2001-04-11 CC PacketSPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/CISD BOARD OF TRUSTEE MEETING:
April 11, 2001
LOCATION: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas
3`d Floor Conference Rooms #3c and #3d
REGULAR SESSION: 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Call to order.
2. Consider: Joint Use Agreement for the Natatorium.
3. Discussion: TIF.
4. Discussion: Chapter 41 (Robin Hood).
5. Discussion: Joint Use Projects.
6. Meeting Adjourned.
1.01W04 I 1 W
I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at Town
Hall, 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas, on Friday, April 6, 2001 at 6:00 p.m., pursuant
to the Texas Government Code, ChaptpP051t, •,,
_ p. SN =
Sandra L. LeGrand •
; -
City Secretary " v•' '
If you plan to attend this public meeting 'dr/tll'havea disability that requires special needs,
please advise the City Secretary 48 hours in advance at 8171481-1519, and reasonable
accommodations will be made to assist you.
N: ISpec.Joint CC-CISD Meeting-4-11-01-doc
; City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
April 5, 2001
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services (xt. 1543)
SUBJECT: City Council consideration of Interlocal Agreement for Joint Use of the Carroll
Independent School District Natatorium.
Action Requested: City Council consideration of Interlocal Agreement for Joint Use of the
Carroll Independent School District Natatorium.
Background
Information: The Carroll Independent School District is currently under construction on
the new natatorium. The natatorium will be used by the District to provide
both educational and athletic programs. It will also afford an opportunity for
the City and District to offer community based programming such as open
swim, learn -to -swim, and water aerobics, to name a few.
City and District staff met on several occasions throughout the last year to
develop and review a proposed interlocal agreement for the CISD
Natatorium. The agreement was developed by CISD and City staff
approximately one year ago and has been reviewed and discussed at the Joint
Utilization Committee (JUC) meetings on numerous occasions during that
time. The proposed draft interlocal agreement, as approved by JUC at their
March 8, 2001 meeting (5-2) included information defining the following key
items:
■ Commitment of City funding through SPDC in the amount of $1.25
million.
• Allowed for revenue generated through donations, sponsorships, etc., to
be split evenly with each entity receiving 50% up through the first $1.2
million received.
■ Allocates all revenue generated by the natatorium to the CISD.
■ Lists the CISD as being responsible for the operations and maintenance of
the natatorium.
■ Establishes a minimum of 68 hours per week for operations.
■ Gives priority use of the natatorium for (1) CISD programs, followed by
(2) CISD and City community programs, (3) lease or rental to private
groups, (4) and specialized training for City personnel.
Ir
i
Billy Campbell, City Manager
April 5, 2001
Page 2
Establishes an Aquatics Commission consisting of City and CISD staff to
• identify and implement educational and recreational programming.
■ Establishes that 50 % of the annual operating hours of the facility shall be
dedicated to the full or partial use of the natatorium for community based
aquatics programming.
■ The term of the agreement is for 15 years, and automatically renews for
additional 5 year periods. The agreement may only be terminated if
mutually agreed upon by both parties.
Following JUC approval, the proposed Interlocal Agreement was reviewed
and discussed by the Southlake Parks Development Corporation at their
March 26, 2001 meeting. Following a comprehensive discussion of the
Agreement, the SPDC voted to table the Agreement and forward their
comments on to the City Council for consideration during the planned joint
meeting with the CISD School Board. Comments from the SPDC members
are attached.
Following the SPDC meeting, Council Member Rex Potter met with School
Board Member Jerry Lawrence, and City and CISD staff to review proposed
changes to the Agreement in an effort to provide a document that
incorporates the comments of the SPDC and that both governmental entities
might support. City Attorney comments have also since been added to the
Agreement. Major changes proposed to the draft agreement (attached as
redline/strikeout) include:
■ Striking the City reimbursement of fifty percent (50%) of the first $1.2
million received in sponsorships, donations, and grant money.
■ Incorporating wording which includes City participation in the effort to
receive funding through sponsorships, donations, and grants.
■ Allocating all funding received through sponsorships, donations and
grants to the natatorium for maintenance, operations, or future
improvements, unless otherwise mutually agreed.
■ Charging the Aquatics Commission with the development of the
natatorium usage schedule, allowing each member one (1) vote, allowing
for the designation of alternates for each representative, and requiring all
seven members or designated alternates (four from CISD, three from
City) be present in order for a vote to occur.
■ Strikes "full or partial" use of the facility from the Agreement, instead
allowing for a minimum usage of the natatorium facility of fifty percent
(50 %) of the annual operating hours (scheduling to be determined by the
Aquatics Commission). Z
If
Billy Campbell, City Manager
April 5, 2001
Page 3
■ The addition of a dispute resolution process. Allows for disputes to be
resolved by the Aquatics Commission, and if unable to do so the dispute
would be forwarded to the City Manager and the CISD Superintendent,
Wowed by the Mayor and CISD Board President if need be, and non-
binding arbitration as a last attempt to avoid legal action. Neither party
would forfeit their right to file a lawsuit should the dispute not be
resolved to both parties' mutual satisfaction.
Financial
Considerations: The City has currently obligated $1.25 million in SPDC funding towards the
construction of the natatorium ($500,000 in FY-2000/01, $500,000 in FY-
2001/02, and $250,000 in FY-2002/03).
The proposed Agreement would allocate all funding received through
sponsorships, donations and grants to the natatorium for maintenance,
operations, or future improvements, unless otherwise mutually agreed. It
would also provide that all revenue generated through the use of the
natatorium would belong to the CISD and used to offset maintenance and
operational costs of the facility.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: This item was approved by the Joint Utilization Committee by a vote of 5-2
(Carlucci and Harold against) at their March 8, 2001 meeting. The proposed
Interlocal Agreement was reviewed and discussed by the Southlake Parks
Development Corporation at their March 26, 2001 meeting and tabled.
SPDC comments from their meeting have been included for City Council
consideration.
Legal Review: The document follows the same general format as the existing interlocal
agreement for joint use. At this time, the City Attorney has not reviewed the
latest proposed changes.
Alternatives: Input towards the proposed Agreement as desired.
Supporting
Documents: Supporting documents include the following:
■ Base document of Draft Interlocal Agreement for Joint Use of Carroll
Independent School District Natatorium as recommended by JUC with
subsequent proposed changes highlighted.
■ Clean version of Draft Interlocal Agreement for Joint Use of Carroll
Independent School District Natatorium incorporating subsequent
proposed changes.
■ Partial minutes from the March 26, 2001 SPDC meeting.
.Z
l
f
Billy Campbell, City Manager
April 5, 2001
�r Page 4
Staff
Recommendation: Place as an item on the April 11, 2001 City Council agenda to consider the
Interlocal Agreement for the Joint Use of Carroll Independent School District
Natatorium.
Iz" A-
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT USE ORATTORNEI)
CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NATATORIUM
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF TARRANT §
This Agreement is made by and between the City of Southlake, a home rule municipality,
acting herein by and through its duly authorized City Council, referred to as the "City," and the
Carroll Independent School District, a special purpose unit of government organized and acting under
the laws of the State of Texas, acting herein by and through its duly authorized Board of Trustees,
hereinafter referred to as the "CISD", for documenting the joint -use of the District natatorium located
on the District campus on Southlake Boulevard.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, both the City and the CISD have determined the need for providing aquatic
opportunities for the students and residents of the community; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 791, Government Code, and Section 271.102, Local Government
Code authorize school districts and cities in the State of Texas to contract with one another for
the providing of various Povernmental functions and services; and (ATTORNED
WHEREAS, voters of the CISD approved a $5.5 million bond sale to build a natatorium for
providing aquatic opportunities for the students of the CISD; and
WHEREAS, the CISD will construct, maintain, and operate a natatorium facility; and
WHEREAS, the City, through the Southlake Parks Development Corporation, has
committed to allocating up to $1,250,000 towards the construction of the natatorium facility; and
WHEREAS, both the City and the CISD acknowledge that joint use of the natatorium
facility can benefit both entities, recognizing that school purposes and the educational and athletic
needs of children are the highest priority; and
WHEREAS, the CISD, through its Board of Trustees, desires to cooperate with the City,
through its City Council, in the joint use of the natatorium facility for the enjoyment and benefit of
all Southlake citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual premises herein contained, the
mutual benefits flowing to both the City and the CISD and other good and valuable consideration
recited herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and the CISD
do hereby contract, covenant, warrant and agree as follows:
April 3, 2001 - Page 1
1-5
I. ADMINISTRATION
The CISD Superintendent or his or her designee and the City Manager or his or her designee
shall be responsible for implementing and administering the policies and procedures as set forth in this
Agreement.
H. FUNDING
The City shall allocate a total amount not to exceed $1,250,000 towards the construction of
the natatorium facility. Funding in the amount of $500,000 shall be payable durin in the City's fiscal
year 2000/01, $500,000 payable durin in the City's fiscal year 2001/02, and $250,000 payable
durin in the City's fiscal year 2002/03.
The CISD and Ci agrees to make a good faith effort to seek grant funding, sponsorships,
and donations for the natatorium. with the * F redueing anWeF ro mbur-sing a pef4io" e f the
City's eentributien up te an afneunt not te exeeed $600,000, with the City and the CISD eaeh
g Fft•• peFeent of the r;,.s* $ 2 millionr-eeeived. All such funding shall be used solely for
the purpose of maintenance, operations, or future improvements to the natatorium, unless
otherwise mutually agree�b
All revenue generated from the use of the natatorium facility, whether received it -be through
community programs, open swim, facility reservations, or any other similar functions, shall belong
to the CISD and used to offset the maintenance and operational costs of the facility.
III. OPERATIONS
The CISD shall be responsible for the daily operations of the natatorium facility. The CISD
shall hire a Nhatatorium F€acility Ddirector who will be responsible for the daily operations,
maintenance, and programming of the facility. The facility shall develop and implement policies
and procedures to insure that the facility is operated and maintained in compliance with all
Federal, State, and Local regulations and in a safe manner. (ATTORNEI)
The natatorium shall be open year round and operate a minimum of six days per week,
Monday through Saturday, excluding CISD holidays where the facility may be closed. Estimated
hours of operations shall be a minimum of sixty-eight (68) hours per week, excluding CISD holidays
where the facility may be closed.
The natatorium shall have a portable multi -purpose, handicap(ATTORNEI) accessible ramp
in place in the natatorium facility(A TTORNE D and in good working condition at all times during
regular operations with the exception of swim and diving meets, special events, or other
miscellaneous activities which may require the temporary removal of the ramp.
IV. FACILITY USAGE
April 3, 2001 - Page 2
The City and the CISD agree that priority use of the natatorium facility shall be given to the
educational and athletic programs of the CISD. Southlake cEommunity based aquatics programming
such as open swim, learn -to -swim, water aerobics, or other public programs shall be given the next
highest priority, followed by the lease or rental of the facility to other groups, agencies, entities, or
the public, and specialized emergency training for City personnel. In regards to the aforementioned
priorities, the City and the CISD recognize the need to balance the CISD and Southlake community
use of the natatorium facility.
V. SCHEDULING
The City and CISD agree to create an Aquatics Commission, hereafter referred to as the
"Commission". in order to establish the usage a schedule of the natatorium eemmunity based
pfegfams. The Commission shall meet at least(ATTORNEI7 two times per year and more
frequently(ATTORNEY) of on an as needed basis. Their responsibilities shall be to identify the
educational and recreational programming needs of the community, and the implementation of such
programs.
The Commission will consist of three (3) voting representatives from the City to include the
Director of Community Services eF his/her deaignee, the Recreation Supervisor, and an additional
Recreation staff member, and four (4) voting representatives from the CISD to include the Executive
Director for Athletics, the Natatorium Facility Director, the Assistant Superintendent of
Administrative Services, and an additional CISD staff member. The City and the CISD shall
identify an alternate for each of its representatives, who shall be entitled to attend, participate in,
and vote at meetinzs on such occasions as the Commission representative is unable to attend As
concerns Commission action, each representative shall have one (1) vote. In all meetin,Qs of the
Commission, a votinz quorum shall exist only if all the Commission representatives are present
A CISD representative shall chair the Commission.
The City and the CISD agree that a minimum of fifty percent of the annual operating hours
of the facility, as indicated in Article III, shall be dedicated to full efpaftial the use of the natatorium
facility for Southlake community based aquatics programming. The City shall work with the CISD
to coordinate the advertisement and sign-up of Southlake community based aquatic programs.
VI. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS
The CISD shall be responsible for all maintenance and operating costs associated with the
natatorium including but not limited to personnel costs, utilities, general maintenance, and upkeep.
VH. INDEMNIFICATION
With respect to the CISD Property, the City does hereby agree, insofar as permitted by law,
to hold harmless the CISD from any claims, damages, injuries, lawsuits, or causes of action arising
out of or in any way connected with the use of the CISD Property for a City activity during the time
the City is conducting the activity on the CISD Property. The liability insurance policy carried by the
CISD and by the City, shall name the other party as an additional insured with respect to joint use
facilities, to the extent as permitted by law.
April 3, 2001 - Page 3
VIII. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of fifteen (15) years beginning from the date
of execution of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be automatically extended for additional five
(5) year periods. This Agreement may only be terminated if mutually agreed upon by the governing
bodies of the City and the CISD.
If the term of any addenda attached hereto remains in full force and effect past the termination
date of this agreement, then this Agreement shall also remain in full force and effect until expiration
or termination of the addenda.
This Agreement and any exhibits shall be reviewed by both parties on an "as -needed" basis
and may be amended only(A TTORNE D if agreed upon by both parties.
IX. ENCUMBRANCES
Neither party to this Agreement shall, without first obtaining written consent of the other
party, transfer, (A TTORNE D assign, pledge, or in any way encumber this Agreement, in whole or
in part, or sublet the CISD Property or any part thereof.
X. DISPUTES
Anv dispute. controversv. or claim that arises under or relates to this Agreement, hereafter
~` referred to as "Dispute", shall be reduced to writing and be submitted for informal resolution,
identifying this Article X of the Agreement, to each parties representatives of the Commission.
The Commission shall use its best efforts to resolve such Dispute
If the Commission is unable to resolve the Dispute within thirty (30) calendar days after
it is submitted (or such later time as agreed in writing by both parties), then the City Manager and
the CISD Superintendent ("Senior Executives") shall use their best efforts to resolve the Dispute
The Commission and/or Senior Executives shall meet as often and as promptly as the parties
reasonably deem necessary to discuss the Dispute and negotiate in good faith in an effort to
resolve the Dispute The specific format for the discussions will be left to the discretion of the
Commission and the Senior Executives, as the case may be, and may include the preparation of
agreed -upon statements of fact or written statements of position.
If the Senior Executives are unable to resolve the Dispute within sixty (60) calendar days
from the initial written submittal of a Dispute in accordance with this Article X, then the duly
elected Mayor for the City ofSouthlake ("Mayor") and the duly elected President of the Carroll
Independent School District Board of Trustees ("Board President"), shall use their best efforts
to resolve the Dispute The Mayor the Board President shall meet as often and as promptly as the
parties reasonably deem necessary to discuss the Dispute and negotiate in good faith in an effort
to resolve the Dispute without the need for a formal proceeding. The specific format for the
discussions will be left to the discretion of the Mayor and the Board President, and may include
.. the preparation of agreed -upon statements of fact or written statements of position.
April3, 2001 - Page 4
'%ft- If within ninety (90) calendar days from the initial written submittal of a dispute in
accordance with this Article X, the Dispute cannot be resolved to both parties' mutual satisfaction
after good faith negotiations of the Mayor and Board President, or such later period as the parties
may mutually agree in writing, then either party may require resolution of the Dispute through
the use of non -binding arbitration.
XI. CLAIMS
Nothing in this Agreement shall change or affect the duties, responsibilities, liabilities or
immunities provided to the parties under the Texas Tort Claims Act, Sections 10 1.00 1 et seq., of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
XH. ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS
This Agreement contains all of the agreements made by and between the parties hereto
regarding the joint use of the CISD natatorium and no additional agreements or understandings shall
be applicable to the use of CISD natatorium unless first agreed to, in writing, by the parties.
XIII. NOTICES (A TTORNE D
Any notice given pursuant to this Agreement shall be given in writing and delivered or
mailed by Certified or Registered United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
If to City: City of Southlake
Attn: City Manager
1400 Main Street, Suite 460
Southlake, Texas 76092
If to District: Carroll Independent School District
Attn: Superintendent
1201 North Carroll Avenue
Southlake, Texas 76092
The designation of the person to whom, and the place to which notices are to be mailed or
delivered may be changed from time to time by either party giving notice to the other party.
.. XIV MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (ATTORNE1)
April 3, 2001 - Page S
By execution of this Agreement, each party represents to the other that:
a. In performing its duties and obligations hereunder, it will be carrying out one or
more governmental functions or services which it is authorized to perform,
b. The undersigned officer or agent of the party has been properly authorized by that
Party's governing body to execute this Agreement and that any necessary
resolutions extending such authority have been duly passed and are now in effect;
C. All payments required or permitted to be made by a party will be made from
current revenues available to the paying party; and
d All payments provided to be made hereunder by one party to the other shall be
such amounts as to fairly compensate the other party for the services or functions
Performed hereunder.
XV. VENUE
This Agreement and all of its terms and provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the
parties hereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. In the event that a lawsuit is filed
by either party arising out of the terms and provisions of this Agreement, venue for the lawsuit shall
be in Tarrant County, Texas.
XVI. SEVERABILITY (ATTORNEY)
The provisions of this Agreement are severable_ and if for any reason a clause, sentence
paragraph, or other part of this Agreement should be determined to be invalid by a Court or a
Federal or State Agency, Board, or Commission having iurisdiction over the subiect mater
thereof such invalidity shall not affect other provisions which can be given effect without the
invalid provision.
XVIL NON-DISCRIMINATION (ATTORNEY)
The District in the execution, performance, or attempted performance of this Agreement,
will not discriminate against any persons because of their age, sex, race, religion, color, or
national origin, nor will the District permit its agents, employees, subcontractors, or participants
to engage in such discrimination.
XVIII. NON -WAIVER (ATTORNEY)
The failure of the City or the District to insist upon the performance of any term or
provision of this Agreement or to exercise any right herein conferred shall not be construed as
a waiver or relinquishment to any extent of the City's or the District's right to assert or rely upon
such term or right on any future occasion.
The parties agree that this agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each
April3, 2001 - Page 6
EM
havinz the same force and effect
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE (CITY)
By:
Rick Stacy, Mayor
Date:
ATTEST:
Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary
CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT (CISD)
By:
Robert Glover, President
Board of Trustees
Date:
ATTEST:
Steve C. Harold, Secretary
Board of Trustees
April3, 2001 - Page 7
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT USE OF
CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NATATORIUM
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF TARRANT §
This Agreement is made by and between the City of Southlake, a home rule municipality,
acting herein by and through its duly authorized City Council, referred to as the "City," and the
Carroll Independent School District, a special purpose unit of government organized and acting
under the laws of the State of Texas, acting herein by and through its duly authorized Board of
Trustees, hereinafter referred to as the "CISD", for documenting the joint -use of the District
natatorium located on the District campus on Southlake Boulevard.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, both the City and the CISD have determined the need for providing aquatic
opportunities for the students and residents of the community; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 791, Government Code, and Section 271.102, Local Government Code
authorize school districts and cities in the State of Texas to contract with one another for the
providing of various governmental functions and services; and
WHEREAS, voters of the CISD approved a $5.5 million bond sale to build a natatorium for
providing aquatic opportunities for the students of the CISD; and
WHEREAS, the CISD will construct, maintain, and operate a natatorium facility; and
WHEREAS, the City, through the Southlake Parks Development Corporation, has
committed to allocating up to $1,250,000 towards the construction of the natatorium facility; and
WHEREAS, both the City and the CISD acknowledge that joint use of the natatorium
facility can benefit both entities, recognizing that school purposes and the educational and athletic
needs of children are the highest priority; and
WHEREAS, the CISD, through its Board of Trustees, desires to cooperate with the City,
through its City Council, in the joint use of the natatorium facility for the enjoyment and benefit of
all Southlake citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual premises herein contained,
the mutual benefits flowing to both the City and the CISD and other good and valuable consideration
recited herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and the CISD
do hereby contract, covenant, warrant and agree as follows:
April 3, 2001 - Page 1
tk, - \ Y�_
I. ADMINISTRATION
The CISD Superintendent or his or her designee and the City Manager or his or her designee
shall be responsible for implementing and administering the policies and procedures as set forth in
this Agreement.
II. FUNDING
The City shall allocate a total amount not to exceed $1,250,000 towards the construction of
the natatorium facility. Funding in the amount of $500,000 shall be payable during the City's fiscal
year 2000/01, $500,000 payable during the City's fiscal year 2001/02, and $250,000 payable during
the City's fiscal year 2002/03.
The CISD and City agree to make a good faith effort to seek grant funding, sponsorships, and
donations for the natatorium. All such funding shall be used solely for the purpose of maintenance,
operations, or future improvements to the natatorium, unless otherwise mutually agreed.
All revenue generated from the use of the natatorium facility, whether received through
community programs, open swim, facility reservations, or any other similar functions, shall belong
to the CISD and used to offset the maintenance and operational costs of the facility.
III. OPERATIONS
11*01 The CISD shall be responsible for the daily operations of the natatorium facility. The CISD
shall hire a Natatorium Facility Director who will be responsible for the daily operations,
maintenance, and programming of the facility. The facility shall develop and implement policies
and procedures to insure that the facility is operated and maintained in compliance with all Federal,
State, and Local regulations and in a safe manner.
The natatorium shall be open year round and operate a minimum of six days per week,
Monday through Saturday, excluding CISD holidays where the facility may be closed. Estimated
hours of operations shall be a minimum of sixty-eight (68) hours per week, excluding CISD holidays
where the facility may be closed.
The natatorium shall have a portable multi -purpose, handicap accessible ramp in place in the
natatorium facility and in good working condition at all times during regular operations with the
exception of swim and diving meets, special events, or other miscellaneous activities which may
require the temporary removal of the ramp.
April 3, 2001 - Page 2
2-13
IV. FACILITY USAGE
The City and the CISD agree that priority use of the natatorium facility shall be given to the
educational and athletic programs of the CISD. Southlake community based aquatics programming
such as open swim, learn -to -swim, water aerobics, or other public programs shall be given the next
highest priority, followed by the lease or rental of the facility to other groups, agencies, entities, or
the public, and specialized emergency training for City personnel. In regards to the aforementioned
priorities, the City and the CISD recognize the need to balance the CISD and Southlake community
use of the natatorium facility.
V. SCHEDULING
The City and CISD agree to create an Aquatics Commission, hereafter referred to as the
"Commission", in order to establish the usage schedule of the natatorium. The Commission shall
meet at least two times per year and more frequently on an as needed basis. Their responsibilities
shall be to identify the educational and recreational programming needs of the community, and the
implementation of such programs.
The Commission will consist of three (3) voting representatives from the City to include the
Director of Community Services, the Recreation Supervisor, and an additional Recreation staff
member, and four (4) voting representatives from the CISD to include the Executive Director for
Athletics, the Natatorium Facility Director, the Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services,
and an additional CISD staff member. The City and the CISD shall identify an alternate for each
of its representatives, who shall be entitled to attend, participate in, and vote at meetings on such
occasions as the Commission representative is unable to attend. As concerns Commission action,
each representative shall have one (1) vote. In all meetings of the Commission, a voting quorum
shall exist only if all the Commission representatives are present. A CISD representative shall chair
the Commission.
The City and the CISD agree that a minimum of fifty percent of the annual operating hours
of the facility, as indicated in Article III, shall be dedicated to the use of the natatorium facility for
Southlake community based aquatics programming. The City shall work with the CISD to
coordinate the advertisement and sign-up of Southlake community based aquatic programs.
VI. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS
The CISD shall be responsible for all maintenance and operating costs associated with the
natatorium including but not limited to personnel costs, utilities, general maintenance, and upkeep.
VII. INDEMNIFICATION
With respect to the CISD Property, the City does hereby agree, insofar as permitted by law,
to hold harmless the CISD from any claims, damages, injuries, lawsuits, or causes of action arising
out of or in any way connected with the use of the CISD Property for a City activity during the time
the City is conducting the activity on the CISD Property. The liability insurance policy carried by
April 3, 2001 - Page 3
the CISD and by the City, shall name the other party as an additional insured with respect to joint
use facilities, to the extent as permitted by law.
VIII. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of fifteen (15) years beginning from the date
of execution of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be automatically extended for additional five
(5) year periods. This Agreement may only be terminated if mutually agreed upon by the governing
bodies of the City and the CISD.
If the term of any addenda attached hereto remains in full force and effect past the
termination date of this agreement, then this Agreement shall also remain in full force and effect
until expiration or termination of the addenda.
This Agreement and any exhibits shall be reviewed by both parties on an "as -needed" basis
and may be amended only if agreed upon by both parties.
IX. ENCUMBRANCES
Neither party to this Agreement shall, without first obtaining written consent of the other
party, transfer, assign, pledge, or in any way encumber this Agreement, in whole or in part, or sublet
the CISD Property or any part thereof.
X. DISPUTES
Any dispute, controversy, or claim that arises under or relates to this Agreement, hereafter
referred to as "Dispute", shall be reduced to writing and be submitted for informal resolution,
identifying this Article X of the Agreement, to each parties representatives of the Commission. The
Commission shall use its best efforts to resolve such Dispute.
If the Commission is unable to resolve the Dispute within thirty (30) calendar days after it
is submitted (or such later time as agreed in writing by both parties), then the City Manager and the
CISD Superintendent ("Senior Executives") shall use their best efforts to resolve the Dispute. The
Commission and/or Senior Executives shall meet as often and as promptly as the parties reasonably
deem necessary to discuss the Dispute and negotiate in good faith in an effort to resolve the Dispute.
The specific format for the discussions will be left to the discretion of the Commission and the
Senior Executives, as the case may be, and may include the preparation of agreed -upon statements
of fact or written statements of position.
If the Senior Executives are unable to resolve the Dispute within sixty (60) calendar days
from the initial written submittal of a Dispute in accordance with this Article X, then the duly elected
Mayor for the City of Southlake ("Mayor") and the duly elected President of the Carroll Independent
School District Board of Trustees ("Board President"), shall use their best efforts to resolve the
Dispute. The Mayor the Board President shall meet as often and as promptly as the parties
reasonably deem necessary to discuss the Dispute and negotiate in good faith in an effort to resolve
April 3, 2001 - Page 4
the Dispute without the need for a formal proceeding. The specific format for the discussions will
be left to the discretion of the Mayor and the Board President, and may include the preparation of
agreed -upon statements of fact or written statements of position.
If within ninety (90) calendar days from the initial written submittal of a dispute in
accordance with this Article X, the Dispute cannot be resolved to both parties' mutual satisfaction
after good faith negotiations of the Mayor and Board President, or such later period as the parties
may mutually agree in writing, then either party may require resolution of the Dispute through the
use of non -binding arbitration.
XI. CLAIMS
Nothing in this Agreement shall change or affect the duties, responsibilities, liabilities or
immunities provided to the parties under the Texas Tort Claims Act, Sections 10 1.00 1 et seq., of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
XII. ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS
This Agreement contains all of the agreements made by and between the parties hereto
regarding the joint use of the CISD natatorium and no additional agreements or understandings shall
be applicable to the use of CISD natatorium unless first agreed to, in writing, by the parties.
XIII. NOTICES
Any notice given pursuant to this Agreement shall be given in writing and delivered or
mailed by Certified or Registered United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
If to City: City of Southlake
Attn: City Manager
1400 Main Street, Suite 460
Southlake, Texas 76092
If to District: Carroll Independent School District
Attn: Superintendent
1201 North Carroll Avenue
Southlake, Texas 76092
The designation of the person to whom, and the place to which notices are to be mailed or delivered
may be changed from time to time by either party giving notice to the other party.
XIV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
By execution of this Agreement, each party represents to the other that:
a. In performing its duties and obligations hereunder, it will be carrying out one or more
April 3, 2001 - Page 5
governmental functions or services which it is authorized to perform;
b. The undersigned officer or agent of the party has been properly authorized by that
party's governing body to execute this Agreement and that any necessary resolutions
extending such authority have been duly passed and are now in effect;
C. All payments required or permitted to be made by a party will be made from current
revenues available to the paying party; and
d. All payments provided to be made hereunder by one party to the other shall be such
amounts as to fairly compensate the other party for the services or functions
performed hereunder.
XV. VENUE
This Agreement and all of its terms and provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the
parties hereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. In the event that a lawsuit is filed
by either party arising out of the terms and provisions of this Agreement, venue for the lawsuit shall
be in Tarrant County, Texas.
XVI. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Agreement are severable and if for any reason a clause, sentence,
paragraph, or other part of this Agreement should be determined to be invalid by a Court or a Federal
or State Agency, Board, or Commission having jurisdiction over the subject mater thereof, such
invalidity shall not affect other provisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision.
XVII. NON-DISCRIMINATION
The District, in the execution, performance, or attempted performance of this Agreement,
will not discriminate against any persons because of their age, sex, race, religion, color, or national
origin, nor will the District permit its agents, employees, subcontractors, or participants to engage
in such discrimination.
XVIII. NON -WAIVER
The failure of the City or the District to insist upon the performance of any term or provision
of this Agreement or to exercise any right herein conferred shall not be construed as a waiver or
relinquishment to any extent of the City's or the District's right to assert or rely upon such term or
right on any future occasion.
The parties agree that this agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each having
the same force and effect.
April 3, 2001 - Page 6
�-n
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE (CITY)
1-ft -
By:
Rick Stacy, Mayor
Date:
ATTEST:
Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary
`*4W
IN -
CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT (CISD)
By:
Robert Glover, President
Board of Trustees
Date:
ATTEST:
Steve C. Harold, Secretary
Board of Trustees
April 3, 2001 - Page 7
•
Additional Changes recommended by
Councilmember Rex Potter and Board Trustee Jerry Lawrence
Page 1. WITNESSETH - Paragraph 7:
WHEREAS, the CISD, through its Board of Trustees, desires to cooperate with
the City, through its City Council, in the joint use of the natatorium facility for the
enjoyment and benefit of all Southlake citizens.
Page 2. Article II. Funding - Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3:
The City shall allocate a total amount not to exceed $1,250,000 towards the
construction of the natatorium facility. Funding in the amount of $500,000 shall be
payable duling in the City's fiscal year 2000/01, $500,000 payable during in the City's
fiscal year 2001 /02, and $250,000 payable during in the City's fiscal year 2002/03.
The CISD and Ci agrees to make a good faith effort to seek grant funding,
sponsorships, an ons for the natatorium. with the intent of reducing and/or
. r mot., t-4!-9
$600,000, with the City and the CTSD each rereiyin-fifty Percent of the fist $1 2
million received All such funding shall be used solely for the purpose of
maintenance, operations, or future improvements to the natatorium, unless otherwise
mutually agreed.
All revenue generated from the use of the natatorium facility, whether received
idle through community programs, open swim, facility reservations, or any other
similar functions, shall belong to the CISD and used to offset the maintenance and
operational costs of the facility.
Page 2. Article III. Operations - Paragraphs 1 and 2:
The CISD shall be responsible for the daily operations of the natatorium facility.
The CISD shall hire a _Nnatatorium lfacility Ddirector who will be responsible for the
daily operations, maintenance, and programming of the facility.
The natatorium shall be open year round and operate a minimum of six days
per week, Monday through Saturday, excluding CISD holidays where the facility may
be closed.
Additional Changes recommended by
Councilmember Rex Potter and Board Trustee Jerry Lawranrc
Page 2-3. Article IV. Facility Usage - Paragraph 1:
Southlake Xommunity based aquatics programming such as open swim, learn -
to -swim, water aerobics, or other public programs shall be given the next highest
priority, followed by the lease or rental of the facility to other groups, agencies,
entities, or the public, and specialized emergency training for City personnel. In
regards to the aforementioned priorities, the City and the CISD recognize the need to
balance the CISD and Southlake community use of the natatorium facility.
Page 3. Article V. Scheduling - Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: ( (L ��� �
The City and CISD agree to create an Aquatics Commission
q her a ter re erred
to as the "Commission", in order to establish the usage a schedule o the natatorium
rnmmi11i �r hacPr� n,�,,,� The Commission shall meet at least(ATTORNEY) two
times per year and more _freguentl (ATTORNEY) or on an as needed basis. Their -
responsibilities shall be to identify the educational and recreational programming needs
of the community, and the implementation of such programs.
The Commission will consist of three (3) voting representatives from the City to
include the Director of Community Services or bls4er Aesignee, the Recreation
Supervisor, and an additional Recreation staff member, and four (4) voting
representatives from the CISD to include the Executive Director for Athletics, the
Natatorium Facility Director, the Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services,
and an additional CISD staff member. The City and the CISD shall identify an
alternate for each of its representatives, who shall be entitled to attend, participate in,
and vote at meetings on such occasions as the Commission representative is unable to
attend. As concerns_ Commission action, each representative shall have one (1) vote
In all meetings of the Commission, a voting quorum shall exist only if all the
Commission representatives are present A CISD representative shall chair the
Cnmmzccinn
The City and the CISD agree that a minimum of fifty percent of the annual
operating hours of the facility, as indicated in Article III, shall be dedicated to hill or
partial the use of the natatorium facility for Southlake community based aquatics
programming. The City shall work with the CISD to coordinate the advertisement and
sign-up of Southlake community based aquatic programs.
Page 4-5. Article X. Disputes - Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4:
Any ' dispute, controversy, or claim that arises under or relates to this
Agreement, hereafter referred to as "Dispute'; shall be reduced to writing and be
submitted.for informal resolution, identifying this Article X of the Agreement, to each
parties representatives of the Commission. The Commission shall use its best efforts
to resolve such Dispute.
