third bullet, "Easy access and close parking". Add a fourth bullet, "Uncluttered aisles." The purpose of this brochure and the senior friendly award is to encourage citizens and business owners to nominate a business which exemplifies exceptional service toward the older adult in our community. Guidelines are listed in the brochure. The Senior Advisory Committee hopes that this effort will educate retail businesses on the importance of serving the needs of older adults as well as the significant economic base they provide. The businesses selected will be recognized by the Mayor's Award program. The business would be recognized in the media and a decal for the business window will be designed and available to display. Awareness of the program will begin with a media blitz and printing and distribution of the brochure. IV. Eisenhower Leadership Development Program report: Rebecca McAlphin described the group project and read the problem statement they have established. "With an increasing number of senior citizens choosing College Station as a retirement location, the City of College Station has addressed the need for better programs and facilities dedicated to serving senior citizens. This section of the population is comprised of socio-economically diverse individuals who are looking to give something back to the community as well as have a number of social, recreational, and educational programs available to them. The project group will have to conduct a needs assessment of the city's senior population and provide a recommendation for programs and facilities that should be available to meet these needs." A survey is the next step with a completion date of February 14th. Rebecca also explained that the group plans to visit facilities in other cities. V. Focus Group planned for February 1, 2001 - Intergenerational Parks Those who volunteered to attend the focus group included: James and Lillian Boone, Bill and Mary Jo Lay, Joanna Yeager, Annie Lee Finch, Carol Parzen, Mary and Bill Lancaster. The committee suggested other individuals that might be willing to participate. Marci will make those contacts. VI. Senior Day at the Capitol — Tuesday, February 5, 2001 10:301m, Front steps of the Capital VII. Senior Services Coordinator report: Report on file Carol Parzen announced upcoming free concerts which will be held on the A&M campus and in the community. VIII. Next meeting: Monday, February 26, 2001 at the teen center IX. Adjourn: The meeting ended at 11:05am Steve Beachy - Summary Report 2000 Xmas in the Park.doc Page Christmas In The Park 2000 Summary Report Submitted by: Sheila Walker Christmas in the Park officially began on Friday, December 1, 2000 with a Lighting Ceremony and Open House activities. The lights came on at about 7:15pm in perfect form. Approximately 1300 people attended the festivities including The Mayor and City Council, several Bryan City Council members, Donna Emmenheiser from Waltman and Grisham, our sponsors, KKYS radio staff, Cathy Ross, Brazos Valley Troupe, and the College Station Middle School Choir. A live Nativity Scene was provided by A&M United Methodist Church. Carriage rides, hay rides, a bonfire with marshmallows for roasting, visits with Santa and cookies and hot chocolate were offered free to the public. The new Kroger Signature Store passed out free samples from their bakery. For most of the time- 6:30pm to 9pm, traffic through the park was bumper to bumper. Open House activities continued for a total of six nights in December which included the hayrides, visits with Santa, cookies and hot chocolate, carriage rides, live entertainment, campfires, walk -around characters, and more. Over a dozen local groups performed on the entertainment stage. On December 2 a pet contest was the entertainment on stage, which included over 54 entries and wonderful prizes in 13 categories. The second weekend of festivities, Kolache Rolf's, a new bakery in College Station, passed out free samples of their goodies. Most of the outdoor festivities were canceled on December 15 due to rain. Visits with Santa and free cookies and hot chocolate were still popular in spite of the weather. The beautiful lighting displays were on nightly from 6pm to midnight from December 1 through January 1. Below is a table which summarizes actual numbers and estimates on participation for this month long event. A traffic counter was not available this year; therefore, there is no estimate on the number of people who traveled through Central Park to view the lights. Date Performers Cookies Hot Cocoa Lobby Santa Photos Weather visitors Dec.1 115 4060 1400 350 90 cold/damp Dec. 2 54 3000 1325 250 75 very cold Dec.8 150 4000 1125 350 90 cold/damp Dec.9 movies 1900 1050 250 75 cold/damp Dec.15 cancelled 1000 750 250 60 rain Dec. 16 89 3600 1350 300 90 cold clear Total 408 17560 7000 1750 480 tough year 2000 was a greatly successful Christmas in the Park season. Traffic throughout the park was heavy all month long. Volunteers were used for many positions rather than paid staff. Kroger was a new addition to the Christmas in the Park family donating almost all of the cookies and hot chocolate. Comments from the public concerning various aspects of the program were very positive, especially concerning our Santa. The College Station Parks and Recreation Department, in conjunction with Project Sunshine, will introduce a new program this year called Challenger Basketball. This program is being introduced as a result of a citizen request. The department was approached by a citizen who requested that we find a way to include local children with long term illnesses and disabilities, but who have an interest in the sport of basketball, into our youth basketball program. Understanding that these children would have limitations that would probably not allow them to gain the success desired through the existing youth basketball league, Parks & Recreation staff accepted the challenge to find a solution. The desire was to provide an outlet for these children who want to learn basic fundamentals of basketball, have fun, improve physical skills, experience success, feel special but be in a safe and controlled environment. After meeting with parents of potential participants, the Professor at TAMU who runs the adaptive P.E. class, and members of the Project Sunshine group the Challenger Basketball program was created. The format of the league will be tailored to the needs of the individuals. Three weeks will be spent on skill improvement, with the last week for game activities. Volunteer members from Project Sunshine will serve as volunteer instructors and coaches. Project Sunshine is a non -denominational organization that provided numerous free programs and services to children with these long-term illnesses and disabilities in the Brazos Valley