Parks & Recreation Board - Regular Meeting

Alright. Go ahead and call the October 23. We can order at 05:31 if somebody call the police.

There she is.

You think we just Called him to work at 05:31. Okay. Charles Higdon?

Here.

Jordan Lane? Here. Dan Alden?

Here.

Garrett Greblin? Here. Peter Scherhardt?

Here.

John Tomeides? Here. Amanda Fogg? Benjamin Heck?

Here.

John Elise So to? Here. Here. Are fine.

Okay. Welcome, everyone. I'll go ahead and move us into our citizen comment period. Do we have any speakers signed up to speak? K. Our first one is Scott Garbroth.

Sir? Mister Garbroth, you'll have three minutes, and I'll keep time for you.

That'd be great. Thank you. Hopefully, I won't need that much time. Thank you for allowing me to be here. My name is Scott Garbroth, and currently, I have the privilege of serving as the president of the San Marcos Youth Baseball Softball Association.

I'm here to talk about, I guess, what is item three on your agenda and specifically about the repurposing of the area where we now have Ramon Lucio baseball fields. Our our fourth along with me here is Danny Arredondo, by the way, our immediate past president, and Jeremy Garrett here who's actually on his own, but is one of our baseball coaches, and I think he's gonna speak as well. We we're very much in favor of leaving those fields where they are for several reasons, But primarily, it's a great proximity, obviously, to the community and for our younger kids to be able to get there, for parents to be able to get them there on time, and hopefully get them home at a reasonable amount of time on school nights, especially. But it also allows for grandparents to be able to come and get there too easily. We think it just allows for more access to the fields rather than moving them out towards where the Gary Complex is total.

I don't know that there's not a reason to get additional fields out there, but I think having those fields there is a really a real benefit to our community.

I think it also, from a perspective of being that close to the highway, gives us a couple three benefits. One, to me, that still gives us a small town feel.

You have cars driving by. You have trucks driving by blowing the horn, playing softball, whatever that is. To me, just continues to give that small town feeling as you drive throughout the state of Texas. You go through smaller communities. You see a lot of baseball fields that are or softball fields that are right on highways and easily visible.

And I think that's just a great small town feel for that. Selfishly, from a board perspective, what it also does for us is it helps us tremendously with our sponsorships because there are businesses locally that do sponsor our programs and they kinda fight for those locations on the fences. They give them access to the highway, and they give them access to Centimeters Allen Parkway. They're great exposure there for them, and that gives them more of a willingness to sponsor us. And what that allows us to do, most importantly, is that it allows us to keep our fees for our youth down.

We have probably we've we have gone out and and surveyed a lot of the other communities, and we have the least expensive fees for kids to play in our program in the baseball softball side of it than anywhere within the surrounding areas. From New Brock, Kyle, Buda, up into the Austin area. And and and one of those reasons is because we're able to raise enough raise enough sponsorship money in the preseason to be able to keep it that way. Another thing that that I think is important for potentially additional fields is that right now we do have limited space. COVID kinda beat us up a little bit when it came to numbers.

We were cut down, and we're slowly building our program back. We've begun a fall program, but most importantly, in the spring, we we don't have enough space to be able to practice as much as they need to or or able to or want to. So additional fields would be great from that perspective. And a lot of our kids are out there till nine or 09:30 at night just to be able to get those practices in. And as we know, on a school night, they need to get home. I thank you for your time. Appreciate your your consideration. I'll get out of your way.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Jeremy Garrett.

Let me know when to start.

Okay.

Okay. I wanted to bring this. This is our, Friday, 07/11/2025 San Marcos daily record. This is 14 you, 10 you, 12 you. We are the rec league. Okay? These kids aren't paying a lot of money to play. This is a opportunity for a lot of kids that don't have money to play select baseball. First place, second place, third place, we play teams from San Marcos to Georgetown, Marble Falls to East Austin, not Bastrop, but that far. So they're making us look good.

These are the regular kids go to our elementary schools. When I first heard about this, I handled it like, most American adults, and I immediately got on my social media and went off. Right? Oh, maybe this group doesn't do that. Well, let me tell you, Little League Baseball is definitely a bipartisan issue. I had extremist friends from both ends agreeing on the value of Ramon Lucio. Two sons, a twelfth grader and a fifth grader. I've coached about 11 different seasons. I've never been in with any kind of civic organizations. I've never been I wasn't raised that way.

I have met more people and made more friends and my kids have made more friends and I have invited people over to my house from different cultures, different economic groups. This is a way to bring our country together. Little League Baseball is one of the few things that Americans I know we hear about angry parents and all that. In between those lines, it's little kids having fun. I know my time is going quick. We already know about sports and drugs and all that stuff. I don't need to go over that. But, okay, my my fifth grader, last year the San Marcos baseball team, high school baseball team made the playoffs for the first time in a long time. I took my younger son to the game. Three of those boys I had coached before, I didn't know that.

They immediately come over there, introducing themselves to my son. I'm just saying this is a way to bring people together. He mentioned the money. I just got on the internet real quick. Okay. I'm not anti select baseball at all. I'm not but these private groups, on average, 1 to $5,000 per year. I did a quick thing. Well, my younger son, eight years of playing baseball, started what? Eight seasons. I shouldn't say that. Starting at four, I have between $850 total in sign up fees, and that's including me coaching. Okay? Please. See, I heard somebody in this group said that it's an eyesore.

Those people that are honking on the freeway when I'm out there Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, they're not honking because it's an eyesore, they're honking because that's America right there. From Minnesota to Mexico, this freeway goes, and people are driving by here every day. And they're seeing that not as an eyesore, but as a jewel. That's all I got. Thanks.

You're raising a phone. I think you might watch too. Yeah. Thank you. I thought he had a little work.

Got more. I wanna hear you.

It. Next item on our agenda is our minutes.

Create the connection, please.

I consider approval by motion of the 09/18/2025 regular meeting minutes.

Do we have a motion for approval?

I'll move to approve.

By Charlie. Second. And I second by Ben.

Okay. Derek Griblin?

The only thing I see is Mona is present and as absent. All correct. Yeah. Okay.

She was Right?

Yes. She was absent. So

you wanna vote for, against, or abstain? The minutes.

I'll. Okay. Dan Alden?

Approved.

Jordan Lane? Approved. James Rimpat? Approved. John Tomides? Aye. Charles Hickman? Aye. John Lee So to?

Abstain.

Peter Scherhardt? Aye. Motion passed.

Okay. That'll move us into our presentations and read item two.

Yes, sir. Receive a staff presentation, a whole discussion on proposed amendments to the San Marcos land development code and design manual. This evening, we're joined by mister David So to, who is the planning manager, and I will get out of his way and share the screen with his presentation.

Alrighty. My name is Steve, planning manager. I'm excited to bring some today the amendments for discussion for the land development code and design manual. Vision SFTX was adopted in October 2024 and is San Martin's long term plan that sets the vision for the city's future over the next twenty years. This includes goals for land uses, transportation, the environment, and more.

The land development code is a set of goals that guides how new development happens and is a key tool to help put the plan into action. It includes a a wide variety of topics such as line uses, subdivision, density, parking, signage, landscaping, tree removal, infrastructure, environmental regulation, and more. By adopting the plan, we are now reviewing the land development code to implement Vision SMTX comprehensive plan. We are reviewing processes, aligning the code to state law, and providing standards for new and development types. We do do land development updates every year.