Additional Changes recommended by
Councilmember Rex Potter and Board Trustee Jerry Lawrence
� � V
the Commission is unable to resolve the Disnutehvathin thirty &
fter it is submitted (or such later time as agreed in writing by both
. co, V-
calendar
es), then
the City Manager and the CISD Superintendent ("Senior Executives") shall use their
best efforts to resolve the Dispute. The Commission and/or Senior Executives shall
meet as often and as promptly as the parties reasonably deem necessary to discuss the
Dispute and negotiate in good faith in an effort to resolve the Dispute. The specific
format for the discussions will be left to the discretion of the Commission and the
Senior Executives, as the case may be, and may include the preparation of agreed -
upon statements of fact or written statements of position.
the Senior Executives are unable to resolve the
calendar days from the initial written submittal of a Dispute in accordance with this
Article X, then the duly elected Mayor for the City of Southlake ("Mayor") and the
duly elected President of the Carroll Independent School District Board of Trustees
(`Board President"), shall use their best efforts to resolve the Dispute. The Mayor
the Board President shall meet as often and as promptly as the parties reasonably
deem necessary to discuss the Dispute and negotiate in good faith in an effort to
resolve the Dispute without the need for a formal proceeding. The specific format for
the discussions will be left to the discretion of the Mayor and the Board President,
and may include the preparation of agreed -upon statements of .fact or written
statements of position.
If within ninety (90) calendar days from the initial written submittal of a
dispute in accordance. with this Article X, the Dispute cannot be resolved to both
parties' mutual satisfaction after good faith negotiations of the Mayor and Board
President, or such later period as the parties may mutually agree in writing, then
either party may require resolution of the Dispute through the use of non -binding
arbitration.
to rewording. There is no intention to change the overall size or shape of the
signs. The variance was granted.
10-I. Consideration of an Employment contract for the City Manager. In general, the
contract provides for a one-year term with an option to extend if mutually
agreeable. If during the term, the council terminates the contract at a time when
the city manager is willing and able to serve, the city manager will be offered the
opportunity to retire and will be paid three (3) months severance pay. If during
the term the city manager desires to retire, he must give three (3) months notice,
after which he may retire with no severance pay. In either event, the city is
obligated to pay the city manager's health insurance with a cap of $300 per month,
until the city manager is eligible for federal government insurance assistance.
10-J. Consideration of an amendment to the City Secretary's Employment Contract. An
addendum was added to the employment contract for the City Secretary to include
an extension until December 2000; a compensation increase of 2.5%; and, in the
event the City Secretary voluntarily retired or is terminated pursuant to Section
3.0 of the agreement, the city agrees to pay the City Secretary's health insurance
until the City Secretary reaches the age of eligibility for federal health insurance
assistance in the form of Medicare or Medicaid or in the form available at the
time the City Secretary is eligible for such assistance, with a cap of $300 per
month.
Agenda Item #10-K, Approval of the Five (5) Year Parks Capital Improvements
Program for FY 2000 through FY 2004, including FY 1999-2000 CIP Budget.
Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman stated in his memorandum dated
December 3, 1999, "At the time of approval of the Parks Five (5) Year CIP by SPDC at
their October 26, 1998 meeting, staff committed to annually reviewing and refining
project costs for factors such as inflation, clearer definition of project scope, etc. Staff
has been working on the revision process, and now seeks approval of the refinements and
the Parks Capital Improvement Budget for FY 1999-2000. SPDC and the Parks and
Recreation Board prioritized ten (10) capital projects at the September 27, 1999 joint
meeting, and the Parks and Recreation Board prioritized the remaining projects at their
October 11, 1999 meeting. Staff took this direction and incorporated the prioritization
into the Proposed Parks Five (5) Year CIP and the FY 1999-2000 Parks Capital
Improvements Budget. The proposed CIP was considered by SPDC at their November 1,
1999 meeting. At this meeting, several changes were made to the proposed plan,
including allocation of $1.25 million over three years towards the proposed Carroll ISD
natatorium, and changes in funding regarding a Recreation/Teen Center." A copy of the
memorandum from Mr. Hugman, dated December 3, 1999, is hereby attached to the
minutes of this meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7,1999 Page 13 of 36
wrong and I don't know what the motivation is, only you know that. I disagree with you
Rick, based on these mixed signals. It is absolutely important that we find out from the
community one of two issues: Do they want a stand-alone building, or do they want a
recreation center? We are not saying to do nothing; we are saying which way should we
go. It is going to be for the teens, and it will be for everyone. We have so much
documentation of the success and failures of other teen centers in various other cities.
We have looked into this and researched this. We do care, in spite of what people would
want you to believe. This survey will be complete in a couple of months. SPDC has put
away some funds to start construction this year, whichever way to goes. I want the public
to know that we are very much for the teens."
Councilmember Patsy DuPre stated, "I agree with everything that Ronnie said. I did
attend one of the teen center meetings and one of the most exciting things I heard was
when the teens said they want to be involved. That sense of ownership whatever we end
up with, I hope stays with the teens in the community. We do have some facilities that
are for separate interests like the senior center and adventure alley. If you will look at
those, they are all put together with volunteer efforts and donations, and not tax dollars.
If it turns out that a teen center is what our survey says we want, we have committed
SPDC money towards the project. At no time has anyone on the Council said that they
did not want to do something for the teens. We just said we want to get more information.
We will know when we get the results of the survey."
Councilmember Gary Fawks stated, "Ronnie put it pretty well, the people who talked
about the survey spoke as if it were a survey to determine whether or not to build a teen
center and that is not what we are talking about at all. What we are talking about is trying
to determine what the teens and youth of the community want so that we can build the
right thing. I have been at the Drug and Alcohol Awareness Committee meetings where
this idea hatched and I look forward with enthusiasm to the opportunity to put a facility
on the ground for the youth of this community. It is one of the highest funded parts of the
budget as anything before Council tonight. I am excited that we move forward and it is
exciting to see the young people out tonight pledging not to support it but to participate in
it — it is so very important. One thing that carries forward is if we, if the Council and
adults try to plan and hand over a facility to the youth in the community, it would be
doing the youth a great injustice. What counts is the participation of the youth in the
community."
Mayor Stacy asked who would be surveyed, the teens or the adults? Councilmember
Kendall stated both would be surveyed. There is a committee working with a
professional service who is putting together the survey, so that the right questions will be
asked to both youth and adults.
Dana McGrath stated she feels the committee should be opened up to the community for
input into the survey.
Motion was made to approve the Five (5) Year Parks Capital Improvement Program for
FY 2000 through FY 2004, including FY 1999-2000 Capital Improvements Budget.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 1999 Page 19 of 36
l
1
Motion: DuPre
Second: Kendall
Ayes: DuPre, Kendall, Edmondson, Potter, Fawks, and Stacy
Nays: None
Approved: 6-0 vote
Council adjourned to recess at 9:15 p.m.
Council returned to open session at 9:35 p.m.
Agenda Item #8-A, Ordinance No. 480-320, Vt Reading, (ZA 99-105), Rezoning and
Site Plan for Pi Systems
Ordinance No. 480-320, 1" Reading, (ZA 99-105), Rezoning and Site Plan for Pi
Systems, on property legally described as Tracts 11314, 1B15, 1136E and 1136F situated in
the Harrison Decker Survey, Abstract No. 438, and being approximately 0.892 acres.
Current zoning is "MH" Manufactured Housing District, with a requested zoning of "SP-
1" Detailed Site Plan District with "I-l" Light Industrial District uses. Owner and
Applicant: Pi Systems.
Planner Ken Baker presented ZA 99-105, stating that seventeen (17) notices were sent to
property owners within the 200' notification area and two (2) responses were received
from: James Edward Hall, 812 Belaire Drive, Burleson, Texas, no comment, ' I no
longer own this property. " And, Sam Hughes, 1207 Timberline Court, Southlake, in favor
of, "Gets rid of two worn out rent trailers and the type of tenants they attract. "
Mr. Baker stated on November 18, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
this item (7-0 vote), subject to the Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated November 12,
1999, eliminating the following uses: sexually oriented businesses; aluminum product
fabrication; bakery, wholesale; blacksmithing or horse shoeing; broom manufacturing,
cabinet or carpentry ship; candle manufacturing; candy plant or production facility;
carpet cleaning operations; clothing manufacturing; compounding of cosmetics and
toiletries; creamery and dairy product processing; egg storage, candling, sorting and
grading; farrier (horseshoeing); feed stores; glass blowing; ice cream manufacturing; ice
manufacturing and bulk ice storage; insulation application business; linen and towel
service; mattress manufacturing or mattress renovation; mini -warehouses; pest control
businesses; sheet metal ship and spray painting shop.
F.C. LeVrier, Suncoast Architects, 379 North Carroll Avenue, Suite 200, Southlake.
Representing Richard and Nancy Andrews owners of Pi Systems. Mr. LeVrier stated
they are the owners of Pi Systems who are currently operating their business at 1937 East
Continental Boulevard, Southlake. He stated they current operate a computer
hardware/software sales and service business, which includes maintenance to various
ATM machines for financial institutions. They also train employees who go out and
service different financial institution's computers. They set up the network systems.
They have grown in their business and have several branch offices throughout the state.
They also have a manufacturing plant in Mexico. They have purchased this property and
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7,1999 Page 20 of 36
r- -
FY2001-2002
• Smith Park Construction - reduce from $800,000 to $300,000
• Koalaty Park Phase I - $250,000
• Joint Use/Natatorium - allocated $500,000 for Natatorium in this fiscal year
Loop Trail Bicentennial/Durham CJHS - move to this fiscal year to match
construction of trails included in TMB
FY2002-2003
• JUC/Natatorium - allocate $250,000 for Natatorium in this fiscal year
During the discussion on the budget changes, Director Hugman commented that a
junior lien debt issuance might be a possible option for funding the purchase of
additional land without effecting the capital projects budget. He commented that staff
would need to confirm with the financial advisor but SPDC might be able to take the
$1.9 million that is in the budget now and roll it into a junior lien debt issuance and
reallocate the $1.9 to capital projects. Mr. Hugman stated that the current land
purchase commitments could then be paid for from the junior lien debt issuance.
Finance Director Sharen Elam commented that it could only be reallocated for projects
if it was not stipulated in the $1.9 bond issuance that it could only be used for the
purchase of land. She suggested that staff visit with the financial advisor, Jim Sabonis
concerning the junior lien debt issuance and what capacity would be available then
bring back a recommendation to the Board at the next meeting. Mayor Stacy stated that
another option might be to visit with Ms. Tucker and see if a pay -out plan can be
arranged.
Motion was made to approve the budgeted amounts for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 of
the Five -Year Parks Capital Improvements Plan as discussed tonight, including the
participation in the funding of the CISD Natatorium for $500,000 in the fiscal year
2001 and $500,000 in the fiscal year 2002. The motion also included SPDC
participation in the funding of the CISD Natatorium for $250,000 in the fiscal year
2003. SPDC participation in the CISD Natatorium is contingent upon: (1) the CISD
entering into a written interlocal agreement with the City of Southlake for the joint use
of the facility, (2) the CISD meeting with the citizens as well as creating a design
committee (comprised of Joint Use Committee members and citizens at large) to ensure
the facility will meet the needs of the City and School District participants and to ensure
it is non -offensive to the adjacent homeowners, and (3) the CISD, with the assistance of
the Joint Use Committee, making good faith efforts in pursuing other funding sources
through grants, corporate sponsorships, individual donations, etc. for each of the fiscal
SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999
Page 11 of 13
years that SPDC participates and if funding should be secured by the CISD through
these measures, the CISD will reimburse to the SPDC the contribution the SPDC has
made in an amount equal to the other funding received by CISD but not greater than the
total SPDC contributions.
Motion: Potter
Second: White
Ayes: Berman, Edmondson, Kendall, Lyons, Potter, Stacy, White
Nays: none
Approved: 7-0
Agenda Item No. 6B. Amendment #3 with Cheatham and Associates for
architectural and engineering services relating to proposed improvement at Bob
Jones Park.
Director Kevin Hugman asked the Board to consider Amendment #3 to the contract
with Cheatham and Associates based on a reduced construction budget from $2.8
million to $1.8 million. He stated that staff will look at the individual components of
the proposed improvements and decide what items can be cut. Director Hugman
suggested that the fee not exceed 9.8 % of the budgeted construction amount of $1.8
million.
President Kendall suggested that changes in the scope be considered at the next Park
Board meeting instead of staff having to make those decisions.
Motion was made to approve Amendment #3 with Cheatham and Associates for
architectural and engineering services relating to proposed improvements at Bob Jones
Park as limited to a $1.8 million construction budget with the understanding that
Cheatham and Associates' fees will not exceed 6.8 % for engineering and design and
3 % for surveying.
Motion: Stacy
Second: Lyons
Ayes: Berman, Edmondson, Kendall, Lyons, Potter, Stacy, White
Nays: none
Approved: 7-0
Agenda Item No. 7. Adjournment.
Prior to adjournment it was decided that the next regular SPDC meeting would be
scheduled for December 6, 1999. President Kendall asked that Jim Sabonis with First
Southwest be present at the next meeting.
There being no further business to discuss motion was made and carried to adjourn the
meeting at 11:00 p.m.
SPDC Meeting Minutes, November 1, 1999
Page 12 of 13
A
DRAFT OF THE SPDC MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2001 — AGENDA ITEM NO.
6C, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR CISD NATATORIUM
Page 1 of 5
Deputy Director Steve Polasek commented that City and District staff met on several
occasions throughout the last year to develop and review a proposed interlocal
agreement for the CISD Natatorium. The agreement was developed by CISD and City
staff approximately one year ago and has been reviewed and discussed at the Joint
Utilization Committee (JUC) meetings on numerous occasions during that time. The
proposed agreement includes information defining the following key items:
• Commitment of City funding through SPDC in the amount of $1.25 million.
• Allows for revenue generated through donation, sponsorships, etc., to be
split evenly with each entity receiving 50% up through the first $1.2 million
received.
• Allocates all revenue generated by the natatorium to the CISD.
• Lists the CISD as being responsible for the operations and maintenance of
the natatorium.
• Establishes a minimum of 68 hours per week for operations.
• Gives priority use of the natatorium for (1) CISD programs, followed by (2)
CISD and City community programs, (3) lease or rental to private groups,
and (4) specialized training for City personnel.
• Establishes an Aquatics Commission consisting of City and CISD staff to
identify and implement educational and recreational programming.
• Establishes that 50% of the annual operating hours of the facility shall be
dedicated to the full or partial use of the natatorium for community based
aquatics programming.
• The term of the agreement is for 15 years, and automatically renews for
additional 5-year periods. The agreement may only be terminated if
mutually agreed upon by both parties.
Mr. Polasek further explained that the agreement reiterates the CISD's obligation to
make a good faith effort to seek grant funding and donations. The intent is to reduce
and/or reimburse a portion of the City's contribution up to an amount not to exceed
$600,000, with the City and the CISD each receiving 50% of the first $1.2 million
received. Also, all revenue generated through the use of the natatorium would belong
to the CISD and used to offset maintenance and operational costs of the facility.
Mr. Polasek also informed the Board that the City would not be hiring the director for
the natatorium, but would be working with CISD on setting the criteria for the
selection.
Councilmember DuPre, as a member of the JUC, was present at the meeting to answer
questions of the Board. Ms. DuPre commented that the City would not be participating
in funding any portion of the director's salary or any other personnel hired to teach
classes., Ms. DuPre stated that the City was acting as the "middle man" to help create
--
DRAFT OF THE SPDC MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2001 - AGENDA ITEM NO.
6C, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR CISD NATATORIUM
Page 2 of 5
programs, collect fees, handle registration, and promote programs through
advertisement in the Parks and Recreation brochure. All fees will be turned over to the
natatorium. Board member Potter commented that the fees should be high enough to
compensate the City for its employees being used to help with the operations (collecting
fees, registering, and advertising).
Mr. Polasek stated that staff anticipates that the fees collected would probably only
offset the cost of operation of the facility. He stated that the Aquatics Commission that
will be established through the agreement would consist of four CISD representatives
and three City staff representatives. The Commission will work together to develop a
program and set fees. The operation of the facility will remain with CISD
administration. The City would support them with its existing staff, but programs will
not be "city programs" they would be referred to as community based programs
provided through the cooperative efforts of CISD and the City.
Mr. Polasek explained that the school will run and operate the facility and the
programs, but what is stipulated in the agreement is that the facility will be made
available for community use - this is also how the facility was presented to the
community in the school's bond election. So whether the City was a participant or not
- the natatorium was to be made available to the public. The City will ensure that its
investment is protected through its participation (with three members) on the Aquatics
Commission.
Ms. DuPre stated that a group of parents came in and suggested certain characteristics
and criteria that they felt needed to be considered when hiring the director and coaches.
Ms. DuPre further stated that the reason the JUC had a hard time getting through the
agreement was because the school board members wanted to make sure there was an
understanding about the maintenance and operation costs. Ms. DuPre informed the
school board that the City would consider those cost, but it was her personal feeling
that the facility belonged to the school - that it is not a City facility.
Board member Stacy commented that he would like to know what those costs are
because if the school board expects the City to help with operating costs then the City
would need to share the revenues. Steve Polasek estimated that operating cost would be
approximately $500,000 annually and revenues would be approximately $370,000.
Mayor Stacy suggested that maybe a professional could run the facility similar to what
was done at the tennis center. Board member Berman commented that there are some
issues with the tennis center that staff is trying to work through - so this may not be a
good way to do business. Ms. Berman stated that she has concerns that if the facility is
operating at a deficit, CISD will look to bring in paying participants and then the
facility will not be available for the citizens. Ms. DuPre stated that the school district
sold the bond package to the community as a joint use, and they are committed to
a -ao
DRAFT OF THE SPDC MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2001 - AGENDA ITEM NO.
6C, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR CISD NATATORIUM
Page 3 of 5
provide service first to the students, secondly to the citizens, and thirdly to outside
groups. Ms. Kendall asked how the City would be ensured that community -use time is
provided. Mr. Polasek stated that the agreement includes verbiage that 50 % of the
operating hours of the facility would be dedicated to full or partial use of the facility for
community use. Mr. Polasek commented that it was his hope that there would not be
any issues that City and CISD staffs could not work through. Board member Potter
commented that something needed to be in the agreement that would cover those issues
that could not be resolved by staff.
Board member Stacy asked why the agreement limited the reimbursement for the $1.2
million provided by the City to $600,000. He also asked if CISD had done anything to
try and seek donations and/or sponsorships. Ms. DuPre commented that negotiations
went back and forth regarding the reimbursement. The reason JUC decided on 50150
was - (1) to give the CISD some incentive because if they had to give it all back there
would be no motivation, and (2) if all the money was given back where would the joint
use be. She commented that JUC needed to get the agreement out of their hands and on
to SPDC and City Council. Ms. Berman commented that she heard there was someone
from CISD administration looking into getting grants and sponsorships. Mr. Stacy
suggested that maybe the City could try and seek donations and/or sponsorships and pay
itself back for the $1.2 million not necessarily up front, but over the length of the
agreement (15 years). Ms. Berman expressed concern that we would lose our priority
for use of the facility if all the $1.2 million were reimbursed.
Ms. DuPre explained that at the last JUC meeting she reiterated that the City invested
$1.2 million towards the natatorium program with the hope that some of it would be
reimbursed, but realizing that it might not happen. The City staff is going to be
involved in registration and advertising, and this particular facility was sold to the
public in the bond package as a joint use facility. Again her perspective was that the
City was helping CISD fulfill its goal of providing a joint use facility as sold to the
public in the bond election. She stated that the school board members still did not feel
we were meeting them half way with this agreement. She commented that from her
perspective, as a Councilmember, the City has gone way above what any other city
would do. As far as maintenance and operation costs are concerned, there would be
very little difference between a $5 million dollar facility and a $6.2 facility built with
the assistance of SPDC funds. So if the City had not been involved they would still
have the maintenance and operation costs.
President Kendall stated that the reason she had supported the funding was because she
was concerned that if CISD fell short of funds, the community -use programs would be
cut from the program. A pool facility has been in the master plan for years and she
believed that this would be the best way to make sure community programs would have
a high priority.
DRAFT OF THE SPDC MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2001 - AGENDA ITEM NO.
6C, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR CISD NATATORIUM
Page 4 of 5
Board member Stephens stated that he did not really want the money back he wanted to
see that the community received more use of the pool. Ms. Berman agreed and
commented that the facility needed to be open on Sundays.
Board member Potter explained the arrangement the City had with the County on the
use of Town Hall - the County shares in the cost based on square footage. He agreed
that what we really want is use of the facility - pay our fair share based on our use of
the facility.
Ms. Kendall agreed that she just expected the community to be able to use the facility.
She stated that she spoke with Jerry Lawrence and he said that he would not
recommend the school board approve this agreement. Ms. Kendall asked him what it
would take to get the agreement approved by the school board and he mentioned
maintenance and operation costs and the $600,000 reimbursement to SPDC.
Ms. Dupre commented that Jerry Lawrence is upset because we did not do exactly what
he wanted - our job is to represent the City's interest and his job is to represent the
school board's interest. Ms. DuPre stated that Mr. Lawrence does not feel it is fair that
we are asking for half of what we are contributing to be paid back even though we also
will be contributing approximately $100,000 annually in program revenues. Ms.
DuPre commented that when SPDC considered the $1.2 funding it was with the
stipulation that (1) CISD would make an effort to pay the money back and (2) no funds
would be given until a joint use agreement was complete. The agreement proposed by
JUC met CISD half way by suggesting that at least half of the $1.2 million be
reimbursed.
Board member Potter commented that when SPDC first considered funding the $1.2
million for the natatorium it was with the thought that we would be able to use the
facility - we thought it would be nice to get some of the money back, but the emphasis
was on being able to use the facility.
Mayor Stacy had to leave the meeting but commented that he hoped we would be able
to reach some type of agreement, but if we can't we can't. He stated that there should
be a joint effort with the City and CISD to try and get some of the money back through
grants and sponsorships.
Ms. DuPre suggested that a meeting be held with CISD.
Board members agreed that a meeting needed to be held with the City Council and
CISD. President Kendall asked Board members to state what concerns they had with
the agreement.
DRAFT OF THE SPDC MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2001 — AGENDA ITEM NO.
6C, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR CISD NATATORIUM
Page 5 of 5
Board member Stephens expressed concern that there was not an authorized body to
control and manage scheduling of the natatorium. The City's use in the agreement is
too vague and he felt the City needed more use of the facility. He also wanted to know
how disputes would be addressed between CISD and the scheduling or between citizens
and CISD.
Board member White commented that the agreement needed to outline the dispute
process and state what the path for grievances would be.
Board member Berman added that the facility needed to be available for use on
Sundays.
Board members Berman, Potter, Kendall, White, and Stephens all agreed that use of
the facility was more important than receiving reimbursement for the $1.2 million.
President Kendall had first suggested changing the length of the agreement to one year
in order to see if the City was indeed getting to use the facility. She later changed her
mind and recommended it remain at 15 years.
Motion was made to table consideration of the Interlocal Agreement for the CISD
natatorium and recommend that City Council meet with the CISD School Board to
work out the specifics of the agreement including the concerns of the SPDC board
members as stated tonight.
Motion: Potter
Second: Berman
Ayes: Berman, Kendall, Potter, Stephens, White
Nays: none
Approved to table: 5-0
(Board member Stacy left the meeting prior to the motion. Board member Fawks was
not present for the meeting.)
a-a15
ONE VISION
ONE VOIC
...FOR CHILDREN
School Board United In Calling Election
Community input shapes bond package
The Carroll Board of Education
called a March 6 school bond election
to decide the fate of an $81.5 million
proposal shaped by community input.
Trustees voted unanimously to call
the election, which offers voters the
ability to make individual decisions
about each of the three propositions.
"We listened to the community,"
Superintendent Dr. Ted Gillum said of
the four months following the failed
September election.
"We have provided many opportuni-
ties for citizens to share their opinions
with us, and I believe we have a
package that represents the public's
wishes. Now it is up to the voters," Dr.
Voting
Information
Early voting for the election will be
conducted weekdays from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. at the Carroll ISD Administrative
Annex, 3051 Dove, in Grapevine. The
early voting period is
February 17 to March
2. Voting on election
Ote day, Saturday, March 6
will take place from 7
a.m. to 7 p.m. at Johnson Elementary
School, 1301 N. Carroll Ave. To partici-
pate in the March 6 school bond
election, citizens who reside in Carroll
ISD must have been registered by
Thursday, Feb. 4.
Gillum said. Each school Trustee
vocalized personal support for the
election during a special meeting
January 18.
School officials
the Carroll ISD Administrative Annex,
located at 3051 Dove in Grapevine.
Voters may cast an early ballot on
conducted town hall
Bond ' 99
meetings, focus
groups, written
Proposition 1
surveys and tele-
Middle School #2
$19,500,000
phone surveys. Input
Intermediate #3
15,000,000
suggested voters
Elementary #5
11,000,000
wanted separate
CMS Renovation
5,000,000
propositions, a
Capital Improvements
2,000,000
reduced price for the
American Disabilities Act Projects
2,000,000
multipurpose stadium
CHS Activity Building
1,600,000
and additional infor-
Technology Network
1,500,000
mation about indi-
Durham Gym Addition
1,000,000
vidual projects.
Transportation Center (Phase 2)
1,000,000
The March pro-
JES Classroom Addition
800,000
posal includes $61.4
CES/DEIS Kitchen Additions
700,000
million worth of
CHS Lab Upgrades
300,000
classroom -related
projects, including
Proposition 1 Total
$61,500,000
three new schools in
Proposition 1, a $14.6
Proposition 2
million stadium in
Proposition 2 and a
Multipurpose Stadium
$14,600,000
$5.5 million aquatics
center in Proposition
3.
Proposition 3
Information about Aquatics C
the school bond
package is available
on the district's web
site. Information has also been mailed
to taxpayers and sent home with CISD
children. Additional questions can be
directed to 329-7732.
Early voting will only be available at
e
nter
$5,500,000
weekdays between the hours of 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. February 17 through March
2. Election day voting will take place
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Saturday, March
6 at Johnson Elementary School.
VISIT OUR WEB SITE: www.southlakecarroll.edu
Financial Impact
TIF funds still a possibility
Estimated Monthly Tax Increase
on $200,000 Home Value*
Maximum $22.00
Average $17.76
*TAX INCREASE CALCULATED AFTER
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION
What options are available to schools in the
area of facility construction and renovation?
School districts can utilize two main tax -gener-
ated funding sources: the maintenance and op-
erations fund and the debt service fund. Costs
for newly constructed and renovated school fa-
cilities are primarily paid for through the debt ser-
vice tax rate. This is similar to a home mortgage.
The school district borrows the money to con-
struct the necessary facilities and then pays out
the debt long-term.
What is a school bond election?
It is an election held to gain voter approval so
school districts can construct new facilities and
renovate existing facilities using bonds to fund
the long-term debt.
What are the terms of this debt?
The district's debt is financed for an average term
of 20-30 years.
What is the anticipated interest rate for this
bondissuance?
Financial advisors anticipate a rate of 5 to 5.5
percent.
Why can't districts use their general operat-
ing money to service the debt?
General operating funds are used to pay sala-
ries, purchase supplies and pay for ongoing ex-
penses for the daily operations of school such
as transportation and utilities.
Can teacher salaries be paid out of the debt
service fund?
By law, no. This fund is used only for the con-
struction and renovation of facilities.
Are there limits to when an election can be
held?
School officials say it is still possible to pass significant
savings along to taxpayers through the City of Southlake Tax
Increment Finance (TIF) Zone. Five school bond projects are
located within the boundaries of the TIF. City and school officials
hope to work out an agreement that would allow the school
district to participate in the TIF with no risk of a funding loss.
"All three new schools, our transportation center and the
stadium site are located within the TIF boundaries," said Superintendent Dr.
Ted Gillum. "We believe that we can pay for a significant portion of these
projects with recaptured TIF dollars."
Dr. Gillum said the district still needs to support the debt with a bond
election because TIF dollars would not become available for several years.
Is branch voting legal?
Yes. School districts can choose whether or not
to allow voting opportunities at multiple locations.
Is Carroll ISD offering branch voting?
Although Carroll ISD has successfully offered
branch voting in the past, this option is not avail-
able for the 1999 bond election.
When will another bond election be needed?
An election for about $84 million will be needed
in 2002 to take this district to buildout. By that
time, some of the district's past debt will be paid.
This will help minimize the impact on the tax rate.
How many students are currently enrolled in
CISD schools?
There are 5,946 students enrolled as of January
1999.
What are the five-year enrollment projections
for Carroll ISD?
1999 — 6,422
2000 — 6,972
2001 — 7,480
2002 — 8,004
2003 — 8,502
How many schools will CISD need at
buildout?
Demographic reports show the need for a total
of six elementary (K-4) schools, three intermedi-
ate (5-6) schools, three middle (7-8) schools and
two high school facilities.
What type of planning has district officials
done to accommodate this growth?
Carroll receives updated demographic reports
each year from professional demographer Dr.
Dennis Harner, in Austin. Bond elections are
scheduled to assist the district with facilities to
handle student growth. The Growth Management
Plan calls for a feeder system which breaks the
district into three neighborhood school atten-
dance zones:
Area 1 - Johnson Elementary and Elementary
#6 (near the Kirkwood addition) feed into Carroll
Intermediate, which feeds into Carroll Middle
School. (Elementary #6 will be in the 2002 elec-
tion.)
Area 2 - Durham Elementary and Carroll Elemen-
tary feed into Durham Intermediate, which will
feed into Middle School #3 (on the Peytonville
property). (Middle School #3 would be in the
2002 election.)
Area 3 — Rockenbaugh Elementary and Elemen-
tary #5 (at Carroll and Continental) feed into In-
termediate #3 (on S. Kimball), which feeds into
There are no limits during odd numbered years. Middle School #2 (on S. Kimball).
During even numbered years, school bond elec- How many students is Carroll ISD anticipated Carroll Junior High and Carroll High School will
tions are limited so as not to interfere with gen- to have at buildout? be used as high school facilities in 2002.
eral elections. Carroll ISD will have 13,000-14,000 students. For more information, call 329-7732.
How much has enrollment increased since
last year?
At this time last year CISD had 5,354 students.
When will Carroll ISD reach buildout?
Buildout is estimated between 2010 and 2013
k]
proposition Q Facts
Proposition 0 includes new schools
Carroll Middle School would undergo complete renovation
There may never be a more im-
portant vote in the history of Carroll
ISD.
Voters in the March 6 school
bond election will decide the fate of
$61.4 million in new classrooms,
renovations and support facilities
that school officials say are desper-
ately needed to accommodate a
growing student population.
"It is crucial that we have facili-
ties ready for the more than 600 new
students that come to Carroll ISD
annually," said Superintendent Dr.
Ted Gillum. "Proposition 1 repre-
sents the future of Carroll ISD."
If approved, Proposition 1 would
give district officials permission to
construct three new campuses,
renovate Carroll Middle School and
complete a number of other support
facilities.
The package calls for a new el-
ementary school on property at Car-
roll and Continental, in addition to a
new middle school and
intermedi-
ate school on 37 acres on South
Kimball. A four -classroom
addition
at Johnson Elemen-
tary School was
added to the failed
September package
Project
following a demo-
Middle
graphic update in Oc-
Interme
Elemen
tober.
CMS R
The most signifi-
Capital
cant renovation
Americ
In January, Dr. Gillum presented
the community with the option of
using the middle school for future
administrative offices and an alter-
native school. However, local citi-
a
Proposition
s
School #2
diate #3
tary #5
enovation
Improvements
n Disabilities Act Projects
ctivity Building
ogy Network
Gym Addition
ortation Center (Phase 2)
assroom Addition
:IS Kitchen Additions
Upgrades
roposition 1
r
i
zens clearly said at the district's re-
cent Town Hall meetings that they
prefer the renovation of Carroll
Middle School over construction of
a brand new $17.3 million replace -
Cost
$19,500,000
15,000,000
11,000,000
5,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
1,600,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
800,000
700,000
300,000
$61,400,000
ment.
As a result, the dis-
trict plans to close CMS
for the 1999-2000
school year to complete
the extensive remodel.
The project includes in-
stallation of a new roof,
sprinkler system, and
ceiling tiles, as well as
removal of asbestos til-
ing. Art, science and
technology labs would
also be completely re-
done. The school would
reopen in the fall of
2000, according to
school officials.
PROJE
CTDETAILS ' PROJECTDETAILS • PROJECTDETAILS
(:;::
l le
D
Location:
37 acre site on S. Kimball Ave.
Student Population:
Half of the 7th and 8th graders
Capacity:
800 students
Square Footage:
116,000
Proposed Completion:
Fall 2002
Intermediate
School #3
Location:
37 acre site on S. Kimball Ave.
Student Population:
One-third of the 5th and 6th graders
Capacity:
650 students (expandable to 800)
Square Footage:
81,250
Proposed Completion:
Fall 2001
Elementary
School #5
Location:
17 acre site at Carroll and Continental
Student Population:
Kindergarten4th grades
Capacity:
650 students (expandable to 800)
Square Footage:
68,250
Proposed Completion:
Fall 2001
4 Classrooms
at Johnson
Location:
South side of Johnson Elementary
Student Population:
Kindergarten - 4th Grades
Capacity:
Additional 100 students
Square Footage:
5,000 square foot addition
Proposed Completion:
Fall 2000
4
PROJECT DETAILS
• PROJECT DETAILS ' PROJECT DETAILS
Durham Gymnasium Addition
An elementary -size gymnasium will be
added on the west side of the campus.
The addition of this gym is necessary to
accommodate scheduling problems for
intermediate and elementary physical
education classes.
Proposed Completion:
Fall 2000
Carroll & Durham Kitchen Additions
Additional serving lines and work space
would be added to the kitchens at Carroll
and Durham Elementary schools.
Proposed Completion:
Fall 2000
Carroll H.S. Lab Upgrades
Includes the upgrade or addition of foreign
language lab equipment and cabinetry for
science labs at CHS.
Proposed Completion:
Fall 2000
Transportation Phase 2
Includes an 11,000 square foot building
with offices, a driver training room,
lockers, storage, maintenance bays and
a wash bay. Site will accommodate 80
buses, plus car parking for 80 drivers
and mechanics.
