2001-03-191
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
March 19, 2001
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Sherry Berman, Chair; Chris Miltenberger, Vice -Chair; Cara White,
Secretary; Mary Georgia, Lisa Stokdyk, Michael Nelson
Board Members Absent: Jim Glover
Staff Members Present: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services; Steve Polasek,
Deputy Director of Community Services; Chris Carpenter, Senior Parks Planner; Emily
Galpin, Community Services Coordinator; and Administrative Secretary Linda Carpenter.
Regular Session:
Agenda Item No. 1, Call to Order Chair Sherry Berman called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 2, Administrative Comments
• The Grand Opening and Town Hall Dedication ceremony will be held this Saturday,
March 24, at 2:00 p.m. The festivities include a CityFest from noon to 6:00 p.m.
Citizens can take tours of the new Town Hall, visit various city department -sponsored
activity booths, enjoy live dance performances by the Toyoma, Japan and El Fuerte,
Mexico delegations, musical performances by Carroll High School jazz band and the
Lake Cities Band.
• A tour of area cities' (Grapevine, Colleyville and Arlington) recreation centers, as
discussed at the Park Board Retreat, is proposed for Saturday, March 31 at 9:00 a.m. It
should take approximately 4-5 hours to complete. Please contact Linda Carpenter at
(817) 481-1542, email your response to larpenter@cityofsouthlake.com so that
transportation and meals can be arranged. Chairman Berman said this is very
important tour and urged all Board members to attend.
• The Kelly Miller Circus. will perform Thursday and Friday, March 29-30', at
Bicentennial Park. There will be two performances daily, 4:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.
Proceeds will go to benefit the Friends of the Southlake Library and the Southlake
Public Library.
• Mr. Miltenberger commented on the success of last weekend's TAAF Basketball
Tournament and asked if staff was overtaxed by the extra hours they worked? Mr.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page I of 24
N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Hugman said it was a strain on the rec staff and that maintenance staff and volunteers
also assist with events such as this. Mr. Hugman commended the staff, saying they did
a great job!
• Ms. Galpin explained how the Youth Parks and Recreation Board, SYAC and the
Volunteer Program are assisting in promoting parks and recreational activities and
recruiting volunteers for those events by advertising the event on the "Community
Services" bulletin board at Carroll High School, and by holding Teen Volunteer
Training programs once a month to assist new volunteers.
• Litter Free Zone is an initiative that Keep Southlake Beautiful is kicking off to help
prevent litter. They have put up signs at parks and rec events to remind people "this is a
litter free event and to put litter in its place." Another way the city has promoted the
Litter Free Zone concept is they have contacted sports associations (baseball and
softball at this time), explained the program at their meetings and handed out packets on
the "Keep Southlake Extreme Clean" program. The "Keep Southlake Extreme Clean"
program involves the team members and their families by providing coupons for
cleaning up the fields after each game. The team in each age bracket with the most
coupons at the end of the season will be awarded "Star Player - Extreme Clean" water
bottles for each team member. They are also working on tee shirt awards.
The committee is also seeking to provide education by listing the "10 Top Tips for
Preventing Litter" on the back of the coupon and will continue "Keep Southlake
Extreme Clean" with other sports programs (hockey, basketball, soccer, etc.) as their
seasons arrive.
KSB is currently working on placing Litter Free Zone signs in the parks, on the trash
and recycling receptacles and the backboards.
Ms. Berman encouraged the boys baseball and girls softball members to recycle those
plastic goods.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Ms. Berman stated that during the work session, the Board agreed to move Item 5-C,
"Recommendation of the site for Recreation Center" and Item 5-1), "Approval of 2001 Park
Board Goals and Objectives" to the Consent Agenda section of the meeting, unless anyone in
the audience objected. She explained a public meeting had been held regarding the recreation
center site and there had been no objections to the recommendation of the Timarron/Richard's
site. She asked if anyone wished to comment?
Tad Stephens, 804 Shorecrest Drive: Mr. Stephens referenced another possible site location for
the recreation center Bicentennial Park and described it as the area of the future boys baseball
parking lot -- currently south of the baseball fields and west of the Tennis Center. An unlit
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 2 of 24
N.lParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
parking lot could be moved to the area close to Love Henry Court. He commented this plan
was presented during the time the .Board was considering placement of the rec center on "the
Hill," which met with strong opposition. He asked if the Board was interested in looking into
this plan?
Staff responded that site, as well as others at Bicentennial Park, had been carefully reviewed.
The location of the site mentioned by Mr. Stephens did provide some benefits, but the "cons"
outweighed the advantages when looking into the parking situation, bringing people across the
channel by the Love Henry Court area, and the size of the area. The site was not a viable
location for the recreation center.
