Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/2003 - Regular Minutes - Parks BoardStaff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; David Gerling, Special Facilities Superintendent; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Kim Foutz, Director of Economic Development; Charles Wood, Economic Development; Pamela Springfield, Senior Secretary Board Members Present: John Nichols, Chairman; Don Allison; Larry Farnsworth; Bill Davis; Glenn Schroeder; Glen Davis; Jodi Warner (arrived at 7:50 p.m.) Board Members Absent: All members were present. Guests: Bill Trainor, Design Review Board; Judy Holt, Design Review Board; Gary Bellomy, Land Design Studio; Greg Taggart, Municipal Design Group; Steve Arden, Developer, Edelweiss Gartens; Mike McClure, McClure Engineering, Inc. 1. Call to order. Chairman John Nichols called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Pardon — possible action concerning requests for absences of members from meeting. All members were present. 3. Hear visitors. Hearing none, this item was closed. 4. Joint Meeting, discussion, and possible action between the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the Design Review Board, and the College Station Business Development Corporation concerning the Northgate Redevelopment Plan. John stated that the Board was very interested in this plan. There was no park to adequately serve the needs of the Northgate area and the Board would like to work toward some type of unique park development. Kim Foutz stated that there was a plan in place, adopted in 1996, which was more focused on infrastructure. The parking garage, the Promenade, and the Second Street Plaza had been done as a result of that plan. There were, however, some significant barriers in Northgate that made it difficult to redevelop. Consultant Gary Bellomy of the Land Design Studio had been hired to do a new plan that would be market -based and would identify specifically how those barriers could be overcome. Texas A &M University was a partner in the plan. This meeting would be the finalization of the stakeholders' input before a final draft is put together to be presented to Planning & Zoning on June 5, 2003 and to the City Council in July. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Page 1 of 6 Gary Bellomy took the floor. He explained that there was a form of development - new urbanism - that tried to get more uses into a smaller area where people could live, work, recreate, etc., in an alternative format that didn't require driving between each of those things. Everything in those areas tended to be smaller, denser, and a little higher quality than what you would see in regular highway development. A few of the development strategies and implementation ideas he presented for Northgate included: ? Making retail stronger — make Church Street the major shopping street with anchors on each end; ? Create a significant public space — consider converting some of Church Street into plaza space and the parking lot behind the Baptist Student Center to public space; ? Increase residential density — create work/live programs; develop vacant land and encourage redevelopment of under - utilized land; develop the old Brazos Duplex site as a mixed residential area with a neighborhood park at the center; ? District cohesion — have management of commercial land controlled by one manager and roll all residential into a homeowner's association; ? Make University Drive more pedestrian friendly — narrow the lanes and increase the sidewalk area; add medians and trees that would form a gateway Kim stated that staff had designated an area in the Second Street Plaza redevelopment for artwork and a play area. Staff has also been working on the possibility of wrapping Church Street around to the intersection, which would create a small pocket for a water /play area. A larger pocket park in the Brazos Duplex site would also be doable because of the price per square foot. Parking issues in the Northgate area would have to be corrected before any parking could be turned into public space. Some areas that could not be developed from a high- density point of view could be used for public space /park areas, such as the detention ponds at St. Mary's and the Lutheran Church. There was a drainage area owned by the City, some undeveloped tracts, and tracts that were up for sale that could be turned into a linear park and tied into the Second Street Plaza. Kim stated that staff wanted feedback from the two Boards about moving forward with that idea. Glen Davis stated that he would like to see a dedicated park, useable by the Board's definition. He felt pretty strongly about not using detention area or sharing plaza space. John stated that he felt the Board would like to see a more traditional park idea, even though it might be smaller. Gary stated that they couldn't find any land that wasn't in a floodplain except in the Brazos Duplex area. That would work if it were densely built so as not to have to build over the entire 14.5 acre property. Glen D. said he felt that what should be done is acquire a couple of lots and hold on to them if necessary, be creative and innovative, and put a park facility on it. Don Allison. stated that he was disappointed that the Board was just now hearing the ideas for these parks. Glenn Schroeder said he had never seen any of the detention area flood, but agreed with Glen D. that what was done should fit in with what the park land dedication ordinance was written for. Bill Davis stated that the demographics of the population needed to be taken into consideration so that the needs of the residents in that area could be met. It was determined that a park two, acres or less, wouldn't be detrimental to the plan presented. Gary stated that from an economic standpoint the parking lot would be the best area to develop into a park. He added that for the value, the channel /detention area would be cheaper than trying to buy vacant land. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Page 2 of 6 Judy Holt and Bill Trainor both liked the idea and felt that the parking lot would be the best place for a park. Jodi Warner stated that she felt that it was not right that the people living in Northgate have to drive somewhere else to use a park. She didn't like the fact that there was no usage in the plan for open space, adding that there was a timeline when funds have to be used or they are lost. She would like to see something happens in the near future. After discussion, John stated that he would like to see staff have an opportunity to come back and discuss some of the options for a park in the detention area or other city -owned property there, along with some demographic information. Glen D. would also like to see if the lots discussed or any other lots with acreage are available for sale, along with prices and several options on what could be done in the zone with projected costs. The Board thanked Gary for the presentation. 5. Discussion, consideration, and possible approval of minutes from the regular Board meeting on April 8, 2003, and the Board tour of Park Zone 10 on April 22, 2003. Bill made a motion to approve both sets of minutes. Don seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 6. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning park land dedication requests for ? Parkway Plaza, Phase IV (Zone 6) ? Buchanan Estates (Zone 8) ? University Preserve (Zone 2) Glenn S. made a motion to accept the park land dedications for the three requests, as presented. Bill seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried, with one member not voting. 7. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning park land dedication issues for: ? Southwest Park (Zone 6): Steve Beachy stated that Greg Taggart was present because he had a client interested in developing the area immediately to the west of the Southwest Park site and he wanted to present ideas about finishing the site out, as well as some parking and detention issues. This was a discussion item only. Greg stated that his client also owned Crossing Place Apartments and he had been asked to get guidance from the Board to see if there was a way to have their needs met and at the same time allow for completion of the park. His client was looking at purchasing Tract 7 of the Ken Schick Addition - the one remaining (tract 5.25 acres) not owned by the City - and potentially developing the park with an approved plan. The land and the improvements would then be dedicated to the City. The client was willing to work with staff to put typical park amenities in the park. Also, because parking is very tight at Crossing Place Apartments, the client is willing to build a parking lot of about 30 -40 spaces for use as guest parking on a part-time basis, with the remainder of the parking dedicated for park use. They were also willing to take the current detention basin at the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 13, 1003 Page 3 of 6 apartments out of service and turn it into a parking area. They would then expand the existing lake into a large water feature with the capacity to function as detention. Steve stated that the ruling from the City's Legal Department was that a private party could not do development on park property. The consensus of the Board was that they were in support of the conceptual idea and would like to see something worked out so that this park could be completed. Steve said that city staff and Greg would need to get together and work out the legal requirements and then come back with a proposal. Glen D. asked how much of the property was in flood plain. Greg stated that this was not known at the present time, however an on- ground flood study would be done. When developed any permanent infrastructure would be placed outside of the floodplain. ? Edelweiss Gartens (Zone 10): Eric Ploeger stated the dedication requirements for this have been met, however there has been a slight configuration change made to the property since it was presented to the Board. Originally there was to be an alley behind the lots that provided frontage on to the park. Now there is a street with 186' of frontage along the park that will provide access. Don made a motion to accept the proposed changes and Larry Farnsworth seconded. There was no further discussion. All were in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Eric stated that Steve Arden and Mike McClure were there to present a concept for an addition to the area. Mike stated that sixty -five acres to the south had been purchased and they were looking at extending Edelweiss Gartens Park down to that acreage so that the new park area tied in to the existing park, with 50% road frontage. This was an informational item, which would be placed on a future agenda. 