Some of them are smaller, some of them are bigger, and these edits starts with staff. We do have a running list of issues and concerns that we do gather from different projects, and, we start addressing them with an amendment every year. We also received input from the development stakeholder, incorporate city council direction, and incorporating board and committee directions and citizens as well. In August, city council, authorized updates to the, land development code. And with over 400 edits that we do have, I just wanted to talk to you about some of the edits that are related to the parkland master plan.

Parks and open space. I'll do a quick rundown of all different edits that are closed. So for three dash 55, this recommendation clarifies that the park lane requirements is for all residential development unless listed in the exception requirement. Three dash 56 is this recommendation clarifies that the first six units are exempt from Parkland dedication. This was already stated in different sections. We're not adding anything different. This also adds a cap that the total Parkland acreage shall not exceed 35% of the total site area. This is an important edit for smaller sites.

So I Yes.

On one for six dozen, did did it Is it what my thinking is?

Currently, it's six right now. I mean, yeah, at one point

I believe it was.

It was 10?

Yes. It was six.

Okay.

I thought it's honestly, I thought it was six. That

I think that that's right.

Yeah. And so is it now going mean, it's at six. Right now is

six. Six. It's not good. And we're just adding it to refer to that section. We're not changing we're not changing any numbers. Okay.

Excuse me. Are y'all advancing the slides? Because we're still on the first slide here remotely.

Oh, well, let's see what I can do.

Hold on a second.

Let's stop sharing here. Let's try resharing.

And, also, can we get our colleagues Mhmm.

Thank you.

Okay. You're welcome.

We cannot see you Hold on. Everyone that's meeting virtually. So if you have a question hold on. Now we can see here. Alright. Just put your hand up electronically if you have a question.

I'm gonna have to move them down. There we go.

Ready. 357, this recommendation clarifies that the minimum five percent open space or faucet requirement may contribute towards the Parkland dedication requirement. This is only for downtown and midtown areas. This requirement may be waived by the Parks and Recreation Board. Three dash 58, this recommendation allows Parkland to be developed through a site permit and or public improvement construction plans.

Three dash 59, this recommendation establishes two Parkland benefit areas. Parkland fees that are received in area as expected in that area. Unless there is a bigger park that benefits the entire city, this determination will be made by the parks director. Three dash 60 is this recommend recommendation removes a reference to the city attorney as the city attorney does not typically review claims. Three dash 61 is this recommendation reviews removes the summary table as it provides duplicate information.

Three dash 62, this recommendation combines green space and natural area, and this is to reflect the parkland type and description of the parks and open space master plan. Three dash 63, this recommendation establishes minimum right of way frontage for all parkland types as opposed to a percentage of the parking boundary. Three dash 64 is this recommendation is to add a description to all parking types. So now we have for each parking type, there's descriptions to sort of help guide us to what that park is. Three dash 65 is this recognition is to modify the general neighborhood to meet with park to match, again, the mark the parks and open space

in the.

That's a quick question. Yeah. You talked about green space can now be part of the park plan dedication. Do things like electrical easements and detention ponds count as green space in the code?

Potentially, I think it's, like, an overlay on the ground. So we do have an amendment that says that the park needs to act as a park. Like, you can't just have an open space with grass and there's a train achievement. You need to show us that is that it acts

as Some level of functionality.

Mhmm. Yes. And that is an amendment that I'm about to get to.

Okay. Thank you.

Three dash 66 is this recommendation is to revise the minimum acreage to from five acres to one acre. Thought that five acres would would have

two beds for a neighborhood park,

but the minimum acreage is one. Three dash 67, this recommendation clarifies that pocket parks can be managed privately with a public access easement. Three dash 68, this recommendation clarifies, or sorry. It removes the minimum on street parking requirements for parking parks. Typically, apocalypse parks are embedded in the neighborhood, and, people are already either walking to the to the park.

This will also reduce the properties cover requirements in a park due to park. And then three dash six nine, which I just mentioned, was, this recommendation is to propose a language, that would require applicants to demonstrate that the lot functions as an actual park landlock in order to count towards the parkland dedication department. So, again, we just don't want an empty lot with with grass. Like, we need some sort of you need to demonstrate to us that this is an actual park, and it counts toward the apartment department dedication department. Three dash 70, this recommendation deletes community gardens and playgrounds as parkland types in order to avoid duplication.

These are already amenities that we do have, and they can be provided in other apartment types such as. So now we are moving to the design manual. We have very, very solid items in the design manual. The first one is to remove the ash trees from the planting list. This is to prevent the spread of a certain insect.

The next edit is, to remove two trees from the planting list as they are no longer on the preferred list. And then the third edit is to provide a pollinator plant pallet that will be for Main Street District in the Downtown San Marcos area. So we do have multiple opportunities to provide feedback. We do have a survey that has been sent out to all the developers, to receive additional feedback, that is ongoing right now. We also recently had an open house on November 9, where the public commented on proposed edits.

If you are unable to join us, we, do have our edits online. You could just visit the San Marcos, Texas land development code updates. You can see all our proposed edits online, and you can even make edits online as well. That is ending October 26. We did have that up for a month already. For our timeline, as previously mentioned, we did receive, initial authorization from city council on August 19. We have been presenting to different boards. We went to the historical preservation committee on October 2. We did an update to the planning and zoning commission on October 14. We did not do a neighborhood commission on October 15.

We are doing that now November 19, but we'll be presenting there. And now we're here to present that it's to y'all. Once we receive all our feedbacks from everyone, we will then make additional edits to the code, and then we will take it to a public hearing and consideration for PMZ and city council early next year. I'm not requiring any action on this item. This is just to really only update the board.

As mentioned, we are more than welcome to provide additional comments online and send them to our email, And, I'm more than happy be individually to go over any certain concerns or edits you would like to go over. This concludes my presentation, and we'd like to answer any questions you may have.

I have one question for you on 03/03/1959. So it's Parkland fee in lieu of, and we this board gets a lot of discussion on the Parkland fee and. So we know what happens with the money now. Is this say that there shall be a Parkland, Eastland and West Parkland benefit area that that money could it will be directed to or shall be directed to or may be directed to?

Yeah. So this basically it's a shall in my understanding, maybe correct me if I'm wrong, but it would establish two areas. One West one West Side Of 1 West Of 35, and then the East Side East Of 35. And so any of the money that we gather from the the parking fee in lieu that would need to be spent. If it's, a private park, that would need to be small park, that would be need to be on the money that it it fathered. The money that was collected needs to be in that, spent on that western side.

It actually provides us additional flexibility. Right now, the way that the code is written, it actually restricts us to either, a, spend the money in a for regional park improvements or within that very close proximity to where the donation was provided. So this because I kind of had that initial, like, what does this mean? It provides us some additional flexibility that that we don't currently have. So it would provide if a lot of the fee and lieu stuff has been on the East Side, especially since 2020, we don't have as much on the West Side.

But, primarily, whenever we do use fee and lieu, it's either for parkland acquisition or to improve regional parks. It's not so much that we're utilizing it specifically on one side versus the other currently. There should

So in green space, acquisition could be now used? Yes,

sir. Yeah.

Yes, sir.

Was it was it always that? Yes. Okay. Yeah.

So how would the two like, the existing fund do you go back calculate which ones are contributing? I'm just trying

to know how

I have a spreadsheet.

Okay. So it's Yeah.

So so we track it based on where the donation was, how much it was, and we have to have it expended within ten years. So we have to so majority of it is starting to tick down. We have to utilize those in those regional parks versus that, you know, specific little area because it there could be that there's nothing for us to expend it on in that immediate area. So that's why we primarily, they're either acquisition related. We haven't done any of that since Bell Creek or with five mile.