and throughout the state of Texas. Chartered by Texas A & M University, Project Sunshine has a supporting volunteer staff of 175 members, which allows for the City to keep cost of this program at a minimum. The 2001 Challenger Basketball Program registration takes place January 15 through January 31, at Central Park Office. The season will run February 5 through March 3. Practices will be held on Mondays from 6:OOpm to 7:OOpm and Saturdays from 9:OOam to 11:OOam at Lincoln Recreation Center. Games will be held on the last week at the same times and location. The cost of the program is $15.00, which includes a one-year membership to Lincoln Recreation Center. As a member of Lincoln Center, participants with the assistance of parents will be able continue improving skills taught and enjoy leisure games and activities associated with the sport of basketball. The Parks and Recreation Department offers this "trial" program with the desire to establish an annual program that will allow special needs youth in our community an opportunity to participate in a youth basketball program. We hope to meets the needs and desires of the participants and parents, but more importantly to provide an avenue for fun, create individual pride and boast self esteem through the sport of basketball! For more information on the program contact Geri Marsh, Athletic League Supervisor for the Parks and Recreation Department at 764-3486. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON UNITED STATES SENATOR January 8, 2001 College Station Parks and Recreation Department P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842-9960 Dear Friends: Thank you for sending the 2001 College Station Calendar. It was very kind of you to think of me. With best wishes. KBWadb NOT PAID FOR AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE I Statement by: P. David Romei, Executive Director of the Arts Council of Brazos Valley to the College Station Parrs and Recreation Board, 1 February 2000. It is a prlvlle e for rye to spear with you tonight abort a subject rear and dear to my heart. Tank you for this opportunity. First I would lie to compliment Steve -Beachy for his inclusiveness and outreach to our community as he prepares vet another splendid recreational and, in the case of Veteran's Farb, recreational and memorial facility for the Brazos Valley. His efforts to listen and understand the needs of our community reflect well upon himself and our city's government. econd5 I would like, to add -my support and tthe-- support of the Arts Council to the, Pack and Rec Boards desires to include a place in the parr where citizens may reflect upon the patriotism, courage and sacrifice of these -who have honorably served the United States of America In uniform. Foofbaf, baseball, basketball and soccer are Important sports in America. Those who participate learn team spirit, selflessness and the feelings associated with victory and defeat. Hopefully they learn good sportsmanship and citizenship. It is in the interest of society to encourage sports and 4vcatlon. When our children are competing and participating in spouts we low they aren't smoking or spooning! However, citizenship also demands an understanding of our nation's past. Future generations Must learn that America was not created from activities upon a sports field, but instead by real heroes who gave their blood for our freedom upon the fields of battle named Yorktown, Tripoli, Veracruz, Gettysburg, San Juan Hill, Verdun, Normandy, Guadalcanal, Pusan, Saigon, and Kuwait. It is our responsibility to ensure that our children know of the sacrifice their mothers and fathers made. It is not our choice; it is our solemn obligation. Therefore,, as a veteran of the Unfitted States Army and as your Arts Council Director, it is my honor to strongly endorse plans being made by the Park and Rec Board, Steve Beachy and Dr. Crag Carter's committee t® put some land aside for a special memorial to the men and women who Piave sued the Aced Forces of the United States with honor. Thank you. LUBBOCK NATIONAL BANK Canrnitted to Your Success. January- 7, 2000 -- Mr. Stephen Beachy City Of College Station, Parks & Recreation 1000 Krenek Tap Road College Station, Texas 77840 Dear Steve: As follow-up to our telephone conversation, I have a bank customer who desires to open discussion with the City for the possible purchase of a 5 acre tract of land, which to the best of my knowledge is described as: Part of Lot 3, Randall's University Park, Richard Carter Survey, Abstract No. 8, College Station, Brazos County, Texas. My customer has recently purchased a 3.370 acre tract that fronts the above described property and it is his intent to develop this land as a small residential subdivision. At your earliest opportunity, please advise me if the City would consider a sale of this property and if so, how we should proceed with opening negotiations. Your assistance in this matter is most appreciated. Sincerely, Thomas H. Aughinbaugh, III Senior Vice President 424 Tarrow, Suite 104 College Station, TX 77840 (409) 260-5982 Fax (409) 260-7034 5.16 acres 7 \50 JJ a8 G O 7 1t — 7 a5 — q 0 ,y 3 39 �`rTOy a a � m 30 31 38 f' OR 1 32 37 1 33 38 2 n, 28 0f 34 4 1c 21 27 Q'P .35 S p 18 22 26 87 8 % 17 R 27 25 27 16 4O� 24 Y 7 15 Qt t�4o �i z 14 oP 8 cf L.A.FORD 09p 13 2.7053 Acres 5 tt' S a a�A 14 c�v* 13 3 12 Shobeer Jaffor 3.306 Acres 20 19 RANDALLS Appraisal District Values University Park" I/ k S ROSEMARY DR COONER ST.I $ ROSEMARY DR z F C Q oa 9 � Y can i z� mo §3 H oa' W oa o,Q gg yz Y c d 6W; wd W G4 a C a� PL—cpt RENIS4W& E HGR1EE R'S S++C �F 1 I Steve Beachy - Board Meeting of 1/8/02 Page 1 From: Kris Lehde To: Ric Ploeger; Steve Beachy Date: 1/9/02 2:10PM Subject: Board Meeting of 1/8/02 The following is a run-down from last night's board meeting: Cutts, Item #6 will pertain to your area. 1. The Board was in consensus of having the Master Plan Subcommittee meet and bring their recommendations back to the Board for approval. A Master Plan Subcommittee needs to be set up (John N., Glen D., and Don Allison). 2. A focus group meeting with Board members Don A. and Bill D. needs to be set up with the local development community (I have the names, addresses, and e-mails of who attended the last focus group meeting) to discuss possible developer incentives. 3. Agendas will need to be posted for the following: - Feb. 5th Special Meeting to discuss Future CIP Projects. The meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. with dinner. - Feb. 12th Regular Meeting. The meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. with dinner. - Feb. 19th Joint Meeting with Bryan PARD to discuss the Madeley Park Project. The meeting will start at 7:30 p.m. (location to be announced - probably Bryan Municipal Building). Pam is checking to see if the Bryan PARD Secretary will be taking those minutes. 