Loading...
2000-01-10 * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 2 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING 3 4 January 10, 2000 5 6 MINUTES 8 Board Members Present: Sherry Berman, Chair; Richard Anderson, Vice-Chair; Cara 9 White, Secretary; Mary Georgia; James Glover; Chris Miltenberger; Bill Kemp; Lisa 10 Stokdyk 11 12 Board Members Absent: 13 14 Staff Members Present: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services; Steve Polasek, 15 Deputy Director of Community Services; John Eaglen, Administrative Assistant; Judy 16 Russeau, Administrative Secretary. 17 18 19 Regular Session: 20 21 Agenda Item No. 1, Call to order. The meeting was called to order by Sherry Berman, 22 Chair at 7:00 PM 23 24 Reports: 25 26 Agenda Item No. 2.A. Administrative Comments. 27 28 Ms. White asked why the Parks and Recreation Board was moved to the Senior Activity 29 Center. Mr. Hugman apologized for the location being changed and explained that 30 inadvertently the Parks and Recreation Board meeting and the Teen Court were scheduled at 31 the same time in the Council Chamber in January, April and May. It is difficult to 32 reschedule Teen Court due to the number of teen cases involved. The schedule has been 33 confirmed for the remaining meetings. Mr. Hugman said that he agrees that the Board 34 should have priority, and the Park Board is scheduled for the Council Chambers the 35 remainder of the year after May. Also, once we are in the Town Hall, Court will have its 36 own spaces, he said. 37 38 Mr. Hugman said there will be a kick off meeting this Friday, January 14, 2000 with 39 consultants on the Parks Master Plans. The City Council approved the contracts with 40 Shrickel Rollins and Carter Burgess. Staff has been working very closely with HNTB on the 41 Traffic Management Bond (TMB) trails portion, and their work will also be incorporated 42 into the work for the Trails System Master Plan. Staff will have a kick off meeting with all 43 the consultants, Ms. Berman, Ms. White, Ms. Georgia and Council Member Rex Potter. 44 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page I of 21 N.•IParks & Recreation lBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTEY2000101I000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Mr. Miltenberger asked if there were any plans to look at the parking issues at Bicentennial 2 for baseball and softball. Mr. Hugman said that, as part of the contract approved with 3 Schrickel Rollins, they will review the Bicentennial Park Schematic Plan. Mr. Miltenberger 4 asked if the parking would be ready by spring. Mr. Polasek said there should be enough 5 parking and once the Tom Thumb construction is completed their northern parking lot will 6 be available as well. 7 8 Mr. Kemp stated that he would like the Board to pursue the issue of changing the 9 requirements for the width of trails. It is his understanding that the Master Plan and 10 Sidewalk Ordinance would need to be changed. 11 12 Mr. Hugman said the width is currently eight (8) feet on White Chapel and six (6) feet 13 everywhere else. The Traffic Management Bond though, was passed with eight (8) foot 14 trails along FM 1709, so those would be built to an eight-foot width. He also said staff and 15 the Trail System Master Plan consultant would review the recommended width of trails as 16 well. 17 18 Mr. Kemp said he would like to immediately pursue changing the Master Plan and the 19 Sidewalk Ordinance now and research the larger plans in the future. He said this was done 20 with the Thoroughfare Plan. 21 22 Mr. Hugman said that this issue would be put on the Park Board Agenda for next month. 23 24 Mr. Miltenberger asked if this issue could be discussed this evening and put on next month's 25 agenda for a vote. 26 27 Ms. Berman stated that this could not be done. 28 29 Ms. Stokdyk asked about the progress of repairs to the Nature Center. 30 31 Mr. Polasek said that the parks maintenance crew was sent to the Nature Center for some 32 repairs and review. 33 34 Ms. White said that she had been to the Nature Center and plastic was in place. 35 36 Ms. Stokdyk asked if there was money in the budget for Nature Center repairs this year. 37 Mr. Hugman said that there is money budgeted next year for Nature Center improvements 38 and that minimal and necessary repairs are being done with this year's budget. 39 40 Ms. Berman asked the status of the RFP's for concessions. Mr. Polasek said that the bids 41 are scheduled to open January 24, 2000 and that RFP's were sent to Pepsi Cola, Coca-Cola, 42 Dr. Pepper and Gatorade. It is anticipated that this will be fast tracked and contract 43 negotiations are expected to begin shortly after the bid opening. A special Board meeting 44 may need to be called to approve the contracts in time for the spring season. 45 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 2 of 21 N: (Parks & Recreation 1BOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTEY2000101 1000. doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Ms. Berman asked why the opening of the bids was delayed until January 24`''. Mr. Polasek 2 said the bids were scheduled to open January 170', however, due to issues that needed to be 3 worked out with the City Attorneys they were delayed. 4 5 Mr. Miltenberger asked the status of the batting cages. Mr. Polasek said the opening of 6 bids for the batting cages is scheduled for January 14, 2000. Mr. Hugman said that the site 7 has been graded for the Girl's Softball Field batting cages already, and after the bids are 8 opened, it will go to SPDC and City Council for approval of the award of bid. 9 10 Consent: 11 12 Agenda Item No.3.A. Approval of the minutes for the December 13, 1999 meeting. 13 14 Agenda Item No. 3. B. Approval of park dedication requirements for the W.R. Reaves Survey, 15 Abstract No. 500, lots 1 and 2 (Walgreen's Pharmacy). 16 17 Ms. Berman stated that Mr. Kemp expressed that he does not want to approve the park 18 dedication for Walgreen's Pharmacy. 19 20 Mr. Kemp asked if he could explain his reason for his denial of this request. Mr. Kemp 21 said that the amount received in cash would be less than $3,000. This amount is too 22 minimal for any improvements to the park system and he would like to send a message to 23 the City Council that a more substantial amount should be applied or be removed. 24 25 Ms. Stokdyk made a motion to approve the December 13, 1999 minutes with corrections 26 and accept the approval of park dedication requirements for the W.R. Reaves Survey, 27 Abstract No. 500, lots 1 and 2 (Walgreen's Pharmacy). 28 29 Motion: Ms. Stokdyk 30 Second: Mr. Glover 31 For: Ms. Berman, Mr. Anderson, Ms. White, Ms. Georgia, Mr. Glover, Mr. 32 Miltenberger, Ms. Stokdyk 33 Against: Mr. Kemp 34 Approved 7-1 35 36 Regular: 37 38 Agenda Item No. 4, Public Forum. 39 Ms. Berman asked if there were any requests to speak during the Public Forum. 40 41 Mr. Greg York 904 Bradstreet, Southlake, Texas 76092. Mr. York requested that the 42 concrete work on dugouts at Field #10 be expedited. Mr. Polasek said that the dugout 43 concrete work is being planned and will be completed as soon as possible before the spring 44 season or shortly after. 45 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 3 of 21 N: (Parks & Recreation WOARDSIPKBOARDWINUTEY2000101 1000. doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Public Forum was closed at 7:18 PM. 2 3 Discussion: 4 5 Agenda Item No. S.A. Election of Parks and Recreation Board Officers 6 7 Mr. Miltenberger made a motion to reelect the current Park Board Officers for another one-year 8 term. Ms. Stokdyk seconded the motion. 9 10 Motion: Mr. Miltenberger 11 Second: Ms. Stokdyk 12 For: Ms. Berman, Mr. Anderson, Ms. White, Ms. Georgia, Mr. Glover, Mr. 13 Miltenberger, Mr. Kemp, Ms. Stokdyk 14 Against: 0 15 Approved 8-0 16 17 Agenda Item No. 5B. Approval of park dedication requirements for the J.G. Allen No. 18 18 Addition, Lot 10 (Primrose School at Highland Lakes). 19 20 Mr. Hugman stated that Mr. Frank J. Cangelosi, owner of the Primrose School at Hidden Lakes 21 submitted a written request to pay the proper park fees and apply credit for additional right-of-way 22 in lieu of parkland dedication for the Primrose School at Hidden Lakes located at 1100 Davis 23 Boulevard. The site location is Lot 10 of the J.G. Allen No. 18 Addition. 