Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_PAREB_01.11.2001 (2)CITY OF GEORGETOWN Parks & Recreation Board January 11, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Jim Atencio, vice chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Mr. Jim Atencio, Vice Chair Ms. Tracy Dubcak Ms. Jean Houck Mr. David Rinn Mr. Douglas Blackard Mr. John Philpott Mr. Wesley Kidd Members Absent: Mr. Ben White, Chair Ms. Brenna Nedbalek Others Present: Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation Kimberly Garrett, Administrative Manager Ken Knowles, Train Venture Holly Knowles, Train Venture Bill Forest, Georgetown Soccer Association III. APPROVE MINUTES FROM November 16, 2000 MEETING A motion was made by Doug Blackard to accept the minutes from the Novemberl 6, 2000, meeting. Jean Houck seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. IV. APPROVE MINUTES FROM December 9, 2000 MEETING A motion was made by Tracy Dubcak to accept the minutes from the November16, 2000, meeting. David Rinn seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. V. DISCUSSION REGARDING GEORGETOWN SOCCER ASSOCIATION BUILDING PRACTICE FIELDS ON STORM WATER DETENTION POND LOCATED IN GENEVA PARK IN GEORGIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION - BILL FOREST Bill Forest showed the board a plat of Georgian Place Subdivision. There was a 10-acre park dedicated in this subdivision to the City of Georgetown. Currently Georgetown Page 1 of 2 Soccer Association has soccer fields adjacent to Annie Purl Elementary, which is in the same location as this parkland. Mr. Forest is proposing to develop some practice soccer fields on the dedicated parkland. The area in question is a detention pond and Mr. Forest has already spoken to the City Engineers regarding the project and they. do not see a problem with using the detention area. Parking issue came up and Mr. Forest said parking would be at the elementary school with a walkthrough under Maple Street. The soccer fields would not be lighted. Randy suggested that Mr. Forest talk to the council member in that district and make sure soccer fields in that area would be acceptable. Mr. Forest is welcome to come back to the February meeting with more information. VI. DISCUSSION ON COUNCIL ACTION REGARDING TRAIN PROJECT - KEN KNOWLES Ken Knowles spoke to the council on January 9, 2001, asking them to consider his train project. One issue is the current litigation over the batting cages in San Gabriel Park, which is perceived as an interference. Mr. Knowles did not perceive any indication of any action against the project. The Council indicated that the issue should go back to the Parks and Recreation Board for their recommendation. Mr. Knowles came to the board to update them on his project. He has the opportunity to purchase a brand new train. There are some time factors involved that are critical for Mr. Knowles. The project needs to be started by July 1st for everything to work out. Mr. Knowles asked the board to submit a letter to the City Council stating their support for the train. The Parks and Recreation Board discussed the project and had a general consensus that they supported the concept of a train in the park. Ben White, Chair, was to submit a letter to City Council stating the board's position on the project. There was some discussion regarding the safety of the citizens during the construction phase. Those details could be worked out at a later date. VII. DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING BIKE LANES ON NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CITY STREETS - DOUG BLACKARD The board reviewed a letter drafted by Doug Blackard concerning bike lanes on newly constructed streets. John said we want to plant the seed and let them know transportation is the key. It was suggested the letter be shortened and then brouPht back to the board in February for review and approval. VHI. INFORMATION (MAP) ON FUTURE GYBA PRACTICE FIELDS AT DOVE SPRINGS - DAVID RINN David showed the council members a map of Dove Springs, the area where GYBA wants to build some practice fields. This project is on hold due to other contracts and litigation in the City. IX. ADJOURN David Rinn made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Page 2 of 2 CITY OF GEORGETOWN Parks & Recreation Board Minutes February 15, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Ben White, chair, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Mr. Ben White, Chair Mr. Jim Atencio, Vice Chair Ms. Brenna Nedbalek Ms. Tracy Dubcak Ms. Jean Houck Mr. David Rinn Mr. Douglas Blackard Mr. John Philpott Mr. Wesley Kidd Members Absent: None Others Present: Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation Kimberly Garrett, Administrative Manager Renee Hanson, Citizen Bobbie Sigala, Citizen JoNell Knight, Citizen Gael Dillard, Citizen Marianne Banks, City Attorney Richard Brown, future board member Elizabeth Mealy, future board member III. APPROVE MINUTES FROM January 11, 2001, MEETING A motion was made by Brenna Nedbalek to approve the minutes from the January 11, 2001, meeting. Jim Atencio seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. IV. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON POSSIBLE FUTURE PARKLAND LOCATED BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS Randy Morrow spoke regarding his view on the property. He said he would like to see Page 1 of 3 parkland be of one or more acres in size. This lot is really too small for parkland. There is already a City park in the area called San Jose Park. Randy said if the City sold the property, he would like to see the proceeds from the sale go towards improvements to San Jose Park. David Rinn made a motion recommending to City Council that the lot located between 14th and 15th Streets not be made into parkland, but if the City sells the lot, the proceeds from the sale go towards renovations and maintenance of San Jose Park. Jim Atencio seconded the motion. There was then some discussion. Renee Hanson supports the board's motion not to make the lot a park. She said she lives by Old Town Park and there are not restrooms there and sometimes people climb over the fence to use the restroom. She also said the volleyball courts at the park have changed the demeanor of the park, stating there is more parties and drinking now. Bobbie Sigala said she is the owner adjacent to the lot in question and is very happy to hear the board's motion that the land is not suitable for a park. JoNell Knight lives close by the lot in question and supports the board's motion. She also added that there is no place for cars to park along 15th Street. Gael Dillard spoke to discourage the board not to use the lot as parkland. The motion and second was restated and it passed by unanimous vote. V. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON POSSIBLE FUTURE PARKLAND LOCATED AT 301 E. 15TH STREET This lot once had a house upon it and has since burned down. The issue with this lot is the same as the lot located between 14th and 15th streets. David Rinn made a motion to amend the previous motion to include the lot located at 301 E. 15th Street. The new motion now states that the Parks and Recreation Board is recommending to City Council that the lot located between 14th and 15th Streets and the lot located at 301 E. 15th Street not be made into parkland, but if the City sells the lots, the proceeds from the sale go towards renovations and maintenance of San Jose Park. Jim Atencio seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. VI. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION OF LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING BIKE LANES ON NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CITY STREETS - DOUG BLACKARD Doug Blackard submitted a revised draft of the letter to City Council regarding the Parks and Recreation Board's support of bike lanes on newly constructed City streets. Brenna Nedbalek made a motion recommending that the letter be sent to City Council. David Rinn seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. Page 2 of 3 VII. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE REVISION OF THE PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS - MARIANNE BANKS Tracy Dubcak gave a brief background on the parkland dedication ordinance issue. She said several cities of comparable size were contacted regarding their parkland dedication ordinances. After comparing all of the data in relation to the City of Georgetown, some revisions were recommended to City Council. We are here tonight to clarify some of the legal questions regarding the revision recommendations to the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Marianne Banks, City Attorney said one of the questions was regarding clarification of the 1% Fair Market Value for parkland dedication fees. She then asked about the 200 x 200 street frontage access. She said we might want to rethink that because it really does not apply to the river corridor. Tracy suggested separating out the river corridor and dealing with issues relating to the river on a case -by -case basis. After some discussion, Marianne said she would draft a new ordinance and meet again with the board on February 28, 2001, at 6:30 pm. VIII. ADJOURN Brenna Nedbalek made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Page 3 of 3 CITY OF GEORGETOWN Parks & Recreation Board February 28, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER John Philpott, chair, called the meeting to order at 6:43 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Mr. John Philpott, Chair Ms. Brenna Nedbalek Ms. Tracy Dubcak Ms. Jean Houck Mr. David Rinn Mr. Douglas Blackard Mr. Richard Brown Ms. Elizabeth Mealy Members Absent: Mr. Wesley Kidd Others Present: Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation Kimberly Garrett, Administrative Manager Gary Martin, Deputy City Attorney III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE REVISION OF THE PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS - MARIANNE BANKS Gary Martin, Deputy City Attorney, reviewed the revised ordinance. Each