Proposed Completion:
Fall 2000
Technology Network
Includes the upgrading and addition of
technology infrastructure between
campuses, as well as, the upgrade of
the internal infrastructure within the
existing facilities.
Proposed Completion:
Fall 2002
NOTE: Hardware and software to
equip new campuses are included in
the price of each school.
several years, CISD has been within When will elementary attendance What is ADA and why has $2 mil -
one one percent of enrollment projec- zones change? lion been added to this bond elec-
- l tions. The district plans to have a minor tion for ADA improvements?
Q♦ zone change when the ADA is the American Disabilities Act,
'l
) go A
a
Is it true Intermediate #3 and
Middle School #2 will be built on
the same property?
Yes. The district owns 37 acres of
land on the west side of South
Kimball near 1709. These facilities
will be separate buildings, with
shared parking. Extensive drainage
and site work is included in the price
of these schools.
Carroll H.S. Activity Building
Includes construction of a 225 foot by 190
foot activity building with storage area.
Provides additional space for physical
education classes, band, drill team, and
athletic practices. Also allows for the
addition of a wrestling program.
Proposed Completion:
Fall 2000
Capital Improvements/ADA
This item includes major maintenance for
replacement of air conditioning units,
roofing and flooring, as well as, parking lot
resurfacing districtwide. Also includes
money for bringing facilities into compliance
with the American Disabilities Act.
Proposed Completion:
Fall 2002
Wasn't the fifth elementary origi-
nally planned to be built on
Peytonville Ave.?
Yes. New demographic information
received Oct. 19 showed the need
for the next elementary to be built
in the southeast area of the district.
Based on the district's proposed
neighborhood feeder school sys-
tem, a middle school on the
Peytonville property would be in-
cluded in the 2002 bond election.
How is the district addressing our
immediate need for elementary
classroom space?
Portable buildings will be placed at
each elementary for the 1999-2000
school year. After the September
How does Carroll ISD determine bond election failed, the Board ap-
Rockenbaugh addition opens in the
fall of 2000, relieving overcrowding
at Carroll Elementary. When el-
ementary #5 opens in the fall of
2001, all elementary attendance
zones will be realigned to balance
out school enrollments.
What other new schools will be
needed according to the CISD
Growth Management Plan?
There will be two additional cam-
puses needed in the 2002 bond
election - a third middle school (pro-
posed for the Peytonville property)
and a sixth elementary school (pro-
posed for school -owned property
near Kirkwood addition). Construc-
tion would begin in 2004, with an
opening date of fall 2006.
which requires school districts to
provide access to district facilities
and playgrounds for disabled stu-
dents. This past fall, the district com-
pleted an ADA audit of district facili-
ties. The $2 million will provide fund-
ing to bring CISD in compliance with
AnA Onnrlwric
Aren't the new school facilities in
ADA compliance?
Yes. The $2 million will be used to
bring the district's older campuses
such as Carroll Intermediate into
compliance. Monies are also in-
cluded to address elementary and
intermediate playgrounds.
What happened to the $2 million
Durham cafeteria addition in -
where and when new schools will
proved a 10-classroom addition to
cluded in the September elec-
be built?
Rockenbaugh Elementary School
What projects are included in the
tion?
Demographic reports are conducted
using $2 million from the $6 million
$2 million capital improvements
An independent consultant was
annually, with ongoing consultation
remaining from the 1996 bond elec-
line item?
hired to review Durham cafeteria
from financial advisors and con-
tion. This addition will be ready in
An undesignated capital improve-
operations. The findings did not sup-
struction management representa-
the fall of 2000 and will help pro-
ments amount is included in each
port an addition to that cafeteria.
tives, Schools are implemented into
vide additional classroom space for
bond election to pay for unantici-
The district will address space and
the district's Growth Management
elementary grades until the district's
pated replacement or repairs to the
management concerns by including
Plan based on demographic projec-
fifth elementary can be built at the
district's heating and air condition-
an additional serving line (cost -
tions and debt capacity. The past
Carroll and Continental property.
ing units and/or roofs.
$200,000) in this bond package.
5
proposition 4D Facts
Proposition Q could bring an end
to district's stadium safety concerns
There's little question that Car-
roll ISD has a stadium problem. In
fact, community input following the
failed September bond election re-
vealed that most citizens agree that
something has to be done. Where
they disagree; however, is what to
do about it.
"We've studied this thing for sev-
eral years now," said Superinten-
dent Dr. Ted Gillum. "People ques-
tioned the cost, the location, the
size, even our priorities, but for me,
it all comes down to one thing -
safety.
"I believe the current Dragon
Stadium is a very serious safety
concern for this district. We've got
to do something before someone
gets seriously injured," he added.
"Our stadium is used by thousands
of local residents and school chil-
dren each year. We don't have
enough parking, seating, restrooms
or concessions to accommodate the
crowds."
Some local citizens who op-
posed the issue admitted they had
never been to a game at Dragon
Stadium. In fact, several who spoke
out in public meetings were not
aware that the stadium is currently
located at Carroll Middle School.
Built in 1981, the current sta-
dium seats about 3,500.On a given
night, more than 400 high school
students participate in band,
cheedeading, football, drill team and
other related activities. That doesn't
take into account the hundreds of
"This stadium issue
has been very divisive
in the community. It is
time we solve this
problem by providing
an adequate facility for
our students."
- Superintendent Dr. Ted Gillum
high school and younger students
who are there as spectators.
Attendance at high school foot-
ball games in districts the size of
Carroll is averaging 6,500-8,500
people. Nearby Grapevine-Col-
leyville ISD, which serves two 4A
high schools, recently passed a
bond election which included a $7.4
million line item to increase their
6,500-seat stadium to 10,000 seats.
Originally, Carroll's stadium
committee, comprised of about 30
local citizens, visited area stadiums
and researched costs and designs
during a four -month period. That
committee recommended a con-
crete stadium with 8,000-10,000
seats.
In the September election, a
9,000-seat half concrete, half metal
stadium was priced out at $17 mil-
lion. Most voters, however, believed
the cost was too high.
"We reduced the number of
seats to 7,500 to get the cost down,"
said Dr. Gillum. "We even gave citi-
zens the opportunity to support a
$10 million renovation of the current
stadium, but they rejected that pro-
posal because of traffic and access
concerns.
"We've listened," said Dr. Gillum.
"Citizens agreed we have a prob-
lem. They wanted this item in a
separate proposition; we've done
that. They wanted the cost down;
we've done that. This stadium issue
has been very divisive in the com-
munity. It is time we solve this prob-
lem by providing an adequate facil-
ity for our students."
Proposition 2
7,500-seat
Multipurpose Stadium
constructed
on school -owned
42-acre site on
S. Kimball Ave.
$14,600,000
PROJEUDETAILS • PROJECT DETAILS
1* Construction of a 7,500-seat stadium on 42 acres at South Kimball Avenue near
the proposed extensions of Kimball and Continental
I* Natural turf field would be included in the base bid, with an alternate for an
artificial field
l* Construction of concrete home stands (5,000 seats)
1* Construction of metal visitor stands (2,500 seats)
I* Construction of concession stands and restrooms for home and visitor sides
'1* Construction of locker room facilities, including training rooms, equipment
storage and laundry areas
Can I vote on this item sepa-
rately?
Yes. As requested by citizens, this
is a stand-alone proposition on the
ballot.
Why do we need a new stadium?
The current stadium has a 3,500
seat capacity. There are limited
restroom facilities and concession
stands to service the crowds. Park-
ing is limited, and most students
stand during the course of the
games. School officials are faced
with serious crowd control safety is-
sues during home games. A large
population of CISD voters said in
recent surveys that something must
be done to correct this problem.
Why not just renovate the exist-
ing stadium?
Local citizens indicated they would
not support the renovation of the
current Dragon Stadium, a $10 mil-
lion option. They cited negative im-
pact on the residential neighbor-
hood and poor site access as their
reasons. This option is only avail-
able if the current middle school
campus is not used as a school.
Citizens clearly said they want CMS
renovated as a school.
When was the current Dragon
Stadium built?
Dragon Stadium was built in 1981
when Carroll ISD had about 215
high school students. This year,
high school enrollment surpassed
1,600. We now have more students
involved in the high school band
program than were enrolled in the
entire high school at the time this
facility was constructed.
dium?
Students involved in band,
cheerleading, drill team, football and
soccer will utilize this facility. If the
bid alternative for artificial turf is ac-
cepted, the stadium could be utilized
for city youth leagues.
How often would the stadium be
used?
This depends on which surface is
chosen. Officials estimate this facil-
ity could be used as many as 200
nights a year.
How much will the stadium cost?
Estimated cost is $14.6 million.
What if bids come in higher than
$14.6 million?
Trustees can reject them and rebid
the project.
How did the district reduce the
$17 million cost from the Septem-
ber election?
The stadium was reduced in size
from 9,000 seats to 7,500 seats.
This, in turn, reduced the required
parking spaces.
Why is a track not included in the
proposed stadium ?
It would have increased the cost of
this project significantly. A new track
was constructed at the junior high.
What is the average attendance
Who uses a multipurpose sta- I
at a 4A H.S. football game?
6,500-8,500 spectators.
42-acre school -owned site on South
Kimball Avenue near the proposed
extension of Kimball and Continen-
Shouldn't we decide the one or tal.
two high school issue before we
build a stadium?
No. This stadium would serve all
4,000 Carroll High School students
regardless of whether they are in
two 9-12 high schools or in a 9/10
and 11/12 split. Carroll ISD will be
5A regardless of the grade configu-
ration. Even if, by chance, Carroll
had two 4A high schools, we would
need a stadium of this size. Grape-
vine-Colleyville serves as a perfect
example.
What will this facility look like?
This proposal calls for a concrete
home stands (5,000 seats) with
metal visitor stands (2,500 seats).
Alternate bids will be requested for
concrete parking, artificial turf and
all -concrete seating. These options
may be chosen by Trustees if bids
come in under the projected $14.6
million.
What would happen to Dragon
Stadium?
Carroll ISD would continue to utilize
Dragon Stadium for middle school
games and for track competitions.
Where will this facility be con-
structed?
The stadium would be located on a
By Comparison...
Why was this site chosen?
It is zoned light industrial and would
have minimal impact on residential
neighborhoods. It provides the nec-
essary room for a future expansion
and would be constructed adjacent
to the district's new transportation
center. Three major access points
would be available for traffic flow by
the time this facility is completed. It
also provides a neutral site if the dis-
trict goes to two high schools.
Is this the same property where
you are building the next middle
school and intermediate school?
No. The district owns the 42-acre
site proposed for the stadium and
transportation facility. The district
also owns 37 acres on the west side
of South Kimball near 1709. The 37-
acre site was selected for the
schools.
What about access to the 42-
acres?
By the time the stadium is complete
(2001), this site will have three ma-
jor access points. In addition,
Crooked Lane would be used as a
fourth "Exit Only" for emergency ve-
hicles.
More questions? Call 329-7732.
School District
Stadium
Capacity
Plano ISD
Clark Field
14,224
Carrollton/FB ISD
Standridge Stadium
13,000
Birdville ISD
Under construction
12,000
Richardson ISD
Eagle/Mustang Field
10,925
HEB ISD
Pennington Field
10,500
Grapevine-Colleyville
Mustang/Panther Field
10,000
Lewisville ISD
Goldsmith Stadium
9,500
Richardson ISD
Wildcat/Ram Field
9,176
Highland Park ISD
Highlander Stadium
8,500
Carroll ISD Prop. 2
Proposed Stadium
7 500
Coppell ISD
Cowboy Stadium
6,000
Keller ISD
Keller Athletic Complex
6,000
Carroll ISD
Dragon Stadium
3,500
Grapevine-Colleyville voters approved an expansion from 6,500 to 10,000 seats September 26. Coppell
voters will decide the fate of a bond package to increase from 6, 000 to 10, 000 seats March 13.
Proposed Stadium Plans - 42 acres on S. Kimball,
I �tSwQ W e
■``r,T r-3 - j O 4
E
A - 5,000 Scat Concrete
Home Side
B - 2,500 Seat Metal
Visitor's Side
C - Parking for 1,500 Cars
D - Bus Parking
E - Expansion Area
F - Drainage & Utility Easement
G - Field House & Locker Rooms
H - Concession Stands & Restrooms
Beluw Bleachers
I - Landscape Buffer
J - Emergency Exit Only
Kim ba-1 o�E.Xtentio
Proposition Q Facts
Proposition Q would build aquatics
center for school district, city programs
Proposition 3 of Carroll ISD's
proposed March 6 bond election
may have the biggest impact on
daily community life in Southlake
and west Grapevine.
School officials are asking vot-
ers to consider a $5.5 million aquat-
ics center that would most likely be
utilized more by citizens than stu-
dents. The facility would be open to
Carroll ISD residents for programs
from water tots, scuba diving and
aerobics to rehabilitation and
therapy classes.
"We would certainly use this fa-
cility for students involved in our
swimming and diving programs and
for physical education courses," said
Superintendent Dr. Ted Gillum. "This
aquatics center would be for the en-
tire community. We anticipate it
would be utilized by young and old
alike from early morning hours until
well after the sun sets each night."
School and city officials have
been discussing the possibility of
city participation in funding for the
aquatics center. Regardless, com-
munity programs will be offered in
the indoor facility.
"If the City decides to contribute
money toward the cost of this facil-
ity, it would become a joint use fa-
cility," said Dr. Gillum. "If they de-
cide against that, community pro-
grams would still be offered, and the
school district would manage the
programs and collect the revenue."
Dr. Gillum said school officials
met extensively with the managers
Proposition 3
Aquatics Center
on 3.5 acres adjacent
to Carroll High School
"This aquatics center would be for the entire
community. We anticipate it will be used by
young and old alike from early morning hours
until well after the sun sets each night."
$5,500,000 -Superintendent Dr. Ted Gillum
and users of the Grapevine -Col- "The 50-meter pool can be di- cials say the aquatics center is ex-
leyville ISD aquatics center. Al- vided into two 25-meter pools," said pected to generate revenue.
though Grapevine's facility has a 25- Dr. Gillum. "Having a 50-meter pool Grapevine-Colleyville collects
meter swimming pool, officials there will provide us the opportunity to rent about $100,000 from their facility an -
say they now wish they had a 50- the facility to colleges and universi- nually. Numerous school districts
meter pool. ties for competitions." School offi- and swim leagues rent lanes daily.
PROJEUDETAILS • PROJEUDETAILS
Project Description:
• Eight lanes
• 50-meter swimming pool
• 25 meter warm-up pool
• 1.5 and 3 meter springboard diving
boards
• seating for 700 spectators
• dressing facilities
• restrooms
• office/storage area
Location:
3.5 acre site adjacent to east side of Carroll
High School campus
Growth Plan:
Provides swimming facility for current CISD
programs and possible expansion of current
physical education courses. It would also be
made available for city-wide programs
Exterior Design:
Brick color and building height would
compliment Carroll High School
Proposed Completion:
Fall 2001
Why has the name of this facility
changed since the September
election?
Citizens told us they were more fa-
miliar with the term aquatics center
rather than the term natatorium.
Where would the aquatics center
be located?
The facility would be constructed on
3.5 acres of land adjacent to the
northeast side of Carroll High
School.
How much would it cost?
The aquatics center is estimated to
cost $5.5 million.
When would it be completed?
The proposed completion date for
this facility is the fall of 2001.
How big would the facility be?
The facility would include a 50-
meter pool, with a 25-meter warm-
up pool. A divider can be used in
the 50-meter pool to provide two 25-
meter pools. In addition, the facility
would include two one -meter spring
diving boards and one three -meter
spring diving board. The cost also
includes dressing facilities, locker
space, offices and seating for 700
spectators.
Would there be platform diving?
No. This was considered, but to add
the necessary pool depth and build-
ing height required for platform div-
ing, the cost of the facility would
have doubled.
How many students are involved
in the Carroll swim team?
Currently, there are about 66 stu-
dents involved in this program,
which is growing annually.
Where do these students cur-
rently swim?
Carroll ISD rents lanes from Grape-
vine-Colleyville ISD at a cost of
$14,000 a year. Students access the
Grapevine pool as early as 5 a.m.
on school days for practice.
How does the school plan to uti-
lize this facility?
The aquatics center would be used
for district swimming and diving
teams, in additional to physical edu-
cation swimming courses. The rest
of the time would be set aside for
community programs.
What other school districts oper-
ate natatoriums?
Carrollton -Farmer's Branch,
Lewisville, Grapevine-Colleyville,
Highland Park and Hurst -Euless -
Bedford each have a swim facility.
Would this facility be available to
local citizens?
Yes. The community would have
access to programs in this facility
such as youth swimming classes,
water aerobics, lifesaving courses,
rehabilitation and therapy classes,
water tots, scuba diving and more.
If the city contributes money toward
building the facility, it would be a
joint -use program. If not, the school
district would manage the facility
and collect the fees for community
programs.
Would Grapevine citizens resid-
ing in the Carroll ISD have access
to city programs?
Yes. The agreement would be writ-
ten to include access by all CISD
residents.
Will Carroll ISD make any money
off this facility?
Yes. This is expected to be a rev-
enue -generating facility for CISD.
An example is the nearly $100,000
annual revenue reported by the
Grapevine-Colleyville natatorium.
The size of the 50-meter pool will
enable CISD to rent this facility to
area colleges and club swim teams.
Wasn't this facility more expen-
sive in the September election?
Yes. This project was originally $7.5
million because it included an ad-
joining gymnastics gym.
Why was the gymnastics facility
deleted from this project?
District officials decided to delay the
gymnastics portion of the project un-
til the 2002 bond election, thus re-
ducing the cost. The aquatics cen-
ter will be designed to enable Car-
roll ISD to add a gymnastics gym-
nasium in the future.
More Questions? Call 329-7732.
Possible Community Programs
Water Babies/Water Tots
Scuba Lessons
Preschool Swimming
Lifeguard Training
Youth Swimming Lessons
Adult Swimming Lessons
Summer Swim Team
Mother to Be Swim Classes
Junior Water Aerobics
Diving Lessons
Adult Beginner Swim Lessons
Swim Team for Seniors
Water Aerobics
Senior Water Aerobics
Deep Water Aerobics
Fitness Swim for Seniors
Open Lap Swim
Rehabilitation Swim Classes
Water Polo
Adapted Aquatics
Water Safety Instruction
Stroke & Turn Workouts
M
Proposed Aquatics Center - 3.5 acres at Carroll High School
A - 8 Lane 50 1Vleter
Competition Pool
B - Warm Up Pool with Ramps
C - Seating for 700
D - Dressing Facilities
E - Future Gymnastics Facility
F - Additional Parking
G - Existing High School Facilitic
-- -- _ - f --- --- --((
ems.
PI-O aosition 3 - Aquatics Center at CHHS
Stadium and Aquatics Center sketches provided by
Brent Kline
Total Program Management Inc.
More About Bond `99.0 .
eople keep talking about
uildout. What is buildout?
Buildout is a term used to represent
a time (2010-2013) when all of the
land within the Carroll ISD bound-
aries is developed. Our projected
student enrollment at that time is
between 13,000-14,000 students.
What happens if this bond elec-
tion fails?
Carroll ISD grows by more than 600
new students each year. If the dis-
trict is unable to build facilities us-
ing long-term bond debt, portable
classrooms will have to be pur-
chased out of the general operat-
ing budget. Either way, the local tax
rate is affected.
Will we have to use portable
buildings next year?
Yes. The Board's policy is to use
portable classrooms only when nec-
essary on a short-term basis. In light
of our growth and the failed Septem-
ber bond election, citizens in this
community can expect to see por-
table buildings used during the
1999-2000 school year.
Are these buildings rented or pur-
chased?
The district has found that it is more
cost effective to purchase the por-
table classrooms and then resell
them when they are no longer
needed.
What is the cost of one portable
classroom?
The estimated cost is $28,000-
$30,000. It comes out of the same
budget as supplies and teacher
salaries.
How will this election affect tax-
payers over the age of 65?
State law puts a freeze on the
school taxes of residents who are
65 years of age and older if they
apply for an exemption with the
Tarrant County Tax Office.
What is the district's current debt
service tax rate?
Carroll's debt service tax rate is cur-
rently .31 cents per $100 assessed
valuation.
How much of the tax rate is used
for maintenance and operations?
Maintenance and operations ac-
counts for $1.43 of the total tax rate.
When was the last time Carroll
ISD's tax rate increased?
The district has worked hard to de-
liver a high -quality academic pro-
gram while controlling taxes in a dis-
trict which receives more than 90
percent of its income from the local
taxpayer. The Board has maintained
the same tax rate since 1996.
Why does most of the tax burden
fall on the local resident?
Carroll ISD receives little state fund-
ing under the current school finance
laws. In addition, the local tax base
is primarily residential. More com-
mercial development would help
offset the cost to the local home-
owner.
What is a Robinhood district?
The state's school finance laws re-
quire school districts with a property
value above $280,000 per student
to send money to Austin for redistri-
bution to poorer districts. This has
been called the Robinhood Plan by
many. Districts who are "property
wealthy" and must send money to
Austin are called Robinhood dis-
tricts.
Is Carroll ISD a Robinhood dis-
trict?
Not yet. The district's value is cur-
rently about $240,000 per student.
Financial experts agree that Carroll
ISD could become a Robinhood dis-
trict by the year 2001.
Is there any way to keep the
money local?
Yes. Property within a Tax Increment
Finance Zone (TIF) is currently ex-
empt from inclusion in the district's
total value calculation. Participation
in a TIF can help school districts
recapture Robinhood dollars for lo-
cal projects.
11
Is Carroll ISD a part of the City of
Southlake TIF?
Yes. Their level of participation,
however, has not been determined.
Five of the current bond projects are
located within the TIF boundaries.
School official believe that the dis-
trict could recapture as much as $75
million over the life of the TIF.
Is there any danger to participat-
ing?
There could be if school finance
laws change. Therefore, the agree-
ment must contain a clause that re-
pays the district for any funding loss
it might incur.
Serving Carroll ISD...
Mr. Buddy Luce, Board President
Mr. Robert L. Glover, Vice President • Mr. Doug Strickland, Secretary
Mr. Howard Addison • Mr. Robert Flaherty
Dr. Susan Logan • Mr. David T. Yelton
Dr. Ted Gillum
Superintendent
Public Information Office
1201 N. Carroll Ave. • Southlake, TX 76092 • 817-329-7732 • Fax: 329-6285
Visit Us Online .... Virtually Anytime!
www.southlakecarroll.edu
BOND '99 UPDATE
CARROLho
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Early Voting
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Weekdays
February 17-March 2
CISD Administrative Annex
3051 Dove, Grapevine
ONE VISION
ONE VOIC
...FOR CHILDREN
Election Day Voting
7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Saturday, March 6
Johnson Elementary School
1301 N. Carroll Ave., Southlake
Se necesita usted esta informacion en Espanol, por favor llama por telefono al #329-7732.
Carroll Independent School District
1201 N. Carroll Ave.
Southlake, TX 76092
Non -Profit
Organization
U.S. Postage Paid
Grapevine, TX
Permit 108
VISIT OUR WEB SITE AT: www.southlakecarroll.edu
Exhibit C-3
Reinvestment Zone #1, Southlake
Proposed Capital Improvement Program
Phase Four
To be funded with CISD and City of Southlake Contributions Only
Water Utilities $ 900,000.00
Sewer Utilities $ 600,000.00
Streets and Curbs
South Carroll (1709 to Continental)
Brumlow (Continental to State Highway 26)
South Kimball (FM 1709 to State Highway 26)
Buildinas and Facilities
Middle School
Intermediate School
Transportation Facility
Stadium
Ooeratina Costs
Middle School
Intermediate School
Transportation Facility
Stadium
$
2,125,000.00
$
1,875,000.00
$
3,125,000.00
Subtotal infrastructure $
8,625,000.00
$
20,000,000.00
$
13,000,000.00
$
1,500,000.00
$
20,000,000.00
Subtotal Buildings and Facilities $
54,500,000.00
$
400,000.00
$
225,000.00
$
163,000.00
$
600,000.00
Annual Operating Costs $
1,388,000.00
Costs for 20 years $
27,760,000.00
TOTAL $
90,885,000.00
W71,
to
r CA
O
O
Lj r
N
Lh
COD �
O
LO Lo
0)
N O
CD
N
N
Ni
�
to Efl
Cs
O 00
a M
N c
C
CO O
cooM
co
M
3
c
r
O
N
CF)
O CO
C'o
OC m
dS 69
l0 (p
N w
�
In r
E
O
C
V
8
N
N
N r
C
L
C
_ C>D
co �
CD r
C U
M
CU
d9 b4
C Y
O
Ln m
O
ts
N
In m
N
r r
G
U E
CDc
N
Cl) r
M
C
EA fA
to E
pp
O
t
O
O
CV
O
N N
ly
N cc
CCCpp C
O
O
CC C14
U
rn
W
tf>
L
m
CL
n
7
G
n
�a
O m
^
C pCp
n
C
> O CJ
10
n
N
E
Cn
c
d C
y to O
A
A
U
mn
C
7
C
�5 ,
c
o c�
O
Q
G
U-
f�
O
N
~
C G
>
y
CD
N
O
U
(q C
~ 7
>
O
_
O
• U
O co
.0
N
O
o
N
G
3
m
Cn 2
c a
C
m e
C
O
U
c
'00 C.)j
N
m
-
C
O
c
c
-0
Q O
N
to
_IX_0p T
c
p
41 C) t_
<i cn
U a
z
a
a
w EA 613,
W CDv
C.: LO N
tr O LO
C`, Cn CO
m M
T r
w Ei) EA
C r
w 6% to
Cl)CLO
C.- r.- O
dam_ 1r+ N
co a0 N Cn
0
•V--' NO
mO
0M0 't
N
C[t
VMG)
cn
--
00 OD Oto
A rOr
6N
NO
(N N IN IN
d3 613 E13 Ef31 Ni F» 1 4a
� "r . rn �
CA C7 N M r CI)
Ln LO In
LA*j tn
- co aD L M
N N I .- 104
ffl
M
co
V.
to
w to 63
ctr
.4
CO
Oh
ONO^
M
N col i-
co
w 64 to
Efl
V
I�
U-
F
C
I-
C:
LL
P
.O
(p
CD
Y
G d
CO
t LL V
m
y
_
F m N
m
3 E n
�
U �
O aU
o
u c
U
°
Ln (n 0
O
s U U >
6
Y Q
M
° 3 m .5
y
c
D C
O
V
O
u n a
Y
j E E-a
Y
U
G
�;UU�
LU
b9 to 6191691 esiI w
I` O c o "' R C°f
M O V O N w
Co r- CO o CC i tC
Co.
Cfl f` LON
N C3) 00 0o
r In co I C1
N .--
w
co1I o
NII Ln
e» 69 fii 1 H'i bs 140.1 11 w
� � C
CO N
00
Q1
CMO O O
COO CN]
C°Nf
0
Gi CA
CT
P-
M co O
co CA
M
O
I- N
M N
w
tf3 cfi Ef3
tt> ffl
w
w
CO II to
I+1jN
M
co
Co
mcn �
�
C
M CD li
N I( 4
LM
-
00
r
r
�
61� 6c) eOl),I6-3- 6M,Iw11 w
1 U
f0
a
> E
I -
I �
I c
I �
C
>
CV d
w
CO
lL
E
.Y�.
H
d
LL
$
Cu o
r=
C
O
O
U
G
O
w
C
7
U -O
O
.0 N
C
U_
C
C O
U
O
Ol4
Carroll ISD
Anatomy of Recapture
Simplified Computation
Prior Year TAV - (Statutory limit X WADA)
Step 1 = Recapture Premium
Prior Year TAV
Step 2 Recapture Premium X Current Year Tax Collections Recapture Payment
Example for fiscal vear 2001/2002
Prior year TAV $ 2,559,802,277
Statutory Limit $ 295,000
WADA 7,936
Current Year Collections $ 41,726,972
Step 1 Computation of
Recapture Payment 8.54%
Step 2 Recapture Payment $ 3,563,314 This number is further reduced by
by efficiency credits determined by
the manner in which the contribution
is managed by the district and TEA
•
W
C
�
�
o
'%w v
•
NI
CD
O
C�4
•
W
e
0
J
CA
C
n
0
w
m
•
•
ow
71-99
W
•
y
N
wo
he
0
O
0
.7
a
C
IdD
•
•
n
o ••
CD
CD
0
v� CCD
CU O
C-DCD
15
y
CD
CD CD
CD
CD
CD0 CD
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... M..r .
n
i CD
O �
OCD
C
�• CD
H
N
..a
t �\
CD CD CD CD
Cr4
bd � CD
crCD
d y d y
�- Cr Cr C
P7A N
CD 0 n
U �
CD
�'• cry CD
° cn o
d d
CD CD
CD o CD
b
CD
cr
At
�v
�0--
N
CD
CD
o
�
�
N
0
0
............................................
CD
DO
V 1
CD
n
�
O
�
.............................................
C!�
n
O
�
�
O
CD
C
=\
y
N
LM
0
r
0
W
CD
p
CL
CD
d
CD
CD
cr
y
N
LAW
CD
v1
• • • • •
CD O CD O
O
C"
CD�-
c CL CD
� -�
CD
PZ� c r�CD
CD CD vA °CD
CD O CD
cr o e CD
CD
y o o O
��. ID CD
CD
° CA O
O .
CD
CD
o �
CD CD
r.
C7
E47
_R
bo9
J
CJ1
N
a
c
•
•
/OOMO*-N
O
O
C
a
CD
O
•
-1
n
CD
O
C
CD
CL
•
1
pc�
N
CL
C�
CD
•
W
0
CD
0
0
0
o�
0
C
J*016
CITY of SOUTHLAKE
2001 PARKS,
RECREATION
OPEN SPACE
MASTER PLAN
Schrickel, Rolfins and Associates, Inc.
FINAL DRAFT
2001 PARKS, RECREATION &
OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
CITY of SOUTHLAKE
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY SERVICES
400 N. White Chapel
Southlake, Texas 76092
817.481.2374
www.ci.southlake.tx.us
Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc.
. ._......._..
......................__-_... .
1161 Corporate Drive West, Suite 200 Arlington, Texas 76006
817.649.3216 Metro 817.6408212 Fax 817.649.7645
4119
Acknowledgments
City of Southlake
City Council
Rick Stacy, Mayor
Gary Fawks, Mayor Pro Tern
Ronnie Kendall, Deputy Mayor Pro Tern
Rex Potter
Keith Shankland
Greg Standerfer
Patsy Dupre
Parks and Recreation Board
Sherry Berman, Chair Mary Georgia
Chris Miltenberger, Vice Chair Jim Glover
Cara White, Secretary
Southlake Parks Development Corporation
Ronnie Kendall, President Gary Fawks
Rex Potter, Vice President Rick Stacy
Sherry Berman
City Staff
Billy Campbell, City Manager
Shana Yelverton, Asst. City Manager
Kevin Hugman, Dir. of Community Seivices
11
Michael Nelson
Lisa Stokdyk
Tad Stephens
Cara White
Keep Southlake Beautiful volunteer
maintaining the 117aterscape at
Bicentennial Park
4
so
Table of Contents
Resolution of Plan Adoption i
Acknowledgments
ii
1.
Introduction
■ Purpose
1.1
■ Previous Parks and Recreation Master Planning
1.1
■ Goals and Objectives
1.2
2.
Community Profile
■ History
2.1
■ Circulation
2.2
■ Physical Features and Development
2.3
■ Demographics
2.4
3.
The Planning Process
■ Planning Period
3.1
■ Park Board Meetings
3.1
■ SPIN Meetings
3.2
■ Survey of Recreational Attitudes
3.3
■ Survey of Adult and Youth Recreational Facility Attitudes
3.7
4.
Park and Recreational Resources
■ City Park Land and Open Space
4.2
■ City Recreational Facilities
4.3
■ Joint Use Facilities
4.4
■ Subdivision Facilities
4.5
■ Park Support Facilities
4.6
■ Major Nearby Recreational Facilities
4.7
5.
Standards and Concepts
■ Land Standards by Park Type
5.2
■ Recreational Facility Standards
5.3
■ Topographic Considerations
5.5
■ Discussion of Park Classifications
5.6
■ Recreational Facility Guidelines
5.11
■ Park Service Areas
5.14
iii
0
6. Needs Assessments
■ Discussion of Methodology 6.1
■ Park Land and Open Space Needs 6.3
■ Recreational Facility Needs 6.4
7. Priorities and Recommendations
■ Park Land and Recreational Facility Priorities 7.1
■ Park Site Improvements 7.2
■ Other Park and Recreational Facilities 7.9
8. Implementation
■ Conceptual Site Plans 8.1
■ Game Athletic Facilities 8.1
■ Environmental and Open Space Preservation 8.2
■ Financial Resources 8.3
■ Updating the Master Plan 8.4
Bibliography
Appendix
■ Appendix A Project Priorities 15-39
■ Appendix B 1 Questionnaire: Survey of Recreational Attitudes
■ Appendix B2 Questionnaires: Survey of Adult and Youth Recreational
Facilities Attitudes
■ Appendix C Aerial Photographs
List of Illustrations
Plate 1. Existing Conditions and Resources
Plate 2. Park and Recreation Master Plan
Plate 3. Open Space and Environmental Preservation
Master Plan
Site Master Plans
Figure 1. Bicentennial Park
Figure 2. Bob Jones Park
Site Conceptual Plans
Figure 2a.
Bob Jones Park - Tucker Property
Figure 2b.
Bob Jones Park - Farhat Property
Figure 3.
Chesapeake Park
Figure 4.
Lonesome Dove Park
Figure 5.
Noble Oaks Park
Figure 6.
Royal and Annie Smith Park
Figure 7.
Sheltonwood Park
iv
Following 4.7
Following 6.4
Following 6.4
Following 7.9
Following 7.9
M
W6
1. Introduction
Our mission is to respond to the articulated needs of Southlake citizens
through efficient harmonious programs, facilities and open spaces which
optimize neighborhood and community life.
