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.