For example, we're having to pay for a part of that with five mile acquisition with closing costs and such that were splitting counties, but then primarily, it's all regional parks. So the riverfront park system and the like. Dan, pass it to him.

Sorry. Dan. Dan?

Yeah. You need

to you need to be visible to Go ahead.

Can you see me now?

Yes, sir.

Alright. Good. There was a comment. It looked kinda quick, but something about removing picnic tables was did I hear that correctly? And where was that at?

So the idea was to remove I believe it was for the end. We're not actually removing like, you can still do playgrounds and community gardens in the park. This is just removing the the information as a separate, like, type. And so you can still do these within the different parks or within the different pocket parks, community gardens, playgrounds, or just remove them as a separate stand alone park type.

Thank you for that clarification. Jamie, I'm just kinda curious if we rent out any of our picnic tables in any of our parks. I know New Braunfels does that in some of their parks. I'm just curious if

No, sir.

Okay.

Besides pavilions, pavilions are which include picnic tables, are rental spaces, and we do have, like, a grouping. It's, like, what? Eight? Yeah. Eight eight or 10. K. Maybe.

But not

I think it's, a grouping of eight picnic tables that, you know, we rent those out where people can reserve them, but not individual tables.

Not individual. Okay. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Ben?

Real quick. Just to I'm I'm a little bit confused. So the CNLU just going back to the CNLU situation. Mhmm. That money will only be dedicated to certain areas within within that that donation was was made, so you couldn't use it on the West Side. So if you have all Fian Lou on the East Side, you can own it somewhere.

Unless it's in a regional park or for additional parkland acquisition. Okay. So the code as it is right now is a lot more restrictive, so this does provide us some additional flexibility. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Peter? And we'll go to you, Derek.

Yeah. Just two quick things. One was I I was worried when I saw all these park types being eliminated, but I think some of the other changes have have made me feel okay about it. I was especially glad to see the revisions of the parklet definition. I think that's been a problem for a while. We've seen, like, small squares of grass called parklets, and I've been like, well, what makes it a parklet? So I think the the focus on function is really good. I was also a little surprised to see some of the plant material, like the Huisache tree was one that's being cut. I couldn't quite figure out why that would be. I think they're great scrubby local, you know, native trees.

I know some people don't like them, but, wow, they are super water resistant or or drought resistant. So, anyway, I just wondered if that was necessary. But, otherwise, I think changes are pretty good.

Why is that tree being removed?

Me too. I mean, both native and natural.

I believe the urban forester made those recommendations.

Please ask her never to put a cottonwood tree anywhere near my house. It's not my

area of expertise. I just happen to like the trees. That's all.

No. I hear you. I was curious, but same thing. So that is recommendation from the Urban Forester.

I believe so.

But we have cottonwood.

I'm not sure what it's it was.

I think I just gave the.

Oh,

Don't forget about this one.

I saw a video of

a cut or

a strand head coated somebody's lawn or something like that, and he lit it. And it Oh, boy. It was so it was so it the fire spread so quickly and all that material that comes on. Mhmm.

Then But, Derek, go ahead. 36 366, notice we're going from five acres to one acre minimum. And I I know that I mean, that that seems like a lot, but, like, just to put that into perspective for me, what's the acreage of Kenny Copeland's? Sorry.

Josh, pull up your hand. I'm able look that.

No. It's Kent Copeland's is by barge, but that was actually two different donations. Two different

Two HOAs.

Two HOAs.

Yeah. Two neighborhoods.

Yeah. So one one is the R. Horton side, and the other one is is the

I'm just wondering about, like, the playscape and inside the walk in area. Yeah. That part right there, do we I wanna say that's, like, five acres. Yeah.

It's at least at least five. Yeah.

And I

wanna say it's like

37 acres.

Well, that but that's that whole area

Yes, sir.

That goes all the way around, and they live by the mailboxes up there on the the other part. Yeah. It's very, very large if you count all that. Yeah. But the the main place, Cape Verde

Yes. The Palpina Park is right about two ish acres just to kinda help kinda frame that up. Yeah. And

that's from fence to fence at Palpina?

Yes, sir. The backyard? It's, like, 2.3 acres within, yeah, the whole border of that I

mean, that's trying to put that into perspective. That's a pretty decent sized Palpina. You know, if you get much smaller than that for that neighborhood, I imagine it's getting pretty exciting. Mhmm. But how would that with the new system, how big would Paul Panty be?

Well, no less than an acre. So if, you know, if you guys want to say, hey. We don't like one acre and you wanna put two acres, that's something that can

Well, it might be fun. But if that's, like, one acre is for, like, a a 10 lot or whatever or 20 lots, then one acre is probably gonna be fine. There are fewer kids. But if we're talking, like, you know, El Camino and you do a one acre park, I mean, this thing's packed every night with what we got. Like, you do one

acre. Choose not to accept it, right, based on based on the number of units would be recommended what the appropriate park acreage that they have to provide is. So

I mean and that one acre might just be fine if it if it pertains to, like, 10 houses.

Right.

But that's what I'm asking. Like, trying to correlate something to try to see what that number is so I could have an

exam. Yeah. It's gonna be based on the acreage required based on the number of units. Basically, we're reducing it from five because it was very difficult. So, say, to your point, if someone only had, like, 10 units and they're required to do five Yeah. That don't You know, then it wasn't feasible. Then that's how we get to the whole pocket park situation, which was didn't have any minimums or maximums. So it was just like, they didn't they took advantage of that situation.

But if we have a 100 houses, does that still just meet one acre, two acre under the new guidelines, or is it gonna be, like, five acres? You know?

It would be based on the unit. Yeah.

It'd be based on the units. Mhmm. You'll we'll definitely be over that one acre for sure. Mhmm.

K. Is there any other questions on the land development code?

I I have one on, item three dash 60. So, we're removing approved by the city attorney. Is that function being added somewhere else in this to be approved by someone else? I don't see that here, so I'm just wondering. Is it already somewhere else in the code, or is that gonna be added somewhere?

So I think this one was that we you know, if we do get a Parkland easement, I believe that's already incorporated into, like, review being reviewed by the attorney. That is some sort of easement. We can create, like, a an agreement

Mhmm.

On what's there. So we just thought that we would just put in what what needs to happen versus just

Oh, so it's just it's it's redundant is what you're saying. Okay.

Okay. Seeing nobody else's hand online or any indication. Thank you for your presentation, and look forward to seeing the

final. Oh, yeah. We knew that. Okay. Okay.

So I'm gonna move us to item three, please.

Yes. Receive a staff update and hold discussion regarding the current Riverfront Park's preliminary design and East Side Regional Park design and concepts.

Jamie, you wanna kick us off?

Sure. Off. Yes, sir. So let me share screen just so that everybody has all of the latest and greatest. So during our last meeting, you know, we with the time for the board to really start diving in and having conversations about the proposed concepts as they were presented.

On your screen is the current well, the last presented one on for the Riverfront Parks Plan. We took everything that we heard from the board primarily as it was related to parking around the children's park area and the ball fields. And Erin Cooper with Half and Associates is online as well as our landscape architect and

kind of

helping us with this project. So we provided some additional concepts for you guys. So

Before we go through this, would it be okay if we had if you do another screen? The Regional partner Plan.

With Quail? Quail.

So we can see them both.

I am not that great at technology. Vanessa is great at technology and can probably assist me.