4. Ric, the Board had several recommendations for the future CIP list. I will have to type up the minutes to get you all of the details. Although, some include playground covers, joint projects with the new high school (i.e. tennis courts with lighting and shade covers), and moving the Luther Jones project under Community Facilities. Also, the Board would like the future CIP project list with prices and the individual CIP request forms with descriptions sent to them by snail mail in advance of the Special Meeting on Feb. 5th. We'll need to get this out soon. 5. The Board would like a status sent to them concerning the progress of the Interlocal Agreement that was sent to Legal for the Jack and Dorothy Miller Jogging Tract. If we can't get a response to the Board before the Feb. 12th Regular meeting, they would like for this to be an agenda item for that meeting. 6. Parks Maintenance Standards. The Board agreed that they looked good, but to help with the consistency of the evaluation process of the Parks, it was suggested that the Parks Operations Supervisors train how to grade or grade in a group (Paul, Gary, Scott). 7. The Board would like a section added to the Park Land Dedication Checklist called "Project Location" that will give the Board an idea of where the dedication is located. Including a map of the dedication may also be helpful. 8. The Skate Park subject is a dead issue. The following motions were made: 1. Senior Facility Report was approved unanimously. 2. Cash dedication (in lieu of park land) was approved unanimously for the T.C.C. Subdivision (Zone 7) Kris Lehde Staff Assistant College Station Parks & Recreation (979) 764-3414 FEE-26 01 13:43 FROM: T0:979 764 3737 PAGE-02 > .. • From, Scott Shafer[SMTP-.sshafer@rpts.tamu.edu] • To: ra lay d ree t cv 3 J' g u v f m Subject,• idedications Scott Shafer * College Station, TX URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN� Preliminary Recommendations Submitted To: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS BOARD Submitted On: SEPTEMBER 7, 2000 I�l.Jl I Ililti.� Le 0 BURDITT ASSOCIATES URBAN FORESTERS & NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS CONROE OFFICE 2040 W. Loop 336, Suite 318 Conroe, TX 77304 MAILING ADDRESS PO Box 1424 Conroe, TX 77305 281,447.2111 HOUSTON - 936'756.3041 CONROE - 936.539.3240 FAX - BurdittAssociates.com 9 BURDITT ASSOCIATES Urban Fo'egerS and 14atural Kesource Consultants September 7, 2000 Mr. Ross A. Albrecht Forestry Superintendent City of College Station P. ®. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 RE: Urban Forest Management Plan; Preliminary Recommendations Dear Mr. Albrecht: Afailing Address: P.Q. Box 1424 Conroe, Texas 77305 cburditt@burdittassociates.ccm comoe QjTlce: 2040 IN. Loop 336 Conroe, Texas 77304 936.756-3041 Conroe 281.447.2111 Houston 936.539 3240 Fax We enjoyed meeting with you and members of your staff last month to discuss an Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of College Station. Following cursory inspections of the community we have developed a preliminary recommendation report for the document. This preliminary information would be suitable for discussion between your staff, the Parks Board, City Council Members, and tree advocacy groups in general. ¢ Our impressions of College Station were further enhanced by more closely inspecting the parks and city trees. We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss any of the issues discussed in our recommended scope or to personally address the Parks Board at a future meeting. Should you wish to have a specific feasibility study or additional assistance, we can forward a fee schedule for hourly rates. We look forward to discussing the project at greater length and the opportunity to present a proposal. Please advise with any questions you may have. BLD/we Very sincerely, Billy L. Drum Project Manger 1111!!l 11111q��1111 111� -�-o The City of College Station's Urban Forest was established over many years of development, both through infrastructure and through the patient hands of its community. Much of the city was originally open space without the benefit of tree cover. Therefore, much of today's urban forest cover was introduced during development or it was carved out of volunteer stands that established themselves after fields were allowed to go fallow. The resulting tree cover is in varying stages of growth and health. The City of College Station's Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for the care and maintenance of trees throughout the City. This includes: ® Street trees along all City maintained streets and right-of-ways ® Trees in 30 developed parks comprised of 600 acres (approximately) ® Trees in 6 undeveloped parks comprised of an additional 600 acres (approximately) ® The trees located on Municipal Building sites (12 sites) In determining the needs of the City's trees, the Parks Board has identified the need for an Urban Forest Management Plan. Such a plan is considered an important step in maintaining the City's Urban Forest cover and in establishment of those trees critical to the future. The Urban Forest Management Plan will create a guide for the City to follow in tree care and resource allocation. If properly implemented, it can help to improve the overall health of the urban forest, redirect the management of trees from crisis management to that of proactive management, assist in the allocation of scare budget resources, and provide valuable guidance for future reforestation projects. The Forestry Department, cares for trees by responding to problems rather than anticipating potential needs. This is common to many city departments responsible for trees whose budgets may not be adequate for pr'oactive tree work. Not quite crisis management, but not far from it. Burditt Associates I City of College Station September 7, 2000 Urban Forest Management Plan While this method is effective in handling issues as they develop, it does not improve the overall health of the urban forest, nor does it help to improve the aesthetics of the city. Tree planting initiatives may not currently focus upon a goal of species diversity and improved forest cover throughout the city and the parks system. Street tree clearance issues are relegated to calls from the sanitation department, fire department, or Texas A&.M bus operations for clearance issues on established streets. Limited park tree maintenance and pruning is catch -as -catch -can, as labor resources are limited in their capacity to handle management issues on an ongoing basis. With such a response management system in place, the City will slowly loose ground on all tree related issues and the health and foundation of the City's trees will suffer. This is further