Parks and Rara%6m Board Missicn Statmmnu
Purpose
The purpose of this plan is to provide a guide for land acquisition and recreational
facility development for the City of Southlake. The plan is based on recognized park
planning principles and guidelines and reflects input from citizens, park board, City
staff, and City Council. The Southlake Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master
Plan is a tool that will aid both staff and elected officials in providing recreational
facilities to the Citizens of Southlake in an orderly and economical way. The plan
will help the city make the most of its financial resources including leveraging them
to increase their value.
Although this plan anticipates land and facility needs through build -out of the city, it
should be updated periodically to reflect accomplishments and changing needs and
priorities. The Southlake City Charter requires that, as a required element of the City
of Southlake Comprehensive Plan, the park plan must be updated every four years.
This plan has been prepared to meet the guidelines for park and recreation system
master plans set forth by Texas Parks & Wildlife (TP&V�. TP&W provides a variety
of matching grant programs, and approved plans enhance an applicant's chances of
qualifying for matching grants for the implementation of projects.
Previous Parks and Recreation Master Planning
A review of earlier planning projects shows that the City's park plans and
accomplishments mirror Southlake's rapid growth during the preceding decade. The
Southlake Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan adopted in 1996 has been
updated as follows:
1.1
INTIRODucnON
City of Southlake Parks, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan
January, 1992
This was the City's first attempt to look at park and recreation resources in a
comprehensive manner. At that time, the city's population was around 8,000, and the
city owned 14 acres of park land, all in Bicentennial Park The City's build -out
population was projected to be more than 48,000, one-third more than the current
projection. The recommended park acreage was six to ten acres per 1,000
population, which would have yielded 289 to 483 acres at build -out. Schrickel,
Rollins and Associates, Inc. of Arlington prepared the plan.
City of Southlake Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
Updated and Adopted November 19, 1996
This plan updated land and facility inventory, planning and design criteria, plan
recommendations and implementation sections of the original plan. The focus of
the update was "on the preservation, development or enhancement of attributes
important to reflect the native condition of the North Texas landscape that attracted
residents to the community." By this time, Bicentennial Park had been expanded to
forty-one acres and two neighborhood parks, Koalaty (5 acres) and Lonesome Dove
(8 acres), had been acquired. Purchase of 131 acres of land for Bob Jones Park was
contemplated. A park and recreation citizens survey was designed and administered
by Glass & Associates. The park and open space standard was raised to 21 acres
per 1,000 residents, almost double the regional standard. The update was
prepared by the City of Southlake staff.
The following goals and objectives, adopted with the 1996 plan, have been updated:
Goals & Objectives
GOAL ONE. Conserve and enhance Southlake's remaining natural resources to
maintain the City's environmental health and quality of life.
Objectives. Negotiate with the development communityto preserve natural
features within floodplains and wooded uplands.
• Negotiate with the development community to provide for public access to
natural features within floodplains and wooded uplands.
• Market the community wide benefits of conserving the natural resources and
enhancing the assets of Lake Grapevine.
1.2
GOAL TWO. Develop a system of improvements and programs that provides a
wide range of park and recreational opportunities to meet the diverse recreational
needs of Southlake's citizens.
Objectives
• Purchase and/or lease park land suitable for the development of active
recreational improvements and activities.
• Purchase and/or lease park land suitable for open space preservation and
passive recreational opportunities.
• Develop and continuously improve, expand and update recreational
programming.
• Ensure the development of facilities sensitive to the needs of physically and
mentally disabled park users.
• Develop and maintain an active program for updating and refining the
Southlake park and recreation master planning process.
• Update and improve outdated and/or substandard improvements and sites to
increase their usefulness to the community.
GOAL THREE. Provide for the involvement of the general public and educational
and business communities in the planning, design, and development of the park and
recreation system.
Objectives
• Solicit public and private input through surveys, workshops, ad hoc
committees and public meetings.
• Enlist public and private assistance with facility development by creating a
mechanism for encouraging and organizing volunteerism
• Educate the community as to the state of its park and recreation system by
ri publicizing its opportunities and deficiencies.
GOAL FOUR. Provide facilities and programs that are accessible to people of all
physical abilities.
Objectives
• Survey existing facilities to assure that they are in compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
1.3
INIRODUCIION
• Bring facilities into compliance as needed.
• Assure that all newly constructed facilities are in compliance with the ADA.
GOAL FIVE. Maintain all playgrounds in compliance with the playground
standards of the Consumer Products Safety Commission.
Objectives
• Establish/maintain a program to inspect playgrounds for safety issues.
• Replace equipment as it becomes outdated.
Adventure A119,pla}'ground at Bicentennial Park
INTRODUCTION
a
9d
ig
2. Community Profile
The "vast canvas of land and trees where the Grand Prairie and the Cross Timbers
merge" that met Southlake's first European settlers is being engulfed by rooftops in
one of Tarrant County's fastest growing communities. Yet the city and its citizens are
making extraordinary efforts to preserve the open space that has drawn settlers since
the community's beginning. They have set a goal to preserve eleven acres of open
space per 1,000 population in addition to the ten acres of land per 1,000 population
to be set aside for public parks.
Southlake has 14,650 acres (about 23 square miles) within the city limits of which 57
percent is developed. It is not anticipated that the city can expand its present
municipal boundaries. Southlake is bordered by Westlake, Keller, Colleyville,
Trophy Club and Grapevine.
History
Three key events propelled Southlake's growth from a rural farming community to a
thriving suburb:
■ In 1952 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (C.O.E) built Lake Grapevine for
water supply, flood control, and recreational opportunities. The lake forms
most of the city's northern boundary, and the adjacent 700 acres will remain
open space. (The city currently leases 218 acres.) Much of this area is used for
equestrian activities, and pedestrians also use the informal trails.
■ The Dallas -Fort Worth International Airport opened in 1974 near the city's
eastern boundary. Professionals working for the airlines and airport
management have found appropriate housing close to work in Southlake. The
65Ldn and 75Ldn noise contours associated with the airport's northwest
runway impact the city on a northwest/southeast diagonal, paralleling and
crossing SH 114. Current airport practice favors landing aircraft in this
2.1
M
GOMMLNITY PROFILE
corridor, so the higher noise level of departing aircraft is an unusual event.
Currently none of the City's parks are located within the noise contours.
■ In the early 90s, water and sewer lines in the southern portion of the city were
completed.' Recent development patterns reflect the availability of utility
services.
The Carroll Independent School District was formed in 1919 from the consolidation
of Lonesome Dove, White's Chapel, and Sam's Schoolhouse schools, and serves all
of Southlake except for the area west of Davis Blvd. (Keller I.S.D.) Keller I.S.D. has
one school, Florence Elementary, and an undeveloped site in Southlake. The
southeast corner, generally east of South Kimball and south of SH 114 is served by
the Grapevine - Colleyville I.S.D. Also, Northwest I.D.D. encompasses the area
north of the Tarrant/Denton County Line.
Circulation
The city's rapid expansion is putting pressure on its thoroughfares. During the 1990s
FM 1709 was upgraded to a six -lane boulevard, and freeway construction was
underway on SH 114 at the time this document was published. Most of Southlake's
other arterials are scheduled to be upgraded including White Chapel, which serves
Carroll Junior High, Bicentennial and Bob Jones parks. These two parks have the
city's heavily used athletic facilities. The traffic capacity of adjacent arterials and
collectors will be an important factor in locating future community park facilities.
A trail plan to provide pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout Southlake was
developed simultaneously with this Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan.
The trails will link with existing and future parks and the existing walks along Byron
Nelson Pkwy. and Continental Blvd.
'City of Southlake Intemet Web Site, www.a.southlake.mus, 2000.
2.2
to
r6
COMMUNI` Y PROFILE
Physical Features and Development
Grapevine Lake forms the city's northern edge, and, together with its permanently
dedicated open space, is Southlake's principal natural feature. Several streams border
and cross Southlake's gently rolling landscape. I<irkxvood Branch and Dove Creek
drain the northern half of the city, and flow into the lake. There is some potential for
linear park development along these two streams. (Please refer to Plate 3.) Big Bear
Creek and its tributaries drain the city's southern half Unfortunately, private
development precludes public park or open space dedication along this stream.
Southlake's development is dominated by single family houses, but commercial
development is proliferating along Southlake Blvd. (FNI 1709) and SH 114.
Noteworthy is the "neo-traditional" Town Center project with the new Southlake
City Hall and "village green" with gazebo, square and pond. The city has enacted
strong development standards for such construction, ranging from tree preservation
and landscaping requirements to building form and exterior materials. These
standards are contributing to the high quality environment the citizens of Southlake
seek.
In spite of all of the development, the city's goal remains to maintain a "high quality
of life and small town charm that has been preserved from Southlake's past."
Southlake'.r fuueaful new Town Center liar rapidl}! become
the ci!� s focal point.
2.3
COMMUNITY PROFILE
Demographics
The following tables and narrative reflect Southlake's population and its
characteristics and the city's growth rate. Data was furnished by the City of
Southlake.
Table 2.1
City of Southlake
Historical Population
Year
Population
Compounded
Annual Growth Rate
1990' j
7,065
---
1991,r*
7,130
1%
1992'*-"
7,990
12%
1993"
8,900
11%
1994" *
10,850
22%
1995**
13,350
j 23%
1996''^'
14,950
12%
1997'' '
16,850
13%
1998'''' 19,250
14%
1999'''" 21,050
9%
Source: U.S. Census
Source: NCTCOG January 1 adopted current year estimates.
The annual population estimates in Table 2.1 are based on building permitting and
occupancy data and they represent Southlake's population history from the 1990
Census through the most recent current year estimate for January 1, 1999. The 2000
census showed that Southlake was one of the fastest growing cities in the
region, 205% since 1990 with a population of 21,519.
There are several methods for projecting population growth based on historical
population data and on other industry -accepted modeling. The "logistic" growth
curve is deemed to be the best fit for projecting Southlake's population. It is an
"S-shaped" curve which denotes a period of historic slow growth (from 1974-1990),
followed by a sharp growth rate increase (from 1991-present), followed by a period
of decreasing growth rates as the city reaches its ultimate population. An important
function and built-in "reasonableness" factor of the logistic curve is that this
2.4
10
rM
K
COMMUNITY PROFILE
mathematical function assumes an upper growth limit. This adjusts the population
growth to fit the amount of land available for this use.
Another necessary function of the ten-year population projections is to equate
population figures to housing units. Based on the NCTCOG figures of 3.51 persons
per household and a 95.4 percent occupancy rate for Southlake, the number of
additional dwelling units each year can also be calculated. These figures are
�+�► represented in Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2
Ten-year Population Projections
Using Logistic Function
City of Southlake
Year
i
Population
% Annual
Pop. Increase
Housing Units
1999
1 21,050
9%"
6,321
2000
23,190
8%
6,957
2001
25,000
7%
7,500
2002
26,630
5%
7,989
2003
1 28,070
4%
8,421
2004
j 29,310
4%
8,793
2005
30,370
3%
9,111
2006
i 31,250
2%
9,375
2007
31,980
2%
9,594
2008
32,580
1%
9,774
2009
33,060
1%
9,918
" Using 1998-1999 increase.
General Population and Housing Characteristics: 1999
This information was compiled by projecting the characteristics of Southlake from
the 1990 Census to the estimated 21,050 January 1, 1999 population. Therefore,
most of the following numbers ARE EXTRAPOLATIONS and should be used as
such.
2.5
Table 2.3
Population by Age Group
TOTAL POPULATION
21,050
SEX
Male
10,744
Female
10,306
AGE
Under 5 years
1,257
5 to 17 years
5,029
18 to 20 years
801
21 to 24 years
718
25 to 44 years
7,267
45 to 54 years
3,349
55 to 59 years
945
60 to 64 years
1 593
65 to 74 years
739
75 to 84 years
301
85 years and over
51
Under 18 years
6,287
i
65 years and over
1,090
Table 2.4
Population by Race
RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN OF HOUSEHOLDER
Occupied housing units
6,030
White
5,892
Black
39
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut
40
Asian or Pacific Islander
13
Other race
41
Hispanic origin of any race
117
CONMUNITY PROFILE
2.6
1
di
Table 2.5
1999 Estimated Households by Income
$150,000 or more
16.00%
$100,000 to $149,000
19.97%
$75,000 to $99,999
14.73%
$50,000 to $74,999
22.53%
$35,000 to $49,999
9.45%
$25,000 to $34,999
6.80%
$15,000 to $24,999
4.60%
$5,000 to $14,999
4.04%
Under $5,000
1.89%
COMMUI iTY PROFILE
2.7
3. The Planning Process
Public involvement is a critical element of the park planning process. The ultimate
success of a park master plan hinges on the identification and incorporation of
customer needs and wants that are representative of the population the plan intends
to assist. The discovery of issues important to local citizens ultimately results in a
master plan document that provides a greater advantage for the future planning
efforts of the city staff and councils.
Planning Period
The planning process for the City qf Sotitblake 2000 Parks, Rwwtion and Open Space
Master Plan began January 14, 2000, with a meeting of city staff and consultants
working on several simultaneous planning projects, which included a citywide trail
plan (reflected on the park plan) and a Traffic Management Bond (TMB) program
addressing transportation needs.
City staff supplied maps, population data, descriptive information on the city, and
land and facilities inventories. 'Me consultant, Schrickel, Rollins and Associates,
collated the data, organized the information, prepared maps, and together with staff
and citizens developed standards, needs assessment and priorities.
Plan drafts were prepared for staff, park board and council review. The staff and
consultant met several times to refine various aspects of the plan.
At a city council meeting and public hearing , the Southlake
City Council adopted the plan by resolution.
Park Board Meetings
On August 14', 2000, city staff and consultants attended a public park board
meeting to discuss parks and recreation issues, the Bicentennial Park master plan,
3.1
THE PLANNING PRocESS
and to deliver a progress report on the completion of the master plan document.
Following are some comments made during the course of the meeting:
Park board members were interested in what surrounding communities were
doing with respect to a community recreation center. Grapevine, Hurst,
Irving, Arlington, and Carrollton's community centers were all mentioned in
the discussion.
The final draft was presented to a Park Board meeting and public hearing on March
19, 2001.
SPIN Meetings
The SPIN (Southlake Program for the Involvement of Neighborhoods)' groups
gathered twice to hear presentations by City of Southlake staff and consulting firm
representatives and contribute their ideas and concerns. Citywide postcard mailings,
signs and city publications notified citizens of the meetings. Fifty-one residents
attended the September 7 and September 13, 2000, meetings and shared their master
plan ideas with the staff and consultants.
Following is a list of key points mentioned at both meetings:
Requests were made for more playground locations close to athletic fields so
parents could more easily supervise both younger and older children using the
different facilities.
Residents are concerned with the intensity of activities taking place at
Bicentennial Park and potential traffic and noise problems immediately
adjacent to the park
It was recommended that a large multipurpose facility be placed in the
southern half of the city to reduce the intensity of use of Bicentennial Park
'SPIN was created in 1993 by the City Council "to facilitate two-way communication between
Southlake neighborhoods and city government." The committee includes 16 neighborhood representatives
and a senior citizen delegate.
3.2
0
T�E PLANNING PROCESS
• A suggestion was made to take full advantage of utility and drainage easements
as opportunities for parks and trails.
• Park users would like to see more shade trees planted.
• A suggestion was made for smaller neighborhood parks scattered throughout
the city with just one or two practice fields for sports play.
• Citizens wanted to see development of .R-. Smith Park occur quickly as
promised upon the sale of the property to Southlake Park Development
Corporation.
Survey of Recreational Attitudes
A detailed public opinion survey of recreational attitudes of Southlake residents was
made by Raymond Turco & Associates, and the data from this survey has been
incorporated into the needs assessment and priorities outlined in this document. A
copy of the questionnaire is included in the Appendix.
Survey Methodology
Over an eight -day period in April 2000, the Turco firm conducted telephone
interviews with 402 Southlake residents. The sample was constructed using a
geographical segmentation scheme that divided the study region into three areas
(please refer to map in Appendix), and then combined into a single result. The
responses of the randomly selected respondents are considered to mirror those of a
poll of all residents with the chance of variance at plus or minus five percent. The
complete survey report with further discussion of its accuracy level is available in the
Southlake Community Services Department office.
Summary ofKey Fln&ngs
Note: Because of the nature of many of the survey questions, responses will not
always total 100 percent.
3.3
General Recreational Attitudes in Southlake
• Quality of recreation in the community
❑
38% Verysatisfied
❑
53% Satisfied
❑
6% Dissatisfied
❑
0% Very dissatisfied
❑
2% No opinion
Quality of Parks and Recreation System
screed
• Favorite recreational hobby or sport
❑ Walking/jogging/hiking (17%)
❑ Tennis (11%)
❑ Golf (11%)
❑ Soccer (70/6)
❑ Baseball (6%)
❑ Swimming and boating (5%)
❑ Water sports (5%) City Facilities Available for Favorite Hobby or Sport?
Outside City
Don't Know
1%
T�E PLANNING PROCESS
3.4
0"
THE PLANNING PROCESS
• Most popular activities mentioned by residents who went to a city park
❑ Take kids to play (61%)
❑ Walk/hike (53%)
❑ Organized sports (42%)
❑ Picnic (36%) and organized sports (32%). Thirteen percent of the people
sampled acknowledged generally not going to parks.
• Recreational Needs Assessment and Quality Ratings
❑ Visited a city park or facility in the last 12 months (84%)
❑ Participated in a city event (66%)
❑ Visited or used a city athletic field (64%)
❑ Used a bike or pedestrian path (53%)
Conversely, survey participants were at least likely to have participated in an adult
athletic league or utilized an equestrian trial (both 15%) or visited a Corps of
Engineer park (21%).
Respondents Likely to Use City Facilities
Very Likely
63%
Likely
22%
No Opinion
4%
Very Unlikely
4%
kely
yo
• From a list of 12 general recreation items, residents were most satisfied
❑ With the quality of recreational facilities (91%)
❑ Number of programs and overall recreation program (both 89%)
❑ Quality of programs offered (87%)
❑ Number of facilities (85%)
3.5
TIE PLANNING PROCESS
By comparison, satisfaction was lowest regarding
❑ Availability of hike and bike trails (57%)
❑ Items impacted by higher no opinion responses: number of baseball
fields (62%, with 24% no opinion), number of softball fields (59%, 29%)
and number of soccer fields (55%, 29%).
Most important outdoor recreational facilities to construct (from a
comprehensive listing of potential recreational facilities)
❑ Multi -use trails (86%)
❑ Playgrounds (82%)
❑ Picnic areas (81%)
❑ Pavilions or shelters (71%)
❑ Off-road/BMX trails (63%)
❑ Practice soccer fields (60%)
❑ Exercise stations along trails (60%)
❑ Fishing piers (60%)
❑ Water park with pools and water activities (60%)
❑ Tennis courts (35%)
❑ Horseshoe pits (34%)
❑ Disc golf course (41%)
The most important outdoor recreational facility to construct
❑ Selected multi -use trails (22%)
❑ Water park with pools and water activities (16%)
❑ Playgrounds (8%)
Level of satisfaction with components (number, location, quality, safety) of
general recreation
❑ Safety of parks (94%)
❑ Maintenance of parks (90%)
❑ Overall quality of city parks (89%)
❑ Variety of recreational facilities within parks (84%)
❑ Maintenance of athletic fields (83%)
❑ Quality of athletic fields (82%)
❑ Number of parks (81%)
❑ Quality of hike and bike trails (55%)
❑ Number of athletic fields (67%)
❑ Athletic fields conveniently located (71%)
More than 3 of 4 either supported (45%) or strongly supported (33%) using
city tax dollars to upgrade school property for use as neighborhood parks and
3.6
1�-ffi PLANNING PROCESS
practice areas. By comparison, 18% opposed the concept, including 6% who
strongly opposed the use of tax dollars.
• Multi -use trails (43%) and playgrounds (40%) were twice as popular as
other items that respondents would definitely want a park in their area of
Southlake to include. Additional answers generated from this open-
ended question were picnic areas (20%), and open grassy
areas/landscaping (18%).
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Youth Athletic Leagues Participation
Soccer easeoa. Get. SoMbal Tennis �, I rF � •� Saseketbal
Survey of Adult and Youth Recreational Facilities Attitudes
A detailed public opinion recreation survey of Southlake residents was made by
Raymond Turco & Associates and the data from this survey has been incorporated
into the needs assessment and priorities outlined in this document. The focus of
this survey was on the recreational needs of teens and adults with reference to
planned indoor recreational facilities. A copy of the questionnaire is included in
the Appendix.
3.7
1)-f PLANNING PROCESS
Survey Methodology
The survey targeted 400 adults and 417 youth between the ages of 11-18. Each
group was asked similar questions and each group's results were compiled separately.
Telephone interviewing for the adult survey took place June 26 - July 10, 2000.
Interviewing for the youth survey was conducted August 7 - 20, 2000. For the adult
survey, three primary subsectors were assigned quotas proportional to the number of
households with available telephone numbers.
Regarding the youth survey, the six primary grades were also assigned quotas
proportional to the number of Southlake students at those particular grades in the
1999-2000 school year at the following ISD's: Southlake-Carroll, Grapevine-
Colleyville, and Keller. However, the total number of surveys was weighted to
accurately reflect the appropriate grade level. Both surveys have a random sample
size of over 400 respondents and are accurate to within 5% at the 95% confidence
level. The complete survey report with further discussion of its accuracy level is
available in the Community Services Office.
Key Findings
Note: Responses will not always total 100%.
General Recreational Attitudes
More than 6 out of 10 persons interviewed acknowledged voting in the
1999 school bond election (65%), as well as the 1999 city council race
(62%). Those percentages were significantly higher than the group admitting
to having voted in the 1998 city council races (49%).
Youth in Southlake were most satisfied with recreation services provided to
youth in their age group (13-18), more so than adults.
Three most popular recreational facilities adults would like to see
constructed by the city of Southlake
❑ Aquatic center/pool (26%)
❑ Recreation center (19%)
❑ Trails
Students prioritized a recreation center (23%), followed by teen center (19%)
and aquatic center/pool (14%).
TI-IE PLANNING PROCESS
Necessity of construction of an indoor recreation center
❑ Adults necessary or very necessary (76%)
• Youth rated it necessary or very necessary (90%)
❑ Adults and youth, respectively, rated it unnecessary (16%, 9%)
❑ Adults and youth, respectively, rated very unnecessary. (5%, 0%)
Note that 30% of both groups rated the center very necessary.
Indoor recreational needs of adults generally fulfilled at
❑ Private clubs (49%)
❑ Schools (34%)
❑ Church facilities (28%)
Indoor needs of youth generally fulfilled at
❑ Schools (51%)
❑ Their house or a friend's house (44%)
❑ Split between private clubs and city facilities (28%)
❑ Three out of five adult respondents (61%) and more than one-half (51%)
of students acknowledged having visited a recreation center in another
city. Of the 243 adults and 207 youth who visited such a center
respondents were most complimentary about variety of programs (36%
and 41%). The second most popular response among both groups was
nice facilities/equipment, although students (16% and 31%) mentioned it
significantly more often.
Recreation Center Components and Programs
When asked to give a spontaneous comment on the 3 most popular
activities in a recreation center, adults would like to be able to
participate in
❑ Basketball (35%)
❑ Aerobics/exercise (33%)
❑ Swimming (32%)
The most popular youth activities mentioned were basketball (50%), swimming
(32%) and soccer (18%).
From a list of 20 possible activities they or their family would participate
in at a new recreation center adult respondents listed
❑ Fitness and aerobics (78%)
❑ Jogging/walking around on an indoor track (72%)
❑ Recreational classes (72%)
❑ Attending community meetings (71%)
3.9
THE PLANNING PROCEss
Student responses to the same question included
❑ Activities geared toward teens (85%)
❑ Lifting weights/cardio equipment (82%)
❑ Swimming (81%), rock climbing (80%)
❑ Jogging/walking around on an indoor track (75%)
❑ Indoor basketball (72%)
Adults were most supportive of (from a comprehensive listing of 21
potential recreational components)
❑ A recreation center exercise/aerobics room and space for teen activities
(both 90%)
❑ Weight/cardiovascular room (85%)
❑ Racquetball courts and indoor jogging track (both 82%)
❑ Meeting rooms (81%)
❑ Game rooms, with pool tables, and table tennis (80%)
The components most strongly supported by youth were
❑ Basketball courts (97%)
❑ Game room, space for teen activities and stage area for concerts (each
96%)
❑ Leisure pool (95%)
❑ Rock climbing wall (92%)
❑ Exercise/aerobics room, kitchen/snack bar and exercise/lap pool (each
91%)
❑ Indoor jogging track (90%)
More than 9 of 10 students admitted being likely (34%) or very likely
(61%) for themselves or their families to use a recreation center if
constructed.
Regarding teen center location statements, adults were in agreement that the
needs of youth in Southlake would best be met by teen activities as part of the
recreation center, but with a separate entrance (71%), or by teen activities in a
designated area or on a designated evening (69%).
Teens most often agreed that the needs would be best met by teen activities as
part of the recreation center, but with a separate entrance (79%), by a teen
center constructed as a stand-alone facility (73%) and by teen activities
included in a designated area or evening (72%).
3.10
a
W
TFtr: PLANNING PIZOCES$
• Three of 5 adult respondents either supported (46%) or strongly supported
(15%) the construction of a teen center, based on an estimated cost of $1
million. However, support declined to 45''0 when informed that construction
of the teen center could delay construction of the recreation center a few years.
Regarding construction based on an estimated cost, strong support was similar
to strong opposition (15%-13%). However, the delayed construction
statement led respondents to be more strongly opposed than strongly
supportive (22%-90//o).
Bob Jonex Park clean up
V
do
4. Park and Recreational Resources
Tables 4.1 through 4.5 inventory Southlake's park and recreation resources and
provide the basis for assessing the city's present and future quantitative needs. City -
owned land and recreational facilities are listed in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.
Additional information on individual parks can be found in Section 7. Table 4.4 lists
support facilities in each park — non -recreational but necessary to the function of
these sites.
Carroll I.S.D. "joint use" facilities are shown on Table 4.3. Although these are
available to the public at various times, school use has priority. Because these
facilities are not consistently open to use by the general public, they are not included
in the needs assessments in Section 6.
Cooperative agreements between cities and school districts are fairly common in
north Texas. Where they exist, they raise the level of service for the facilities
included in any agreement. They can reduce the need for duplicate expenditures by
two agencies. Such agreements could be part of the implementation of this plan,
again reducing the need for certain additional facilities.
Although no joint use agreements exist with the many private subdivision parks
(Table 4.5 and Plate 1), these sites provide significant recreational opportunities as
neighborhood park facilities. They are conveniently located within populous
neighborhoods so as to relieve the city of providing these facilities (Refer to Plate 1).
These facilities, since not open to use by the general public, are not included in the
existing public park inventory.
Trail at Koalah• Park
4.1
PARK AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
sios00
O O
pasUa'j - pulal aDvsfl O c 4
stVI°.i, Pu�'i paunao-r:�
u,o��.•
aJq�S/00 Ln
POOA%3jJ'- ,-� I.� v
,n
Lri
3ijIsd Ja3j0�
cn
-
Vr
NJL',j pOOMUO)13gS
O
O
s3jJsd aJlenbS umo j,
N
o
0
31173d aAOQ aulOsauO'I
z
O
ri
O
Lri
O
00
3ijud g'ItuS 'v 'g
z
N
.Mr
N
en
31JC,j a3jiaadvsag:)
Z
M
00
O
ri
M
3IJEd s3je0 ajgoN
I
z
Ln
Ln
xJ�a 'wejrOx
z
vi
In
31JBd SaaO f gOg
C7
O
O
N-
O
O
�
"+
N
3fird jriuua;uaatg
O
�
O
K
O
O
H
o
x
bQ��H
h
X o
0
V
O ir, .--,
> 00 Lri vi
M 1-4
Cl)
O O O ON
00 M O 4
M
M O ir) N
N Ln Lri O
Ln O --
M
00
d'
Table 4.2
Park and
Recreational
Facility Inventory]
�
Oq
�
�,
O�
z
�,
v
o
M
i
P-4
C
Amphitheater
1
I
1
Batting Cage Stall
6
j 6
Baseball Diamond
Practice
2
3
2
7
Game - lighted
71
1
1
7
Game - unlighted
0
Basketball Court (Outdoor)
3
3
Bench
!
5
1 6
33
44
Community Center
0
Creek/River
1
1
2
Fishing Pier/Dock
1
1
2
Horseshoe Court
l
1
Inline Hockey Rink (lighted)
1
1
Lacrosse Field
i
0
Nature Center (Bldg)
Pavilion
51
2
1
1 l
9
Picnic Shelter
61
4
10
Picnic Table
28
8
8
3
j 47
Playground
1
1
1
1
4
Pond (Acres)
1 (2)
2 (9)
1 (4)
1 (0)
1 (1)
6 (16)
Senior Center
1
1
Soccer Field
Practice
6
6
Game - lighted
0
Game - unlighted
13
13
Softball Diamond
Practice
3
2
!
5
Game - lighted
3
3
Game - unlighted
0
Tennis Center with Pro Shop
1
1
Tennis Courts
15
j 15
Trail, Hiking / Equestrian (miles)'
1
j
1
Trailhead, Equestrian
2
j
2
Trail, Nature (soft or interpretive)
0.5
0.5
Trail, Paved (miles)
1
2
0.4
( 3.4
Sand Volleyball Court
0
0
' An additional 4.6 miles exist on the Corps property.
4.3
Joint Use
Facilities
CREATIONAL FACILITIES
ivity Room
eball Diamond (Practice)
ketball Court (Outdoor)
Exercise Room
Football Field (:
line Hockey Rink
-reation Center/G
yen Field
:cer Field (Practice
T FACILITIES
'Lighted
C.I.S.D. - Southlake
b
01
�
v
w
E
Y
o
^�
0
U
A
9
U
U
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Other
U
7
.S;
U
b
'w"
y
c a
tv b
tC
Y
Cn C7
1`
0
Park and Recreation Resources 4.4
saiiiesJaA
k
�
1
k
i
�
�
i
i
uO.I muIZ
k
k
�C
ICI
1
�C
�CI�C
�CI�Cjk
�
�IkIk
i
�C
axe -I Jaqui. j,
spoolA axeiulnoS
x
Saxe -I auols
K
k
k
K
k
K
k
k
K
?c
Saxe -I a2ppynos
x
uol2uiuxag
k
k
;D;)Jl 31e0
mopeaw sj;)f.N
i
oiiaapuow
�'�
i x
!
I 1w,
lsaia axed I
�c
ezei j Armaleg
k
uoTutu O(l
32PIll umoi:)
tiluanO:)
��
i
I
jxjXi
aaeld a�puquie�
k
sc
k
x
uoilippv suiepv
k
73
0
,o
0
0
w
o
?
o
72
v
°Aa0'i�
caaaCgAa�ac°�v
HE°HU�,w��
4.5
Table 4.51
1
j
Park Support
-�
j
Facilities i
1
ILIa
w6.
a4w14.1
fA
tuI'��
o
�l
Z
U
a
!�'UjvlTotals
Concession Building
21
1
I
i
3
Parking (paved) Spaces
5401
560
1
10
1 401
20
'
!
i
1 J 82
Parking (unpaved) Spaces
701
60
1 121
1I
i 142
Trailer/Recreational Vehicles (## of spaces)
24
i
!
24
Water Feature (fountain)
1
11
1
j
j
;
3
Restroom Facilities
3
2
j
S
M.
PARK AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
Major Nearby Recreational Facilities
Keller
Keller Sports Complex. South of FM1709 (Golden Triangle Boulevard), west of
US377 (Main Street).
Bear Creek Park Bear Creek Parkway east of US377(Main Street)
Sky Creek Ranch Golf Club. Bear Creek Parkway near the southwest corner of
Southlake.
Colleyville
City Park Bransford Road between SH26 and the DART rail line. Athletic
Facilities.
Colleyville Community Center. 5300 Bluebonnet Dr. Meeting and event facility.
Grapevine
Meadowmere Park North Kimball Drive. Soccer/football fields, boat launch,
beach.
Oak Grove Park Dove Loop Rd. & Park Road # 1. Athletic fields, hike and bike
trail, large pavilion.
Dove park 1509 Hood Lane. Swimming Pool, tennis courts, play equipment.
4.7
5. Standards and Concepts =:
The acreage and facility standards in this plan reflect local needs and trends, NRPA
standards, demand levels in Southlake, comparative data from other Metroplex cities,
and the consultant's experience and observations in twenty-eight years of park
planning and design, primarily in north central Texas.
In a recent publication, the NRPA notes
...a shift in planning from the traditional project or comprehensive master
plan to the more strategic planning process which provides a wider range of
opportunities for citizens to become active stakeholders in their community
and more involved in the decision -making process.
Community involvement in this plan is described in Section 3 of this document.
Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show park acreage and facility standards for Southlake.
Southlake Tennis Center at Bicentennial Park
90
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
Land Standards by Park Type
Based on Southlake's local needs and the desires of the citizens, this plan
recommends Southlake's standard be 21 acres per 1,000 residents, almost double the
regional average. This standard is justified because of the high value that Southlake's
residents give open space and the unique opportunity Southlake has with nearly 700
acres of open space dedicated to the public by the Corps of Engineers around Lake
Grapevine. The average standard for park land in the Metroplex is 11 acres per 1,000
residents.
The standard for open space, first presented in the 1996 plan, means that 50 percent
of the park land in Southlake will be managed as undeveloped open space for natural
and wildlife benefits. Only trails and other low impact development will be allowed
in designated open space.
Table 5.1
City Park Land
and,
Open Space
Acreage
NRPA Service'
Southlake
Park User per 1000
Size
Recreational Area Type
Radius/Size
Service Radius
Focus Residents
j (Acres)
Neighborhood Parks
1/2 to 1 mile
Families 2.0
5 to 10
1/ mi., 2,500 SF -
Playground Only
1 acre
' Subdivision
Children j
Up to 1
Parks with School
Varies/Variable
1h mile
Children
3 to 5
Community Parks
1h - 3 mi./30-50
3/a - 1 mile
Youth/Adults 4.0
20 - 50
Parks with School
NA/NA
1 mile
Youth
10 - 20
Entire
Community/
QtyParks
50-75 Ac.
