Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2005-032
S RESOLUTION NO. 05-032 OMCIAL RECORD A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE UPDATE TO THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE SOUTHLAKE 2025 PLAN, THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN AND TO INCLUDE A PERIODIC REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF ANY AMENDMENTS AS PRESCRIBED IN THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS. WHEREAS, a Home Rule Charter of the City of Southlake, Texas, was approved by the voters in a duly called Charter election on April 4, 1987 pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Local Government Code; and, WHEREAS, the Home Rule Charter, Chapter XI requires an update to the City's comprehensive plan elements every four years, WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that 2005 Update of the city's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan is an element of the Southlake 2025 Plan, the City's Comprehensive Master Plan, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the document complies with Southlake 2025 Plan, Phase I (Vision, Goals, & Objectives) and consolidates the guiding principles and recommendations for all area plans of Southlake 2025 Plan - Phase II, WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed that the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan has been formulated and updated with adequate public input, WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed that the recommendations herein reflect the community's desires for the future development of the city's public park system, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT: Section 1. All of the findings in the preamble are found to be true and correct and the City Council hereby incorporates said findings into the body of this resolution as if copied in its entirety Section 2. Exhibit A —2005 Update of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan is hereby adopted as a component element of the Southlake 2025 Plan, the City's Comprehensive Master Plan. Section 3. The different elements of the Comprehensive Master Plan, as adopted and amended by the City Council from time to time, shall be kept on file in the office of the City Secretary of the City of Southlake, along with a copy of the resolution and minute order of the Council so adopting or approving the same. Any existing element of the Comprehensive Master Plan which has been heretofore adopted by the City Council shall remain in full force until amended by the City Council as provided herein. Section 4. This resolution shall become effective on the date of approval by the City Council PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 20`h DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2005. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE By - Andy Wam sganss, Mayor ATTEST: OLA ` bq Am�vo Lori Farwell, City Secretary City of Southlake Parks, Recreation, Et Open Space Master Plan 2005 Update Resolution 05-032 Adopted by the Southlake City Council on September 20, 2005 i Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan 2005 Update Resolution 05-032 Adopted by the Southlake City Council on September 20, 2005 Southlake City Council Andy Wambsganss, Mayor Keith Shankland (Mayor Pro Tem) Carolyn Moms (Deputy Mayor Pro Tem) Laura K. Hill Gregory Jones Virginia M. Muzyka John Terrell Southlake Parks and Recreation Board Frank Cornish, Chairman Mike Mills, Secretary Liz Durham Katrina Peebles Cara White Mary Georgia, Vice Chair Elaine Cox Emily Galpin Bobby Rawls Southlake Parks Development Corporation Keith Shankland, President Sherry Berman Carolyn Moms Andy Wambsganss Cara White, Vice -President Mike Mills Virginia Muzyka Southlake Planning & Zoning Commission Vernon Stansell, Chairman Debra Edmondson, Vice -Chair Brandon Bledsoe Michael Boutte Don Coonan Al Morin Michael Springer Southlake City Staff Shane Yelverton, City Manager Malcolm Jackson, Director of Community Services Steve Polasek, Deputy Director of Community Services Kenneth Baker, Director of Planning ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to acknowledge the volunteer efforts of the many community groups and non-profit organizations that serve the City of Southlake and allow for programs, projects, and services that might otherwise be unavailable. These organizations include, but are not limited to, Southlake Program for the Involvement of Neighborhoods (SPIN), Grapevine Southlake Soccer Association, Southlake Baseball Association, Southlake Carroll Lacrosse Association, Southlake Girls Softball Association, Keep Southlake Beautiful, Southlake Sister Cities, Southlake Historical Society, Southlake Community Band, Bob Jones Nature Center, local boy and girl scout troops, and many others who graciously donate their time and services for the benefit of our community. A very special thanks to all of the 2004 Bob Jones Nature Center Photo Contest entrants whose spectacular photos grace the contents of this master plan. Page 1.1, top: Jerry Kneupper Page 1.1, middle: Forrest Wilkinson Page 1.1, bottom: Kenzie Monroe Page 2.1, top: Ashley Massey Page 4.1, top: Lisolette Cross Page 4.1, bottom: Bob Koontz Page 5.1, top: Brandon Silver Page 5.1, bottom: Ashley Massey Page 6.1, top: Susi Steele Page 6.1, bottom: Bob Koontz Page 8.1, top: Jerry Kneupper Page 8.1, bottom: Nancy Summers Page 8.12, bottom: Lauren Ryniak Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction, Background, and Definitions Introduction and Background Location Character and Resources Demographics Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan 2004 User Survey Summary Definitions Section 2 Goals and Objectives Section 3 Environmental Resource Protection Recommendations Floodplains, Wetlands, and Streams Trees Topography and View Sheds Water Quality Rural Character Air Quality Solid Waste Environmental Resource Protection Map Section 4 Plan Development Process Historical Perspective Meeting Schedule Section 5 Park Concepts, Purpose, and Standards for Development Park Classifications and their Functions Parks and Acreage Inventory and Standards Park Design Priorities and Criteria Park Type by Land Use Category Section 6 Park and Open Space Needs Assessment Demand -Based Assessment Standard -Based Assessment Resource -Based Assessment Conclusions Section 7 Inventory of Parks and Facilities and Standards for Development Inventory of Existing Facilities Other Resources Section 8 Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs Policies and Guidelines Conceptual Park Development Plans Program Implementation and Priorities Appendix A — Recreational Facility Standards and Needs Appendix B — Park Maps and Conceptual Plans Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Section 1 Introduction, Background, and Definitions "It is the mission of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Department to provide and support abundant, safe and well -maintained park land and trails; offer progressive social and cultural opportunities; and implement recreational and educational programs that collectively enrich the lives of all patrons."— Parks and Recreation Department Mission Statement 1.1 Introduction and Background The City of Southlake is geographically located north of, and between, Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, in an area termed the "Golden Triangle." This semi -rural, suburban area is so nicknamed for its abundance of quality housing, educational opportunities, and ever-increasing service amenities. The region is generally populated by families larger than the state average, young professionals, and recent retirees who seek the combination of housing and amenities Southlake has to offer. The purpose of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan is two fold: one, to implement the Southlake 2025 Plan recommendations for parks and open space by better integrating parks planning with the land use and mobility elements and two, to respond to the needs expressed by Southlake citizens in their desires for leisure services. The first goal is implemented through a set of recommendations that provide overarching guidelines for the design, scale, type, and location of parks in conjunction with new development based on context of land use categories. The second goal is implemented through the evaluation of amenities and program planning of each public park based on community input. 1-1 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 The 2001 Parks, Open Space, and Recreation plan has been shown to be a well - referenced document since its adoption and functions as the main tool for long- range park planning. Since 2001, the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan has been submitted to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for adherence to their master planning guidelines. Once approved, the plan allows the city to apply for grant funding from TPWD based on the priority needs set forth in the plan. This plan is intended to have a long-range (20-year) planning horizon that is updated every four (4) years based on changing conditions as required by the City Charter. . In addition, a periodic review every two years is required by TPWD to remain grant eligible. Parks staff will provide a two-year review and comment session prior to the update period. In all cases, the total carrying capacity of the city at build -out is used to assume total demand. 1.2 Location Southlake is located in North Central Texas, situated 23 miles northeast of Fort Worth and 25 miles northwest of Dallas. Dallas -Fort Worth International Airport is only a few short miles to the southeast, and Lake Grapevine borders the city to the northeast. State Highway 114 runs diagonally through the middle of the city, heading east through Las Colinas and into downtown Dallas and west toward the Alliance Airport corridor. The topography is comprised of mostly gently rolling, heavily treed hills and woodland areas, and the area in the north part of the city around the lake is comprised of some of the most prime native Cross Timbers habitat in the region. A ridgeline running just south of S.H. 114 divides the main watersheds of the city south toward Bear Creek and north to Kirkwood Branch of Denton Creek. 1.3 Character and Resources Southlake can also be characterized by its abundant natural resources in the Lake Grapevine vicinity and within walking distance of most neighborhoods. A very strong commitment to both natural resource identification and protection is a prevailing theme of this plan update, with increased natural area designations taking the place of previously designated active recreational areas or undesignated open space in several conceptual plans. The City of Southlake is also firmly committed to protecting environmental assets in potential private development areas with both existing and proposed ordinances that require developers to design with nature in mind. The enforcement of the city's Tree Preservation Ordinance, widely recognized statewide as a model ordinance, has resulted in creative development practices and the protection of existing resources. As such, Southlake has been awarded the "Tree City USA" designation for eight consecutive years by the National Arbor Day Foundation (NADF). NADF awards the designation only to cities who have demonstrated exceptional local regulations and instructional community outreach and volunteer opportunities in the name of protecting trees and the environment. 1-2 Resolution 05-032 1.4 Demographics Adopted September 20, 2005 The trend in population change within the City of Southlake since 1987 is reflected in Table 1.1. Southlake experienced a rapid increase in population in the decade between 1990 - 2000, with a 13 percent average growth rate during that period — among the highest in Tarrant County. This trend has slowed significantly in the past five years as opportunities for residential land development have become more scarce and the city has developed with less intensity than previously estimated. Table 1.1 City of Southlake — Historical Population Year Population Annual Growth Rate 1990 7,065 -- 1991 7,130 1 % 1992 7,990 12% 1993 8,900 11 % 1994 10,850 22% 1995 13,350 23% 1996 14,950 12% 1997 16,850 13% 1998 19,250 14% 1999 20,750 8% 2000 21,519 4% 2001 22,806 6% 2002 23,500 3% 2003 24,200 3% 2004 24,550 1 % 2005 24,900 1 % Source: NCTCOG www.dfwlnfo.com Table 1.2 City of Southlake — Population Projections Using Logistic Function Year Population Percent 5-year Increase 2005 24,900 -- 2010 29,030 17% 2015 30,305 4% 2020 1 30,920 1 2% Build -out 1 31,500 1 2% Source: Cfty of Southlake Parks and Recreation Dept 1-3 Resolution 05-032 Table 1.3 - Population by Age Group Adopted September 20, 2005 Population % of Total Po ulation DFW Average 0/G Total 21,519 100.0 100.0 Sex Male 10,792 50.2 49.8 Female 10,727 49.8 50.2 Age Under 5 1,632 7.6 8.0 5 to 9 2,523 11.7 7.9 10 to 14 2,512 11.7 7.6 15 to 19 1,761 8.2 7.2 20 to 24 390 1.8 7.1 25 to 34 1,310 6.1 16.8 35 to 44 5,198 24.2 17.2 45 to 54 4,209 19.6 12.6 55 to 59 888 4.1 4.2 60 to 64 432 2.0 3.1 65 to 74 417 1.9 4.5 75 to 84 205 1.0 2.7 85 + 42 0.2 0.9 Under 18 7,978 37.1 28.0 65 + 664 3.1 8.1 Source: 2000 U.S. Census (www.cansus.gov) Table 1.4 - Population by Race Race and Hispanic Origin of Population Number Percent DFW Average White 20,345 94.5 71.5 Black or African American 299 1.4 14.3 American Indian and Alaska Native 53 0.2 1.1 Asian 386 1.8 4.2 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 2 0.0 0.2 Other Race 175 0.8 11.3 More than one race 259 1.2 Total 21,519 Hispanic Origin of any race 789 3.7 21.5 Source: 2000 U.S. Census www.census. ov 1-4 Resolution 05-032 Table 1.5 —Household Income Distribution Adopted September 20, 2005 Income Range Households % of Households DFW Average off, Less than $10,000 91 1.4 7.2 $10,000 to $14,999 47 0.7 4.7 $15,000 to $24,999 152 2.4 11.1 $25,000 to $34,999 182 2.8 12.6 $35,000 to $49,999 220 3.4 16.6 $50,000 to $74,999 660 10.3 20.4 $75,000 to $99,999 721 11.2 11.7 $100,000 to $149,999 1,691 26.3 9.6 $150,000 to $199,999 1,129 17.6 2.9 $200,000 or more 1,529 23.8 3.1 Median household income $131, 549 $47,418 Source: 2000 U.S. Census www.consus. ov Identifying demographic characteristics of the current population is important in accurately assessing the needs of the city for parks and recreation facilities. The profiles in Tables 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 depict age, race, and income charts that provide "snapshots" of Southlake's population in 2000. The 2000 census identifies the largest demographic group is 25 to 44 years old. The above combined with the fact that nearly one-third of the population is under 18 years old, informs park planners that a large portion of park users will be young families. These demographics are validated by the information gathered in the 2004 Parks and Trails User Survey, a summary of which is presented later in this Section. Southlake has a higher than average percentage of families with young children and as new housing continues at a slower pace, but with a similar housing distribution, this trend is unlikely to change significantly. 