24 25 The park land dedication requirements for non-residential development are as follows: 26 27 • Dedicated parks and/or reserved open space at a ratio of one (1) acre of park land for every 28 fifty (50) gross acres, therefore the 1.257 acre Primrose School site therefore requires a park 29 land dedication of 0.03 acres. 30 31 • Th fee alternative is based on the City of Southlake Fee Schedule, which establishes the park 32 dedication fee for non-residential development at $800 per gross acre, therefore the 1.257 acre 33 Primrose School site requires a park dedication fee in lieu of land dedication of $1,257.60. 34 35 A representative from the developer was not present at the Board meeting. 36 37 Mr. Miltenberger made a motion that the request for credit for additional right-of-way in lieu of 38 park land dedication for the Primrose School at Hidden Lakes be denied. 39 40 Mr. Kemp made a motion to deny the entire dedication fee of cash. 41 42 Ms. Stokdyk seconded the motion. 43 44 Mr. Glover asked for clarification that the motion made is to deny the dedication fee of cash, and 45 the developer is required to make a land dedication. 46 47 Mr. Anderson said that he interprets that as the ordinance reads, the developer has the option of 48 dedicating a cash fee or land. Mr. Hugman stated that the ordinance says that parkland dedication Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 4 of 21 N: (Parks & Recreation lBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 is required, but the City has the right to accept it or refuse it, but if refused, the alternative is 2 payment of fees. One of the changes to the Subdivision Ordinance recommended by Park Board 3 last month, was to remove this language, and allow the Park Board to require dedication of land 4 other than that being offered by a developer. 5 6 Ms. Georgia asked if the motion was carried to deny the credit, would it be possible to make an 7 additional motion to accept the full fee payment of $1,257.60. This was affirmed. 8 9 Mr. Kemp asked if the developer has identified the land to be dedicated. Mr. Hugman said the 10 developer has not and his recommendation is that the Board not accept small parcels of dedicated 11 land to the City. Any land dedicated to the City becomes a maintenance responsibility, and 12 liability to the City, but is not large enough to be useful as a park. Mr. Hugman said there is 13 currently a small tract of land that was dedicated to the City between Chimney Hills and Stone 14 Lakes. The small trail is very difficult for staff to maintain. Mr. Kemp said that he appreciates 15 the difficulties involved, but at this time it is his concern that a point be made regarding land 16 dedication fee requirements. Ms. White said that she agrees and that park land should not be 17 scattered throughout the city in small parcels. 18 19 Mr. Kemp encouraged all Board members to contact Planning and Zoning requesting the proposed 20 park dedication requirement changes and that they be pushed through as soon as possible and sent 21 to City Council. Mr. Kemp would like to increase the fees. 22 23 Motion: Mr. Kemp 24 Second: Ms. Stokdyk 25 For: Mr. Kemp, Ms. Stokdyk 26 Against: Ms. Berman, Mr. Anderson, Ms. White, Ms. Georgia, Mr. Glover, Mr. 27 Miltenberger 28 Denied: 2-6 29 30 Ms. White made a motion to approve the park dedication fees as Primrose has proposed at 31 $1,257.60, not giving the requested credit of $111.68 for the additional right-of-way. 32 33 Mr. Kemp asked if the applicant has made an alternative motion to accept the total fee 34 requirement. Mr. Hugman said that the developer has requested to pay the fee less the credit 35 requested for the additional right-of-way. 36 37 Motion: Ms. White 38 Second: Mr. Anderson 39 For: Ms. Berman, Mr. Anderson, Ms. White, Ms. Georgia, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. 40 Glover 41 Against: Mr. Kemp, Ms. Stokdyk 42 Approved 6-2 43 44 Ms. Berman said that she agreed with Mr. Kemp that the Board members should contact City 45 Council regarding the current park dedication requirements. 46 47 Agenda Item No. 5C. Approval of park dedication requirements for the Hall Medlin Survey 48 Abstract No. 1037 (Timarron Eagle Bend, Phase II). Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 5 of 21 N.•IParks & Recreation TOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTEY20001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 2 Mr. Hugman stated that this dedication is the second phase of a development first brought before 3 the Board approximately two (2) years ago. The development has been since purchased by 4 developer Terry Wilkinson. As stated in the memo, this is a thirty-seven (37) dwelling unit 5 residential development. 6 7 The park land dedication requirements for residential development are dedicated park land at a 8 ratio of one (1) acre of park land for every forty (40) residential dwelling units, therefore the 9 thirty-seven (37) dwelling unit residential development requires a park land dedication of .925 10 acres. 11 12 Fees in lieu of land dedication are $1,500 per dwelling unit, therefore, the thirty-seven (37) 13 dwelling unit residential development requires a park dedication fee in lieu of land dedication of 14 $55,500.00. 15 16 Mr. Hugman said that the developer has submitted an expense credit worksheet for Timarron 17 Eagle Bend, Phase II which was included in the packet along with a copy of the Site Map. 18 However, private park, recreation, or open space amenities may not satisfy more than 50% of the 19 total park and open space dedication requirements, so the credits may not satisfy more than 20 $27,750 of the required park dedication fees. Applying the maximum amount of credits towards 21 the $55,500 leaves a required park dedication fee of $27,750.00. 22 23 Mr. Hugman introduced Mr. Terry Wilkinson 751 E. Southlake Blvd. Suite 130, Southlake, TX., 24 representing Timarron Eagle Bend, Phase II development. 25 26 Ms. Berman asked for clarification on the amount of square footage for green space(#33). Mr. 27 Kemp requested clarification on the exact location of the development. 28 29 Mr. Wilkinson explained and demonstrated on the map providing the exact location of the 30 development. Mr. Wilkinson also showed the landscape plan to the Board members. Mr. 31 Wilkinson explained that the "Villas" are not part of the Timarron development. 32 33 Ms. Georgia said that the meandering of the trails is difficult and too narrow for family use. The 34 Board recommendation is eight (8) foot trails. 35 36 Mr. Wilkinson stated that he does not advise adding to the width of the sidewalks. Three lots have 37 been removed, making the remaining lots a little larger with more green space. There will also be 38 additional landscaping done with park benches and trees. 39 40 Ms. Georgia asked for further clarification on the location of the development. 41 42 Mr. Miltenberger asked if Lot 7 of the previous phase would be usable for play areas. Mr. 43 Wilkinson said the lot was originally planned for a house but could be used for a play area. It was 44 his intention to use that lot as landscaped buffer along with the area shown on the site plan before 45 Park Board. Mr. Miltenberger asked if lots 6 and 8 would object to the play area. Mr. Wilkinson 46 said he had not talked to the residents. It was determined that there was not a lot 8. 47 48 Mr. Anderson asked what other lots were removed, and how much open area there was. 49 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 6 of 21 N: (Parks & Recreation lBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Mr. Wilkinson explained that there is 4.44 acres of common area in the development. 2 3 Ms. White asked the size of lots twenty-two (22) and twenty-three (23). Mr. Wilkinson said the 4 lots in that area were over one (1) acre. 5 6 Mr. Miltenberger again asked if any area could be cleared and graded for a play area. Mr. 7 Wilkinson said that there is a creek channel running through the development prohibiting this type 8 of use. The creek channel area would be improved to protect the trees. 