section was reviewed. "42020 Formula for Calculating Area of Park Land There was only a grammatical error in that section. "42025 Alternative Dedication for Parkland within Concept Planned Subdivisions Section A. There was some discussion as to the period of time that a subdiver may request approval of a development agreement with the City to dedicate land to the City which may be exchanged by the City in the future for more desirable parkland interior to the subdivision. Some suggested decreasing it to 2-3 years instead of 5, but that does not leave the developer much Page 1 of 3 time to develop the property. John suggested tying it to the projected build out date. A defined period of time not to exceed 5 years was decided upon as the length of time that a subdiver may request approval of a development agreement with the City to dedicate land to the City which may be exchanged by the City in the future for more desirable parkland interior to the subdivision. Section B. This section had no corrections. "42030 Fee Payment In -lieu of Park Land Dedication Discussion was based on using the FMV of the lot or a set fee to determine the fee required in -lieu of parkland. It was discussed that the FMV would be too hard to compute. John suggested raising the dollar amount per dwelling unit to $250. David recommended raising the multi -dwelling unit fee to $200. "42060 Final Platting of a Portion of an Approved Preliminary Plat This is a process issue that Marianne will have to clarify "42070 Design Standards for Park Land Section A No changes Section B No changes Section C It was noted that the words "should be" in this section allow for variances to the ordinance. 1. No changes 2. Under utilities required, it was recommended to change the 3/4" water line to 2" and that the word "service" should be inserted between utility and lines. 3. It was suggested that the words "set by City standards" be added to the boundary marker requirements. Section D No changes Section E 1. This section had no changes. It was clarified that this section would apply to Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Berry Creek. This section keeps the developer from giving you land this is not suitable for anything else and that you would end up getting anyway. "42080 Private Park Land Credit This section is to be removed entirely from the ordinance. Page 2 of 3 David Rinn made a motion to accept the changes to the ordinance and recommended the revised ordinance to City Council. Jean Houck seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. IV. ADJOURN Tracy Dubcak made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Page 3 of 3 CITY OF GEORGETOWN Parks & Recreation Board March 15, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER John Philpott, chair, called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Mr. John Philpott, Chair Ms. Brenna Nedbalek Ms. Jean Houck Mr. Douglas Blackard Ms. Elizabeth Mealy Members Absent: Mr. Wesley Kidd Ms. Tracy Dubcak Mr. David Rinn Mr. Richard Brown Others Present: Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation Kimberly Garrett, Administrative Manager III. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR The board members present thought since all the members were not present; the election of vice chair should be postponed. Liz Mealy suggested postponing this item until the April meeting. IV. APPROVE MINUTES FROM February 15, 2001 A motion was made by Doug Blackard to approve the minutes from the February 15, 2001, meeting. Brenna Nedbalek seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. V. APPROVE MINUTES FROM February 28, 2001 This item was postponed until the April Meeting. VI. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DRAFTING A RFP FOR A TRAIN IN SAN GABRIL PARK A concept for a train in the park was approved without the specific details. This item is a good example of how the board and the council need to communicate on projects. Page 1 of 3 VII. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING WHEN ITEMS CAN BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA Agendas must be posted 72 hours before a public meeting. Changes can be made up until that point. The problem with this is that the board packages are mail out Thursday or Friday before the meeting and changes can still be made to the agenda and meet the posting deadline. Board members do not know about items that are posted at the last minute. John would like to have the agenda set eight days before the meeting which would be the Wednesday a week prior to the meeting. This way the board would receive all the information in advance of the meeting. Liz Mealy made a motion to set a policy that agenda items must be submitted to the staff liaison by 5:00 pm the Wednesday before the Board Meeting (eight days prior). Brenna Nedbalek seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. This will be set as policy until the board is told otherwise. VIII. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CHANGING THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING TIME There was some discussion as to whether the time of the meeting should be changed. Since not all board members where present, this item was postponed until the April Meeting. IX. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING UPDATING THE BY-LAWS TO COMPLY WITH STANDARD CITY BY-LAWS The City Council has adopted a generic set of by-laws for all boards and commissions. Each board is to use the generic by-laws and incorporate the specific things related to their board. Jean Houck and Brenna Nedbalek worked on revising the current by-laws. John asked them to look at the generic by-laws and the current by-laws. X. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DRAFTING A LETTER REQUESTING FUNDING FOR UPDATING THE MASTER PLAN John would like to see a Master Plan funded for parks and recreation. One option is to ask for funds in the 2001/2002 budget, another option is to ask for the funds now and do the master plan this fiscal year. A consultant has been contacted to give an estimate of the cost updating our current master plan. A letter needs to be drafted to City Council stating that the parks and recreation board supports updating the master plan. This project has been requested in prior budgets, but not funded. Facility and program needs would both be included in the master plan. XI. INFORMATION ON UPCOMING BUDGET PROCESS There is a town hall meeting on May 1, 2001, which is where citizens can come to the Council and make requests for the next budget year. Board members should begin to think of projects that they would like to see in next year's budget. XII. INFORMATION ON PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD'S REPORT TO COUNCIL SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 27, 2001 This is a short report that John will make to the Council on March 27, 2001, stating the Page 2 of 3 boards completed projects, current projects, and budget issues. XIII. UPDATE ON PARKS AND RECREATION MOVING TO COMMUNITY OWNED UTILITIES BUILDING The City purchased the C3 buildings on the south side of town. Community Owned Utilities plans to move out to that facility and the Parks and Recreation Administration will move to the COU building on College. This move is still a few years away. IVX. ADJOURN Doug Blackard made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Page 3 of 3 CITY OF GEORGETOWN Parks & Recreation Board April 12, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER John Philpott, chair, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. H. ROLL CALL Members Present: Mr. John Philpott, Chair Ms. Brenna Nedbalek Ms. Jean Houck Mr. Douglas Blackard Ms. Liz Mealy Mr. Wesley Kidd Ms. Tracy Dubcak Mr. Dick Brown Members Absent: Mr. David Rinn Others Present: Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation Kimberly Garrett, Administrative Manager Verna Browning, Director of Community Services Tom Nichols, HDR working group Joe Warren, HDR working group Mike Barnes, HDR working group Kay Ann Vickers, Realtor III. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR A motion was made by Doug Blackard to nominate Tracy Dubcak for vice chair. Wesley Kidd seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. IV. ELECTION OF SECRETARY A motion was made by Wesley Kidd to nominate Doug Blackard for secretary. Doug declined the nomination due to other obligations. Doug Blackard nominated Jean Houck for secretary. Wesley Kid seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. V. APPROVE MINUTES FROM February 28, 2001 A motion was made by Tracy Dubcak to approve the minutes from the February 28, 2001, meeting. Dick Brown seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. Page 1 of 8 VI. APPROVE MINUTES FROM March 15, 2001 A motion was made by Doug Blackard to approve the minutes from the March 15, 2001, meeting. Brenna Nedbalek seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. VII. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PARKLAND DEDICATION AS SET FORTH IN THE MANUFACTURED HOME ORDINANCE DRAFT John announced that the new parkland dedication ordinance was approved on the second reading on Tuesday, April 10, 2001, and is now in affect. John said the manufactured home working group has also been working on an ordinance concerning manufactured homes and they are at the meeting to present their views. Verna Browning gave background information on how the PIDR Ordinance came about. Several years ago the council appointed this group to look at the Century Plan and develop some policies that relate to housing. The group looked at many different types of housing, including housing for entry level workers. Six months into the formation of this working group, the council asked them to look at the manufactured home ordinance which the council had placed a moratorium on, and bring back some recommendations on what to do with manufactured homes in Georgetown. The group has done that and has been looking at no only manufactured homes but in addition what to do about housing for entry level workers or affordable housing and have decided that it is very important for there to be more of a level playing field for people who want to build site well homes to be able to compete with manufactured homes in our community. This ordinance is trying to change and amend the manufactured home ordinance to allow for more affordable housing for entry-level workers and people who provide services in the community. As a part of doing this, to get the cost of homes down, the density has been increased. The group became concerned that there be enough green space and common recreational areas within the development so that people who live there have a place where they can have recreation and be outdoors. In the ordinance the group starting working on the aspects of making sure that that space was provided. Verna pointed out that on page seven (7) of the proposed ordinance is the part that the working group is asking for the parks and recreation boards recommendations on. The working group did not know that the parks and recreation board was working on a change of the parkland dedication ordinance at the same time. Verna said that the working group was aware of the budgetary issues the parks and recreation department faced on not being able to get enough staff to maintain parks. The working group did not want to add an additional burden for maintenance without additional funding to cover the maintenance. Also wanted to be sure developers were responsible for building out that recreation space and that not fall back on the City. They were concerned that the space be provided for so the group wanted to require land be dedicated instead of the developer just paying a fee in lieu of parkland and then no park ever be built. This was of special concern because of the density requirements. Page 2 of 8 Tom Nichols, a member of the working group, said they really wanted to raise the bar on the minimum standards of manufactured housing that would be allowed in the City at the same time come up with ideas to make it more affordable. Tom said it is difficult to satisfy both of those challenges. The park will be privately constructed and maintained and operated by the developer or homeowner association so the City does not get involved with it. When the property is to be platted, it should go to parks and recreation to review. Want to take the burden of maintenance off of the City, but would like to have parks and recreation's input when they go in for permits to make sure what they are doing is proper. The improvements provided should be of commercial quality and adequately serve the number of housing units and acceptable to City standards. Want to make the ordinance loose enough for creativity but keep it tight enough to maintain quality. Joe Warren, a member of the working group, agreed with everything Tom Nichols said. Mike Barnes, a member of the working group, said the group looked at other areas who had manufactured home parks where recreation areas were developed and they seem to be successful and meet the needs of the residents. One area contacted was Pflugerville. Tracy asked if the working group had seen the new parkland dedication ordinance. The new ordinance is much more restrictive than what is included in the ordinance. Doug noted the last sentence in the section related to parkland, requirements to satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirements, which pretty much says you are going to follow the ordinance. Doug asked how the maintenance level of the parks is determined. What if no one takes care of the park? Mike Barnes said there are adequate provisions in the City's codes that would take care of this. Main point is that you will have a high -density residential area and there should be a place for recreation and they do not want the burden to fall on the City. Jean asked about the concept of affordable housing, yet they have to pay extra for a park. Mike Barnes said the residents do not have to necessarily pay extra for a park. The point was brought out that after the development is complete; someone will have to pay for upkeep. Verna said that they hope the people living in the development will be willing to pay a little more for greenspace, especially if the cost of the lots is kept down. The fee the people would be paying would be for maintenance, not development. Tracy asked why the manufactured home developments could not meet the current parkland dedication ordinance? Concern that Tracy has is that when the developer is gone, and you are trying to make it affordable, it might be better to meet City standards and become a City park. Some concerns brought out by parks and recreation staff are who decides if this meets standards or not. A sentence to be added is " Improvements should be of commercial Page 3 of 8 quality equipment", this way no one is just running down to Wa1-Mart and buying something that would not last very long. Also that is requires approval of the Parks and Recreation Board. This way you know it will meet the standards of other City parks. Other concern is the new parkland dedication ordinance requires 1 acre for every 50 dwelling units. Verna said we want this developer to provide not only the land, but also the improvements, with the square footage proposed, the developer could still keep the lots affordable. Verna is concerned if they go to the 1 acre per 50 dwelling units and all the improvements, she is not sure what that does to the concept of affordability and the price the homes would be sold for. Verna said for this particular zoning district that these standards would be acceptable and satisfy the parkland dedication requirements as opposed to them also having to meet the other requirements of the parkland dedication ordinance. Tracy said this conflicts with the last sentence that Doug read stating that you must meet the City ordinance. Verna is saying that the requirements set forth in the HDR ordinance would satisfy the parkland dedication ordinance. John summarized the points as follows: The HDR working group is looking at an increase in the number of houses per acre requirement, asking for the park to be developed and maintained internally. One issue is that a high -density development is going to be built which in John's opinion would require more acreage for parkland because you are putting more people in a smaller place. According to John, you are reducing the quality of life from a regular neighborhood because you are reducing the amount of acreage available for open space. Second thing is that on any other infrastructure in the ETJ, the parks and recreation board requires a park to be developed according to the City standards because eventually the City will take it over. When John first read the proposed HDR ordinance, he thought that it would follow the parkland dedication ordinance, but that is not the case. It seems the HDR ordinance wants to follow the old parkland dedication ordinance, which according to the board's studies is outdated. John would like the working group to justify that you are really satisfying a higher density with a smaller amount of land and why would the parks and recreation board want to accept anything that is constructed, built or maintained that is less than what the City does on its own. Verna said they did not envision it being less than what the City does or less than what is required by the parkland dedication ordinance. That is why they are proposing it be commercial quality and have the approval of this board before it is constructed. We do not want to see it deteriorate over time. In some of the discussions the working group had Page 4 of 8 it was noted that some developments paid a fee in lieu of dedicating land and that is what the group was trying not to have happen. In terms of the change the new parkland dedication ordinance put in place in terms of the number of homes and the required acreage. Tom Nichols said that was a bottom line decision, trying to minimize the cost of each site. Jean said if it met City standards and it would be a City park, then the homeowners would not have the maintenance fee to pay when the development was finished. Would this offset what up front would cost more? Joe Warren said it would be a private park, not a City park. Tracy said she is concerned with the upkeep of the park and what happens if the park is not maintained. Joe Warren brought up the 280 square feet per housing unit which is included in the HDR, that calculates out to the number of acres required per dwelling unit of the old parkland dedication ordinance. If we assume we agree on the acreage per unit, the second point being that the park should have the same water and sewer line requirements, which poises no problem. Cannot solve the acreage problem. Joe Warren asked if the 1-acre to 50 dwelling units and the required City standards on water and sewer were met, would there be anything else? Dick asked if 1 acre for every 6 acres of developed land would be a showstopper for developers? Wesley asked what affordable means? Verna said the cost of the houses would run $80,000 — $100,000 John said the developer would get $800,000 (8* $100,000) for 1 acre of land and they cannot give up $15,000 for one acre of parkland. Tracy said she has a problem with having something separate from the parkland dedication ordinances. The board worked so hard to come up with recommendations. Verna asked how the board would solve the affordability issue when the development is small like 16 units or 2 acres. John said according to the current parkland dedication ordinance, that is where fees come into play, maybe that is the trade off. John cannot see reducing the quality of life in a high -density neighborhood. Verna said that was not the intent, they were trying to improve the quality of life. Mike Barnes said this greenspace area may not have much in it, maybe just walking trails. Jean said if that is the case, then it is not going to cost the developer much to put in walking trails, so why can't he meet the parkland dedication ordinance. When the land is dedicated does the City dictate or require what goes on that acreage? The board said no, we