I've had just since they're both connected, the conversation is connected, it seems like. If not, we can always flip. I don't know if you could. Yeah. I said it's too long to upsize it.

Usually, I can just pop it over. I don't I don't want more.

On the presentation, Jasmine. You should be able to.

It's a PDF.

That's close. Closer.

Papa? I'm gonna go over here because I feel like the head's in the way. Me do it again.

Okay. Now we can these conversations are connected.

If I can't move I'm gonna have to move you guys around so I could fit him in a little bit on this. Hello? Too much. There we go. That's probably a little better.

What? Okay.

I I think that's good.

Okay. We're just gonna leave it just like that for you.

So I didn't mean to

Oh, no. You're fine. What's the good idea? That is I mean, that that was the extent of, you know, my my update and leaving leaving it with you guys. I did send you guys

So what is the difference? What is the difference? Sure.

I'm happy to walk through that with you. Okay. So going to b, the difference is the parking.

Real quick, Jamie. Is a what we saw last time?

Yes, sir. It

is. Thank you.

Yeah. A was where we started when you we first saw it.

Correct. Yes. So with b, it is focused on additional parking at Children's Park, which I believe is actually where we started before we reduced it to what you see in a. We yes. That is correct.

K. Then on c, again, the focus is the parking orientation at Pilgrim's Park. I mentioned in my email from you guys that staff and public safety do not recommend that t intersection, so we're not in favor of c. When you go to D. Is that the same as a? I think it's actually a little different. No. I

I just got the parking ball.

The Champions Football Field.

Yeah. Thank you. I'm still looking at parking. Alright. So that is the difference. So this is essentially a with the parking at Children's Park, but with the, Championship Field, shown on D.

Jamie?

Yes, sir?

All we see online is the Quail Creek. Is that what you're showing?

No, sir. It's not.

Okay.

I've I've just I've just been using the handouts. But

I couldn't hear you. What if you stop sharing reshare? Maybe it'll share. Okay. Hold on. Let me try that.

Sorry, guys. Just one moment.

Thanks for letting us know. Yes. Thank you. I don't think it's

share the entire screen? If you do that, it'll just show everything we see.

Is it just Oh, that one was shared. How about now?

Yep.

Okay. Thanks, Charlie.

That's good. Thank you.

I was good.

Perfect. Okay. Great. Okay. So we're we're Mhmm. K. And then we're going down to e, which shows a another configuration of parking at their at Children's Park. This is a new configuration that was requested for illustration by board member Hickman. So it shows that new

Which one is that?

That is e, concept e.

Okay. K.

K. And then the, yeah, Concept f, it is yet another it's an expanded upon. So same parking area and configuration that you see in e, but instead of 49, spaces, it goes to a 124. And then the

Is that for children's?

Yes, sir. That's yes. Children well, it would be shared parking children's in bicentennial since we're showing, nature play to be developed in that bicentennial area. And then concept t shows the original parking from concept a, but with the omission of the baseball fields and a reduction of parking down to a 134 spaces.

Okay. So let's start, Charlie, with your conversation where we left off about parking and children's parking.

Sure. Thank you, chairman. I I tried to bring this up in the last meeting when I saw these concepts, but I could tell my ability to explain it in words was very limited. So I appreciate you putting together these graphics. You know, really, my my thinking here is just, you know, in every other area in this master plan, we've made steps that I think are great to move parking lots away from the river frontage.

We did that in Rio Vista. For whatever reason, the concept that we came back did not do that in Children's Park. So I've gone out there and looked, and, I mean, I just there's an unutilized space, and that's where these parking lots go. I'm not necessarily advocating either one of these configurations. I just wanted to show something to indicate that the existing parking that's right up on the river, right up on the river trail can be relocated to an area that we're currently not using and get it away from the river like we've done in other areas of the park. So What

what concept plan best represents what you're recommending?

I honestly had something maybe envisioned something in between the two. You know, I think all this shows to me is that

22. But

You know, concept e shows that we can basically put, you know, 58 parking spots in a pretty limited impact for children's park and still keep parking right by the park and clear up that river right next to the or area right next to the river. Concept f, that was drawn just to show how many can fit in there. I kinda had something envisioned between the two where we would curve around the young sapling trees that are planted there, but it shows however whatever number we feel is appropriate, I think, can fit in that area. We don't have to do it in a tee head parking. It's both options have a loop in.

I know that was a big issue is not having dead end parking. You know, it gets it away from the riverfrontage, and, there's the opportunity to add more parking spots, which I heard one of the board members say we needed next to children's parks. Regardless of the number, that's what the idea is. Just get it there.

So I have a question. How many spaces are there now in the back?

Children's? I'm glad you asked. It's my handy dandy cheat sheet.

I guess 27.

I'm sorry?

Was it 27? Existing.

Yes. Yeah. It's 2021 regular, 6 88, and one five minute unloading. Okay.

So we have 30 let's say 30 for round numbers, and there's no I don't wanna call it a roundabout.

It's a t intersection right now.

Is that what they

call it?

Yes, sir. Oh, no.

But I'm saying all the new concept plans that include a round Yes, Yes, sir. So that you can enter and exit from the

same Correct.

Drive without backing up.

Mhmm.

Charlie, what what are you recommending? What, you know, what cons concept eating?

You know, personally, I like the one with I don't wanna see a 124 parking spots there and certainly would like the concept that's, you know, 58 right now that has minimal impact. You know, the number to me is not important. I guess I just prioritize the asset is the river on the river Trail.

So if you

not have the parking spots right there.

So if you could wave a wand, it would be to double the parking in as shown in concept e in the location that concept e shows. Yes. Okay. So that is double the numbered spaces. Is that double somewhat adequate for

Yes, sir. I see y'all now I did some some mapping today. So, basically, with the current configuration of on street parking there along Children's Park, we would get we have 63 spaces. So we would need approximately 62 for Bicentennial and Children's Park. So, you know, that that 58 configuration, we can massage that a little bit. That gets us to at least our minimum number required by code.

So, Jamie

Yes, sir.

And I don't know why, but I know I've I've talked to you about it, like, last year or something. But Purgatory Creek on the other side of the creek, and you you were like, well, that's floodplain. But

nobody's gonna be at

the park anyway if the river gets up that far in Purgatory Creek. Right. I think it's a great spot for permeable parking.

You know? That that that

whole open area, they and then on both sides of that road, those are two very open areas that I've always thought should be utilized for parking. We have the They

were. Were. They eliminated that.

How come?

Well, may a lot of it was Water quality. We had to rescue when the rent when the water came up.

But it's also water It's also water quality.

And it's water quality issues.

This Part of the water quality. This area is up higher. You know, the comments that I got back initially were, hey. We can't move the parking that's by the river because you need something ADA accessible. This area is flat. You can easily take the existing ADA parking, move it over here, and it can still be connected to Children's Park. That was the thing.

Yeah. And concept e showing the nine handicap spots there.

Well, it seems like we have a a proposal to you know, it it doesn't have to be fifty eight years. You can you can design what I think is best for the particular area, but the proposal is for it to be in a different area. And I certainly agree with that. And can we get some thoughts or about this particular concept e parking design and area location for Children's Park? Is there any comments on that from the rest of the park?

I think I I think I agree with ease by far. I think if I'm looking between E and f. F, I think when I think of this area, it's you know, we need the parking, but too much parking there is such thing as too much parking. Right? I would say so. And when you're trying to there is or There is. In my mind, when you're trying to preserve the Don't that to There is too much. Yeah. When when you're trying to preserve, like, natural beauty of the park, I think keeping it to what you need is important. I like e.

