Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_PAREB_03.16.2000CITY OF GEORGETOWN Parks & Recreation Board March 16, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Jim Atencio, Vice Chair Ms. Brenna Nedbalek Mr. John Philpot Mr. Wesley Kidd Mr. Douglas Blackard Ms. Tracy Dubcak Ms. Jean Houck Mr. David Rinn MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Ben White, Chair OTHERS PRESENT: Randy Morrow, Director I. APPROVE MINUTES FROM February 10, 2000 MEETING A motion was made by Doug Blackard to accept the minutes from the February 10, 2000, meeting. Brenna Nedbalek seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. II. CONSIDER AND APPROVE PROPOSED PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR GEORGETOWN VILLAGE PID Kent James, 223 Westbury Lane, spoke as a representative of the Georgetown Village residents in regard to the parkland that was platted for Section 3 -B. Mr. James said they oppose what is proposed because it is short of parkland requirements and there does not seem to be a clear cut answer as to how they will make up that parkland. There should be parks where there are people. There are 82 lots in the proposed section. The proposed parkland in that section is .22 acres. That is hardly a park, in his opinion for kids to play in when it is completely encompassed by streets. These comments were made at the P &Z Meeting as well. Parks are extremely important to the Village Residents, they pay $ .20 per $100 land value extra in City taxes to have the parks. Mr. James submitted a petition with signatures from residents with regards to the objection of the parkland. Rod Davies, 216 Village Commons Blvd., resident of Georgetown Village, agrees with Kent's comments. He agrees with the concept of the development in general, and even helps to promote it. He is nervous though about the ongoing changes that are presented. He feels that they need a little bit of leverage because they are continually being asked to allow changes that dispense the flavor of the community that they bought into. We do not want the parks inconveniently located particularly in an area where they are asking them to put the houses a lot closer together. They bought into the concept of walking trails, greenbelts, and sport courts, we have not yet seen the developer bring those items to the table. At this point the residents are saying live up to a lot more than you promised before you try to shove this other stuff down our throats. Mark Weibel, 205 Westbury Lane, said that he agrees with Rod and Kent. One of the things that has come up is that we bought into the traditional neighborhoods with greenspace and pocket parks. Bought there because the neighborhood was supposed to look different. He would like the developer to live up to what they said they were going to do. Asking that you keep up the spirit of the neighborhood and also help the citizens of Georgetown get the parkland that they deserve. Mark Puska, Georgetown Village, said there are of couple of issues to deal with in regards to the plat. One of which is the parkland dedication requirements. There is a park dedicated which is .22 acres. We are also looking at some land (.33 acres) at the entrance of Village Commons and Shell Road that could be possible parkland, it is adjacent to a cemetery. The approved concept plan shows community open space. There are two open space designations, one area which is a common open space area which are greenbelts and preserves left in a natural state. The other area is community open space which is more formal and informal open space. There are a number of community open space designations on the plan. These are areas where improvements can be made. There are 84 acres of common open space and 14 acres of community open space proposed. There are a number of parks, dedicated or PID parks, which far exceed the minimum requirements. Look at the overall development, it provides both pocket parks and community gatherings. Tracy Dubcak made a motion to postpone making a decision on this item until more facts can be gathered. David Rinn seconded the motion and it passed by a unanimous vote. III. INFORMATION ON 5016 PROJECTS — DAVID RINN David checked with some other cities and wanted to inform the board about his findings. Specific projects work very well with this type of funding, but it does not work well when a specific project is not designated. IV. REPORT FROM PARKLAND DEDICATION COMMITTEE Tracy reported that there are two areas to look at in regards to parkland. One being the ordinance itself, the second being the process in which things happen. The park board does not appear to be very well interjected into the process with planning. Because of the way the ordinance is written, planning has a lot of ability to make decisions for us. Other ordinances being reviewed are Cedar Park and Pflugerville. The committee is trying to gather other city ordinances. Compared to ordinances reviewed so far, Georgetown's seems to be the weakest. Tracy said any other board members who would like to help with this project are welcomed to. John suggested getting the NRPA standards, and Tracy said she had them. Tracy and David found out that planning had no way of tracking parkland dedication. They found out that most subdivisions have given money in lieu of parkland. Randy said we have gotten more parkland from commercial development than subdivisions. V. ADJOURN John Philpot made a motion to adjourn the meeting.