The URL can be used to link to this page

2009-08-03 CC Packet CITY OF \' SS 1 SOUTHLAKE ,,; TEXAS AGENDA NOTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL, SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING: AUGUST 3, 2009 LOCATION: Timarron Bent Creek Clubhouse 1250 Bent Creek Drive Southlake, Texas 76092 TIME: 5:30 p.m. — 9:00 p.m. 1. Call to order. 2. Discussion: Current financial environment The purpose of this item is to provide the group a detailed report on the finances of the Southlake Park Development Corporation. Our presentation will cover collections, debt and future fund availability. This will be a fairly detailed presentation, but we want you to have a good understanding of the half-cent IEL sales tax and its use for park and other purposes as we move toward a discussion to prioritize projects. Contact Sharen Jackson with questions on this item. 3. Discussion: 2005 Park, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan implementation This item has been placed on the agenda so that everyone will understand the background, survey data, project priorities and other information that has been used to set capital improvement program priorities since 2005. Note that this plan is an element of the Southlake 2025 plan. Although we are beginning preparation of the Southlake 2030 plan -- and we recognize that priorities may change -- we feel it is important to go ahead and base your budget priorities on the currently adopted master plan. Contact Chris Tribble with questions on this item. 4. A. Executive Session: Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.073, 551.074, 551.076, 551.087, 418.183(f), and 418.106(d) & (e). Refer to posted list attached hereto and incorporated herein. Executive Session may be held, under these exceptions, at any time during the meeting that a need arises for the City Council, Southlake Parks Development Corporation, and Parks and Recreation Board to seek advice from the City Attorney as to Iie the posted subject matter of this meeting. City of Southlake values: Integrity♦ Innovation • Accountability♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork r C • City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3,2009 Page 2 of 5 L.- 1. Section 551.072: Deliberation regarding real property a. Discuss the potential purchase or lease of real property for city facilities. An Executive Session has been posted to give us an opportunity to visit C with you about some opportunities for land acquisition prior to your discussion of priority funding for the CIP. I B. Reconvene: Reconvene the meeting and take any action necessary on items discussed in Executive Session. 5. Discussion: Project profiles Each master plan priority (as well as other projects that have been discussed for possible inclusion in the CIP) has a project profile, complete with a map, description and estimated costs. We have developed a presentation that covers each project profile so that you will have a strong familiarity with the projects as we go through the prioritization process. Contact Chris Tribble with questions about this item. Ch6. Discussion: Capital Improvement Project priorities (FY 2010-2014) Nov This is the most important item on the Joint Meeting agenda because this is where the City Council, SPDC and Park Board will interactively discuss the Iprojects and their relative priority. We are planning an exercise that will lead us all to a better understanding of the I budget priorities. Note that you will not be asked to vote on anything during the joint meeting. Our plan is to have the conversation, with the SPDC and Park Board coming together at a later date to finalize their budget recommendation. I 7. Meeting adjourned. I CERTIFICATE I I herebycertifythat the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at Town g Hall, 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas, on Friday, July 31, 2009, by 6:00 p.m., pursua t to th Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. i��. Lori Payne, TR • ••••.. City Secretary 400%st•.•4 City of Southlake values: 1 *,- L. Integrity♦ Innovation ♦Accountability♦ Commitment to Exc--1 ence ♦ Teamwork r C City of Southlake IE . Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3, 2009 Page 3 of 5 f L.- If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs, please advise the City Secretary's Office 48 hours in advance at 817-748-8016 and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. CCONTACT PAGE Office Cell Ken Baker 748-8067 944-1991 Jim Blagg 748-8601 972-740-3519 Tara Brooks 748-8015 Dale Dean 748-8086 716-4438 I Robert Finn 748-8168 999-7118 Kevin Hugman 748-8193 223-2607 Sharen Jackson 748-8042 980-1333 I Dennis Killough 748-8072 713-8709 Greg Last 748-8037 992-6156 Gordon Mayer 748-8089 214-535-1720 IIKerry McGeath 748-8384 919-8486 Alison Ortowski 748-8261 940-736-7482 Lori Payne 748-8016 266-6390 Bob Price 748-8097 319-9057 r► Pilar Schank 748-8006 214-354-8276 Mike Starr 748-8106 940-390-6281 IBen Thatcher 748-8005 932-4616 Chris Tribble 748-8021 532-7016 Shana Yelverton 748-8001 999-0498 I I II C L 44W1 City of Southlake values: 1 Integrity♦ Innovation • Accountability♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork V C . City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3,2009 Page 4 of 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION Section 551.071: Consultation with attorney The City Council may conduct a private consultation with its attorney when the City Council seeks the advice of its attorney concerning any item on this agenda, about pending and contemplated litigation, or a settlement offer, or on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Board of Texas clearly conflicts with Chapter 551. This includes the following pending and/or contemplated litigation subjects: 1. James Lancaster and wife, Catherine Lancaster vs. Gary M. Gordon d/b/a Gordon Taylor Custom Homes, Carleo A. Capili and wife, Regina Capili and John R. Griggs and wife, Sally Griggs, Jill T. Gordon, and City of Southlake. July 2004. 2. Michael Kenny vs. City of Southlake. April 2008. 3. Jayson Steele vs. City of Southlake. August 2008. Section 551.072: Deliberation regarding real property The City Council may conduct a closed meeting to deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property. Section 551.073: Deliberation regarding prospective gift or donation CR The City Council may conduct a closed meeting to deliberate a negotiated contract for a r prospective gift or donation to the City. Section 551.074: Deliberation regarding personnel matters The City Council may deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of public officers, including the City Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, Municipal Judge and city boards and commission members. A complete list of the city boards and commissions is on file in the City Secretary's Office. Section 551.076: Deliberation regardinq security devices The City Council may deliberate the deployment, or specific occasions for implementation of security personnel or devices. Section 551.087: Deliberation regarding economic development negotiations The City Council may discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information received from a business prospect that the city seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the city and which the City is conducting economic development negotiations; or to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect as described above. C City of Southlake values: Integrity♦ Innovation •Accountability♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork • City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3,2009 Page 5 of 5 Aor Section 418.183(f): Texas Disaster Act The City Council may deliberate information: 1) for purposes of preventing, investigating, or responding to an act of terrorism or related criminal activity and involving emergency response providers, their staffing, contact information and tactical plans; 2) that relates to the risk or vulnerability of persons or property, including infrastructure, to an act of terrorism; 3) that relates to the assembly of an explosive weapon, the location of a material that may be used in a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon, or unpublished information pertaining to vaccines or devices to detect biological agents or toxins; 4) that relates to details of the encryption codes or security keys for a public communication system; 5) that relates to a terrorism-related report to an agency of the United States; 6) that relates to technical details of particular vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to an act of terrorism; 7) that relates to information regarding security measures or security systems intended to protect public and private property from an act of terrorism. The Texas Disaster Act specifically requires that a tape recording of the closed meeting be made. Section 418.106(d) & (e): Local meetings to discuss emergency management plans regarding pipeline safety The City Council may discuss emergency management plans involving pipeline safety and/or security of pipeline infrastructures or facilities when those plans or discussions contain such sensitive information. C I I C I it City of Southlake values: Integrity♦ Innovation • Accountability♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork STATE OF TEXAS § § CITY OF SOUTHLAKE § CERTIFIED AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION / PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD I, Mayor John Terrell, CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, HEREBY CERTIFY AS FOLLOWS: 1. That notice of an executive session in accordance with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code was duly posted along with the Joint Meeting Agenda for the August 3, 2009 City Council, Southlake Parks Development Corporation,and Parks and Recreation Board meeting on July 31, 2009 by 5:00 p.m. 2. That the City Council, Southlake Parks Development Corporation, and Parks and Recreation Board convened in executive session on August 3, 2009 at 7 ' -2- p.m.with the following Board members and staff members present: Mayor Terrell Sherry Berman Elaine Cox Carolyn Morris John Slocum Ala Virginia M. Muzyka Deborah Frazier Ken Goodman {s6s -+' Margaret Adams William Packer Brandon Bledsoe Tina Wasserman Pamela A. Muller --Ke Pr16 40,0 Shana Yelverton, City Manager Jim Blagg, Assistant City Manager Ben Thatcher, Assistant City Manager Lori Payne, City Secretary City Attorney cie- Other staff members: Al i'sck. Or-f-otvsk+ ..� �� Pn Ce &o( kevx ba er) ClAn'S 1 rI,I0Ie ) 1�€' (Vic( e,a-{-L, l<an' Po16 3. That the matters discussed were as follows: (1) Voke vr(-t a. ( pt.r ash rpm) Coro -f-y -ac,c(c4-1-e c . Pike wi EA_l-1= rice -�a�c�(�-� .akto e',�.u.r Lac r o 5 S -F�u I . Brno` Pro -� Y r 4. No formal action was taken during executive session. 5. That the executive session ended on August 3, 2009 at S'0( p.m. f John Terrell Mayor Carolyn 'Mgr; President— Southlake Parks Development Corporation Jo n Slocum airman — Parks and Recreation Board ha.el Lori Payne are-- City Secretary I I Agenda 1 CITY OF Presentation SOUTHLAKE I Financial Details — Current CIP 1 Joint Meeting of the 2004 Parks Survey City Council Southlake Parks Development Corporation Master Plans and the Parks and Recreation Board • Parks: Design Priorities/Criteria; Implementation/Prioritization • Pathways System CIP Project Profile i Project Priorities Exercise I Notes I ■ E CITY OF er SOUTH LAKE TEXAS AGENDA NOTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL, SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING: AUGUST 3, 2009 LOCATION: Timarron Bent Creek Clubhouse 1250 Bent Creek Drive Southlake, Texas 76092 TIME: 5:30 p.m. — 9:00 p.m. 1. Call to order. 2. Discussion: Current financial environment The purpose of this item is to provide the group a detailed report on the finances of the Southlake Park Development Corporation. Our presentation will cover collections, debt and future fund availability. This will be a fairly detailed [tow presentation, but we want you to have a good understanding of the half-cent sales tax and its use for park and other purposes as we move toward a discussion to prioritize projects. Contact Sharen Jackson with questions on this item. 3. Discussion: 2005 Park, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan implementation This item has been placed on the agenda so that everyone will understand the background, survey data, project priorities and other information that has been used to set capital improvement program priorities since 2005. Note that this plan is an element of the Southlake 2025 plan. Although we are beginning preparation of the Southlake 2030 plan -- and we recognize that priorities may change -- we feel it is important to go ahead and base your budget priorities on the currently adopted master plan. Contact Chris Tribble with questions on this item. 4. A. Executive Session: Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.073, 551.074, 551.076, 551.087, 418.183(f), and 418.106(d) & (e). Refer to posted list attached hereto and incorporated herein. Executive Session may be held, under these exceptions, at any time during the meeting that a need arises for the City Council, Southlake Parks Development Corporation, and Parks and Recreation Board to seek advice from the City Attorney as to the posted subject matter of this meeting. City of Southlake values: Integrity♦ Innovation ♦Accountability♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork p C City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3,2009 Page 2 of 5 f 1. Section 551.072: Deliberation regarding real property a. Discuss the potential purchase or lease of real property for city facilities. An Executive Session has been posted to give us an opportunity to visit with you about some opportunities for land acquisition prior to your discussion of priority funding for the CIP. B. Reconvene: Reconvene the meeting and take any action necessary on items discussed in Executive Session. 