9 10 Mr. Miltenberger said that he has a long standing objection to the subdivisions in Timarron that do 11 not include park play areas for the children and he feels that this development is not offering play 12 areas for the children. 13 14 Ms. Berman said that she commends Mr. Wilkinson for protecting the green area, however she 15 also feels that there is not enough play space for children. 16 17 Ms. Stokdyk asked about the topography and value as park land on the green space in the 18 development. Mr. Wilkinson said that it is not valuable for as improved park space as it is heavily 19 wooded, which is more suitable for green space. This space will be improved with landscaping, 20 etc. 21 22 Ms. Stokdyk asked where the four (4) foot trails and linear trails run through the development and 23 asked for clarification on whether sidewalks would be required on at least one side of the street. 24 Mr. Wilkinson stated that it was his understanding that sidewalks were not required. Ms. Berman 25 said that this development was "grandfathered" in. 26 27 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the sidewalk/trails tie into the public master trail plan. Mr. Wilkinson said 28 that it does not tie in. 29 30 Ms. Georgia stated that according to the current ordinance, only one half of the credit could be 31 applied for a maximum of half the fees toward the $55,500.00 and $27,750.00 would still be 32 required in fees. Ms. Georgia asked Mr. Wilkinson if he was willing to pay this amount. Mr. 33 Wilkinson said he would be willing to pay this amount. 34 35 Mr. Glover made a motion to accept the credit of $27,750.00 toward the total of $55,500.00 36 leaving a dedication fee to be paid of $27,750.00. 37 38 Ms. Georgia seconded the motion. 39 40 Mr. Kemp said there is a recent proposed amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance of allowing a 41 maximum acceptance of 25% credit as opposed to the 50% credit and asked if it would not be 42 appropriate to adopt this amendment at this time. 43 44 Ms. Stokdyk asked how these amenities benefit the public. Mr. Wilkinson said that a lot of the 45 trails are in the right-of-way and access could most likely not be denied. Ms. Berman said that 46 incentives were needed for the developers when Southlake started developing and she agrees with 47 Mr. Wilkinson that there is a constant cross use of the trails. 48 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 7 of 21 N: (Parks & Recreation WARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Ms. White said that there was a similar issue with Chesapeake Place on drainage and utility 2 easements. 3 4 Mr. Anderson asked if this request were considered under the proposed changes to the ordinance, 5 what would the difference be and how could this improve the current situation. Mr. Kemp said 6 that credit would be given for 25% not 50% and the fee would be an amount half way between 7 $55,500.00 and $27,750.00. The difference could be used to buy a little land for a field. 8 9 The motion on the floor was clarified as accepting the credit of $27,750.00 toward the total of 10 $55,500.00 leaving a dedication fee to be paid of $27,750.00. 11 12 Motion: Mr. Glover 13 Second: Ms. Georgia 14 For: Ms. Berman, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Georgia, Mr. Glover 15 Against: Ms. White, Ms. Stokdyk, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. Kemp 16 Failed: 4-4 17 18 Mr. Anderson said that philosophically he understands the proposed revised ordinance, however 19 he does not feel it to be prudent to hold this developer to next month. Mr. Glover said that he 20 agrees with Mr. Anderson and does feel that Mr. Wilkinson should not be penalized for the timing 21 of his request. Ms. White said that the proposed changes to the ordinance have been discussed for 22 several months and developers should have been aware of these changes. 23 24 Ms. Stokdyk ask what the benefits/value would be for the public on this development. Ms. 25 Georgia asked if this was determined to be private because it would be maintained by the 26 Homeowners Association? Mr. Kemp said that there are trespassing regulations. Mr. Hugman 27 said that this is not dedicated to the City as public land and is therefore maintained by the 28 Homeowners Association. Ms. Berman said that this property would not be maintained by the 29 City. Although the private trails have been frequently used by the public, they are still private, 30 and non-residents of Timarron could be asked to leave. Mr. Wilkinson is caught up in unresolved 31 issues, but he has always provided quality developments. 32 33 Ms. White feels that since the lots are being graded for home sites, the property could also be 34 graded for a flat play area. Some precedence needs to be set and a message sent to the City 35 Council. 36 37 Ms Georgia said that each request should be considered on it own value. 38 39 Ms. Stokdyk asked if these were private trails. Ms. Berman said that they are private trails, 40 although she thinks there is one section that is dedicated between Timarron and Montecillo. 41 42 Ms. Berman asked if this request could be sent to the City Council on a tie vote. Mr. Wilkinson 43 said that if the 25% rule were applied to the credits he is requesting, the amount still far exceeds 44 the total credit maximum. Mr. Wilkinson also said that it has been his experience that larger lot 45 sizes tend to decrease the natural preservation of the area and public use. 46 47 Ms. Georgia said that in looking at the plan she feels the Board does not need to search for ways 48 of giving more credit and the consensus of the Park Board is for more public areas for the citizens Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 8 of 21 N.•IParks & Recreation OOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTEY20001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 of Southlake. It does not look like there is that leverage available in this area, since most of the 2 area around this development is already completed. Ms. Georgia commended Mr. Wilkinson on 3 his preservation of the green area and supports the $219,600 worth of amenities being done by the 4 developer. She stated that it is unfortunate that the Board has reached a crossroad where they feel 5 there is not enough park land available for the public. 6 7 Ms. Georgia said she feels there are two options: request that Mr. Wilkinson consider donating 8 more money with the 25% rule or the Board could pass this on to the City Council. Mr. Hugman 9 said that the motion would not be carried forward as passed to the City Council, since the vote did 10 not pass. Until he could research this further, he felt the full fee would be assessed, since the Park 11 Board did not approve acceptance of any credits. Ms. Georgia said that this would leave the City 12 of Southlake open in that all conservation areas could be developed as long as the tree ordinance is 13 complied with. 14 15 Mr. Wilkinson said that he does not have many options in this development because it is land 16 locked. All other developments have been developed with play and park areas and future 17 development will continue following this policy. 18 19 Mr. Hugman said that since the request for 50% credit did not pass, the developer could request 20 credit up to the 25% maximum as suggested by Mr. Kemp. Mr. Wilkinson requested that the 21 Board review the items on the worksheet and that he was not aware of the proposed changes to the 22 fees. 23 24 Mr. Miltenberger asked if he could make a motion to request the developer to pay the difference 25 between $55,500.00 and $27,750.00 adding $13,850.00 along with the intention that any future 26 development would include play area for the children. Ms. White said that this was allowed with 27 Fox Hollow and a commitment made with the developer. 28 29 Ms. Berman said that if the current motion was sent to the City Council, the developer would be 30 required to pay $55,500.00. The new motion that Mr. Miltenberger proposed would require the 31 developer to pay $41,625.00. The developer would receive a credit of $13,850.00, or 25% of the 32 $55,500.00. 