The location does make a lot more sense off the river. It is it's easier to get to in keeping the loop at the back. I think we talked about last time about buses dropping off kids. You know? That's a that's a nice spot where buses can pull in. They can get away from the parking lot. They're not crowding up the parking lot to drop off kids. They can drop them off, and then they can either you know, they can pull back that easily. So I like e. If I was picking one of them, e is where I'm leaning towards.

K.

Anybody else wanna weigh in on this idea? Since silence is consent, I'll assume that everybody is okay with sending it back for So Whenever we do make final recommendation.

Which will be your next meeting. Yeah.

Which would be

Yeah. So that will show we will show concept e parking configuration for Children's Park on the on your final recommendation. Thank you. Okay.

And Alright.

Just a couple

Yeah. Go

ahead, Janalise.

I was gonna

say just to confirm, so parking e, that parking configuration, that has about 58 spots, and then, currently Children Park has about 30 currently. Yes, ma'am. If so that's what we're arguing in the sense is

the parking and how much spot it should be? Yes, ma'am. Okay.

And and it's also the location, Jonalise? The l the existing spaces are closer to the river, and this is on the other side of the Children's Park. Correct? That's correct. This actually removes all the

pavement by the way.

Does Cogsacre

also reflect that or no? Just the

I think they both do.

They contrast.

One's just a much larger lot than the other.

Yeah.

But either way, we'd be getting more more parking for Children's Park than we have now.

Correct.

Okay. You did. Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you. Go ahead, Peter.

I I wanted to thank Jamie for putting together that data that she sent in the email. I found it super interesting. What and I'm bringing this up because what stood out to me was that the number one thing people said was extremely important or somewhat important to them was habitat restoration. Mhmm. And so for me, that's like, well, do we wanna take up more green space to add parking?

Is that really what we should be doing here? So I really struggle with the idea that we're adding we're taking away green space to add parking. And I I guess I just wanna make sure, you know, if we're gonna double the amount of spots available, that we're doing it in a way that takes up the least amount of space possible. I wish we didn't I wish we could be parking net zero, to be honest, because I think the other thing that comes out of this report is that we need to you know, something like a deficit of 200 spaces is what I saw in in that report. If I remember, a 190 spaces short or something. I don't think

there's According to our code requirements, yes.

Right. So, I mean, there's, like we're either gonna be paved the whole park or we're gonna have to find some other way to get people there. Right. Get people there by bus or by bicycle, and bicycle racks aren't even a requirement to the code. So I I feel like we have a lot more discussions to have about transportation here, and I I just really struggle with taking up more green space for parking. That's all I'm saying.

It's an age old conversation, Peter. We have there have been many times when there was discussion about turning tennis courts into parking lots, and that whole concept of parks in the parking is something that has been discussed in a long time. And part of the result that came from those initial discussions and, you know, I I shared that. I kinda recoiled when he wanted to make the tennis courts parking lot for Rio Vista is we did a road diet on Centimeters Allen. It used to be four lanes with no shoulder, no sidewalks, and we added, what, a 180 spaces roughly?

Give or take. Give or take. We added a lot of parking and went from four lanes to two lanes. And that road was completed the month I moved here. And when I got on the I used to live off Hopkins where I would ride down Hutchinson Turn to go down to Rio Vista, you couldn't ride a bike on it because there was there was no shoulder, and it was four lane road. It was just a bar ditch on either side. So we didn't put parking. We did put anyway, it's just so good.

To follow to follow-up on to follow-up on that, John

Go ahead.

I the the number two thing on the list, of the thing people said that they strongly or somewhat care about. The number two thing was walking, biking, multiuse paths. Yeah. And the third thing was river access. So we really need to be talking about park connectivity here.

Yeah.

Peter, I just wanna say, for your understanding and for the record, the what you said about preserving green space is the reason I wanted to propose this option. I never put forward provide an option with a 125 parking spots. I drew a pervilinear line and said draw something nice in here. But really, the the to me, this accomplishes that goal because it puts green space back at the river where today we have parking. When I walk up and down that trail right there, that's my least favorite part because all I'm staring at is the back of cars and people throwing their junk out on the trail as I'm trying to bite by, and this gets rid of that problem.

Less is more. I agree.

Okay. Anything else on this particular section? If not, I think you have direction from the from us

and Yes, sir.

On that. Yes. Hope it's clear.

Thank you. Yes. Well, then the elephant in the room is

Yeah. I'll take the elephant.

Okay. And put it on my back. This

this is something that I this is something that I, yeah, initiated or something that I brought to the board because it has been something that is not a new conversation in the city of San Marcos. We had done a one thing to keep in mind is that this area along Centimeters Allen is the border of our downtown. So sometime around 2008 or 2010, we designed a downtown with a what's called a smart code. So we defined the borders of the downtown along Centimeters Allen. I think the farther border was Comanche, if I remember correctly, or roughly in that area.

Mhmm. And then it funneled from the university all the way to I 35 along Guadalupe and LBJ. And all that area was rezoned at that time for SmartCo. And we did a downtown master plan, which, believe it or not, I kept.

Oh my goodness.

And and '8. I think it was adopted in either '8 or '10. But so it's about fifteen, sixteen years, and no doubt about it. It's been updated since. Part of and even though Centimeters Allen is not technically it is a border, but then it stops as you get towards the river because the river was considered the river gateway in the vision plan. That was the big idea. Do you remember the salamander?

I do. You? Yes, sir. I do. To

go right on the corner of Centimeters Allen and I 35 as as a gateway to the river park system. So I wanna be clear to my former police chief, assistant police chief, and our our important Little League Baseball Association that I am I am the biggest baseball fan you'll meet, and I am not against Little League Baseball. But this concept, in my opinion, really does two things for us. It gives us brand new baseball fields at some point in the future when this part what are we calling this part?

The vast majority, pretty much overwhelmingly majority, whenever we asked about naming it, was everybody just said, just call it Quail Creek because that's what everybody's gonna call Quail Creek Park.

So we get brand new facilities in Quail Creek, and we take back a riverfront park system. And I part of the issue that I had with it and why I initiated the conversation in the first place was the concept of building 300 parking spaces in this park. I got a real issue with that. Really do. I think the city would be better served with the Ramon Lucio Central Park.

That is a river park system. I may be the only one in the city who feels that way, and that's okay with me. But it was part of the big idea vision plan for the downtown gateway. It also I will let you know, references the other gateways that come into town, and one of them was the well, they didn't call it the Municipal Gateway. They called it the Civic Gateway, which was the City Hall Complex, the Library Complex.

That's why I've stuck with keeping City Hall my support was. This said in in our in addressing the need to better organize access corridors to and from downtown, the big ideas diagram depicts key gateways for access to the downtown and its neighborhoods. These four gateways correspond with vehicular corridors and should indicate to travelers the specific design designation. So there was a university gateway at Ocarina, civic gateway, which I mentioned, coming in to Hopkins, and then a river gateway, which corresponds with Centimeters Allen Parkway and a historic downtown gateway and Guadalupe Street. So it's a concept that's been around for a long time.

I get it. I I would say I've thought a lot about this, and I thought, frankly, if we were to come and propose if this were a river park now, a central Green, which I also think would be quite attractive from the interstate. I really do. If it were and we proposed putting a ball field complex there, I think the city would revolt because the city is growing exponentially. We have one river that we use, mainly, for recreation, and we have limited access and limited park space for all of our citizens to access that river.

