Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_PAREB_02.05.2019Minutes of the Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Subcommittee for Parkland Dedication City of Georgetown, Texas February 5, 2019 Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Scott Macmurdo at 6:05 pm. 2. Roll Call Katherine Kainer, Scott Macmurdo and James Hougnon were present. Kimberly Garrett and Jill Kellum were present. 3. Discussion on the Parkland Dedication Ordinance - Kimberly Garrett Kimberly Garrett stated the biggest hurdle right now is going through the legal department and the right to charge some of these fees and stand up in court. The attorney is having trouble with the park development fee; stating he is not familiar with it. Kimberly Garett has provided him with other city's ordinances. He is going to research it more and the planning department meets with legal on a regular basis. Kimberly Garrett went over the timeline for the process for updating the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. • Feb 13 - Update and discussion with UDCAC & Feb 14 - Update and discussion with Parks Board • Feb 28 - Open House meeting • Mar - UDCAC and Parks Board discussion on final draft • Mar - Post Ordinance (final language) on Web for public comment • Apr 10 - UDCAC action • Apr 16 - P&Z action • Apr 23 - CC First Reading • May 14 - CC Second Reading Scott Macmurdo stated it looks like we are changing one acre for every 50 dwelling units to one for every 80. Kimberly Garrett stated that is correct. As part of the justification when meeting with the attorney's, the land that we get through parkland dedication currently can't grow our parkland through that process; can't increase our level of service that we have established. Basically, in the master plan, it says that the recommended level of service for a neighborhood park is 3 acres for every 1,000 people. For a community park, the recommended level of service is 5 — 8 acres for every 1,000 people. That is what all the new ordinances, is to a level of service you are trying to maintain with the parkland dedication. The parkland dedication is supposed to address neighborhood and community parks. So, we took the 5 acres as the standard level of service for 1,000 people. The city should have 5 acres of land for every 1,000 people which equates to one acre for every 200 residents. That is the recommendation out of the current masterplan. We have an estimated 400 acres of neighborhood and community parks combined. (There was a pause in the tape due to battery failure.) Scott Macmurdo asked if the masterplan is gospel as far as we are concerned and Kimberly Garrett stated we have something to point to. Kimberly Garrett stated we can't increase our parkland level of service; we can't go up to say 4 acres for 1,000 resident through the parkland dedication ordinance. James Hougnon stated it has been vetted through public hearings and all sorts of processes and adopted by the City Council. He stated it is not code but it is the guide. Kimberly Garrett stated there are national averages and standards and this is what the city has adopted as our recommended level of service. Kimberly Garrett stated the masterplan is old and out of date, but this is what we have. She stated we can't update the masterplan before we update the parkland dedication ordinance. She stated we are working on getting a baseline better than what we have based on the best we have. Hopefully in the budget next year, they will give money to update the masterplan. That falls in line with after you update the masterplan then in the code where it says every 1— 2 years we will update this and look at it. We need to get something better than what we have but it may not be perfect the first time. For every 200 residents and you divide 2.46 residents per house that comes up to in 81 houses there are 200 residents. So it was dropped to 80 units per acre and the multi family came out to 111 people per acre. It was decided to split out the single family and multifamily. That was a comment heard from city council in the workshop. She stated it is hard getting the current 1 acre for 50 units. She feels by adjusting this, it is in response to what we are hearing from the development community but we will be more apt to get the land because we haven't been getting the full acreage. This is more in line with what other cities are doing. The new calculation will help us justify the numbers better. All the codes that we are reviewing from other cities, they all have a formula and code and how they came up with it. Once you show them that, it is hard to argue with. We couldn't make the numbers work to prove one acre for 50. Originally there was the value of land at $25,000 per acre but with the one per 50 it came out to $500 per unit. After visiting with the real estate department, they wanted to charge $100,000 per acre and Kimberly