are just looking at usage. If it is a City park, parks and recreation will decide what goes on it. If it is a private park following the parkland dedication ordinance the Page 5 of 8 developer can do what he wants. Randy said in 10 years he can see the park coming back to the City because he does not see those people paying homeowners fees in that type of affordable housing area. Verna said the HDR ordinance takes that into consideration and the homeowner's fees become part of the deed requirements. If the fee is not paid, a lien could be put on the property and home forcing the maintenance. Jean says that is not affordable housing if you are going to put a lien on someone's house to maintain a park. Verna said the group felt strongly that there should be a park in the development and that was an important part of the quality of life in these developments. Tracy wants to know why they cannot meet the parkland dedication ordinance. She feels the property will come back to the City. Mike Barnes said the developer is going to make the park attractive to draw people to the development. Jean asked what happens when the development is built out. Mike Barnes said he belongs to a homeowners association, but it is not real active right now. He said the reason a homeowners association is developed is to keep the value of the property up. Jean said that is a real effort, especially if they are young people working two jobs. Tom Nichols said the parks and recreation board is killing the project before it gets started. The HDR wants to do a park, require the developer to build it up front, putting the proper verbiage and constraints to create a vehicle for maintaining it so it does not come back to the City. Tom said that the parks and recreation board is arguing that it is not fair to put the cost to the homeowner on it and he thinks that is not part of this argument. If we can still keep it affordable for the developer and have the proper teeth in the thing so it does not come back to the City, then it is a win -win deal. Joe Warren said they looked at other communities where this type of ordinance is working. Tracy asked if the City of Pflugerville or City of Cedar Park have a separate ordinance for manufactured homes that deals with parkland. John said the parks and recreation board is here to determine if we can allow the parkland dedication to meet their needs. John said the process is really good to insure the maintenance and it covers everything weather the City gets the land or not. John said he would like to see compliance with the current parkland dedication ordinance. Verna asked how we handle a development with less than 50 units. With developments with 16 units, the park acreage would really be cutting into the developable area. The ordinance says that land would be dedicated on a prorated basis if the number of homes developed is less than 50. John said that the ratio of dedicated land per family is desirable and anything less is Page 6 of 8 undesirable. Tracy made a motion that the parks and recreation board is willing to support the HDR Ordinance with the addition of the statements concerning private construction and maintenance, commercial equipment and development by the developer and compliance with the Parkland Dedication Ordinance approved on April 10, 2001. Doug Blackard seconded the motion. It was open for discussion. Dick said in essence the parks and recreation board is requiring them to do more than the current ordinance requires, which does not make sense to him to all. He said requiring them to abide by the current ordinance is fine, but to add the other stipulations are not reasonable for affordable housing. Verna said it may be better to drop out the current requirements and just keep the parkland dedication ordinance, but include the phrase that they cannot pay fees in lieu of dedicating land. Verna asked if the board would support that concept? Doug withdrew his second. Tracy amended the motion to read that the parks and recreation board is willing to support the HDR Ordinance as long as it is in compliance with the Parkland Dedication Ordinance approved on April 10, 2001. Brenna Nedbalek seconded the motion. Verna asked it the development was less than 50 homes, would there be no requirement. The parkland dedication ordinance states that a prorated amount of land would be required. John asked for a vote on the motion. The vote was 7-0 in favor of the motion. VIII. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING REGARDING UPDATING THE BY-LAWS TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARD CITY. BY- LAWS Jean Houck distributed the updated by-laws that are to coincide with the standard City by- laws. The changes Jean noted were the number of terms allowed. The board suggested keeping the three — 2-year terms as opposed to the two — 2-year terms as stated in the standard by-laws. Another changed was the agenda item deadline; the number of days before the meeting that items can be submitted for the agenda was changed from 6 to 8 days. A motion was made by Dick Brown to accept the by-laws as distributed. Tracy Dubcak seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. IX. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING MASTER PLAN REVIEW TO INCLUDE SCHEDULE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES, STRATEGY FOR WORKING WITH THE COUNTY, AND REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS Page 7 of 8 Ms. Kay Ann Vickers, a local realtor, spoke to the board about a piece of property that would make an excellent park. It is located off of Hwy. 95 and is approximately 400 acres. Williamson County has looked at the land and may consider purchasing it for a county park. The County has also looked at other tracts of land they are considering purchasing. The parks and recreation board would like the County to consider participating in a master plan with the City in order to determine the needs for Georgetown and the ETJ. A master plan would take approximately 4 months to complete. If a new master plan was developed, the City could apply for grants in the next year. The downside to the master plan is that to go ahead with the project now, money is needed in the budget year. X. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CHANGING THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING TIME The regular parks and recreation board meeting time is to remain the same. XI. REVIEW COUNCIL POLICY, PARLIMENTARY PROCEDURE, AND PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD CHARGE John Philpott discussed information that was provided in the packet regarding council policy, parliamentary procedure and the board's charge. He reminded the board that only one member should speak at a time, to remove your hats, and act on behalf of the citizens. He also said that board members should be careful of conflicts of interest and to remove yourself from the discussion and voting. Also attendance is being taken at all the meetings and you must meet the requirements in order to be considered for another term. XII. DISCUSSION ON WORKSHOP WITH CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 23, 2001, TO DISCUSS THE MASTER PLAN The board will meet with the City Council on April 23, 2001, for a joint workshop to discuss the park master plan. Other topics to be discussed are policy on commercial development in the park, update on by-laws, and referring citizens when they speak on issues. XIII. INFORMATION ON LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS Board and commission members are covered under a liability insurance policy. IVX. ADJOURN Doug Blackard made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Page 8 of 8 CITY OF GEORGETOWN Parks & Recreation Board May 10, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Tracy Dubcak, vice chair, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Ms. Tracy Dubcak, Vice Chair Ms. Brenna Nedbalek Ms. Jean Houck Mr. Douglas Blackard Ms. Liz Mealy Mr. Wesley Kidd Mr. Dick Brown Mr. David Rinn Members Absent: Mr. John Philpott, Chair Visitors Speaking: Paul Lineham, Land Strategies Staff Present: Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation Kimberly Garrett, Administrative Manager III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS IN SAN GABRIEL PARK — KEN KNOWLES There was no discussion on this item. IV. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR SECTION SEVEN OF THE GEORGETOWN VILLAGE PARKLAND — PAUL LINEHAM Paul Lineham with Land Strategies presented the concept plan for Georgetown Village, Section Seven. This section was part of the original concept plan approved in November 1996, for Georgetown Village and follows the old parkland dedication ordinance. The required number of acres to be dedicated as parkland is 1.23 acres. Mr. Lineham is willing to oversized the park by 40 lots and dedicate 1.54 acres as parkland. The plan shows that the water detention pond and the parkland would be joining so that there would be a larger area of open space. The detention pond and water quality pond area is 6 acres. Comments mentioned were that it meets the old ordinance standards and that the Page 1 of 3 PID would have to maintain the water quality pond. Other comments were access and parking. Mr. Lineham said there would be paved sidewalk access from a street and that the park would be one that most people would walk to from their home. Also looking at putting a mail kiosk and a small parking lot where cars could park. David Rinn made a motion to accept the parkland dedication in the concept plan of Georgetown Village, Section Seven, with the PID maintaining the water quality pond and the board recognizes that the park has been oversized by an additional 40 lots. Wesley Kidd seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. V. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR CAMPBELL TRACT — PAUL LINEHAM There was no discussion on this item. VI. APPROVE MINUTES FROM APRIL 12, 2001 The approving of the minutes was postponed. VII. APPOINT SUB -COMMITTEE TO REVIEW COMIlVIERCIAL VENTURES USING CITY OF GEORGETOWN FACILITIES There has been a request from the Mayor for the Parks and Recreation Board to review the fees associated with non-profit and commercial ventures using City of Georgetown facilities. Board members willing to serve on this sub -committee are Jean Houck, David Rinn, Doug Blackard, and Liz Mealy. The first sub -committee meeting will be on May 23, 2001. VIII. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING REQUESTS FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR PARKS MASTER PLAN A request for qualifications was sent out and Richardson Verdoorn was the only vendor that submitted qualifications. Richardson Verdoorn has done work for the City of Georgetown before and they are very well known. Wesley Kidd made a motion to recommend Richardson Verdoorn to do the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan for the City of Georgetown. David Rinn seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. IX. UPDATE ON TOWN HALL MEETING There was a very low turnout at the town hall meeting on May 1, 2001. The only items that were brought to the attention of the City Council were a community clinic and remodeling the community center. X. UPDATE ON COUNTY PARKS MEETING Doug Blackard and Tracy Dubcak attended an informational meeting on May 1, 2001. They learned that the county was developing the Mayfield Tract, which is about 700 acres off of FM 1431 and is centrally located in Williamson County. Plans in that area include athletic fields and possibly a wildflower center. In the Taylor area, an equestrian type park is planned. In the Georgetown area, the Chamberlain Tract is under contract, which would be mainly open space. Out of the $25 million there is about $4 million left. There Page 2 of 3 was a phone survey conducted on about 5,000 residents. There may be one or two more meetings. The county is mainly focusing on buying land where there is population growth. XI. DISCUSSION ON COUNCIL ISSUES REGARDING POCKET PARKS, BUDGET REQUESTS, AND STAFFING REQUIREMENTS There was discussion regarding pocket parks and how they fit into the parks and recreation plan. The River Corridor also needs to be looked at and see if the ordinance still applies. Some budget requests this year include a park at Berry Creek, contracting out maintenance of some of the parks, purchasing the land between the San Gabriel Rivers, and finishing the parking lot at the pecan orchard. There is always an issue regarding staff. This will also be looked at during the budget requests. A sub -committee was formed to look at pocket parks. Members are Tracy Dubcak, Brenna Nedbalek, and Wesley Kidd. They will meet on May 23, 2001. XII. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING UPDATING THE BY-LAWS TO COMPLY WITH STANDARD CITY BY-LAWS The by-laws were revised to comply with the City standard by-laws. The main revision was decreasing the number of consecutive terms a board member could serve from three down to two terms. Brenna Nedbalek made a motion to accept the by-laws. Dick Brown seconded the motion and it passed 5-2. Opposing were David Rinn and Wesley Kidd. XIII. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR JUNE 14TH BOARD MEETING Items for consideration for the next meeting are budget report, sub -committee reports, discussion on grants, and the county park update. IVX. ADJOURN IVX. ADJOURN Doug Blackard made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Page 3 of 3 CITY OF GEORGETOWN Parks & Recreation Board June 14, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER John Philpott, chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Mr. John Philpott, Chair Ms. Tracy Dubcak, Vice Chair Ms. Brenna Nedbalek Ms. Jean Houck Mr. Douglas Blackard Mr. Wesley Kidd Mr. David Rinn Members Absent: Ms. Liz Mealy Mr. Dick Brown Visitors Speaking: Paul Lineham, Land Strategies Thos. B. Watts, Andice Development Company Greg Pfluger Barbara Austin, Richardson Verdoom Steve Kretzing, Richardson Verdoom Staff Present: Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation Kimberly Garrett, Administrative Manager III. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPROVING THE PARKLAND DEDICATION ON THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR WOODLAKE SUBDIVISION Mr. Watts with Andice Development Company showed an overview of the Woodlake Concept Plan located at Williams Drive and Shell Road, adjacent to the new BBB shopping center. The development is mixed use consisting of commercial, multi family and residential, including a school site. The actual area required is only part of an acre with only 100-115 home sites under the old parkland dedication ordinance. They are proposing to give 4.2 acres. The tract of land is adjacent to Lake Georgetown and a 65 acre unsubdivided tract of land. John said as a concept plan, it looks good. Doug made a Page 1 of 5 motion to accept the parkland in the concept plan. Wesley seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. IV. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPROVING THE PARKLAND DEDICATION ON THE FINAL PLAT FOR SECTION SEVEN OF THE GEORGETOWN VILLAGE Paul Lineham with Land Strategies spoke to the board regarding section seven of the Georgetown Village. There is no street access to the proposed parkland as required by the parkland dedication ordinance. This section requires a variance to the ordinance. The access to the parkland is by going through a detention pond with a sidewalk over the dam. The plan also shows a mail kiosk and parking lot adjacent to the parkland. David made a motion to allow a variance for public access by a sidewalk off of a street instead of by street access. Brenna seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote V. UPDATE ON GIRLS FASTPITCH PROGRAM Greg Pfluger with the girls fastpitch program just wanted to let the board know that the Parks and Recreation Department has been working with him on the program and been very helpful. He has been using the fields at VFW. He just wanted to express his thanks . Greg and Randy agreed to work together to try to schedule more home games for this program. VI. UPDATE ON THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN Barbara Austin with Richardson Verdoorn presented an updated schedule, an example of the finished product, and the proposed survey for the master plan. Consultants have been going through the past planning efforts and gathering new information including an inventory map of current parks. Other items that will be done are a trend analysis and a need assessment. The survey will be sent out the first week of July and that information will be compiled the first of August. There will be a public meeting at the August 23rd parks board meeting to show the inventory and the results of the survey. The survey was reviewed and some suggestions were to add questions about bike lanes, pocket parks, examples of different size parks, and a question about satisfaction of City parks. Any other additional comments should be submitted to the parks and recreation office by Monday. VII. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PARK IMPROVEMENTS AT KATY CROSSING PARK There is a small City park in Katy Crossing Subdivision. John Gavurnik, of Gavurnik Homes has proposed to provide a lawn sprinkler system for the park if the City of Georgetown would provide the electric and water. They also requested that the City upgrade the current landscaping to prevent constant washout onto a public sidewalk. Randy said maybe some of the landscaping could be donated. Doug questioned why the City would pay for these services, and Randy clarified that it was a City Park. Wesley Kid made a motion to accept the proposal made by Mr. Gavurnik. Tracy Dubcak seconded the motion and it passed 4-1 with Doug Blackard opposing. Page 2 of 5 VIII. APPROVE MINUTES FROM APRIL 12, 2001 A motion was made by Tracy Dubcak to approve the minutes from the April 12, 2001, meeting. Doug Blackard seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. IX. APPROVE MINUTES FROM May 10, 2001 A motion was made by Doug Blackard to approve the minutes from the May 10, 2001, meeting. Brenna Nedbalek seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. X. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE PURCHASE OF 18.78 ACRES OF LAND FOR FUTURE PARK USE The City is looking to purchase 18.78 acres of land adjacent to Annie Purl Elementary School. The property is appraised at $163,000 to $165,000. This is a large parcel of land in the middle of town. This area is heavily wooded and has a drainage ditch on it. There is a residence on the property that was built in the 1900's and will be removed. The intent is to keep it natural. Access is by Hutto Road. Wesley said that to get that much land in the middle of town is a gold mine. Doug said it would be a linear park and link up to other parks in the area and be an asset. John said timing is an issue. The property has been tied up so the parks and recreation board could have a chance to discuss it. John said the positive side is that it is a semi linear piece of land that is in several residential neighborhoods, the down side is that it is heavily wooded in most areas and significant clearing of the drainage ditch must be done. It is restricted from leveling and putting in more soccer fields. The Parks and Recreation Board has been asked to give an assessment of what they would like to see happen. The City Council has put down $5,000 to hold the property. The City Manager has looked at several options for payment. There is money in the zones around the area, there is also money in the Sun City unrestricted funds. Options are to pursue the property and suggest areas of funding or areas not to be used as funding. An environmental survey will have to be done on the property. The Parks and Recreation Board agreed that it would be a corridor link to other parks and that is why they would like to pursue the purchase. Doug Blackard made a motion to pursue the purchase of the 18.78 acres of parkland with the normal assessments being made, leaving a balance of $65,000 in the unrestricted parkland dedication fund to allow for future