5. Discussion: Project profiles Each master plan priority (as well as other projects that have been discussed for possible inclusion in the CIP) has a project profile, complete with a map, description and estimated costs. We have developed a presentation that covers each project profile so that you will have a strong familiarity with the projects as we go through the prioritization process. Contact Chris Tribble with questions about this item. 6. Discussion: Capital Improvement Project priorities (FY 2010-2014) This is the most important item on the Joint Meeting agenda because this is where the City Council, SPDC and Park Board will interactively discuss the projects and their relative priority. We are planning an exercise that will lead us all to a better understanding of the budget priorities. Note that you will not be asked to vote on anything during the joint meeting. Our plan is to have the conversation, with the SPDC and Park Board coming together at a later date to finalize their budget recommendation. 7. Meeting adjourned. C CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at Town Hall, 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas, on Friday, July 31, 2009, by 6:00 p.m., pursuant to the Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. Lori Payne, TRMC City Secretary dwv City of Southlake values: Integrity♦ Innovation •Accountability• Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork C City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3,2009 Page 3 of 5 L ..., If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs, please advise the City Secretary's Office 48 hours in advance at 817-748-8016 and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. ICCONTACT PAGE Office Cell Ken Baker 748-8067 944-1991 Jim Blagg 748-8601 972-740-3519 Tara Brooks 748-8015 Dale Dean 748-8086 716-4438 CRobert Finn 748-8168 999-7118 Kevin Hugman 748-8193 223-2607 Sharen Jackson 748-8042 980-1333 Dennis Killough 748-8072 713-8709 Greg Last 748-8037 992-6156 Gordon Mayer 748-8089 214-535-1720 Kerry McGeath 748-8384 919-8486 Alison Ortowski 748-8261 940-736-7482 rilip, Lori Payne 748-8016 266-6390 Bob Price 748-8097 319-9057 . Pilar Schank 748-8006 214-354-8276 IE Mike Starr 748-8106 940-390-6281 Ben Thatcher 748-8005 932-4616 Chris Tribble 748-8021 532-7016 Shana Yelverton 748-8001 999-0498 C C C C I L 4iit° City of Southlake values: Integrity♦ Innovation • Accountability♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork C• City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3, 2009 Page 4 of 5 e Lvov EXECUTIVE SESSION Section 551.071: Consultation with attorney The City Council may conduct a private consultation with its attorney when the City Council seeks the advice of its attorney concerning any item on this agenda, about pending and contemplated litigation, or a settlement offer, or on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Board of Texas clearly conflicts with Chapter 551. This includes the following pending and/or contemplated litigation subjects: 1. James Lancaster and wife, Catherine Lancaster vs. Gary M. Gordon d/b/a C Gordon Taylor Custom Homes, Carleo A. Capili and wife, Regina Capili and John R. Griggs and wife, Sally Griggs, Jill T. Gordon, and City of Southlake. July 2004. 2. Michael Kenny vs. City of Southlake. April 2008. 3. Jayson Steele vs. City of Southlake. August 2008. Section 551.072: Deliberation regarding real property The City Council may conduct a closed meeting to deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property. Clow Section 551.073: Deliberation regarding prospective gift or donation The City Council may conduct a closed meeting to deliberate a negotiated contract for a prospective gift or donation to the City. CSection 551.074: Deliberation regarding personnel matters The City Council may deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of public officers, including the City Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, Municipal Judge and city boards and commission members. A complete list of the city boards and commissions is on file in the City Secretary's Office. Section 551.076: Deliberation regarding security devices The City Council may deliberate the deployment, or specific occasions for implementation of security personnel or devices. Il Section 551.087: Deliberation regarding economic development negotiations The City Council may discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information received from a business prospect that the city seeks to have locate, stay, C or expand in or near the city and which the City is conducting economic development negotiations; or to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect as described above. E L4av City of Southlake values: Integrity♦ Innovation • Accountability♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork C City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3,2009 Page 5 of 5 L are Section 418.183(f): Texas Disaster Act The City Council may deliberate information: 1) for purposes of preventing, investigating, or responding to an act of terrorism or related criminal activity and involving emergency response providers, their staffing, contact information and tactical plans; 2) that relates to the risk or vulnerability of persons or property, including infrastructure, to an act of terrorism; 3) that relates to the assembly of an explosive weapon, the location of a material that may be used in a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon, or unpublished information pertaining to vaccines or devices to detect biological agents or toxins; 4) that relates to details of the encryption codes or security keys for a public communication system; 5) that relates to a terrorism-related report to an agency of the United States; 6) that relates to technical details of particular vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to an act of terrorism; 7) that relates to information regarding security measures or security systems intended to protect public and private property from an act of terrorism. The Texas Disaster Act specifically requires that a tape recording of the closed meeting be made. Section 418.106(d) & (e): Local meetings to discuss emergency management plans regarding pipeline safety The City Council may discuss emergency management plans involving pipeline safety and/or security of pipeline infrastructures or facilities when those plans or discussions contain such sensitive information. C C C C C C Liw City of Southlake values: Integrity♦ Innovation ♦Accountability♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork IP CITY OF SOUTHLAKE iv° TEXAS JOINT CITY COUNCIL, SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING: AUGUST 3, 2009 LOCATION: Timarron Bent Creek Clubhouse 1250 Bent Creek Drive Southlake, Texas 76092 TIME: 5:30 p.m. — 9:00 p.m. 1. Call to order. 2. Discussion: Current financial environment 3. Discussion: 2005 Park, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan implementation 4. A. Executive Session: Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, E Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.073, 551.074, 551.076, 551.087, 418.183(f), and 418.106(d) & (e). Refer to posted list attached hereto and incorporated herein. Executive Session may be held, under these exceptions, at any time during the meeting that a need arises for the City Council, Southiake Parks Development Corporation, and Parks and Recreation Board to seek advice from the City Attorney as to the posted subject matter of this meeting. 1. Section 551.072: Deliberation regarding real property a. Discuss the potential purchase or lease of real property for city facilities. B. Reconvene: Reconvene the meeting and take any action necessary on items discussed in Executive Session. 5. Discussion: Project profiles 6. Discussion: Capital Improvement Project priorities (FY 2010-2014) 7. Meeting adjourned. C City of Southiake values: Integrity♦ Innovation ♦Accountability♦ Commitment to Excellence • Teamwork p C City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3,2009 Page 2 of 4 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at Town Hall, 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas, on Friday, July 31, 2009, by 5:00 p.m., pursuant to the Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. 1-1 L ,,,,ft aaa,aeeeaety ,,� ,,,,;,, Lori Payne, TRM • City Secretary i U . If you plan to attend this publievellirigama•114 a disability that requires special needs, please advise the City Secretary's Offic#,, 4&a#�cs in advance at 817-748-8016 and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. C C C C C C C C I City of Southlake values: Integrity♦ Innovation ♦Accountability♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3, 2009 Page 3 of 4 4°' EXECUTIVE SESSION Section 551.071: Consultation with attorney The City Council may conduct a private consultation with its attorney when the City Council seeks the advice of its attorney concerning any item on this agenda, about pending and contemplated litigation, or a settlement offer, or on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Board of Texas clearly conflicts with Chapter 551. This includes the following pending and/or contemplated litigation subjects: 1. James Lancaster and wife, Catherine Lancaster vs. Gary M. Gordon d/b/a Gordon Taylor Custom Homes, Carleo A. Capili and wife, Regina Capili and John R. Griggs and wife, Sally Griggs, Jill T. Gordon, and City of Southlake. July 2004. 2. Michael Kenny vs. City of Southlake. April 2008. 3. Jayson Steele vs. City of Southlake. August 2008. Section 551.072: Deliberation regarding real g q property perty The City Council may conduct a closed meeting to deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property. Section 551.073: Deliberation regarding prospective gift or donation E. The City Council may conduct a closed meeting to deliberate a negotiated contract for a ,,, prospective gift or donation to the City. Section 551.074: Deliberation regarding personnel matters The City Council may deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of public officers, including the City Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, Municipal Judge and city boards and commission members. A complete list of the city boards and commissions is on file in the City Secretary's Office. Section 551.076: Deliberation regarding security devices The City Council may deliberate the deployment, or specific occasions for implementation of security personnel or devices. Section 551.087: Deliberation regarding economic development negotiations The City Council may discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information received from a business prospect that the city seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the city and which the City is conducting economic development negotiations; or to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect as described above. L vs- City of Southlake values: Integrity♦ Innovation •Accountability♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork p E • • City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3,2009 Page 4 of 4 LAP' Section 418.183(0: Texas Disaster Act The City Council may deliberate information: 1) for purposes of preventing, investigating, or responding to an act of terrorism or related criminal activity and involving emergency response providers, their staffing, contact information and tactical plans; 2) that relates to the risk or vulnerability of persons or property, including infrastructure, to an act of terrorism; 3) that relates to the assembly of an explosive weapon, the location of a material that may be used in a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon, or unpublished information pertaining to vaccines or devices to detect biological agents or toxins; 4) that relates to details of the encryption codes or security keys for a public communication system; 5) that relates to a terrorism-related report to an agency of the United States; 6) that relates to technical details of particular vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to an act of terrorism; 7) that relates to information regarding security measures or security systems intended to protect public and private property from an act of terrorism. The Texas Disaster Act specifically requires that a tape recording of the closed meeting be made. Section 418.106(d) & (e): Local meetings to discuss emergency management plans regarding pipeline safety The City Council may discuss emergency management plans involving pipeline safety and/or security of pipeline infrastructures or facilities when those plans or discussions Clow contain such sensitive information. C C C C C I City of Southlake values: Integrity♦ Innovation ♦Accountability♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork 8/3/2009 SOUTHLAKE 1 Capital Improvement Program ' FY 2010 - FY 2014 ' A Joint Meeting of-- Integrity t Innovation Accountability Southlake City Council Southlake Park Development Corp. Commitment Southlake Park Board 1 to Excellence Teamwork 1110 Meeting Purpose • Update City Council, SPDC, and Park Board on... - Current financial environment — Implementation of Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan and Trail System Master Plan; ' - Details related to identified projects for CIP funding ' • Promote open discussion between groups about project priorities and funding options • Lay groundwork for future budget discussions ©SOUTHLAKE 1 8/3/2009 ' Meeting Agenda • Welcome & Introductions • Discussion: Current financial environment I • Discussion: Park, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan implementation • Executive Session: Section 551.072: Deliberation regarding real property • Discussion: Project profiles I I 4 Discussion: CIP project priorities (FY 2010-2014) CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 1 p I in Introductions I ` fY CIF r SOUTHLAKE I E 2 I 8/3/2009 I Discussion: Current SPDC financial environment I • SPDC funding sources: =, , , p. 7, — Half-cent sales tax Ti . ,:.; 1 a',.;.:4 • � / I — Rental income `p l — Interest earnings r- ...r • Budget structure: — Operating budget y `s (Construction Manager,joint use projects,field equipment) - Capital budget(projects) • Other park funding sources — General Fund(trails) I Park Dedication Fees — Bicentennial Concessions — Strategic Initiative Fund I Ciry OF ©SOUTHLAKE ihii) I Sales tax collection trend Southlake Parks Development Corporation I $5,000,000 Sales Tax Collection Since Inception $47e $4soo,0o0 $4,000,000 $3,9 - -- - I f, $3,500,000 - -$3,000,000 $3 xt _—._.