complicated by five years of unprecedented drought for this region of the State. As new trees are planted and those planted in newer neighborhoods mature, resources of the City will be stretched even more to adequately keep up with maintenance needs. An assessment of current needs and those anticipated in the future will better equip College Station to dedicate the necessary resources to both maintain and improve the urban forest. In determining the needs of College Station it is important to know what natural resources are available. A quantitative analysis may be necessary to determine the species distribution, canopy cover, overall condition and the needs. An economic assessment certainly should be considered to further document to both City representatives and the Community the added value the urban forest provides. While the economic value of trees can be obtained, the issue of liability is more obscure. It is important the city have a basis to quantify the liability and determine acceptable levels of risk and the need to evaluate tree hazards as a part of their risk management program. While trees are living things, their life span is limited and the need for management and risk assessment are necessary due to the ever -changing environmental and eventual overall decline in conditions. The costs associated with risk can be reduced with the use of an adequate hazard assessment program that take into account the dangerous issues associated with trees. The City and the Parks Board will make the decision as to what accomplishments are desired from a Management document. The following information is designed to give you a cursory look at what types of issues should be addressed and general expenditures that could be anticipated. Burditt Associates 2 City of College Station September 7, 2000 Urban Forest Management Plan Urban Forest Management Plan The Urban Forest Management Plan is simply an extension of normal planning activities that take place in every municipal services department. Planning is thinking out a course of action anticipating the future. The future is based upon an analysis of current trends and projecting these trends beyond the present. It is an uncertain process and that uncertainty *increases as the time of projection increases. However, despite the risks of uncertainty, a City must plan ahead for the future. It is no different for the Urban Forest. Many of the current problems are the result of not attempting to anticipate the problems experienced in the past. An Urban Forest Management Plan must deal with the resources on a day to day basis and develop long-term strategies for the continued benefits offered by the urban forest. The plan must be a comprehensive working document that will be used to attain the safest, healthiest, and most aesthetically pleasing urban forest in the most cost effective manner to the citizens of College Station. The plan must also be dynamic like the City itself, adapting to necessary changes. The particulars of the plan should evolve as the City grows and changes. Dedication of new parks, municipal facilities, and rights -of -ways will 'increase the land areas the plan must address. Continued paving, development, and construction will add, subtract, and modify the existing tree growing spaces. This, in turn, will require alteration by the Parks and Recreation Department in administration of the plan objectives. Simply stated, the plan must address the following questions: What do we have? Vhat do we want (or need)? How do we get what we want (or need)? To be comprehensive, the plan should address all areas of urban forest management. It may contain all or some of the following: Community Awareness Program/Plan - The key to any successful resource management program will be a well thought out community awareness plan. Municipal forestry departments, public works departments, parks and recreation departments and community associations all have a public image. This image may be real or imagined, but it exists in the eyes of the general public. Only through an effort to educate the public can many of the necessary management practices be implemented and adequate budgets be set aside with community support. Burditt Associates 3 City of College Station September 7, 2000 Urban Forest Management Plan ® Tree Planting / Aforestation / Reforestation Initiatives - An assessment should be made of the needs for establishing or re-establishing tree cover throughout College Station. Areas that currently have tree cover should be assessed for overall health and longevity or need for reforestation, new rights -of -way or parks that have no tree cover should be assessed for aforestation (areas previously unforested) efforts. Goals of canopy cover and ability to maintain these areas must be taken into account during the process. ® Hazard Consideration - Risk management is necessary to ensure the safety of the residents of College Station and also to reduce the liability of the City and associated organizations and departments. Treatment to mitigate and/or reduce hazard conditions should be a part of the management criteria for Urban Forest Management. Reducing the risk associated with hazardous trees can take many forms. Primary efforts will be concentrated in: ® Hazard Tree Identification/Assessment - On a park by park and street by street basis. ® Hazard Tree Removal Policy development and implementation - The development of a policy that will protect the City and it's residents from potential tragedy or damages. a Flood and Watershed Management ® Emergency Vehicle Corridors — identification — clearance — hurricane and tornado debris clearance planning a Forest Interface Homeowner Safety and Security a Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic Forest Safety ® ;Pruning Scheduling - Pruning operations in College Station must be cost effective and practical. While pruning every tree in the city would not be a practical approach at this time, a more realistic goal would implement a pruning cycle for all trees that are growing in close proximity to picnic areas, playgrounds, trails, facilities, buildings, roadways or other areas frequented by people. A schedule could be developed that would adequately address the health of the Urban Forest and the safety of the City's residents. Certainly, in the long run, a schedule for proper citywide pruning should be developed utilizing a cycle of five years, seven years, etc., as determined appropriate. ® Water Management - Flooding and Drought effect both established mature trees and those recently planted. Management techniques for dealing with these issues should be addressed in a comprehensive and cost effective manner. ® Insect, Disease Treatment and Fertilization - Tree maintenance issues will be necessary when dealing with