1.5 Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan A critical element of this update of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan has been the implementation of the goals and objectives from the Southlake 2025 Plan — Phase I. Another aspect of this update has been the incorporation of a critical resources element based on the recommendations of the Phase II area plans of the Southlake 2025 Plan. A prominent theme emerging from the Southlake 2025 Plan has been the priority placed on protection of critical environmental resources in the city. While a significant portion of this can be addressed through protection of public park property, the plan makes several recommendations for the protection of environmental resources on private property. These recommendations form the basis for developing a set of incentives to maximize open space and environmental resource protection that assist in evaluating development proposals. 1-5 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 This plan implements the following goals and objectives from the Southlake 2025 Plan — Phase I: Southlake 2025 Plan — Phase I - Goal 5: Support a comprehensive Integrated open space and recreation system that creates value and preserves natural assets of the city. Open spaces may include a combination of natural areas, parks, trails, and greens. A recreation system includes squares, educational and civic uses. Objective 5.1 Encourage developers to provide useable and functional open space that is integrated with new development. Access to such areas should be pedestrian friendly. Objective 5.2 Ensure that parkland and open spaces include a mix of developed and natural areas in order to preserve wildlife habitats, plant communities and scenic areas while maintaining accessibility. Objective 5.3 Ensure that parkland accommodates both active activities such as organized sports and passive activities such as bird watching. Objective 5.4 Water conservation and reuse should be a priority in the design of parks and open spaces. Objective 5.5 Develop and utilize the city's Storm Water Management Plan to protect against inundation from storm water runoff. Open space easements and corridors for preservation should be identified and integrated to this plan. Objective 5.6 The city should continue to investigate public -private partnerships to create open space and recreation facilities with other types of developments including residential, retail, and employment. Objective 5.7 Ensure that development is respective of and appropriately integrated with the natural physical geography of the land in Southlake by requiring environmentally sensitive development to eliminate "scrape and build" development. Objective 5.8 Continue to explore those developmental opportunities associated with recreational and entertainment facilities that would appeal to the teen-age population of the City. 2004 User Survey Summary As previously stated, the purpose of this plan is to update the previously adopted 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. The first important task to begin each plan update is a random sampling and statistically relevant survey of parks and trails users and their satisfaction levels and preferences for future facilities. This can be the single most useful tool in shaping the priorities for park development in the four-year periods between master plan updates. Parks staff contracted with the firm of Decision Analysts, Inc., to conduct the survey. Survey participants were contacted via telephone interviews among 600 Southlake residents, randomly selected from a list of published telephone numbers of Southlake residents and supplemented with a random -digit dial (RDD) sample from 1-6 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Southlake zip codes. Quotas were set by three geographic areas: Area 1 — North of Highway 114; Area 2 — North of FM 1709 but south of Highway 114; and Area 3 — South of FM 1709. The survey was conducted largely in the month of November 2004. To follow is an Executive Summary of the findings. The entire report and the breakdown of the responses can be obtained from the City of Southlake Department of Community Services offices at 400 North White Chapel Blvd., Southlake, Texas, 76092. CURRENT UTILIZATION ❖ The majority of Southlake residents utilize at least some aspect of the park or trail systems. In the past 12 months: O 80% visited a city park or park facility. O 74% participated in a city event. O 56% visited an athletic field or gym. O 54% utilized bike or pedestrian paths. ❖ High utilization is influenced by three interdependent factors: age, children, and area of Southlake: O Younger residents and those with children are more likely to take advantage of Southlake's parks, trails, and recreation services. O Area 3 (southern) residents, in general, have higher utilization levels compared to other residents. They also tend to be younger and more likely to have children at home. OVERALL SATISFACTION ❖ Almost 9 in 10 Southlake residents report satisfaction with the quality of parks and recreation. ❖ Areas of highest satisfaction include: O Park safety and maintenance O Quality of athletic and recreation facilities and programs. ❖ The Southlake trail system represents the greatest opportunity for improvement: O Residents report only moderate satisfaction with the quality and availability of hike and bike trails. O Almost 2 out of 5 residents report that no trails are available in their neighborhood. Area 3 (southern) residents report the greatest access to trails. PARK PREFERENCES ❖ Southlake residents are quite satisfied with the parks system. However, they indicated opportunities for improvement: O Increase availability of park facilities, including athletic fields and gyms. O Focus new park development to include multi -use trails, playgrounds, and open grassy areas. ❖ The proposed recreation center is a more popular idea than neighborhood park development; however, support is not overwhelming: 1-7 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 O Almost half of residents prefer the proposed recreation center, but over one-third are more interested in the completion of neighborhood parks. Almost 1 out of 5 residents care for neither option or have no opinion. ❖ Overall, Southlake residents consider the proposed recreation center to be the highest priority in park development. This is particularly true for the following segments: O Residents living in Areas 1 (north) and 3 (south) O Those with children O Females ❖ Residents more likely to prefer the completion of neighborhood parks include: O Residents living in Area 2 (south of Highway 114 but north of FM 1709) O Those with no children living at home O Residents age 56 or older O Males TRAIL PREFERENCES ❖ Trail access is limited: O Almost 2 out of 5 Southlake residents report no access to neighborhood trails and dissatisfaction with trail quality and availability. O Area 3 (southern) residents report the greatest access to neighborhood trails. ❖ Trail development is a top priority: O Residents name trails and sidewalks as their top need. O Residents expect new trails to be accessible from their neighborhood to local areas such as parks, schools, and shopping. O Scenic trails through nature areas or along city creeks are also highly desirable. RECOMMENDATIONS ❖ Continue the outstanding work in maintaining facilities and programs. Southlake residents appreciate the care taken to create a safe, family friendly parks system. ❖ Develop new trails, particularly in Areas 1 and 2. Increase or complete trails: O From neighborhoods to local destinations such as schools and parks. O In nature areas such as parks or along city creeks. ❖ Because support for the proposed recreation center is not overwhelming: O Hold public meetings with residents to discuss the proposed recreation center. O Due to differing preferences, hold separate meetings for each of the three areas. In order to expand support for Southlake's parks system and better serve all citizens, consider programs to involve those residents currently less likely to utilize the park system, primarily older residents or those with no children. These might include age - appropriate classes, programs, or city events. 1-8 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 1.7 Definitions Conceptual or Concept Plans — plans demonstrating a likely development scenario for parks or other areas. These plans are not "set in stone" but simply provide a framework for development. Natural Area — park land or other areas intended to remain in a largely natural state and specifically planned accordingly. Needs Assessment — determining incremental demand for parks and recreational services by establishing baseline ratios and projecting demand based on increments of population growth. Open Space — denotes parks or other areas which have not thus far programmed for any type of park structure or amenity. The preferred term for park land intended to remain open is "natural area." 1-9 Resolution 05-032 Section 2 Goals and Objectives The goals and objectives within this plan are intended to guide all public and private decision making for the development of the city's parks, recreation, and open space system. To this end, this section streamlines the goals and objectives from the 2001 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan while consolidating the recommendations from the Southlake 2025 Plan. Previous goals, which concerned the provisions for accessibility and playground safety measures, have been deleted in this plan, since these provisions have more to do with mandated standards than simply expectations. In the place of these previous goals, the goals of enhanced linkages to and from parks and schools and the provision of non-traditional athletic venues for older youth were added. The goals in this plan are based on subject content and community input, however, they are not listed in rank order. CONNECTIVITY GOAL: Provide and enhance connectivity primarily between parks, schools, and neighborhoods and secondarily between neighborhoods, shopping, and employment areas. Objectives Adopted September 20, 2005 o Prioritize pedestrian connectivity between the city's neighborhoods, schools, and parks. o Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle access along the city's roadways through the city's Mobility Plan and Capital Improvements Planning. o Encourage the design of new public and private parks and open spaces to be contiguous and linear with connections made to existing parks and open spaces. This would limit open space fragmentation and promote wildlife corridors to be preserved. 2-1 Resolution 05-032 Implementation Recommendations: Adopted September 20, 2005 o Amend development ordinances (subdivision and zoning) to require all development (residential and non-residential) to provide interior sidewalk/trail connections to existing and future trail network. o Set aside portions of all major construction projects to enhance pedestrian travel to and from parks, schools, and neighborhoods. o Include pedestrian and bicycle facilities along all roadways in the city's Capital Improvements Plan (as identified in the Mobility Plan and the Pathways Plan). o Work with other departments, the state, and the region to secure funding for pedestrian access. DIVERSITY GOAL: Southlake's citizens deserve a robust and diverse menu of parks and recreational opportunities. The provision of atypical amenities and cutting edge programming is required. Objectives o Ensure the development of active recreational opportunities o Ensure the development of natural areas or environmental preserves for passive recreational opportunities o Ensure the development of facilities sensitive to the needs of physically and mentally disabled park users o Integrate the design and scale of a range of open spaces from environmental preserves to squares and plazas; all based on the adjoining land use context for new development. Implementation Recommendations: o Establish requirements for a range of open spaces to be provided in conjunction with new mixed use development in the Transition 1 & 2 and Employment Center land use designations. o Purchase and/or lease park land suitable for the development of active recreational improvements and activities. o Purchase and/or lease park land suitable for natural area preservation and passive recreational opportunities. o Develop and continuously improve, expand and update recreational programming. o Develop facilities and programs sensitive to the needs of physically and mentally disabled park users. 2-2 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 INCLUSION GOAL: Seek to provide non-traditional recreational opportunities in the parks system to encourage much greater participation by older youths and young adults. Objectives o Work with the school district, youth clubs, or other associations to evaluate options for non-traditional recreational opportunities to offer. o Maintain close relationship with the Southlake Youth Action Commission (SYAC) to gauge participation levels for various proposed venues. Implementation Recommendations: o Concentrate the upcoming years' capital improvements to include special venues for youth who may not participate in organized sports. PARTICIPATION GOAL: Utilizing such groups as the Southlake Program for the Involvement of Neighborhoods (SPIN), solicit public involvement in every aspect of the development of Southlake parks. Objectives o Solicit public and private input through surveys, workshops, ad hoc committees and public meetings o Encourage inter -departmental communication among Parks and Recreation staff and other city departments o Enlist public and private assistance with facility development by creating a mechanism for encouraging and organizing volunteerism o Educate the community as to the state of its park and recreation system by publicizing its opportunities and deficiencies. Educate the community on the value-added benefits of well designed and accessible open space. Implementation Recommendations: o Encourage developers of any proposed public or private parks to meet with city staff and neighborhood groups to discuss the park design in conjunction with any development o Develop public presentations on the status and value-added benefits of open space to be made at a variety of venues. DEVELOPMENT GOAL: Integrate the design of appropriately scaled open spaces for all new development — both residential and non-residential. Such open spaces should include a range of open spaces from environmental preserves to squares and plazas, all based on the context of adjoining land use and urban design. Open spaces should be designed so as to maximize the value of adjoining development while preserving environmentally sensitive areas on the site. 2-3 Resolution 05-032 Objectives: Adopted September 20, 2005 o Establish design and performance criteria and priorities for private parks and open space by type of park. o Develop a system of incentives which could include park credits, increased development intensities, and other trade-offs for the protection of environmentally sensitive assets and or appropriately scaled and designed parks on the site. o Improve the integration of open space design by land use categories by establishing priorities for park design elements by land use category and type of park. Implementation Recommendations: o Amend the city's subdivision regulations to allow for more flexibility in providing park dedication credits for parks proposed in conjunction with new development. o Amend the city's zoning ordinance to provide a range of incentives for the design of new public and private parks in conjunction with proposed development in the city's newly created Transition, Employment Center, and Rural Conservation land use designations. o Evaluate all new development that proposes public or private parks based on established park design criteria. 