So consequently, what happens is we get shoved in to these small access points, and I get the right carrying restoration and the and and the fencing, and I'm all for making sure that we keep up that effort because we've made a real difference in that. But reclaiming a riverfront park to to be used for riverfront park for those purposes, I think, meets those guidelines of habitat restoration, river access, and bike and pedestrian. I will say that and, again, if I'm the only one, that's that's fine with me, guys. Trust me. I Jamie will tell you that I have often been the only one to vote for something.

But I will not vote for a plant that has this park level of parking right on the edge of our river. I I just won't personally. So I think we get a win win with brand new, not professional, but for our citizens, little league system and little league leagues like a lot of cities have. And, you know, I know that so this was named Ramon Lucio, and I proposed naming it Ramon Lucio Central Park. He proposed this.

I'm not saying even if we did propose it, even if there was support on this board, which I'm not sure there is, that it would pass any farther than this. But we're the ones that have to decide just like we did on with Charlie's. So I'll leave it at that. Yeah. I fully respect everybody's position on it. And Thank you. I'm gonna start with you, Derek, because you weren't here last week when we had this first conversation. So

We can't see the heart no more. Okay. Never mind.

Yep. Yep. Sorry. For some reason, it timed out. Y'all hear us still okay? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Great. Yeah. I agree. The back parking along the river, we could we could take that out. That that all that new area back there, I mean, that's a huge parking lot that's not really needed. I mean, I thought that was, like, for paid parking purposes or what have you.

You want concept? Which one center you want?

Anyhow, they're all the same parking deals with the baseball fields. When you have four baseball fields and it's the same parking, it's like 200. Right. So that that part that's closest to the river, the the kinda new expansion of parking, Yeah. I mean, that could go to behind the, like, North Northeast Field. Take that out. That's probably about half of them. And then this corner down here, that's Centimeters Allen And 35 Access, that's where we all park anyway right now. I mean, that could be improved because right now, it's I mean, you pretty much need a side by side or a four wheeler to get through that parking lot right now anyway. And then with a little bit of rain, it's even worse.

So, I mean, improve that, put that parking out there towards Centimeters Allen And 35. So, yeah, I agree. Take the take the parking away. And then, also, I would say, put a gate up and, you know, the the parking that would be improved there in the corner, put a gate up there and, you know, have it have it utilized for for event parking as well. As far as that gateway concept, the smart stuff, I'm sure there's a lot of stuff in there that's probably changed.

Salamander statue, I bet we could find a place for the salamander statue somewhere on Raymond Lucio Ball Fields. I would love to have a salamander statue there. That would be great. And then I would also add a nice playscape in the middle of the Remalucio Ballpark. You know?

That would be another great improvement for that corridor. People would see all the kids playing there every single night and every single weekend. So the only concepts that I see that are appropriate for Raymond Lucio and the riverfront to me are the ones with Raymond Lucio intact. And that's that's what I think.

But then as far as

the parking, yeah, we can I mean, that that parking lot that is added over there by the river?

So if I'm hearing I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying you essentially support, let's say, concept e with no additional parking at with Lucio except improving that parking that's already there? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That's what I got.

Getting that improved.

Okay. Anybody else?

I'd like to add that, you know, I don't wanna speak for everybody on the board, but for me personally, when this conversation came up, that my intention was never to take anything away from the The Middle East, program. I I sort of saw it as a win win. Again, you get brand new facilities. My concern was, you know, families that have, softball and kids playing out there, then you'd be running back and forth. And, I had I thought I the way I was viewing is, easier on the community's families with commuting back and forth if everything was in one area.

And seeing the fact that you you have brand new facilities is is a win win. And, I mean, I I I see what people are saying and how wonderful it is to have those fields there. But, again, I I'm with John on the sense that I can't get behind anything. It could be anything. But with that amount of parking, I just I can't I I can't support anything that would require that amount of parking.

But

You think what's there now is excessive?

I do. Yeah. Even now.

In that dirt? Yeah. In that mud hole?

I mean, you know, again, I mean, I would love to hear your input on it, you know, you know, in a different time. I mean, again, I I don't have but I just can't. So

here here's another deal that that that I was wondering about. How much are the the new fields? Because we're we're still that's still on the deal is the new fields. But as far as the percentage and I'm sure it's in one of those smart plans that I read it. It's saying based on the growth, this is how many baseball fields we should have in this town.

Yeah. I sent that to you guys via email.

Yeah. So

it's actually included in our master plan. Something that whenever I was looking at the master plan, defines athletic field needs. I I don't thoroughly understand why they combined baseball and softball together. They really should have broken that apart. But the primary, what they show is youth softball, baseball.

They show existing number of fields being nine. That's combined. And that there's no additional fields needed. Again, I don't know why they combined youth softball and youth baseball because they really should be separate. They did show that we are deficient in adult softball baseball because we only have four adult softball fields, but they counted six. And so that You

see adult softball.

The adult softball fields are out at Gary Softball Complex.

Across the street from this?

Across the street from Quail Creek. Yes, sir.

Down the road.

It's

not directly across the street. It's still not you still have to go across the railroad tracks.

I'm gonna thank you. I gotcha. But let us finish this board painting.

So, anyway, so there's they're showing a deficiency in the adult softball baseball, but not so much in the youth softball baseball by 2030. But I I think that they they combined all of them, and that's that's kind of giving an incorrect number there. So I think that we're still deficient in youth baseball.

Ben, did you have any other

Were we able to now I were we able to fit more baseball?

We were not. We were not. We were not. Not not at this con current configuration. Something will have to go away. The only place that they showed that there could be possible I think it was only, like, maybe two additional fields was behind the houses on Bogey Lane, and we heard loud and clear that the homeowners do not want any ball fields behind their houses.

But I

thought we had we had talked briefly about a disc golf course small slightly smaller or something, shifting something towards the river so we could fit more baseball fields in. You know?

I don't I would know that there was conversations about that, but I didn't really get that as y'all were wanting to see that.

So I do wanna talk about that.

Yeah. The the issue with where the disc golf is is there's a lot of topography. There's ponds and such in that area, so it'll be really difficult to build in that specific area. And Aaron can probably speak a little bit more on that.

Yeah. There's there's even floodway that goes through that. From north to south, we have water traveling from the site. Because where the baseball fields are, it's kind of like a high point, so it holds back the Blanca River. So then the entire site is actually draining through where the disc golf course is located. And it's just technically

just looking at I'm sorry.

There you go.

But just just looking at the eight the 18 hole disc golf course, if you shifted it towards the river because, you know, you're in getting that freeing up that space, I would assume that maybe we could fit more baseball fields in that that area. But Well, and

this was a usable piece of land for golf for forty years. Yeah. I mean, it it's not like it's a swamp. It but I get it. Water does travel through this land, and it does flood from time to time. I I hear you say. Anything else, Ben, for the right at this point?

Yeah. No problem.

Okay. Who else wants to speak?

I got another question. What's the the cost on the the the new fields?

I guess a few years ago, the general estimate was it costs about 250,000 per field. Now that's not adjusted for inflation today, so I don't it just round numbers, let's say $2.50.

Those are natural field costs, not artificial?

Okay. Yes. Yes. Yeah. It would we would like, yeah. We don't know what it would be for artificial turf. That would be good.

Another deal. I mean, you have an exist deal here, and you're gonna tear it down for millions of dollars and spend millions of dollars on another field. Kind of no. That doesn't make sense to me.

I have a quick question, sir. Per, when you have to maintain these fields, if you have these two different locations, are you gonna have to move the equipment back and forth, or would you be able to store it at Oil Creek all over?