insects, diseases, and nutrient deficiencies. A clear policy addressing what the City is responsible for and addressing the issues in a proactive manner thereby conserving resources for incidence where deemed necessary in the management of trees. Burditt Associates 4 City of College Station September 7, 2000 Urban Forest Management Plan ® Resource Allocation and Budgetary Requirements - With the limited resources of money, manpower and equipment that College Station and many other cities are facing, creative approaches are necessary to implement and utilize a comprehensive Urban Forest Management Plan. The approach necessary must be practical and implementable according to the commitment of the residents of College Station. Resource Assessment - Management of any resource begins with knowledge of the resource to be managed. It is essential that there be knowledge of species present, size and location to determine management requirements. This can be accomplished through many methods of inventory and remote sensing techniques. This would include but not be limited to: ® Individual Tree Inventory - This type of inventory allows the Urban Forest Manager to know the exact distribution of the resources and the management requirements on a tree by tree basis. 'This type of inventory can be useful on all types of properties including parks, streets, and municipal building sites. ® Sampling - Utilizing a traditional forest management technique of establishing sample plots throughout the city to provide a value that can then be extrapolated to give an estimate of the forest cover and distribution throughout the city. ® Windshield Inventory - Windshield inventories can give the Urban Forest Manager information as to the distribution of species and sizes throughout the city on a street by street basis. An inventory of this type is useful in gaining information quickly. Remote Sensing - Existing GIS information and/or conversion of existing files to be georeferenced can be integrated with existing infrared digital orthographic photos or acquired multi -spectral photos to create the base map information. Additional efforts may be necessary to collect ground data (ground truthing) to determine the existing stand types. Canopy Cover Assessment - Canopy cover assessment can be accomplished with the utilization of remote sensing techniques through a combination of software and digital photographs. ® New Park Management - Many of the new park areas currently do not have adequate tree cover and will require reforestation efforts utilizing proper species diversity and maintenance procedures favorable to survival. ® Park Revitalization - Older, more established parks may require revitalization of the canopy cover and/or assessment of the same according to usage and purpose of the tree cover. ® Wildlife Habitat Management - Urban Wildlife issues must be addressed according to community demand and appropriateness. While some species are considered desirable for one park or public area, the same species may not be suitable for another. This would pertain to the nuisance factors relating to each species. Burditt Associates 5 City of College Station September 7, 2000 Urban Forest Management Plan • Street Tree Management - Define and adapt a policy for the management and level of care to be implemented by the City. This would include safety, pruning, and health of all City street trees. The primary objectives of a good street tree management plan should be to maximize the benefits of street trees while minimizing the public expense to attain these benefits. • GIS Management System Implementation - Consideration should be made when addressing natural resource management issues toward the develop a GIS system that integrates all forest management issues including mapping, stand types, inventory data and information, management practices, needs, and progress of programs. Monitoring and tracking the data over time will also help to determine future forestry practices that should be utilized on other sites and to track natural growth, regeneration, or succession. • Preservation Planning - In order to preserve the natural resources of development sites and enhance value, a preservation plan for site development and protection of the urban forest environment is essential. A plan could be developed in conjunction with the efforts of the City of College Station, Developers, Engineers, Landscape Architects, Architects, and Planners. Preservation planning should be adopted by the developer during construction activities as well as by the City of College Station during renovations, additions or other construction activities near trees. This can be implemented through the preservation ordinance, as a pilot effort, and through educational methods. To be a working document, the plan should encompass the Parks Department's goals, objectives, strategies, administration, budget and overall work program. The plan should describe the day�to-day, short range, and long-range direction of the department. To develop the needed Urban Forest Management Plan, the City should approach the development of the plan as follows: • Project Management - The success of any project depends on a well designed series of steps to collect data and provide interpretation of the information obtained. Data collection should be provided by qualified personnel. This is an important aspect of operations, as is the management of this personnel. All critical data should be collected by degreed staff. The use of interns or volunteerism is supported for certain data compilation. However, the important matters of hazard assessment should not be determined by non-professional personnel. Also included in project management should be issues of: • Ensuring that the project stays on schedule and within budget • Coordinating with all participants as necessary • Ensuring that the goal is met Burditt Associates 6 City of College Station September 7, 2000 Urban Forest Management Plan Evaluation of Management Needs - Conduct an inventory and analysis of existing practices and conditions and evaluate those needs through a decision making process. Presentation of Needs - Should be presented to City representatives and the Parks Board in the form of a Stakeholder Meeting. Development of Recommendations - Screen the various options, policies and ideas to address the needs and identify the final recommendations. ® Presentation of Recommendations - To City and Parks Board. 