The Board decided not to move Item 5-C, "Recommendation of site location for the Recreation
Center," to the Consent Agenda section, but to consider it in its regular sequence.
A motion was made to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2001 meeting as amended;
Item 3-13, Grapevine-Southlake Soccer Association request for matching funds [for soccer
goals at Bob Jones Park]; Item 3-C, approval of shade structure designs for baseball fields at
Bicentennial Park; Item 3-D, payment of [park dedication] fees in the amount of $3,145.60;
Item 3-E, payment of [park dedication] fees by High Point/Shady Oaks in the amount of
$33,000; Item 3-F, request for the Southlake Equestrian Association's grant funding to be
assumed by the City; and Item 5-1), Approval of the Park Goals and Objectives.
Motion: White
Second: Georgia
Discussion:
Ms. Stokdyk noted two minor corrections to the February 12' meeting minutes. Page 9, Line
2, correct to say, "Mr. Miltenberger stated that he is hearing that lighted athletic fields are a
concern..." and on Page 9, Line 15, correct to read, "Ms. Stokdyk suggested ... a water park -
type facility perhaps on the city -owned land at Pearson, bordered by Keller."
Motion continued...
Ayes: Berman, Nelson, White, Georgia, Stokdyk, Miltenberger
Nayes: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 3 of 24
N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901.doc
I ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONSENT ITEMS
2
3 Agenda Item 3-B, SPDC matching grant funds request from Grapevine-Southlake Soccer
4 Association (GSSA) for soccer goals at Bob Jones Park
5
6 The GSSA submitted a request to the City for consideration of matching funds for the purchase
7 of four additional sets of soccer goals for use at Bob Jones Park. The goals are estimated to
8 cost $10,000 and would provide flexibility in the scheduling of games for various age groups
9 and allow the site to host future tournaments. The estimated order and installation time for the
10 soccer goals is forty-five days. Acceptance of this request commits the City to fund the
11 purchase of soccer goals for a cost of up to $5,000 as part of the FY2000/01 SPDC Matching
12 Funds Program. The approved SPDC Matching Funds budget is $100,000. Matching funds in
13 the amount of $66,250 have been allocated to date for other projects, leaving an unencumbered
14 balance of $33,750. The Parks and Recreation Board approved and will recommend to SPDC
15 that the City participate in the purchase of additional soccer goals for use at Bob Jones Park for
16 an amount not to exceed $5,000 with funding allocated through the SPDC Matching Funds
17 Program.
18
19 Agenda Item 3-C, Approval of shade structure designs for baseball fields at Bicentennial Park
20
21 The Southlake Baseball Association has submitted and been awarded SPDC Matching Funds in
22 the amount of $65,000 for the design, purchase, and installation of bleacher shade structures
23 on Bicentennial Park baseball fields #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10. The shade structures
24 would consist of a galvanized pole support structure covered with a UV shade fabric. The
25 fabric will be similar to that used on the existing shade structures at the Bob Jones Park soccer
26 fields and the Southlake Tennis Center. The recommended fabric colors of burgundy or royal
27 blue (#4, #5, and #10) and forest green (#6, #7, #8, and #9) will match the existing dugout
28 shade covers.
29
30 There are three designs as a result of the difference in the fields. The largest structures will
31 utilize corner posts and will be on fields #8 and #9, followed in size by fields #6 and V. Fields
32 #4, #5 and #10 will be slightly smaller and will use a cantilevered design. Bronze plaques will
33 be sized to fit the columns, but will be no larger in size that 10" x 10". The plaques will be
34 affixed to the shade structure columns to recognize the contribution of SPDC and private
35 sponsors.
36
37 Agenda Item #3-D, Recommendation of park dedication requirements for proposed Lots 5R1-
38 R1, 5R1-R2, & 5R2-R21, Lots 5R1 & 5R2, Parker's Corner -- 3.932 acres
39
40 Section 7.03(A)(2) of the City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance requires dedication of
41 parkland at a ratio of one (1) acre of parkland for every 50 gross commercial acres and Section
42 7.05(A)(2) allows the City Council, at the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Board,
43 to determine the acceptability of a developer's payment of fees in lieu of park land dedication
44 requirements. The City's Fee Schedule establishes the park dedication fee for non-residential
45 development at $800 per gross acre.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 4 of 24
N. I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARDI MINUTES120011031901. doc
1
2 According to these provisions, the applicant for Parker's Corner, which consists of 3.932
3 acres, is required to either dedicate .08 acres of park land or pay the equivalent in park
4 dedication fees for this addition in the amount of $3,145.60.