Entire City
I Family/Group 3.0
50 up
Variable/
Special Use Parks
Variable
Entire City
Varies NA
Varies
Linear Parks
NA/NA
Entire City
Individuals 1.0
! Varies
Open Space
NA/NA
Entire Qty
Famil /Grou /Adult 11
Varies
'James D. Mertes, Ph. D., et. al., Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Standards, 1996, National Recreation and Park Association.
5.2
STANDARDS AND GONC EPTS
Table 5.2
Recreational
Facility Standards
(Standards are based on units per
population)
NRPA
Southlake
Standards
1996'
Service radius and
Location Notes
j
1983"
Amphitheater----
----
1:25,000
Aquatics Center
15 to 30 minutes travel time
1:20,000 I
1:35,000
Batting Cage (Stall)
----
----
1:4,000
Baseball Diamond (Practice)
! ----'
----
1:2,250
Baseball Diamond (Game - lighted)'
1/a - 112 mile. Part of neighborhood
complex. Lighted fields part of
community complex.
1:5,000
1:3,600
i
Baseball Diamond (Game)
1/ - 1/2 mile. Part of neighborhood
complex. Lighted fields part of
community complex.
1:5,000
1:3,600
Basketball Court (Outdoor)
1/ - 1/2 mile. Outdoor courts in
neighborhood/community parks,
plus active recreation areas in other
park settings.
1:5,000
1:5,000
Bench
----
----
i 1:500
Community Center
----
----
1:35,000
Fishing Pier/Dock
----
----
1:10,000
Horseshoe Court
----
----
1:10,000
Inline Hockey Rink (lighted)'
----
----
1:25,000
Lacrosse Field
----
----
1:10,000
Nature Center (Bldg)
----
----
1:40,000
Pavilion
----
----
1:2,500
Picnic Shelter
----
----
1:3,000
Picnic Table
----
----
1:500
Playground
----
----
1:4,000
Senior Center
----
----
1:35,000
Soccer Field (Practice)
----3
1:10,000
1:2,500
'James D. Mertes, et. al., Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines, 1996, National Recreation and Park Association.
Z Roger.A. Lancaster, Ed., Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, 1983, National Recreation and Park Association.
3 NRPA Standards do not distinguish between practice and game fields.
' NRPA Standards do not include lighting for outdoor sports facilities.
5.3
STANDARDS AND CONC UTS
Soccer Field (Game)
1 - 2 miles. Number of units
1:10,000
1:1,500
depends on popularity. Youth
popularity. Youth soccer on smaller
i
fields adjacent to fields orl
neighborhood parks.
I
Soccer Field (Game - lighted)'
11 - 2 miles. Number of units
; 1:10,000
1:2,800
depends on popularity. Youth
popularity. Youth soccer on smaller
fields adjacent to fields or
neighborhood parks.
i
Softball Diamond (Practice)
----'
1:5,000
1:4,500
Softball Diamond (Game)
1/a - �6 mile. May also be used for
1:5,000
1:9,000
youth baseball.
Softball Diamond (Game - lighted)'
1 1/ - 112 mile. May also be used for
1 1:5,000
1:9,000
youth baseball.
Tennis Center with Pro Shop
---- j
----
1:35,0005
Tennis Courts
1/ - 1h mile. best in batteries of 2 -
1:2,000 I
1:1,500
4. Located in neighborhood/
community park or near school
site.
Trail, Hiking / Equestrian (miles)
----
----
1:10,000
Trailhead, Equestrian
----
----
1:12,000
Trail, Nature (soft or interpretive)
----
----
1:10,000
Trail, Paved (miles)
----
---- !
1:5,000
Sand Volleyball Court'
1/i -1 mile.
1:5,000
1:15,000
' Standard for number of courts is found under "Tennis Courts."
° NRPA's standard is for paved volleyball courts.
NRPA Standards do not distinguish between practice and game fields.
e NRPA Standards do not include lighting for outdoor sports facilities.
5.4
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
Topographic Considerations
Desirable grades for parks with active recreation facilities such as athletic fields,
courts and playgrounds range from one to five percent. Grades exceeding five
percent increase construction costs or limit development. Floodplain and floodway
land is often used for parks; however, no permanent structures can be built in
the floodway (paved trails are an exception). Structures are allowed in the
floodplain beyond the floodway under certain conditions and development
restrictions; therefore only a portion of any park should be in the 100-year
floodplain line, particularly those parks with intensively developed facilities.
Exceptions could be a natural open space preserve or linear park. Although their
grades may exceed five percent, high points and bluffs maybe desirable in certain
parks for overlooks, viewpoints, and hiking trails.
Parks are often built where the land is lower priced — in the floodplain. This is
acceptable, even appropriate for certain types of parks and facilities, but
inappropriate for the majority of urban active park development. Problems
associated with intense park development in floodplains include:
• Building and structural damage to permanent facilities.
• Clean up of debris lodged in fencing, backstops, and other structures
required after every flood.
• Erosion of playing surfaces and undermining of foundations, pads, etc.
• Soggy field conditions which keep facilities out of service after flood
waters recede.
• Repair of damaged athletic field fencing.
• Regrading of athletic fields.
• Removal of silt and sediment deposits.
• Additional chemical treatment to abate weed infestations caused by
floods.
• Floodwater intrusion into the wastewater system.
Land above the floodplain is required for development of the following:
• Athletic complexes and support structures including rest room and
concession building.
• Competitive ball diamonds and soccer and football fields
• Tennis courts
• Picnic pavilions
5.5
STANDARDS AND GoNcEPTS
Swimming pools and aquatics centers
Recreation centers
Land within the floodplain is suitable for development of the following:
• Linear parks
• Multipurpose trails
• Nature study areas
• Dedicated open space for passive use
Discussion of Park Classifications
Park sites and their facilities are classified in Southlake as neighborhood, community,
city, special purpose and linear. The multipurpose function of certain parks is
possible with the overlapping of facilities as noted below.
The Neighborhood Park
The neighborhood park is frequently considered to be the backbone of a municipal
park system. A gently sloped, semi -wooded, upland site is the most appropriate
setting for a neighborhood park It can be the focal point of the neighborhood and a
source of pride for the residents. It is the local park that provides an attractive open
space within easy walking or biking distance. Playgrounds for preschool and
elementary -school -age children are the basic neighborhood park facility. Above all
else, the neighborhood park should be a place of fun and relaxation for the entire
f amily.
Size and Location
The standard size of a neighborhood park is five to ten acres. If adjacent to an
elementary school, the park should be at least three acres. If the park exists
independently of the school, ten acres is recommended. In Southlake, public
neighborhood parks are typically in excess of five acres. In an ideal location the
neighborhood park will serve residents within a one-half to two-thirds mile radius of
the park and be connected to or be a part of a linkage park system. In many cities,
neighborhood parks are frequently given less emphasis in favor of larger
multipurpose facilities. Small neighborhood parks present many problems: their
limited acreage makes it impossible to provide needed facilities and they are
significantly more expensive to maintain.
5.6
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
Community, city and linear parks can provide some of the neighborhood park
services as do existing elementary schools. Actual neighborhood park acreage at
build -out will probably fall below the guidelines. The critical issue is that each
residential area have access to neighborhood park facilities.
Typical Facilities for Neighborhood Parks
• Playgrounds with resilient play surfaces, perimeter edging, play structures and
seating areas. It is vital that these facilities meet current ADAS , CPSC6 , and
IPEMA' guidelines.
• Level, open spaces for team practice and neighborhood pick-up games.
• Multipurpose courts for basketball, volleyball and tennis.
• Picnic areas with tables, cooking grills and litter receptacles.
• Landscape development and beautification including color beds, screening,
shade, benches, sidewalks, signage, and security lighting.
• Other facilities may include drinking fountains, small picnic shelters,
multipurpose paved jogging trails, and a small parking lot.
Lonesome Dove Park is an example of a developed neighborhood park in Southlake.
The Community Park
The typical community park serves several neighborhoods located within
approximately 1-1h miles of the park. It provides more specialized and elaborate
facilities than the neighborhood park Most users reach this park by automobile. The
community park can also provide neighborhood park amenities for neighborhoods
immediately adjacent to it.
A primary function of the park is to provide facilities for organized, competitive
sports such as tennis, soccer, football, softball, volleyball, and baseball. Such facilities
require a fairly open, upland site of adequate size and gentle gradient. Lighted athletic
fields and parking areas should be sited for minimum disturbance to any adjacent
residential areas.
5Americans With Disabilities Act
6Consumer Product Safety Commission
International Playground Equipment Manufacturers Association
5.7
STANDARDS AND GoNCEP B
Size and Location
The size of the community park ranges from twenty to fifty acres. The community
park should be located on a thoroughfare so that park traffic does not intrude upon
surrounding neighborhood areas. A desirable location would be adjacent to a middle
school, high school, or church site so that park users could take advantage of the
existing parking areas of these facilities. A community park may also be sited in
combination with larger school athletic sites.
In addition to neighborhood park facilities, community parks typically have the
following:
• Lighted athletic fields and courts that meet competitive standards for baseball,
softball, football, soccer, tennis, basketball and volleyball.
• Large lighted parking areas to serve the athletic fields and courts.
• Group shelters and/or picnic pavilions with tables, cooking grills and litter
receptacles.
• Rest rooms for athletic participants and other park users. These may be free
standing or in association with organized group facilities.
• Drinking fountains, concession buildings, and security lighting.
• Multipurpose trails for jogging, walking, cycling, skating and nature study.
• Other facilities may include a swimming pool, recreation or community
building, or fishing pond.
Southlake currently has no parks classified as community. However, Bob Jones Park
and Bicentennial Park provide certain community park facilities.
The City Park
The city park serves large population segments of the city. It is usually the largest of
the parks in a municipal system. This park may provide spacious natural areas and
specialized attractions such as botanical gardens, historical areas, or geological
features. Sites with a variety of topographic and vegetative conditions are ideal for
city parks, although a high percentage of the acreage in highly developed parks
should be above the floodplain. Neighborhood and community park facilities are
often found within city parks.
Size and Location
The size of a city park ranges from a minimum of fifty acres to 200 acres. Southlake's
city parks range from 72 to 266 acres. Such parks are usually located on sites with
P
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTj
special natural amenities. City parks should be located adjacent to major
thoroughfares in order to accommodate the large numbers of visitors that maybe
expected to arrive by automobile.
Typical Facilities
It is desirable to leave portions of the site in a natural or minimally developed state
for passive recreational uses. In addition to neighborhood and community park
facilities, city parks could include:
• Athletic complexes
• Internal road system and parking facilities
• Viewpoints or overlooks
• Nature trails and interpretative areas
• Equestrian trails and associated facilities
• Pond or lake with fishing pier and boating -canoeing
• Tennis center
• Aquatics center
• Botanical garden or arboretum
• Community center
• Amphitheater
• Recreation center
Bicentennial and Bob Jones Parks are Southlake's two city parks.
The Linear Park
The linear park has great value in a city park system. Such parks introduce corridors
of green into the fabric of urban development. Although they may be very narrow,
their length can provide the appearance of expansive open space particularly when
the long axis of the park parallels a street. They establish links between
neighborhoods, schools, parks and other community facilities. Ideally, these parks
are developed into a comprehensive system that links together all the parks within a
city.
Linear parks usually follow creeks or utility and drainage easements or rights -of -way.
This is the one park category for which floodplain land is acceptable and
appropriate. Such land is undesirable for residential and commercial construction,
and developers are often eager to donate it for park purposes. If a donation of land is
5.9
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
unavailable, the cost of acquiring property for linear parks is usually less per acre
than the cost of acquiring land for a typical neighborhood park.
Size and Location
A linear park has no particular size requirements or limitations, but its shape is
usually long and narrow. It is important that linear parks have adequate street
frontage for public access and sight lines into the park for security. It is
recommended that a minimum of forty percent of any linear park have street
frontage.
Where floodplains and easements are not available, a linkage park can be developed
along existing streets and thoroughfares. A standard five foot sidewalk along the
edge of an existing street can be replaced with a ten -foot path that is pulled away
from the street for added safety and to allow room for additional landscaping.
Significant portions of the floodplain should be protected from development along
designated linear parks in order to provide adequate space for construction, reduce
drainage maintenance problems, and avoid steep gradients that impact use and
maintenance. The floodway should serve only drainage purposes.
Typical Facilities
The addition of permanent recreation facilities in drainage easements and floodplains
is restricted because of the dense vegetation, flood hazard, and the linear nature of
the space. Linear parks are especially suited to activities that are linear in nature, so
the most commonly found improvement is the multipurpose trail. Other facilities
suitable for linear and linkage parks include:
• Landscape development and beautification
• Playgrounds
• Picnic areas
• Carefully planned, low -impact multipurpose athletic practice fields
• Nature trails and centers
• Off-street parking in selected areas
Kirkwood/Sabre linear park areas are examples of public facilities of this type.
Numerous private linear parks exist in Southlake's southern residential
neighborhoods.
5.10
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
The Special Purpose Facility
The special purpose facility is usually limited to one or two uses. It is sized, located,
and developed to best serve its function. Some examples of special facilities are a
multipurpose athletic complex, tennis center, BMX track, aquatic center, arboretum,
golf course, historical site, nature preserve, in -line skating facility and recreation
center. Depending on its function, this park may serve the entire city. When possible,
these parks are located on major thoroughfares.
Acreage standards are dictated by the nature of the facility.
An example of a special purpose facility in Southlake is the Coker property, which is
currently undeveloped. This property was purchased as a potential equestrian linkage
to C.O.E. property.
Recreational Facility Guidelines
Community Centers
These facilities vary widely in size and function. Centers may provide any or all of
the following:
• Spaces for gymnastics, weight training, dance, racquetball, handball, and
basketball.
• Indoor running track
• Meeting rooms
• Banquet hall/large meeting space with stage
• Craft and ceramics rooms
• Dark rooms
• Kitchens
• Game rooms
• Display space
• Lockers and dressing rooms
• Outdoor spaces such as an amphitheater, patio, terrace, gardens, walking paths
• Less frequently, an indoor pool
• Support spaces including entry control, offices, rest rooms, storage, janitor
closets.
5.11
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
Although they are generally operated by municipal parks and recreation departments,
NRPA does not have a guideline for ratio of recreation or community centers to
population. Some cities have adopted a standard of one recreation center for every
25,000 to 50,000 citizens, or one within 2-1h miles of every citizen. Other cities use
the community park service radius standard which projects a community center
within 11h to 2 miles of every resident. These centers are frequently configured as
follows:
■ Community Center
Gathering spaces dominate over recreational spaces in the traditional
community center. It may be used for community -wide garage sales, large and
small meetings, luncheons, banquets, pancake breakfasts, quilt shows, art
exhibits, musical performances, seminars and other similar functions. Its
facilities will likely include all of the above except the sports related facilities. A
community center with banquet space and meeting rooms would require
15,000 - 20,000 square feet. These centers often serve a larger service radius
than the recreation center.
Southlake does not have a community center.
Recreation Center
This center is designed to serve the population mentioned above — generally
the same service area as a community park. It may, in fact, be located in a
community park. It will likely have a gymnasium, work-out space, courts, and
associated facilities. It may also have craft and meeting rooms and a kitchen.
This center would require at least 25,000 to 40,000 square feet. These
groupings of facilities are the standard for modern recreation centers. Such
centers should be distributed throughout the city so as to provide convenient
spaces for programming that will appeal to adjacent population and age
groups.
A study for a recreation/ community center was underway at the time this plan
was published.
Senior Center
This is a specialized recreation/community center designed to appeal to older
citizens. Such a center could include any or all of the facilities listed above,
according to the needs and desires of the community it serves. Accessibility,
5.12
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
comfort, and security are particularly important for this population. Spaces for
dining, exercise, card playing, visiting and crafts will supply the basic needs in a
community center designed for seniors.
Southlake has a senior center located at 307 Parkwood Drive.
Aquatics Facilities
Contemporary trends in municipal aquatics recreation facilities are for multi -activity
centers such as:
Complex of pools including competition pool, practice pool, diving well, and
wading pool with shade shelter, lawn for sunbathing, rest rooms, concessions,
party room, and related support facilities.
Aquatics center including zero -depth entry pool, water slides, interactive water
play, water playground, shade shelters, sand volleyball, pavilion(s), lawn for
sunbathing, rest room -concession building.
These types of centers are more costly to build than the traditional neighborhood
pool, but they attract more users and may generate enough revenue to cover some or
all operating costs.
Indoor pools or natatoriums provide opportunities for all -season use by swim team
members and for fitness and therapeutic programs. These are frequently developed
as joint ventures between cities and school districts such as C.I.S.D. or colleges. The
City has entered into a joint use agreement with C.I.S.D. and provided $1.25 million
toward a natatorium, which is now under construction.
Historic Sites/Parks
National standards do not exist for historic properties within park systems.
Communities develop and use these projects according to availability and demand.
Local examples include pioneer cabins, pioneer cemeteries and the grand houses of
prominent citizens of earlier eras. A structure with historic or architectural
significance can form the focal point of a small park which is usually reserved for
passive uses.
5.13
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
According to the Texas Historical Commission the following are listed as Texas
Historic Sites in Southlake:
Absalom H. Chivers Cemetery, 1300 block N. Carroll
Thomas Easter Cemetery, 2800 block Southlake Blvd.
Lonesome Dove Baptist Church and Cemetery, 2380 Lonesome Dove
White's Chapel United Methodist Church, 185 S. White Chapel
Park Service Areas
Establishment of neighborhood and community park service areas is a means of
assuring equitable distribution of facilities throughout the city. Additionally, when
the number of existing and proposed parks in the service area analysis is multiplied
by the average acreage for that park type, the results should fall within the acreage
guidelines range. This process can confirm the reasonableness of the guidelines.
Neighborhood Park Service Areas
The ideal neighborhood is said to be approximately one mile square (640 acres) with
a population of 3,000 to 7,000. It is defined by major streets and/or physical barriers.
Thus, the radius standard for neighborhood parks is one-half mile, as shown by the
smaller circles on Plate 2. Ideally, a neighborhood has located at its center both an
elementary school and a neighborhood park that have a common boundary.
Since neighborhood parks are designed for families and children, and walking or
bicycling is the desirable way to reach them, no street or thoroughfare in excess of
two lanes should be included within a service area. This, of course, assumes that local
and collector streets within these neighborhoods connect.
Future community, city and linear parks may provide some of the neighborhood
park services as do existing elementary schools. The actual neighborhood park
acreage at build -out will probably fall between the low and high range guidelines.
The critical issue is that each service area have access to neighborhood park facilities.
Community Park Service Areas
Community parks are designed to serve several neighborhoods. The normal service
radius is one to llh miles. The large circles on Plate 2 represent a llh-mile radius.
5.14
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
Because it is assumed that most park users will travel to community parks by
automobile, location of thoroughfares adjacent to these parks is desirable.
The remaining park categories— city, special purpose, and linear— serve the entire
city. An athletic complex may function within a community park service area
depending on the distribution of similar facilities in a city. These variables
demonstrate the flexibility needed in application of the park planning standards and
guidelines.
5.15
ar
do NOTE:
Language proposed to be added to text, per P&Z motion, inserted immediately before the
section titled "Park Service Area" on preceding page 5.14:
"The potential exists to incorporate any number of markers, signs, displays, or other
contextual items within the parks system to commemorate historically significant places,
events or persons relating to the City of Southlake. As part of the park planning process,
any avenues which exist to incorporate these elements will be explored and given a high
priority."
6. Needs Assessments
Discussion of Methodology
The needs assessment compares existing land and facilities in Southlake's park
system with a variety of data in order to determine the city's needs. Texas Parks and
Wildlife has specified the following three approaches as acceptable for park and
recreation plans that meet the department's guidelines. A plan that meets the
guidelines will enhance Southlake's prospects of obtaining matching funds for park
construction.
Standards Based Needs
The standards -based approach uses established standards or guidelines to determne
the amounts of facilities and park areas needed to meet the needs of a given
population size. It is based on a mathematical process that determines the
quantitative requirements for recreational facilities and parkland. The standards may
be based on studies of demand, or the professional judgement of parks and
recreation planners and designers. The guidelines for Southlake in Section 5 are the
standards applied in the needs assessments. The guidelines reflect National Parks and
Recreation Association standards, community demand, and available resources.
Demand Based Needs
The demand -based approach relies on information gathered from participation rates,
surveys, and other information that indicates how much of the population wants
certain types of facilities. Recreational demand in Southlake as expressed in the
Turco Surveys described in Section 3 of this document.
Resource Based Needs
The resource -based approach examines natural and cultural resources of the area for
open space, parks and recreation facilities, and defines how these resources can be
utilized. These include woodlands, wetlands, stream corridors and floodplains,
6.1
NEED,; ASST ss\IENTS
historic sites and cemeteries. Southlake has several creeks, as described in Section 4,
which are the city's primary natural resources.
Needs Assessments
Tables, 6.1 and 6.2 show park land and recreational facility needs for Southlake,
citywide and by service zone, for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and buildout. Baseball,
soccer and softball practice and game fields are listed as independent standards. It is
likely that combinations of game and practice facilities will be used to meet the
overall need, lowering the number total shown for all categories.
Halloween bag decoration for the Parks and Recreation
Department's Spooktacular event.
14
do
4!
do
O
\
1�
O
O
OR
N
.-1
OLr)
14
O
"C 6
—4
4
+
M
M
Qy
y
O
C
O
"
O
O
¢y'
F1
O
6
O
O
G6
en
n
\
Lq
O
Ll
O
w �"
•+
M
O
'
N
M
+
M
M
O M
IN
\
--'
oo
M
V-
Lei
O
Vt
-4
C�
O
N
'
M
cc
en
+
�O
O
fV
en
GN
a,
Z
M
6
�
O
\
00
'
'
a,
00
1.0
v
+
N
N
N Ol
O N
Q
O
Lq
00
O
(�
h
Ln�
00
z
N
N
N
C�
i
I
M
�O
0
L
M
+
O
o0
4•i
g,
c^"1
•N-I
O
N
N
,
O
O N
N
Q
+
O
N a
H
O
O
O�
U 1
Q+
Lq
Lq
N
M
O
ell
OM
Lq
u
O
ono
O n
O
Ln
O y
N
0000zoo
C
g"
N
en
1-4
1-4
H
PL4
c�
v
v
U
�
°
s
o
(214
H H 1 y eC
m
C` od N �O
pqj
0 0 0 0
�c.
0 0 0 o 2a,
aaaaab
W W W W W W
O O O O O O
Uc1L)ju
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
6.3
NEEDS ASSESSNIENf
ra
M
O
' "1
1-
N
.-�
N
M
;
`V'
i
U'1
N
N
U1
V-
•--� (
i
d\ N
.-i -
M
00
N
O
'O
^� M
I
Ov
�
O
1-4�
I
INNe
I-
I
.-
N
I
MI
D I
N
O C7
t^I
i
I00i
I
Ln
Ul
N
N
U'1
00
O I
N
M
d' I
•-+
00 I
Ln•-+
O
u'1
N
O y.y
j
I
I
I
I
i
i
tn
O M
I
.--I
.--I
ON
U'1
O
O
t\
ON
.-I
en
e-r
M
•--'
d'
N
--I
a,10\
•er
• -'
M
N
N
a I
00
�'
.--i
M
N
U'1
M
M
V1
l
4` -; N
N a
-I
rl
. -�
�p
• -�
�D
I
i
M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
00
a`�DDIN,N
ICV
I
IIN
IM
O
r.I
I
t
Ncn
I
0Ml
NM ,
.-+
r-I
00
O�
.--I
M
M
M
'~
.Mti
r-1
00
.-�
N
�N-1
t\
'd'
.-� IN
N
M
M In
"D
IN
W (
i
I
.�-I
N
O I v:
M 6J
o
O
N
t�
en
00
00
'D
O'
�-I
C 1
M
••-I
CM
—4
N
1-I
O
1-I
a\
ul1
1�
r I
N
�
O
N
I
�-+
n
M I
I
en
I
O j
O
1
N
1
l 0
1 C\
N
.-r
P
I envi
I
I
I
N
.-1
e-I
;
r"I
;
N
;
;
N
I N
I N
00
00
O
v^I�U,i
O N
O
O N
"D
O
"D
z
U')
Ln
N
N
r"I
N
r^+
O%
00
tf1
�--I
Ul
DD
Ul
M
i m
N
MIN
M
U,
N
C'
I
N
t a
.-I
O
�D
N
j
O
11,
rn
't
`tl
O
N
j
•"+
r1
O
I
O
"'
r,
'�t
t fit'
I
�D
i Nl
I`�
O
I M
I
O
(
t
I•''I.--il
N
t(1
i0!MI
!�
1 0
00
I
i
I
I
I
I
y
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
Cl
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
OIO
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
1 0
O�O,O
1 0
O
"Y
0
O
0
O
0
O
sn
N
0
�O
ID
O
U'1
0
0
0
0
0
C
-1
O
v1
0
c
U
U1
00
U'L
O
O
O
U'�
C
C
0
0
0
N
vi
N
�i
c!i
.--4
sri
O
O
sri
O
O
N
M
.-i
r
f!1
N
�-+
N
7
CT
�
Ln
n
�--I
O
•--I
N
`"'I
61,K1
•--I
a --I
v7
`'i
Ji
su
�
�
O
�
I �
• �
I a
a �
cam/')
� �
I � •'
I
�a
oEll
p
.
� w
�
�
�
Q
rrs
�.
b
v
I
� 'D
U
��AAA-0
vc�
-AC
c�wwwAAf�did
WE:
�
o
��H
�
I
zI�
o
C�w
�z��
P.l
a
cn
V
cncn
uo
O
cnO
cncn
O
O cn
Hl�-'HtHE-'H
V,
¢aar��r�aaaq
z 6.4
W
7. Priorities and Recommendations
Park Land and Recreational Facility Priorities
The distillation of this park, recreation, and open space planning process - public
opinion surveys, public meetings, staff and park board input, application of national
and local standards, and consultant recommendations - has resulted in the project
priorities shown below. The land acquisition and the recreational facilities listed
represent the earliest projects to be undertaken. The balance of the priority list is
included in Appendix A.
4-1 Southlake currently has no recreation center offering the listed facilities 1 through 7.
40 Items 8 through 14 - a new community park - will fulfill some of the greatest
deficits shown in the Needs Assessment in Section 6. Both projects would be good
candidates for funding assistance through Texas Parks and Wildlife. (Refer to
Section 8 for more information.)
1. Gymnasium/Sport Court
2. Indoor Jogging Track
3. Exercise/Fitness Room
4. Youth Activity Center
5. Classroom
6. Aerobics/Dance Studio
7. Craft Room
8. Community Parkland .Acquisition
9. Soccer Field
10. Baseball Field
11. Softball Field
12. Lacrosse/Football Field
13. Multi -purpose Trail
14. Picnic Station
7.1
0
PRIORITIES AND RECON& ENDATIONS
Park Site Improvements
As a part of this project, the Consultant prepared a detailed master plan for
Bicentennial Park and additions to the Bob Jones Park Master Plan, which had been
prepared by another consultant, (Figures 1 and 2). Currently, these two parks provide
the City's only present and designated future space for athletic game facilities. In
addition, the Consultant prepared conceptual site plans for seven other park sites in
the City's system. Following are comments and suggestions relative to these sites.
Bicentennial Park
Refer to Figure 1
The Bicentennial Master Plan included in this document envisions full build -out of
this park.
Located north of Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), west of White Chapel Blvd. and east
of Shady Oaks Rd., Bicentennial is well-known for its intensely developed athletic
facilities. The park currently offers baseball, softball, T-ball, basketball, in -line
hockey, playground equipment, and the City's Tennis Center.
With the recent acquisition of land to west, adjacent to Shady Oaks Rd., additional
land is available for development of athletic facilities as well as another point of
vehicular access for the park
The Master Plan of Development for Bicentennial Park provides more athletic
facilities to accommodate many users simultaneously. Realignment and
reconfiguration of baseball fields, the addition of a 4-plex for girl's softball play, an
additional T ball field, two sand volleyball courts, an additional in -line hockey
facility, pavilions, restrooms, multi -use trails, additional support facilities, and more
parking are all planned for future development.
Along with the addition of game fields, more efforts are being made to limit the
extent of light and noise trespass into neighboring households to the north and east.
Additional tree plantings are planned to provide shade and screening. Trails, in
conjunction with the Trails Masterplan, are proposed to provide more convenient
pedestrian and bicycle traffic in and through the park The additional trees and trails
will help ease the perceived intensity of the park, and provide a more enjoyable
experience for the recreation users and sport viewers.
7.2
0
r]
A
PRIORITIES AND RECOMMEND 710M
Enhancement of the park entries, particularly on Southlake Blvd., will improve
access and help to provide a sense of arrival to the park Ornamental plantings and
entry signage will lead the development with potentially tree -lined medians and
divided access to help circulate an increased traffic flow also planned.
Bob Jones Park
Refer to Figure 2
The Bob Jones Park plan is an earlier park site master plan with added equestrian
facilities including a trailhead, parking lot suitable for horse trailers, and two animal
pens.
Located in far north Southlake, the park's soccer and ballfields and related facilities
are being planned and built on the west side of the park along North White Chapel
Rd. Less than one-half of this 266-acre park is planned for intense recreational
facility development; the rest is to be preserved as open space. A trail system and
future nature center will make the open space area available to park users.
Tucker Property
Refer to Figure 2a
The 60 acre Tucker property is part of Bob Jones Park (refer to Plate 2) and is
planned for equestrian and other low impact uses. The only street access is from
Walnut (off Bob Jones Rd.). No vehicular access is planned at this time; a trail from
the northwestern section of Bob Jones Park and a trailhead from the Walnut -Brooks
Ct. intersection will provide pedestrian and equestrian access. The Tucker tract is a
rolling savannah that is representative of Southlake's native landscape, and the
projected uses are entirely appropriate for this exceptional tract. Possible facilities
include:
• Trail from Bob Jones Park west section
• Trailhead
• Small Shelter
• Picnic Tables
• Natural Surface Loop Trail
• Connecting Trail through the Corps property to the Farhat site
• Park entry sign
• Distance/Directional Signs on Trails
73
0
PRIORITIES AND REOOMMENDATIONS
Farhat Property
Refer to Figure 2b
The Bob Jones Park Farhat property comprises 32 acres, most of which is heavily
wooded with significant brushy areas. Bob Jones Rd. deadends at the tract's
southern border. Like the Tucker property, it is undeveloped and likely to remain as
preserved open space with a few low impact uses, similar to the Tucker site. Its
proximity to the shore of Lake Grapevine suggests future development of waterfront
activities on the adjacent Corps property. Possible facilities include:
• Small Parking Lot
• Trailhead at Parking Lot
• Connecting Trails to Lake Grapevine Trail and through Corps property to the
Tucker site
• Natural Surface Trails
• Park Entry Sign
• Distance/Directional Signs on Trails
• Picnic Tables
• Fishing Pier on Lake Grapevine
• Picnic Pavilion
Chesapeake Park
Refer to Figure 3.
This eleven -acre park in the southwest corner of the city, on Union Church Rd., was
being developed at the time the plan was completed. The subdivision developer is
constructing the detention/ retention pond, trail, playground, benches, water
fountain, and several parallel parking spaces. Possibilities for further improvement
include:
• Tree Planting. The site is open, so the addition of trees is vital to give the site a
park -like ambiance.
• Benches
• Picnic Stations
• Pavilion
• Security Lighting in shelter and on playground.
• Park Entry Sign/landscapedbed
• Park Rules Sign
7.4
.o
N
PRIORITIES AND RECONINIENDATIONS
Lonesome Dove Park
Refer to Figure 4.
This eight -acre site provides neighborhood park facilities for its adjacent residential
neighborhoods. Existing facilities include a playground, shelter, picnic tables, and
small parking lot. A trail, benches, and planting of additional trees is planned and
will enhance the site, which also has a detention area. Possible additions include:
• Connections to City Trail System
• New Playground Equipment
• Security Lighting
• Park Rules Sign
• Tree Planting
• Park Entry Sign
• Irrigation Expansion
• Practice Areas
Noble Oaks Park
Refer to Figure 5.
This small park benefits from its highly visible location on Continental Blvd. E.,
adjacency to a new C.I.S.D. elementary school, a handsome grove of Post Oak trees,
and a pond that straddles the shared property line with the school. Other than a
small parking lot, the five -acre park is undeveloped. However it is used for practice
soccer games and other informal activities. The pond has potential for teaching,
demonstration, and observation of wetland habitat. Suggested improvements for the
park include:
• Multi -purpose Trail
• Connections to City Trail System and School Grounds
• Small Shelter at Pond Edge
• Security Lighting in Shelter
• Benches
• Picnic Stations
• Practice Areas
• Addition of Aquatic Plants and Animals to Pond
• Park Rules Sign
• Park Entry Sign
• Irrigation System
7.5
0,
e!
PRIORITIES AND REDOMMENDATIONS 41
66
A playground is not recommended for this neighborhood park because of the
availability of play equipment at the adjacent elementary school.
Royal and Annie Smith Park
Refer to Figure 6.
The undeveloped thirteen -acre Smith park is an old home site with fine old trees and
remnants of its earlier agricultural uses. It has significant topography that drops
away from Johnson Road. The large trees provide shade on the northern part of the
site; the southern portion, which is gently sloping, is mostly open. Adjoining to the
west is the Florence Elementary School, a property of the Keller I.S.D. This site is
one of the city-I.S.D. joint use properties, so the two sites will share the play
equipment presently located on the school grounds. Facilities could include:
• Preserve site features including wells and masonry wall.
• Multi -purpose Trail
• Interpretive Signage - Cultural and Nature
• Benches
• Picnic Shelter
• Picnic Tables
• Pioneer Demonstration Garden
• Practice Baseball/Softball Field
• Practice Soccer Field
• Two Tennis Courts
• Trail Connections to School and City -Wide Trail System
• Security Lighting
• Parking Area
• Irrigation
• Park Entry Sign
• Park Rules Sign
Sheltonwood Park
Refer to Figure 7.