-- i $2500,000 $2,340426$2,474,046$2, 60$2 ,- I 11 II I $1,SW,000 $1,5 773 _.. $1,260 929 $500,000 $54251 $173,216 w. LY. 1, 1!_Tl_-..- llk._.-- 1 ,-- a....II _ II II.._._1 $0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 -Collected ■Estimated I Ciry OF ©SOUTH LAKE p I3 8/3/2009 SPDC Fund "Fast Facts" • Revenues (all sources) total about $5 million annually ' • Collected $36,156,986 for park projects since tax adopted in 1994 • Limited operations expenses — capital project focus • Cash funding and debt for projects ' • Outstanding debt — $39,634,734 • Current fund balance = Approximately $10 million ' • Conservative planning — sales tax volatility v SOUTH LAKE 114 Available Debt Funding FY 2010-2014 ' FY 2010 $ 7,500,000 FY 2011 $ 3,100,000 ' FY 2012 $ 8,000,000 FY 2013 $ 1 ,000,000 FY 2014 $ 1 ,000,000 1 TOTAL $20,600,000 v SOUTH LAKE p ' 4 8/3/2009 ' SPDC Purpose Implementation of Southlake Park, Recreation, ' & Open Space Master Plan ' Trail System Master Plan ®SOUTf FY OF H LAKE City of Southlake Strategy Map ' Fulfill Our Mission The City of Southlake provides municipal services that support the highest quality of life for our residents and businesses. We do this by delivering outstanding value and unrivaled quality in everything that we do Deliver on Our Safety 110210 Infrastructure Performance Management QualityI Partnerships Focus Areas and Security and Service Delivery Develop - and Volunteerism Cl Achieve the C2 Provide trave. J3 Provide attractive C4 Attract and keep top-tier J5 Enhance residen.E Serve Our highest standard, convenience and unique spaces for businesses to drive a quality of life and Customers ot safety and within city and enjoyment of personal dynamic and sustainable business sustainability region interests economic environment through tourism d2 Collaborate woo B3 Pursue 64 Provide - Manage the sharp y proryjceg select partners to innovative service Business across all departments implement service delivery options quality Gusto aProvide in or F3 Investto provide Financial d maintain high Stewardship public as Promote our Learning nderstand the leadership tleve opportunities for partnersFrtpe and Growth ' Live Our Core Values Integrity • Innovation•Accountability• Commitment to Excellence• Teamwork 11111, ' 5 8/3/2009 Master Plan I CIP Capital Budget Executive Session II Section 551 .072: Deliberation regarding real property I ' ® ITY OF SOUTHLAKE P ' 6 8/3/2009 i I Discussion: Project profiles I I I ©SOUTHLAKE lb IDiscussion: CIP project priorities I (FY 2010-2014) 1 .1fih, i I CITY�]f 0 SOUTHLAKE p 7 8/3/2009 SOUTHLAKE 1 Conclusion & Wrap Up I Thank you for Integrity Innovation your time! IAccountability Commitment to Excellence Teamwork I I as Hyperlink Slides I I I ' ©CITY OF SOUTH LAKE 8 I 8/3/2009 I SPDC Project Funding I 1994 - March 2009 I ■Bicentennial ' I .*iiit o Bob Jones 0 Neighborhood ❑Sports Complex I ,�__ 0 BJNC ©Sr Center ❑Trails I II Joint Use Other Icily© OF SOUTHLAKE i NI ISPDC Bonds Principal and Interest Requirements IItem Principal Interest TOTAL 1997 Refunding/Improvement Sales Tax $1,775,000 $678,668 $2,453,668 Revenue Bonds Ii 999-A Series Sales Tax Revenue Bonds $0 $0 $0 2000 Series Sales Tax Revenue Bonds $85,000 $67,033 $152,033 2001 Series Sales Tax Revenues Bonds $0 $0 $0 I 2001-A Series Junior Lien Revenue Bonds $0 $0 $0 2005 Series Taxable Sales Tax Revenue $370,000 $28,000 $398,000 I Bonds 2005 Series Refunding/Sales Tax Revenue $15,585,000 $6,896,778 $22,481,778 Bonds I 2006 Sales Tax Subordinate Lien Revenue $3,925,000 $1,562,248 $5,487,248 Bonds 2009 Certificates of Obligation $5,915,000 $2,899,040 $8,814,040 I NET SPDC DEBT SVC. REQUIREMENTS $27,570,000 $12,064,734 $39,634,734 X P 1 9 I 8/3/2009 ' 2004 User Survey • Random sample telephone survey • 600 participants • Looked at --- - Utilization v." �.•..,,�, — Overall satisfaction - Park preferences \k\\ ' — Trail preferences • Provided recommendations • ' CIIY OF ©SOUTHLAKE 11410 Survey Results -- Utilization ' • Majority of Southlake residents utilized at least some aspect of the park or trail systems. • High utilization is influenced by three interdependent ' factors: age, children, and area of Southlake. ' -ITY OF ©SOUTHLAKE p ' 10 8/3/2009 Survey Results -- Satisfaction • Almost 9 in 10 Southlake residents report satisfaction with the quality of parks and recreation. ' • Areas of highest satisfaction include: — Park safety and maintenance — Quality of athletic and recreation facilities and programs. • The Southlake trail system represents the greatest opportunity for improvement. ©SOUTHLAI<E /ID Survey Results — Park Preferences • Survey respondents want: ' - More parks — Focus on trails, playgrounds, open areas • What about a recreation center? I ' ©CITY OF SOUTH LAKE t11 8/3/2009 Survey Results — Trail Preferences ' • Trail access is limited • Trail development is a top priority ill. It.. 1400417, WV CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Survey Results - 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: - From neighborhoods to local destinations such as schools and parks. — In nature areas such as parks or along city creeks. • Because support for the proposed recreation center is not ' overwhelming: — Hold public meetings with residents to discuss the proposed recreation center. — 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 Y ' 12 8/3/2009 ' Master Plan • Southlake Parks, Recreation & Open Space ' Master Plan • Southlake 2025 element • Adopted September 2005 • Identified project priorities ' • Update: Southlake 2030 nit Oraim ©CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Project Priorities* ' Phase 1 (year 1)—2005-2006 ' • Nature Center—Indoor priority#1 • Liberty Park at Sheltonwood Development—Outdoor priority#1 • Royal and Annie Smith Park Development—Outdoor priority#2 • Lacrosse Facility—Outdoor priority#3 • Land Acquisition(Community Park)—Outdoor priority#4 Phase 2(year 2)—2006-2007 !` # _. • Noble Oaks Park Improvements �' • Bob Jones Park Development • Bicentennial West Lighted Fields - _ 'I . Koalaty Park Improvements • Chesapeake Park Improvements • BMX Bicycle Facility ' • Skate Park '2005 Parks,Recreation &Open Space Master Plan I, ' 13 1 8/3/2009 1 IF1111) ' Project Priorities* (cont'd) Phase 3(year 3)—2007-2008 • Coker Hike/Bike Trailhead ' • Kirkwood/Sabre Linear Park • Farhat Property Development e, • • Sand Volleyball Courts ` = Phase 4(year 4)—2008-2009 • ---�� • Recreation Center ri • Park Maintenance Facility , Phase 5(year 5)—2009-2010 • Community Center—Park Department Offices • Bob Jones Park—Southern Playground • Bicentennial Park Drainage/Pond Development ' '2 0 0 5 Parks,Recreation &Open Space Master Plan le Bicentennial Park Amendment • Consolidated improvements into phased overhaul • Adopted February 6, 2007 _f� �� '?/t-� .r c./ :0 • ' 14 8/3/2009 Southlake Pathways Plan (Trail System Master Plan) ' • Interconnected system of corridors for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians for ' both transportation and recreation. • Priorities ' - Safe travel to schools & parks — Connect neighborhoods, — Connections to trail networks • Complimentary sidewalk plan ' Existing,Planned,and Proposed Trail System Map ,,ii��-- r lA a-a r1_# , 34 < -71 E�� 9 ' Southlake Pathways Plan COMM 2005 Update ' 15 8/3/2009 Pathway Priorities • School Connectors ' - Shady Oaks School Route — N. Peytonville from Dove to S'Ridge Lakes ' - E. Dove Road Pathway — North Carroll Avenue Schools Pathway ' - Byron Nelson Crossing Upgrades — S. Carroll Avenue Pathway — N. Shady Walkway ?,� ; — S. Peytonville Pathway `~ �' ;;� — Carroll HS Walkway , ii — N. Pearson Lane Walkway ' 1 Pathway Priorities ' • Park Connectors ' - North White Chapel Blvd. Pathway ..; — Oak Pointe/Estes Park Infill — Union Church Walkway North Kimball Walkway -) • Neighborhood Connectors ' - East Dove Road Pathway (east link) — East Dove Creek Greenway Trail — Continental In-fill ' 16 I 8/3/2009 I P i Pathway Priorities I • Intercity Connectors — Brumlow Connector I — Kimball Walkway — Meadowmere Park West Entrance �OIa r- � •, � 11 Jl 49 Park Plan Implementation Status IOctober 2005 - Present Item Projected Cost Investment Status I Nature Center(and Preserve) $0 $1,018,737.05 Facility constructed cost only Land Acquisition-prior to 2005 Liberty Park at $1,192,000 $755,549.57 Under construction(90%complete)- Sheltonwood note supplementing budget with park dedication fees.I Royal&Annie Smith Park $367,000 $348,625.40 Under construction(90%complete) Lacrosse Facility $6,224,214 $1,487,214.00 Reflects reimbursement to CCPD-FY '09 and FY'10 for property. Design I underway-funds allocated for construction in budget. Land Acquisition $1,150,000 $1,095,917.65 Miles purchased (Community Park) Fretwell pending Noble Oaks Park $52,000 163,000 Phase 1 complete I ' Improvements Phase 2 planned for late 2009 Bob Jones Park $375,000 $518,475.94 Including Boo Boo's Buddies dog park Development Bicentennial-West $0 $0 See consolidated Bicentennial Park ILighted Fields rem and note amendment to MP le I17 I 8/3/2009 I IP Park Plan Implementation Status IOctober 2005 - Present Item Projected Cost Investment Status ■ Koalaty Park $168,000 Included in 5 Year CIP Chesapeake Park $286,000 Included in 5 Year CIP BMX Bicycle Facility $0 $0 Removed from CIP during FY 2009 budget process Skate Park $0 $0 Removed from CIP during FY 2009 r budget process Coker Hike/Bike $113,000 Included in 5 Year CIP Trailhead Kirkwood/Sabre $366,000 Included in 5 Year CIP Linear Park ■ ` Farhat Property $440,000 Included in 5 Year CIP Development Sand Volleyball Court $0 $0 See consolidated Bicent'- Iitem and note amen"- ' Park Plan Implementation Status October 2005 - Present Item Projected Cost Investment Status Recreation Center $10,000,000 $2,000,000 Sinking fund established through SIF in 2008 Park Maintenance Facility $TBD Community Center—Park See consolidated Bicentennial Park 1 II Department Offices Ill Bob Jones Park—Southern Playground item and note amendment!: "^^ $90,020 13 Matching grant to SGSA for playground and shade structures Bicentennial Park Drainage— See consolidated Bicentennial Park Pond Development item and note amendment to MP Bicentennial Park $42,992,389 $1,137.610.60 Phase I construction underway Redevelopment* *Council-approved redevelop- ment plans—February 2007 18 I 8/3/2009 I Pathway Plan Implementation Status IOctober 2005 - Present Item Projected Cost Status Shady Oaks School Route $235 100 Planned-5'Complete-Coventry to 100'south I of Shady Oaks entrance(Sherwood Drive);4' Complete-Durham Elem to Love Henry Ct.;8' Complete along Bicentennial Park to FM 1709 N.Peytonville(Dove to $396,500 Proposed Southridge Lakes) I East Dove Road Pathway(west link) $528,000 Designed—Existing sections include 10'walk @ SH114,6'@ Kirkwood Hollow,6'walk @ Estes Park 1&4,6'@ CMS N.Carroll Ave.Schools $1.052,000 Planned/Programmed—Existing section I Pathway includes 4'walk from Taylor to Burney Byron Nelson Crossing Upgrades $29,000 Programmed S.Carroll Ave.Pathway $506.900 Under Construction INorth Shady Walkway $422,400 Planned S.Peytonville Pathway $570,300 Planned I 111111) Pathway Plan Implementation Status IOctober 2005 - Present Item Projected Cost Status I Carroll HS Walkway $591.400 Under Design with White Chapel FM1709 to SH114—Existing sections include 6'walk @ Tom Thumb Center,Bicentennial Park,& Carroll HS N.Pearson Lane Walkway $475.200 Planned IN.White Chapel Blvd. $1,098,300 Programmed—Existing section includes 8' Pathway walk @ Cliffs of Clariden Oak Pointe/Estes Park Inflll $475,200 Building w/each house—Existing 6'walks complete in Phase 1,2,&3,75%in Phase 4 1111 Union Church Walkway $310,500 Planned-Built along Siena and Chesapeake Park only I North Kimball Walkway $209,100 Planned—4'-6'walk only in Grapevine from Dove to Trail Lake E.Dove Road Pathway(east $528,000 Planned—Existing section includes 6'walk @ link) Lakes on Dove IE.Dove Creek Greenway Trail $350,600 Planned 0 19 8/3/2009 Pathway Plan Implementation Status October 2005 - Present ' Item Projected Cost Status Continental In-fill $256.000 Planned-8'Complete Continental to Crooked Lane,8'Complete S.Hollow to West side of Old Union CISD site,Breezeway to Sarah Park, Remaining sidewalk complete south side west to west side of Country Walk. Brumlow Connector $288.000 Planned-8'complete from Carroll/Continental roundabout south to south end of Timarron- Warwick Green 1Fm Kimball Walkway $433.600 Planned/Proposed/Programmed in North Kimball Roadway Improvements Project- Existing section includes 6'walk from FM1709 to Continental I Meadowmere Park West $150.000 Planned—No existing walks Entrance ii I NI Other Projects • Safety Town ' • Matching Fund Program ' • Joint Use SOUTHLAKE I 20 1 8/3/2009 Results! • Nature Center—Complete • Liberty Park at Sheltonwood—90%Complete • Royal &Annie Smith Park—90%Complete ' • Multi-Purpose Facility—Design Underway ' • Noble Oaks Park Improvements—Phase 1 Complete&Phase 2 Planned for late 2009 • Bob Jones Park Development—99%Complete ' • Bicentennial Park Improvements—Phase 1 Sept 2009 • Significant pathway investment and construction © OUTHLAKE 1 21 I I # Dept Fund Project Name Prior FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 1,111 • 1 1 CS SPDC Royal and Annie Smith Park $ 237 $ 115 $ $ $ $ (Design & Development) Phase I II 12 CS SPDC Bicentennial Park Improvements $ 150 $ 150 $ $ $ $ I Phase IA-Safety Town Bob Jones Park- North Playground I 13 CS SPDC $ $ $ $ $ $ Rubberized Surfacing I 14 CS SPDC Farhat Property Development $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Bob Jones Park- North Playground p 15 CS SPDC Shade Canopy $ $ $ $ 145 $ $ 16 CS SPDC Noble Oaks Park Improvements $ - $ - $ 52 $ - $ - $ - I lb17 CS SPDC Chesapeake Park Improvements $ - $ - $ - $ 260 $ - $ - I18 CS SPDC Coker Hike/Bike Trail $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - II 19 CS SPDC Kirkwood/Sabre Linear Park $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - I I Recreation Center, Senior Center 20 CS SPDC and Library(GF Companion