If I could if I if you don't mind. So part of the process whenever we would have bond is that you actually build it into the budget to add a whole additional crew

Oh, okay.

Out there. So there would be a a whole crew that is out there to take care of the ball fields and any additional amenities that would see located out there. There would also be the the need to acquire additional equipment to be able to maintain anything that's out there.

Okay.

So there there'll be exceptional cost with bringing any park online.

Sure. For sure. And these are all future

Budget. This is all future

budget. There is no budget for anything.

That's correct.

Yes.

That's correct. And then this has her pen.

Okay. John Reese, please. Go ahead.

You can also call me Jojo if that's easier. No worries. Just, like, questions I can Jojo. I just really wanna understand what kinda understand this. So we're saying in a sense, like, we're gonna kinda like how Derek was saying. Right? Like, we're taking these fields away, and we're putting fields different at a different location. And that is there an option where like, do we have to move the fields, or can it be that these are practice fields and then, like, both facilities are used for the fields? That's just more of my confusion.

We don't have to do anything. We don't have to change. It can be it can stay exactly as is. Okay. Yeah. So

So we can, in a sense, like, keep those fields and then also add the additional fields. Fields?

Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you.

Okay. I'll just

check with you.

On the Quail Creek design?

Who's speaking?

Dan is

talking Go to ahead.

Sorry. So at least what I'm seeing on the Quail Creek design, you have the baseball fields by the river. Correct?

Correct. It's actually outside of floodplain. It's the only part of the property that is actually outside of floodplain.

So Bert gave us a great tour the other day. I I still have poison ivy and poison oak from

That's fine. But

there's a lot of private property over there, and I would recommend moving it closer to 21. It was like a open space. There I think that's where he was driving his golf balls. Like, you know, moving it where it's closer to the highway and easier to get to, and you don't hit a baseball into somebody's backyard or the river. So And then you leave that space open for the river.

So it's actually away from all of the homes, Dan. Closer to 21 is closer to single family homes, which the folks on Bogey Lane came out and literally yelling at us about during a couple of open houses. So we know that that's not the best, use. And then, obviously, on the opposite side, there is a railroad track that would border the single family. It's a pretty good buffer between that and any other fields, if we were to move them. But moving Well,

I mean, they're right

by option.

They're already by Gary. I mean, they already are hearing I I I guess I don't understand that.

We heard it. We heard about that. Yes. They they weren't happy about hearing Gary either.

And just to chime in, again, these are out of city residents. Is where's the Jamie? Yes, sir. Dan, you can keep going, but where's the entrance to well I need to make some people The old entrance.

Give me a second.

Just to get my bearings. I keep thinking it's that up top, but it's not.

It sits down here. So Gary so Gary is right across the street.

Okay. But where's the

entrance? The entrance is right here.

That's the main driveway getting into the old golf.

Yes, sir.

My name.

Yes, please, Charlie. Sorry.

I guess the two main arguments I keep hearing here, one is geographic about, you know, where the ball fields are, 35 versus here. I'll say for me personally that that argument doesn't really resonate. It's two things. Very close geographic proximity. I think the ball fields are just as valuable in either location in terms of job.

Then there's the other issue of the recommendation. There's a metric we're trying to get in this plan of how many ball fields does this community need, And it's suggesting we need at least the 10 shown on this plan. So so that necessitates that we potentially consider putting all of them on Quail Creek, keep, you know, keep what we have today or something in between. So I guess I I'm struggling with why we can't even consider putting more at Quail Creek, near those houses on Bogey Lane. I I know that there was some opposition to it.

You know, the opposition I heard when I attended the public meeting was much more about the traffic it's gonna generate than anything else. And you mentioned that y'all are already working with TxDOT to improve and add lanes over there to benefit the traffic. So I'm happy that that concern they've raised is being addressed. You know? I know that you know, I wonder what are the hours that baseball is gonna be permitted there and how impactful is it to these homes because the existing ball fields are right next to my neighborhood, and it's never bothered me one time.

They're right across from other houses. It's never been an issue, a noise concern. You know, I I also have been out there, and I don't mean to discount anybody's concerns, but, you know, I went on the tour with Bert also, and I saw several ATVs parked on the other side of the fence where these folks have been using this property for their own enjoyment even though they don't own it. So I wonder how much of the loss of that function weighs in on their desire to not have anything left in that area. So I'd say no track. What I what I

I'm gonna take our.

What I heard in the last meeting and requested from our chairman was at least provide some concepts of how more ball fields can be put there. And I don't know why we can't even look at it and weigh in the benefits of that versus what we might gain at Rio Vista.

Sure.

I could even see some concept where, you know, nobody has a concern with baseball being at Rio Vista that I can tell. I live in Rio Vista. I've mentioned I would love to go watch my kid walk over there, but the rug for everybody is in 300 parking spots right there. I share that concern. You know, if we could maybe consider putting maybe not all five right there in that area, but put a couple, but two or three. Reduce Rio Vista down to just a couple, and then we get a huge reduction in number of parking spots. I think that's a good balance that we should consider.

Before I go to anyone else, let me ask Bert. We there there was a very controversial development that was proposed in San Marcos for twenty five years at the corner of Old Ranch Road 12 and Craddock Avenue. And it used to be Doctor Weatherford's property. And for about ten years, there was varying requests for apartment complexes there, which almost all of the surrounding property owners in that neighborhood, which is CastleGates or There's the Castle Forest. Castle Forest across the street, which was very opposed to.

Eventually, there was support for what you see there now, which is called say The retreat. Retreat.

Now I know where you're going.

Okay. I know. Love it. I just sent you set that up here. So the retreat, when it was and it was extremely controversial as well, but the sport was there, and there was a parkland dedication designed for no.

Discussed as a golf course plot of land. It's at the end of Archery Street, which comes right off of Craddock Avenue. So we had this big fight like we always do in the city. There was some compromises made and some land set aside, specifically discussing at the time, it's not probably not writing that it has to be used for that. But it is city Parkland, if

I remember correctly. That is correct.

And it is probably likely big enough for a disc golf course of some size. I don't know for sure exactly what it is. I feel like this was this is one of the issues that I have with this plan. I certainly respect all the work and all the comments and all the input that has gone into this so far. But I don't think any I personally don't feel, and I could be wrong, that if we had gone out this was a $10,000,000 purchase. Is that correct?

8 and a half.

8 and a half million dollars to purchase this property. If we had, you know, proposed that it'd be a third of it at this golf course at the time, I don't think it would have passed. I I think what we have so far is great, but I agree. It could be better, and I can't support it in this in this in this concept. And that is not a Dean, please everyone on anyone who worked on it.

Not that. I know that we took a lot of citizen comment and tried to, you know, you know, to accommodate all of that, but you can't accommodate all of it. Maybe we would be better off using the land that was set aside fifteen years ago for a disc golf course for the disc golf course, and we use this very expensive piece of land for something that, you know, serves the community long term better. That's the only reason I'm talking about this because thirty years from now or forty years from now, we're gonna look back and say, gee, I wish we had more ball fields out there, and I wish we had more river park land at the river. I really believe that because this was built in the seventies, sixties and seventies.

That's that's where it came from. That was sixty years ago. It when Sam Marcus probably had 12,000 people in the seventies, maybe. And it had it fit perfectly. This may not have even been in the city limits at that time.

It was not until they're in the city limits till we bought it. Yeah. Not

not quail

Oh, I'm sorry.

Quail. Renault Lucio.