0 Screen Recommendations and Prepare Draft Management Plan Document. ® Allow City and Parks Board Review and Comments to secure consensus. Prepare Final Document for submission to the Parks and Recreation Department and Parks Board. To adequately provide a comprehensive Urban Forest Management Plan, the City of College Station should solicit proposals from firms that have experience in developing urban forest management plans, related projects, and also have extensive knowledge of the local soils, water and vegetation. In selecting a professional service firm, it is important to note that selection of a firm on a bid basis is not practical for professional services. Not all levels of professional style or knowledge are equal. While the bid process will establish a price basis for decision making, it does not take into account professionalism, presentation, ability of staff to complete the project on time, or the quality level of the final product that the city could anticipate. While the selection of a tree care company for pruning and fertilization issues can be quantified on a per tree basis with measurable results, the selection of an Urban Forest Consulting firm to develop a Master Urban Forest Management Plan is an entirely different proposition. This can be compared to the selection of an architect to design a building versus the selection of a construction company to implement the design. An REP is critical to departmental analysis and responsiveness to the goals of the project. Firms supplying proposals should be evaluated as follows: ® Ability of firm to provide the requested services and in what time frame Burditt Associates 7 City of College Station September 7, 2000 Urban Forest Management Plan ® Innovation of firms in providing the proposed services An interview with the staff of the firm to discuss previous work and the specific project proposal Fees for document preparation depend on those services and components deemed appropriate by authorized decision makers. The City's urban tree cover represents an asset valued in the millions of dollars. The first thing a visitor to any community notices is what level of tree cover is present and how that community cares for those trees. A professionally prepared document encompassing assessment, recommendations, budgetary numbers, etc., as detailed in this cursory report would cost in a range of $ 20,000 to $ 30,000 depending upon the extent of 'information. The document, designed as a decision making and management planning tool, would not include items such as the street tree inventory. It would; however, provide extensive data about the City's Urban Forest, strategies for implementing all elements of the plan, and hard numbers for projections of personnel hiring and annual expenditures necessary to maintain the program. It becomes a blueprint for long-term development of the City's forest resources. Burditt Associates is pleased to offer our services for any portion of this project. Information on our firm and clients are attached. Burditt Associates 8 City of College Station September 7, 2000 Urban Forest Management Plan F will Pffi' IT M a BURDITT ASSOCIATES Urban Foresters P. O. Box 1424 Conroe, TX 77305 936. 539.3041 Fax 936,756.3041 Conroe 281.447.2111 Houston BURDITTASSOCL4TES is an urban forest and natural resource consulting company offering expertise in natural resource and tree preservation, site development, resource management, resource planning, forest management and protection. With professionals in the fields of forestry, urban forestry, horticulture and wildlife management, clients are assisted in the identification of alternatives to ensure 'successful projects. We develop successful resource plans that best serve the needs and budget of our clients. It is our commitment to provide sound consultation to our clients and to ensure that the highest level of technology, cost effectiveness, and integrity are offered. Tree Preservation Plans Hazard Tree Assessment Construction Site Tree Protection GIS and GPS Applications Tree Appraisals Site Development Street Tree Survey Insect & Disease Diagnosis Urban Forest Management Plans Natural Resource Planning Tree Inventories Horticultural Consultation Golf Course Consultation Expert Witness Testimony Construction Site Supervision Landscape Architecture Urban Wildlife Management City Park Master plans Burditt Associates Page 1 Urban Foresters Management of natural resources in the urban environment is essential. Burditt Associates has assisted Municipalities, Golf Courses, Engineers, Architects, Builders, and Developers by providing information that is necessary to manage these resources in spite of the continued urban impact. Following is a partial listing of the tree projects the staff of Burditt Associates has been involved with: CITY OF ® Collection of GPS location and HELOTES - tree data to present to the city Urban Forestry HELOTES, TEXAS for use in future tree preservation and a current Oak Services Wilt Study that will be conducted over the next few years. Aerial Photography is Provided being used for remote sensing and location of existing and to potential Oak Wilt Centers throughout the city. Clients ® Burditt Associates was selected CITY OF from a nationwide search to HOUSTON - provide the City of Houston with HOUSTON, TEXAS a street tree inventory that Data collection included working with GIS data Data analysis and the collection of GPS data for the exact location of street Site Monitoring trees in the city. Construction Administration METROPOLITAN ® Burditt Associates is on the TRANSIT design team in tree preservation Tree Presentation AUTHORITY - efforts for the METRO light rail Planning HOUSTON, TEXAS project. Urban Forest and Natural Resource Master Planning WOODLANDS Development of a community Tree Disposition Plans COMMUNITY Natural Resource Master Plan. SERVICE This included inventorying CORPORATION- reserves and common areas THE WOODLANDS throughout this 25,000 acre TEXAS master planned community and integrating it into a plan that I involved natural resources and their management. Burditt Associates Urban Foresters Page 2 LANDA PARK— Tree Inventory and Management NEW BRAUNFELS, Plan development for Landa TEXAS Park. Project included data collection of historically significant trees and implementation of a computerized data management system. FORT WORTH Inventory of 1,400 park trees for BOTANIC the Fort Worth Botanic Society. GARDENS, FORT Project included data collection WORTH, TEXAS and presentation of data in a book form. ALLEN PARKWAY Site tree preservation of historic VILLAGE - trees for the Houston Housing HOUSToN,TExAs Authority, City of Houston and preservation monitoring throughout the project. FOREST PARK Development of a Tree THE WOODLANDS Preservation Plan funeral home - THE and cemetery development. WOODLANDS, Included site assessment and TEXAS decisions as to the ability of trees to survive construction. MIDTOWN Street Tree Preservation of REDEVELOPMENT historic trees for development - HOUSTON, preservation during TEXAS infrastructure improvements. Data collection, site assessment, and tree preservation plan