The Sheltonwood site is a heavily wooded former "gathering spot" site with a
pavilion, pool, cabana, and sun deck, which are old and in poor condition.
Disposition of these facilities was in question at the time this document was
completed. In keeping with its location in a residential neighborhood and the City's
policy of preserving Open Space, this park is slated for "passive" improvements.
Facilities could include:
W
14
do
PRIORITIES AND REoc)mNIENDAnom
IT • Natural Surface Trails
Benches
• Picnic Stations
• Park Entry Sign
• Park Rules Sign
Connection to City Trail System
• Security Lighting
• Parking Area
Addition of a small, "naturalistic" playground would be appropriate for the site and
would make Sheltonwood a true neighborhood park in a part of the City where
neighborhood park facilities are very limited.
No conceptual plans were prepared for the following sites, the smallest in the
Southlake System
Koalaty Park
Refer to Figure C1 in the Appendix.
This six -acre site is located on Continental Blvd. between the Country Walk
Subdivision and Carroll Elementary School (Carroll I.S.D.). Most of the site is open
and gently sloping, but there is a thick grove of native trees along the site's southern
edge (and extends onto school property). Its facilities consist of four unlighted
practice fields. It is also a joint use site, so users may use the school parking and
playground equipment. Additional facilities might include:
• Benches and Picnic Tables, particularly along the northern edge of the grove.
• Nature Trail on park and school property that includes the riparian habitat of
Big Bear Creek.
• Interpretive Signage on Trail
• Trees along Continental
• Park Entry Signage
• Irrigation
a
7.7
P
PRIORITIES AND REQONaIENDATIONS
Coker Property
Refer to Figure C2 in the Appendix.
In northeast Southlake, this undeveloped four -and -one -half -acre tract straddles the
Southlake-Grapevine boundary at the southeast corner of Lonesome Dove and
Foxfire Rd. It is heavily wooded with canopy and understory trees and brush. The
Dove Creek Floodplain crosses the property and the site has a small pond. The City
classifies it as a special purpose park. Trailhead development on this site could
provide a connection between Southlake and Meadowmere Park on the shore of
Lake Grapevine. Grapevine leases the 160-acre park from the Corps of Engineers.
Suggested improvements include:
• Small Parking Lot (About 6 cars)
• Park Entry Sign
• Park Rules Sign
• Directional Signage
• Bike Rack
• Picnic Tables
• Benches
• Security Lighting
• Trail Connections
• Potential Equestrian Trailhead
A small playground might be accommodated in this park. If the Coker site is
developed, selective clearing of understory vegetation would improve its security,
visibility, and utility.
Kirkwood/Sabre Linear Park Areas
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 linear park, and it connects to
other linear parks throughout the Kirkwood/Sabre area.
Rustin/Family Park
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/bandshell, 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.
PRIORITIES AND REcomNENDATIONS
Other Park and Recreational Facilities
Most of the following facilities have not been included in the Needs Assessment or
in
the recommendations above, but they are features of many American parks and
might be of future interest to the citizens of Southlake.
•0
Shuffleboard
a Community Gardens
•
Horseshoes
0 C hildren's Garden
•
Bocce Ball
0 Botanical Garden
•
Croquet Green
Sculpture Garden
•
Rugby
0 Sculpture and Art in Parks
•
Field Hockey
a Murals
rl0
Lacrosse
0 Interpretive Signage: Nature,
•
Disc Golf
I-istorical, Cultural
`0
Model Airplane Runway
0 Group Pavilion (event rental)
rr0
Dog Park
0 Mechanical Batting Cage
•
Restaurant in a Park
0 Interactive Play Fountain
•
Memorial Groves and Gardens
a Family Aquatics Center/Leisure
•
Demonstration Garden
Pool(s)
(Xeriscape, Wildlife Habitat,
0 Exercise Stations
Water, Butterfly, Sensory,
0 BMX & Mountain Biking Facilities
+r
Pioneer)
a Skate Park
Plate 3 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 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:
• Natural Surface Trails 0 Bench
• Fishing Pier 0 Picnic Table
• Canoe Launch 0 Wetland, Natural or Restored
• Small amphitheater a Interpretive Trail
• Pond 0 Boardwalk
• Bird -watching Blind 0 Small Pavilion
7.9
0
8. Implementation
This section outlines some special considerations for implementing the 2001 Parks
Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. Implementation of the projects described
would help eradicate existing deficits in athletic fields, tennis courts, trail miles, and
picnic facilities. (Plate 2 illustrates existing and proposed parks and recreation areas.)
Conceptual Site Plans
The conceptual park site plans and facility lists in Section 7 suggest ideas for
development and improvement of these tracts. As conceptual plans they show
logical development of these parks to meet some of the Cit}/s recreational facility
needs at the time this plan was written. Topographic, geotechnical and other
studies may be required before final master planning, design, construction
documents, and development are undertaken. Further citizen input would
contribute to the planning process and may reveal new opportunities and
constraints for each site that should be considered.
The site plans for Bicentennial Park and Bob Jones Park were developed in more
detail. The Bob Jones Plan is a combination of an earlier park site master plan with
the addition of more facilities. The Bicentennial Master Plan included in this
document envisions full build -out of this park. Currently, these two parks provide
the City's only present and designated future space for athletic game facilities.
Game Athletic Facilities
Although the plan's Needs Assessment shows needs (at build -out if not before) in all
facility categories, special mention is made of land that will be needed for game
athletic facilities. To best serve the City's population, these facilities should be
located in the southern and/or eastern sections of the City. Tracts of land that can
accommodate complexes of lighted athletic facilities are disappearing rapidly in the
current environment of high growth.
This plan shows the need for 24 additional game ballfields and 24 additional game
soccer fields at build -out. These needs reflect the high level of participation in team
40
CA
INTLENE TATION
sports in Southlake and the number of facilities needed to accommodate the games.
For planning purposes, the ballfield (baseball and softball) total may be reduced by
the additional fields planned at Bob Jones Park and Bicentennial Park. Additional
tracts for community parks (144 acres at buildout, according to the Needs
Assessment) will be required to provide space for the needed athletic facilities.
Athletic facilities and their associated amenities consume significant acreage. The
following chart indicates space requirements for common facilities and maybe
helpful in planning gross space requirements for a combination of facilities on a
particular site.
Table 8.1
Space Allocation
for Athletic
Facilities
Facility
Parking
Minimum
Buffer Area
Total
Acres
# Spaces
Ac.
Diamond Sports
Baseball, Softball
4-Plex of Game Fields
8 ac.
300
3
1 ac.
12
Single Game Field 250' Foul Line
1.1 ac.
75
.75
.5 ac.
2.3
Practice Field 175' Foul Line
.55 ac.
10
.1
.25 ac.
.9
T-Ball Field 100' Foul Line
.2 ac.
20
.2
.1 ac.
.5
Field Sports
Soccer, Lacrosse, Football
Game Field 195'-255x330'
1.7-2.1 ac.
75
.75
.5 ac.
2.95-3.35
Practice Field 180'x300'
1.5 ac.
15
.15
.5 ac.
2.15
Tennis
2-Court Battery
.33 ac.
1 6
.06
.25 ac.
.6
Vehicular circulation, pavilions, picnic areas, playgrounds, trails, topographic
variations, drainage facilities, and the green space and landscaping typical of
community parks, are variable and ideally will consume one-third to one-half of a
community park site.
Environmental and Open Space Preservation Plan
Plate 3 shows existing and potential public open space. In keeping with Southlake's
standard of eleven acres per 1,000 population (the highest in the Dallas/Fort worth
metropolitan area), the plan is a graphic depiction of the City's intention. Much of
the City's open space acreage in is the Corps of Engineers Land surrounding Lake
0
I,WLEMENTATTON
Grapevine, but the City has made some significant recent purchases including the
"Tucker" and "Farhat" properties that are reserved for open space and low impact
uses.
Should the City seek Texas Parks & Wildlife funding for any projects on this
property, the application would be enhanced (receive more points) because of the
adoption of this plan as a part of the master plan.
Financial Resouwes
In 1994, Southlake residents approved a referendum for a'/z-cent City sales tax
dedicated to support development of parks and recreation facilities in place. Recent
and rapid growth of retail businesses in the City has swelled sales tax collections
making this cash flow a valuable resource in the implementation of this plan.
According to staff, FY 1999-2000 collections totaled $3,985,750 and $7,701.750 was
anticipated for FY 2000-2001. (These figures included cany-forward balances and
returns on senior lien debt refinanced at lower rates)
However ample these returns may seem, the projects anticipated by the master plan
will be costly to implement. Development of a neighborhood park can run $750,000
to $1 million. A recreation center will cost several million dollars, depending on its
size and facilities. The first phase of a community park including four lighted game
fields, rest room -concession building, pavilion, picnic facilities, playground, trails and
walks, parking, landscaping, and related facilities can easily cost $4 - $5 million.
Additionally, the City has established high development standards for the private
sector and in the design and construction of its new City Hall. Surely these standards
will be reflected in new park facilities. City leaders and staff should be alert to ways
to leverage local funds such as TP&W matching grants, land donations, and
foundation support.
Updating the Master Plan
Master planning should be viewed as a mntim4pmoess rather than the vault of a
study undertaken at a particular time. Southlake is well organized to maintain this
process with the SPIN groups and the City's tradition of encouraging and
implementing citizen input. This master plan was completed in Spring, 2001, but it
will need to be reviewed and updated to reflect changes in available resources, the
changing needs and desires of Southlake's residents, unexpected challenges and
opportunities, and the city's changing population and demographics.
W
W
hIPLEME\TAT ION
The Community Development Department staff has indicated interest in seeking
matching grants from Texas Parks & Wildlife. TP&W 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
�r reviewed and approved by TP&W in advance of the submittal of any grant
application.) As mentioned in the Introduction, the Southlake City Charter requires a
full update of the parks, recreation, and open space master plan every- four years.
Children enjoying a story from the Scarecrow at Turkey Day
Bonanza, an annual Parks and Recreation Department Event.
Appendix A.
a
Project Priorities 15 - 39
The following list represents the balance of project priorities (Refer to Section 7 for Priorities 1-14)
developed by City Staff. Although these are likely to be revised over the life of the plan, ordering of
the projects provides a planning tool for city staff, park board and council.
15. Land Acquisition for Neighborhood Park(s)
16. Park Maintenance Facility Development
17. Bicentennial Park Master Plan Development (girls softball, ballfield re -arrangement, trails,
plantings, etc)
18. In -Line Hockey Court (additional junior or full-sized rink)
19. Koalaty Park Development
20. Nature Center (new construction) at Bob Jones Park
21. Lacrosse Facilities (through matching funds)
22. Tennis Center Storage
23. Additional Trail Construction
24. Sheltonwood Park Development
25. Equestrian Center at Bob Jones
26. Disc Golf Course
27. Dog Park
28. Noble Oaks Park Development
29. Skate Park
30. BMX Facility
31. Lonesome Dove Park Playground Replacement
32. Working Farm
33. Family Leisure Aquatics
34. Smith Park Development
35. Fishing Pier/Launch on Lake Grapevine
36. Lacrosse Facilities (CIP)
37. Log Cabin Reconstruction
38. In -Line Hockey Court Cover
39. City Portals
A - 1
Appendix B.1
Sample Questionnaire
A Survey of Recreational Attitudes About
Recreation in Southlake
July 2000
APPENDIX: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE
PROJECT 2190202 RAYMOND TURCO & ASSOCIATES MARCH 2O00
MY NAME IS AND I'M WITH THE SUNRAY RESEARCH GROUP. OUR SURVEY
THIS EVENING IS ABOUT PARKS AND RECREATION IN YOUR,COMMUNITY. I WAS
WONDERING IF I COULD TAKE A FEW MINUTES OF YOUR TIME TO ASK YOU A FEW
QUESTIONS?
AREA AREA I . . . . . . . . 1
AREA II . . . . . . . 2
AREA I I I . . . . . . . 3
SEX MALE . . . . . . . . 1
FEMALE . . . . . . . . 2
1. THESE FIRST FEW QUESTIONS DEAL WITH YOUR COMMUNITY. HOW SAi6k—il�li Utc
DISSATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE QUALITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION?
VERY SATISFIED . . . . 1
SATISFIED . . . . . . 2
DISSATISFIED . . . . . 3
VERY DISSATISFIED . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . . 5
2. AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED AT YOUR PRESENT LOCATION?
UNDER 1 YEAR . . . . . 1
2 — 4 YEARS . . . . . 2
5 — 7 YEARS . . . . . 3
8 — 10 YEARS . . . . . 4
OVER 10 YEARS . . . . 5
REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 6
3. IF A FRIEND WERE CONSIDERING MOVING, WHAT ONE POSITIVE ASPECT ABOUT
RECREATION IN YOUR COMMUNITY WOULD YOU TELL THEM?
4. OUR NEXT FEW QUESTIONS DEAL WITH RECREATION IN GENERAL. PLEASE TELL ME
WHAT YOUR FAVORITE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY OR SPORT IN WHICH YOU ENJOY
PARTICIPATING?
5. CAN YOU PARTICIPATE IN THAT ACTIVITY USING SOUTHLAKE FACILITIES OR DO
YOU HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE THE CITY?
IN CITY 1
(IF OUTSIDE, ASK #6 AND #7. ALL OTHERS, OUTSIDE CITY . . . . . 2
SKIP TO #8) DON'T REMEMBER . . . . 3
REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 4
6. (IF OUTSIDE CITY) PLEASE TELL ME WHERE YOU HAVE TO GO TO PARTICIPATE?
7. (IF OUTSIDE) IF THE CITY HAD THOSE FACILITIES AVAILABLE, HOW LIKELY OR
UNLIKELY WOULD YOU BE TO UTILIZE IT IN PLACE OF WHERE YOU GENERALLY GO?
VERY LIKELY . . . . . 1
LIKELY . . . . . . . . 2
'o UNLIKELY . . . . . . . 3
VERY UNLIKELY . . . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . . 5
8.
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HAVE YOU OR ANYONE
IN
YOUR HOUSEHOLD
.
. . .
�W
YES
NO
DON'T REM
A)
VISITED OR USED A CITY PARK OR PARK FACILITY
1
2
3
B)
PARTICIPATED IN A CITY EVENT
1
2
3
C)
VISITED OR USED A CITY ATHLETIC FIELD
1
2
3
D)
PARTICIPATED IN A YOUTH ATHLETIC LEAGUE
1
2
3
E)
PARTICIPATED IN AN ADULT ATHLETIC LEAGUE
1
2
3
F)
PARTICIPATED IN ANY OTHER CLASS OR PROGRAM
1
2
3
OFFERED BY SOUTHLAKE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
G)
VISITED THE CORP OF ENGINEER PARKS, SPECIFICALLY
1
2
3
WALNUT GROVE AND MARSHALL CREEK PARKS
H)
UTILIZED A BIKE PATH OR PEDESTRIAN PATH
1
2
3
I)
UTILIZED AN EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
1
2
3
9.
(IF YES TO YOUTH LEAGUE) IN WHICH OF THE
FOLLOWING
YOUTH ATHLETIC
LEAGUES DO YOUR CHILDREN PARTICIPATE?
SOCCER
1
BASEBALL . . .
.
. . . 2
(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
GIRLS SOFTBALL
.
. . . 3
YOUTH FOOTBALL
.
. 4
TENNIS
. . . .
.
. . . 5
IN -LINE
HOCKEY
.
. . . 6
BASKETBALL .
.
. 7
10.
PLEASE TELL ME HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED
YOU ARE
WITH THE
FOLLOWING.
VS
S
D
VD
NO
A)
NUMBER OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
1
2
3
4
5
B)
QUALITY OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
1
2
3
4
5
C)
NUMBER OF PROGRAMS OFFERED
1
2
3
4
5
D)
QUALITY OF PROGRAMS OFFERED
1
2
3
4
5
OVERALL RECREATIONAL PROGRAM
1
2
3
4
5
1E)
F)
AVAILABILITY OF ATHLETIC FIELDS FOR USE
1
2
3
4
5
G)
NUMBER OF SOCCER FIELDS
1
2
3
4
5
i
H)
NUMBER OF BASEBALL FIELDS
1
2
3
4
5
I)
NUMBER OF SOFTBALL FIELDS
1
2
3
4
5
J)
AVAILABILITY OF NON ATHLETIC FACILITIES
1
2
3
4
5
FOR USE
K)
AVAILABILITY OF HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS
1
2
3
4
5
L)
AMOUNT OF PASSIVE PARKLAND, OR OPEN SPACE
1
2
3
4
5
11. THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING ITS
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ITS PARK SYSTEM. WHEN COMPLETED, THE PLAN WOULD
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AND OTHER SERVICES. PLEASE
TELL ME HOW IMPORTANT OR UNIMPORTANT YOU THINK IT WOULD BE TO EITHER BUILD
NEW OR ADDITIONAL IN SOUTHLAKE? NO
A) TENNIS COURTS
B) PRACTIC SOCCER FIELDS
C) COMPETITION SOCCER FIELDS
D) PRACTICE BASEBALL FIELDS
E) COMPETITION BASEBALL FIELDS
F) SOFTBALL FIELDS
G) FOOTBALL FIELDS
H) SAND VOLLEYBALL COURTS
I) OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COURTS
J) HORSESHOE PITS
K) DISC GOLF COURSE
L) MULTI -USE TRAILS
M) PAVILIONS OR SHELTERS
N) EQUESTRIAN TRAILS
0) EXERCISE STATIONS ALONG TRAILS
P) PLAYGROUNDS
Q) PICNIC AREAS
R) FISHING PIERS
S) OFF -ROAD BICYCLE/BMX TRAILS
T) WATER PARK, WITH POOLS AND WATER
ACTIVITIES
VI
I
U
VU
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
12. FROM THE LIST I JUST READ, WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST
IMPORTANT RECREATIONAL FACILITY TO CONSTRUCT?
13.
BASED ON WHATEVER IMPRESSIONS YOU MAY HAVE,
HOW
SATISFIED OR
DISSATISFIED ARE YOU WITH SOUTHLAKE IN TERMS OF
VS
S
D
VD
NO
A)
THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC PARKS IN THE CITY
1
2
3
4
5
B)
HAVING CITY PARKS CONVENIENTLY LOCATED FOR
1
2
3
4
5
PEOPLE IN ALL AREAS
3
4
5
C)
THE OVERALL QUALITY OF CITY PARKS
1
2
5
D)
THE OVERALL SAFETY OF CITY PARKS
1
2
3.
4
5
E)
THE MAINTENANCE OF CITY PARKS
1
2
3
4
5
F)
THE VARIETY OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
1
2
3
4
WITHIN CITY PARKS
3.
4
5
G)
THE QUALITY OF HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS
1
2
5
H)
THE NUMBER OF ATHLETIC FIELDS IN THE CITY
1
2
3
4
5
I)
HAVING ATHLETIC FIELDS CONVENIENTLY
1
2
3
4
LOCATED FOR PEOPLE IN ALL AREAS
5
J)
THE OVERALL QUALITY OF CITY ATHLETIC FIELDS
1
2
3
4
K)
THE MAINTENANCE OF CITY ATHLETIC FIELDS
1
2
3
4
5
do 14. WHAT DO YOU GENERALLY DO WHEN YOU GO TO THE PARK? IF YOU DON'T
GENERALLY GO TO PARKS, PLEASE TELL ME THAT ALSO.
TAKE KIDS TO PLAY . . . . . 1
PICNIC . . . . . . . . . . 2
do (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) WALK/HIKE . . . . . . . . . 3
PARTICIPATE IN ORGANIZED
SPORTS . . . . . . . . . . 4
rrr PARTICIPATE IN NON
ORGANIZED SPORTS . . . . . 5
WALK ANIMALS . . . . . . . 6
BIKING . . . . . . . . . . 7
�i
OTHER . . 8
DON'T GO TO PARK . . . . . 9
15. THE CITY IS IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THE MASTER TRAIL PLAN.
PRESENTLY, CAN YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY, USING CITY TRAILS, WALK OR
BICYCLE FROM YOUR HOME TO . . . .
YES NO DON'T KNOW
A) NEARBY PARKS 1 2 3
B) SCHOOLS 1 2 3
C) SHOPPING AREAS 1 2 3
D) VISIT FRIENDS 1 2 3
16. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS,
AGAIN, RELATING TO HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS IN SOUTHLAKE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
TRAILS IN SOUTHLAKE . . . .
SA
A
D SD
NO
A)
CONNECT TO ROUTINE DESTINATIONS LIKE
1
2
3 4
5
PARKS, SCHOOLS AND SHOPPING AREAS
B)
BE ACCESSIBLE FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD
1
2
3 4
5
C)
ALONG THE CORPS PROPERTY AT LAKE GRAPEVINE
1
2
3 4
5
D)
ALONG UTILITY CORRIDORS
1
2
3 4
5
E)
ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES
1
2
3 4
5
F)
ALONG CREEKS IN THE CITY
1
2
3 4
5
17.
THE CURRENT TRAIL PLAN CALLS FOR NATURAL
SURFACE
TRAILS,
(THAT IS,
DIRT TRAILS) FOR HORSEBACK RIDING. HOW STRONGLY WOULD
YOU SUPPORT OR
OPPOSE ADDITIONAL NATURAL SURFACE TRAILS IN THE CITY
FOR . .
. .
SS
S
0 SO
NO
A)
HIKING
1
2
3 4
5
B)
NATURE STUDY
1
2
3 4
5
C)
CROSS COUNTRY RUNNING
1
2
3 4
5
D)
MOUNTAIN BICYCLING
1
2
3 4
5
18. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE USING CITY TAX DOLLARS TO
UPGRADE SCHOOL PROPERTY FOR USE AS NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND PRACTICE AREAS?
STRONGLY SUPPORT . . . 1
SUPPORT . . . . . . . 2
OPPOSE . . . . . . . . 3
STRONGLY OPPOSE . . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . . 5
19. IF SOUTHLAKE WAS GOING TO CONTINUE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARK IN YOUR AREA,
BASED ON YOU OR YOUR HOUSEHOLD'S OWN INTERESTS, WHAT TWO OR THREE THINGS
WOULD YOU DEFINITELY WANT THE PARK TO INCLUDE? (PROBE ONCE: WHAT ELSE?)
1.
2.
M 3.
4
20. THINKING ABOUT CURRENT EXISTING PARKS
AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN
SOUTHLAKE, HOW COULD CURRENT FACILITIES BE
IMPROVED TO MAKE THEM MORE
USEFUL OR MORE ENJOYABLE FOR YOU? (PROBE:
WHAT OTHER SUGGESTIONS CAN
YOU
THINK TO IMPROVE CURRENT FACILITIES?)
1.
2.
3.
21. I'M GOING TO READ YOU A LIST OF STATEMENTS.
PLEASE TELL ME HOW
STRONGLY YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH EACH .
. .
SA A D SD
NO
A) I'M SATISFIED WITH THE RECREATIONAL
1 2 3 4
5
FACILITIES IN SOUTHLAKE
5
B) I AM WILLING TO PAY ADDITIONAL CITY TAXES 1 2 3 4
TO SEE THE QUALITY OF PARKS UPGRADED
5
C) THE EXISTING PARK SYSTEM IS ADEQUATE
1 2 3 4
5
D) THE CITY SHOULD IMPROVE THE EXISTING
1 2 3 4
PARKS AND NOT DEVELOP ANY NEW ONES
5
E) I HAVE ADEQUATE AVENUES TO VOICE MY
1 2 3 4
CONCERNS ABOUT RECREATION IN SOUTHLAKE
5
F) THE CITY HAS A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF
1 2 3 4
ATHLETIC FIELDS
22. TO GET INFORMATION ABOUT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN SOUTHLAKE, WHICH
OF THE FOLLOWING SOURCES DO YOU GENERALLY
UTILIZE?
DALLAS MORNING NEWS
1
STAR TELEGRAM . .
. . 2
SOUTHLAKE JOURNAL
. 3
SOUTHLAKE TIMES .
. . 4
(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
CITY WATER BILL
INSERT . . . . .
. . 5
PARK BOARD
6
INTERNET HOME PAGE
7
CABLE TV CHANNEL 7
8
SOUTHLAKE SCENE - CITY
PROGRAM BROCHURE
. 9
TOWN HALL MEETINGS
.10
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC.
11
SPORTS ASSOC. . .
.12
OTHER . . . . .
. 13
23. THESE LAST FEW QUESTIONS ARE JUST FOR
CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES.
WHICH
OF THE FOLLOWING AGE GROUPS DO YOU COME UNDER?
LESS THAN 25 YEARS
1
26 - 35 YEARS ....
2
36 - 45 YEARS ....
3
46 - 55 YEARS . .
. . 4
56 - 65 YEARS ...•
5
OVER 65 YEARS . .
. . 6
REFUSED TO ANSWER
. . 7
24. PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN
UNDER THE AGE OF 18 AT HOME
(IF
YES: IN WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING GROUPS DO
THEY COME UNDER?
NO CHILDREN . . .
. • 1
UNDER 6 . . . . .
. . 2
• 6 - 12 . . . . . .
. . 3
13 - 18 . . . . .
. . 4
REFUSE TO ANSWER .
. . 5
do 25. DO YOU BELONG TO A SOUTHLAKE SPORTS ASSOCIATION?
YES . . . . . . . . . 1
NO . . . . . . . . . . 2
REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 3
THAT'S THE END OF OUR SURVEY BUT COULD I CHECK TO SEE IF I DIALED THE
CORRECT NUMBER. I DIALED AND COULD I HAVE YOUR FIRST NAME,
10 ONLY IN CASE MY SUPERVISOR HAS TO VERIFY THIS
INTERVIEW? THANK YOU AND HAVE A NICE EVENING.
h
CALLER INI. SHEET NUMBER ZIPCODE SURVEY LENGTH
a
Appendix B.2
Sample Questionnaire
A Survey of Attitudes About
Recreation Facilities in Southlake
2000 Adult Recreational Facility Attitudinal Survey
2000 Youth Recreation Facility Attitudinal Survey
September 2000
SAMPLE ADULT QUESTIONNAIRE
PROJECT 2190100 RAYMOND TURCO & ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY
' 2000
MY NAME IS AND I'M WITH THE SUNRAY RESEARCH GROUP. OUR SURVEY
A THIS EVENING IS ABOUT RECREATION IN YOUR COMMUNITY. I WAS WONDERING IF I
COULD TAKE A FEW MINUTES OF YOUR TIME TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS?
fo
AREA
da
AREA I . . . . . . . . 1
AREA II . . . . . . . 2
AREA III . . . . . . . 3
SEX MALE. 1
FEMALE . . . . . . . . 2
1. THESE FIRST FEW QUESTIONS ARE TO GATHER DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION. HOW
LONG HAVE YOU LIVED AT YOUR CURRENT RESIDENCE? LESS THAN ONE YEAR 1
1 - 3 YEARS 2
3 - 5 YEARS 3
5 - 7 YEARS . . . . . 4
OVER 7 YEARS . . . . . 5
REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 6
2. AND WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING AGE CATEGORIES DO YOU BELONG? 1
26 - 35 YEARS . . . . 2
36 - 45 YEARS . . . . 3
46 - 55 YEARS . . . . 4
56 - 65 YEARS . . . . 5
OVER 65 YEARS . . . . 6
REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 7
3. -DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN, LIVING IN YOUR HOME, UNDER THE AGE OF 18?
(IF YES: OF THOSE, ARE ANY . . • •) NO CHILDREN . . . . . 1
AGE 3 OR UNDER . . . . 2
(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) AGE 4 - 6 . . . . . . 3
AGE 7 - 9 . . . . . . 4
AGE 10 - 12 . . . . . 5
AGE 13 - 15 . . . . . 6
AGE 16 - 18 . . . . . 7
(DO NOT READ) REFUSED . . . . . . . 8
4. PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU RECALL VOTING IN THE FOLLOWING ELECTIONS?
YES NO DON'T REMEMBER
A) 1999 CITY COUNCIL 1 2 3
B) 1998 CITY COUNCIL 1 2 3
C) A 1999 SCHOOL BOND ELECTION 1 2 3
RECREATIONAL
5, PLEASE TELL ME HOW SATISFIOD OOUDHLAKEIFOREPEOPLEYOU �IN THEE
WITH
FOLLOWING AGE
SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY
GROUPS . • VS S D VD NO
A)
YOUNG CHILDREN (UNDER AGE 6)
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
B)
CHILDREN, AGES 7- 12
1
2
3
4
5
C)
CHILDREN, AGES 13 - 18
1
2
3
4
5
D)
ADULTS, AGES 19 - 45
1
2
3
4
5
E)
ADULTS, AGES 46 - 65
1
2
3
4
5
F)
ADULTS OVER THE AGE OF 65
6, WHAT ONE RECREATIONAL FACILITY WOULD YOU
O LIKE
ENIO SEE CONSTRUCTED BY THE
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TO IMPROVE RECREATIONAL
IN THE
?. THE CITY IS PLANNING TO CT�RCUNNNINDOOR ECESSARY DOCYOUTBELIEVEION TIT IS FOR
NEXT THREE YEARS. HOW NECESSARYFOR
THE CITY TO CONSTRUCT AN INDOOR RECREATION CENTER VERY NECESSARY RESIDENTS? 1
NECESSARY . • • • • • 2
UNNECESSARY . • • • • 3
VERY UNNECESSARY • • • 4
NO OPINION . . • • • • 5
g, WHERE DO YOU CURRENTLY GO FOR YOUR INDOOR RECREATION EEDCHURCH ILITIES 1
SCHOOLS . • • • • • • 2
PRIVATE CLUBS . • • • 3
CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY CITY FACILITIES 4
REFUSE TO ANSWER 5
9• AND HAVE YOU EVER VISITED A CITY -OWNED RECREATION CENTER IN ANOTHER
CITY? YES . . . . . • • • • 1
NO 2
(IF YES, ASK #10, ALL OTHERS DON'T REMEMBER 3
SKIP TO #1.1) REFUSE TO ANSWER 4
OF PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES, WHAT
DID YOU
LIKE MOST ABOUT
THE
10. IN TERMS
RECREATION CENTER YOU VISITED.
PLEASE NAME THREE ACTIVITIES THAT YOU
WOULD
LIKE
TO BE
ABLE TO
11.
PARTICIPATE IN AT THE NEW CENTER.
A.
B.
C.
ME NOW READ YOU A LIST FOFOYOURCFAMILYEWOULDLBESTO
S.
ELL
ME
12.
HOW
NOW, LET
LIKELY OR UNLIKELY YOU OR A MEMBER
NEW RECREATIUN
CENTER
PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES AT A
VL I'
NO
1
2
3
4
5
A),
INDOOR BASKETBALL
AROUND ON AN INDOOR
1
2
3
4
5
B)
JOGGING/WALKING
TRACK
1
2
3_.
4
5
C)
FITNESS OR AEROBICS
EQUIPMENT
1
2
3
4
5
5
D)
LIFTING WEIGHTS/CARDIO
IN RECREATIONAL CLASSES
1
2
3
3
4
4
5
E)
F)
PARTICIPATING
INDOOR VOLLEYBALL
1
2
3
4
5
G)
DANCING LESSONS
GEARED TOWARDS TEENS
1
2
3
4
5
H)
ACTIVITIES
0
a
VL
L
U
VU
NO
I)
IN -LINE OR ROLLERBLADE SKATING
1
2
3
4
5
J)
RACQUETBALL
1
2
3
4
5
K)
PARTICIPATING IN ARTS & CRAFT CLASSES 1
2
3
4
5
L)
ATTENDING COMMUNITY MEETINGS
1
2
3
4
5
M)
TAKING COMPUTER TRAINING OR LAB
1
2
3
4
5
N)
ACTIVITIES GEARED TOWARDS SENIOR
1
2
3
4
5
CITIZENS
0)
GYMNASTICS
1
2
3
4
5
P)
SWIMMING
1
2
3
4
5
Q)
KARATE
1
2
3
4
5
R)
COMMUNITY THEATER/DRAMA
1
2
3
4
5
S)
ROCK CLIMBING
1
2
3
4
5
T)
KITCHEN/COOKING CLASSES
1
2
3
4
5
13.
AS I READ THE RESPONSES TO THE
PREVIOUS
QUESTION AGAIN,
PLEASE
TELL
ME
WHICH
ACTIVITY YOU WOULD MOST LIKELY
PARTICIPATE
IN
AS
WELL
AS WHICH
ONE
YOU WOULD LEAST LIKELY PARTICIPATE?
(PRINT
LETTER
OF
SPORT)
A.
MOST LIKELY
B.
LEAST
LIKELY
14.
HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT
OR
OPPOSE THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS BEING
INCLUDED IN A RECREATION CENTER . .
.
.
NO
SS
S
0
SO
A)
BASKETBALL COURTS
1
2
3
4
5
5
B)
RACQUETBALL COURTS
1
2
3
4
5
C)
SAUNA/STEAM ROOMS
1
2
3
4
D)
COMPUTER LABS
1
2
3
4
5
5
E)
LEISURE POOL
1
2
3
4
5
F)
WEIGHT/CARDIOVASCULAR ROOM
1
2
3
4
G)
MEETING ROOMS
1
2
3
4
5
5
H)
EXERCISE/AEROBICS ROOM
1
2
3
4
5
I)
SPACE FOR SENIOR ACTIVITIES
1
2
3
4
5
J)
INDOOR JOGGING TRACK
1
2
3
4
5
K)
KITCHEN/SNACK BAR
1
2
3
4
5
L)
DAYCARE/NURSERY
1
2
3
4
M)
GAMEROOM, WITH POOL TABLES,
1
2
3
4
5
TABLE TENNIS, ETC.
5
N)
EXERCISE/LAP POOL
1
2
3
4
5
0)
SPACE FOR TEEN ACTIVITIES
1
2
3
4
5
P)
KARATE ROOM
1
2
3
4
5
Q)
GYMNASTICS ROOM
1
2
3
4
5
R)
COMMUNITY THEATER/DRAMA
1
2
3
4
5
S)
ROCK CLIMBING WALL
1
2
3
4
5
T)
STAGE AREA FOR CONCERTS
1
2
3
4
15. WHAT TYPE OF ACTIVITIES AT THE NEW RECREATION CENTER DO YOU THINK THE
CITY SHOULD OFFER THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE MORE PARTICIPATION FROM OLDER
RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY?