Project $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ #7)* II ISubtotals SPDC Fund: $ 3,060 $ 1,068 $ 7,002 $ 6,860 $ 4,875 $ 7,900 FY2013 Beyond Total Description FY2009 Cumulative Phase 1: Development of park to include: pavilion, playground, trails, parking, $ - $ _ $ 237 landscape, irrigation, park amenities, retaining walls, misc. improvement to existing infrastructure and contingency. $ 6,950 Safety Town development within (location TBD) ($300,000). Design and construction elements include: earthwork, paving, utilities, pavilion, fencing, landscaping, irrigation, site amenities (benches, table and signage), and project $ - $ - $ 150 contingency. Total project cost= $500,000 (assumes SPDC Matching Funds $ 6,950 grant assistance at$200,000). Funding previously approved in the amount of $300,000 ($150,000 SPDC and $150,000 Park Dedication Fund). $ 195 $ $ 195 Upgrade playground surface with rubberized surfacing ($18/sf of 5"surfacing) $172,000; and design (13.5%) $23,000. Includes 10% annual inflation. $ 6,950 Development of this 36 acres at the far east end of E. Bob Jones Road with Lake Grapevine shoreline access to include: drive access and parking ($146,300); $ 400 $ - $ 400 picnic areas (3) ($45,000); site amenities ($22,000) 5,300 If of natural trail- DG $ 6,950 @ $3/sf($139,700); and design/contingency(13.5%-$47,000). Includes 10% annual inflation. $ $ Install shade structure over northern playground ($145,000). Includes 10% $ 145 annual inflation. $ 6,950 Priority funding items used for this estimate include park amenities such as $ - $ _ $ 52 benches and tables ($16,500); trail additions 3,730 sf at$5.50/sf($20,500), and $ 7,002 park sign/entry feature($15,000). Includes 10% annual inflation. Priority funding items used for this estimate include: 24' pavilion ($66,500); irrigation improvements ($12,000); amenities such as benches, picnic tables, etc. $ $ $ 260 ($9,500) landscaping additions($18,000); fishing pier($30,500); 1/2 court basketball ($24,500); rubberized surfacing for playground ($50,000); park entry $ 7,002 sign and feature ($18,000); and design/contingency(13.5%-$31,000). Includes 10% annual inflation. Priority items include: mini-shelters (3) = ($55,000); parking lot = ($13,000); $ - $ 102 $ 102 amenities (bike racks, fountains) = ($11,000); site improvements/utilities $ 7,002 ($13,000); design/contingency($10,000). Funding estimates for this project include: Natural crushed granite trail @ 3,500 If. ($139,150); 24' pavilion/rest station ($60,500); concrete parking with paved '$ - $ 332 $ 332 entry and 5 spaces w/culvert($66,550) site improvements/amenities-signs, $ 7,002 I MEW water fountain, benches, entry landscaping ($26,400); design/contingency ($39,400) . Total project cost$332,000. Includes 10% annual inflation. The purpose of the item is to establish a sinking fund for the construction of a recreational center, library and senior center. This item is an estimate of the total capital expenditures for the construction of a multi-use Community Center, Senior Center and Library campus. $28,000,000 estimate is based on the following: a 107,000 sq. ft. facility(at$225/sq.ft. =$24,075,406)to include the Recreation Center, Senior Center and Library based on the Comprehensive Facilities Master $ $ 18,000 $18,000 Plan completed by Brinkley, Sargent; testing services ($54,000); Furniture, fixtures and equipment($1,184,543); Indirect Costs- design fees- ($2,286,418); $ 7,002 and contingency at 3% ($827,720). Significant areas of training, recreational class offerings, gymnasium space, and other amenities associated with a Recreation Center. Project listed as highest priority in FY 2009 per Parks System Master Plan. Potential campus style setting with Library and Senior Center allowing opportunities for shared space and infrastructure. $ 2,795 $ 32,500 $64,992 I Proposed Capital Improveme P P P I • IF # Dept Fund Project Name Prior FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 ISouthlake Parks Development Corporation (SPDC) Fund I1 CS SPDC Bicentennial Park Phase IB (Design& Development) $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 6,050 $ 3,950 $ $ II Bicentennial Park- Phase II Design I 2 CS SPDC & Development (General Fund $ $ $ $ 1,900 $ 4,675 $ 7,700 Companion Project#19)* Community Services Matching I 3 CS SPDC Funds $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 I 4 CS SPDC Bicentennial Park Phase III $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - III 5 CS SPDC North Park (Design & Development) $ 537 $ 115 $ 700 $ $ $ Phase 1 I . 1 6 CS SPDC North Park (Design & Development) $ $ 115 $ $ Phase 2 II7 CS SPDC Royal and Annie Smith Park $ 130 $ 130 $ $ $ $ Development Phase IIA I8 CS SPDC Liberty Park at Sheltonwood $ 130 $ 128 $ $ $ $ Development Phase IIA I9 CS SPDC Liberty Park at Sheltonwood $ $ $ $ 405 $ $ Development Phase II B,C,D I 10 CS SPDC Liberty Park at Sheltonwood $ 476 $ 115 $ $ $ $ (Design & Development) Phase I I *Notes: RIF- Roadway Impact Fees; SSIF- Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees; WIF-Water Impact Fees; SWUS- Stormwater Utility System; U Dollars (000's) L e its Program FY2009 to FY2013 FY2009 FY2013 Beyond Total Description Cumulative Design and Engineering $1,200,000(FY 08 @ 12.0%); Construction $10,000,000. Includes 10% annual inflation. Phase I improvements as part of the Bicentennial Park schematic design include: Shady Oak entrance/road/round- $ - $ - $11,200 a-bout;west baseball four-plex and parking; drainage improvements with pond $ 6,050 enhancements; FM 1709 entrance improvements; Evan's house modifications; Tennis Courts (from Phase III); and Design/contingency. Planning and Design $1,900,000(FY 10 @ 13.5%); Construction $13,800,000. Includes 10% annual inflation. Phase II improvements as part of the Bicentennial $ $ - $14,275 Park schematic design include: White Chapel entrance and road; East baseball $ 6,050 five-plex; playground; spray park; site parking; satellite maintenance facility; and design/contingency. Annual funding set aside as matching funds for groups who propose projects and $ 200 $ 200 $ 1,400 are able to match the city's funding share with their own funds. $ 6,250 Planning and Design ($2,000,000); Construction ($12,355,000). Includes 10% annual inflation. Phase III improvements as part of the Bicentennial Park $ 2.000 $ 12,355 $14,355 schematic design include: Tennis Center expansion (included in Phase I); $ 6,250 stadium; "Hill" improvements; existing structure architectural modifications; sand volleyball and parking improvements; and design/contingency. 0 Phase 1: Development of park area for lacrosse fields with potential shared use for flag football and youth football. Proposed improvements may include (3) lighted athletic fields, open space, parking, landscaping, irrigation, etc. $ 6,950 $ $ $ 1,237 Construction ($1,112,000) Design ($125,000). Funding previously approved in the amount of$537,000 for Lacrosse facility ($412,000 in FY06 and$125,000 in FY08). Phase 2: Development of park area for lacrosse fields with potential shared use for flag football and youth football. Proposed improvements may include, trails, $ - $ 1,511 $ 1,511 open space, playground, parking, concession/restroom building, exercise $ 6,950 equipment(obstacle course), landscaping, irrigation, etc. Construction ($1,371,000) Design ($140,000). Phase IIA park development of Royal and Annie Smith Park ($130,000)to include $ - $ - $ 130 design and construction of playground (grading, surfacing, drainage system, play $ 6,950 structure and retaining wall). Phase IID park development of Liberty Park at Sheltonwood ($130,000)to $ - $ - $ 130 include purchase and installation of pre-fabricated concrete restroom, sewer $ 6,950 lines,water hookup, and electrical. Funding estimates for this project include: Phase IIB- $80,000 (Playground); Phase IIC-$210,000 (Discovery Trail, Artwork, Interpretive Signage, Fountain, $ $ $ $ 6,950 405 Landscape); Phase IID-$45,000 (2nd pedestrian entrance); Contingency @ $37,000; Design = $33,000; Total =$405,000 Phase 1: Development of park to include: new large pavilion w/arbors, trails, pond $ $ $ 476 improvements, parking, park restroom, landscape, irrigation, park amenities, $ 6,950 utility upgrades, trails, demo and contingency. _-Utility Fund 1 Last Updated 8/3/200910:55 AM 1 141) .. j DecisionAnalyst Parks and Recreation Study ' City of Southiake Community Services Study#2004-0494 November 2004 Du_thial‘ TABLE OF CONTENTS uthla •: Background and Objectives 3 ' •:• Methodology 4 •: Executive Summary 6 t •:• Detailed Findings 14 o Park, Trail, and Recreation Usage 15 o Overall Satisfaction 19 ' o Parks Master Plan Development 30 o Trail System Master Plan Development 34 o Respondent Profile 37 1 Study It 2004-0494 Decision • p ' 1 1 --A. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ❖ The City of Southlake, Texas plans to soon update its Parks Master Plan and Trail System Master Plan. In advance of this effort the City decided to survey a representative portion of its residents in order to get their opinions regarding the City's parks, recreation, open space, and trail system needs. •:• The main objectives of this research were to: Determine current usage levels of parks,trails, and recreation facilities. • Identify areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with current parks,trails, and recreation facilities; and identify needs not currently being met. Gain insights into park, trail, and recreation development preferences. 1 .. .M' DeccisicnAna St J METHODOLOGY 1 S.uthlo'- 101111 1 •:• Decision Analyst managed a telephone survey among 600 Southlake residents. •:• The sample was pulled from a list of published telephone numbers of Southlake residents and supplemented with a random-digit dial (RDD) sample from Southlake zip codes. Quotas were set by geographic area as follows: o Area 1: North of Highway 114 o Area 2: North of FM 1709 but south of Highway 114 o Area 3: South of FM 1709 •: Throughout the report these areas are referred to as Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3. .••" Decision Analyst 2 I METHODOLOGY Ss•uthla'- J ' •:• Quotas were set so that 60% of the respondents were female and 40% were male. •:• Telephone interviews were conducted from October 11 through October 21, 2004. •:• Average length of the interviews was 14.5 minutes. Study#2004-0494 ;3 DerisionAnalvm 110 1 ' Executive Summary I Study#2004-0494 AecirionAnahst F ' 3 No I CURRENT UTILIZATION S. lee •:• 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. Study#2004-0494 .. DecisionAnalyat 1,401 = _.... I - OVERALL SATISFACTION s»uthieic I •: Almost 9 in 10 Southlake residents report satisfaction with the quality of parks and recreation. I •:• Areas of highest satisfaction include • Park safety and maintenance I • 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. Study#2004-0494 .,?draDecisionAna6,st 4 1 �1---',IQ PARK PREFERENCES ' DuthlQ_• •:• Southlake residents are quite satisfied with the parks system. However, they indicated opportunities for improvement. t 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 l 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. Study#2004-0494 Irk -t" Dedsian- PARK PREFERENCES cuthla ❖ Overall, Southlake residents consider the proposed recreation center to be the highest priority in park development. This is particularly true for the following segments: I Residents living in Areas 1 (north)and 3 (south) • Those with children • 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) ▪ Those with no children living at home ' o Residents age 56 or older o Males Study#2004-.,4e4 ... Drcidan st 4110 5 I Nor TRAIL PREFERENCES •:• Trail access is limited. • Almost 2 out of 5 South lake 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. • Residents expect new trails to be accessible from their neighborhood to local areas such as parks, schools, and shopping. • Scenic trails through nature areas or along city creeks are also highly desirable. I 1kcision.4na1r.c$ RECOMMENDATIONS Duthla •:• 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: • From neighborhoods to local destinations such as schools and parks. • In nature areas such as parks or along city creeks. Because support for the proposed recreation center is not overwhelming: • Hold public meetings with residents to discuss the proposed recreation center. • Due to differing preferences, hold separate meetings for each of the three areas. necrsronaayst 6 RECOMMENDATIONS Duthi a • ' •:• 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 Study#2004-0494 Decision 4nn411 100 1 ' Detailed Findings I p Study#2004-049- Decidan 7 I Park, Trail and Recreation Usage I CURRENT UTILIZATION 3uthlok- Southlake residents are most likely to utilize their city parks and participate in city events. Utilization is highest among younger residents and those with children living at home. Percent Responding Yes With Children No Children Visited city park 80% 89% 62% Participated inoty event 74% 81% 58% Visited athletic field/gym 56% 71% 24% Utilized bike/pedestrian path 54% 58% 46% Participated in CS class/program 30% 36% 15% Signed up for city -25% recreation Gass 33% 7% Visited a nature center 20% 19% 21% Utilized horseback 11 7% 7% 6% riding trail 0% 20% 40% 80% 80% 100% C5:"In the past 12 months,have you or has anyone in your household.. Total Base•600;with Children=402;No Children=183 `$# Study#2004-0494 16 y Decision Ana sr 8 I I I. IAA PARTICIPATION IN PARK ACTIVITIES 1 DUtb ak When visiting a park,the majority of Southlake residents prefer to walk or hike,let their children play,or participate in organized sports. Those with children are most likely to I participate in park activities. Residents of Area 3 are significantly more likely(58%)to participate in organized sports compared to other residents. Top Park Activities wth children No Children Walk/Hike 66% 71% 57% I Kids play 53% 66% 24% Organized sports 51% 68% 14% I RtrYJog- 47% 54% 32% Ride bike 46% 56% 26% I %alkanmals 39% 41% 34% Non-organized sports 38% 46% 22% Picric 37% 43% 26% I 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q6:'Which of the following activities do you and your family generally participate in when you go to the park?' Total Base=600;wth Children=402;No Children=183 Study#2004-0494 17 Pe I —�_ l a RECREATION/SPORTS ACTIVITIES Guth ok I Very few Southlake residents report problems with the availability of their favorite sport or recreation activity.Of those who did,biking and golf were cited most often as being I unavailable. Top 10 Recreational/Sports Activities and Availability in Southlake Total Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Top Not Top Not Top Not Top Not g hi Activities Available Activities Available Actitities Available Actitities Available Soccer 28% 1% 26% 2% 23% 0% 32% 2% Walking/Hiking 22% 2% 23% 2% 23% 2% 21% 3% Baseball 20% 2% 20% 4% 18% 2% 21% 1% Basketball 19% 2% 15% 0% 15% 2% 23% 2% Tennis 18% 1% 23% 4% 17% 1% 17% 0% Biking 17% 6% 19% 8% 14% 8% 17% 5% Running/Jogging 14% 2% 12% 4% 13% 2% 15% 1% I Football/Touchfootbell 13% 1% 12% 2% 9% 1% 16% 0% Swimming 13% 1% 11% 1% 10% 1% 15% 0% Golf 12% 5% 7% 2% 7% 4% 16% 8% I Q3/Q4.'Please tell me the recreational activities or sports in which you and others in your household participate the most.'