development. CITY OF Site assessments of multiple sites CoNROE,TEXAS including 1,200 trees throughout the City. Included tree location, inventory data collection and Burditt Associates Urban Foresters Page 3 tree assessment for condition for Tree Preservation Ordinance compliance. HERMANN PARK Reforestation plan development, GOLF COURSE - tree preservation during HOUSTON TEXAS construction and assistance with BSL and the City of Houston's Parks and Recreation Department SPRINGLAKES Preservation of trees for DEVELOPMENT- subdivision development. SPRANG, TEXAS Included site analysis and tree preservation plan implementation in conjunction with SLA-. LONGMERE ON Tree preservation monitoring LAKE CONROE — and assessment during CoNRoE,TExAs development. RENTWATER Tree preservation monitoring DEVELOPMENT — and assessment during MONTGOMERY, development. TEXAS Preservation of 90 historically CANYON GATES significant trees for subdivision SUBDIVISION - design. Included data collection, TEXAS MISSOURI CITY, data analysis, customized software development, tree preservation plan development. GRAND PARK Preservation of Street trees SUBDIVISION, along over 10,000 linear feet of a WATER MAIN water main replacement project. REPLACEMENT Participation included data PROJECT- collection, data analysis, Redline HOUSTON, TEXAS markup of engineering plans, tree preservation specification development. Burditt Associates Urban Foresters Page 4 PARK AT Street and site tree preservation GREENWAY - for development. Participation HOUSTON,TExAs included data collection, data analysis, design review, and development of a Tree Preservation Plan for Camden Development. GATES AT Site Tree preservation for HERMANNPARK - redevelopment. Included data HOUSToN,TEXAS collection, data analysis, design review, and development of a Tree Preservation Plan. o 3M - AUSTIN, Tree Preservation of 3,500 trees TEXAS for development preservation. Included data collection, data analysis, data entry into customized software, design review, and development of a Tree Preservation Plan for the 3M Corporation's Corporate Campus. Project was initiated and completed in 1986. Street Tree Preservation CIT-4., OF WEST I development during UNIVERSITY infrastructure improvements. PLACE' TEXAS Included data collection, data analysis, design review, and development of a Tree Preservation Plans for City Infrastructure Projects. Project started in 1994. COMPAQ- Preservation of 4,000 trees for HOUSTON, TEXAS development design. Included data collection, data analysis. Project conducted in 1994. Burditt Associates Urban Foresters Page 5 ® Preservation of 500 site trees. 'VEST ORANGE, Included data collection, data NEW JERSEY analysis and development of a Tree Preservation Plan for Trammell Crow. Project conducted in 1985. SAINT CHARLES ® Assessment and preservation of STREET CAR trees during the reconstruction PROJECT - CITE' of the New Orleans Street Car OF NEW Project. ORILEANS, LA BEL LAIRE ® Preservation of site trees TRANSIT including data collection, STATION! — analysis of site trees and METRO, preservation plan development. IH OUSTON, TEXAS Burditt Associates Urban Foresters Page 6 BURDITT ASSOCIATES Urb:ui Forest= Anglia Development Corporation Arrowwood Conference Center and G. C., Rye, NY Bastrop County Appraisal District Bentwater Golf and Country Club BSL Golf Corporation Calame, Linebarger, Graham,& Pena, Attorneys at Law Camden Development Carter and Burgess Engineers Chevron Chemical Company Citadel Bank Clark, West, Keller, Butler & Ellis, Attorneys at Law Conroe, City of Dallas Central Appraisal District Del Lago Golf and Resort Center Dietze & Reese, Attorneys at Law Doucet & Associates Engineers Engineered Carbons Estate of Percy Foreman Estate of Sam Field Farm Bureau Insurance Company Flynn & Holker, Attorneys at Law Forest Park - The Woodlands Fort Worth Botanic Gardens Gensler Architects George Mitchell Grant & Associates, Attorneys at Law Gray Construction Gulf States Utilities Company Harris County Harris County Engineering Department Hedwig Village Helotes, City of Hermann Park Golf Course Hewitt Associates Housing Authority City of Houston Houston Arts Combined Endowment Foundation Burditt Associates CLIENT LIST Houston Lighting and Power Company Houston Midtown Redevelopment Authority Houston, City of Huntsman Corporation J. M. Huber Corporation Jersey Meadows Golf Course JMG Builders, Ltd. Joseph Homberger Estate Lakeside Country Club Landa Park and Golf Course Loclunvar Country Club Mayor Bob Lanier Hope Center For Youth METRO- Metropolitan Transit Authority - City of Houston New Braunfels, City of Panorama Golf Course and Country Club Pearland, City of Rey de la Reza Architects San Antonio, City of Service Corporation International Shreve Land Construction SLA - Studio Land State Farm Insurance Company Stoecker Corporation Texas Eastern Pipeline Company Tise, Herwitz, and Diamond Architects Titus County Appraisal District Trees Incorporated United States Department of Justice United States Marshall Service Vinson & Elk -ins, Attorneys at Law Waller County Appraisal District Wedgewood Golf Course White Oak Studios Landscape Architects Windsor Residential Woodlands Community Service Corporation YMCA of Greater Houston Urban Foresters Page 7 BURDITT ASSOCIATES Urban Foresters Mr. Jim Hull, Director Texas Forest Service The Texas A & M System Administration Building College Station, TX 77840 (409) 845-2641 Mr. Ed Barron Head - Forest Resources Texas Forest Service College Station, TX 77840 (409) 845-2641 Mr. Alan D. Dreesen Texas Ag. Extension Service 4328 FM 1488 Conroe, TX 77384 (409) 273-2120 Mr. John Ross District Forester Texas Forest Service 4328 FM 1488 Conroe, TX 77384 (409) 273-2261 Mr. Pete Smith Staff Forester Texas Forest Service College Station, TX 77840 (409) 845-2641 Mr. Mike Williams Landscape Arch. / Urban Designer Metropolitan Transit Authority P. O. Box 61429 Houston, Texas 77208-1429 (713) 73961 Mr. Ray Viada Huntsman Corporation P. O. Box 219 Conroe, Texas 77305 (409) 760-6282 Mr. Robert G. Merrifield Deputy Director Texas Ag. Experiment Station The Texas A & M System Administration Building College Station, TX 77843 (409) 845-5000 Mr. F. Charles LeBlanc Executive Director Midtown Redevelopment Authority 3401 Louisiana, Suite 355 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 526-7577 Dr. Robert Baker Mr. Tick Arthur Department of Forestry Enviro Design Landscape Texas A & M University Architecture College Station, TX 77840 7424 Greenville Avenue, Ste 200 (409) 845-5033 Dallas, TX 75231 (214) 987-3010 r. Keiji Asakura, ASLA Senior Principal SLA Studio Land Inc. 10260 Westheimer, Suite 770 Houston, Texas 77042 (713) 787-0719 Mr. Glen Rosenbaum Vinson and Elkins, L.L.P 2300 First City Tower Houston, TX 77002 (713) 758-2594 Mr. Doug