33 34 Mr. Glover said that he would like to go on record stating that he feels the developer is being 35 "ripped off' and he is ashamed to be a part of it. 36 37 Motion: Mr. Miltenberger 38 Second: Mr. Kemp 39 For: Ms. White, Ms. Stokdyk, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. Kemp 40 Against: Ms. Berman, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Glover, Ms. Georgia 41 Failed: 4-4 42 43 The request will be sent to the City Council. 44 45 Ms. Berman stated for the record that the tie vote is due to a vacancy on the Board. Ms. Berman 46 said that she agrees with Mr. Glover that Mr. Wilkinson is caught in the middle of a difficult 47 situation and does not need to pay the $55,500.00 nor does he need a credit of $219,600.00. 48 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 9 of 21 N.•IParks & Recreation OOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Agenda Item No. S.D. Review of Chesapeake Place conceptual park plan and request for project 2 development cost sharing. 3 4 Mr. Hugman presented a review of the Chesapeake Place conceptual park plan and request for 5 project development cost sharing. Staff reviewed the history of the development. Some Board 6 members are familiar with the request when it came before the Board in February 1999 as park 7 dedication to the City. There were significant changes to the development by the time it went to 8 City Council and was ultimately approved by the City Council. Changes included: 9 10 * An increase in approved park land dedication from 6.89 acres to 11.28 acres, accepted by the 11 City in a finished grade state with disturbed areas re-grassed with a retention/detention pond 12 not more than 4.5 acres. 13 * A reduction in the number of lots from 92 to 80. 14 * An increase in lot sizes. 15 16 Since it was presented to the City Council the property was sold by Four Peaks Development to 17 Pulte Home Corporation and Carter Burgess is the consultant. At the time it was presented to the 18 City Council there was not a park plan. Carter Burgess representatives have met with City staff 19 over the course of the development approval process to review the increased park land dedication, 20 conceptual park layout, and their proposal to commit funding towards the park development. 21 Pulte expressed an interest in a cost sharing with the City of the development of the park. Mr. 22 Hugman said that the developer was informed that this request would have to be approved by the 23 Parks Board, SPDC and City Council. The developer wanted to move forward on the developer's 24 agreement though due to timing issues were told that if a cost sharing arrangement were worked 25 out, a revised developer's agreement could be done. The City Council did approve the 26 developer's agreement and reflected the 11.28 acre park as accepted during the PUD approval, 27 and stipulating the developer's intention of putting $125,000 of amenities into the park. 28 29 Mr. Hugman said there are two items being brought before the Board tonight for consideration: a 30 review of the conceptual plan and a consideration of cost sharing by the City of Southlake for park 31 amenities. He noted that staff has made recommendations of the amenities that should go into the 32 park, if only the $125,000 that the developer is committing is available; irrigation systems, hydro- 33 mulch, concrete trails, ornamental trees and shrubs. 34 35 Mr. Hugman distributed the SPDC long range capital improvement plan for the Board's 36 information as to what funding is available in the SPDC budget. 37 38 Mr. Richard Payne and Mr. Jim Tenackaleff, 7950 Elmbrook Dr. #250, Dallas TX 75247. Mr. 39 Payne is the engineer on the project. Mr. Payne explained the detention pond; 11.28 acres of open 40 space is dedicated, 5.2 acres is located near the drainage area that is not usable and not included. 41 There is also another 0.3 of an acre included in the drainage. The lake is 3.2 acres with another 42 0.8 acres of retention area available in the 100-year flood. There will be open space available to 43 accommodate two (2) 12 and under soccer fields. With the trail system that is developed around 44 the lake and the open space associated with it and the ball fields, it will amount to 7.2 acres of 45 open space. The original plan showed 6.9 acres, some of the four (4) acre lake will be used for 46 detention. 47 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 10 of 21 N.•IParks & Recreation WOARDSIPKBOARDWINUTES120001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Mr. Anderson asked if any of the drainage area would be suitable for trails. Mr. Payne said it 2 would not. 3 4 Ms. Georgia asked if there would be any parking available for the game fields. Mr. Payne said 5 staff had requested space for parking, other than along the street, and they designed a parking area 6 for parallel parking. 7 8 Ms. Stokdyk asked about the irrigation system and if it would draw from the pond. Mr. Payne 9 said they had discussed irrigating from the lake, but felt that would be detrimental to the pond, but 10 is open for discussion. 11 12 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the flat lands would be developed into play areas or formal fields. Mr. 13 Hugman said that staff recommendation is that they not be developed into formal fields, but left as 14 open grass areas with irrigation being a top priority. This would allow ample space for practice 15 areas, and be flexible as to its use. Ms. Stokdyk said she feels that caution should be taken with 16 irrigation due to the draught conditions. Mr. Hugman said that trees and shrubs would be used 17 that are native species or are conducive to the dry conditions. 18 19 Mr. Payne continued with his presentation saying that there are nine parking spots with a six (6) 20 foot concrete trail, benches and trash receptacles, a playground and a 30 foot x 30 foot pavilion 21 planned. 22 23 Ms. Anderson said that one of the main issues is whether there will be additional funding available 24 from the SPDC budget for this project. Mr. Hugman asked the Board to review page 5.D.(4) of 25 the packet materials - the itemized cost list of the proposed park amenities. If everything on the 26 list were done, the City cost would be $140,507.55. Mr. Glover asked for clarification on hydro- 27 mulching and noted that the developer is required to re-grass the disturbed areas. He questioned 28 whether the process would be repeated unnecessarily and the costs duplicated. Mr. Hugman 29 explained that hydro-mulch is a better grade of grass. Re-grassing could be a grass seed and other 30 seed mixture that is often mixed with weeds. Mr. Payne said that the developer would be willing 31 to look at the cost savings related to hydro-mulch and grass seed, and if there is any duplicate 32 costs there. Mr. Payne said they and the developer met with staff to determine specific items staff 33 would like to see in a public park and the developer offered to contribute $125,000.00 toward the 34 development in addition to the land dedication that was done for the park. 35 36 Ms. Stokdyk asked how the $140,507.55 from the city would be spent. Mr. Payne said that the 37 developer is asking the Board for direction. Mr. Hugman explained that the developer has 38 committed to spending $125,000.00 for park amenities and staff has developed a recommended 39 list of items the City would like to have implemented in this neighborhood park, if $125,000 was 40 all that could be spent now. 41 42 Ms. Stokdyk asked for clarification on the what Board is being asked to do tonight and if the City 43 Council has approved the additional cost to the City. Mr. Hugman said that the City Council has 44 not been presented with the cost estimate and has not approved any participation by the City. The 45 City Council was told that the staff intended to present this request with the cost figures when they 46 were available, to the Park Board. If the City decides not to participate at this time, these 47 amenities would be brought before the SPDC and Parks and Recreation Board in the future to be 48 funded out of the SPDC budget. 