park development on the west side of 11135 such as Berry Creek, and that the land be deeded to the Parks and Recreation Foundation Trust to be used as a match for future trail funding. Jean Houck seconded the motion. It passed 6-0. XI. REPORT FROM POCKET PARKS SUB COMMITTEE Brenna Nedbalek, chair of the sub committee, reported that the sub committee met and reviewed the current Parkland Dedication Ordinance and the Parks and Recreation Page 3 of 5 Functional Plan. The sub -committee feels that the consultant doing the park master plan would have a better understanding if pocket parks are needed in Georgetown. The survey being conducted for the park master plan will provide a good indication of the needs of citizens. Once a need has been determined, appropriate amendments can be made to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance and the master plan. XII. REPORT FROM NON-PROFIT VS. COMMERCIAL FEE SUB -COMMITTEE A letter was drafted by the sub -committee to Mayor and Council to obtain more specific direction on the duties of the sub -committee. This letter was reviewed and corrections were made. The board was in full consensus of the letter and it was to be submitted to the Mayor and City Council. XIII. INFORMATION ON BUDGET REQUESTS FOR 2001/2002 Randy passed out the critical need requests that were submitted to Finance. The board also thought that a park planner should be included in the requests. This person would help with the planning process for parks, track parkland dedication and help write grants. John said that next year the board could have a planning session early in the year with key staff to help plan for budget requests. IVX. DISCUSSION ON STATUS AND PHILOSOPHY OF GRANTS IN PARKS AND RECREATION In the past, the Parks and Recreation Department has applied for grants from Texas Parks and Wildlife, Texas Forest Service, Texas Workforce Commission, LCRA and the TxDOT's Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Currently the only grant that the department has is one for Kid City. This is a summer program done in conjunction with the Georgetown Independent School District. The Parks and Recreation Department aggressively seeks grants such as the ones listed above and others available through the federal government and private sources. These funds are important to help implement the Parks and Recreation Functional Plan. In the Parks and Recreational Functional Plan, it states that the City should develop and execute a plan to ensure that all of these resources are utilized to the maximum extent possible. It further states that the parks and recreation function must include appropriate professional staff to ensure that these funds are continually sought and properly administered. VX. COUNTY PARK UPDATE Doug and Tracy were both unable to attend the last meeting. John asked them to get the minutes from the last County Park Meeting. Additional comments were made addressing these items Attendance records were submitted to the Mayor as of June 15, 2001. If a board member knows they are going to miss a meeting they should call or e-mail Kimberly and let her know as soon as possible. They also need to say whether they think the absence should be excused. If a board member does not call in or let Kimberly know they are not going to be at the meeting it will be an automatic unexcused absence. It will be the board members call as to whether they Page 4 of 5 believe they should be excused or not. IVX. ADJOURN Doug Blackard made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Page 5 of 5 CITY OF GEORGETOWN Parks & Recreation Board August 23, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER John Philpott, chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Mr. John Philpott, Chair Ms. Tracy Dubcak, Vice Chair Ms. Brenna Nedbalek Ms. Jean Houck Mr. Douglas Blackard Mr. Wesley Kidd Members Absent: Ms. Liz Mealy Mr. David Rinn Visitors Speaking: Barbara Austin, Richardson Verdoom Steve Kretzing, Richardson Verdoom Dayle Aldrich, Indoor Pool Jim Cummins, Steger and Bizzell Staff Present: Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation Kimberly Garrett, Administrative Manager Andy Hesser, Parks Manager Kimberly Wilkinson, Aquatic Coordinator Robert Staton, Tennis Center Supervisor PIJBLIC FORUM III. DISCUSSION ON THE SURVEY RESULTS FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN — RICHARDSON VERDOORN John Philpott, Chair, told the public that a few months ago the City Council granted funding for a Parks Master Plan. Richardson Verdoom was chosen as the consultant to prepare a Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the City. The master plan should be complete in October. Page 1 of 5 Initial steps in the Master Plan process were to inventory all existing parks and do a citizen survey to find out the needs of Georgetown. Barbara Austin with Richardson Verdoorn showed the public a map of all the existing parks, developed and undeveloped and joint school/parks in Georgetown and the ETJ. The City's parkland has grown from 115 acres to 450 acres in a ten-year period. In early July a parks and recreation questionnaire was sent out to all residents on City utilities. There was a 13% response rate on the survey. The information was summarized. The type of new park most desired was a linear park along creeks and rivers. The type of new facility most desired was hike and bike trails, then restrooms and drinking fountains, nature trails, an indoor swimming pool, playground equipment, picnic tables, amphitheater, covered picnic pavilions, and a nature center. The five least desired new facilities were softball fields, dog park, equestrian trails, RV sites, and disc golf course. Recreational opportunities most desired were summer crafts for kids. The type of existing parks most desired were to add/improve restrooms, add drinking fountains, add security lighting, add/expand picnic facilities and add playground equipment. There was also a space for people to write in comments. Most comments that were written were the same thing they wanted in the list. The comments were lots of exclamation points behind their item, an indoor pool, clean up the restrooms and other items like that. Most people ranked items about the same way across different categories. Some of the categories were East or West of IH 35 and over or under age 55. In regards to the questions about supporting a tax increase or an increase in fees, those answers were slightly to the no. From here, the inventory will be finalized. Some comparisons to other cities will be made regarding parkland, and Georgetown will also be compared to the standards for parks and recreation facilities with the National Parks and Recreation Association. The survey and any input that is received at the public meeting will be used also. All the information will then be compiled into a master plan, which will make specific recommendations and outline a plan to develop the parks and facilities. An implementation program about how the projects will be funded and what order they should be developed will be included. The period will probably cover 10 years. The draft master plan will be presented at the next Parks and Recreation Board meeting on September 20, 2001, at the Georgetown Recreation Center. The plan will still be in draft form and comments will be welcomed. In October the plan should be finalized and presented to City Council and from then the implementation process will start. Barbara Austin opened the floor for comments. John Philpott commented that the things that have been discussed in the past, like linear parks, bike paths and maintaining what we have is basics and that is what the citizens Page 2 of 5 want. Randy asked how the indoor swimming pool ranked across groups. Barbara said that it was in all the groups' top 5 except for west of IH and over 55 years old. A question was asked about renovating the community center and how that ranked. The only question asked on the survey was if a new community center was needed and that come in 16th on the survey. Randy said there was a request in the budget to renovate the community center, but it did not get funded. There was also some discussion about going for a bond to renovate the community center with the library bond. A question was asked about developing the Rivery property. Randy stated that the first 35 acres has been developed with a ropes course, disc golf, a hike/bike trail, and picnic areas. The area is mostly natural. The other 26 acres has not been developed yet. The Parks and Recreation Department is going to work on a grant to help develop that area, the land is currently in a trust to use as a match for grant funds. Access to the Rivery property is going to be by trail under 1H 35 with parking also under 1H35. A question was asked if the trail was going to connect to the Country Club. Randy said when you get to Country Club Drive, most people own to the center of the river and it makes it difficult to purchase that property. One option is to go up Starview and then try to connect to the river and then onto Lake Georgetown. One citizen commented that they were glad to see some natural area in the area because they are disappearing so fast. A question was asked about the Ropes Course and if the City's. Ropes Course was the same as the one located by the hospital. Randy said the City's ropes course is located in the Rivery area. The ropes course located on Scenic Drive by the hospital is owned by the hospital. REGULAR MEETING IV. DISCUSSION ON CONSTRUCTION OF ON INDOOR POOL During the budget hearings, Council recommended to build an indoor swimming facility adjacent to the recreation center and leave the Williams Drive Pool open until the new indoor swimming pool was in operation. John said the Parks Board would help the staff to fast track that operation to go for RFQ's on design, possibly design and build and get the money available to proceed as fast as possible. Dayle Aldrich volunteered to a assist in being on a committee to help make this happen. She has made phone calls to other organizations to see how they operated and was wanting to bring that knowledge to the table. She is afraid the City will loose three pools in the process. She asked about heaters at Williams Drive. Randy said they were taken out years ago because of the expense of heating such a large pool with no cover. Page 3 of 5 John said at the next meeting the Parks Board would look at assigning a sub -committee to help in constructing an indoor pool. V. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON CRYSTAL KNOLL TERRACE UNIT FOUR PARKLAND DEDICATION Jim Cummins representing Westover Enterprises for Crystal Knoll Terrace Unit Four told the board that the parkland dedication requirements for this development are $18,000 in fees or a minimum of 1.44 acres of parkland. The developer proposes to give the City the same amount of acreage meeting the City standards or pay a cash sum of $30,000 which is $12,000 more than is required by the City. If the board chooses acreage it would be in that same parkland dedication zone. There are no other parks in that subdivision. In past developments, fee in lieu of has always been paid. Wesley said the money sounds good, but people need parks. Doug said that there are other parks in the area like Cooper Elementary and the new County Park. The board is not in favor of accepting the $30,000. Jim said the developer is too far along with the process to redesign the subdivision. Jim believes that the land option would be solved relatively quickly and not stretched out due to the recording processes that have to be met. The developer would like to continue with the City's process. Jean asked about the possibility of setting aside some land until the 1.44 acres could be found. There was discussion on which lots should be set aside in escrow until the 1.44 acres could be dedicated. The board said they would take less acreage in the center of the subdivision. John suggested that the developer come back to the next meeting in September with some options on the land. Wesley made a motion recommending the option of parkland for Crystal Knoll Terrace Unit Four to be one of the following in order to continue with the City process: lots 7-14, Block F, lotsl-9, Block H, 1.44 acres or parkland to be provided by the developer, fees to purchase the same amount of land or lots 8-13, Block F and fees to develop the property. Brenna seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. The developer would be back at the September meeting with some options on the 1.44 acres or land in the subdivision. VI. APPROVE MINUTES FROM JUNE 14, 2001 A motion was made by Brenna Nedbalek to approve the minutes from the June 14, 2001, meeting. Jean Houck seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. VII. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE SAN GABRIEL BATTING CAGES INC San Gabriel Batting Cages Inc. offered to sell it's batting cages to the City. The City Page 4 of 5 Council is not interested in purchasing the batting cages at the present time. The San Gabriel Batting Cages, Inc. must comply with the lease when selling the business. The City Council will have to approve the buyer of the batting cages. VIII. COUNTY PARK UPDATE Doug contacted Sebesta and Associates about when the next meeting would be. They told Doug they did not think there would be another meeting. Tracy said the Chamberlain tract has been purchased. IX. UPDATE ON BUDGET PROCESS John said all departments have presented their budget requests. Very few items have been approved. The indoor swimming pool is a pleasant surprise and there is also $35,000 in the budget for renovations for San Jose Park. The remaining schedule for the budget process is as follows: the first reading of the budget will be on September 11t and the second reading is on September 25t. The new budget goes into effect on October 1st Wesley asked about the status of the tennis center. Randy said the tennis center is expected to bring in an additional $50,000 next year. X. DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD ATTENDANCE POLICY John Philpott attended a meeting on August 13, 2001, with other board and commission chairs. The attendance policy was discussed. It was stated that attendance is very important and is a factor that is considered when you are up for reappointment and also looked at semi annually by the Mayor and Council. John said attendance is very important and it not only means not being here but not being here on time. John asked the board members to please contact Kimberly if they are not going to be able to attend the meeting or going to be late and let her know if you feel you should be excused. XI. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS In -Door Pool subcommittee Crystal Knoll Terrace Unit Four Richardson Verdoorn Master Plan Update on park development in zone 16 Update on Budget process Ken Knowles — commercial train — October meeting for discussion XII. REMINDER ON CHANGE OF NEXT MEETING — SEPTEMBER 20 The next meeting will be on September 20, 2001, at the Recreation Center. XIII. ADJOURN Brenna Nedbalek made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Palle 5 of 5 CITY OF GEORGETOWN Parks & Recreation Board September 20, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER John Philpott, chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Mr. John Philpott, Chair Ms. Tracy Dubcak, Vice Chair Ms. Jean Houck Mr. Douglas Blackard Ms. Liz Mealy Mr. David Rinn Members Absent: Ms. Brenna Nedbalek Mr. Wesley Kidd Visitors Speaking: Barbara Austin, Richardson Verdoorn Don Bizzell, Stegar and Bizzell Michael Keck, Crystal Knoll Homeowner Bobby Stanton, Crystal Knoll Ventures David Holden, Crystal Knoll Terrace Homeowner's Association John Biggar, University Park Unit Two Dayle Aldrich, Indoor Pool Ken Knowles, train in San Gabriel Park Debbie Walker, Shell Road Golf Center Staff Present: Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation Kimberly Garrett, Manager of Administration III. UPDATE ON PARKS MASTER PLAN — RICHARDSON VERDOORN Barbara Austin with Richardson Verdoorn gave an overview of the efforts they have taken to prepare the Master Plan. A draft Master Plan was distributed and discussed. Input from the board was requested. Major parts of the plan consist of project history and goals, park standards and guidelines from the National Recreation and Parks Association, and future park development. John said in terms of actual developed parkland for our population, we are low, but are equal to or higher than those guidelines for potential park development. Page 1 of 5 Barbara said she used the priorities from the survey to determine future park development. There is no tract that has been identified for a large regional park. Corp of Engineers land at Lake Georgetown is one option for a large park. One possible loop for the hike and bike trail is D.B. Wood Road. There was some discussion regarding the parks around Annie Purl Elementary and connecting them to downtown. Doug also mentioned showing the Chisolm Trail on the map. Barbara said she would be back at the October meeting to present a more complete Master Plan. IV. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR CRYSTAL KNOLL TERRACE UNIT FOUR Don Bizzell with Stegar and Bizzell spoke regarding Crystal Knoll Terrace Unit Four. He said in the past, the developer had always paid fees in lieu of dedicating parkland. The requirement for land is almost 11/2 acres, which would take 7 lots out of the subdivision. The first proposal was to pay fees in lieu of, other possibilities are to give money to help develop the Chamberlain tract that is a County Park or dedicate land along Smith Branch to help with connectivity for a trail. If fees were paid, they would amount to $18,000. If land were dedicated in the subdivision, it would be a significant financial impact on the developer. The subdivision does not have any parks or neighborhood parks in the area and the board has an obligation to provide parks in neighborhoods. Tracy said that Smith Branch is far away from Crystal Knoll. Smith Branch is a tributary that runs into the San Gabriel River. Bobby Stanton, developer, said that the board sounds like it wants to see land dedicated. In order to continue the process, Mr. Stanton said he would continue to hold lots in the subdivision until 1.44 acres of land could be secured. Michael Keck lives in. Crystal Knoll and said that when his section was developed the residents were promised sidewalks, fences and streetlights throughout the development. These amenities have not been provided, and now they are being denied parks. He also mentioned that there is a lot in phase one that could possibly be dedicated. David Holden lives in Crystal Knoll and said the subdivision needs a park and asked the board to focus on parkland inside the subdivision. The parks board was in consensus that the developer will hold the lots in the subdivision until 1.44 acres of parkland can be dedicated. The developer will be back at the October meeting. V. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR A CONCEPT PLAN FOR UNIVERSITY PARK UNIT TWO — CRAIG AND JOHN BIGGARS Don Bizzell representing University Park Unit Two, spoke regarding a concept plan for a 140 Page 2 of 5 acre development located on east side of Southwestern Boulevard that joins Summer Crest off Hwy 29 east. The development is a residential high -density development. Mr. Bizzell said they are in the planning stages and asked the board if they preferred a park in each section or one large park centrally located. A possibility also is the 12 acres owned by Mr. Stanton that is located adjacent to the property. This property is across the street from the Phelan property the City is purchasing. David said that ideally we would like to see one park. John said since they are open for suggestions, it looks like we have three primary options. 1. Look at extending park development that is outside of this development and going toward Hwy. 29 which also falls into our Master Plan priority system (12 acres) 2. Combination of those two items (parkland along Smith Branch and a park in the development) 3. Maintain a development within the internal structure allowing the developer to identify properties which are less desirable to build on Long-range goal is to link the parkland in that area. John invited them back to the next meeting where they could present some options. VI. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON COMMERCIAL TRAIN IN SAN GABRIEL PARK — KEN KNOWLES John said he has seen the train and it is a first-rate design and well built train. It is a high quality product. John is looking at considering a process so that the Parks Board is not looking for direction from the council about something every other week to determine if we want to pursue or not pursue this venture. The primary target location is San Gabriel Park for various reasons. There has been mixed feelings from the council along with the existing lawsuit over commercial ventures in the park. John asked for the opinion of the board. Doug is for the advancement of the idea. Jean also agreed that we should proceed. Randy's opinion was that it needs to go to Council and get a yes or no answer on the project. Ken said the Council said that nothing official has ever been brought to them to vote on. John said he would mention the idea at the Parks and Recreation Board report to Council on September 25, 2001, and see if they give him direction. Ken said that would be helpful. Debbie Walker, with Shell Road Golf Center, told the board that if the City allowed the train in San Gabriel Park, there would be another lawsuit against the City regarding commercial ventures in the park. Ms. Walker told the board it was only fair that they know this. VII. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPOINTING A SUB- COMMITTEE FOR THE INDOOR POOL John explained the current status of the indoor pool situation. John said the council talked Page 3 of 5 about selling bonds to build the indoor pool adjacent to this recreation center after the Williams Drive Pool was under contract, sold and shut down. Also San Gabriel Pool would be closed. This would mean four pools for the City instead of five, with one being year round. There would be a reduction in both maintenance and operation of both Williams Drive Pool and San Gabriel Pool. There was an issue that was brought to the attention of the City Manager's office that the Williams Drive Pool was constructed on land that was dedicated through a Parks and Wildlife Grant. To sell the property, a conversion process must be completed with a series of approvals all the way to the federal government. The conversion process involves substituting land that is of equal or greater monetary value than the land being sold. There is money needed to start the conversion process, which involves appraisals and an environmental impact study. The Williams Drive Pool will remain open until the indoor pool is built. A committee will be formed when the conversion process is further along. The committee would be responsible for deciding the functions or needs of the pool, not the design of the pool. Doug asked about a different location for the pool. Randy said the City does not have any other large tracts of land that we think can match the value of the land the Williams Drive Pool is located on. Dayle Aldrich asked about heater being put back into the Williams Drive Pool. Randy said the City operates the Village Pool and it is heated. Randy said it is difficult to heat a pool of that size. VIII. APPROVE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 23, 2001 A motion was made by Jean Houck to approve the minutes from the August 23, 2001, meeting. Doug Blackard seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. IX. UPDATE ON PARK DEVELOPMENT IN PARKLAND DEDICATION ZONE 16 The 18.78 acres of property the City is purchasing is scheduled to close on Friday, September 20. This land is going to be put into the Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation Trust. X. UPDATE ON THE BUDGET PROCESS $35,000 was allocated to renovate San Jose Park. The money came from the proceeds of the sale of two City lots in the San Jose neighborhood. The Tennis Center will remain open, but is required to bring in an additional $50,000 in revenue. Liz asked about a card swipe system for the Tennis Center instead of having staff there. Randy said they have looked into that option. There was no money allocated in this year' s budget to renovate the community center. There Page 4 of 5 is going to be a vote on a bond package in November to renovate the facility. Doug asked when Parks and Recreation staff would move in to the old Community Owned Utilities building. Randy said it was probably still a year away XI. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Master Plan, Crystal Knoll, University Park, and Train Issue XH. ADJOURN Tracy Dubcak made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Page 5 of 5 CITY OF GEORGETOWN Parks & Recreation Board October 11, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Tract Dubcak, vice chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Ms. Tracy Dubcak, Vice Chair Ms. Jean Houck Ms. Brenna Nedbalek Mr. Douglas Blackard Mr. David Rinn Mr. Wesley Kidd Members Absent: Mr. John Philpott, Chair Ms. Liz Mealy Visitors Speaking: Barbara Austin, Richardson Verdoorn Jim Cummings, Stegar and Bizzell David Holden, Crystal Knoll Terrace Homeowner's Association John Biggar, University Park Unit Two Staff Present: Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation Kimberly Garrett, Manager of Administration III. REVIEW OF THE PARKS MASTER PLAN — RICHARDSON VERDOORN Barbara Austin of Richardson Verdoorn distributed a preliminary Master Plan for the Parks and Recreation Board to review. Items included in the Master Plan included the following: 1. Executive Summary which includes past planning efforts and information about the City of Georgetown 2. Inventory of existing facilities in developed parks and undeveloped parks 3. Standards and Guidelines will talk about applying national standards and guidelines to the City by applying a service radius and also acres per thousand people 4. Needs Assessment is basically the survey that was sent out and any input from the Parks Page 1 of 3 and Recreation Board, citizens, and staff 5. Master Plan describes park development goals and future park development 6. Implementation Plan is a timeline outlining the projects in an order in which they can best be accomplished and also includes possible funding sources for the project Both the Master Plan and Implementation Plan follow the priorities that were identified in the citizen survey. Wesley asked when the document would be finished. Ms. Austin said the Master Plan would be presented to City Council on October 23rd for their approval. Ms. Austin said the Master Plan would need to be submitted to Texas Parks and Wildlife prior to applying for a TPW Grant. She plans on submitting a draft of the Master Plan to Texas Parks and Wildlife in November so the City could apply for a grant next summer. IV. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR CRYSTAL KNOLL TERRACE UNIT FOUR Jim Cummings with Stegar and Bizzell spoke to the Parks and Recreation Board regarding an alternative for the parkland dedication for Crystal Knoll Terrace Unit Four. Mr. Cummings proposed a 1.93 acre tract in the subdivision to satisfy the 1.44 acre parkland dedication requirement for this development. The property proposed was originally set aside as a retention area for Crystal Knoll, Unit Two, but never constructed. The developer is waiting on approval from the City Engineer to be able to use this site as parkland. Currently there is water that drains onto this property and the developer is waiting to find out if the water can be diverted to another place. This property would have access to utilities and street frontage, but would need to be filled in. There is a 10-foot easement from the street to the parkland property. Brenna said that the property is more than required and Tracy said access was good. Wesley said it meets the requirements. Dave Holden with the Crystal Knoll Terrace Homeowner's Association said the property is an open field and there is a lot of drainage onto the property. He said access would be an issue and County Road 151 is very busy. Wesley Kidd made a motion to accept the 1.93 acres of parkland with the stipulation that an access trail from the subdivision be supplied, the drainage issue is resolved, the land is filled in and leveled, and a buffer is considered for the adjacent homeowners. David Rinn seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. V. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR A CONCEPT PLAN FOR UNIVERSITY PARK UNIT TWO Craig Biggar of University Park Unit Two spoke to the Parks and Recreation Board regarding parkland dedication. Mr. Biggar proposed dedicating 3.7 acres of parkland to satisfy their 3.63 acre requirement. There are trees on the lot and there is a nice view. The piece of property is centrally located within the development. Page 2 of 3 David made a motion to accept 3.7 acres of parkland as long as it meets the slope requirements outlined in the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. Brenna Nedbalek seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. VI. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET AND PRESENTATION FOR OCTOBER 23R D COUNCIL MEETING REGARDING A COMMERCIAL TRAIN IN SAN GABRIEL PARK Council took action on this item at the October 9th Council Meeting. They voted not to allow a commercial train in San Gabriel Park. Council would like to set a policy regarding commercial ventures before they consider any other commercial projects in the park. VII. APPROVE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 A motion was made by Brenna Nedbalek to approve the minutes from the September 20, 2001, meeting. Wesley Kidd seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. VIII. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Master Plan, Crystal Knoll, and planning a possible Christmas Party IX. ADJOURN Doug Blackard made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Page 3 of 3