/ 'Of the activities you just mentioned,which,if any,are not available for your household in Southlake" Total Base=600/530;A:ea 1=120/101;Area 2=180/152;Area 3=300/277 Study#2004-0494 • :ro DaidonMmly4 p I9 Et 3 I 'rr 1 1 1 k 1 I Overall Satisfaction I • i4` Ai Study#2004-0494 19 Decision Anal 3i ., wr _ _..... OVERALL SATISFACTION Almost 9 in 10 Southlake residents report satisfaction with the quality of parks and recreation. I Younger residents(age 35 or less)report the highest level of overall satisfaction. Total Residents Satisfaction by Age I 100%- 95% 88% 87% 88% ::z ' 71% 53 60% 63% Satisfied 58% I 40%_ f ❑Satisfied Don't Know, 20%- refused I 1 ■Verysfied 4% Very I Dissatisfied Dissatisfies 0% 1% 7% 35 or 36-45 46-55 56+ under Q1:"How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of parks and recreation?' Total Base=600;35 or under=41•,36-45=236;46-55=222;56+=90• •Caution:Small base size Study#2004-0494 20 .ct' DecisionAnayst 10 OVERALL SATISFACTION 5»uthla'�¢ Slightly more than half of Southlake residents would tell a friend that they like the park system overall. Fewer than 1 in 10 residents feel that the park system needs improvement. Overall Responses Like overall park system 51% Like activities,programs,and facilities 24 Park system reeds improvement 8% Convenient/Accessible 8% Fun/Family fnerdy/Chlldrerisactivities 7% Like safety/maintenance 7% Trail system reeds improvement 7% 8111 Like sports programs/facilities 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q7-if a friend were considering moving to Southlake,what would you tell them about the City's parks,trails,and recreation programs? Total Base=511 4t,4y#2004 „et, ' sY OVERALL SATISFACTION 5»uthla'1¢ When probed further for positive park attributes,residents most mention activities,programs, and facilities. Park safety and maintenance are also regarded favorably. Additional Positive Responses Like activities,programs,and facilities 18% Like safety/maintenance 15% Like overall park system 13% FuYFamiyfriendy/Chldren'sactivities 8% Convenient/Accessible 7% Like sports programs/facilities 6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q7a."What additional positive aspects,if any,about Southlake's parks system would you tell a friend' Total Base=514 r. Study#2004 4 ro DecisionAna6st p 11 1 I 1 I Ilr'lall OVERALL SATISFACTION 1 Examples of Some Positive Resident Responses "I think it's one of the finest systems of anywhere we've ever lived. It's safe and a very healthy environment for everyone." "I'd say that the parks have everything,a large variety of things that interest everyone in the family." "We have all these nice things that are available to us. It is family oriented and I would want my friend to know what is available. We enjoy Southlake. It is a wonderful place to raise a family." "The parks department is very good about notifying parents about the calendar activities. The communication is excellent." Q7a:"What additional positive aspects,if any,about Southlake's parks system would you tell afriend?" gin study#2004-0494 23 p .cv Decisiac4nnhsr 41 IN r OVERALL SATISFACTION uthla', • When probed further for negative aspects about the parks system,close to 3 out of 5 had nothing to say. Specific suggestions include increasing programs and facilities(including athletic)and improving the trail system. Additional Negative Responses Park system reeds improvement 10% trprove/hcrease programs and facilities 9 Trail system reeds improvement 9% hrprove/hcrease athletic facilities/programs 6% Not convenient/accessible 4% No suggestions/negative comments 57% 0% 20% 40% 60% 60% 100% Q7b.What additional negative aspects,if any,about Southlake's parks system would you tell a friend?" Total Base=515 Study#2004-0494 _ " ._y" DecisionAna6st 12 I OVERALL SATISFACTION DuthakI. W. I IExamples of Some Resident Suggestions "There's a lot of potential. We do a lot of organized activities,but there is not I much non-organized space." "There's not a lot of landscaped green space and there are not convenient walking trails." I "It doesn't offer much if you're not young. There is nothing to draw an older person to the park,no one over the age of 45." "Well-kept and they are improving. I think they need to increase the nature trail I walking path for people who don't have children." Q7b:What additional negative aspects,if any,about Southlake's parks system would you tell a fnend, Study#2004-0494 •fr DeciiatAna/1st IL I SATISFACTION WITH PARKS l Duthka • I Overall,Southlake residents are quite satisfied with the park system,particularly in the areas of safety and maintenance.Residents in general are somewhat less satisfied with the availability of facilities and amount of open space. However,new residents(1 year or less)report significantly higher levels of satisfaction with availability of facilities(85%)and amount of open space(90%)compared to other residents. Percent Satisfied or Very Satisfied ISafety 62% 90% Maintenance 59% 88% 111 Corr eriently located 59% 82% Amount of open 58% 77% space I Availability of 57% ■V Satisfied faciities 66% ery ❑Satisfied 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% I Q6:'Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the following aspects of Southlake's parks and bails system' Total Base=600 A, Study#2004-0494 �;., DecitionAnalyst p I13 in SATISFACTION WITH ATHLETICS 411111 uthla--°� ' Satisfaction with athletic facilities is also high;however,residents in Area 2 report slightly lower satisfaction with the convenience(76%)and availability(69%)of athletic facilities, compared to other residents. Percent Satisfied or Very Satisfied Overall quality 59% 85% Maintenance 59% 82% Conveniently 58 82% located Availability of 57% 73% ■Very Satisfied fields/gyms 0 Satisfied 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q8:'Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the following aspects of Southlake's parks and trails system." Total Base=600 00 T/e 200d-0444 _ .M" DCe1.11a11 SATISFACTION WITH RECREATION , s»aa" Most Southlake residents are satisfied with the quality,variety,and number of recreation facilities and programs available. Percent Satisfied or Very Satisfied Quality of facilities 62% 85% Overall program 61% 84% Number of ygo/ 82% programs Number of facilities 61% 79% Quality of 55% 79% programs al Very Satisfied Variety offacilites 60% 78% ❑Satisfied 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q8:'Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the following aspects of Southlake's parks and trails system' Total Base=600 Study#2004-0494 23 h° DerisionAna6V 14 • I • SATISFACTION WITH TRAILS Duthra The Southlake trail system represents the greatest opportunity for improvement,with residents reporting only moderate satisfaction. Percent Satisfied or Very Satisfied Quality 47% 58% Ava9atHlity 47% 57% •Very Satisfied E Satisfied 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ' Q8:"Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the following aspects of Southlake's parks and trails system." Total Base=600 7 Study#2004-0494 - -'- Decision 1 i 1 p Parks Master Plan Development • 1 Study#2004-0494 30 _y DerivonAna P ' 15 I =.—---0—k-_,... pk PARK PREFERENCES • Southlake residents overall prefer the proposed recreation center;however,those residing in Area 2 are more evenly divided between a rec center and neighborhood parks. Residents with children are significantly more likely to prefer the recreation center(53%). Gender is also a I factor,with females(50%)opting for the recreation center and males(43%)choosing parks. Total Residents Areal Areal Area3 I Option 1 Construction of a recreation center that includes basketball and volleyball courts, 47% 39% 49% weight lifting,indoor track,crafts, I dance,babysitting,and other amenities Neither/ Option 2.Completion of area 35% 43% 35% Don't know neighborhood parks 17% ------ Neither/Don't Know 18% 18% 16% Q14 "The City of Southlake is planning new developments for the Parks Department which of the following options do you consider the highest priority?' Total Base=600;Area 1=120;Area 2=180;Area 3=300 Study#2004-0494 31 roA DerisionAnatysr IL,,' PARK PREFERENCES Duthlaft• About 2 out of 5 Southlake residents would like a new park to include multi-use trails. One- third of residents in Area 3 would also like a park to include a playground,significantly higher than other residents. Area 1 residents are least interested in athletic fields or facilities. Total Residents Preferences by Area 46% — MJti-usetrails 41% Multi-usetraib 44% 37 23 Open grassy Open grassy area/lardscapirg Playgrounds 27% Playgrounds 203: 33% - 24% 24% areademtssrapinglio �% 26 21% Picnic Picnic areas/paN lions120% areaslpavins 17% •Area 1 21% •Area 2 g% DArea 3 Athletic Athletic fields/facilities14% fields/facilities t6/o 6% ...- 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q12,"If Southlake was going to continue development of a park in your area based on your or your household's own interests,what two or three things would you definitelywant the park to include?" Total Base=600;Area 1=120;Area 2=180;Area 3=300 Study#2004-0494 mri ..' , DecisionAMIjSY ad 16 PARK PREFERENCES Duthla Trail and sidewalk development is a top priority for about one-quarter of Southlake residents, as are additional athletic programs and facilities. Trails/sidewalks 27% A t ams/fa progrf dekc lilies 25% Nature areas/open space 11% ' Age appropriate 9% programs/facilities ArtimaVdog park 5% More parks/facilities 4% Swimming pools/water 3% park ' 0% 20% 40% 60% 60% 100% Q9 'Whattype of park facilities or components does Southlake need more of," Total Base=515 Study#2004-0494 APIDeri9AIAIId}9 1 ' Trail System Master Plan Development Study#2004-0494 34 Qtr3ist 11. ' 17 I I imp - CURRENT TRAIL AVAILABILITY S.uthla'V Pi w Residents perceive trail availability to be limited. Almost 2 out of 5 residents report that no trails are available. Area 3 residents report the greatest access to trails with significantly fewer reporting no access compared other residents. I Trails Available to... Total Residents Availability by Area 30% Visitfrierlds 42% Visit Mends 33% I 52% 23% Schools 33% Schools 28% 39% 2%% I Nearby parks 31% Nearby parks_ 28% 34% Shopping Shopping 13% opp 24% O.No Trails Available 25% areas areas All residents. 38% 27% I Area 1 49% - ■Area 1 Neighboring 12% Area 2. 47% Neighboring 8%2% ■Area 2 cities Area 3 29% cities 15% ❑Area 3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q10:"To the best of your knowledge,are trails available that would allow you or members of your household to walk or bicycle from home to..." Total Base=600;Area 1=120;Area 2=180;Area 3=300 — Study#2004-0494 __ .•v Drcisia+Am " �= TRAIL PREFERENCES 3uthlaa Southlake residents expect new trails to be easily accessible from their neighborhood to local areas. Scenic trails through nature areas or along city creeks are also highly desired. Percent Agree or Strongly Agree I Accessible from my neighborhood 1111.1 44% 89% Connect to parks.schools,and shopping 39% 87% I h nature areas such as upaved trails 45% 83% Along creeks in the city-- 58% 80% I Along utility corridors ■ 47% 64% ■Strongly Agree I Along major thoroughfares . 41% 61% ❑Agree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q11:"I would like to see trails in Southlake..." I Total Base=600 - Study#2004-0494 DecisionAna st 18 1 • 1 1 ' Respondent Profile 1 1 ' 1 Study#2004-0494 37 .M D�nct iowAmVet RESPONDENT PROFILE DUthia Quotas were set to interview a representative portion of residents by geographic area. ' Area of Southlake Area 3:South of FM 1709 50% -',Ay#2004-0494 38 Decision st p ' 19 I °I -- 4- RESPONDENT PROFILE Duthla_• I Sources of Information Regarding Recreational Activities in Southlake Newspapers 84% I Southlake Scene brochue 68% City of Southlake website 58% I Pnvate Neighborhood associabors 47% City water bill insert ilill 42% Sports Associations 41% I _11 Cable N Channel 21% SPIN Groups _20% City Council/Board Meetings _18% I The Park Board -16% 0% 20% 40% 60°% 80% 100% , Q13:To get information about recreational activities in Southlake,which of the following sources do you generally utilize'" Total Base:600 ,Y4s di Study#2004-0494 t,3ar Decisi or:-.•,.