Loading...
1999-09-27 (2) JOINT SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING September 27, 1999 MINUTES Board Members Present: President Ronnie Kendall; Members: Sherry Berman, Debra Edmondson, Norm Lyons, Rex Potter, Rick Stacy, and Cara White. Park Board Members Present: Richard Anderson, James Glover, Chris Miltenberger, and Bill Kemp. Park Board Members Absent: Mary Georgia, Robin Jones, and Lisa Stokdyk. Staff Present: Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman, Park Planning and Construction Superintendent Ben Henry, Deputy Director of Community Services Steve Polasek, Assistant Finance Director Lynn Martinson, Finance Director Sharen Elam, Administrative Assistant John Eaglen, and Secretary to the City Manager Kim Bush. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order by SPDC President Ronnie Kendall at 6:50 p.m. Ms. Kendall welcomed the Park Board members and stated that the goal of the joint meeting was improved communication. She stated that it was SPDC's desire to clearly understand the direction the Park Board wants to pursue in regards to park improvements, future park projects, and land acquisition. She provided to the Park Board members a handout on a brief history of SPDC. Agenda Item No. 4A. Portal Protects. President Kendall explained that the entry portals are a physical feature/landmark to welcome visitors to Southlake and welcome residents home. She stated that she believes the portal areas could be considered linear parks or open space. Ms. Kendall said there is a planning committee, which consists of three councilmembers, SPIN representatives, President of KSB, several developers, and several citizens. She stated that the committee will be bringing forward a request for funding to the SPDC for approximately $60,000 which will include planning and construction for the Gateway portal. She stated that SPDC would like to get Park Board input and suggested they place a consider item on one of their meetings to have someone from the Park Board participate on the committee. Park Board member Bill Kemp asked how an entry portal is like a park. President Kendall explained that it is like a passive feature. Director Hugman explained that, under the 4B Sales Tax, the state legislature allows for a number of different things to be funded. Open space is one of those things listed. Park Board member Miltenberger commented that the Park Board was not in favor of allocating funds for portals considering the budget was very tight. Mr. Kemp said he was not sure he agreed it could be considered as open space. He also commented that there are grants available in the State of Texas for landscaping right-of-ways. He suggested that SPDC offer to put up half the funds in an attempt to receive a grant from TxDOT. President Kendall commented that funds have been Minutes of SPDC and Parks and Recreation Board Joint Meeting September 27, 1999 - Page 1 of 7 received in the amount of $10,000 from a developer plus the use of his landscape architect to do the concept design. SPDC member White stated that at the SPIN Summit, portals were one of the top priority items voted for by the participants. President Kendall asked that the Park Board discuss this issue further at their next meeting and ask for a volunteer to serve on the committee. Agenda Item No. 4B. Sidewalk Ordinance and Trail System Mater Plan. President Kendall stated that this item was on the agenda to make sure the Park Board members understood the sidewalk ordinance and how it relates to the master trail plan. Ms. Kendall explained that the City Council expects its boards and commissions to recommend to developers that they follow city ordinances. If the Boards do not make these recommendations, it becomes a larger issue further into the process either at Planning and Zoning or City Council (as an example, Ms. Kendall cited the Kirkwood Hollow issue). Ms. Kendall read from the ordinance the residential and non-residential requirements. Board member Berman stated that the Park Board was under the impression they had asked the developer of Kirkwood Hollow to put in the sidewalk trail. Ms. Kendall stated that the minutes of the Park Board reflect that Vickie Johnson said twice "we should use this as a vehicle for the master trail plan," but then nothing else was mentioned. Ms. Kendall explained that the developer then came forward to Planning and Zoning and City Council and told them that the Park Board did not require them to provide the sidewalk trail - "let him [developer] off the hook in that regard." Ms. Kendall stressed that it needs to be made very clear to developers what the Park Board is recommending they provide. President Kendall stated that she also read in the Park Board minutes that someone raised the question on whether City ordinances apply to schools. She commented that this is a real current issue because the school district is getting ready to bring forward several projects. Park Board member Miltenberger commented that he thinks the Board needs to be provided more detailed information or have a presentation from staff on the types of things that need to be required by the developers. Board member Edmondson asked staff whether or not they provided a staff review letter for the Park Board members. She commented that it would be very helpful to the Park Board to be provided more details on the laws and the requirements of city ordinances, plus staff's comments on whether or not the development is in compliance. Director Hugman commented that staff does try to point out requirements on residential developments. He