A.
B.
16. AND WHAT TYPE OF RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS WOULD YOU LIKE
TO YOUTH AT THE NEW RECREATION CENTER?
AB.
A.
TO SEE OFFERED
TY IS ALSO STUDYING THE POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF A "TEE
THE CIWOULD YOU SAY
CENTER11
YOU
17 .
YOUTH IN THE COMMUNITY. -HOW FAMILIAR
OR UNFAMILIAR
FOR
ARE
WITH THE "TEEN CENTER" PROJECT?
VERY FAMILIAR
1
Via;
FAMILIAR . . . .
. . . 2
UNFAMILIAR . . .
. . . 3
VERY UNFAMILIAR
4
NO OPINION
5
18.
MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF
JUST WHAT A "TEEN CENTER"
EXPLAIN WHAT A TEEN CENTER
IS. IF
IS,
A FRIEND IN A NEIGHBORING CITY ASKED YOU
TO
HOW
WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT?
YOUR Eg0RBOTH)PT OF A TEEN CENTER EMPHASIZES ATHLETIC
19. WOULD YOU SAY THAT
ACTIVITIES, SOCIAL ACTIVIT ATHLETIC . . . • • • • 1
SOCIAL . . • • • • • • 2
BOTH 3
REFUSE TO ANSWER 4
20. WHAT ONE OR TWO THINGS WOULD YOU EXPECT TO BE INCLUDED IN A "TEEN
CENTER"?
1.
2.
ECESSARY DO YOU BELIEVE A "TEEN CENTER" IS FOR THE
21. HOW NECESSARY OR UNN
YOUTH OF SOUTHLAKE? VERY NECESSARY . . • • 1
NECESSARY . • • • • • 2
UNNECESSARY • • • 3
VERY UNNECESSARY . . • 4
NO OPINION . • . • • 5
22.
LET ME READ YOU SOME STATEMENTS ABOUT A
POTENTIAL "TEEN
DISAGREE WITH EACH.
CENTER". AS I
A TEEN
READ EACH, TELL ME HOW STRONGLY YOU AGREE OR
CENTER
SA A
D SD NO
A)
WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR YOUTH TO BE ABLE 1 2
5
3 4 5
TO GATHER FOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
BECAUSE MOST TEENS IN
1 2
3 4 5
B)
IS NOT A GOOD IDEA,
SOUTHLAKE WOULD NOT EVEN USE THE FACILITY
2
3 4 5
C)
WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR YOUTH TO BE ABLE 1
TO GATHER FOR ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES
1 2
3 4 5
D)
WOULD CREATE SAFETY CONCERNS IF IT WERE
NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF
CONSTRUCTED IN MY
POTENTIALLY LARGE GATHERINGS OF YOUTH
2
3 4 5
E}
IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE HAVE
1
SUFFICIENT RECREATIONAL FACILITIESWHEN
THE REC CENTER IS OPENED
BECAUSE THERE CURRENTLY E
NO 1 2
3 4 5
F)
IS NECESSARY
FACILITIES WHERE JUST TEENS C GATHER
2
3 4 5
G)
WOULD BE A GOOD TOOL WHEN ENCOURAGING
1
FAMILIES TO MOVE TO SOUTHLAKE
w
do
23. IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT A TEEN CENTER BE GEARED TOWARDS NONATHLETIC
ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DANCES, KARAOKE NIGHTS, COMEDY NIGHTS, CLASSES AND
MEETINGS. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A TEEN CENTER IN
SOUTHLAKE THAT DID NOT INCLUDE ATHLETIC FACILITIES?
STRONGLY SUPPORT 1
SUPPORT . . . . . . . 2
OPPOSE . . . . . . . . 3
STRONGLY OPPOSE . . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . 5
24. IF A TEEN CENTER WERE CONSTRUCTED, WOULD THESE ISSUES BE OF MAJOR
CONCERN TO YOU, MINOR CONCERN, OR OF NO CONCERN?
MAJOR
MINOR
NO C
NO
A)
SAFETY TO YOUTH AT THE FACILITY
1
2
3
4
B)
VANDALISM TO THE PROPERTY
1
2
3
4
C)
LOUD NOISE
1
2
3
4
D)
LOITERING IN THE AREA
1
2
3
4
E)
LACK OF SUPERVISION
1
2
3
4
F)
HAVING BOYS AND GIRLS OF DIFFERENT AGES
1
2
3
4
TOGETHER
25.
HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENTS.
THE NEEDS OF THE YOUTH OF SOUTHLAKE WOULD BE BEST
MET .
. . .
SA
A
D
SD
NO
A)
BY A TEEN CENTER CONSTRUCTED AS A STAND-ALONE
1
2
3
4
5
FACILITY
B)
BY TEEN ACTIVITIES AS PART OF THE RECREATION
1
2
3
4
5
CENTER, BUT WITH A SEPARATE ENTRANCE
C)
BY TEEN ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN A DESIGNATED
1
2
3
4
5
OR ON A DESIGNATED EVENING AT THE REC. CENTER
D)
THE NEEDS OF YOUTH ARE BEING ADDRESSED NOW
1
2
3
4
5
26. AND HOW IMPORTANT OR UNIMPORTANT WOULD YOU SAY IT IS TO BEGIN
IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEEN CENTER? IS IT . . . .
VERY IMPORTANT . . . . 1
IMPORTANT . . . . . . 2
UNIMPORTANT . . . . . 3
VERY UNIMPORTANT . . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . . 5
27. A PROPOSED TEEN ACTIVITY CENTER, AT AN ESTIMATED SIZE OF 5,000 SQUARE
FEET, COULD COST APPROXIMATELY $1 MILLION. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT
OR OPPOSE THE. CONSTRUCTION OF THIS CENTER, BASED ON THE ESTIMATED COST?
STRONGLY SUPPORT . . 1
SUPPORT . . . . . . . 2
OPPOSE . . . . . . . . 3
STRONGLY OPPOSE . . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . 5
28. IF $1 MILLION IS APPROPRIATED TO CONSTRUCT A TEEN CENTER, THE
RECREATION CENTER CONSTRUCTION MAY HAVE TO BE DELAYED A FEW YEARS. HOW
STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEEN CENTER, BASED
ON THIS INFORMATION?
STRONGLY SUPPORT 1
SUPPORT . . . . . . . 2
OPPOSE . . . . . . . . 3
STRONGLY OPPOSE . . . 4
NO OPINION . . . . . 5
29. REGARDING THPROPOOSED TEEN CENTER AND RECREATION CENTER PROJECTS,
WHICH WOULD BE YOURSTAND-ALONE TEEN CENTER . . 1
TEEN CENTER AS PART OF, BUT
SEPARATE FROM REC CNTR 2
REC CNTR THAT'INCLUDES
TEEN CENTER ACTIVITIES 3
A RECREATION CENTER ONLY 4
NO RECREATION CENTER OR
TEEN CENTER . . . . • • • 5
NO OPINION . . . • • • • • 6
30. IF IT BECAME NECESSARY
TO CHARGE RESIDENTS A MONTHLY FEE FOR
FACILITY, HOW STRONGLY WOULD
YOU
OPERATIONAL COSTS AT THE INDOOR RECREATION
EACH MONTH FOR UNLIMITED
USE.
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE PAYING
VU
NO
1 2
3
4
5
A) UNDER $20.00
1 2
3
4
5
B) $20.00 - $25.00
1 2
3
4
5
C) $25.00 - $30.00
1 2
3
4
5
D) MORE THAN $30.00
31. AND WHAT ABOUT A FAMILY STRONGLY
USE
OF THE
OPPOSESUPPORTOR
OPPOSE PAYING �_
MONTH OR UNLIMITED
RECREATION CENTER . . • .
VL L
U
VU
NO
A) UNDER $30.00
B) $30.00 - $40.00
C) $40.00 - $50.00
D) MORE THAN $50.00
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
THAT'S THE END OF OUR SURVEY BUT COULD I CHECK DTOOSEE
ULD IFHA DIALED
OUR FIRST
THE
CORRECT NUMBER. I DIALED
NAME, ONLY IN CASE MY SUPERVISOR HAS TO VERIFY THIS INTERVIEW?
THANK YOU AND HAVE A NICE EVENING.
CALLER INI SHEET # LENGTH OF SURVEY
m
0
SAMPLE YOUTH QUESTIONNAIRE
o PROJECT 21901002 RAYMOND TURCO & ASSOCIATES JULY 2000
MY NAME IS AND I'M WITH THE SUNRAY RESEARCH GROUP. WE HAVE
BEEN HIRED BY THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TO CONDUCT A SURVEY OF YOUTH IN YOUR
AREA TO DISCUSS RECREATION NEEDS AND DESIRES FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. I WAS
WONDERING IF YOU HAVE A CHILD IN GRADES 7 THROUGH 12 WHO MIGHT LIKE TO
PARTICIPATE IN A TELEPHONE SURVEY. THIS IS NOT A SALES CALL AND THE SURVEY
SHOULD TAKE 10 MINUTES. IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE CHILD, WE CAN TALK TO
THEM ALSO. DO YOU HAVE A CHILD WHO MIGHT LIKE TO PARTICIPATE? (IF YES:
READ INTRO AGAIN. IF NO: THANK YOU.)
rr►
do
AREA
SEX
AREA I . . . . . .
AREA II . . . . .
AREA I I I . . . . .
MALE . . . . . . .
FEMALE . . . . . .
. . 1
. . 2
. . 3
. . 1
. . 2
1. THESE FIRST FEW QUESTIONS
ARE TO GATHER DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION.
HOW
LONG HAS YOUR FAMILY LIVED AT
ITS CURRENT RESIDENCE?
LESS THAN ONE YEAR
1
1 - 3 YEARS . . .
. . 2
3 - 5 YEARS . . .
. . 3
5 - 7 YEARS . . .
. . 4
OVER 7 YEARS . . .
. . 5
REFUSE TO ANSWER
6
2. AND WHAT GRADE WERE YOU IN LAST YEAR?
7TH GRADE
1
8TH GRADE . . . .
. . 2
9TH GRADE . . . .
. . 3
LOTH GRADE . . . .
. . 4
11TH GRADE . . . .
. . 5
12TH GRADE . . . .
. . 6
REFUSE TO ANSWER .
. . 7
3. PLEASE TELL ME HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED YOU ARE WITH RECREATIONAL
SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FOR PEOPLE BETWEEN THE AGES OF
13 AND 18?
VERY SATISFIED 1
SATISFIED . . . . . . 2
DISSATISFIED 3
VERY DISSATISFIED 4
_ NO OPINION . . 5
4. WHAT ONE RECREATIONAL FACILITY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE CONSTRUCTED BY THE
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TO IMPROVE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES?
ION
IN THE
5. THE CITY IS PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT ECESDARY DOCYOUTBELIEVETIT IS FOR
NEXT THREE YEARS. HOW NECESSARYFOR
THE CITY TO CONSTRUCT AN INDOOR RECREATION CENTER VERY NECESSARY RESIDENTS? 1
NECESSARY . . . • • • 2
UNNECESSARY . . • • • 3
VERY UNNECESSARY . . • 4
NO OPINION . . . . • • 5
6. WHERE DO YOU CURRENTLY GO YOUR
RNINPOOOR RECREATION
THAT NEEDS?
IF YOU
CREA
DON'T GO ANYWHERE FOR INDOOR R CHURCH FACILITIES 1
SCHOOLS . . . • • • • 2
PRIVATE CLUBS 3
CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY CITY FACILITIES 4
YOUR HOUSE/FRIENDS 5
NOWHERE . . • • • 6
REFUSE TO ANSWER . -
7. AND HAVE YOU EVER VISITED A CITY -OWNED RECREATION CENTER IN ANOTHER
CITY? YES . . . . . . . . . 1
(IF YES, ASK #8, ALL OTHERS DON'T REMEMBER . • • • 3
SKIP TO #9) REFUSE TO ANSWER - • • 4
g. IN TERMS OF PROGRAMS -OR ACTIVITIES, WHAT' DID YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT THE
RECREATION CENTER YOU VISITED.
9. PLEASE NAME THREE ACTIVITI
ER THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN AT THE NEW
A.
B.
C.
S.
10. NOW, LET ME NOW READ YOU A LBETTOFPARTICIPATEME IINETHIS PACTIVITY LEASE LM ATA
HOW LIKELY OR UNLIKELY YOU WOULD
NEW RECREATION CENTER.. . • • VL L U VU NO
A) INDOOR BASKETBALL
B) JOGGING/WALKING AROUND ON AN INDOOR
TRACK
C) FITNESS OR AEROBICS
D) LIFTING WEIGHTS/CARDIO EQUIPMENT
E) PARTICIPATING IN RECREATIONAL CLASSES
F) INDOOR VOLLEYBALL
G) DANCING LESSONS
H) ACTIVITIES GEARED TOWARDS TEENS
I) IN -LINE OR ROLLERBLADE SKATING
J) RACQUETBALL
K) PARTICIPATING IN ARTS & CRAFT CLASSES
L) ATTENDING COMMUNITY MEETINGS
M) TAKING COMPUTER TRAINING OR LAB
N) GYMNASTICS
0) SWIMMING
p) KARATE
Q) COMMUNITY THEATER/DRAMA
R) ROCK CLIMBING
S) KITCHEN/COOKING CLASSES
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
11.
AS I READ THE RESPONSES TO THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION AGAIN,
PLEASE TELL
ME
WHICH ACTIVITY YOU WOULD MOST LIKELY PARTICIPATE IN AS WELL
AS WHICH ONE
YOU
WOULD LEAST LIKELY PARTICIPATE? (PRINT
LETTER OF SPORT)
A.
MOST LIKELY
B.
LEAST LIKELY
12.
HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE
THE
FOLLOWING
ITEMS BEING
+'
INCLUDED IN A RECREATION CENTER .
. . .
SS
S
0
SO
NO
A)
BASKETBALL COURTS
l
2
3
4
5
B)
RACQUETBALL COURTS
1
2
3
4
5
C)
SAUNA/STEAM ROOMS
1
2
3
4
D)
COMPUTER LABS
1
2
3
4
5
E)
LEISURE POOL
1
2
3
4
5
F)
WEIGHT/CARDIOVASCULAR ROOM
1
2
3
4
5
G)
MEETING ROOMS
1
2
3
4
5
H)
EXERCISE/AEROBICS ROOM
1
2
3
4
5
I)
SPACE FOR SENIOR ACTIVITIES
1
2
3
4
5
J)
INDOOR JOGGING TRACK
1
2
3
4
5
K)
KITCHEN/SNACK BAR
1
2
3
4
5
rills
L)
DAYCARE/NURSERY
1
2
3
4
5
M)
GAMEROOM, WITH POOL TABLES,
1
2
3
4
5
TABLE TENNIS, ETC.
5
N)
EXERCISE/LAP POOL
1
2
3
4
do
0)
SPACE FOR TEEN ACTIVITIES
1
2
3
4
5
P)
KARATE ROOM
1
2
3
4
5
5
Q)
GYMNASTICS ROOM
1
2
3
4
5
di
R)
COMMUNITY THEATER/DRAMA
1
2
3
4
S)
ROCK CLIMBING WALL
1
2
3
4
5
5
T)
STAGE AREA FOR CONCERTS
1
2
3
4
lr
13.
IF A RECREATION CENTER WERE
CONSTRUCTED,
HOW
LIKELY WOULD YOU OR YOUR
FAMILY
BE TO USE IT?
VERY LIKELY . . . .
1
LIKELY .
. . . . . .
. 2
UNLIKELY
. . . . . .
. 3
VERY UNLIKELY
4
NO OPINION . . . . .
. 5
14. AND WHAT TYPE OF RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE OFFERED
TO YOUTH AT THE NEW RECREATION CENTER?
A.
B.
15. THE CITY IS ALSO STUDYING THE POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF A "TEEN CENTER"
FOR YOUTH IN THE COMMUNITY. HOW FAMILIAR OR UNFAMILIAR WOULD YOU SAY YOU
ARE WITH THE "TEEN CENTER" PROJECT? 1
VERY FAMILIAR
FAMILIAR . . . . . . . 2
UNFAMILIAR . . . . . . 3
VERY UNFAMILIAR . • • 4
NO OPINION . . . . . . 5
16. MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF JUST WHAT A "TEEN CENTER" IS. IF
A FRIEND IN A NEIGHBORING CITY ASKED YOU TO EXPLAIN WHAT A TEEN CENTER IS,
HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT?
Wk
17• WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOUR CONCEPT OF A TEEN CENTER EMPHASIZES ATHLETIC
ACTIVITIES, SOCIAL ACTIVITIES OR B ATHLETIC • . • • • • • 1
IF
SOCIAL . . . . . . . . 2
BOTH 3
REFUSE TO ANSWER 4
18. WHAT ONE OR TWO THINGS WOULD YOU EXPECT TO BE INCLUDED IN A "TEEN
CENTER"?
1.
2.
19. HOW NECESSARY OR UNNECESSARY DO YOU BELIEVE A "TEEN CENTER" IS FOR THE
YOUTH OF SOUTHLAKE? VERY NECESSARY . - • • 1
NECESSARY . • • • • • 2
3
UNNECESSARY 4
VERY UNNECESSARY 5
NO OPINION
LET ME READ YOU SOME STATEMENTS ABOUT
TOR POIENTIA WITH
EEEACENTER"TEENS I
20.
READ EACH, TELL ME HOW STRONGLY YOU AGREE
CENTER
SA
A D
SD NO
5
A) WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR YOUTH TO BE ABLE
1
2 3
4
TO GATHER FOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
IDEA, BECAUSE MOST TEENS IN
1
2 3
4 5
B) IS NOT A GOOD
SOUTHLAKE WOULD NOT EVEN USE THE FACILITY
1
2 3
4 5
C) WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR YOUTH TO BE ABLE
TO GATHER FOR ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES
SAFETY CONCERNS IF IT WERE
1
2 3
4 5
D) WOULD CREATE
CONSTRUCTED IN MY OGOOBECAUSE OF
POTENTIALLY LARGE GATHERINGS OF
1
2 3
4 5
E) IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WHEN
SUFFICIENT
5
THE REC CENTER IS OPENED
NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE CURRENTLY ARE NO
1
2 3
4
F) IS
FACILITIES WHERE JUST TEENS CAN GATHER
1
2 3
4 5
WHEN ENC
G) WOULD BE
FAMILIES To MOVEOODTTTOLSOUTHLAKEOU�GING
THEPORT OR FOLLOWINGpOSE
PLEASE TELL ME HOW STRONGLY YOU WOULD
ITEMSHE CITY
21, CONTAINED
CONSTRUCTING A TEEN CENTER IF IT SS
S 0
8O NO
1
A) BASKETBALL COURTS 1
2
2
3
3
4 5
4 5
B) STAGE AREA FOR CONCERTS 1
2
3
4 5
C) COFFEE SHOP -LIKE AREA 1
2
3
4 5
D) POOL/BILLIARD TABLES
1
2
3
4 5
E) SWIMMING POOL 1
ROOM
2
2
3
3
4 5
4 5
F) WEIGHT/CARDIOVASCULAR
1
G) MEETING ROOMS FOR PROGRAMS 1
2
3
4 5
H) EXERCISE/AEROBICS ROOM 1
2
3
4 5
I) CASUAL AREA, INCLUDING BIG SCREEN
TELEVISIONS AND COUCHES
1
2
3
4 5
J) MAGAZINE/READING ROOMS 1
2
3
4 5
K) KITCHEN/DINING AREA
22. IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT A TEEN CENTER BE GEARED TOWARDS NONATHLETIC
ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DANCES, KARAOKE NIGHTS, COMEDY NIGHTS, CLASSES AND
MEETINGS. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A TEEN CENTER IN
SOUTHLAKE THAT DID NOT INCLUDE ATHLETIC FACILITIES?
STRONGLY SUPPORT 1
SUPPORT . . . . . . . 2
OPPOSE. . . . . . . . 3
STRONGLY OPPOSE . . . 4
NO OPINION . . • • • 5
23.
PLEASE TELL ME HOW LIKELY OR UNLIKELY YOU WOULD BE TO
PARTICIPATE IN
THIS
ACTIVITY IF IT WAS HELD AT THE TEEN CENTER
VL
L U
VU
NO
A)
KARAOKE NIGHT 1
2 3
4
5
B)
YOUTH BASKETBALL LEAGUES 1
2 3
4
5
C)
CONCERTS 1
2 3
4
5
5
D)
TEEN FORUMS OR SPEAKERS 1
2 3
4
E)
DANCES/GUEST DJ NIGHTS 1
2 3
4
5
F)
MOVIE NIGHTS ON BIG SCEEN TELEVISION 1
2 3
4
G)
POOL TABLES/PING PONG TABLES 1
2 3
4
5
H)
COMPUTER LABS 1
2 3
4
5
5
I)
SPECIAL INTEREST CLASSES, LIKE 1
2 3
4
TAEBEO AND SWIMG DANCING
4
5
J)
GROUP MEETINGS 1
2 3
5
K)
RACQUETBALL COURTS 1
2 3
4
5
L)
SAND VOLLEYBALL 1
2 3
4
�1
24.
HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT:"A
TEEN
CENTER IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE THE YOUTH OF THE
COMMUNITY
CAN USE
THE
'i
RECREATION CENTER FOR THEIR NEEDS?"
1
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE .
. . . .
. . .
2
DISAGREE
3
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
4
NO OPINION . . .
. . .
5
25.
HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.
THE NEEDS OF THE YOUTH OF SOUTHLAKE WOULD BE BEST
MET
SD
NO
A
D
A)
BY A TEEN CENTER CONSTRUCTED AS A STAND-ALONE
1 2
3
4
5
B)
FACILITY
BY TEEN ACTIVITIES AS PART OF THE RECREATION
1 2
3
4
5
rr
CENTER, BUT WITH A SEPARATE ENTRANCE
3
4
5
C)
BY TEEN ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN A DESIGNATED
1 2
OR ON A DESIGNATED EVENING AT THE REC. CENTER
5
D)
THE NEEDS OF YOUTH ARE BEING ADDRESSED NOW
1 2
3
4
26. REGARDING THE PROPOSED TEEN CENTER AND RECREATION CENTER PROJECTS,
WHICH WOULD BE YOUR PREFERRED CHOICE. STAND-ALONE TEEN CENTER • - 1
TEEN CENTER AS PART OF, BUT
SEPARATE FROM REC CNTR 2
REC CNTR THAT INCLUDES
TEEN CENTER ACTIVITIES 3
A RECREATION CENTER ONLY 4
NO RECREATION CENTER OR
TEEN CENTER . . • • . • 5
NO OPINION - 6
27.
HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH
THIS STATEMENT:
OFIF THE
YOUTH
CITY COUNCIL
DEEEDES ARETNOTNOT
BEINGCONSTRUCT A TEEN1
IN THIS C STRONGLY AGREE 2
AGREE 3
DISAGREE . • • •
STRONGLY DISAGREE . • 4
NO OPINION . . • . • • 5
THAT'S THE END OF OUR SURVEY BUT COULD I CHECK
ANNDI'COULD IO SEE FDIALED
HAVEOUR FIRST
CORRECT NUMBER. I DIALED
NAME, ONLY IN CASE MY SUPERVISOR HAS TO VERIFY THIS
INTERVIEW?
THANK YOU AND HAVE A NICE EVENING.
CALLER INI
SHEET # LENGTH OF SURVEY �_
w
do
N
Appendix C
Aerial Photographs
G 1 Koalaty Park
G2 Coker Property
10
fill
Ell
i pig �•� � , �j
E- °G ►�� '��__ aril = .� �� — � 4 _:
A\/Any �nnmu � � '�G � ' ,•�..II� �1� ■.—
��M
Hill
Ell comm
_C ♦ sue,-:. i
01
.�/pi■ Il/��i,�'� 1� ��IIII■ Ci•i�.•jii:���� NIIr.
-=-�'!'y�ll/�C�1�.` � 5e CIIIII■ :.;.,�•����€E�;��r .n,.,....
Sal ..1• ,
I
a
sexal `aiiely}noS jo Al!:) it]]J Ni 3-1doS OiHdddg HINON
NMVd S3Nor 808
,�-- NVId N31SdW oozi 009 oot ON o
•z ainfii.A
,py 1 advgD al?q1
'Sw)pgd ueu;sanb3
SuIVEd ueu;sanb3 .
dwE' /%EQ •
Ja;ua' ain;EN .
ja;eayjiydwy .
duiplmg woa;sad/uoissaauOD .
uoilinud .
sliejl asn-IIInW •
spuowEla Ilegaseg aa14aPJd .
S3*dnIV33 311S a3SOdO'dd
i
SUIVEd .
splai3 JaDaOS .
S3'dnIV33 311S DNIISIX3
awl moluo'
awl A:padad — —
aND31
sexal `a)lelujnoS jo Al!:D
j"alos AIN3dONd N3moni
�- — /),iNVd S3Nor 8o8
NVId N31SVW
•ez ainfi! j
HIUON
,00z= „I :3-IdoS
1333 NI TIVOS DIHdV89
oov ON ool o
USIS tiIu3 Wd .
aalla4S
slipal as,e}-jnS Ium4eN .
suad asJoH .
euajv .
S3Nf)ib33 311S a3SOdMId
U01IMS aivaid
Jano:) aaal SU14SIx3
au11 kpadold
Lol
aN3D31
�Ilud sauo( —
qo8 of ssa:)ab
punojpwn1
suad asJoH
SuI IR'd aAi-ea1-asaoH
loll
puq sdiOD u`
4Snoa4a kijadad
le4ie3 of ssaaay
`1
_ 1
S
t
'J� IJ ���✓ J1
AS 1
13 IRd
saxal `a)1elulnoS jo Al!o
/)iNVd S3Nor 808
NVId 1131SVW
•qz aanfi!=l
Mr/
,0N= ..I :3-1VOS
1333 NI 3IdOS DIHdVdg
OOt ON OOI u
USIS �Jlu3 NTed •
A:wadad sdiOD
lua:)L'(py UO Bald SUIYSI3 -
SUlNa'ed .
EWA InoNool .
sllL,jl as-epnS luinjUN .
S32 nIV3J UIS (13SOdONd
UORPIS :)IU:)Id
Iano:) aaAl SUIISIX3
aull Aliadad
H
(IN3D31
A4jadOJd lapnl
`sauo( qog woaj ssa:):)y
sexal `a)jelyjnoS jo /(lio 1133 NI 31d:)S OlHdV69 HINON
wS ),iNVd 3NV3dVS3H3
N`d-Id ivnid3ONO3 •E wn6id 002 ooz ooi 09 o
4
_
ash paym
O'
n
c�
n
0
I!ej_L asodind-!IlnW •x3
say:)uag .
splai j 93113EM .
uoilin2d .
S31111DVJ M3N a31Smns
Suiuueld . 2uuaaui8u3 . ade)spuq Li siueajnsuo_)
`saIL:)tz)ossv pup suTffom `pa :)l zu:)s
puag pasodad
o
UOINIS :)Iu:)ld
pasodWd
aai1 Sw;slx3
auil kliadad
— —
ash paxiw
plal j aapaEjd
I
I
N
L o
m Q
cu
n Lf)
�l �
plal3 aa14aEjd o
sexal `9Me14jnoS jo A113
Atl5 NNVd 3n0a 3WOS3NO I
s-► NV-1d -1vnId3ONOO
e✓ .� aan�i,�
X
T
(D
j
13Id NI 3-IdOS OIHdV60
002 ON OOI 09 O
H1bON Auiuueld . Suuaaw2u3 . ajn»aiiyajy adexpueI ui sjumInsuoD
�uj `sa��i�oss� pug SITMON'p)jDTJgDs
waISAS apron-/,4I:) of
uopauuoD IILjl. pasodad
1-101IMS :)Iu:)Id
@o
Dull ino;uo'
---
aull Auadad
----
awi pasodad
anal aa�l ;�ul;slx3
suol4�Duuo' hell .
a9JI SUllslx3
sanaD aaJl •
0 dool IIEjl allw b/I. e
aN3D31 S31111IDVJ M3N a31Smns
\S w0N
al5 ul
t
t
re
b
*
\
\ \
aml:)nj
Auld
\ \
Ulm.,
�b
E
O
3
r�1I111pJ
........... .............. sexal `eMel4lnoS jo Aj!3
«S MMVd SYVO 318ON
NVId ivnid3ONO3
--- •s ain6!d
say:)ua8
suoilaauuo' I!uj I •
Jalla4S •
suoilElS aluaid .
11Ej1 asodmd-ppW .
5311111Jb'3 M3N (131S3D!Dns
uoilaauuo' IIEjl
puag pasodad
o
uoi;EIS aivald
pasodad
aa1 Sullsix3
awl kwadad
dND31
cn
_ `n
o CD
0
c o
_3
Iaquollo'
of IIEjl �8
l]]d NI ]-Id:)S DIHdV60 HINON
091 0zI 09 02 0
# IoouoS
,C iniii�iii^+�� •n•�•i iin i inn
Juwueld . 2uu33ugu3 . ainDaiiy»F adeaspuel w siumInsuoD
Dui �sa��t�ossy puM SurjJON `pa Z)I-rq:)s
\1 DOW Iile(]aSESI
ampnS jpjn4eN
:E,M
IDIIUGP!S9a
.-
0
v
A
sexal `a)jejy}nog jo Kpo 001= „i :13-ld0s HlaoN
)iNVd QOOMNOI13HS 133J NI 3�d0s OIHcJV8
NV-ld ivnld33NO3
} 'Lain 6i� ONooi 09 o
9
sayauag .
suolIaauuo' I!LJl .
suoPeIS aluald •
11L,j1 asodbnd-!IlnW •
5311111Jb3 MIN a31S3DDns
uollaauuoD ppq
u0pu4s
aluald pasodad
puag pasodoJd o
9Sp3 Adou:) aaj1
aauaj
awl A:wadoJd ----
Suluufld • Suuaaulgu3 • a1N:)ai!q)i ' adLOSPJP1 LII s]uP)losuo.)
Dui `sa��t�oss� pug suuom 113�j�t.�s
G�►
IN
- onum p �i� S� ■. (3��p����� �
. nuum . ■.
nnlml - J ' ■'��� _
"almillIW.��=Ink
' I_ I111• ��
S- &
0
.,
0
Q
sexal `a)lelujnoS jo Al!o 133-� NI 3-IVOS DlHdddS H1aoN
i �!S ),il:l`dd S3NOf 808
NVId N31SIVW
_ •z ainfiid
SwWd uEulsonb3
Py 1adVgD al!gM
Su'IJL'd utujsanb3 .
dwt,' Apa .
jaaua:) am4eN .
jaluayllydwV .
Swplmg woa;sa-d/uolssa:)uOD .
uollinPd .
sllpj1 asn•IIinW •
spuowL,Ia IILgasug a:)I;:)EJd .
S3,dniv33 3115 (13SOdO'dd
SulIJL'd .
spla13 ia:)aoS .
5nnIV33 311S DNIISIX3
awl inoiuo' _-- -- .. _-
aull Aliadad — —
aN3D31
sexal 1931eii4lnoS jo Aj!3
• f «s kiN3dONd N33ioni
/)4UVd S3NOf 808
NVId N31SVW
-ez wnC!d
HINON
,00z=„I :3-IVOS
1333 NI 3-1VOS olHdVd9
oot ooz 00I o
USIS tiIu3 IJed .
�a�la4S
slieal a:)tpnS IemleN .
suad asJoH .
euaay •
SRiniVE 311S a3SOdMId
uOPPIS aivaid
JanoD aaJ1 SUIISIx3 )
auil A-wadad — —
GN3D31
puel sdjoD
ggnoayi �aadoad
IeyJe j of ssaaay
NJud sauo( > —
qo8 of ssaDab—,-
1 � I ✓ � �J
J
r
Jl
r^1
punoxewnl
suad asJOH
I su' JEd 101ieJ1-asaoH
l
1 ` �
l�
i j-(
_J
USIS
13 MRd
sexal `a)lelulnoS jo Apo
«s A1N3dONd IVHNV:i
Y � NNVd S3NOf 808
NVId N31gVW
•qz aan6i_q
HIUON
9
,00Z= „I :3-IVOS
133d NI TIVOS OIHdV89
o0v ON 00I o
USIS tiJU3 Ind •
Aliadoid sdio:)
luaaL'(py UO Bald Sul4sl3 .
SUINJ'ed .
'elsIA Inolool .
sllL,jl a:)L jinS IuanILIN .
UOIII^Pd .
SDiniv33 UIS (13SWOM
UOIMS Dlu:)ld
JaAOD aaal SUIJsIX3 )
�^ J
`ice-�`.�✓'-�
cull Alladoad — —
aN3031
Aliadoid laNanl
`sauo( qog woaj ssa:)ay
c
sexal `eMely1noS jo /(lio 1l3-� NI 3-ldO-S 3IHdb 0 HlaoN
NNVd 3)iV3dVS3HO
N`d-Id ivnld3ON0o
•E ain6i002 ooz 001 09 o
ash paxilN
I1pl1 asodmd-pInW 'X3
sayjua9 .
splal j aDl;aPJd .
_ --- UolllnEd .