49 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 11 of 21 N:• Parks & Recreation WOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the $125,000.00 was committed regardless of whether the City decided to 2 participate in the cost sharing with $140,507.55. Ms. Berman said yes the $125,000.00 was 3 committed and asked staff to explain their recommendations. 4 5 Mr. Hugman explained the reasoning for staff's recommendations. The irrigation system was 6 recommended to preserve the trees and shrubs, hydro-mulch would provide use of fields 7 immediately, but an irrigation system would ensure the grass, trees and shrubs would survive. 8 Also, the best time to put in an irrigation system is in the early construction phase. The trails 9 should also be completed during early development stages and would provide a nice amenity for 10 many users. The trees and shrubs were added to bring the amount up to the $125,000 committed 11 by the developer. He also noted that additional trees could be planted by the City from other 12 sources - the tree mitigation fund could be used, transplanting trees from right-of-ways where 13 street improvements would impact them, and planting trees from the tree farm. 14 15 Mr. Hugman also said that some of the smaller cost items, such as the drinking fountain, and park 16 benches, could possibly be done from the current year Parks operating budget for park equipment. 17 Benches could be installed one or two a year to limit the cost impact. The pavilion and playground 18 are larger items that could be added at a later time, if not done at this time. 19 20 Mr. Kemp asked whether a fountain in the lake would be funded. Mr. Hugman said that was 21 something that would need to be reviewed, depending on the amount of algae buildup. Mr. Kemp 22 inquired about the fencing. Mr. Hugman said that fencing was not included because it was staff's 23 understanding that the developers were committed to building a fence. Mr. Payne explained the 24 location of the fence. Mr. Polasek said that St. Martin's in the Fields is in agreement with having 25 open space and may connect with the park later in their expansion, so we would want the ability to 26 have access to their planned fields as well. 27 28 Mr. Kemp suggested forming a sub-committee to review and recommend projects. Ms. Berman 29 asked if the Board agrees with the staff recommendations on spending the $125,000.00. Mr. 30 Payne stated that the developer's request was to get a playground structure included at some time 31 and inquired as to the best way to accomplish this. Mr. Glover recommended cementing only a 32 portion of the trail and extend the trail, but leaving it a natural trail and use the extra money for 33 playground equipment. Mr. Hugman said that one possibility would be to recommend to SPDC 34 participation at $20,000.00 which could fund a playground structure. Mr. Kemp asked the total on 35 the items staff recommended. Ms. Berman said the total would be $125,107.00. 36 37 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the shade tree price was nursery purchase and what is the reasoning for 38 ornamental trees as opposed to shade trees. Mr. Kemp said that shade trees could be brought in 39 from other locations. Mr. Kemp said that the staff recommendations make sense and he would be 40 inclined to make a motion to accept the recommendations. 41 42 Mr. Payne said that one of the developer's priorities is to provide playground areas for the 43 children. Ms. White said that she agrees that playground areas are a priority, but that the City 44 should not be responsible for the cost of selling the development. Mr. Hugman noted that another 45 option of City participation could be the use of a portion of the matching grant funds. 46 47 Mr. Kemp made a motion to accept the staff recommendation totaling $125,107.00, which 48 includes items: Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 12 of 21 N: (Parks & Recreation OOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 • #2 (concrete trail - 5'), 2 • #3 (concrete trail - 6'), 3 • #11, (ornamental trees), 4 • #12(a) (shrubs), 5 • #12(b) (hydromulch), and 6 • #13 (irrigation) 7 8 Mr. Miltenberger seconded the motion. 9 10 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the developer's prioritization of playground equipment should be 11 considered. Mr. Hugman stated that because of this being a public park, he envisions there will 12 be pressure from the residents for completion of the park amenities. Mr. Kemp said that this is a 13 classic example of staff making expert recommendations and the Board should follow these 14 recommendations. 15 16 Mr. Payne said that the developer's recommendations should also be considered with regards to 17 the money being offered. The Board said they are making recommendations on how the money 18 will be spent. Mr. Payne said that the City Council approved $125,000.00 would be spent on the 19 development and the developer is asking the Board and staff how the money should be spent, but 20 also would like to have a say in the issue. Ms. Stokdyk feels the basics should be considered as a 21 priority. 22 23 Ms. Berman said that she understands the request for playgrounds, however, the need at this time 24 is for open space. She said the original proposal considered by the Park Board in February 1999 25 amounted to $275,600.00 credit that included four (4) soccer fields, one 10 and under, two 8 and 26 under, and one 5 and under with a basketball court. Ms. White asked if the developer was given 27 this information prior to purchase. Mr. Payne said the information was available only through the 28 minutes and it was prior to the detention/retention ponds being included in the concept plan. Ms. 29 Berman said that following the credit approval from the Board, changes were made to the plan 30 due to the lake size. Mr. Hugman said that the open space did increase as well as lot size. Ms. 31 Berman asked why there are less soccer fields. Mr. Hugman said the original proposal included a 32 drainage channel through the park that staff was uncomfortable with, even though the developer 33 stated that the open land area would be graded to accommodate soccer fields. 34 35 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the motion committed the City to the $140,507.55. It was clarified that it did 36 not. Ms. White asked if the City Council gave the developer the latitude to determine how to 37 spend the $125,000.00. Mr. Hugman said that the City Council instructed the developer to work 38 with the Parks Board. Mr. Payne said that the City Council originally approved the PUD on the 39 basis that the City accept the tract in its raw condition. The developer would want to get 40 additional input and recommendations from the Board and City Staff to come up with a plan to 41 spend the additional $125,000.00 since there is no approval for the additional participation from 42 the City of $140,507.55. 43 44 Motion: Mr. Kemp 45 Second: Mr. Miltenberger 46 For: Ms. Berman, Mr. Anderson, Ms. White, Ms. Georgia, Mr. Glover, Mr. 47 Miltenberger, Mr. Kemp, Ms. Stokdyk 48 Against: 0 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 13 of 21 N.-IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Approved 8-0 2 3 Ms. Berman called for a break at 8:56 PM 4 5 Agenda Item No. S.E., S.F., and S.G. Approval of Facility Usage Agreements with Southlake 6 Baseball Association (SBA), Southlake Girls Softball Association (SGSA), and Grapevine 7 Southlake Soccer Association (GSSA). 8 9 The meeting reconvened at 9:05 PM 10 11 The action requested is the Parks and Recreation Board recommendation of the Facilities 12 Utilization Agreement with the Southlake Baseball Association (SBA), Grapevine Southlake 13 Soccer Association (GSSA) and the Southlake Girls Softball Association (SGSA). 