2-4 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Section 3 Environmental Resource Protection Recommendations Previous Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plans focused primarily on public parkland. During the Southlake 2025 process, environmental sustainability and open space preservation were identified as central goals. These goals cannot be adequately addressed through the consideration of public property alone. Accordingly, this update of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan also addresses environmental concerns and provides environmental protection recommendations for private property. Of special consideration are the existing undisturbed, natural areas in city parks such as Bob Jones Parks. Because of its proximity to environmentally sensitive U. S. Army Corps of Engineers property, Bob Jones Park is a tremendous asset to the city, in that it provides a range of active and passive recreational opportunities, including nature center and environmental preservation areas. To the extent possible, any future development within Bob Jones Park should be directed towards passive recreational opportunities that are wholly compatible and consistent with the continued preservation of those natural resources. Likewise, development in all of the parks should strive to minimize the environmental impact and to preserve natural areas when possible and practical. City Staff, in conjunction with the Park Board and community groups should evaluate the potential for placing a conservation easement over portions of Bob Jones Park to implement the above conservation goals including the creation of a Cross Timbers habitat in areas of Bob Jones Park. The following sections consolidate and expand upon the recommendations for environmental resource protection found in the Southlake 2025 Plan — Phase II area plans. The purpose of this consolidation is to place the recommendations in the context of the city and its region. This chapter and its accompanying map, known collectively as the Environmental Resource Protection Plan, serve as a guide for environmental decision making in the city. In particular, the Environmental Resource Protection Plan should be consulted when considering any new development. 3-1 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Floodplains, Wetlands, and Streams Protect and conserve the unique natural resources in Southlake and the Corps of Engineers areas. This applies not only to designated natural areas, but also to floodplains and other areas outside the park system. Natural, undeveloped floodplains, wetlands, and streams can add aesthetic value, provide habitat, and reduce flooding. The following recommendations were developed to protect these resources: • Rehabilitate/protect stream corridors in conjunction with new development. Use the 100-year floodplain as an asset to development. Allow floodplains, wetlands, and streams to remain in a natural state. Consider alternative site design, such as clustering, to protect floodplains. Protecting stream corridors reduces storm water runoff and reduces flooding. If protected in conjunction with an open space plan, protected stream corridors can add value to private development. Further, natural drainage systems reduce pollutants in runoff and provide valuable wildlife habitat. • Preserve a tree buffer adjoining floodplains, wetlands, and streams. Trees and vegetation within 20 feet of the stream corridor should remain in a natural state. Trees provide habitat, add aesthetic value, reduce erosion, and reduce runoff volume. They also serve as a runoff "filter", reducing the amount of pollutants entering waterways. In addition, trees provide natural shading that helps to protect water temperature — an important aspect of water quality for plants and animals. • Encourage the development of pedestrian greenways along creeks and floodplains to provide non -motorized access and connections from adjoining neighborhoods to commercial developments, schools, and parks. The city has made a commitment to protect floodplains and to provide a network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Stream buffers provide open space that may be utilized for trails. Emphasis should be placed on continuous open spaces to provide for wildlife habitats. • If wetlands exist on property proposed to be developed, assurance or proof of compliance acceptable to the city must be provided at time of application that all federal regulations are met pertaining to the protection and mitigation of such areas. Identify and protect wetland habitats. • Provide development incentives to protect the stream corridor as a natural drainage channel. Develop regulations that allow for creative and flexible site design that is sensitive to the stream valley. • Encourage placement of floodplains and creeks into conservation easements. • Market the community wide benefits of conserving the natural resources and enhancing the assets of Lake Grapevine. • Recommend the Park Board and city staff to evaluate placing conservation easements over certain portions of Bob Jones Park to protect identified environmentally sensitive areas while providing for passive recreational uses that are compatible with conservation goals. 3-2 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 • Evaluate the feasibility of designating portions of Bob Jones Park as a Cross Timbers preservation area. Trees Aside from their aesthetic value, trees improve air quality, protect water, reduce energy consumption, reduce surface temperatures, and increase property values. Amend the city's pertinent development regulations, including the Tree Preservation, Zoning, and Subdivision regulations to provide appropriate standards and incentives to: • Protect and preserve wooded areas where appropriate. Consider creative site design to maximize tree preservation. • Preserve tree buffers adjacent to floodplains. • Preserve tree buffers adjacent to neighborhoods. Trees provide privacy, add aesthetic value, and help to shield neighborhoods from noise and light from surrounding developments. • Maintain existing vegetation adjacent to roadways when wooded areas are developed. Retain tree cover along rural cross-section roadways. Trees along streets serve as a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles. In addition, a tree -lined street tends to enhance the perception of a street as narrow, slowing people down. Further, retaining tree cover will help to preserve rural character. • Protect significant wooded areas as identified by the Environmental Resource Protection Map. The map should provide decision makers a guide to the identification of significant and contiguous resources to be protected. Topography and View Sheds Existing development in Southlake has not always been sensitive to topography and view sheds. However, a significant portion of undeveloped land in Southlake has gently rolling slopes and view sheds. In an effort to preserve these remaining areas, the following recommendations are made: • Adapt development to the topography rather than topography to the development. Large retaining walls are discouraged. Maintaining the existing topography helps to preserve trees and other vegetation. • Incorporate significant landscape features into new development. • Preserve view sheds that add value to development. • Amend development regulations to provide appropriate incentives to protect identified areas of steep slopes and view sheds. 3-3 Resolution 05-032 Water Quality Adopted September 20, 2005 Protecting the aquifer recharge areas in Southlake is critical to protect ground water sources over the long-term. To that end the following recommendations to protect water quality are made: • Protect the city's surface and groundwater sources from contamination by preserving tree buffers adjoining the floodplain corridor. • Develop regional stormwater retention areas in conjunction with existing ponds and water bodies. Retention areas detain stormwater and release it at a constant rate, minimizing erosion and the potential for flooding. Further, detaining stormwater gives physical, chemical, and biological processes time to work on pollutants. • Minimize impervious surfaces in new developments. Consider creative site design, such as clustering, to reduce impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces increase runoff volume, alter stream flow, reduce groundwater recharge, and increase stream sedimentation, all of which degrade water quality. Reducing impervious surfaces will help to decrease the impact of non -point source pollution through runoff. In fact, traditional suburban development can produce storm runoff almost 50% greater than more compact development. • Encourage the use of native and adapted plants in landscaping. Natural vegetation can reduce runoff, provide habitat, and reduce water consumption. Compared to traditional landscaping, natural landscaping requires less maintenance and may improve air quality by reducing air emissions from lawn and garden equipment. • Create a water protection resource ordinance. Such an ordinance would provide incentives for development to follow best management practices (BMPs) for protecting water quality and reducing impervious surfaces, run-off, and water consumption. Development standards would seek an effective way to collect, store and use surface and groundwater data. • Continue the development of education programs which provide information to the public regarding the protection of both surface and ground water. • Adopt Groundwater Assessment Standards for proposed developments. Incorporate adopted standards into the subdivision ordinance. Rural Character Aesthetic and economic values of low -intensity rural ranching uses are significant. Open space also commands property value premiums and it preservation/conservation should be encouraged. The Southlake 2025 Plan — Phase I and II emphasize the protection of the city's rapidly eroding rural character through the following recommendations: 3-4 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 • Protect the city's remaining ranching/agricultural and environmental areas by requiring residential development to occur in a manner that has the minimum impact on these resources. • Amend development ordinances to encourage conservation developments and purchase of development rights programs to encourage open space preservation. Air Quality Air quality is a serious problem in North Central Texas that can impact quality of life by causing health problems, damaging natural resources, and damaging property (oxides rust iron and damage building stone). Accordingly, the following air quality recommendations are made: • Encourage mixed use developments to reduce travel miles. Automobiles are a key source of air pollution in the area. • Develop the infrastructure for and encourage the use of alternative travel options, such as walking and biking. • Protect existing tree cover and plant more trees. Tree leaves remove ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide, and particulate matter from the air. • Encourage the use of low maintenance landscaping. Lowmaintenance landscaping using native and adapted plants reduces the use of gasoline - powered lawn and garden equipment that contribute to air pollution. Solid Waste Population growth leads to an increase in the generation of solid waste. Further, the increasing urbanization of the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex is expected to limit the area's solid waste disposal options, such as building new landfills or expanding existing landfills. According to the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), landfill disposal capacity in the Dallas -Fort Worth Metroplex (including Tarrant, Dallas, Kaufman, Ellis, and Johnson counties) is expected to be an issue as early as 2020. The simplest way to increase the longevity of existing landfills is to reduce the flow of waste entering them. To achieve solid waste reduction, the following recommendations are made: • Encourage source reduction. • Encourage the use of recycled or reused materials. • Encourage recycling, including construction and demolition waste recycling. • Encourage building deconstruction (rather than demolition). Environmental Resource Protection Map The Environmental Resource Protection (ERP) Map is a critical element of the implementation of the Environmental Resource Protection Recommendations. 3-5 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Specifically, the ERP Map identifies priority areas for the protection of significant environmentally sensitive areas in the city. The emphasis is on establishing a contiguous network of open spaces between floodplains, city parks, private parks, linear parks, and greenways. The purpose of the ERP Map is to identify important resources to insure that they are considered during the review of development proposals and to encourage the evaluation of individual resources in the context of a larger system. Accordingly, developers should consult the ERP Map as early as possible to incorporate environmental resource protection recommendations into their development proposals. The ERP Map is not intended to hinder development, but rather insure that new development complements important natural resources. The ERP Map serves as a general guide that is flexible; the boundaries of resources are not intended to be regulatory nor all encompassing. Site specific conditions and the type of development may impact the exact locations and the extent of preservation. However, any proposal for resource protection included with a development application must be in harmony with the purpose and spirit of the Environmental Resource Protection Plan. 3-6 City of Southlake Southlake 2025 Plan Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Plan Resolution 05-032 Adopted by the Southlake City Council on September 20, 2005 4 \ \ \ \ S )PAW 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles SOUTHLAKE y 2025 lle,. eB Tel rT l., : Beira re w.•ie• V_.-1d a 16 �l BOB JONESS md 946 • t' b DOVE 7 WIGHtAND a t i • I ,I I .C140 J r I — IJOPEWEE — _r + r b 1 / • R I �o JOHNSON • dr v. y c .j + c� f ~ m O I e M_�L _ JJNtoer Note: A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries. The areas identified for preservation on this map are only intended to be a guide and site specific conditions may warrant changes while emphasizing connectivity to a larger open space network. DISCLAIMER This data has been compiled for The City of Southlake. Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. Environmental Resource Protection Map Legend Tree Cover/Open Space to be preserved where appropriate Existing Tree Cover` 100 Year Flood Plain Park and School Property CreeksMater Bodies "Based on 2004 NCTCOG Data 3-7 Resolution 05-032 Section 4 Plan Development Process Historical Perspective Meeting Schedule Plan Development Process As stated in the introduction, Southlake citizens, city staff, and the development community take long-range planning very seriously and consider it to be one of the most intrinsic functions undertaken by elected and appointed officials in this municipality. The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan has undergone some significant iterations in the past decade or more, and like any good plan, it has evolved and become more relevant with each examination. Below is a brief outline of the significant plan adoptions and updates of the Park Master Plan. This is a long range (20-year) planning document that is frequently updated to reflect changing needs and priorities and to meet the Southlake Charter requirement of four (4) year updates. The Community Services Department will make periodic reviews at least every two years throughout the four-year periods and make minor revisions as needed. Specifically, the plan development process for the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan followed two parallel tracks. The first track is the Southlake 2025 Plan Phase I and II and the second track is the Park Board planning process which involved developing park concepts and programming based on community input to meet Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) standards. Several overarching goals, objectives, and recommendations as they pertain to parks, open space, and environmental resource protection were adopted by the City Council Adopted September 20, 2005 4-1 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 as a part of the Southlake 2025 Plan, phase I and II. This effort provided the basis for: 1. Augmenting the Goals and Objectives section of this plan to better integrate parks and open space planning with other master plan elements, specifically the land use plan; and 2. Section 3 of this plan that consolidates the environmental resource protection recommendations from the area plans of the Southlake 2025 Plan — Phase II. The Southlake 2025 Plan is the city's first comprehensive master plan. It is the blueprint for the physical development of the city for the next 20 plus years. This plan process began in October 2003 and was undertaken in two phases. Phase I was adopted in March 2004 and established a vision, and goals and objectives for the city. Phase II began in July 2004 and concluded in May 2005 with the adoption of the last area plan. Both phases included several meetings of the Southlake 2025 Steering Committee, the Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Southlake City Council. For more information on the Southlake 2025 Plan process, please visit the internet at: www.cityofsouthlake.com/2025/defaut.asp. This plan has been prepared to also meet the guidelines for park and recreation system master plans set forth by Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD). TPWD provides a variety of matching grant programs, and approved plans enhance an applicant's chances of qualifying for matching grants for the implementation of projects. Previous Parks and Recreation Master Planning: 1992 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan o This was the City's first attempt to look at park and recreation resources in a comprehensive manner. At that time, the city's population was around 8,000, and the city owned 14 acres of park land, all in Bicentennial Park. The City's build -out population was projected to be more than 48,000, one-third more than the current projection. The recommended park acreage was six to ten acres per 1,000 population, which would have yielded 289 to 483 acres at build -out. Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. of Arlington prepared the plan. 1996 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan o This plan updated land and facility inventory, planning and design criteria, plan recommendations and implementation sections of the original plan. The focus of the update was "on the preservation, development or enhancement of attributes important to reflect the native condition of the North Texas landscape that attracted residents to the community." By this time, Bicentennial Park had been expanded to forty-one acres and two neighborhood parks, Koalaty (5 acres) and Lonesome Dove (8 acres), had been acquired. Purchase of 131 acres of land for Bob Jones Park was contemplated. A park and recreation citizen's survey was designed and 4-2 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 administered by Glass & Associates. The park and open space standard was raised to 21 acres per 1,000 residents, almost double the regional standard. The update was prepared by the City of Southlake staff. 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan o This plan update reflected the most comprehensive analysis of the Southlake park system and its potential for orderly development to date. The most important result to emerge from this study was 100% compliance with TPWD standards for parks master plans, which assured the maximum points available in that category would be available on any TPWD-sponsored grant submittals. All subsequent plans will conform to TPWD guidelines at a minimum in the future. This plan saw increases in the number of parks, park acreages, park inventories, comprehensive mapping, individual park conceptual planning, and prioritization of projects. 2004-2005 Plan Update Meeting Schedule o A large number of focus meetings were held during this most recent plan update. Most were broken down by user group topics of interest or geographically. The Southlake Program for the Involvement of Neighborhoods (SPIN), which employs a network of public meeting notification measures, hosted the focus meetings. In addition, periodic updates were presented at Planning and Zoning Commission work sessions in conjunction with the Southlake 2025 Plan meetings. The following is a listing of public meetings held as part of the plan update process: 12-06-04 Kick-off Meeting hosted by SPIN 12-13-04 Park User Survey Results and Analysis at Park Board 01-03-05 Open Space Planning hosted by SPIN 01-19-05 Athletics Forum hosted by SPIN 02-02-05 Southlake Youth Action Commission (SYAC) 02-07-05 Park Issues North of SH 114 (SPIN) 02-10-05 Daytime (2:00 p.m.) Meeting with Com. Svc. Groups 02-17-05 Park Board Work Session - Parks 02-21-05 Central Area Park Issues (114 to 1709) (SPIN) 02-23-05 Library Board / FOSL 03-02-05 Park Board Work Session - Parks 03-07-05 Southern Park Issues (South of 1709) (SPIN) 03-10-05 Joint Use Issues with CISD 03-11-05 Senior Advisory Commission 03-31-05 Park Board Work Session - Trails 04-11-05 Park Board Work Session 04-25-05 Park Board Work Session 05-02-05 Park Board Recommendations 05-09-05 Park Board Recommendations 05-31-05 Park Board Recommendations 07-21-05 P&Z Consideration 08-04-05 P&Z Recommendation September 2005 City Council Adoption 4-3 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Section 5 Park Concepts, Purpose, and Standards for Development This section details the park design concepts and standards based on the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA - http://www.nrpa.org/) recommendations by defining different types of parks. The next part of this section then applies these standards in the context of the city by establishing priority design elements by type of park. Finally, establishing appropriate park types by land use categories from the Southlake 2025 Plan will help bridge the gap between park planning and land use planning. 5.1 Park Concepts In order to provide the parks, recreation, and open space facilities needed by the City's residents, a set of standards and design criteria should be followed. The NRPA has developed such standards for parks, recreation and open space development that are intended to guide communities in establishing a hierarchy of park areas. These areas are defined by: (1) the various types of activities that are to be furnished, and (2) their type, size and service area. The following describes a commonly used classification system that follows guidelines similar to those set forth by NRPA. Each park type is discussed in order to: (1) identify the function of the park; (2) identify the recreational activities associated with each park; and (3) define the general service area and the physical relationship of each park to the population residing within its service area. 5-1 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Southlake has previously used the following classification types to inventory its parks: o neighborhood parks, o community parks, o city parks, o special purpose parks, o linear parks, and o natural areas and/or open space. Neighborhood Park The neighborhood park is to be one of the most important features of a park system because of its ability to define the character of neighborhoods through its design. Its primary function is the provision of recreational space for the neighborhood that surrounds it. There are six parks within Southlake that can be classified as neighborhood parks. When it is possible to combine an elementary school with this type of park, the two features further enhance the identity of the neighborhood by providing a central location for recreation and education, and by providing a significant open space feature within the neighborhood. A neighborhood park should be located near the center of the neighborhood, and should have a service area of approximately one-half mile to three -fourths mile.. As with all the following park types, these service areas are shown as existing (solid circles) and proposed (dashed circles) in Figure 17 — Existing and Proposed Parks. Safe and convenient pedestrian access (sidewalks or hike -and - bike trails) is important to a neighborhood park location. Generally, the location should not be adjacent to a heavily traveled major thoroughfare. Facilities normally provided at a neighborhood park consist of the following: o Playground equipment for small children o A multiple -purpose, surfaced play area o An athletic area (non -lighted) for games such as baseball, football and soccer, and a surfaced area for such sports as volleyball, basketball and similar activities o Pavilions for picnics with tables and grills are desirable, as well as restrooms and drinking fountains o A passive area is a desirable part of the playground facility and should include landscaping, trees and any natural areas o Walking trails Neighborhood parks are designed to serve a small population area. An appropriate standard in relation to size and population for this type of park is 2 acres per 1,000 persons. These parks normally serve a population base of 1,000 to 2,500 persons, and generally range in size from 5 to 10 acres per park. The most critical aspect of acquiring, sizing, locating, and constructing neighborhood parks is that the park is easily accessible from the surrounding 5-2 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 neighborhoods. Therefore, trail linkages, comfort stations, and family -friendly amenities take priority. Community Park A community park is a larger area than a neighborhood park, and is oriented to provide active recreational facilities for all ages. A community park serves several neighborhood areas; therefore, it should be conveniently accessible by automobile, and it should include provisions for off-street parking. The service area (or radius) of these park types is typically three -fourth (%) to 1 mile. Activities provided in these parks may include: o Game and practice fields for baseball, football, soccer, softball, lacrosse, etc. (lighted) o A small community building/recreation center o Tennis courts o A surfaced multiple -purpose play area o Playground structures o A passive area for picnicking; and o Other special facilities such as disc golf, dog parks, BMX facilities, etc. The service radius of a community park play field is one-half (1/2) to two miles. Many of these facilities around the country are located adjacent to, or as a part of, a junior high or high school. Community parks are designed to serve a medium population area. An appropriate size standard for these parks in relation to size and population is 4 acres per 1,000 persons. These parks normally serve a population base of 2,500 to 5,000 persons, and they generally range in size from 40 acres to 100 acres. The only park to which mostly Community Park classifications apply in Southlake is the Southlake Sports Complex, though it is undersized to perform more than one or two specialty athletic functions. The only other parks which may share common characteristics with a Community Park are Bob Jones and Bicentennial Parks which are classified as City Parks. City Parks Areas that may reach 100 (or more) acres in size, which provide both passive and active recreational facilities, are considered to be city parks. These parks can serve all age groups, often have athletic fields, and are usually the largest parks in a city's system. Much of this derives from the fact that city parks are usually destination venues, attracting most residents and a fair share of regional visitors. It is desirable that a balance of active and passive recreational facilities be provided in a large park. Such facilities may include picnicking, fishing, water areas, and hiking and natural areas. Dependent upon location, need, and possibly topography, some community park features may be placed in the large park. These parks are often lighted athletic fields and have multi -purpose functions. A minimum standard of 3 acres per 1,000 persons is commonly 5-3 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 recommended for city parks, and they normally serve a population base of 5,000 to 7,500 persons. Southlake's two city parks, which also serve community park purposes in many areas, are Bicentennial and Bob Jones Parks. The service radius for these parks is typically the entire city, as their components draw visitors citywide. City Parks may include: o Athletic complexes o Internal road system and parking facilities o Viewpoints or overlooks o Nature trails and interpretative areas o Equestrian trails and associated facilities o Pond or lake with fishing pier and boating -canoeing o Tennis center o Aquatics center o Botanical garden or arboretum o Community Center o Amphitheater o Recreation Center Special Purpose Parks Examples of special purpose parks include golf courses, squares, plazas,ponds and water features, ornamental areas, botanical gardens, and special athletic - purpose or other single -purpose parks. Standards for these facilities are variable and dependent upon the extent of services provided by the special facility. The Coker property, a hike/bike trailhead, and Southlake's Town Square parks — urban pocket parks — would be considered special purpose parks. These parks have a service radius of the entire city. However, future mixed use developments may incorporate squares and plazas that serve adjoining neighborhoods or districts. Linear Parks Linear parks come in many shapes and sizes, but are generally intended to provide a pleasant passive area that forms a linear connection from one area to another. They may also serve as part of the city's trail system. The Kirkwood/Sabre Linear Park dedicated by Sabre in 2000 is a good example of an undeveloped linear park. Dedication of, and acceptance of, linear park corridors should be supported by the recommendations of both parks and trails plans. With the plans in place, it may be possible to persuade developers of the intrinsic fact that well -planned linear corridors add value to adjacent property and provide well -established self -policing qualities. In addition to providing natural linkages, linear parks also provide permeable land area in floodplains and/or adjacent to creeks to assist in the natural filtration of run-off and serve to slow 5-4 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 volume and velocity of storm water. These parks serve the entire city. Typical facilities found in Linear Parks include: o Landscape buffers o Hike/bike rest stations o Picnic shelters o Low -impact, non-traditional venues such as disc golf, bird -watching Natural Areas and/or Open Space These areas are natural and are generally left undisturbed, but are not necessarily characterized as land preservations. No organized, active recreational uses are usually accommodated in these areas; they are primarily intended for passive recreational use. The Corps of Engineers lease area (218 acres), most of the Farhat property (30 acres), and the Tucker property (60 acres) will be considered natural areas for the purpose of the 2005 plan update. These areas have a large service radius (much like City Parks, above) and Southlake's standard for these types of areas is at a ratio of 11 acres per 1,000 population. The following table contains a listing of Southlake parks and their acreages, as well as projections of acreage deficiencies or surpluses based on the projected population and the ratios described above. 