commented that staff failed on the Kirkwood Hollow development to recognize that the developer was required to build the trail since the ordinance change applied to the new phases of development. He stated that staff will provide the same type of letter to the Park Board that they prepare for the Development Review Committee (DRC). He said staff would also look at a formal checklist for the Park Board. Board member Potter asked if staff could also give its recommendation to the Park Board. Director Hugman commented that on some developments staff does provide input and guidelines, however, they do not ordinarily make recommendations because the Park Board needs to have flexibility when dealing with new developments and the types of amenities they would like to see included. Board member Potter commented that the Park Board does need to have that latitude, but it would be helpful to know what Minutes of SPDC and Parks and Recreation Board Joint Meeting September 27, 1999 - Page 2 of 7 are the alternatives. Park Board member Glover stated they need to know what they can do and still be within the requirements of the ordinances. Park Board member Kemp said that he thought the more difficult situation was with Sabre. Sabre proposed to dedicate a strip of land along the creek as a linear trail. The Park Board was under the assumption (based on the ordinance) that they could not require Sabre to build a trail. Mr. Kemp stated that after speaking with Senior Planner Chris Carpenter, it appeared that the Park Board could have required the trail because it could have been considered a "connector" to the trail system. This was an issue that needed investigation. Board member Edmondson commented that she believes most of the confusion was due to new Park Board members coming on board. President Kendall (getting back to the original question) stated that City ordinances do apply to school districts. She read to the Park Board excerpts from a city attorney opinion letter dated March 3, 1997 that related to this issue. She emphasized that the city cannot regulate (or has no authority) over where the schools put their buildings, but the City can require compliance with city ordinances including the sidewalk ordinance, tree ordinance, lighting ordinance, etc. President Kendall informed the Board that the City is about to undergo a major undertaking in regards to the implementation of the trail plan by setting into motion the traffic management bond program. She commented that she would like to see the Park Board focus on that part of the trail system. She also suggested that someone from the Park Board be a part of the citizen's committee that will be working with the design contractor, HNTB. Agenda Item No. 4C. Project and Community Matching Fund Request Policy. President Kendall said that there seemed to be some confusion about the procedures for granting matching grant funds. The biggest concern or questions have been whether or not these people (organizations) need to have all of their contribution in hand before they are granted the matching funds from SPDC. Board member Berman said that she thought the organizations should have their portion in hand because it would provide them with an incentive to raise the funds in order to get the matching funds from SPDC. Park Board member Glover commented that SPDC earlier set aside $10,000 for the Southlake Equestrian Association even though the only funds they have raised thus far is the $6,000 given to them in the form of a grant from the state - they did not raise the money, and they do not have the entire $10,000 in hand. Mr. Glover's concern is that if the money is allocated to certain organizations that have not yet raised all of their portion, SPDC will not have funds available to grant to organizations that do have cash in hand. Board member Stacy commented that he believed it was more of an incentive to an organization to know that matching funds have been approved by SPDC, and in order to receive the funds, they need to raise their portion. Board members agreed that they would like to see the application process cleaned up and have a time limit for earmarking the funds also be addressed. Ms. Berman suggested that she work with staff on putting in place some clean up changes in the application process and bring it forward to the Park Board for discussion and consideration. Board member Stacy suggested that the time limit, for earmarking funds, be not more than 180 days. Board member Potter suggested that there also be some kind of policy which would address what the funds can be used for. Members White and Minutes of SPDC and Parks and Recreation Board Joint Meeting September 27, 1999 - Page 3 of 7 Edmondson suggested that the issue regarding plaque recognition (type, placement, etc.) also be addressed in the policy. Agenda Item Nos. 4D and 4E. Land Acquisition Plan and Parks Capital Projects. Director Hugman said that, in past joint meetings among SPDC and Park Board members, land acquisition has been a top priority among the projects to be funded through the half-cent sales tax revenues. Last year staff developed a land acquisition plan that tabulated current parkland holdings and compared the total acreage with the requirements established in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. The plan has been used as a tool in determining parkland deficiencies by type of park, area of city, and number of acres needed. Mr. Hugman also discussed the current park acreage inventory compared to the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) standards. He stated that while