14 15 Ms. Berman indicated that there is a need to provide fields for public use and opening one of the 16 game fields may help address that need. Ms. Stokdyk asked how many months a year the fields 17 are primed for play. She has not seen anyone on the fields during times that she has been working 18 on the waterscape. Mr. York stated that the teams play from the end of March to the end of July 19 with a month off and then back on the fields from September to the end of October. Mr. 20 Miltenberger said that if the games fields are played on all the time, it wears them out. Ms. 21 Stokdyk said she agrees, however it is difficult to explain to the neighborhood children why they 22 cannot play on the fields. Mr. York said SBA has twenty (20) teams on a field. Weekends are 23 when the fields are full. Ms. Berman requested there be a sign for organized teams to contact for 24 scheduling of the fields. Ms. Berman asked if the two new practice fields could be used. Mr. 25 York said that SBA is scrambling for fields for practice. Ms. Berman said that SBA and SGSA is 26 top priority. Mr. Anderson said he recommends that staff have the flexibility to open fields for 27 practice, but not take any time from the associations. 28 29 Ms. Stokdyk asked for clarification on what is being asked of the Board at this time. Ms. Berman 30 said that what is being discussed at this time is giving the staff flexibility to language the 31 agreement as needed to put up a sign for scheduling. SBA asked that staff monitor the fields 32 during non-association scheduling. Mr. Polasek said that it is very difficult for staff to monitor the 33 fields at this time during non-scheduled use. Mr. Polasek recommended using the two new 34 practice areas which will have backstops and turf Staff has done a very good job of grading the 35 area and the fields will be over-seeded in the spring with Bermuda. 36 37 Ms. Berman suggested leaving the agreement as it stands without the signs for the spring season 38 and having the two practice fields available for the public when not scheduled for use by SBA. 39 40 Mr. Glover asked about the survey matrix included in the packet materials , and noted that many 41 cities charge a user fee to the youth sports associations. He questioned whether the City should 42 also look at this, especially since every year at budget, there is a request for new personnel, and it 43 gets cut from the budget. Mr. Hugman said it could be looked at, but probably would be best to 44 look at for upcoming budget year, giving the staff some time to review, and the associations to 45 also be prepared for that if it is done. 46 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 14 of 21 N: (Parks & Recreation OOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTEY20001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Mr. Miltenberger made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the Facilities 2 Utilization Agreement with Southlake Baseball Association, Grapevine Southlake Soccer 3 Association, and The Girls Softball Association. 4 5 Ms. White seconded the motion. 6 7 Mr. Kemp made a suggestion that future agenda items be scheduled so the citizens present are at 8 the beginning of the agenda. Mr. Hugman said that staff does try to schedule agendas to 9 accommodate the residents as much as possible, but due to last minute agenda changes late last 10 week, staff overlooked the ordering of the items. He said he will follow Mr. Kemp's suggestion 11 better in the future. 12 13 Motion: Mr. Miltenberger 14 Second: Ms. White 15 For: Ms. Berman, Mr. Anderson, Ms. White, Ms. Georgia, Mr. Glover, Mr. 16 Miltenberger, Mr. Kemp, Ms. Stokdyk 17 Against: 0 18 Approved 8-0 19 20 21 Agenda Item No. S.H. Approval of revisions to the Park Use Policy regarding fundraising events 22 23 The action requested is the Parks and Recreation Board consideration of the proposed revisions to 24 the Park Use Policy regarding fundraising events. 25 26 The current Park Use Policy, effective August 4, 1997, serves as a guideline for the effective 27 management of public park areas and facilities. The policy was last revised on June 1, 1999 to 28 update internal changes and include new facilities (Ex. Reservation policy for Rustin Park 29 Pavilion). 30 31 Mr. Hugman said that staff tried to look at the policy based on the direction given from the Park 32 Board at the December 13, 1999 Board meeting. The concern is legal issues in approving certain 33 groups over other groups. The City Attorneys reviewed the policy and returned comments. One 34 of the examples used by the Attorneys is: How would the City consider a fundraising activity 35 where two different groups wanted to use the park facilities the same day a breeder's club of 36 poodles and a breeder's club for pit bulls? Would the City determine that the breeder's club of pit 37 bulls would be denied on the basis that pit bull dogs are seen as a dangerous breed and poodles are 38 not. If there is no criteria, there is a potential for litigation. The main concern is the perception of 39 discrimination against any particular group. 40 41 Mr. Hugman distributed copies of the revised proposed changes to the policy (attached to the 42 minutes). 43 44 Mr. Hugman said that the changes (indicated by strikethrough) are based on a premise that only 45 major events would be allowed. He understands that there had been objections by some Board 46 members to this criteria. However, the City Attorneys feel that this would be the best option if 47 any fundraising was allowed. Based on past events, such as the Circus, these would be the types Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 15 of 21 N: (Parks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001011o00.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 of events the City would probably want to allow. He looked at what criteria would be used to 2 review these scenarios. 3 4 Mr. Hugman reviewed the changes with the Board: 5 Regarding "Authorized Fundraising Events," budgeted special events (i.e. Kite festival already 6 approved by the City Council), and concession sales for youth sports associations would be 7 permitted through the Facilities Usage Agreement. The City Attorneys felt that tournaments 8 should be removed unless the specific dates and times are known and are included in the Facilities 9 Usage Agreement, otherwise they should follow the same process and be approved by the City 10 Council. 11 12 The approval would be as indicated in Paragraph II. B of the handout. There are two types of 13 criteria in approving an event. One of the criteria deals with the size and complexity of the event - 14 - the event would have to be large, using a large portion of the park with a lot of public 15 participation. The type of event would be such that use of the park is one of very few viable 16 alternatives - i.e., the event could not be held in a store parking lot. The event would have to be 17 requested more than six months in advance. The second group of criteria deals with the impact on 18 City resources. 19 20 Mr. Glover said that he had an opportunity to talk to a City Council member regarding these 21 issues and the example that he used was when the community spontaneously put together a 22 fundraising for Mr. Stafanko when his daughter was in an accident. His response was that this 23 event was a spontaneous event, one that could not have been planned six (6) months in advance 24 and we would not want to be in the position of denying this event. Ms. Stokdyk asked how this 25 type of event would be reviewed under the proposed policy. Mr. Hugman said that under the 26 proposed guidelines, this type of event would probably not be approved to use a public facility. 27 Mr. Hugman said that he raised this same kind of scenario with the City Attorneys, and it 28 illustrates the complexity of the issue. 29 30 Mr. Miltenberger asked if it was necessary for the Board to make a decision for a change or could 31 the policy be left as it is. It appears that a lot of time could be spent with the City Attorneys on the 32 language and never be completely resolved. Mr. Hugman agreed that the approval process could 33 at times be still be somewhat subjective, but the goal is to establish as many criteria as possible to 34 avoid the perception of arbitrary decision-making. Ms. Berman asked if this policy allows more 35 criteria to protect the City in the approval process. Mr. Hugman said that in the absence of any 36 policy, the City staff has no criteria or guidelines for approval or disapproval. 