5
6 The Parks and Recreation Board approved the fee payment of $3,145.60 in lieu of park land
7 dedication and will present their recommendation to City Council as provided for in the
8 developer agreement.
9
10 Agenda Item #3-E, Recommendation of park dedication requirements for Tracts 3A, 3A1B,
11 3A2, 3E, 3E1, and a portion of Tract 3A1C, (High Point Estates), involving 14.654 acres
12 located on the west side of Shady Oaks across from Love HenryCourt
13
14 Section 7.03(A)(1) of the City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance requires dedication of
15 parkland at a ratio of one (1) acre of parkland for every forty (40) residential dwelling units
16 and Section (7.05)(A)(1) allows the City Council, at the recommendation of the Parks and
17 Recreation Board, to determine the acceptability of a developer's payment of fees in lieu of
18 park land dedication requirements. The City's Fee Schedule establishes the park dedication fee
19 for residential development at $1,500 per dwelling unit.
20
21 According to these provisions, the applicant for High Point Estates, which consists of 22 lots,
22 is required to either dedicate .55 acres of park land or pay the equivalent in park dedication
23 fees for this addition in the amount of $33,000.
24
25 The Parks and Recreation Board approved the fee payment of $33,000 in lieu of park land
26 dedication and will present their recommendation to City Council as provided in the developer
27 agreement.
28
29 Agenda Item #3-F, Request execution of Texas Parks and Wildlife grant on behalf of Southlake
30 Equestrian Association (SEA) for equestrian trail improvements, and reauthorization of
31 $10,000 SPDC matching grant funding
32
33 SEA was awarded a grant for $5,317 through the Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD) National
34 Recreational Trails Fund Program on August 26, 1999. SEA requested and was awarded
35 conditional SPDC matching funds of $10,000 on September 27, 1999. SEA intends to raise the
36 remaining $3,683 through individual donations and fund-raising events.
37
38 SEA has not been able to enter into the required contract with TPWD since they are not a
39 501c(3)-status organization. A municipality can execute the contract, however that implies a
40 liability on the City by transferring responsibility for execution and financial match from SEA
41 to the City. As such, this transfer required Park Board's recommendation and City Council
42 approval.
43
44 The Parks and Recreation Board approved this item on Consent and will forward their
45 recommendation to City Council.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 5 of 24
N. I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARDI MINUTES120011031901. doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Agenda Item #5-D, Approval of the 2001 Park Board Goals and Objectives
At the Park Board's annual retreat on February 16, 2001, the Board identified the following
goals:
Identify future park needs per Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
Increase public awareness and use of existing and future multi -use trails
Develop the Nature Center at Bob Jones Park
Support construction of future Recreation Center
• Promotion of city parks in the Southlake Scene
Enhance Park Board knowledge and understanding of park and recreation
related issues
Later in the meeting, Ms. White asked to have the Goals and Objectives, Page 1, amended to
include "Identify Grants " in Part 3.
REGULAR AGENDA
Agenda Item #4, Public Forum
Ms. Berman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak during Public Forum. There
was no response from the audience, so the Public Forum was closed.
The meeting continued with the consideration of Item 5-C.
Agenda Item #5-C, Recommendation of site for Recreation Center
Mr. Hugman presented this item stating that staff had been working for many months on
possible site options for a proposed recreation center. The SPDC Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP) for 2001-2003, includes funding this fiscal year for design of a recreation center with
construction planned for next year. In order to move forward with the design, a site must be
chosen because the design will be based on the site.
SPDC directed staff to find a suitable site that the City already owned so additional property
would not have to be purchased. A number of locations were looked at and a number of sites
within Bicentennial Park were considered. The preferred location that staff came up with was
the site on the hill. The 13 acres that the City purchased was considered, but it was not suitable
to put in a softball complex, recreation center, parking and a driveway. Some other areas that
were proposed by various individuals were also reviewed, but for various reasons, due to
access, parking, planned facilities, staff felt the most viable option was on the hill at
Bicentennial Park. After much opposition arose for the Bicentennial Park location, the Park
Board asked staff to look at the possibility of using the Timarron/Richards site.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 6 of 24
N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901.doc
I The Timarron/Richards site was originally purchased by the City for a municipal complex. In
2 February staff approached Council about the possibility of the site and they were very
3 supportive and suggested staff look at the site for a recreation center as well as a future library.
4 Staff developed a concept plan in-house for the site that included the recreation center, existing
5 senior activity center, and future library site. After reviewing the plan with the SPIN
6 neighborhood, staff felt they had allayed many of the concerns of the residents in that area.