S311111Jb3 M3N a31S3!)DfK
Suiuuuld . 2uuaaui2u3 . ain;:)aiiyaiy adexpueI w siueajnsuo3
•auj `sajptaossv pue sutjjoM `Ia�atitjas
y:)uaa pasodad
o
u014PIS :)lu:)ld
pasodad
9a1 Sul;slx3
aull Aliadad
— —
ash paxilN
Plal3 aal;:)PJd
I
I
V
O I
Q
C n
V) D
LO
Play a:)14:)Ujd o
I(D fD
OND31
9sexal `9MejyjnoS jo /Clio
S NUVd 3AOa 3WOS3NOI
NVId ivnid33NOD
- , ain6ij
133d NI 3-1VOS :)IHdd89 HIUON
0012 ON OOI 05 0
4
Suiuueld . SuuaauiSu3 - aimaaiiyaiy adexpuej ui siueijnsuo3
•:)ul `saIpiz)ossv pup su om `Ia�:)t-rq:)S
wa;sAs apm-/,4IJ of
uop3auuoD itpjl pasodad
U01IMS :)Iu:)Id
aull inoiuoJ ---
aull A.uadad ----
aajl pasodad
anaD aal SUIISIx3 suolIaauuo' III?Jl •
sanaD aall .
f ` aajl Sw4slx3 dool IILjl allw b/I. •
4N3)31 S311111DVA M3N a31S3D!)ns
C
0 `� �3
t )A/
f
sexal `a)ielglnos jo Apo il]d NI ]-Id9s DlHdVdg HlaoN
NNVd S)iVO TISON
NVld ivnld3ONO3 ogl 0zl 09 02 0
_ •S aan6i�
saq:)ua8
suolIaauuo' lied .
ja;la4S •
suoReIS aivaid .
Ilejl asodbnd•IIInW .
5311111Db'3 MIN a31S3D!)ns
uoll:)auuoD Ilejl
gaua9 pasodad
UORPIS :)ivald
pasodad
aaJl SuRsix3
I 3
-�
aull /,:wadad
(IN3D31
cn
5'
_ `o
o co
CD -Ti
0
3
laquo4;oD
04 peil �g i
5 # loouos
C iniiiniiini— n i nn inn
9uuueld . duuaauiEu3 . ajm:)ai!q:)jV adexpuel a 57ue7InsuoD
Sul 4SZ)4upossv pup suillox `Iapi Z)s
a
m
O
�noD siuual uapiro 0
• ' . o uoi�� o as �aauoid
sp
IDiJuapisa�
sexal `a)iel4jnoS jo AI!C) ,00i_ „1 :3-le:DS HINON
A.1444, MI.OS )iNVd OOOMN01 13HS 1333 NI 3-1VOS DIHddd�
_.; 4 ! NV Id ivnid3ONOD 9
.L ain6iON 001 05 0
sagDuag .
Suol;aauuo' pri-L
SUORVIS OluJid •
pull asodind-IIInW .
S31illl:) J M3N a31S3oDns
uoi;aauuOD p'Jl
uo!lu4S
:)Iu:)Id pasodOJd
puag pasodad
o
aSp3 AdoutZ) aaj_L
a:)uaj
aull A:wadad
----
SuwuvId . SuuaauiSu3 . ainaaiguy adeaspuel w s7ue�Insuo.)
•Z)ul `salptz)ossv PUP suij!om `japt.z��s
L`
Cr.
6
0'
D
3
7'1
O
D
-C1
Cn
/
n
D
O
Z
m
O
r-
m
C
m
/
3
CD
B
O
I
V
O
-ti
O
NORTH ADJACENCY, UNDEVELOPED SUBDIVISION
'=-MIN. 40' SETBACK.
OWNER, SOUTHLAKE SOLANA LTD.
411 SETBACK FOR BLDGS.
EXISTING ZONING, SF -IA
L.U.O.• LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
GREATER THAN I STORY
OR 20' IN HEIGHT
PARK ENTRY DRIVE
594
59P 596 I I I 590
588 _ _
I '-, -I I 5q6
I 1
I5�
60 D�__-8__;`_t 7 '------__
6 - _P - - _ - - 5' UT I L � EASEMENT
_ S8i19��P`�--=---- "
5 4 -- 3
- -
1592 '�`� 1 S 89'49'45'`Er1059,91'
2
-� - -- -- 1
1 '
I11
1
;� /
-
l0' 7YPE6-BTJFFERYARD ---- -_ -
--
- - ----------------1
5' UT I L EASE, T.
,
' P. 0.
4' .LINK FENCE
, , -
_ - ' b
?
K' _ _ _ _ - - t INFENCE ENCLOjURE - - - -
- - - - T I I
.
,'
_
-�
Z ,
r
' 8 W009rFENCE ENTIRE
PROP< L INE
' T9'
A 1
r l
/
588-
l STORY
5�6
TRASH
1 I I
604'
:
/ ' . ;J
r r
'
p
!
PORT ION
CCL&
�CONC.
II
2
r
T
q I
�`4e '/ , a"y
r ,A<Pq FP'
MIDALE
SCHOOL
8' MASOM; WALL
r
-r
E
S
U T
1 II
¢ '
4 602 1
+ :1
A I o yam!
r `�i �CF
/
I16TOR
v
r
594 r
AUDITORIU
9700 S
2
r
��qyF
II
°
WL
m 600''
c
' :d !�
, , PLAY ROUND
r (TURF)
I1-STORY
7000 SF
HIGH SCHO
I- & 2-STORY
ty
;o�yq
I Y
W
o
T2•
SEATING
22800 SF
••
a 59 g
'y I
FOR 400 z
4 GLRMS / 12 CLRMS./
80 STON S.
0' GYM
1-STORY
r
r 5' MASONR
:ENTRY WALL
_
'F 1
3 II
o� H
r
i -
,'
160 STONT
y ,• IN.,
TRAINING
I4500 SF
DEPTH, 75'I IT—
Lb
`
•' F ,
?
r�
SEATING
FOR 400
ErNG
,r .• AFIRE
- _'
590
SCHOOL / STORY
'
DRESS
2
2
r
I -STORY ' 200 SF rr
..2
12000 SF_ 4' LOOP " •.
ORi557E
tN I
J
�+
I
A
ROgO' i �•'.•.
�
2 I
' o,„�( I Cq ,•'r 30 STUDEN
594' , / ' i .�as,\ r� / ELEM. I N '
SCHOOL
? `• /-STORY
12000 SF
8 CLWS./
592 ' - \ NTS 1.30'STUDE
A
MIN. 40, SETBACK. °'•,'� \ GA. EN`\
41 I SETBACK FOR BLDGS."J t �'�• `\ `
GREATER THAN l STORY ELEM. 8 L'LRMS./
OR 2d IN HEIGHT SCHOOL 30 STUDEN S
'•STORY 'T/l �'rN
4
• \yyG \ SB4
r.ErAL K£V.. _ ?• )\ R•30'
GA
SEATING
FOR 200 s9 /
588- - `:k \\ n IYSi�hY-
.
\103Fn
\
` 12
ERq1,v4�E
(\
585 ¢ ��N
DRAINAGE
ION
4' LINK FENCE '. '�.\ \ `\
;
0W
\ I
ARETE
REANT
('IF REO' D) I.
I1
`
WEST ADJACENCY+ UNDEVELOPED SUBDIV`1S10N
OWNER, TERRA/CL4R/DFN L.P.
"?'I
EXISTING ZONING, SF -,A -
L.U.D., LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL :T
MULTI-
\ PLAY
9T-
F1 L (TURF)
SEAT/ I
5' UT1L. EASEMT, ',)Q FOR 00
f ,
5 MASONRY ENTR WALL —
I
I \ dt
TREE SURVEY
I LOCATION COORDINATES FROM NORTHWEST CORNER)
TREE
CAL.
TYPE
COND.
X COORD.
Y COORD.
TI
28•
B.O.
G00D
-41' -2'
0' 3'
12
24'
B.O.
GOOD
-8' -2
72' - 8'
T3
26'
B.O.
GOOD
l P - 10'
-BY -8'
r4
18,
B. 0.
GOOD
7' -5'
- 87' -3'
F5
14:
B.O.
000D
6' -3•
-154' -5'
T6
18'
BO.
GO00
18' -3'
176' -2'
T7
20•
B..0,
G00D
16' - 10'
179' .4'
T8
20'
B.0.
GOOD
80' -5'
170' -5'
T9
16•
B4O,
GOOD
73' - I P
179, -0'
TIO
7'
E.R.C.
GOOD
126' -3'
-495' -5'
T 1 1
14'MT
E.R.C.
GOOD
240' -6'
-49P -10'
T 12
12'
C. E.
G00D
282' - I P
- 634' - P
Tl3
28•MT
C.E.
000D
253' -8'
-942' -l0'
T14
26'CL
C.E.
GOOD
261' -6-
-965' - 10-
T15
20'MT
C.E.
G00D
26Y -0'
-982' - I
B.O. . BUR OAK
E.R.C. • EASTERN RED CEDAR
C.E. • CEDAR ELM
MT MULTI TRUNK
CL CLUSTER
584
L / NK BACKSTOP
\t T15': 5' 45' W 93�05' R 5j400 2i0 �Q
1
C IDEN
i
Z ♦- -7/
- 5d4
582 5\ I 6 -' 1 582 , f
582 SOUTH ADJACENC:" UNDEVELOPED SUBDIVISION
OWNER, TERRAiCLARIDEN L.P.
EXISTING ZONINv", SF -IA
L.U.O., LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
F_L��
0 30 60 120 FT.
NORTH
S 89' S6' 4-5' W 298.92'
60' R.O.W. —
----T------
350'-TO INTERSECTION
I
I
I
, I
11
� I
1 I
I
,I
1�
K_2_'� CONCEPT SITE PLAN
ll'!
SCALE, I" = 60'
NO rES I
I. OWNER,
THE CLARIDEN SCHOOL
1325 N. WHITE CHAPEL BLVD.
SOUTHLAKE TX 76092
PHONE, 817-481-7597
2. PREPARED BY,
JOHN BROOKBY, AlA
CARTER & BURGESS, INC.
777 MAIN ST.
FORT WORTH TX 76102
PHONE 817.735.6281
FAX' 817-735-6148
J. DRAINAGE RUNOFF WILL BE DIRECTED
TO CLARIDEN RANCH RD., THEN TO PLANNED
CHANNEL TO SOUTHr CHANNEL IS DESIGNED
TO CONVEY I00 YEAR RUNOFF.
REFER TO PRELIM.DRAINAGE STUDY
BY RICHARD W. DEOTTE, P.E.,
OF DEOTTE, INC., 12-18-00.
4. SCHOOL LAND IS PART OF A 95.6 ACRE
DEVELOPMENT NAMED 'CLARIDEN RANCH,'
FOR WHICH A PRELIMINARY PLAT HAS BEEN
SU8WIrTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY.
5. INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN ACCESS lS ON
PAVED WALKWAYS, SHOWN HALF -TONED.
NO EXTERNAL ACCESS OR THROUGH -ACCESS
1S ANTICIPATED FOR SAFETY REASONS.
6. PHASE I BUILDINGS, PARKING, AND FIELDS
ARE SHOWN HATCHED. NUMBER OF FUTURE
PHASES HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED.
ULTIMATE BUILD -OUT IS ANTICIPATED TO
OCCUR BY 2012.
7. ALL ASSEMBLY SEATING, CLASSROOM COUNTS,
AND STUDENT COUNTS ARE APPROXIMATE.
IT IS NOT ANTICIPATED THAT MULTIPLE
ASSEMBLIES WILL OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY,
OR THAT ASSEMBLIES DURING SCHOOL HOURS
WILL GENERATE SUBSTANTIAL PARKING DEMAND.
SITE DATA SUMMARY CHART'
EXISTING ZONING, AG
LAND USE DESIGNATION, LOW DENSITY RES.
ACREAGE (NET & GROSS), 21.9
MAIN BLDG. USE, EDUCATIONAL
SITE COVERAGE MAX, 507 (NOT EXCEEDED)
IMPERV. COV. MAXI 657 (NOT EXCEEDED)
PHASE I
FUTURE H,
TOTAL
BLDG, AEA
35 300 SF
500 F
10
PARING
REO'D
88 SP.
128 SP.
216 SPACES
SITE COV.
AREA
35,300 SF
63,600 SF
98,900 SF
3.77
6.77
10,47
IMP RV.COV.
AREA
105,900 SF
204,I00 SF
3I0,000 Sr
11. I%
21.47
32,5/.
EAST ADJACENCY' BOB JONES CITY PARK
OWNER, CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
EXISTING ZONING' (CITY PARK)
L.U.D.I PUBLIC PARKS / OPEN SPACE
&MIN. 40' SETBACK.
4'I SETBACK FOR SLOGS.
GREATER THAN I STORY
OR 20' IN HEIGHT
CLARIDEN
SCHOOL
SITE
CLARIDEN �
RANCH RD y'S
(FUTURE)
BOB
JONES
PARK
d DOVE RD.
� HWY
LNORTH
;
1 LOCATION MAP
CP NO SCALE
aU LL
V
• • • • • • • • • •
v�
W 4
O 4WW
zF.�Q�F. 20
Q02J(32 03
ctJp4vOi 00 No
W.
�Y�JOO OO
•coesF•z oa
el N
O rL
O � =
x
= Uu
U :-�:Z
Lu
V J Z P
U�o
Z
w O2�
Z=
0
a-
u CL
L1.1 O0
2 00
O
V
F-�U3
z
C&B JOB NL16ER.
07C184O.D02
DATE I SSTs.;,
03-05-2001
REV I SIgS,
--a.
a........................ -
..
a .........................
a...................... .....
a.: ........................
SFEET CONTENTS,
CONCEPT PLAN
INCLUDING:
TREE SURVEY
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN
DRAINAGE NOTES
SFEET NJI.BER,
m
2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I l 8 i 9 I im I li I 12 ( 13 I 14 I 15 I 16
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
HLM A TRACT Or LAW SWIM N THE JOEN FFEENAN SUR EV, ABSTRACT NO
54 W+RMT COUNTY. TEXAS AD ALSO Ef. PART ff A 14560 ABLE TRACT AS
RECORDED N `a1alE 12T02. PATE 21Z 00 AEC0IDS TART NT COUNTY, 04
AND MW MOUE PAR1XUU&Y DESCRBfD BY METES AND SOUNDS AS FOLLOWS
9E NNNW AT A 5/6 ICON NON ROD FORD FOR COW AT THE ) ' SBt'-1 3/4' b b'Lp• / 37-1 3/4• .-' ..--..._ �-"-. 125-9 I/2' 21'- 3/4• 1
SOUTHEAST COINER OF SAID 14.75 ACRE TRACT, SAID WON ROD BEING N THE RaL ACCESS 011E T� oI
NEST IRE OF A 1209 ACRE TRACT AS RECORDED N IVLE 71M PACE 351
IE THE MO EASTERLRECORDSY
OF 7ARRNORTHEAST
COUNTY, TEXAS SAID FA ROD AL9D BEINGCORDS 3D ' S Ra' CM7' 91922 . _ . _ . 8939'56' E 42&1;1 b' 4 PA1ERSI ro wTa �I
AT THE HOST EASTERLY NOt7HIEAST CORNER ff MOmLNO FEIGITIS AS RECORDED • -
IN VUAE 318-154 PACE A OF THE PRAT RECORDS ff TAAIMIf COUNTY,
'R -�121T Rp11 ff vu'
']O WOIIR �.,.. W. • -OLDIE- • -
TEXAS
THENCE NORTH 89 OEflrlfS 22 MINUTES 29-SECONDS EST MOVING THE CAIMY ENTRY
NORTH LINE OF SAID NOOOUED IENNR ADDITION A DISTANCE OF 796.34 FEET L LOSING jt
F
r '�•.:�:r 1ERYOAROf 4.1.'
TO A 5/8 NON Rom ROD FORD FOR CORNER AT IRE D COVER OF SAID I I I I'^ I m ( T :1 I SIGN TO MEET 9aONNANCE.� 21Y BfFERI'AAD SETBACK
----- --- T-----�--- - z.- ----- `------------------ - TPE:V
MIX1 MICE
FLOATS AOQI1011: --- ,.-} T.- �'
°EA �°' ° °OD A urU z9 SEaoos WEST �0N"a � 'nnWNER SO THLAK LAND LTJ Rl
NaRnIFAsr 1K ff SAD RIDDIXAND xDR3NT3 AOOROR A DISTANCE OE 451OS r 1 ._ I I
FiiT m A s/b NOI IRON R00 FOUND MR COIIFA I ZONED GF E C ERCIAL i J' ro T _ G 2 24' 0 24' _ TIt � MIND SETBACK IRE
T� scrum Ig MGM 37 MOTES 45 5 EAST A OSTANCE ff I 4 � I � a OWNER DALLAS FOAM
394M FEET m A 1/2In IRON Rao SET FOR CORNR OWNER W. CRAIG WILLIAM i • �FInFh2IE ffla %' = : � � I - � � �4 44 _` LUD=OFFICE COMMERCIAL
THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 21 MINUTES N SECODS EAST A DISTANCE ff rY RESIDENTIAL it---, I I RE N{Lr i ,84
553Y FEET m A 1/2In IRON ROO SET FOR CORER N THE SOUTH LUD= LOW DEN SI f ,I' - ZONE 61
RNM OF WAY LIE OF SOMAAIL 8L10/TJL NO1709 AS CONVEYED m THE ZONED SFIA ;; '3M57, PA� i ,LINE LgOAIX I o I i _ ;r 3i PROPERTY UK TV.
STATE ff TEXAS AM RECORDED N VOLUME 9857. PAGE D1 ff THE DFFD 11 I -I i _ 1 _ _ _ I I / .. s75T'4 \ OE90U1ED FRE LANE
RECORDS OF TARRANT COWRY, TEXAS; i' "_. -I I I ; I ) --_-- I G rc - • - - • -
IFfNCE SOUTH 89 0E0POS 39 MINUTES MOMEAST 1`01.0eaNc THEI ' [_Z_ - i I i j - -� -1 �f._- `"I b .p •b.
SW1H R.O.W.`E LINE E SAID SOHIRAE Blw/Tx No.1709 A DISTANCE OF
--- I I - .-:
425.03 FEET TO A STEEL FORCE POST FOUR FOR CORNER.D PIONEE OWNER STEIi --- -%1 I I - + .�. `E BUCHA� d,AM
IFENCE SOUTH 0 aFOEES 31 MINUTES A SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF ,; _-- '..�• �. ; 11 I
Imam FEET ID BE PORT OF BEGINNING AND IXRRAIINP 5916m SIXIAIE PANY ` LUD= OFFICE COMMERCIAL
FEET OR 11675 AM OF LAND.
PERMISSION TO TOY° �l__-_J�_ 1 LUD= OFFICE OMME, IA <A . ZONED 61
LNLR01 FOR USE ff THIS ' ,2 i 1 ' L_ - . I I ^' 4 H.C. (I YANj b
FIRE LATE TIE: LEM IF�---- T / 4\` -7 dT �- -I Z Bl '�,I ` •,`. - ••� Rs awRc sE'aAGR !9E
SITE DATA SUMMARY
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
TOTAL
170500 MOW
AG
AG
AO
PRnosm mees9
cs
cs
Cs
MID USE ®f1i im
OFF./COVE.
Orr./GOWN.
-
CIM ICIGCE
5.675 AC.
D AC.
13.975 AC
NET XXA
5.675 AC.
6 ACL
13.975 AC
1RR4 OF POOP= mIS
t
1
1
101m a v SE Una RED ON.)
4x
4x
am
AKA O ODN Wa
6 AC.
4 AC.
I2 AC.
PFaKOW OF 90 PACE
s9x
30x
-
Am O womm CIPAN E
5.675 AC.
9.575 AC.
-
POmIUi[ OF eIOIVI S COMM
41X
70x
-
MOM RUN wA (ff. POW N SfJ
21.&M SF.
21.600 S7.
43.600 Sr.
MMo W 3106Q
2
2
2
VAL ROM HDOa
as.
35•
-
PRVOSF1009MIX
21,aoo sF.
21,6o0 sr.
43.600 sr.
PUPOO AM AEA Wf UK
jm.1a
sum4wat
-
' INTO P LIM
310
310
$20
PROVIDED PA■OR
__
-_
_
samum
313
297
610
19EaAP
9
4
13
M.
322
301
$23
WNRO mfw6 shm
--
-
-
PRDIW WORN 9Nt0
--
-
-
mu or ou SQ SImME
400 SF
400 SF
400 SF.
POIAM M[ Or 01= SDRAG
Nu
MA
YA
TrARFCMT■ICmR M/IL
AUG./2001
ALM/2004
Em miswln2r vvm
APRII./20o2-
APRE/2005
SUMMARY CHART - BUFFER YARDS
UICADDII IOaR a
IDE IA
F
LOW
9vWm
SEES
RB3
9 O9S
N�AIN NIT.
1ma4
11111111M
Of-*W
9
O
0
Y
Y
INN
"-4-w
E
Is
0
Y
■
WWI
eae0
af-"
r{
N
4
a
■
RmNY
2(4f.W
If-C
N
N
a
a
On
e8A!
Nr
!a
a
a
1
I ■
1WNR
ew
!4
a
a
1
■
WID
eDe
>M
It:
a
E
a
f l
IY!
Or
r{
IS
a
a
f R RAE
Im-I
iciiiiial
It
1 14
6
0
Y
■
ROAD
3v
f-A
1
0
Y
■
aIIi
a6@
of
ri
4
_
A
a
r L
TOR
rN
fi
4
a
IS
Y l RITE
wRaaa craw u®rR aua lava ■noa D-rae
SUMMARY CHART - INTERIOR LANDSCAPE
IYOLEE
MO
3 O AEA
N 1Ta O
St
°Art
im
X=
a°3
SINE
ROID
COO
St.
IIDN
CGDt
u.
II¢-1
®
a
A
IS
a
M
w
m
Aim
AN
II
■
a
IV
N
IN
6IA-4
®
N
s
a
s
IN
■
m
aRM
i73a
A
N
a
IN
IN
m
am:
NSm
A
a
a
a
ev
at
LUD= RETAIL COMMERCIAL
B2MERCIAI Lip= EONL COMMERGA LUD R�( INTERNAT.
O tIERCIAL 1_
ppNC, �'It 20115) 32-'
G MIX�07oo0AP9�
E4cm47 MY.BAR • Ieac-� SOUTHLAKE BLVD. / FM 1709 a
. --
LAG£ OTE - (44669J)
O.T.R./R-EGENCY TX REAUT)
L_UD= RETAIL COMMERCIAL
MR=
T. MAHAN SURVEY
A-1049
+r120• NIGHT OF 'NY
� I
.TIo
sle
�T- COHFHINE (I ROAD
ME YARD I LOCATION MAP
1!,' )6'-0• IS'I LINE -1 4'- ( / S E A REFER YARD TYPE:-rL
-4:-- c b 8 4 1 ' I SOY¢ Lg7DNT 4' b 4 eP*06a l m0 PSI GOING Nrs
- - - - - - - - ' 4n 6p' ' -- aRD I I ' �• I-5t01RD m WTOI ! i WALL >R96 z i • .. E 01 NEDL
/3 AEBAR 615
t - T rfP^/il vANJO NdG1G
I-rBL•DNG tr+9i - PHASE- BUILDING `
923 SEATS TP. 9 r 16 PARKING PROPERTY oaER C26WNY HAZE GATEWAY CHURCH
•3.310 RE UREID-PA DING ' , STALL
TIEA. GAI'ACT QDRGE Gt1NS
ACTUAL PARKING SPACESACIDNESS 2221
21LEBL1a
12_ 9 HC SP 2E �ti
MAXIM D. DING HEOIT-PHONE m7-X9-O �T70TIP.
OWNER 'N. CRAIG 'MLLIAM z t 1 -- I , ' I -I r l I U-RM Sf / V-IM SF S fAx 9m 9n n90
LUG= LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL f _ _ ( -•g I '�- II SANMARY /GASSROG6 Ii70P.N1YPRFPAM COPANYNAE PRO" AROVECIS.nG
ZONED SFIA j 84 I (r I NEOi-A/C E6UP. 5 I5C z 19-5 T� � 128411 JOESTom Yrc� STE 2!0
38-d ORNAMENTAL TOURER 1 T "0 f - FOUNTAIN AND ORNAMENTAL TMFR PIOE HOUSTON TOIAS 77070
IOU OIIIET6llE OF TP.' - I { {
t I -- (EASEAD T REmNmfD N-'-li PHASE BUILDING / 2211-970-7747
FAX 7eL 976 77s7
IS 9ALN0 sETaAa f --- V L 366e, PAGE: 660.1! S BUFRRYA _- ' J 9•.9 SATs [- -' LANDSCAPE TRAFFIC CYKU LAM USE DESIGNATED a Ott OF 9OLIHNE
LINETIC AID PARKING Us PLAN i INDICATED As
C T---_ - ! I '•,I ,j-�-- ° (ADM- TO COWL) - I� 4 •Oaf J10 ADORi 'ti ^ OfRCE meWEAOAL PROPERTY 6
fi{I I -�N O sP A' HIl TRAFFIC PAVRS SET d CNG SASE. OA6ETInr �}D USD As NI
IOU IAFPBI YAD 114E C ' ' ' ' t4, Wit- (' AO6OA.lURAL Vs - HRNg SORELY
ST"HNG OF t MAI6RRL$AD•O ' ' - _ fin LAZE PAMIG ro 1[Ei
1
Y
1 CENiF'S2E ff 7C iP. 6L • ' I I t BUILDING ATMs, I Y\2�SB>fQS"o. -"'• N CITY OF S U1N 11 LIM. 2GmG THE 11875 ALOES AM OR6iNRT ZONED
I��PROPERtt UE PUNT; + i U-21 / Lb10OF __, ____-F? T N -T ' 1' t 16 ,n _ , NOT � THAN TYS TA451AE M
VOL 366E PALE 600 15 NADNG s1BAIX ` -iH 1 pMODFIED SUBGRADE IN ACCORDANCE 10" REQUEST CS MW Mtt SERVICES
S REPORT
10 1
10 1
SUPPOR7,' .4
_ _
S 8937 46- 394.3 - - - ' '�" r�A OFS'-' ' 3 A MMIM 65,000 LBS ON
OIL -ROE TUA1NMg7� \ - - - -�24. 4-,1yt4PE� � Y L - -r ,- _ ------ - I ---- \ ' ~• BALM USA¢ GAINY OMDI RAY m IAED A eo0 s R0 4 mEf 71G
~ { t
I I • G I •� 24 t,4 ' 6 I8 8 21' ' ,; 1` p MAAr AGE AND
ON na SITE
�f iA 2 W.iiYGROUt;� ..i L=3 WRPoA(E Ao FAMILY Nr6sTRI' 6 NV1Lxn a
OWNER GEORGE BARCLA'i G .r d ; { ^ It V PROOION ANEIOr ELEx9ax PROGRAMS
1 P 1 S I; I I I {III ' ?\ / I =-: "' O STYLYUDIIO, THAT ECSSiS Aa�RY'�
LUD= LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1 '0 0• }_'_1 �J_!_1_� ' ' LL J _ `" THE CHURCH NOICATES THAT NRPE
�� >H�, ------ PREY FM LAW sTlaDc
1 ' /----______ ___ PEARS WOAD fY11AE A PQ,OBfiY
YD CONICS )1O PAODW^. -TIRE LAIC ff A OU C1PE CENTER OR SO600L USE
ZONED SFIA 'A 19; ' . , i, .. , AS PER SO7BRAa STAR aYDS
eri iy _ ! t I 'i' '{'
.__ _ .�1 ' 4 H.C. (2 YN1) C E SPACE REQUIRED FOR EVERY IMaE
'TIBAOL IR + I / ''' ` �', ( 1'` G / / oI = SEAR N THE SANCTUARY. 1600 SEATS EQUALS
ONIFAlE ff IE T.P. di d 1 1 1 1 i i i i 26I EO.DID 9M4S PHP'TO BE PROVIDED. sY D. PYAD A
f/.s3DU OF 10' T a .�i{ ' ` ,'-r-rkirr - - - �rli= -r-�* Y/~0 i Y �&T-fi-r rrr r�I ! 7 4�'r h ',; , -SPLIT DOTS � TREES 1N2GGTF5 B11,V CANOPY F=' SPACES m LE DOESSI
N NR1A11O MAN TAS'IF7AS AC[EiaWltt
STAMDAFM
YL IOM4 PALL TO , G �� y rI 9"" aLfa1G SHALL RE 100% SPRINSI D
OUNPSIER (PHASE 1) <2
. - - - - • - - I _ _ I • .,/ / _ E STAID C U SURROUND i z Aim RRE: SITE DATA SUMMARY TABLE
I ; ' I I i 11,;15`.O q7`�� ;12♦ ' III ' ' .. .I''��` �� -
�`�
i._i_._Lii i.l- i 0 fl
'i_ii TT�1 ' II 1 • �'-� 1' -
'
ro 9ATCH RAGING
CM FINISH,
1C EARPEI YAM M. C
riArr_r_
._r:'4- 8 _ _-_--'C--:
'/ \' i �\• r r$i R
''9+y , .,'-
' r'Y I I I I " �='-I�11 T.
I i ,y,✓ �� ri; j$ '
6'-0' HNN 51NRGAD
4 SEED WHIN METAL GATE
i 1. I : I
� �
W
B - WOO FENCE a ALL
TE900fTUl AD4AODIT PROPERTIES_,
~7
1
1'i
I
DASHED PA6mC LIES IDR'J11ES 750 HD PW LOT LI NIS
PHASE 2 PAIONG ETC I HT-20' / LOLNG SHALL OGBLY WIN CM WIT.°D. - _
' f-•
11J_1_a L L1J1_i LL S9Ll_l_t '' ' ' ' . "
'
DASHED PARKING LIM NWATES
PHASE 2 PARKING ER:
p
J_Ll_1_L
LAri' 1J Ll 1_1_Lli{_L1111 R '
_ il_._,.-�iLL�_�ii 1
'
I
1 PA'W
�_ " OLLWSTER (PHASE 2) '
'
OWNER GREENWAY - 1709 / ELEVEN PARTNERS
OWNER LLOYD RANEY '*'-
3
I 6 nea MP.9 a
I i�ur".
2
-� rm I
LUG= OFFICE COMIdERC AL
LUD= LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
1 EDAo'I PP. ALL PAWX,PADGa
� w7iae Sim
/ 1
ZONED SFIA cm
'
cm I
HIGH GISiva" I
I
ZONED Oi
N
O .
I
I
4 SIDE ON METAL. GATE
r n1 Das Nc POD I a NRFER YAM T PE C. ' HATCH INDICATES INTERIOR RED
d IRAUAO SETBACK I PERMASLE AREAS
1 1
--- ---- _--
- r ---- ----- y, ---� -- �l.- _ _- - - - - - - _ - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - ✓. i N'89t'30`-W 796.W.._ .� CARRGL ISO
S - WOm MICE a "L � � LUD= PUBLIC-SEVI ?!;6;_IC
RESIOflUL A7JAENT PROPERTIES / OWNER JOHN TAYL R / OWNER TERESA CHAPMAN
LUD= LOW DEN-HY RESIDENTIAL LUD= LOWDENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONED CS
/ ZONED SFIA / ZCNIED SFIA CW?+ER CaRLOS DCRRIS
I SITE PLAN - PHASE 2 " LUD= L,W DENSITY RESIDENIIIAL
I:eO � ZCNEC SFIA
APPLICANT:
CARAWAY CNWR04
P.a BOX 100.
VEST SOUIDJANE SOJIHLAXE Blw. /12E2-m d
ATIX GE RGE GOBBS
617-529-on
m7-251-4901) FAX
CASE NUMBER: ZA00-124
` 15 I 16
PP R�
TALI Arr w 4YA er. a 7ww
p■1 n►a1w MWI /A~no
Pf�1B�7ARY n
FM RENE'M %Lf
DNw d6aml•1b a• it
or coMedo view fII
Vied i dm* &A
y fr M*Uvwm NR
L
I
Sy:yErbe� ji�e3=: Cs
�3t Y3 tl 2
gsb�;5`f T� sib
LL ;za,i, 3j
g9 IT
i� 3�Se MAati = -
?;Mi3?i5� j;rkge3
a �-s IN z- ili.�b7 F
3sin'as :�Aig��
�� 2-tayT XpEi
-
14siE3�d32€P:3�5
- i
xR
V 0 II
r1�
V
Drawn bp. TK:U
Cbedmdby. SKIL I -
R. •a. P
3
!
!
I Nate•: m4.
Drawing NO:
A-1 A
of
I 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 ro I T I 8 I - 1 10 1 H 1 12 1 13 1 14
i 1 i 2 i 3 i 4 I 5 i 6 l I 8 9 I 10 I II I 12 I 13 I t4 I 15 I 16
1
4�ar�na !
a..rmu .`�"• � I
1
4 SAS ELEVATION IMSTI •wrtrrnusoa camnm�m
„r-rw
24'-I• 14'-7• 17-5• 14'-Y 17-5' 14'-7' 4-4•
u
jI00 00 10 0 0
I
I �,I
I�
3 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ISOUTHI �oy� w ��
i
155'-S 3/4•
PHAS"c 2 E VANSON S OE -
IJ " 1:1FT
$' 1
2 T1 k SIDE ELEVATION INON'(NI
\ '-Ol 14'-Y 17 5 __F• I 14'-i I 1Y-5• I 14'-7' I I8'-9• I 2T-T
92'-3'
I
I I
FNONT ELEVATION IEASTI —�G . .. t J '.
vw n.+ s AMC�W,
6ATEMY OUCH
1'0. BOX W .
i \B K SMY M1w 7EYAS v. 97 ec0
44'-0I/2' I4'-7' >< t2'-5* / 14'-Y 1Y-5' 14'-7' AT% GEOME "%e"l
O .. 1X1-327-/AL
W-M-4W FAX
CASE NUMBER- ZA00-124
1 1 1 1
P R E M I E R
P -
Is11 rn-no ngsll �nsl
miarwA T M
fir dactsY M f°e
MVIw
ad IIOt IYYd y �� —
w Ga1111fJ1a1 YYII YII
y41,�
a' S
� a�s's;s:i Z':'yL e.�5 r=o-•4•
38���a�r 3fip�YI' —
Ni
e
5 —
k �
V
r
M-awa Iry: TKU _
Pr.j.d. vu: .
Checked by. 5xa
P—mislom
8
I�Lte: 0A•08.01
Ihaxing YO.:
SD2
of� —
1 1
2 I 3 4 i 3 i 6 I i I 7 7 I uu I 11 I I i� I 1 ,