Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_PAREB_04.12.2001CITY 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. II. 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 HDR 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 Wal-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 seethe 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. VHI. 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