Garrett stated we couldn't start at that. The real estate department stated they could support the $50,000 per acre and get the numbers showing that is the median value of land then annually you renew it and get the new values across the city and that is how you gradually go up. This addresses the single family vs. the multifamily as the multifamily areas have to put in the common recreation areas. Scott Macmurdo asked if there were specifics on multifamily. Kimberly Garrett stated we always took the fee and stated we would probably continue to take the fee because of the required land. Usually an apartment complex is only on 6 acres and they would have to give us 3 acres of their complex. They have to do common recreation amenities. The math is $50,000 per acre so with a population of 80,000 that gets $625 per unit for single family and $450 per unit for multifamily. Kimberly Garrett stated they are still working on the improvement fee. Originally they were looking at $1,500 per unit but when you base it on the 3 acre park side, which is now 240 units instead of 150 units the dollars spread out a little over the subdivisions for that $250,000, so it makes it a little more palatable for the developer and there is a differential for single family and multifamily. The total fee for single family would be $1,625 where originally we had $2,000 and the multifamily fee would be $1,200 if they would do land and development. Below are the calculations on the above mentioned fees: • Estimated 400 acres of neighborhood and community parks LOS: 5 acres for 1000 residents -1 ac for 200 residents Household - 2.46 for SFR; 1.8 for MFR SFR -1 ac for 80 units MFR -1 ac for 110 units • $50,000 per 1 acre $625 per unit for SFR $450 per unit for MFR ■ Improvement Fee 3 acre park is $250,000 = $83,300 per acre $1,000 per unit for SFR (240 lot subdivision) $750 per unit for MFR (330 unit apartment complex) • Today 1 ac for 50 units $250 per unit for SFR $200 per unit for MFR Kimberly Garrett stated we still wanted 3 acres as our goal, but there could be instances where we want a smaller park; where for example a 21/2 acre park is better than nothing, so we want that option whether we go for a park or not. Usually less than 2 acres it is too small to do anything on. Under Section 13.08.030 A. 3 it was suggested that the wording be reviewed by legal. Scott Macmurdo asked on Section 13.08.030 A. 4. b. 1., clarified that if the development was in the ETJ we would prefer fee in lieu instead of developing a park. Kimberly Garrett stated we don't want land that is in the ETJ we can't use city funds to fund and operate. We don't have the property tax revenue. With the new annexation rules, it is harder to go in and annex. We do have parks in the ETJ and they are not developed. Some of these subdivisions are on large acre tracts and wouldn't benefit from a 2acre park. There is always an exception where if we wanted to we could take it. Scott Macmurdo asked about the list of amenities in Section 13.08.030 B. c. v.- active areas for unorganized play. He felt like this was general to where they could not do something and say that is an active area for unorganized play; that they would be meeting their one improvement. Kimberly Garrett stated it is irrigated open space; it is improved. She stated it could say improved active area but it also has to be approved by director and the board. All of the items are pending the director approval. Under Section 13.08.030 C. Credit for Private Parks, Scott Macmurdo stated they use the words non-exclusive private amenities; he feels like more should be done here to make it clear that access cannot be restricted, that is has to be open to the public. Scott Macmurdo stated he would add as a separate bullet under Section 13.08.030 C. 2 that said it was open to the public and not restricted. Kimberly Garrett stated there is a definition section and that might be a better place for it. She stated she will ask the attorney. Scott Macmurdo asked Section 13.08.040 A. 7 about the floodplain and whether or not we should get credit for that. In the draft it is giving credit up to 50%. Kimberly Garrett stated we would take the floodplain as long as there is a minimum of 2 acres of developed property. She stated sometimes the floodplain is a nice amenity. Kimberly Garrett stated she will have them look at the wording to be consistent with the previous document. Scott Macmurdo stated that the way it is worded in the draft we end up with less parkland and it is different from the existing standard that we have. Jim Hougnon stated he would work that acreage in the floodplain will only be credited 1 acre for every 2 acres within the floodplain, that is dedicated will be credited towards the requirement and total credited dedication within and floodplain cannot be more than 50% of the requirement. Scott Macmurdo reiterate that he liked that and so