—- .,........z. RESPONDENT PROFILE Duth!ak'- In general,the majority of respondents were female,have children living at home,and have lived in Southlake for more than one year. Area 3 demographics differ significantly from those of Areas 1 and 2. On average,Area 3 residents tend to be younger and have lived in Southlake less time. Area 3 residents are also more likely to have children living at home. Total Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Gender Male 40% 37% 45% 38% Female 60% 63% 55% 62% Years in Southlake One year or less 7% 9% 5% 7% 2-4 years 28% 27% 19% 33% 5-7 years 25% 18% 26% 26% 8-10 years 21% 13% 23% 22% More ton 10 years 20% 33% 27% 11% Average number of years 6.5 6.8 72 6.9 Children under 18 at home Yes 67% 59% 61% 74% No 31% 39% 37% 23% Y# Study#2004-0494 40 s✓' onAn4st 20 Dutnialt. RESPONDENT PROFILE Tall Area 1 Area 2 Altai 3 Age 25 years oryorrper 1% 0% 1% 1% 26-35 years 6% 6% 6% 7% 36-45 years 39% 36% 32% 45% 46-55 years 37% 40% 42% 33% 56-65 years 13% 14% 14% 11% 66 sears or older 3% 3% 3% 2% Average age 46.7 47.5 47.9 457 Ape of Children Under years 27% 30% 23% 29% 6-12 years 55% 51% 46% 60% 13-18 years 52% 48% 57% 50% Study#2004-0494 41 .r�Dec&on Analyst I U ' 21 C FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005 5.2 Park Design Priorities and Criteria: L 'aw 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. C C C C C C C C C L 5-7 c Re erim IFNI re_si rim rig FINAL DRAFT September 14,2005 Table 5.2 Park Type ki a i8r N€ a N "N ao "' 'g N� $ $ ss za v Design Elements 1. Size 5—10 acres ' 40—100 acres >100 acres 5 2 acres 5 1 acre No Limit No limit No limit 2 Service Area ''h-%mile radius %-2 mile radius —Entire city 114-'h mile radius - 14-%mile radius Neighborhood/City wide Neighborhood/City wide Neighborhood or city wide 3 Design PflofltleS -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 sp aces 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 -Chidren'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 Perks in this section with formally laid foot paths and only such as walking. amenities to bikers and whoNy 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 holdings. buildings location of the linear park. agricultural uses. centers) -Adjacent to existing or commerciayresidential 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 lighting of fields and fields and minimizing the -Uned by public streets designed -Uned 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 a"main 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 parks 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) ways street network(bike, -Parking should be on street -Parking should be on street -Minimal automobile access _ ,pedestrian,and auto) parkingSparallel or angled) parking_(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/1OA 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 -_golf course open to the public 5-8 C FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005 ° 5.3 Appropriate Park Type by Land Use Designation 1. 4wv The table below (Table 5.3) establishes the relationship between the appropriate park types and land use categories based on the scale, context, Cand 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 Cfor 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 I: 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. CTable 5.3 Open Space by Land Use Category Land Use Category LD- MD- RCS Retail Office Mixed T-1/ EC Town Res Res Comm. Comm. Use T-2 Center Open Space Type Neighborhood X X X X X X Park rlow Community Park X X X City Park X X X Special Purpose Parks: o Squares X X X X X X o Plazas X X X X X X o Golf Courses X X X IE Linear Parks X X X X X X X X X Natural Areas X X X X X X X X X IL C C 1 C 5-9 E I IResolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 1111) Section 8 Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs I I Policies and Guidelines I Conceptual Park Development Plans Program Implementation and Priorities I8.1 Policies and Guidelines Suggested during the 2004-2005 Plan Update T : The following are issues that arose during the recent plan update and, Ialong 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 I some come from the Community Services department's internal policies and recommendaions. 4 - Together, they shape the provisions i r and recommendations in this plan. ir Strive to educate the public on the intrinsic value of natural areas in ��\ i I ' park development. Southlake's �' t, policy of providing 50% open space r ,,lr' in park design is often difficult to do /, 1 when faced with such a large = ►.,ti ?: , percentage of active recreational il b needs. This plan update further f�i/��'� I '1� i. stresses the open space provision -_.., 'f(il 1 li 1 I) and further recommends a change a t l�h f��l�� I from the term "open space" to . . "natural area". This reduces the ^I " connotation that "open space" is simply land that hasn't been built upon yet. 1111 8 - 1 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Stress the value of linking neighborhoods to parks and schools. Though more 91 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 'mar 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: 8 -2 ' 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. I I o Large open space picnic area in the northwest property in the area of the planned Shady Oaks access o Skate Park I o Lighted sand volleyball courts (2) o Additional parking east of the drainage channel o Additional trails I I 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, I I 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 r 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 p 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 Po 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 o 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 S. 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 r 111 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. 1 Rustin/Family Park— Figure 11 11140 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. i 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. 1 1 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 `or 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 Adopted September 20, 2005 Estes Park — Figure 15b 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 t 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. 0 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 ' 8- 9 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 8.3Program 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. 8.4Project 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 tResolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 1111 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 r o Noble Oaks Park Improvements o Bob Jones Park Development to Bicentennial West Lighted Fields o Koalaty Park Improvements o Chesapeake Park Improvements ho BMX Bicycle Facility o Skate Park ' Phase 3 (year 3) — 2007 - 2008 o Coker Hike/Bike Trailhead ILO 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— Southern 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 IC) 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 facilities1111 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) 4111 I 1 I 8- 12 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 d 1. %**" SECTION 3.0 SOUTHLAKE PATHWAYS SYSTEM In the wake of boomingdevelopment in and around Southlake, manypossible trail P corridors have been lost. This loss, combined with the expansion of State Highway 114, comprise two major challenges to establishingconnected intra and inter citynon- 1 9 motorized routes. Although some private subdivisions provide trails for their residents, these generally have transportation value only within that subdivision when they do not connect to public corridors, making non-motorized connections between those neighborhoods and common destinations difficult. Residents near Lake Grapevine have expressed strong support for the existing natural trails in their area. These natural areas also have high value to important and sensitive wildlife species for resting, nesting, feeding, or roosting areas, according to recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studies of the area. More than 6 miles of moderately easy equestrian/hiking (E/H) trails that currently meander through Marshall Creek and Walnut Grove Parks already serve the area well. However, several relatively steep creek crossings may need structural improvements or rerouting to avoid further erosion. Alignments of the greenway trail segments in as-yet undeveloped areas should be viewed as flexible, and city staff and leadership should remain receptive to adjustments in alignments, as long as the connectivity they provide is maintained. Flood levels and sensitive naturaL_areas_must be carefully assessed and potential trail impacts on natural, historic and archeological resources must be considered before deciding the final alignments. The intent of this plan is to increase opportunities for non-motorized access and mobility to routine destinations throughout the city. Alternatives beneficial to the overall objectives of this plan and reflective of the community's desires should be anticipated, encouraged, and accommodated. C Through implementation in the most recently adopted Mobility and Master Thoroughfare I — Plan, many of Southlake's existing street corridors will eventually be reconstructed to 16 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 accommodate bicyclists on the roads and pedestrians on the sidewalks. However, *"" many of the interim cross-sections do not currently accommodate these modes. Careful coordination is essential during implementation of this thoroughfare plan, to ensure that the non-motorized networks are fully developed and integrated in the final construction designs. 3.1 SELECTION CRITERIA Previous plan goals and objectives were examined to formulate recommended plan revisions. In order to provide a mechanism for the orderly development of these trails and paths, they have been prioritized based on the following criteria: • Existing or fairly readily obtainable right-of-way space • Links residential neighborhoods to parks, schools and other key destinations • Limited tree preservation issues • Street typology Southlake's Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan has adopted a street typology classification for the city that links street functionality with broader mobility and livability goals. Southlake's street typology classifications address pedestrian facilities and bicycle facilities in addition to other design and mobility elements. The priority of pedestrian and bicycle facilities based on street typology is indicated in the table below. Further detail on this topic, including the definitions for each typology, may be found in the Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan. NIIMPW 1 17 MI Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 I ' Pedestrian and Bicycle Design Priority by Street Typology: Street Typology Pedestrian Orientation Bicycle Facilities IFreeways Low Low Regional Boulevards Medium Medium liBoulevards Medium Medium Rural Roads Low/Medium Low/Medium Avenues Medium/High Medium/High Local Streets High Medium IMain Streets High Medium I Commercial Streets Medium/High Medium Residential Streets High Medium Alleys None None 3.2 TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONS Evilw The following trails are indicated for the overall trail system and are described in detail Cbelow. To follow these descriptions is a ranking of the trail segments for funding and construction by level of importance. The segment lists below can be found in Map 1 in the Appendices. 11 In addition to the trail segments described below, all new development should provide sidewalks along all public and private streets to form a continuous network that links existing and proposed trails to destinations such as neighborhoods, parks, schools, shopping areas, and employment areas. Trails along floodplains and creeks are also recommended to provide alternative connectivity between destinations. C C L.-- C18 w . 3 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 N Table 3.1 Existing, Programmed, Planned, and Proposed Trail Segments TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION STATUS LENGTH (MILES) 1. Marshall Creek Greenbelt Trail-6'nominal width natural equestrian/hiking(E/H)trail. Existing 0.56 2. Shoreline Equestrian/Hiking Trail-6'nominal width informal trails from near Trophy Club Existing 3.10 city limits. 3. Bob Jones Park Spur-6'natural equestrian/hiking path leading northward from North Planned 0.43 Bob Jones Trailhead to the Shoreline Trail. 4. Crown Ridge Equestrian/Hiking Trail-8'natural surfaced equestrian/hiking path.Also Planned 0.80 includes planned connection to trailhead at T.W.King. 5. Bob Jones Park Equestrian/Hiking Trail-6'natural equestrian/hiking trail from the North Planned 0.93 Bob Jones Trailhead,along the edge of Bob Jones Park to the Lower Walnut Grove and Shoreline E/H Trails. 6. Lower Walnut Grove Trail-6'nominal width natural equestrian/hiking trail network. Existing 1.95 7. Bob Jones Park Hike&Bike Pathways-10'paved multi-use(hike,bike,skate or scoot) Programmed 1.08 paths through Bob Jones Park.Trail detail is in contained in the Bob Jones Park Conceptual Plan in the Parks,Recreation and Open Space Master Plan,Figure 2,attached as Map 3 in the Appendices. 8. Kirkwood Branch Greenway Hike&Bike Trail-8-10'paved pathway mostly meandering Planned 0.73 through Corps property. 9. Sabre/Kirkwood Hike&Bike Pathway-8'paved multi-use greenway path north from SH Planned 0.60 114 to Kirkwood. 10. Kirkwood Greenwalk-6'paved from Sabre to Dove Road. Existing 0.46 ,410001 11-N. North White Chapel Boulevard Pathway-(TMB Project 2C North)paved 8'multi-use Programmed 2.60 pathway from Bob Jones Park to S.H. 114. 11-S. Carroll High School Walkway-(TMB Project 2C South)paved 8'multi-use pathway on Programmed 1.4011 N.White Chapel from S.H.114 to Bicentennial Park. 12. West Dove Road Pathway-8'paved multi-use pathway from Westlake city limit to North Planned 1.55 White Chapel Boulevard. 13-W. East Dove Road Pathway(West Link) -8'paved pathway from S.H.114 to Carroll Ave. Planned/ 0.95 Note:A segment of this route will be constructed with the DPS North Facility and the Programmed intersection improvements. 13-E. East Dove Road Pathway(East Link)-8'paved pathway from Carroll Ave.to Grapevine. Planned 1.25 14. Aventerra Hike&Bike Trail-paved 8'multi-use pathway through proposed campus Planned 2.97 development. 15. --West Dove-Creek-Greenway Trail-large-scale natural-or-paved-8'cross-country Planned 0.63 greenway trail.Connecting under S.H.114 was not feasible during construction. 16. East Dove Creek Greenway Trail-natural surfaced or paved 8'cross-country greenway Planned 0.83 trail between Carroll and planned trailhead on Foxfire. 17. East Highland Street Walkway -6'sidewalk between Carroll and Kimball. Planned 0.96 18-N. North Carroll Avenue Schools Pathway-paved 8'multi-use trail link on North Carroll Planned 2.49 from Grapevine to S.H.114 to 1709. 18-S. North Carroll Village Center Connector-paved 8'segment of N.Carroll multi-use trail Planned 1.00 link on North Carroll from SH 114 to 1709. 