8. Discussion, consideration, and possible action concerning the Shenandoah Park development. Eric said that the actual conceptual drawing for the park had not changed since the public hearing and staff wanted input on any changes that the Board would like to see. A list of priorities with cost estimates had been put together. $187,000 has been put into Zone 10. The estimated cash dedications are future dedications that the Board has reviewed and accepted and do not include the 65 acres discussed in the agenda item #7 or other properties for which no development plans have been seen. It is estimated that approximately $700,000 total will be dedicated into Park Zone 10. The money can be spent anywhere in Zone 10. Staff is suggesting allocating $200,000 per each of the three parks that will have to be built - Shenandoah would be developed first, then Edelweiss Gartens, and the school park associated with Westfield would be developed last. Glen D. asked if Edelweiss Gartens was ready to be developed. Steve stated that it was close but Shenandoah was ready and had been waiting longer. Glen D. stated that would mean accommodating part of the zone that already has a private park while ignoring the other. Steve said the alternative would be to build Shenandoah and Edelweiss in phases. Glen D. also felt that the Board should communicate to the Alexandria homeowners what the Board's direction is and establish that direction. Discussion followed. Steve said the Board needed to look at the approval of the plan for Shenandoah Park regardless of when it is built; and, decide how much of the park would be developed. Bill made a motion to Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Page 4 of 6 establish the conceptual plan as the master plan for Shenandoah Park. Glenn S. seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Eric clarified that items #1412 on the list of amenities were related to the Master Plan. Items #13 and #14 were added because they were mentioned at the public hearing and were not included as part of the Master Plan. After hearing no further discussion, a vote was taken. The motion carried by majority vote of six to one. The Board needed to set priorities for development of the park. Glen D. expressed concern about spending all available funds on Shenandoah when there were other needs in the zone. He felt that perhaps money should be reserved out of the $187,000 for the other proposed parks rather than reserving it from speculative future income. Discussion followed. Bill made a motion to spend up to $175,000 in the previously approved Master Plan for Shenandoah Park which includes the items #1- #8 and #10 - #11, in addition, the Board would look at other parks in Zone 10 before spending further funds in Shenandoah Park. Glenn S. seconded the motion. Discussed followed regarding the trees in the park. Jodi amended the motion to reach the $199,500 level to include the trees upon the initial development of the park with the stipulation that the Board would look at other park properties in Zone 10 before spending the money. Bill D. and Glenn S. accepted the change as part of the original motion. All members were in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 9. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Department Calendar Year 2004 fees. There was brief discussion regarding the Special Activity Fees. Glen D. made a motion that the Board to accept the 2004 fee schedule as presented. Don seconded. The issue of not charging field rental fees to Little League was discussed and staff was asked to place an item regarding the forming of a subcommittee to look into this issue on a future agenda once the new Board members were in place. Hearing no further discussion, the vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion carried unanimously. 10. Report, discussion, and possible action concerning the Capital Improvement Program: Eric stated that the project to put rubber surfacing under the two playgrounds at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park has been in design. The two playgrounds there are 13 -14 years old and the cargo nets are frayed and need to be replaced. Parts can no longer be gotten. Staff has decided that because of the age of the playgrounds, they will need to be replaced in three to five years, which will destroy the rubber surfacing so they are looking for funding to replace the playgrounds. The reinstallation of the playground at Hensel Park would have to be under construction by October 1, 2003 and Eric did not think that the agreement would get back in time for this to happen. Therefore, the money that would have been spent on the playground at Hensel, will be used to replace the playground at Jack and Dorothy Miller Park and if the Hensel agreeement gets done, then they will be first in line for replacement next year. Jack and Dorothy Miller were next in line for replacement. The Board was in support of this idea. The W.A. Tarrow Master Plan was approved by Council, so this project can go into the design phase. This item was a report only, and no motion was made. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Page 5 of 6 11. Review, discussion, and possible action concerning Board and Departmental Goals and Objectives, and City Council Strategies: There was no discussion on this item. 12. Discussion of next meeting dates and possible agenda items. Refer to attached Board calendar for meeting dates. John stated that by July, new members would be appointed to the Board and reminded those whose terms were expiring to get their applications in. The following items are scheduled for the June 10, 2003 Regular Board Meeting: • Discussion on doing some type of recognition for John Crompton • Update on Greenways Program • Discussion regarding possible Park Land Dedication • A follow -up from the Northgate discussion could be presented It was asked that the following items be placed on a future agenda once the new Board members are in place: • Discussion of moving the Regular Board Meetings to 6:00 p.m. • Discussion on forming a subcommittee to look at the Little League contract and associated fees. Several members of the Board stated that they liked meeting at the teen center location. 13. Adjourn. Bill made a motion to adjourn and Jodi seconded the motion. All were in favor and the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Page 6 of 6