total neighborhood park acreage exceeds the Parks Master Plan requirements, there are deficiencies in several neighborhood zones. The zones with the highest need (4,10, and 3), are also those zones with the least current development. Mr. Hugman stated that the city standards are higher than the NRPA, and the current Neighborhood Park acreage totals 178. Board member Edmondson questioned the number of acres of private parks that is included with the acreage listed as existing parkland. Director Hugman stated that there is 115 acres of "private" parks. Board members commented that this was misleading when evaluating "public" parks. Mr. Hugman stated that joint use facilities were also figured in to the total acreage, but the 218 acres that is leased from the Corp of Engineers was not included. Board member Potter asked the difference between a special purpose park and a linear park. Director Hugman explained that a special park is defined as a special use type park such as tennis center. He explained that portions of Bob Jones have been designated as a special park for the equestrian area. He further explained that examples of special purpose parks are athletic complexes, tennis center, aquatic centers, botanical garden, golf courses, historical sites, nature preserve, art center, and fitness center. Mr. Hugman stated that Bicentennial Park is considered to be a community park (and a city park) in the master plan. He said that there would be recommendations made next year, when the master plan is updated, to redefine park types. Director Hugman also addressed the question of whether the current land holdings will accommodate athletic field needs, or if more land for ballfields would be necessary. He said that city staff worked with the youth sports associations to evaluate the scope of parkland deficiencies, as well as using information from the City of Flower Mound when evaluating our ballfield needs. After compiling the athletic field inventory, deficiencies in certain areas were identified. He commented that some alternatives are already underway to alleviate these deficiencies. He stated that the master plan indicates more baseball game fields at Bicentennial Park which takes into account the purchase of more land, and at Koalaty Park, there are plans to convert the current practice fields into game fields. Plans also call for at least one more softball field at Bicentennial Park. Director Hugman stated that alternatives for alleviating deficiencies in practice fields include: construction of two temporary baseball practice facilities at Bicentennial Park, development of six baseball practice fields at Bob Jones Park with anticipated construction next year, four baseball practice fields at Royal and Annie Smith Park, one baseball practice field at Koalaty Park/Carroll Minutes of SPDC and Parks and Recreation Board Joint Meeting September 27, 1999 - Page 4 of 7 Elementary School, one soccer field at Chesapeake Place Park, three soccer fields at Royal and Annie Smith Park, and three soccer fields at Koalaty Park/Carroll Elementary School. Director Hugman commented that there also needs to be an update next year of the Bob Jones Park master plan especially with the location of future fields to be constructed. Board member Stacy asked whether it has been determined if baseball, softball, and soccer are the only activities that need to be addressed. He asked whether there were other areas of interest such as golf, swimming, or a YMCA that might advocate the need to purchase more land. Board member Glover suggested that there could be other uses for the inline hockey rink when it was not being used for hockey play - perhaps for indoor soccer. Board member Berman asked whether there was going to be another study done to see what other interests there was in the community. Deputy Director Steve Polasek commented that in the upcoming year the parks master plan will be updated and part of that process will include a large matrix showing all park components. The matrix will then show where the deficiencies are including those things Board member Stacy mentioned. Board member Glover said that staff needed to look at adjusting the existing parkland acreage by removing the acres that are not accessible to the general public to truly evaluate where the needs are (and where the need is to purchase more land). Board member Miltenberger commented that, at the last joint meeting, members discussed whether to spend the money on improvements or on the purchase of land - it was pretty evident that land purchase was the top priority regardless of what the use was going to be. SPDC President Ronnie Kendall stated that she has had some frustration knowing what direction the Park Board wants to go. She stated that there is good diversity on the Park Board, which means that every user group is represented. The negative thing about the diversity is that it can prohibit comprehensive planning. She stated that you have to be able to look at the big picture. Ms. Kendall stated that, as pointed out at the last joint meeting, it appeared to be the consensus of all members to buy more land, however, when reviewing the Park Board's priority list, the purchase of land is not included. She stated that even the things that were listed as high priority exceeded the SPDC budget. Board member Kemp stated that the Park Board was confused about what funds were being appropriated for land and what the future holds for land acquisition. Board member Stacy commented that it [purchase of land] has been more of a reaction program. He said that Board members need to