19. North Kimball Walkway-paved*6'pathway from Dove to Meadowmeare Park. Planned 0.66 20. Kimball Walkway-paved 6'multi-use path between Dove and East Continental,with Planned 2.84 eventual connection to Cottonbelt Trail. 21. Sunshine Greenway Trail-8'paved multi-use path from Highland to the planned Planned 0.33 Aventerra H&B Trail. a. rUrr 19 . Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 LTRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION STATUS LENGTH (MILES) 22. Northside Veloway-paved,8'-10'(minimum)bikeway along the entire north side of Planned 5.40 II S.H.114 ROW from Westlake to Grapevine.NOTE:Trails in the S.H.114 R.O.W.require a R.O.W.use permit from TxDOT.Construction plans must be coordinated through TxDOT and the city. 23. North Pearson Lane Walkway-6'sidewalk from Florence to Union Church. Planned 1.50 II 24. Royal&Annie Smith Path and Walkway-6'paved walkway which now goes through Existing/ 0.50 existing Vermillion Addition,plus a eight-foot(8')internal trail meandering through the 13 Planned (existing) acre wooded Royal&Annie Smith Park,then as a planned 6'walkway eastward along 0.65 Johnson Road to Randol Mill Avenue. (proposed) 25. Jellico Greenway Trail-8'paved multi-use greenway path from Florence Rd.to 1709. Planned 1.10 26. West Southlake Boulevard Pathway-(Projects 2A&2B West)8'paved paths from Existing/ 3.16 Keller city limit at Pearson to Bicentennial Park. NOTE:Small trail segments at major Planned I intersections to be completed by TxDOT with CMAQ funding through NCTCOG.(on r both sides of 1709) 27. Chesapeake Place Greenwalk-6'paved walkway to connect neighborhoods with Existing 0.52 neighborhood park between West Southlake Boulevard and Union Church.Potential spur to St.Martin in the Field. 28. Southwest Pathway-paved 8'pathway to extend from large development tract to Planned 0.51 Continental. 29. Union Church Walkway-6'sidewalk from Pearson to Davis.Potential connection to Planned 0.98 Keller's planned Big Bear Creek and Eastern Trails. 30-N. Randol Mill Avenue Pathway-8'paved multi-use pathway between Westlake to Keller. Planned 1.94 30-S. Davis Greenway Pathway-8'paved(or natural surfaced)pathway through floodplain Proposed 0.70 CIW area to the rear of large tracts which front the west side of Davis Blvd.Southlake 2025 Plan recommendation. 31. Big Bear Creek Greenway Trail-8'paved mull-use greenway link along creek from Planned 1.15 C Davis to Carroll Elementary School and Continental. 32. South Peytonville Pathway-8'paved multi-use path between 1709 and Continental(on Planned 1.05 the east side of S.Peytonville)and 8'+paved multi use path from 1709 to Stonebury(on + the west side of S.Peytonville). 0.30= 1.35 33. Continental In fill-6'paved pathway to connect neighborhoods to each other and to Planned 0.65 111 CISD facility.(E.Continental from Carroll Ave.to Kimball Ave.) 34. Clow Pathway-paved 8'east/west route on proposed Clow Collector Road across school Planned 1.00 property and east to White Chapel. NOW NO LONGER INCLUDES PEYTONVILLE SEGMENT,WHICH IS INCLUDED in#50. 1 35-S. Shady Oaks School Route-8'paved multi-use path from entrance at Coventry to 1709. Planned 1.03 35-N. North Shady Oaks Walkway-8'paved multi-use path from entrance at Coventry north Planned 1.00 I to Dove Road. 36. West Highland Walkway-6'sidewalk between Shady Oaks and SH 114 southern R.O.W Planned 0.49 trail. 37. Bicentennial Park Trail Network-8'-10'paved multi-use routes not previously Planned 0.25 constructed,mainly on undeveloped west side.Trail detail is in contained in the IE Bicentennial Park Conceptual Plan in the Parks,Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, Figure 1,attached as Map 4 in the Appendices. 38. South Bicentennial Linkages-8'natural(or paved)multi-use access from Planned 0.70 neighborhoods to trail on south side of FM 1709.(Two neighborhood trail linkages.) E39. Southside Town Square Pathway-8'-10'(minimum) multi-use path along the Planned 3.34 southwestern edge of the SH 114 ROW from Westlake to Town Square.NOTE:Trails in the S.H.114 R.O.W.require a R.O.W.use permit from TxDOT.Construction plans must be C coordinated through TxDOT and the city. 40. Bicentennial ParklTown Center Pathway-8'multi-use paved multi-use link along north Planned 1.30 side of Southlake Boulevard-between Bicentennial Park entrance on F.M. 1709 and North Carroll Avenue and Town Center. L..., IE20 IP Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION STATUS LENGTH w (MILES) 41. Town Square Pathway-8'paved path from North Carroll along the north and east side of Programmed 0.57 Town Square to East Southlake Boulevard.Align with future road through Town Square. 42. South White Chapel Walkway-6'sidewalk from 1709 to Colleyville. Planned 1.77 43. Rockenbaugh Greenwalk-6'natural surfaced or paved walkway through the greenway Planned/ 1.03 east of Byron Nelson Parkway,from 1709 to Continental.Note southern end is a new Proposed proposed route through Timarron greenbelt. 44. South Carroll Avenue Pathway-8'paved multi-use path from 1709 to Continental. Planned 1.20 45. Woodland Heights Veranda-paved 8'pathway along 1709 between Carroll and Kimball. Planned 1.01 46. Brumlow Cottonbelt Link(TMB Project 2C South)-8'multi-use path from existing trail Existing/Prog 0.80 stub on the west side of Brumlow at Timarron to SH 26 and the Cottonbelt Trail.See rammed segment#55 for alternate route. 47. Crooked Walkway-6'paved walkway between Kimball and SH 114 and Nolan Drive Planned 0.96 walkways. 48. Town Center/Gateway Pathway(Project 2A East)-8'paved pathway along north side of Existing 1.92 1709 from Carroll Ave.to S.H.114. 49. Southridge Lakes Infill Project-rehab/addition/modification of intermittent sidewalks and Planned 0.33 trails on the north side of F.M.1709 from Peytonville to Southridge Lakes Pkwy. 50. N.Peytonville from Dove to Southridge Lakes-6'path to link N.Peytonville residential Proposed 1.25 to parks,schools and other trails. 51. Byron Nelson Crossing Upgrades-upgrades to walkway crossings and signage near Proposed N/A school to increase visibility and safety. 52. Oak Pointe/Estes Park Infill-4'and 6'pathway routes which will be mainly built by Proposed 1.80 developers.Proposed aspect is for public R.O.W.areas not in development.Entire length3 shown. 53. Rucker Extension-8'path to follow proposed new road from Byron Nelson Pkwy to Carroll Proposed 0.50 Ave. 54. Woodland Heights Extension-8'path to follow new road from F.M.1709 to Kimball Ave. Proposed 0.50 55. Brumlow Alternate Route to S.H.26-8'paved trail;trail R.O.W may be difficult to obtain Proposed 0.50 as proposed by segment#46,so any alternate route may be to cross Brumlow where trail currently ends and acquire trail corridor from developing industrial sites on the east side of the road,all the way over to the existing railroad crossing at S.H.26. 56. Pine Street Connector-6'sidewalk connecting S.White Chapel Blvd.to Byron Nelson Proposed 0.76 Pkwy along Pine Street and Lilac Lane. 57. T.W.King Walkway-6'sidewalk connecting the Kirkwood Trail at S.H.114 to Lake Proposed 1.60 Grapevine 58. West Bob Jones-White Chapel Connector-8'multi-use natural trail in conjunction Proposed 0.56 with any proposed conservation subdivision and corresponding open space. 59. The Cliffs connector-8'multi-use trail connecting T.W.King with Bob Jones Park Proposed 0.70 through the Cliffs development as an alternative to#8. 60. Employment Center(EC)Mufti-Use Trail Network-8'+natural multi-use trail network to Proposed 1.00 be developed in conjunction with any proposed EC open space network to prove an alternative link between neighborhoods,employment areas,and shopping. 61. Sunshine Lane-Dove Creek Greenway-6'natural pathway to be developed in Proposed 0.74 conjunction with any rural conservation subdivision along Sunshine Lane. 62. Milner Walkway-8'+paved trail to be developed in conjunction with development and Proposed 0.40 linking to#63. 63. Carroll-White Chapel Connector-8'+paved,multi-use trail connecting Carroll Avenue Proposed 1.00 and White Chapel Blvd.to be developed in conjunction with any proposed development of the Milner property. Project to include addition of sidewalks on Chapel Downs and Lakewood Drives. 64. Southwest Connector-6'paved walkway connecting#30-S and 28 to be developed in Proposed 0.50 conjunction with any open space proposed with the development of the subject properties 21 al Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 41111, i TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION STATUS LENGTH (MILES) 65. Rucker—Prade Walkway—8'+natural,multi-use trail connecting#43 with Carroll Avenue Proposed 0.40 to be developed in conjunction with open space proposed with the development of the subject properties. 66. W.Jones Branch Greenway—8'+natural,multi-use trail connecting Kimball Ave.to Lake Proposed 0.55 Grapevine through Corps of Engineers'property. 67. Dove Creek Greenway Extension—8'+natural,multi-use trail extending#16 into Lake Proposed 0.60 Grapevine through Corps of Engineers'property. 68. Aventerra Blvd.S.H.114 Connector—6'paved pathway connecting#14 to#22. Proposed 0.25 69. Oak Pointe—Loch Meadows Connector—6'paved pathway connecting#52 to the Proposed 0.42 Corps of Engineers property through Ridgecrest Dr.and Loch Meadows neighborhood. 70. Oak Pointe—Whlte Chapel Walkway—6'paved pathway connecting#52 to#11-N Proposed 0.27 3.3 PRIORITY TRAIL SEGMENTS BY TYPE Trail segments have been ranked to reflect the attitudes stated in the most recent Parks and Trails User Survey (2004), knowledge of key missing connectors, and the ever- present and overriding goal of moving pedestrians and cyclists, especially the younger ones, safely from their homes to their schools and parks system. While acquisition of right-of-way and tree mitigation factors pose a challenge in many of the highest priority trail segments, these factors are not insurmountable and trails remain the single most desired amenity by Southlake residents. The trail segments of highest priority are those: (1) which make connections to schools, (2) which make connections to parks, (3) that connect populous neighborhoods, and (4) those that connect intercity trails. The rankings listed below are based on the above factors. Map 1 in the Appendices can be used to locate those sections and Map 2, Carroll ISD Attendance Zones explains the rationale for the trail segments prioritization. In most cases, the trail segment of priority is one which has the ability to carry the largest volume of non- motorized travelers safely from their home to the school in their attendance zone. 22 H Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 Table 3.2 Trail Segment Prioritization 'vow I TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION STATUS ROUTE TO: 1.0 School Connectors 35-S. Shady Oaks School Route-8'paved multi-use path from entrance at Coventry to Planned School/Park 1709. 50. N.Peytonville from Dove to Southrldge Lakes-6'path to link N.Peytonville Proposed School residential to parks,schools and other trails. 13-W. East Dove Road Pathway(West Link)) -8'paved pathway from SH 114 to Carroll Planned School/Park Ave. 18-N. North Carroll Avenue Schools Pathway-paved 8'northern segment of Carroll multi- Planned School use trail link from Grapevine to SH 114 to 1709. 51. Byron Nelson Crossing Upgrades-upgrades to walkway crossings and signage near Proposed School school to increase visibility and safety. 44. South Carroll Avenue Pathway-8'paved multi-use path from 1709 to Continental. Planned School/Park 35-N. North Shady Walkway—8'paved multi-use path from entrance at Coventry north to Planned School Dove Road. 32. South Peytonville Pathway-8'paved multi-use path between 1709 and Continental. Planned School(2) 11-S. Carroll High School Walkway—(TMB Project 2C South)paved 8'multi-use pathway Programmed School/Park on N.White Chapel from S.H.114 to Bicentennial Park. 23. North Pearson Lane Walkway-6'sidewalk from Florence to Union Church. Planned School/Park 2.0 Park Connectors 11-N. North White Chapel Boulevard Pathway-(TMB Project 2C North)paved 8'multi-use Programmed Park pathway from Bob Jones Park to SH.114.. .41 52. Oak Pointe/Estes Park Infill-4'and 6'pathway routes which will be mainly built by Proposed Park developers.Proposed aspect is for public R.O.W.areas not in development.Entire length shown. 29. Union Church Walkway-6'sidewalk from Pearson to Davis.Potential connection to Planned Park Keller's planned Big Bear Creek and Eastern Trails. 19. North Kimball Walkway-paved*6'pathway from Dove to Meadowmeare Park. Planned Park 1 3.0 Neighborhood Connectors I 13-E. East Dove Road Pathway(East Link) -8'paved pathway from Carroll Ave.to Planned Neighbors Grapevine. 16. East Dove Creek Greenway Trail-natural surfaced or paved 8'cross-country Planned Neighbors greenway trail between Carroll and planned trailhead on Foxfire. 33. Continental In-fill—6'paved pathway to connect neighborhoods to each other and to Planned Neighbors CISD facility. 4.0 Intercity Connectors 46. Brumlow Connector—connecting to existing Cottonbelt Trail in Grapevine and Planned Intercity programmed trail in Colleyville 20. Kimball Walkway-connecting to existing Cottonbelt Trail in Grapevine Planned Intercity 18N. Meadowmere Park West Entrance—leading to planned park trails(includes Coker Planned Intercity tract) 1 ',imp 23 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 0 low 3.4 INTERCITY TRAILS Portions of the Cottonbelt Trailway along Dallas Area Rapid Transit's Cottonbelt Railroad are complete. Other segments are currently funded and will be built once construction documents are developed. This "rail-with-trail" is part of the planned Veloweb, a region-wide planned network of spine trails first adopted in 1995 by the Regional Transportation Council of the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). C An expanded bikeway network is included in Mobility 2025, the NCTCOG's long-range transportation master plan. The Cottonbelt Trail project stretches 8.2-miles from Northeast Loop 820 in North Richland Hills, through Hurst, Colleyville, and Southlake to near downtown Grapevine eventually linking Plano and Fort Worth through northeast Tarrant County. Other intercity connections include: • • Westlake a. Kirkwood Road Pathway existing 8' crushed granite path from Solana area (# 9 and 10). b. Kirkwood Branch Greenway Trail planned connections to Randol Mill and West Dove Street (# 8). c. Cedar Creek Greenway Trail planned potential link to West Dove Street (# 12). C • Keller a. Florence Greenwalk planned 8-10' paved pathway from city limits to Randol Mill Greenway Trail and/or Randol Mill Road (#24). b. Eastern Trail planned N/S greenway trail west of Pearson Road (#23). c. Astronaut Connector planned 10' pathway along Pearson Crossing leading to Florence Elementary School (#28). d. Big Bear Creek Trail planned EIW greenway trail south of Union Church ,.. -connects to proposed Southlake Big Bear Creek Trail (#29 & 31). 