5-5 FINAL DRAFT Table 5.1 Parks and Acreage Inventory and Standards September 14, 2005 Southlake Standard (ac.:pop) 2005 Inventory 2005 - 24,550 Population 2010 - 29,030 Population 2015 - 30,305 Population 2020 - 30,920 Population Buildout - 31,500 Req. Def./ Sur. Req. Def./ Sur. Req. Def./ Sur. Req. Def./ Sur. Req. Def./ Sur. 1. Neighborhood Parks 2:1,000 70.8 49.1 21.7 58.0 12.8 60.6 10.2 61.8 9.0 63.0 7.8 2. Community Parks 4:1,000 16.7 98.2 -81.5 116.0 -99.3 121.0 -104.3 123.6 -106.9 126.0 -109.3 3. City Parks 3:1,000 222.0 73.7 148.3 87.0 135.0 90.9 131.1 92.7 129.3 94.5 127.5 4. Special Use Parks N/A 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5. Linear Parks 1:1,000 15.1 24.6 -9.5 29.0 -13.9 30.3 -15.2 30.9 -15.8 31.5 -16.4 6. Natural Area / Open Space 11:1,000 308.0 270.0 38.0 319.0 -11.0 333.0 -25.0 340.0 -32.0 347.0 -39.0 TOTALS 21:1,000 632.6* 515.61 117.0 609.0 1 23.6 1635.8 1 -3.2 1649.0 1 -16.4 662.0 * Total parks inventory does not include special purpose parks. 1. Includes Koalaty, Noble Oaks, Chesapeake, R.A. Smith, Lonesome Dove, Liberty Park at Sheltonwood, Oak Pointe, Estes Park 2. Includes Southlake Sports Complex 3. Includes Bob Jones (excludes Tucker and Farhat) and Bicentennial 4. Includes Coker and Town Square 5. Includes the Kirkwood and Sabre area dedications 6. Includes Tucker property, Farhat property, and C.O.E. lease 5-6 FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005 5.2 Park Design Priorities and Criteria: The following table (Table 5.2) consolidates the design standards from the previous section and establishes design priorities for the development of private parks in conjunction with new development in the city. The extent to which a public or private park proposed in conjunction with new development receives park dedication credits (as required by the city's Subdivision Ordinance, as amended) shall depend upon the extent to which the proposed park meets the design, location, and context criteria established. All proposals for public or private parks in conjunction with new development shall be evaluated based on the land use and design criteria outlined in the following tables. 5-7 FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005 Table 5.2 Park Type o N t �' �o m 0 a m ¢ E m Em m �, 010v za a rs 1a. 0 5 � a � J a�i m 5a. 0 Cl) zSill n Design Elements 1. Size 5 —10 acres 40 —100 acres >100 acres < 2 acres <_ 1 acre No Limit No limit No limit 2. Service Area '/. - % mile radius %- 2 mile radius Entire city %- % mile radius %- % mile radius Neighborhood/City wide Neighborhood/City wide Neighborhood or city wide 3. Design Priorities - Preserving natural assets of the -serves a variety of -Serves a variety of -Maximize frontage along public -Maximize frontage along public -Minimize impact on any -Preserving creeks and stream -Preserving any identified site recreation needs recreation needs — both streets streets environmental assets on the site buffers environmentally sensitive areas -Add value to development - May also provide passive and active facilities -Formal design with paving and -Formal design with paving and -Special attention to water -minimal impact on the natural (based on the ERP Map). active play fields. -May incorporate landscaping. landscaping is optional. conservation in the design and environment -Design should be low -impact, specialized facilities such -Minimize surface parking -Activated by adjoining uses maintenance of the course -Provide connection to other low maintenance and emphasis as arboretums, nature adjoining squares; parking should -May be an extension of a public or private open spaces on retaining the area in a natural centers, etc. be on -street sidewalk -Providing connections state. -Activated by adjoining uses between neighborhoods, employment, shopping, and schools. 4. Locational Criteria - Central to the neighborhood it - Generally co -located -Should be located at an -Should be located at prominent -Should be located at secondary - located to preserve natural assets -Generally located as -Generally located where serves and be accessible by foot with school facilities arterial or near significant locations in a development prominent locations in a on the site greenways along creeks environmentally sensitive areas to most of the neighborhood -Should be located on a environmental features Should form the focal point of the development -may be located along an arterial or -May also be along major are identified (both in public and - Maximize development frontage collector or arterial (Lake Grapevine). development Should form minor focal points of collector if it is a public golf course. roadways or rail corridors to private parks) along the park because it may serve the development provide regional connectivity -Emphasis on connecting natural multiple neighborhoods, areas to other existing or proposed linear parks or open spaces in the vicinity 5. Amenities - Children's play areas, picnic -Lighted game fields -See standards under City -Passive recreational amenities -Passive recreational amenities - Golfing and passive recreation -Passive recreation with -Passive recreational areas pavilions, ponds, and walking -Recreation centers Parks in this section with formally laid foot paths and only such as walking. amenities to bikers and wholly subordinate to the trails. -Various (see the benches. Sidewalk cafes and other retail walkers such as rest rooms, conservation goal. standards under -Band stands and pavilions may uses that utilize the open space drinking fountains, etc. Also Community Park) be permitted. are okay. see standards under Linear Parks in this section. 6. Active Rec. Areas -None, but open fields for informal Yes Yes None None None Low -impact uses. None games may be appropriate -Tennis courts may be okay if they are not visually intrusive 7. Adjoining Land -Residential uses - Minimize residential -Residential (if park is a -Mostly commercial retail uses or Mostly retail or mixed use Mostly residential Varies depending on the Residential, other parks, or Uses -Civic uses (such as community frontage major environmental asset) mixed use buildings. buildings location of the linear park. agricultural uses. centers) - Adjacent to existing or commercial/residential schools or other lower (if park is along an arterial) intensity office uses. 8. Transition Issues -No specific standards for passive - Need special - Need special -Adjoining uses should define the -Adjoining uses should define the - Special attention to safety aspects -The linear park itself may - Low intensity residential or non - areas consideration with consideration with respect square and form the 'walls' for the plaza and form the "walls" for the of pedestrian facilities and become a transition between intrusive adjoining uses Screening of tennis courts respect to directional to directional lighting of square plaza residential uses adjoining golf uses righting of fields and fields and minimizing the -Lined by public streets designed -Lined by a public street designed courses. -Emphasis on retaining tree minimizing the visual visual impact of any active as 'main streets' on at least two as amain street on at least one buffers or other landscaping impact of any active recreation facilities on sides. (see street typology side. (see street typology features along linear parks. recreation facilities on adjoining residential. definitions in the Mobility Plan) definitions in the Mobility Plan) adjoining residential. 9. Access -Required to provide pedestrian -Will have multi -modal -Will have multi -modal -Maximize pedestrian access from -Maximize pedestrian access -Mostly pedestrian and automobile -Ensure pedestrian and bicycle -Mostly pedestrian and bicycle (pedestrian, bike & and bicycle access from the access to adjoining access to adjoining adjoining neighborhoods to the from adjoining neighborhoods to access from the adjoining access from all adjoining uses access through other panics such auto) neighborhood. neighborhoods (bike, neighborhoods and the square the square neighborhoods to the linear park. as linear parks or city parks. pedestrian, and auto) city's street network (bike, -Padding should be on street -Parking should be on street -Minimal automobile access. pedestrian, and autoparking (parallel or angled) arks(parallel or angled) 10. Preservation of High priority Medium priority High priority Medium priority (due to the formal Medium priority High priority High priority High priority natural amenities nature of the open space) 11. Maintenance City or private HOA or City City City/ private association/ HOA or City/ private association/ HOA or HOA or similar organization City or private HOA or City or private HOA or combination combination combination combination combination 12.Ownership Could be city owned or HOA City City City/private association/HOA City/private association/ HOA HOA or similar organization City or HOA City or private HOA or owned combination 13. Park Dedication Negotiated between the developer Generally none Generally none Negotiated between the developer Negotiated between the -No credits if it is a private golf Negotiated between the Credits for new development Credits and the city based on the extent to and the city based on the extent to developer and the city based on course developer and the city based based on the quality and quantity which it meets the above criteria which it meets the above criteria the extent to which it meets the -Credits may be negotiated between on the extent to which it meets of environmentally sensitive above criteria the developer and the city if it is a the above criteria areas preserved. off course open to the public 5-8 FINAL DRAFT 5.3 Appropriate Park Type by Land Use Designation September 14, 2005 The table below (Table 5.3) establishes the relationship between the appropriate park types and land use categories based on the scale, context, and mix of land uses appropriate in land use category. Both the 1998 and the 2005 Consolidated Land Use Plans include a land use category for Public Parks and Open Space. This land use category is a catch all land use category for all public parks. This following table is not intended to contradict that land use designation, rather it attempts to better link the design and type of all future parks based on the land use category in which they are proposed. The following table, when used in conjunction with the table in the preceding section, provides citizens, decision makers, and developers information on the appropriate park design based on land use category. This can in turn be used to evaluate the design of new parks based on their development context. Table 5.3 Open Space by Land Use Category Land Use Category LD- Res MD- Res RCS Retail Comm. Office Comm. Mixed Use T-1/ T-2 EC Town Center Open Space Type Neighborhood Park X X X X X X Community Park X X X City Park X X X Special Purpose Parks: o Squares o Plazas o Golf Courses X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Linear Parks X X X X X X X X X Natural Areas X X X X X X X X X 5-9 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Section 6 Park and Open Space Needs Assessment Standard -Based Assessment Demand -Based Assessment Resource -Based Assessment Conclusions Park and Open Space Needs Assessment Acceptable Methodology The recreational facilities the City has to offer its residents should generally be in accordance with the current needs of Southlake, as well as with the anticipated or expected needs that may arise in the future. Anticipated needs can be forecasted based on sound standards and development guidelines that are related to the population to be served. Expectation of needs is usually determined through the analysis of material and data furnished by persons actively engaged in some type of recreational activity. When both are considered and set forth in a logical plan and program for implementation, a sound parks and open space master plan for active and passive uses can evolve within the community. This section of the study sets forth the needs assessment for determining future facilities. This assessment and evaluation utilizes a combination of two approaches for determining park and recreation needs: (1) demand -based, which is indicated by the 2004 Park User Survey, but mainly (2) standards -based. 6-1 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 A third approach, resource -based needs assessment, though acceptable to TPWD, is less relevant to Southlake purposes. To follow is a description of the three main methodologies acceptable to TPWD. Demand Based Needs This approach used to assist in assessing the future needs relies on information and data from user group sources, or other sources familiar with the desires for specific types of facilities. The method generally used to attain input for this phase of the needs assessment is to consider requests from specific user groups separated by respective activities, surveys and public meetings. Recreational demand in Southlake is articulated by the survey summary included Section 1 of this plan document. Where applicable, national, regional, or other standards will be offset by demand articulated in the survey. Standards -Based Needs This approach, which is used to assist in assessing future recreational needs, follows established, recognized standards for assessing the quantity of park land, as well as the number of facilities that are needed to meet the needs of a given population. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) is a common source for facility standards used by many municipalities. The NRPA has functioned as a source of guidance for park standards and development for a number of years. From community to community, differences will be found in the socioeconomic and cultural characteristics, and in climatic conditions. Therefore, the range of demands and preferences for recreational activities will vary with these differences. Obviously, these variances will directly influence a uniform standard for all locations. The guidelines for Southlake as illustrated in the forthcoming needs assessment tables are the standards that will be applied for the purposes of this plan update. These assessments take into consideration National Parks and Recreation Association standards, community demand, and available resources. Resource Based Needs The resource -based approach examines natural and cultural resources of the area for open space, parks and recreation facilities, and defines how these resources can be utilized. These include woodlands, wetlands, stream corridors and floodplains, historic sites and cemeteries. Conclusions The overall Needs Assessment for the Southlake park system is described numerically in the data in Table 5.1 — Parks and Acreage Inventory and Standards and Appendix A — Recreational Facility Standards and Needs. As far as park acquisition is concerned, the city currently owns or leases adequate total acreage for a build -out scenario. The underlying factor which must be noted 6-2 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 when evaluating the lack of community park land as compared to the city park land total is that though developable city park land may be indicated, in fact there is little room left in Bicentennial Park and Bob Jones Park, the two city parks. Therefore, officials must remain diligent for community park opportunities that would specifically accommodate facilities identified within the needs assessment. In Appendix B, readers will note that the total acreage derived from the calculations of deficient acreages by recreation type is 71.47 acres. Since much of this acreage comes from active recreational sports types, it underscores the need for additional Community Park land. Specifically with the facility needs, Southlake will continue to play catch-up on lighted youth sports fields, with the greatest demands from baseball, soccer, lacrosse, and youth football for field space. Most all other facilities are either being or soon will be considered for construction. Also note that the park land needs as denoted visually by service area are contained in Figure 17 — Existing and Proposed Parks in Appendix B — Park Maps and Conceptual Plans. In summary, the following three points must be strongly emphasized, as indicated by the data: 1. The city has acquired an adequate amount of neighborhood park land as the city has developed and only needs small parks of that type in less -serviced areas as they develop or re -develop. 2. The city's greatest single need is the acquisition of active recreational field area (mostly lighted) as noted in Appendix B. The park land type associated with these fields is generally Community Park land. 3. While the city has a surplus of park land classified as "city parks", those parks (Bob Jones and Bicentennial) offer very little developable open areas for the types of active recreational needs (mostly lighted) still required. 6-3 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Section 7 Inventory of Parks and Facilities Inventory of Existing City Facilities Other Resources 7.1 Inventory of Existing City Facilities In order to estimate what types of facilities and amenities are needed in the future, a firm understanding of what facilities exist must be employed. The following tables provide the baseline for future estimations. Table 7.1 lists all city -owned and managed property, its acreage, and classification of each park. Table 7.2 provides a breakdown of types of amenities and quantity in each park. 7.2 Other Resources Table 7.3 lists the current facilities for which "joint use" agreements exist with Carroll ISD. Since the city does not have priority use of these facilities, this list is only informational in nature and was not used to calculate needs of the city. Though not used in the calculations, it must be stressed in the plan that these facilities acquired through joint use agreements help relieve the recreational pressure on the parks system and provide venues where the city may not otherwise have been able to provide them. Joint use agreements, as well as public -private partnerships, will continue to be sought. Table 7.1 — Existing Public Parks by Type and Acreage* Park Name Park Type Acreage Bicentennial city 82.0 Bob Jones (except Tucker, Farhat city 140.0 Chesapeake Neighborhood 11.3 Coker Special Purpose 4.5 Kirkwood/Sabre Linear 15.1 Koalaty Neighborhood 5.7 Liberty Park at Sheltonwood Neighborhood 17.0 Lonesome Dove Neighborhood 8.0 Noble Oaks Neighborhood 5.1 Royal and Annie Smith Neighborhood 13.2 Oak Pointe Neighborhood 8.2 Estes Park Neighborhood 2.3 Southlake Sports Complex Community 16.7 Town Square Parks Special Purpose 7.0 Tucker, Farhat, C.O.E. Lease Natural Area 308 TOTAL 644.1 *Excludes Joint Use Properties 7-1 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Table 7.2 Park Facility and Amenity Inventory (Excludes Joint Use Properties) a c w c m LL ,� � m Y co a) U U can c Y co !2 o CO o°a co fn > o a) ym _Oj � Z w w CL ci c°na m con I a. a) ccC U a � ° d O N ac0i LLUi y Fw Amphitheater 1 1 Aquatics Center 0 Batting Cage stall 6 4 10 Baseball Diamond(youth) 10 10 Baseball Diamond adult 0 Baseball Practice Area 7 4 2 13 Basketball Court outdoor 3 3 Bench 4 5 6 33 3 51 BMX Facility 0 Community Center 0 Dog Park 1 1 Fishing Pier / Dock 1 1 2 Horseshoe Court 1 In -line Hockey Rink (lighted) 1 1 Lacrosse Field" 2 2 Nature Center 1 1 Pavilion 6 3 1 1 11 Pee -Wee Football Field 1 1 Picnic Shelter 6 4 10 Picnic Table 30 14 8 3 55 Playground 1 1 1 1 4 Skate Park 0 Soccer Field* 13 13 Soccer Practice Area 13 1 14 Softball Diamond(youth) 6 6 Softball Diamond adult 2 2 Softball Practice Area 6 6 Tennis Center Pro Shop) 1 1 Tennis Courts 15 15 Trail, Hike/Equestrian miles 7.7 7.7 Trailhead, Equestrian 3 3 Trail, Mountain Biking 0 Trail, Nature miles 0.5 0.5 Trail, Paved miles 0.75 1.0 0.25 0.45 0.70 0.55 1.8 5.7 Sand Volleyball Court 0 7-2 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Table 7.3 — Joint Use Facilities Carroll Elementary 1 Backstop practice area 2 Soccer practice fields south of building) -Open Field -Gym Outside Basketball Courts Durham Elementary/Intermediate -Gym Office/Storage -Gym/Recreation Center Exercise Room Cafetodum 1 Soccer Game Field 2 Soccer practice fields 2 Backstop practice areas Outside Basketball Court 4 Classrooms Johnson Elements -Backstop practice areas 2 Soccer practice fields east of building) -Gym -Open Area Old Union Elementary -Open play area soccer fields Backstop practice area Rockenbaugh Elementary 2 Soccer practice fields 2 Backstop practice areas Gym Cafeteria Carroll Intermediate Six 6 outdoor basketball goals Football field Gym Activity Room Not on on inal list Practice ball field (lighted) Carroll Middle School -Gym 1 -Gym 2 Activity Room -Gym Office/Storage 2 practice fields combination of uses Eubanks Intermediate and Dawson Middle School -Gymnasium Multi -purpose fields Cafeteria 7-3 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Section 8 Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs Policies and Guidelines Conceptual Park Development Plans Program Implementation and Priorities 8.1 Policies and Guidelines Suggested during the 2004-2005 Plan Update The following are issues that arose during the recent plan update and, along with the previously stated goals, have guided the thought processes in the suggestions made for future development. Most come from public input, many come from the direction of the Park Board, and some come from the Community Services department's internal policies and recommendaions. Together, they shape the provisions and recommendations in this plan. Strive to educate the public on the intrinsic value of natural areas in park development. Southlake's policy of providing 50% open space in park design is often difficult to do when faced with such a large percentage of active recreational needs. This plan update further stresses the open space provision and further recommends a change from the term "open space" to "natural area". This reduces the connotation that "open space" is simply land that hasn't been built upon yet. 8-1 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Stress the value of linking neighborhoods to parks and schools. Though more formally applied in the Trails System Master Plan, a recurring theme was to concentrate on making parks accessible by non -motorized means. Every opportunity to provide hike and bike -friendly paths and amenities will be explored. Provide more diverse recreational opportunities and explore non-traditional sporting venues. Older youth, especially those who may not participate in the traditional sports such as baseball and soccer, often feel neglected in park plans. This message was especially strong in this plan update, and strong direction has been given to boost the priority of facilities such as disc golf, skate parks, BMX tracks, sand volleyball, and others. 8.2Conceptual Park Development Plans Perhaps the most important aspect of the periodic Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan updates are the changes to the individual park concept plans. Persons curious about future park development will often turn directly to these plans for guidance, making them a critical part of the plan document and worthy of careful consideration. It should be noted that these plans are guidelines, however; all are subject to changing conditions and evolution. However, now that several historic revisions have been made and a large portion of the public has provided input, these plans are basically in a refinement stage and large wholesale changes are not necessary. The text below is descriptive of the graphical representations illustrated in Appendix C — Park Maps and Conceptual Plans. Bicentennial Park — Figure 1 Bicentennial Park is a city park comprised of the first land ever assembled for park purposes in Southlake, with initial purchases and donations beginning in the 1970s. It is located north of Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), west of White Chapel Blvd., and east of Shady Oaks Rd. As additional land was purchased west from White Chapel, the park became the center of athletic facilities in the city, and largely remains that way today, with baseball facilities outnumbering all other uses. The park also includes basketball goals, an in -line hockey rink, a Tennis Center with pro shop, a maintenance building and yard, a large playground, two small community buildings, the Liberty Garden demonstration garden, and support facilities. In 2004, the city completed the purchase of the remaining 6.5 acres adjacent to Shady Oaks, which provides roughly 80 acres of contiguous land for park uses. The area surrounding these 6.5 acres west of the west drainage channel represents the majority of undeveloped property in the park. However, there are a number of amenities proposed that will both soften the feel of the park as well as add activities which are lacking in the park system. New development proposed for Bicentennial Park includes: [W: Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 o Four lighted athletic fields west of the drainage channel, including drive access off of Shady Oaks, parking, and support structures (previously denoted as Girls Softball Complex, now located at Bob Jones Park). It should be noted that the four fields shown may need to be reduced to three if one of the fields be constructed to the dimensions necessary for semi -pro or collegiate play. o Large open space picnic area in the northwest property in the area of the planned Shady Oaks access o Skate Park o Lighted sand volleyball courts (2) o Additional parking east of the drainage channel o Additional trails o Landscaping and entry upgrades o A detention area created from the existing west drainage chanel as an amenity feature, with stair -stepped banks, fountains, waterfalls, etc. o Additional phases of the Liberty Garden at the N. White Chapel entrance, to include a labyrinth, interactive water feature, and other amenities o DPS "Safety Town" — a demonstration area for children to learn bike and pedestrian safety The Park Board has also indicated that Bicentennial Park may be well -suited for the reconstruction and display of Southlake historical structures. Bob Jones Park and the Tucker Property — Figures 2 and 2a Bob Jones Park began as a series of purchases, a large portion coming from an underdeveloped, small -lot mobile home park which had fallen into disarray. Eventually, with other acquisitions and the Corps of Engineers lease, the park grew to total nearly 500 acres — most of which is prime native Cross Timbers habitat. The first major construction at the park involved completion of 13 soccer fields (several subsequently lighted) and parking in the first phase, followed by support facilities. The nearby six -acre pond with the bat -wing pavilion serves to collect drainage for use as field irrigation, not to mention a first-class fishing area. On the far north drive entrance, an equestrian parking lot houses trailer parking, corral pens, hitching posts, a picnic area, and a ranch faucet. An opportunity arose in 2004 to take advantage of the six practice backstops in the second phase and finish them out as the much -needed lighted Girls' Softball Complex, which also includes support facilities, buildings, and another pond. The possibility also exists to add additional parking south of the complex near the pond(s). Bob Jones Park and the Corps lease were also officially recognized by the City Council in 2002 as the location for the Bob Jones Nature Center. To provide an immediate location, the ranch house on the 60-acre Tucker property purchase has been designated to serve as headquarters. Rounding out recent approved additions is Southlake's first 8-3 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Dog Park, which will sit on about 2.5 acres on north side of the remote parking lot to the east of the Girls' Softball Complex. Other conceptual planning for Bob Jones Park includes: o Extension of looped trail system and trail access from recreational areas to Nature Center property; o Further remodeling of the Tucker house and property to fully convert it to a Nature Center, o Additional remote parking prior to entering the Corps lease; o Upgrades to north equestrian lot to include additional round pen, covered picnic area; o Cover for northern playground; and o Playground with cover for Girls' Softball Complex plaza Farhat Property — Figure 2b The Farhat property is a 36-acre tract with near -shoreline access and lies mainly in the floodplain and/or Lake Grapevine flowage easement. Therefore, this property's best use would be as extremely low -impact passive natural area. During this plan update, citizens expressed concern about the remote location of the property and possible illicit activity. Several proposals were made to consider selling the property because of its low profile and low priority for development considering other needs. However, its remote nature may also provide nature enthusiasts and families solitude and quiet. Because of the wide range of possibilities surrounding the development of this property, it is recommended that any future development remain consistent with prior planning and be extremely low impact. Also, administratively, staff must work diligently to coordinate any improvements with Public Safety and Public Works