It might have been on the edge of town

of the city limits. I don't know, but I know it I know the city acquired it for Parkland. They built ball fields. It served the community well. We don't need to do a thing, but I can tell you that fifty years from now, we're gonna look back and see a missed opportunity if we don't plan for that. We're not planning for right now because this isn't even funded. How long do you think it'll take to accumulate the funding? Multiple phases. Multiple budget years. It'll be a bond election,

so it could be multiple bond elections. I don't know.

So we got a ways to come. Anyway, that's a thought about when you brought up this golf.

So if I could answer your question.

We're not because it wasn't a question.

It was just I understand where you're going, but I did I did want to kind of provide some clarity on that because it was dedicated parkland, but the developer was charged in their planning document to pay to develop disc golf course on that property. They paid someone to actually develop said disc golf course and they got cheated. The person never showed up. I guess maybe ran out of town. I don't know. But they never they took their money and ran

The retreat developer?

Yes, sir.

Not the property. Correct.

Yes. Yes, sir. Yes. So the retreat, which that LLC has now been resolved. It's been dissolved for about ten years now, unfortunately. So I we have no recourse to go after them to pay some more money to do it.

But the land's ours.

The land is ours. Yes. It is.

And it and I'm not saying we should, but it could be used for disc golf.

I I we haven't looked into it, but I'm not saying you can't. It was originally that was what was the charge in the PDD, the plan development district to actually develop that on behalf of the developer.

And a and a PDD was a was a contract. We give you the approval to do this. You do x, y, and z in return. Yes.

You're talking about that trailhead back there in the It's

a It's an actual trail.

It's not

a trail. It's it's a

Archie is so it's it's I know where you're talking about. That's that river recharge area. Yeah. That's another actual area. It's actually across the opposite side of Craddock. Right behind the retreat, you're thinking of capstone cottages. The capstone cottages that are kind of, like, close to Ranch Road 12.

Yeah.

And then just down Craddock on the Reached and is.

Road on the right side.

Yes. Is. On the corner

of Old Rancho 12 and Craddock.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So it's up it's it kinda Archie kinda dead ends into that area, and we have Parkland right there. Andrew, that is him.

Sorry. Peter, please weigh in.

And then Joe.

Okay. I I am gonna have to leave here in a few minutes, so I apologize. Okay.

But there

were there were two points I wanted to make. First was about code, and the other was about culture. I feel like if we're gonna make a proposal to counsel about what we want these parks to look like, we should try and be as close to possible as close as possible to our own code. And we know that parking is a mess for the for the ballparks right now. And I I feel like if we put another proposal that just perpetuates that problem, we're not doing our job.

So that's one thing. The next point is about culture. I think if it was left up to me, I would probably move all the ball ball fields to Quail Creek, like, follow concept g. But I also recognize that the location of the ball fields has this historic and symbolic and cultural significance to a lot of people in the community, and so maybe we're not ready to let them go completely. So at the same time, I also know that parking is a nightmare. So I I do wonder whether plan d is something of a compromise. Like, we preserve a ball field. We get a fair amount of parking. We free up some green space. We relocate the fields.

It it

we get the best version of a ballpark that we can get in the community, and it occupies a symbolic place of importance. So I wonder I wonder if that might be a compromise solution in all of this. I don't know. That that's my thought, but I'm gonna have to take off in

choice as

I mean, if it if I was voting only for myself, I would probably go with ConceptG, but it seems like you have to recognize the symbolic value and the cultural and historic value that it has to the community even if even if it's not something I personally would take advantage of. I I don't know.

So if I just so I can write you down here, and, obviously, we're not the final decision makers. We're just passing along a recommend. And you don't have to pick anything if you don't want to. But I heard concept g. I heard concept d.

Well, concept g

is just a

quest. I I well, I think I I would probably go with concept d because it's I think as much as I I don't have children. I wouldn't use the ball fields, but I recognize that people in the community do. And I think

Okay.

Maybe we're not really

That's fine.

We're not ready to let go completely of the ball fields there. That's what I'm getting sense of.

Okay. That's fine. Alright. Anybody else? Jojo. I

just didn't know if that would be something for Jamie, if you would be able to, for our next meeting, maybe do some research and see if we were able to, like if those lands by retreat could be utilized for that disc. Like, could that be something that we could get some data on or some info on for the next meeting?

Yeah. I I can find out pretty quick based on the the acreage, and let you know. I don't know what the exact acreage is right now.

I'd appreciate it.

Would be to send

that just to know where it is. Yeah. Sure.

That would be good.

Do that.

Okay. Anybody else wanna weigh in?

Yeah. So I'm torn because I see both sides here. One, the gateway to the river park system. I see it, and I I agree. Coming off the highway, you just see metal fencing and a dirt lot was gonna end up being asphalt down. Like, it's just it's not gonna be pretty for what we wanna do there. On the other side to that, what I do see is what the people are saying they want. I mean, I'm pulling up our survey results. 39% people 39 of those respondents want them removed completely, but then 61% want something there. They want either at least one field reduced down to two or three.

So what I'm seeing is a majority of the people that are actively going out and responding to these surveys want something there. So whether that is d, we have one field, or it's something in between where it's, you know, maybe three and then the two on the back, we remove the lots from there and pushed them further inward so that when you're looking on off the highway, it's not just parking lot. I mean, do something about the fencing when you're looking there. Because I personally don't like the look of chain link fencing. I hate it. It looks good, especially what you're trying to do there. But I think there's something in the middle where you don't have to remove all of the fields. And looking at what we need as a as a city, what we're saying we need is, what, nine is what you said? We need nine? Or

I I you know, I'll be honest with you. The way that it's all it's all lumped together

It's all lumped together. But let's let's call it somewhere between nine or whatever it ends up being, and then it we're gonna continue to grow. This is still a growing town. Right? You know, we still want families to come here. We're gonna keep losing families to Kyle to Buda. We want families coming here. So completely eliminating an entire little league facility, if you have

Not eliminating.

Removing to out of town, like, from away from the populous center. Right? Because then think about, like, on weekends, you bring your kids to Lily games, and then you can go go downtown and get lunch afterwards or go get on the river. You know, it being there is great for families too, and I'm thinking about that part as our expansion and bringing families here and not pushing them away from, you know, the center of town. So I don't know if I'm in favor of complete I I don't think I'm in favor of completely eliminating them. I don't know if one field sits right with me because, you know, having the flexibility of two or three, but eliminating, I'm not I'm not in favor of that.

You have that false concept that you support?

My I I don't think there's one here that I would support outright. I think I would wanna see one where it's maybe like, I I see the survey, maybe three three fields in that parking lot removed from the edge out where, you know, the thirty thirty five front yard is at off Centimeters Allen. Remove that into where that one to stand alone field is into that area. So when you are driving in, you're not seeing parking lot. You're just seeing the field, and then maybe more greenery greenery could be added. I don't know how many of you are baseball fans. Have you ever seen Coors Field in Colorado? They have a forest in center field. Yeah. Forest and rocks, waterfall. You know? I'm not saying we do something crazy like that, but at least adding trees, greenery when you're coming in instead of parking lot in the

chair. Parking lot. And so are you supportive of a parking lot at all on that lot?

Not where it currently stands. But somewhere else? But we'd we'd still we'd still need parking there.

Okay. So so if I hear you correctly, and I'm just trying to summarize some concept that would include maybe three ball fields with parking in that general area. Yes. Not not street parking, but

Exactly. Okay.

Okay. Anybody else wanna say anything or or give us a letter?

Can I ask you a question about this?