37 38 Ms. White asked what the process is for approval of the policy. Mr. Hugman said the policy 39 would go to the City Council for approval. Ms. Stokdyk said that she did not read anything in the 40 policy relating to exceptions to the criteria. Mr. Hugman said that exceptions could be considered 41 in the policy, however it could open more gray areas. This is an issue that staff has been 42 struggling through based on a limited history, trying to come up with different scenarios. He 43 suggested that the policy can be reviewed again in a year to see how things are working. 44 45 Mr. Miltenberger said that he would like to spend a year on fact finding as to the types of requests 46 being made for fundraising and then develop a policy. Mr. Glover said that there is already a 47 situation where an exception has been made with the SBA in their concessions with Facility Usage 48 Agreement. He agrees with Mr. Miltenberger and feels that options and exceptions should be 49 reviewed over a period of time before a decision is made. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 16 of 21 N.•IParks & Recreation WARDYPKBOARDIMINUTES120001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 2 Mr. Hugman said that the Circus was approved last year, not on the premise of it being a 3 fundraising event, but from the perspective that it was a major event that would impact the park 4 facilities significantly. It was not until events that were clearly fundraising in nature were 5 requested, that there was a concern. Mr. Hugman said that he is looking at the Circus and an Art 6 in the Square, an upcoming event sponsored by the Southlake Women's Club, as types of events 7 that are major public events, and the kind that the City would probably want to be able to 8 accommodate. The Art in the Square is a fundraising that will be held in the Town Square, 9 sponsored by the Southlake Women's Club. Artists will be charged for their booth space. Mr. 10 Miltenberger asked what the School Board's policy is on holding fundraising events on their 11 facilities. It was stated by a Board member that the School Board rents their facilities. 12 13 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the Southlake Stampede was Chamber of Commerce sponsored only. Mr. 14 Hugman said there were other sponsors. 15 16 Ms. Berman said that Ms. Stokdyk called her requesting to put on the agenda a request for a 17 garage sale at Town Square. Ms. Stokdyk said that it was not really a garage sale but for the City 18 to be proactive and offer an opportunity to the community to set up booths to sell items of their 19 choice. Ms. Berman said that she does not see this to be possible at Town Square. Ms. Stokdyk 20 said she suggested Town Square because Bicentennial Park is limited and the area around City 21 Hall is not being used by retail. Mr. Hugman said that if the intent was to use the parking lot 22 areas, they are owned by the developer and are not public park area, therefore, Ms. Stokdyk could 23 approach Mr. Stebbins about using the parking lots for a garage sale. When an organization is 24 working with a private business owner, the City is not normally involved. Ms. Stokdyk said that 25 the Southlake Stampede was held outside of the Town Center Park. Mr. Hugman said the location 26 is changed each year, with last year being the first time it was held in Town Square. 27 28 Mr. Glover asked if there was a concern with the Women's Club and the Art in the Square. Mr. 29 Hugman said that he sees this as a major event that would fall within this policy. 30 31 Ms. Berman said that her understanding is that the Board is being asked to move forward with the 32 policy and refine it as needed. Mr. Hugman said that he would appreciate any changes or 33 clarification in philosophies the Board would like to make. Staff is trying to clarify what was 34 included in the packet. 35 36 Mr. Kemp said that he understands that criteria gives guidelines to the staff for recommendation to 37 the Parks Board and is then sent to the City Council for approval. Mr. Hugman said that yes it is 38 still a subjective call, but this would help the staff to anticipate organizations that would not fit the 39 criteria. Mr. Glover said that the policy reads, "The Director shall review the application based 40 upon, but not limited to, the following criteria (both (a) and (b) must be satisfied). " This gives the 41 Director the option of determining the approval without needing Board recommendation. One of 42 the criteria is the need to be requested six (6) months in advance. If a request comes in three (3) 43 months in advance, is it rejected or is an exception created? Mr. Kemp said that staff would say 44 "this recommendation has come along. We note that it does not comply with the six (6) month 45 requirement, therefore based on the rules, we would pass it on to Parks and Rec to decide what 46 you want." Ms. White asked why an exception could not be made. 47 48 Mr. Hugman said that the staff, with input from the City Attorneys, is trying put together a policy 49 that would address specific guidelines regarding what types of fundraising are appropriate. It is Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 17 of 21 N.•IParks & Recreation lBOARDSIPKBOARDMINUTES120001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 possible this cannot be done, alternatively the scope should be narrowed and include a provision 2 stating that the City would not deny any request for use of the facility based on race, gender, or for 3 any other discriminating reason. Therefore the guidelines need to be set in a way so they can be 4 applied in a consistent manner. 5 6 Ms. Stokdyk said there is a problem in that the language states small groups are distasteful. Ms. 7 Stokdyk objects to the new wording that the City will allow fundraising only for large events. 8 Small groups and events would be denied, if not out rightly but could be discouraged by the 9 language. Ms. Stokdyk does not feel this policy is necessary, other cities have not developed a 10 policy of this nature. The current policy is sufficient and if there is a scheduling conflict that 11 could be addressed. 12 13 Mr. Glover made a motion to table this agenda item until the Board gets clarification of language 14 City Attorneys are comfortable with so that there is something more concrete for the Board to 15 recommend. Ms. Berman asked if this agenda item were to be tabled how would it affect the Art 16 in the Square event. Mr. Hugman said that the Art in the Square event would have to be brought 17 before the Board next month. Ms. Berman said that Mr. Hugman has already held the Art in the 18 Square request off the agenda in hopes of a recommendation on the proposed policy. Ms. 19 Georgia said she would like to see the six (6) month in advance requirement be revised. Ms. 20 Georgia said that the time and effort that has gone into the development of this policy is very 21 valuable and a guideline is needed. 22 23 The motion was not seconded and failed. 24 25 Ms. Stokdyk made a motion to leave the policy as currently stated. 26 27 Motion: Ms. Stokdyk 28 Second: Mr. Glover 29 For: Mr. Glover, Ms. Stokdyk 30 Against: Ms. Berman, Mr. Anderson, Ms. White, Ms. Georgia, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. 31 Kemp, 32 Failed 2-6 33 34 Mr. Miltenberger asked Mr. Hugman if there was more language that staff would like to include. 35 Mr. Hugman said this is what is being suggested based on his conversation with the City Attorney. 36 The City Attorney has not seen the revised language, and they will still need to review it as well. 37 There were actually a lot more questions than answers. Mr. Hugman said that it would be helpful 38 if there could be examples allowable and not allowable events could be given. 39 40 Mr. Kemp made a motion to accept the policy changing the six (6) month advance notice to two 41 (2) months. 42 43 Ms. Stokdyk said that what she hears from the Board is that only large community events can use 44 the public facilities and small groups are to go elsewhere. Ms. White said that is not necessarily 45 true. An exception could be made or small groups could organize for a large event. Mr. Hugman 46 said there are other opportunities and locations that could be used. Ms. Stokdyk asked if the 47 smaller groups should be asked to do this, and cited the Humane Society Fundraising as an 48 example. Mr. Glover asked for a definition of large event. Ms. White said that the criteria in the Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 18 of 21 N. (Parks & Recreation OOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 policy gives the City options. Ms. Stokdyk said that the first exception would open "Pandora's 2 Box" for potential problems. The current language allows each case to be listened to and 3 discussed. Limiting it to large events sends the wrong message to the community. 