to ensure patron safety and deter criminal mischief through a permit system to account for park patrons wishing to reserve the area. The possibility also exists to formally recognize this property for conservation of natural area. Improvements to the park may include: o Short entry drive o Small parking area (10 —15 spaces) o Picnic shelters (3) o Trail improvements on -site and through Corps property south and west to Tucker property Chesapeake Park - Figure 3 As one of the only public parks on the southwest area of the city, Chesapeake is an almost completely developed neighborhood park, well -enjoyed by area residents. Minor improvements to this park could include: o Mid -sized pavilion o Irrigation o More benches 8-4 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 o Landscaping o Fishing pier 0 1/2 court basketball o Rubberized surfacing for existing playground Lonesome Dove Park - Figure 4 This neighborhood park is one of the first such parks perfectly sized for the adjacent neighborhood at 8 acres and was dedicated and constructed by the developer of the subdivision. This park is completely developed, with the exception of the following item: o New playground equipment Noble Oaks Park - Figure 5 Noble Oaks Park is a 5-acre tract in the most densely populated area of the city, located adjacent to Old Union Elementary School. Residents have long enjoyed its simple open space and shade trees for impromptu events and youth sports practice. Items suggested for improvement include: o A mid- to large -sized family pavilion o Pond improvements o Benches, etc. o Trail additions The Park Board has also indicated Noble Oaks Park may be well -suited for the reconstruction and display of Southlake historical structures. Royal and Annie Smith Park - Figure 6 Royal and Annie Smith Park was purchased from the Smith family, who had long occupied the premises. The property has a significant bit of history, and includes a hand -dug well, rumored to be the final resting place of a notorious gangster named- "Pinky." As the property develops, and to address a safety concern at the Johnson Road frontage, all efforts should be to concentrate the main entry to the park from the existing school parking lot or as part of a city -sponsored school lot addition. The city must also work very closely with Keller ISD to jointly develop Florence Elementary School's southern open space for use as practice fields. The history and abundant natural area suggest the following improvements to the park: o Asphalt drive and small parking area off Johnson Road o A mid -sized pavilion o Irrigation o Amenities such as benches, etc. o Farm implement display o Landscaping o Trail additions 8-5 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 o Small children's play area The Park Board has also indicated that Royal and Annie Smith Park may be well -suited for the reconstruction and display of Southlake historical structures. Liberty Park at Sheltonwood - Figure 7 This park, on the north side of Dove Road at Ridgecrest, is a relatively large (17.7 acres) undeveloped neighborhood park. It was formerly the site of a "summer camp- area, complete with a pavilion and swimming pool (the swimming pool was in disrepair and has since been filled in, while the old metal pavilion is salvageable). It is suited for a number of mid- to low -impact activities, with proposed improvements as follows: o Crushed granite drive and remote parking bays in the interior of the property o Security and activity area lighting o Sand volleyball and horseshoes o Disc golf o Security cameras o Two mid- to large -sized pavilions o Irrigation o Site amenities (benches, tables) o Landscape improvements o Utility upgrades and basic remodeling of existing pavilion o Trails o Playground Koalaty Park — Figure 8 Koalaty Park is a mostly open neighborhood park with a small stand of tree in the southern end. It currently contains four backstops and is heavily used by local youth sports teams. The minor improvements suggested to this park include: o Landscaping o Replacement of natural trail with concrete surface o Picnic areas in the natural area by the creek Coker Property — Figure 9 In northeast Southlake, this undeveloped four -and -one -half -acre tract is situated on the border of Southlake and Grapevine. It is heavily wooded and has direct access at the rear of the property to the Corps of Engineers property and Lake Grapevine. Trailhead development on this site could provide a connection between Southlake and Meadowmere Park on the shore 8-6 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 of Lake Grapevine. Grapevine leases the 160-acre park from the Corps of Engineers. Suggested improvements include: o Mini -shelters (3) o Parking lot o Amenities (bike racks, fountains) Kirkwood/Sabre Linear Park Areas — Figure 10 This small, triangular site is on the west side of North White Chapel near Kirkwood Blvd. at the Sabre phone center site. It is classified as a linear park, and it connects to other linear parks throughout the Kirkwood/Sabre area. This site, when the North White Chapel trail is constructed, would make an ideal rest area and picnic spot. Planned improvements could include: o A small pavilion/rest station o Crushed granite parking with 5 spaces and culvert o Site improvement - signs, fountain o Benches, etc. Rustin/Family Park — Figure 11 As part of the Town Square development, approximately one acre of park land was dedicated to the city. Included with this dedication were sidewalks, benches, a small pond, two fountains, a pavilion/band shell, enhanced pavement, etc., typical of a small downtown park. This park is relatively complete, and the city does not foresee anything other than minor enhancements in the future, if any. Town Square "Summit" Park — Figure 12 Town Square (Cooper & Stebbins) is also the developer of this downtown park, on a 2.5 acre site adjacent to the Brownstones residential development. It will feature a loop trail, benches, ornamental grasses, and improved open space. No other development is anticipated. Also note that, though this park (and several other Town Square Parks) have been assigned to the city in the Commercial Developer's agreement(s), the city has not formally taken possession of them, though it is anticipated that the transfer will occur shortly after the adoption of this plan. The Park Board has indicated that Summit Park may be well -suited for the reconstruction and display of Southlake historical structures. 8-7 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Town Square "State Street" Park - Figure 13 This Town Square -developed 3.4-acre park will be adjacent to the Hilton Hotel and feature a loop trail around a pond and site amenities. No additional development is anticipated. (See note on "possession" above.) Town Square `Plaza" Park — Figure 14 Town Square will also develop this pocket park in the new restaurant district in the Grand Avenue phase. It will feature a paved plaza with a trellis system and ornamental planter boxes and plants. No additional development is anticipated. (See note on "possession" above.) Southlake Sports Complex — Figure 15 This 16-acre facility was constructed as a private baseball instructional facility and was purchased from the original owners since the last plan update. The property contains three lighted baseball fields (adult and two youth), roughly 100 parking spaces, a 20,000 sq. ft. indoor training facility (currently leased to a private gymnastics instruction group), and approximately six acres of undeveloped property north of the drive entrance. This facility will require substantial material upgrades for use as anything other than its original purpose. The proposed improvements to this site include: o Possible realignment of current baseball fields and fencing to approximate three regulation -sized lacrosse fields. It should be noted that the existing baseball fields are heavily used and it is the recommendation of this plan that this facility not be redesigned for lacrosse until such time that baseball has additional fields. o Sports lighting upgrades o Sod and irrigation o Flag / Pee -Wee Football practice area(s) to the north of the existing drive It should also be noted that in early 2005 the gymnastics company exercised their option for an additional 5-year lease term, which will cover the planning period of this update. At that time, possible conversion to public use is recommended. Oak Pointe — Figure 15a This public neighborhood park on the west side of Ridgecrest just north of Dove Road consists of a series of "pocket park" areas totaling 8.2 acres within a residential development linked by a public pathway system. The areas are to be kept in a relatively natural state, and area residents can enjoy the public pond and a number of shaded areas with benches and tables. Very minimal, if any, further park development is anticipated. 8-8 Resolution 05-032 Estes Park — Figure 15b Adopted September 20, 2005 As part of a comprehensive plan for the East Dove Road area residential development, Estes Park compliments Oak Pointe (above) with a 2.3-acre public park area and public pathways. This small neighborhood park, dedicated and built by the developer (as was Oak Pointe), features a small pond and large oak trees. No further development is anticipated. East Haven (former Metro Pool) Property— No map (see Figure 17) The SPDC purchased this property in the late 1990s from a previous commercial owner who has stored noxious chemicals related to swimming pool supplies in the building. The city saw the opportunity to gain park property and solve a neighborhood safety issue. The city currently utilizes the building for storage of recreational and other supplies and has no plans for other development during this planning period. Other Park and Recreational Facilities Most of the following facilities have not been included in the Needs Assessment or in the recommendations above, but they are features of many American parks and might be of future interest to the citizens of Southlake. o Shuffleboard o Children's Garden o Botanical Garden o Bocce Ball o Sculpture Garden o Croquet Green o Sculpture and Art in Parks o Rugby o Murals o Field Hockey o Interpretive Signage: Nature, Historical, Cultural o Group Pavilion (event rental) o Model Airplane Runway o Mechanical Batting Cage o Interactive Play Fountain o Restaurant in a Park o Family Aquatics Center/Leisure o Memorial Groves and Gardens o Exercise Stations o Community Gardens Figure 17 deals with existing and potential open space areas. The valuable natural resources of these areas are worthy of preservation, which the City recognizes with its goal of securing eleven acres of open space per 1,000 population. Secondarily, inclusion of the Environmental Preservation and Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Open Space Master Plan in this document may make the City of Southlake more competitive on certain Texas Parks and Wildlife grant applications. The following facilities are appropriate for preserved open space areas: o Natural Surface Trails o Bench o Fishing Pier o Picnic Table o Canoe Launch o Wetland, Natural or Restored o Small amphitheater o Interpretive Trail 8.3 Program Implementation and Priorities A plan is only as good as the methods by which it is used as a tool for the ultimate goal: implementation. While several substantial athletic facilities needs remain, the city is relatively on schedule (compared to population size) with it's previous and current implementation needs. Those that remain, along with several desired non-traditional venues and the ever -conscious need to obtain and/or preserve natural areas, make for some difficult decision -making when placed in priority order and weighed against available funding. This section will provide somewhat of a blueprint for plan implementation and in what priority order. 8.413roject Ranking Through the 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Process The CIP planning process has become very sophisticated in recent years in the City of Southlake. The process, however, begins and ends with projects suggested by the Park Master Plan. In the early part of each year, city staff analyzes the adopted master plan and notes facilities and improvements which have not been implemented yet. Staff then prepares a comprehensive list of projects group by park, area or other logical purpose and prepares detailed data sheets and preliminary cost estimates. The Park Board then has an opportunity to make broad suggestions and to advise of project deletions or new projects. Staff then submits the project list to the CIP Technical Committee (department directors), who ranks them based on set criteria. The Park Board, SPDC and City Council all have the opportunity to study those rankings and make adjustments. The ranked projects are then allocated priority status from the current fiscal year out to year five. Each year, the process begins again and projects vie for ranking order all over again. Below are the funding priorities for FY 2005-2006 through 2009-2010: 8-10 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Phase 1 (year 1) — 2005 - 2006 o Nature Center— Indoor priority #1 o Liberty Park at Sheltonwood Development — Outdoor priority #1 o Royal and Annie Smith Park Development — Outdoor priority #2 o Lacrosse Facility— Outdoor priority #3 o Land Acquisition (Community Park) — Outdoor priority #4 Phase 2 (year 2) — 2006 - 2007 o Noble Oaks Park Improvements o Bob Jones Park Development o Bicentennial West Lighted Fields o Koalaty Park Improvements o Chesapeake Park Improvements o BMX Bicycle Facility o Skate Park Phase 3 (year 3) — 2007 - 2008 o Coker Hike/Bike Trailhead o Kirkwood / Sabre Linear Park o Farhat Property Development o Sand Volleyball Courts Phase 4 (year 4) — 2008 - 2009 o Recreation Center o Park Maintenance Facility Phase 5 (year 5) — 2009 - 2010 o Community Center— Park Department Offices o Bob Jones Park— Southem Playground o Bicentennial Park Drainage / Pond Development Should the City seek Texas Parks & Wildlife funding for any projects in this list, the application would be enhanced (receive more points) because of their ranking as listed priorities. -TPWD requires that plans more than two years old be updated to reflect changes in land and facility inventories and accomplishments since the plan was written. Goals and objectives may need revision, as well as priorities. These changes, when adopted by the City Council, become an amendment to the plan. (The plan and any amendments to it must be reviewed and approved by TPWD in advance of the submittal of any grant application.) As mentioned in the Introduction, the Southlake City Charter requires a full update of the parks, recreation, and open space master plan every four years. 8-11 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Also, a critical consideration for implementation is the maintenance of facilities once they have been constructed. Security is also a major concern. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has suggested strategies that are useful for addressing the maintenance and renovation of park facilities. The actions relevant to the City of Southlake include: o Address maintenance at the planning stage by employing design solutions for new construction and renovations that are heavy duty, vandal proof, durable, o Low maintenance facilities using state-of-the-art building materials such as recycled plastics. o Maintenance and renovation should be equal to new acquisition, giving priority to projects that provide ways to mitigate costly upkeep and are environmentally sound. o Establish a park maintenance trust fund which requires funds to be set aside each year for park maintenance (endowment up front, interest for maintenance and operations.) o Establish and meet maintenance standards for existing facilities before spending on additional facilities. (Source: 1995 TORP - Assessment and Policy Plan, TPWD, 1995) 8-12 Appendix A - Recreational Facility Standards and Needs" Southlake Standard 2005 Inventory 2005 - 24,550 Population 2010 - 29,030 Population 2015 - 30,305 Population 2020 - 30,920 Population Buildout - 31,500 Acreage per Field / Unit^ Req. Def./ Sur. Req. Def./ Sur. Req. Def./ Sur. Req. Def./ Sur. Req. Def./ Sur. Req. Def. Amphitheater 1:25,000 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 0.25 - Aquatics Center 1:35,000 0 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 5.00 -5.00 Batting Cage stall 1:4,000 10 6 +4 7 +3 7 +3 7 +3 7 +3 0.01 +0.03 Baseball Diamond (youth)* 1:2,000 10 12 -2 14 -4 15 -5 15 -5 15 -5 3.35 -16.75 Baseball Diamond (adult)* 1:10,000 0 2 -2 2 -2 3 -3 3 -3 3 -3 3.63 -10.88 Baseball Practice Area 1:2000 13 12 +1 14 -1 15 -2 15 -2 15 -2 1.50 -3.00 Basketball Court outdoor 1:5,000 3 4 -1 4 -1 5 -3 6 -2 6 -3 0.15 -0.45 Bench 1:500 48 49 -1 58 -10 60 -15 63 -12 61 -13 - - BMX Facility 1:25,000 0 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 4.00 -4.00 Community Center 1:30,000 0 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 5.00 -5.00 Dog Park 1:15,000 1 1 - 1 -- 2 -1 2 -1 2 -1 2.50 -2.50 Fishing Pier / Dock 1:10,000 2 2 - 2 - 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 0.10 -0.10 Horseshoe Court 1:10,000 1 2 -1 2 -1 3 -2 3 -2 3 -2 0.02 -0.04 In4ine Hockey Rink (lighted) 1:25,000 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1.15 -- Lacrosse Field" 1:8,000 2 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 2.75 -2.75 Nature Center 1:40,000 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 -- 3.00 - Pavilion 1:2,500 11 9 +2 11 - 12 -1 12 -1 12 -1 0.05 -0.05 Pee -Wee Football Field 1:8,000 1 3 -2 3 -2 3 -2 3 -2 3 -2 1.70 -3.40 Picnic Shelter 1:3,000 10 8 +2 9 +1 10 - 10 - 10 - 0.02 - Picnic Table 1:500 55 49 +6 58 -3 60 -8 63 -5 61 -6 - Playground 1:4,000 4 6 -2 7 -3 7 -3 7 -3 7 -3 0.20 -0.60 Senior Center 1:30,000 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 3.00 0 Skate Park 1:30,000 0 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 0.45 -0.45 Soccer Feld' 1:1,500 13 16 -3 19 -6 20 -8 21 -7 20 -7 1.70 -11.90 Soccer Practice Area 1:2,000 14 12 +2 14 - 15 -1 15 -1 15 -1 1.70 -1.70 Softball Diamond (youth ` 1:5,000 6 5 +1 6 - 6 - 6 - 6 - 3.35 - Softball Diamond (adult)'* 1:10,000 2 2 - 2 - 2 2 - 2 - 3.63 - Softball Practice Area 1:4,000 6 6 - 7 -1 7 -1 7 -1 7 -1 1.00 -1.00 Tennis Center Pro Shop) 1:30,000 1 1 - 1 -- 1 - 1 - 1 - 1.30 - Tennis Courts 1:1,500 15 16 -1 19 -4 20 -6 21 -5 20 -5 0.30 -1.50 Trail, Hike/Equestrian 1:10,000 7.7 2.4 +5.3 2.9 +4.8 3.0 +4.7 3.1 +4.6 3.1 +4.6 - Trailhead, Equestrian 1:12,000 3 2 +1 2 +1 2 +1 2 +1 2 +1 - -- Trail, Mountain Biking 1:10,000 0 2.4 -2.4 2.9 -2.9 3.0 -3.0 3.1 -3.1 3.1 -3.1 - - Trail, Nature 1:10,000 0.5 2.4 -1.9 2.9 -2.4 3.0 -2.6 3.1 -2.5 3.1 -2.6 -- - Trail, Paved miles 1.51000 3.9 5 -1.1 6 -2.1 6 -2.1 6 -2.1 6 -2.1 - - Sand Volleyball Court 1:15,000 0 2 -2 2 -2 2 -2 2 -2 2 -2 0.20 -0.40 TOTAL 1 -71.47 ' Fields are not differentiated by lighted or unlighted. Fields other than practice are based on an assumption they are lighted and game ready. It would take roughly two (2) unlighted fields to make up the deficiency of one (1) lighted field. Also note some leagues share facilities with other cities to make up deficiencies, such as soccer. " Lacrosse standard was 1:10,000 in 2001. This standard was increased due to local knowledge of lacrosse participants and field needs, which are higher than average. Deficiencies may also be met by shared use of school and other facilities. - Adult softball standard is actually higher than youth nationwide but was adjusted downward due to local knowledge and existing area facilities. A The "required' standard is on a per -field basis. The "deficiency" figure is a multiplication of the per -field acreage standard times number of fields required. " Includes Joint Use Facilities Appendix B Park Maps and Conceptual Plans Parking Gr ._._ Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. c'-0,- n (-f—pe Nclaie — . E^R—rg . flmmqe -- I }} y 111 It.ii � � I C I � V �stng RestroorrtJ \. h liberty Goa E—h Phase II I Fields I FEW SITE FEATURES "I HT SIN 's ' • Tennis Center • Pavilion • Baseball Fields • Concession/Restroom • Basketball Courts Building • In -Line Hockey Rink • Parkin • Playground Equipment SUGGESTED NEW FACILITIES � U 3, %.� Baseball Fields • Parking C FITS\ II I Sand Volleyball Courts • Fitness Stations Skate Park on Trait ® I • Liberty Garden Phase 11 ® ® O O ! — — • DPS Safety Town LEGEND Property Line Skate Park m Contour Line Inline Hockey Rink Existing Tree Groves I'!Basketball Basket ® % — Proposed Tree Southlake Blvd. NORTH Figure 1. 0 100 zoo 400 600 MASTER PLAN -- -�Ni" �� BICENTENNIAL PARK S• GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET City of Southlake, Texas LEGEND — - - — Property Line Contour Line EXISTING SITE FEATURES • Soccer Fields • Parking PROPOSED SITE FEATURES • Practice Baseball Diamonds • Multi -use Trails • Pavilion • Concession/Restroom Building • Amphitheater • Nature Center • Day Camp • Equestrian Parking Residenhol Property - • J7 ayg Concession/Restroom Bldg. - Equestrian Parking, / Trolls C.O.E. j'Prper Amp��er r C.O.E. Property and Horse Pens -� Concession/ I _ / Baseball Restroom Building- �� , Fields Fields Puking OCorral «ceer Fields 3,-- I r� ✓�—�' L -' ` l r Pond i • �' © r , — Equestrian Parking White Chapel Rd. � 0 200 400 800 1200 Figure 2. -- - MASTER PLAN BOB JONES PARK 51_ 1 id NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET City of Southlake, Texas I ` r' 1 1 i � !Access to Farhat Property through Corps Land Natural Surface Trail 1 �-- f Nature Centet % Exisli Barn 'Access to Bob )ones Park LEGEND --- Property Line Existing Tree Cover PROPOSED SITE FEATURES • Natural Surface Trails • Nature Center • Equestrian Uses (Bam) • Shelter • Park Entry, Drive, Parking 0 100 200 400 i I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE: I" =200' NORTH Figure 2a. MASTER PLAN BOB JONES PARK/ TUCKER PROPERTY City of Southlake, Texas �� r� Access to Corps v Property Access from Bob Jones, Tucker Property LEGEND — — — Property Line J J Existing Tree Cover Picnic Station PROPOSED SITE FEATURES • Pavilion • Natural Surface Trails • Lookout Vista • Parking • Park Entry Sign 0 100 200 400 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE: I" =200' Noan� Figure 2b. MASTER PLAN BOB JONES PARK/ FARHAT PROPERTY City of Southlake, Texas Chesapeake Ln. Parallel Parking I CJ _N L L = I UPI c o Practice Field L LL N U I c N N r D O N 1 .O N I Practice Field LEGEND Property Line Proposed Tree Proposed ® Picnic Station Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. E;cnvAranrs n Lnrduape A IINI-1 • Engine 9 . Fb". g rroposea Entry Feature Single Family Hoes Playground sed Pk3* Shelter Proposed Fishing Pier Retention/Detention Pond Ex MukFPErrpose Trail Proposed Trail Mixed Use 1 I I' Proposed Basketball Half -Court Zvi i EXISTING FACILITIES • Practice Fields 1 0 • Benches 1 • Playground 0 50 100 200 soo Figure 3. --®^ CONCEPTUAL PLAN — CHESAPEAKE PARK 54=-r .:e NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET City of Southlake, Texas ----�- -- eC�t7e Tr / Parking o � y / Swing Play - - • _ - - �. `tructure •-: - s;,,9re �` MU III se i onr/y Nomes`_ Trail �4 Retention/ r Detention o SUGGESTED NEW FACILITIES LEGEND . New Playground LJ Existing Tree • Tree Groves Existing Tree Grove Proposed Tree --- Property Line Contour Line ® Picnic Station Proposed Tray Connection to City wide System Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. ca -kar . L *d-;d N(Mp('ure • E.gI • naming 0 so 100 zoo 300 Figure 4. t I CONCEPTUAL PLAN —s-J LONESOME DOVE PARK Sa E NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET City of Southlake, Texas owe F Parking accessed from school property (�M (D �) %, Q 4 --"(D Dosed A4I--Use T Pond E O N LL N y o N LEGEND Property Line �j bristling Tree Proposed O Picnic Station • 0 Proposed Bench Trail Connection SUGGESTED NEW FACILITIES • Multi -Purpose Trail • hlStations •hler Set 1 • Trail Connections • Benches Carroll I.S.D. Elementary ' lu School # 5 Figure 5. 0 30 60 I20 180 CONCEPTUAL PLAN Schrickel Rollins and Associates, Inc. NOBLE OAKS PARK Ca,,*ntwd, Ndanrn.e-UVOe„e,n,n NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET City of Southlake, Texas Shelter ts, Proposed Children's Entry Feature play Area 4 X tin k all (D -� OQ�o Q LEGEND Property Line Contour Line Existing Tree Proposed Picnic Station Proposed Bench Trail Connection SUGGESTED NEW FACILITIES • Practice Baseball Field a Parking (10.12 Spaces) • Practice Soccer Field - Trail Connections • Tennis Courts - Cultural and Environmental • Multi -Purpose Trail Interpretive Signage • Picnic Shelter - Demostration Garden Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. CwW,�, i, Und.4e Whwt— - E meet nq - PU* IResidential ! Existing \� I Trail "r Demonstration Garden Informal Practice Area 0 0 0 Natural S.f. This Proposed Trail Florence Elementory School (K-I.S.D.) Potential joint -Use Development Area I It Ii El \ \ ,ice\ ®�mxr M~ r: 0 50 100 200 300 Figure 6. CONCEPTUAL PLAN ROYAL AND ANNIE SMITH PARK NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE IN . FEET City of Southlake, Texas C W ® Proposed Trail I i Proposed ♦ Pied j Playgr+"--i' Horseshoe Pit IT 00, c Existing Buildings Pavilions Proposed Sand � �--��w�� ) Q LEGEND Volleyball! ( LC ---- Property Line Fence �1 i Tree Canopy Edge Single Family Homes J r o Proposed Bench Proposed TraB— I J Proposed Picnic Station Proposed Entry Feature -� Trail Connection SUGGESTED NEW FACILITIES • Playground • Pavilions / • Trail Connections• Benches ��- • Sand Volleyball and Horseshoes _ • Disc Golf Single Family Homes Figure 7. 0 50 lo0 20o CONCEPTUAL PLAN ^--�- Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SHELTONWOOD PARK r „��,,, ,,i,,,auar,,..e� ,,,g.w,,.,,,e NORTH SCALE: I"=100' City of Southlake, Texas Coninental Boulevard (F--77 Country Walk Estates Proposed Landscape Improvements Proposed Entry Feature l Practice Ball Carroll Diamonds 8 Elementary Backstops Proposed Trail t Proposed Landscape IImprovements Proposed Trail Property Una Tree Canopy EOge Figure 8 ® S(��kn e Pk CONCEPTUAL PLAN KOALATY PARK City of Southlake, Texas Proposed Picnic Area SUIXESIM NEW FACIU11ES v • TroA Frorn School to Nefphbarhow • Plcn{c S"wo NORTH 0 50 100 200 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE: I" =100' J 0 0 0 W 0 0 w f O N w Z O J LEGEND — -- Property Line Tree Canopy Edge OProposed Mini —shelter FOXFIRE LANE Corps of Figure 9 CONCEPTUAL PLAN COKER PROPERTY City of Southlake, Texas SUGGESTED NEW FACILITIES • Mtnt—shelters (3) • Parking lot and drive NORTH 0 50 100 200 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE: 1" =I00' MULTI+USE �. TRAIL \ LEGEND ---- Property Line Cam. J Tree Canopy Edge `N Proposed Rest Station — Bench 0 Pavilion ® Water Fountain I SUGGESTED NEW FACILITIES 1 1 , Rest Station With Small Drive and Parking • Site Amenities Figure 10 ` CONCEPTUAL PLAN KIRKWOOD \ SABRE LINEAR PARK City of Southlake, Texas NORTH 0 150 300 600 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE: I" =300' Fountain Figure II 5TIN and FAMILY PARKS ,Ity of Southlake, Texas Construction Drawings by Mesa Design Pavi I Ion Fountains 0 25 50 100 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE: I" =50' 6" Accessible Concrete Path Proposed Canopy Trees FI Main Street Q i r ��r�• 1 !� t , t. Open Space {�;/ �.' �; r I j--Plc JO b% ter'" • � 1 � .AIL II so Property Line -cj / / 70 70 Gazebo overlook Retaining Hall Figure 12 CONCEPTUAL PLAN TOWN SQUARE "BROWNSTONES" PARK City of Southlake, Texas 0m Table Existing Trees to Remain I I I ' Concrete Path 1 -- 5 - Conceptual Design by Land Design Partners NORTH 0 50 100 200 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE: I"=100' PERGOIA PLAN G..N. AVENUE EAST Ts I SceL[, i3O' �GNANO AVENUE WEAT_- N- C r, x + 2-1 _ ~ PEOGOL4 ELEVATION Figure 13 Conceptual Design by Mesa Design PLAN -CONCEPTUAL TOWN SQUARE "PLAZA" PARK City of Southlake. Texas O 15 30 60 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE: I" =30' HOW . Lawn e E301lord ? c•� ki�ht Yi; Y 0 25 50 100 > GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET } \ SCALE: I"=50' Conceptual Design by Mesa Design a j rre® RIMITEP .c Figure 14 CONCEPTUAL PLAN TOWN SQUARE "STATE STREET" PARK City of Southlake, Texas LEGEND ---- Property Line Figure 15 CONCEPTUAL PLAN SOUTHLAKE SPORTS COMPLEX City of Southlake, Texas SUGGESTED NEW FACILITIES • Possible Realignment to Lacrosse Facility • Youth Football Practice (North Side) • Potential Future Parking WORTH 0 50 100 200 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE: 1" =100' Figure 15a Bench CONCEPT PLAN �;G3) Picnic Table OAK POINTE City of Southlake, Texas 0 50 100 200 I I I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SCALE: I" =100' T NORTH 0 25 50 100 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET =1n: SCALE: I" =50' Figure 15b Estes Park Concept Plan J ul DI lhlin •1 R►1• =ern �ii:?• : iii'' vi iri���/ fib iTj irAa'.uu�� V�� � 1I �i'nanmpj unu � ► a - � r�{ 1� ► r�IQ �/•��Z��►►.r. n �T.� ��1� �i ii �iiTr •`�i• ��.�11� r 1 N i ,iii'.�� ■,'I,�� �'�� f%����.I``Sir,��I'��'11ra� C �'�' . f„��� `.� � iu►�i�ry I � n► INVOICE Star -Telegram 400 W. 7TH STREET TX 76102 RECEfVED Customer ID: CIT57 Invoice Number: 260267191 FORT WORTH, Invoice Date: 9/10/05 (817) 390-7761 Federal Tax ID 22-3148254 Terms: Net due in 21 days SEP 3 0 30 Due Date: 9/30/05 Bill To: PO Number: 42569. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE M*, OFFICE OF CITY � y„RETAR Order Number: 26026719 1400 MAIN ST STE 440 Sales Rep: 073 SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092-7604 Description: CITY OF SOUTHLA Publication Date: 9/10/05 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Notice is he 13580 1 51 51 LINE $0.81 $41.31 THE STATE OF 7 County of Tarrant Before me, a Notary Pu for the Star -Telegram, K that the attached clippie (817) 390-7320 Net Amount: r` CHRISTY L. HOLLAND :•'+ . MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ;' `.00 July 31, 2008 •' �6 $41.31 my and State, this day personally appeared Lisa Wesselman, Bid and Legal Coordinator legram, Inc. at Fort Worth, in Tarrant County, Texas; and who, after being duly sworn, did depose and say ias published in the bqj named paper on the listed dates: BIDS 8L LEGAL DEPT. STAR TLEGRAM Signed SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, THIS Tuesday, Septenl6eV20, 2005. Notary Thank You For Your Payment --------------------------------------------- Remit To: Star -Telegram Customer ID: CIT57 P.O. BOX 901051 Customer Name: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FORT WORTH, TX 76101-2051 Invoice Number: 260267191 Invoice Amount: $41.31 PO Number: 42569. Amount Enclosed: $Fb 10 in k%