discuss what the future needs are and then buy land that will meet those needs. President Kendall stated that she would like to get from the meeting tonight clear direction on where we need to go. She informed the Park Board that Director Hugman prepared an exercise designed to help identify, through a series of elimination, a list of top priorities. (See list attached to minutes. Due to the time only 10 items were discussed.) She asked that only Park Board members vote on each item presented because they work closest with the user groups. Park Board member Chris Miltenberger commented that he knew there was a budget to work within, but if land became available for purchase, it was his understanding that projects would be postponed in order to purchase the land. President Kendall commented that SPDC's dilemma is that they have not been able to make a decision on the purchase of several pieces of land because of being unclear on Park Board priorities. Board member Potter commented that he is concerned that funds are going to be spent and then when a really good land purchase becomes available, there will not be funds available. Minutes of SPDC and Parks and Recreation Board Joint Meeting September 27, 1999 - Page 5 of 7 Ms. Kendall stated that what she hoped would be accomplished tonight would be to look at our inventory (see where we fall short on number of fields) and go through the priority list to see what is important and be able to leave tonight with a good list of priorities. Before proceeding with the exercise, Board member Berman expressed her concern with a Teen Center proposal. She asked if the Board members reviewed the information from staff on what is provided through a recreation center versus what would be provided with a Teen Center. She is concerned that a Teen Center would not be used enough to justify building a separate building for this purpose when a recreation center could provide the same type of service. The following are results of the prioritization exercise: 1. Continental Trail Phases I and II ($320,000) 2. Bob Jones Trailhead Parking ($16,000) 3. Loop Trail - Bicentennial/Durham/CJHS ($230,000) -figure realignment of Highland to make loop 4. Nature Center Improvements ($100,000) 4. Bob Jones Park Development (Additional $1,420,000 - $2,200,000) - options to be discussed in detail at a future meeting for each Board 4. Koalaty Park Phase I Development ($390,000) 5. Teen Center Construction ($959;988) change the wording and lower the amount - conduct an independent study/survey to see what interest there is among teens for a Teen Center 6. Smith Park Planning and Phase I improvements ($175,000) 7. City Entrance Improvements ($50,000) 8. Senior Activity Center Parking Lot Expansion ($30,000) Mr. Hugman explained that land acquisition was not included in the list. He stated that there is some funding in the 5-year plan for land acquisition, and there have been discussions at SPDC on how to fund the purchase of more land. Mr. Hugman said that if it was decided not to find alternative sources for funding land purchases by issuing more bonds, then the projects would need to be moved further down on the priority list if an opportunity for purchasing land became available. Park Board members commented that more information and discussion would be needed prior to considering prioritizing the remainder of the list. Chris Miltenberger commented that he believed the Girls Softball Complex would be a high priority. Mr. Hugman commented that CISD and JUC have discussed including backstops and open space for soccer and football practice fields at the new school facilities so those areas of need will be addressed. Board member Potter commented that of all the items on the priority list, it appeared that none would require the purchase of more land. Board member Kemp stated that the need for more passive parks was very high on both of the citizen surveys that were conducted. Board member Stacy suggested that some of the land we have now could be considered passive because it is not being developed at this time including the Richards/Timarron tract. He suggested that a simple all-weather trail could be constructed to make the property useable as passive. Board member Berman asked about the Marilyn Tucker property that Minutes of SPDC and Parks and Recreation Board Joint Meeting September 27, 1999 - Page 6 of 7 includes a house. Park Board member Anderson said that taking care of the Tucker farm needed to be considered now so that it is not left to become overgrown and decay. President Kendall commented that, judging by the priority list, it appeared that purchasing land seemed to no longer be a top priority. Park Board member Glover stated that he felt we were okay on land as far as fields go, but that does not mean there is enough "public" park land. He reiterated that most of the existing neighborhood park acreage was private parks. Agenda Item No. 2, Executive Session. President Kendall announced that the Board would be going into Executive Session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, Section 551.072, land acquisition. SPDC adjourned for Executive Session at 9:17 p.m. SPDC returned to open session at 10:00 p.m. Agenda Item No. 3. Reconvene. There was no action necessary as a result of the Executive Session. Agenda Item No. 5. Adjournment. Motion was made and carried to adjourn the meeting at 10:05. 2L , Z President Ronnie Kendall Chairman Sherry Berman ATTEST: a Kim Oush Secretary to the City Manager Minutes of SPDC and Parks and Recreation Board Joint Meeting September 27, 1999 - Page 7 of 7