you only get 50% credit and it can only be 50% of the dedication. James Hougnon also stated they would also have to give the minimum of 2 acres. James Hougnon stated the way the draft is worded they can give you 3 acres in the floodplain and as long as 3 acres are outside the floodplain. If it states it is 50% credit for acreage in the floodplain than the 3 in the floodplain would only be credited for 1 1/2 acres towards the minimum requirement and they would still be required to provide 41/2 acres not in the floodplain. Scott Macmurdo stated he feels like we shouldn't give acre or acre for the floodplain. James Hougnon stated he was not adverse to floodplain for parkland and stated that can be good use for the floodplain. As long as you have the acreage to do the amenities, which is why we have the 2 acre minimum requirement. Scott Macmurdo stated the point is we can't do anything on it except for a trail. Kimberly Garret stated you can have open space, trails, or impervious cover. She stated the only time this comes into play where you would get credit one to one is when your requirement is 4 acres. Scott Macmurdo stated we should discuss catchments, drainage areas and watershed as areas that would be unacceptable. Section 13.08.040 A. 8. d. talks about storm water facilities but there is nothing about something less than a storm water facility like say a catchment area or swampy area or something outside the 100 year floodplain, but you constantly have to worry about water being there. Is there room to put something in at this point to protect watersheds where we couldn't do any improvements because of water? James Hougnon stated that section A covers that stating any land to be dedicated to meet the requirement shall be suitable for public parks and recreational activities as determined by the Parks and Recreation Director. Scott Macmurdo stated if that is the case than why do we list any of these? James Hougnon stated to make it clear and Kimberly Garrett stated the ones listed are specific issues that we have had in the past that we are trying to avoid in the future. Scott Macmurdo stated that is his point and that if we are already doing that why don't we list catchment areas, drainage areas and watersheds. Kimberly Garrett stated she would have to ask. Scott Macmurdo stated as long as we are listing we can give developers an idea of things we generally won't accept, why not make that a list. James Hougnon stated it is pretty obvious a swamp is not suitable. Scott Macmurdo stated it is not spelled out. Kimberly Garrett stated there is a lot of stuff that is not spelled out. Kimberly Garrett stated she will look at other city's ordinance that have more details regarding that. Scott Macmurdo asked if everyone agreed that we don't want these types of facilities and if we don't want them isn't it worth specifying that. James Hougnon thinks suitability of land is fairly obvious but being on a cul-de-sac the land can be fairly suitable for a park but we don't want it because it is on a cul-de-sac and feels that is a different matter and you can't get into all the different things. Kimberly Garrett stated she feels the improvement piece puts a different spin on this because they would just donate it. She stated most of time those areas in a development are where they are putting their detention ponds because that is a natural drainage and then they try to put that in the park but we don't accept storm water facilities in parks. Scott Macmurdo feels it can't hurt to add some sort of provision around something that is less than a storm water facility but still not land that is suitable for us because of the way water runs off into it. Scott Macmurdo stated there are a few instances sprinkled throughout where it talks about the role of the parks board being able to approve things. For the sake of clarity, it might be a good idea to set aside and state clearly the parks board will vote on issues for example X, Y and Z and clearly spell out any exception to this rule or whatever the standard is for parks board. In Section 13.08.040 B. 3 is an example. Kimberly Garrett will look to see where it is all used and where it pertains to. Kimberly Garrett stated the UDC Committee is to look at it so it doesn't conflict with anything else and that it works together. They are supposed to make sure it can be enforced and that the developers will understand it and there are no conflicts in the ordinances. Kimberly Garrett stated you want to have some flexibility but rigid. You want to have some give and take. It is to meet the City's needs and the developer's needs. Kimberly Garrett stated this will come back to the subcommittee. Adjournment Motion made by Katherine Kainer second by James Hougnon to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:38 pm. V" Scott Macmurdo, Chair 1 Kellum, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Liaison