Belin Bentwater Development Route 1, Box 246 Montgomery, TX 77356 (409) 597-6999 Mr. Steven R. Peterson Executive Director Conroe YMCA 10245 Owen Drive Conroe, TX 77304 (409) 756-9345 Mrs. Neslihan Bilir Tesno City of West University Place �800 University Blvd. Houston, TX 77005 (713) 662-5893 Mr. Calvin Morgan, P.E. Carter and Burgess 55 Waugh Drive, Suite 300 P. O. Box 131487 Houston, TX 77219-1487 (713) 869-7900 Mr. Victor Cordova Houston City Forester City of Houston 6501 Memorial Dr. Houston, TX 77007 (713) 867-0378 Mrs. Glenda Barrett Executive Director Park People 3015 Richmond, Suite 210 Houston, TX 77098 (713) 942-7275 Mr. Epi Salazar, P.E. SES Horizon Consulting Engineers 10101 Southwest Freeway, Suite 400 Houston, TX 77074 (713) 988-5504 Burditt Associates Urban Foresters Page 8 BIT ITT ASSOCIATES Urban Foresters CRARLES B. BURDITT — Owner of Burditt Associates, Urban Foresters and Natural Resource Consultants Project Assignment Specialization — Tree assessment, tree preservation, project budgeting, Number of Years with Burditt Associates — 21 years, 1979-1999 Other Firms and Years — Texas Forest Service, Houston Areas Urban And Community Forester, 3 years, 1976-1979 Education — Texas A&M University, BS - Forestry, 1976, most outstanding senior student in forestry Charles Be Burditt; began his professional career in 1976 with the Texas Forest Service in Conroe as Management and Urban Forester. He was the first Forester with the TFS working extensively in the Houston area in matters relating to urban development and the interface between rural and urban forest uses. A consultant since 1979, Mr. Burditt has held offices in The Society of American Foresters and Consulting Foresters of Texas, he has been on the Board of Directors of The Texas Forestry Association and Conroe Beautification Association, He currently serves on the Texas State Board of the International Association of Arboriculture. He has served on numerous committees for professional associations, state agencies, appraisal districts, etc. Receiving a B. S. in Forestry from Texas A & M University in 1976, he was named by the Faculty as the Most Outstanding Senior Forestry Student. In addition to the previous memberships mentioned, he is a member of the nationally prestigious Association of Consulting Foresters. He was chosen by the Texas A & M System to serve in 1995 on the Selection Committee to select a new State Forester for the Texas Forest Service. Burditt Associates Urban Foresters Page 9 BURDITT ASSOCIATES Urban Foresters Billy L. Drum — Project Manager Project Assignment Specialization — Tree assessment, tree preservation, project management, design review, tree health analysis, tree preservation plan development, tree *inventory data collection Number of Years with Burditt Associates — 9 years Other Firms and Years — Shell Plant Farm 2 years Del Lago Resort and Conference Center I year Education — Texas A&M University, BS - Horticulture, 1988 Billy L. Drum; received his Bachelor of Science in Horticulture in 1988 from Texas A&M University. Billy has enhanced his knowledge of plant materials while working in the landscaping and nursery fields from 1985 to 1990 serving as landscape contractor, retail manager, and landscape division department head. He was a golf course superintendent at Del Lago Resort and Conference Center during 1990 and 1991. Various projects included landscape design, wetlands mitigation, plant selection, plant injury and disease diagnosis, and plant establishment. Billy joined Burditt Associates in 1991 and has continued in horticultural consulting, landscape consultations, extensive tree planting projects, traditional forest management, and urban tree protection. He served on the board of directors for The Organic Plant Institute in Washington County Texas and is a member of the Intemational Society of Arboriculture, the Society of American Foresters, and other professional organizations. Burditt Associates Urban Foresters Page 10 BU"ITT ASSOCIATES Urban Foresters Jack L. Hill — Tree Preservation Specialist Project Assignment Specialization — Tree assessment, tree preservation, project management, design review, tree health analysis, tree preservation plan development, tree inventory data collection Number of Years with Burditt Associates — 4 years Other• Firms and Years — City of Houston Assistant City Forester 4 years Stacy Environmental 2 years Steve Clark and Associates I I years Forestry Associates 4 years Education — Stephen F. Austin University, BS - Forestry, 1974 Professional Registration — Jack L. Hill; received a B. S. in Forestry from Stephen F. Austin State University in 1974. He began his professional work with the City of Houston as Assistant City Forester in 1975 and remained until 1979. Between 1979 and 1981 he served as Production Manager for Stacy Environmental before joining Steve Clark and Associates, a leader in the urban forest consulting field, as the Houston Area Manager and Senior Consultant. He became Manager of the Houston Office for Forestry Associates in 1992 and joined the staff of Burditt Associates in 1996. He has participated in many award winniig urban forest projects throughout the Southern and Eastern United States, including both the Texas Urban Forestry and National Arbor Day Project Awards. He is currently President of the Houston Area Urban Forestry Council, a charter member of the Texas International Society of Arboriculture, member of the Park People, Trees for Houston, Society of American Foresters and the National Arbor Day Foundation. Burditt Associates Urban Foresters Page 11 I 4. BURDITT ASSOCIATES Urban Fores1cm Ronnie Bane — Urban Wildlife Specialist Project Assignment Specialization — Tree assessment, tree preservation, design review, tree health analysis, tree preservation plan development, tree inventory data collection Number of Years with Burditt Associates — 5 years Education — Stephen F. Austin University, BS - Forestry, 1988 Stephen F. Austin University, MS - Forest Game Management, 1992 Ronnie Bane; received a B. S. in Forestry 1, 1988 and a M. S. in Forest Game Management in 1992 from Stephen F. Austin State University. He has extensive education in the life history, ecology and management needs of wildlife species indigenous to Texas. He is certified as a wildlife biologist from The Wildlife Society. Ronnie joined Burditt Associates in 1995 as a forester and wildlife biologist consultant. He has extensive experience in writing and implementing forest, wildlife, and fisheries management plans. He is also a member of the Society of American Foresters (Past Chairman of the Brazos -Trinity Texas Chapter), The Wildlife Society, Texas Forestry Association, Texas Wildlife Association and the National Wild Turkey Federation. Burditt Associates Page 12 Urban Foresters