24 s. Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 • Colleyville `rr., a. Pleasant Run Pathway planned (#42) • Grapevine a. Cottonbelt Trailway existing (#20, 46, & 55) b. Pool Road Pathway existing continuation of Brumlow links to programmed extension eastward along Big Bear Creek—southeast to SH- 360 and Bear Creek Park (#46). c. Kimball Road Pathway planned connection from Pickering Park to existing C. Shane Wilbanks Trail along Lake Grapevine shoreline. Links to Meadowmere Park and Cottonbelt Trailway along S.H. 26 (#20 and 19). d. Meadowmere Park West Entrance leading to planned park trails (includes proposed Coker tract trailhead) (# 18-N). • 1 „pi 25 SOUTHLAKE Department of Community Services CIP Project Profiles 1 Integrity Innovation 1 F Y 2010 - 2014 Accountability Commitment 1 to Excellence Teamwork 110 SOUTHLAKE 1 1 SPDC CIP Project Profiles 1 i Integrity FY 2010 - 2014 Innovation 1 Accountability Commitment 1 to Excellence Teamwork p 1 1 SPDC CIP PROJECTS Project Operating Cost Cost Bicentennial Park Phase I(Design&Development) $10.050 $233* Bicentennial Park Phase II(Design&Development) $17.080 5129' Bicentennial Park Phase III(Design&Development) 515,800 S95' Bob Jones Park—North Playground Improvements(Shade/Rubberized) 5375 S1 ems Chesapeake Park Improvements 5286 S12 Coker Hike/Bike Trail 5113 $12 Community Center/Senior Center 510.000 STBD Community Services Matching Funds 51.200 STBD Farhat Property Development $440 518' Kirkwood/Sabre Linear Park 5366 $18 Land Acquisition S1,900 STBD Liberty Park at Sheltonwood Development Phase II $446 522 North Park(Design&Development) 54.737 5149' Safety Town Park 5150 S22 ■ TOTAL $62,943 $711* CITY Or .Note. Initial maintenance equipment costs(up to$75K)not included ©SOUTH LAKE Return to Joint CC/SPDC/Parks and Rec Board Presentation ®SOUTHLAKE p ' 2 1 Bicentennial Park 1 Phase I Improvements 1 • Project Cost: $10,050,000 — FY 09 Construction ($6,050,000) 1 - FY 10 Construction ($4,000,000) 1 • Annual Operating Cost: $233,000* 1 v SOUTHLAKE 111/ Bicentennial Park Phase I Improvements (cont.) ' • Location: FM 1709 and White Chapel — Rendered Plan — Schematic — Phases • Proposed Phase I improvements as part of the approved Bicentennial Park schematic design: — Shady Oaks entrance, entry road, and roundabout 1 - West baseball four-plex and parking — Drainage improvements with pond enhancements — FM 1709 entrance improvements 1 - Evans House modifications — Tennis Courts (phase III)* — Design/contingency ®SOUTHLAKE p 1 3 1 Bicentennial Park Phase II Improvements ' • Project Cost: $17,080,000 — FY 10 Design ($1,900,000) - SPDC — FY 11 Construction ($7,590,000) — SPDC — FY 12 Construction ($7,590,000) — SPDC • Annual Operating Cost: $129,000* © Il OF SOUTHLAKE Bicentennial Park Phase II Improvements (cont.) ' • Location: FM 1709 and White Chapel — Rendered Plan — Schematic — gchematic Ph< ' • Proposed Phase II improvements as part of the approved Bicentennial Park schematic design: — White Chapel Entrance and entry road ' - East baseball five-plex — Playground — Spray Park ' — Site parking — Satellite Maintenance Facility — Design/contingency iry OF .._.SOUTHLAKE p ' 4 101) Bicentennial Park Phase Ill Improvements ' • Project Cost: $15,800,000 — FY 13 Design ($2,200,000) ' — FY 14 Construction ($2,600,000) — TBD Construction ($11,000,000) • Annual Operating Cost: $95,000* TYOF 0 SOUTHLAKE 1/411 Bicentennial Park Phase Ill Improvements (cont.) ' • Location: FM 1709 and White Chapel — Rendered Plan — Schematic - Schematic Phases • Proposed Phase Ill improvements as part of approved Bicentennial Park schematic design: ' - Tennis Center expansion (included in Phase I) — Stadium — "Hill" improvements ' - Existing structure architectural modifications — Parking improvements — Design/contingency ©SOUTH LAKE p ' 5 I I IIP Ren6ererf Plan s4. I� . L t 1r +III - _ . ; +e _emit IT A i --__ - -.- 29 mg OFr OF ©SOUTH LAKE 1110 1 ` a W.r • o,wti .0 _ 4 I —01 f e.C-----1 . '--.‘ .... „ ._t_ ,E:r 111 °a` 1 1\", "'� h I SowAldm Blvd. ©SOUTH LAKE I 1:0 L I I 'OH* -,,--:::-...7.::::,,,,,, lownroun , ` "� —� �l I v� 1 Key - \�'• 1 Phase I 1(14_ � Phase II S""'kkkcBlvd Phase III ISOUTH LAKE 116 I I I I I I I CITY OF U SOUTHLAKE p I7 I I 0 Bob Jones Park I North Playground Improvements I • Project Cost: $375,000 I • Annual Operating $1 ,000 p 9 Cost: $ I I IU SOUTHLAKE Ill Bob Jones Park I North Playground Improvements I • Location: 3901 N White Chapel Blvd - Map and drawing I • Details: — Shade structure: I • Install shade structure over northern playground • Current playground gets too hot in summer • Improve public health I - Rubberized surfacing • Replace wood chip playground surface with rubberized surface I ©SOUTHLAKE p I8 ■ I I . . , 1 . . I . ii. a I(iiiiiiiii .t:' . ------ r:' ' :1--:---2 . - l'• ' . I , ----;_ ___„- _.„ ,.,_,,...:. , . .. • , \ I '..\, 1,... --. , ---,ITT •, 0")° ' ,' ) ''• . ,,,O.-•'1>- i ,, i : ' / _---': ' ....- • \ \ \ I =1 ,.,. 2 .. ii ---'''' /: • r /• i ----...--- I ' ) - M.i .. I - 2 , ..-- .-c.11.1....:. ,...,..... I ,.... • 6°I'r• r_-2,11,TiFn._ re.E(.db .\ rih-±1-41, - Pq i--•-..t 11 pa': • * - I lel ,-50F THLA1KE Ile / I / I I I / g c-oi).1THL A I<E P I9 in Chesapeake Park Improvements • Project Cost: $286,000 • Annual Operating Cost: $12,000 1 1 ' Y OF ©SOUTH LAKE Chesapeake Park Improvements • Location: Old Union at Pearson Ln. ' - and , onceptual plan • Finish-out of existing neighborhood park in ' southwest area of city — Pavilion — Irrigation ' - Amenities such as tables, benches, etc. — Landscaping — Fishing Pier ' - 1/2 Court Basketball — Park Entry Sign/Feature — Design/Contingency © l Y l,. SOUTHLAKE IP 10 I I r .. I ... _ . . • , . .. ,, 7.,Chesereakitt I • ii. .,t-L , • , - ., . I§ an . --.' - i' ' f`' -151 • - 1 I . . ... -.ge. 3 [_ -4. : . ._.., . , _ 1 ...y ._., ) I r• I I I .. iii , --- ,. HI -- .--- 1 ' I : ..-14:7-;1 _ • . .-,, ...., - ....„?... .,.... 1- • .-,-1 H-4-r-'-,' - - - - .. • ) ( - - -. .. • _. , . ... __ ,- • - •, II- I ,, • ,----_, --(Et7.ez=0 -_-,.. -- • ,1 917ii' 1.fron Church Rty „_...... ' . Ipl,c,,Y OF U SOUTH LAKE IP I ..., //, -1----____ -L.-. fultinitio I ,-: , 'Ii. I am ori I rtI;7..4 i L.L_____i , .4:. i ,,, i 1 , , i 11161111111 1 h°0 0 , Isiivit - i,t AO :4 .• c - ‘ '3 ill 1 L 1 .',.?. J.' I ,„ ,.....IN i __ .,,t.u„ ....,..owl- lilted U,- —1 I . 1 I i I point Paints I. 0 .......,, :1,11c 51•104 I ! •A.m..1.14. I 1 I • howl loOt 1, ....—.....,•- - --..° _ - rzo.AL.,-Ar, 4, i ,,,ittiLitt.:-..irt,-,,,L. "r o.r it FEU City of Southlyko,Tons I ... W CITY OF T H L A I<E IP I1 1 so I Coker Hike/Bike Trailhead I • Project Cost: $113,000 I • Annual Operating Cost: $12,000 I I ® YOF SOUTHLAKE I le I Coker Hike/Bike Trailhead • Location: Foxfire at Lonesome Dove Rd. I - Map and drawing • Hike and bike trailhead with Corps property I and lake access - Mini-shelters (3) I - Parking lot - Amenities (bike racks, fountains) I - Site improvements/utilities - Design/contingency I CITY OF ©SOUTHLAKE I12 I...... . . \. — 1 Fox Rro Fo—F re -r t .T.,r f M dIst rt .A r st. r .. 1 f L— I ( it.i is • 1ter' 2 i if' ''' , I IP ;< 1 acne supasrto rsp r,cuics ' »c.rt un. Plpuro0 r`s y CONCEPTUAL PLAN '��a'a!1 33 n t 1 pn.C.opr[Cp. COKER PROPERTY City of Southloko,Texas 1 ® Prop*...Lp1rl-alp CITY 0 ©SOUTH LAKE ," I ils I I I v_ SOUTH LAKE p I1 3 m I I Community Center / Senior Center I • Project Cost: $10,000,000 — Based on cost estimate provided by Brinkley, 1 Sargent during City-wide facility analysis 1 • Annual Operating Cost: TBD I 1 0 SOUTHLAKE 1 lie (-try of SoutM-aFP, • f 1 yFQ� }� � I { aft tr � 9 AI Lif. r ito o "� . I i L fi;t �� '+-f 1. _ 2ena Riker RU I ,) A, *d /404/ f. r I Cr, v SOUTH LAKE p I14 11 Community Services Matching Funds • Project Cost: $200,000 Annually - Annual commitment - "Double" the city's buying power by encouraging private fundraising ' - Known Potential Future Requests - Safety Town - SGSA - SBA - SHS • Annual Operating Cost: TBD ' City OF SOUTH LAKE 1 0 SOUTH LAKE P ' 15 11. ' Farhat Property Development ' • Project Cost: $440,000 ' • Annual Operating Cost: $18,000* 1 1 ' Ury OF SOUTH LAKE Farhat Property Development • Location: Far east end of E. Bob Jones ' Rd. - Map and drawing • Site improvements for public use: — Drive access and parking ' - Picnic areas (3) — Site amenities ' Natural (crushed granite) trail Design/Contingency ' CIIY OF ©SOUTH LAKE p ' 16 I I e ;„ ._ ,_!. I . ,;, I 's I ,wittiiit,,,- - Ar, Lk . .__„ .,, . .. I4 "' 111, 1 .� i IA 111111-11"tfil rift I ab.__*IIIIIIII it t i_ .. mli ID I I I I I I I U SOU OfY OF THLAKE p I17 ' Kirkwood / Sabre Linear Park ' • Project Cost: $366,000 ' • Annual Operating Cost: $18,000 1 1 © CITY OF SOUTHLAKE /411 Kirkwood / Sabre Linear Park • Location: Between Kirkwood and N. White Chapel ' - Map and drawing • Construction of linear park: — Natural (crushed granite)trail ' - (1) 24' pavilion/rest station — Concrete parking with 5 spaces and culvert — Site improvement-signs, fountain, benches, tables — Design/contingency 1 ©SOUTHLAI<E p ' 18 I I I° kW ! I 0 ' .,. Kirkwood Hoflpw co, q. • m.".- .4:t • '--,3' :: :.....1•7±1.::.: k • IRIM urMrww r roc row 1 ®SOUTH LAKE Ill I I I I I I I CH-Y OF ©SOUTHLAKE P I19 I I I I I I TY OF ®SOUTHLAKE Ile Liberty Park at Sheltonwood I Phase II B, C, and D I I . Project Cost: $446,000 — Phase IIB I — Phase IIC — Phase IID I — Design & Contingency I • Annual Operating Cost: $22,000 I ©SOU CITY OF THLAKE p I21 I Liberty Park at Sheltonwood I Phase II B, C, and D I • Location: 500 E. Dove Rd. - Schematic Design I • Details: — Phase IIB — Playground I — Phase IIC - Discovery Trail, Artwork, Interpretive Signage, Fountain, Landscape I — Phase IID - Trail extension for secondary pedestrian access entrance I GTv OF ©SOUTH LAKE 16/ I [RIDOBCREST OR. PHASE 1 112'PATHWAY PARK ENTRANCE MARKER ENLARGED WILDFLOWER MEADOW I T OPTION al ""' J� _ PARKING LO POND PHASE Ila HISTORY/MEMORIAL WALK PHASE I NATURAL SURFACE \ �`.�' \\\ � TRAIL'DISCOVERY TRAIL' 4,-14.I -. .— . _ MEMORIAL �!, 6 FOUNTAIN 4106 NAVA '\' I �4 LEANING TREE I PLATI NTEI SS ING .,4 POND OVERLOOK�__�� P PARK ENTRY 1T _- `y L!-E- \-LION'SDEN SIGNAGE /. 1 ,. � �W_..$�. I I PHASE lib—/''L___d ROBBER'S { SECONDARY PARK ENTRY i ROOST SIGNAGE&WALK FUTURE 10'/12 TRAIL -HANGMAN � ��.�s�r�s�� --..s..e! GULCH I �HANGS PHASE Ile CHILDRENN —ENHANCED PLAYGROUND PAVILION _- I.NRAm..R,..oN irDEWALK u,, LIBERTY PARK AT SHELTONWOOD :'Ruth I ©SOUTH LAKE IP I22 I I I I I I I CITY OF U©SOTHLAKE Ile I North Park Development I • Project Cost: $4,737,000 FY 09/10 Design ($413,700) I — FY 11 Construction ($4,323,300) I • Annual Operating Cost: $149,000* I I ©SOUTH LAKE P I23 El I I I. North Park Development I • Location: NE corner of White Chapel & Dove Rd. — Concept Plan/Map • Funding identified in SPDC budget for land I acquisition • Proposed Site Amenities — Multi-purpose Sports Fields (Lacrosse & Flag Football) I — Playground — Concession/Restroom/Pavilion — Joint Parking with DPS Facility I - Trails — Landscape/Irrigation — Open space I ©SOUTHLAKE le I i1? r - • o I. FdJ se I' .•• laq Td wi r i ' vCanee Cu ..NY10aM Held ? .1I #1 Field outride ., #3 " t ' \ - -1, (end ^ - 1 Tor I P i, l,0'x!Ju'I I _ - . _ + . North Park Site i 0 75 150 s00 $q t lake,Texas ©CI l-Y OF SOUTHLAKE GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET k Fe' I24 r CITY OF __... ©SOUTH LAKE SOOTHLAHE Safety Town Park IL] ETtffa • Total Project Cost: $1 ,375,051 \ ' — $150,000 (SPDC) — $150,000 (PDF) ' - $200,000 (SPDC Matching Funds -$50K Allocated to date) — Assumes SPDC Matching Funds & Grant Assistance • Annual Operating Cost: $22,000 Of SOUTHLAKE p ' 25 I I IC I Safety Town Park • Location: Randoll Mill, west of DPS rI i West — Drawings: • Site Plan • Floor Plan I • Elevation Plan I IC.IIY OF ©SOUTHLAKE 111 le ' C ^\ Y i 1 • I> el. - =/ v al I- ty \'. I it" '4" ''' V f 1 evrA, 0 70 I ,i,, .. a A A' '-'‹ A r it 0 I igL „II,' iI I illb ia !I..... o S \ / —. _. ITE PUN I ©CITY OF SOUTH LAKE P I26 I I I s,, a Ptl9 aAs9no„ • ��.[ CLASSROOM l .. I _ OfilQbi.RA! LOWY MK. " MOM , I� �^ 1!d S ►=L:�i�Nil ==s zI z==r I 01 FLOOR PLAN I ®SOUTHLAI E < 1160 I 4�1 II � Jr I t Oin. ._ , ' „ROW EI.EVAl10N 1ELPT EEEVATIOM I ? — ----- I _ _ _ A. yy��.yyyy �,AO[IllVAI%IH O.V TR FVAT10M ghlalOOU RXE\ I� R P GIA MCP CI I ©SOUTHLAKE P I27 El 1 1 1 1 1 1 111) 1 1 CI 1 V OF ©SOUTHLAKE 1 SOUTH' or SOUTHLAKE i PDF 1 CIP Project Profiles 1 1 Integrity FY 2010 - 2014 Innovation Accountability Commitment 1 to Excellence Teamwork IP 1 28 Park Dedication Fund Projects Project Operating Cost Cost ' 0 Koality Park Improvements $168 $0 TOTAL $168 S0 1 ' '1HY OF ©SOUTH LAKE Return to Joint CC/SPDC/Parks and Rec Board Presentation 111. Koality Park Improvements • Project Cost: $168,000 • Annual Operating Cost: ©SOUTHLAKE P ' 29 I I I. 1 Koality Park Improvements I • Location: W. Continental adjacent to Carroll Elementary — Map and conceptual plan I • Improvements to existing Neighborhood Park 1 - Landscaping — Replacement of natural trail with concrete surface — Picnic areas in the natural area by the creek I - Irrigation — Park Entry Sign and Landscape Feature 1 __ - Design/contingency 0 SOUTHLAKE IIP I Ail wa ( - . , et 1 inii _ ..., I . ,ialLook,s 1 0 cit.., ‘ 1 , - -1 I 10, 4 \ if • = 4LE, a I, _ r I4i, I CI IY OF J .m. ©SOUTHLAKE u P I30 m SOUTHLAKE Questions? Integrity Innovation 1^+ Accountability Commitment to Excellence Teamwork Return to Joint CC/SPDC/Parks and Rec Board Presentation I I I 1 p ' 31 ■ E CITY OF L - rat SOUTHLAKE SPDC PROJECT RANKING FORM 1. L, 2. 3. 4. L L