4 5 Motion: Mr. Kemp 6 Second: Ms. White 7 For: Ms. Berman, Mr. Anderson, Ms. White, Ms. Georgia, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. 8 Kemp, 9 Against: Mr. Glover, Ms. Stokdyk 10 Approved: 6-2 11 12 Mr. Hugman said that if there are significant changes after the City Attorney review, he would try 13 and bring it back before the Park Board for recommendation, however, due to timing issues with 14 the Art in the Square, he feels it is necessary to get the policy to City Council soon for 15 consideration. 16 17 Agenda Item No. 6.A. Park and Recreation Board Annual Retreat. 18 19 The Parks and Recreation Board Retreat was discussed at the December 13, 1999 Parks and 20 Recreation Board meeting. At that time the Board requested that City Staff draft an agenda of 21 potential topics for the Board to discuss. The list of topics and estimated time allotment for each 22 topic was included in the packet material. Mr. Hugman said the topics are not listed in any 23 specific order and Board members are encouraged to choose any topics they would like to include 24 in the retreat. There was also discussion regarding Park dedication requirements and discussing 25 the annual report. Mr. Hugman talked with Chris Carpentar with reference to Appendix 11 in the 26 Subdivision Ordinance. 27 28 Mr. Hugman distributed APPENDIX 11, Guidelines for Park Land Dedication. (copy attached to 29 minutes) 30 31 Mr. Kemp asked if this was to be reviewed each year. Mr. Hugman said that the wording states it 32 should be reviewed each year but also says "These appendices are not considered a part of this 33 ordinance and may be revised as necessary by the City Staff. " When the proposed park 34 dedications changes were discussed with City Council, there was direction from City Council that 35 Appendix 11 be reviewed and discussed and tighter wording be incorporated as to acceptance of 36 drainage ways and flood plain. 37 38 Mr. Hugman said that there was discussion last month regarding the Ropes course for team 39 building. Mr. Hugman spoke with Mr. John Safranek who conducts Ropes courses and 40 teambuilding exercises. The cost for a four (4) hour exercise would be $500.00. He would meet 41 with the group ahead of time to structure the course according to their needs. Mr. Miltenberger 42 asked what types of groups attend these type of courses. He does not feel that a Board that meets 43 once a month needs a team building course. Mr. Hugman said that SPIN did the course. Ms. 44 White attended with SPIN and enjoyed it. 45 46 Board members did not want to do the Ropes course and it was removed from the agenda. There 47 was discussion about riding horses around Bob Jones Park. Board members agreed to meet in Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 19 of 21 N.-IParks & Recreation DOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 small groups at a time other than during the retreat to ride through Bob Jones Park as a team 2 building exercise. 3 4 There was further discussion on the agenda items for the retreat topics. Mr. Anderson asked if the 5 Master Plan Updates would include Trail and Park. Mr. Hugman said the discussion would be 6 more of the current status as it would take much more than an hour to cover all the aspects. 7 8 The Board agreed on the following topics for the retreat agenda: 9 10 1. Annual Report of Desired Park Land Characteristics 11 2. Discussion of Master Plan Updates 12 3. Goals and Objectives for 2000 13 14 The Board agreed to meet January 31, 2000 for the retreat. 15 16 Mr. Miltenberger will not be at the February 14, 2000 regularly scheduled Parks and Recreation 17 Board Meeting. 18 19 Agenda Item No. 6. C. Liaison Reports: 20 21 Youth Parks and Recreation Board - Berman - Meeting is this week. No Report 22 23 Recreation/Special Events - Stokdyk - No Report 24 Teen Center Update - Staff sent out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant to 25 develop and conduct a survey of teens and adults regarding a teen center facility. RFP's 26 were requested back by Monday, January 24, 2000. The survey should be completed by 27 end of March. 28 29 Youth Sports Association - Miltenberger - No report. 30 31 Community Groups/Portal Committee - Stokdyk/White - GSWS is conducting a Blood 32 Drive February 22, 2000 at the Senior Activity Center and it has been advertised on the 33 radio and television. Southlake Ball has been made by proclamation by the Mayor and will 34 be held February 12, 2000 at Solana. There have been no portal committee meetings. 35 Chris Carpentar will put a schedule together of the future meetings. 36 37 SPIN -Georgia/White - There is a meeting schedule Thursday and an orientation meeting 38 scheduled January 22, 2000. Board members are invited to attend. Ms. White and staff 39 will be working to develop the working lunch program, which is to be a "creative program 40 involving participants in the learning process about the scope of responsibility of the Park 41 Board and the various functions of the department. " Any suggestions are welcome. 42 43 SPDC - Berman/White - There will be a special SPDC meeting January 18, 2000 just prior 44 to the council meeting. Ms. White said that Ronnie Kendall and Rex Potter spent a lot of 45 time working with Sharon Elam, Director of Finance, straightening out the budget. She 46 said it was shocking to her that false numbers were continued to be rolled over each year. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 20 of 21 N: (Parks & Recreation lBOARDSIPKBOARDMINUTESI20001011000.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Mr. Hugman said they were not false numbers, but that in essence, the budget was never 2 balanced. It was difficult to review what had been approved by SPDC in previous years, 3 and what had been spent, because last year was the first time the five (5) year planning was 4 done. It is felt that there is currently in place a good way to track. 5 6 JUC - Glover - Ms. Berman asked if there was going to be JUC meeting in February. Mr. 7 Polasek is still waiting for responses and he will work with Mr. Hugman. Ms. Berman had 8 requested a joint meeting with Park Board and JUC to learn about facilities and other issues. 9 The date for the next JUC meeting has not been determined at this time. 10 11 City Council Monthly Report - The next City Council meeting is scheduled January 18, 12 2000. 13 14 Equestrians - White - The Equestrians will be meeting the first part of February to discuss 15 fundraising. The committee is waiting for the Administrator of Texas Parks and Wildlife to 16 inspect the area for improvement. 17 18 Traffic Management Bond - Georgia - Ms. Georgia did not attend the last meeting. Mr. 19 Hugman reported that the Steering Committee for the TMB continues to meet with the 20 consultants, most recently January 6, 2000. The consultants have designed concept plans 21 for intersection trail improvements (pavestone area with brick benches, landscaping), and 22 larger trail rest areas. The rest areas would be located at trail points such as the right-of- 23 way area in front of Myers Meadows, the future park site east of Town Square, the area 24 north of Kirkwood Hollow, in front of Carroll Junior High School and in Bicentennial Park. 25 The Steering Committee has given input on the trail enhancements, landscape features and 26 furnishing. 27 28 Agenda Item No. 7, Adjournment. 29 30 Mr. Anderson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Georgia seconded. 31 32 The meeting was adjourned by Chair Sherry Berman at 10:25 PM. 33 34 35 ~ry B 36 ~ 37 38 39 Cara White 40 Secretary Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, January 10, 2000 Page 21 of 21 N.1Parks & Recreation OOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001011000.doc