7 The plan addresses the neighborhood's concerns regarding traffic, lighting, and tree
8 preservation and staff believes it does not deviate from the original intent of that property. The
9 concept plan has a campus -style design and preserves open space. Trails have been
10 incorporated throughout the property and the parking is on the north side, away from the
11 existing residential area.
12
13 Mr. Hugman said the Timarron/Richards site offers many advantages and few disadvantages,
14 and they recommend it as the preferred site for the recreation center. City Council's approval
15 of the Timarron/Richards site will allow staff to move forward with contracting an architect to
16 begin site planning and design of the recreation center.
17
18 Ms. White asked if any financing details had been worked out. Mr. Hugman responded that
19 financing had not been addressed yet. Staff has put that question to the Council and they have
20 not yet been given any indication as to whether financing would be an issue or not. Mr.
21 Hugman could not speculate whether SPDC would need to purchase the property, but said he
22 should have more direction from Council after the Tuesday meeting.
23
24 Ms. White expressed her concern with approving the item without knowing the financial issues
25 even though she felt it was the best site.
26
27 Mr. Miltenberger responded to Ms. White saying that the Park Board could approve the
28 recommendation of the site, with a condition of their approval being, that if it turns out it will
29 cost them more money, the Board can request that another site be considered.
30
31 Ms. White agreed on the Board's conditional approval -- she didn't want it assumed that was
32 the only thing they were considering.
33
34 Ms. Georgia commented that once the Park Board approves a site, that would be the only
35 consideration unless the finances can not be worked out. In which case, that would create a
36 new issue. She noted that the Board "works off a plan and we don't have, even in the Master
37 Plan being considered at tonight's meeting, the funds laid out for the next five years to build
38 everything considered tonight." Ms. Georgia added, "We have the money this year to plan,
39 through the Master Plan for the site and I would expect we would do that and proceed. Then
40 determine what the costs are and budget accordingly. "
41
42 Mr. Miltenberger and Ms. White felt it was important to know what the cost would be prior to
43 approving any site.
44
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 7 of 24
N. I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARDI MINUTES120011031901. doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Ms. Stokdyk asked Mr. Hugman if Site C was the location Scott Martin had talked to Chris
Carpenter about, stating that she had not seen a presentation on the site. Ms. Stokdyk added
that she thought Mr. Martin had made a presentation also on what is known as the Crime
District property on East Dove and White Chapel, but did not find that site listed on the
potential sites list provided in their packet.
Mr. Hugman addressed Mr. Stokdyk's question saying that he believed Site C was the site Mr.
Martin had discussed with a staff member. The only site Mr. Martin showed staff was a
location in Bicentennial Park and it was a very tight location. The proposed site required taking
up some of the existing parking lot and relocation of some of the planned facilities. It put the
rec center very close to the in -line hockey court, with very little bufferyard between the two.
Staff did not feel that it was a viable option.
Mr. Hugman addressed Mrs. Stokdyk's question about the Crime District property proposed
by Mr. Martin, stating that the Crime Control and Prevention District intended to sell the
excess property to recoup the costs of purchasing the piece. In addition to that issue, staff
questioned whether a location on the north side of the city could be considered centrally
located to all residents. Staff did not have an opportunity to examine the plan in detail as it was
presented during a City Council meeting.
Although the Timarron site is expected to go forward as planned, should this item require a re-
visit by the Board, Ms. Stokdyk indicated she would like to see both of Mr. Martin's proposals
and look into the advantages and disadvantages for each.
Mr. Hugman commented that the funding issue would need to be resolved and that it would be
addressed by SPDC at some point once a site had been selected. He restated that the Park
Board's responsibility today was to make a recommendation for a site and that funding would
be handled by the SPDC.
Ms. Berman reminded members this was a "consider" item and then asked if there was anyone
in the audience who wished to speak other than the comments entertained earlier in the meeting
by Mr. Stephens.
A motion was made to approve the Timarron/Richard's tract as the Park Board's desired site
for the recreation center.
Motion:
Miltenberger
Second:
Stokdyk
Ayes:
Berman, Nelson,
Nayes:
None
Approved:
6-0
Motion carried.
White, Georgia, Stokdyk, Miltenberger
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 8 of 24
N. I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARD I MINUTES120011031901. doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mr. Hugman promised to bring back any and all options should this recommendation not go
forward.
Mr. Nelson asked if the City Council was cognizant of the timeline associated with this item
and the grant money? Mr. Hugman said they would be informed of that at Tuesday's meeting.
Ms. Berman said the Board would skip over Item 5 A, Parks Master Plan, in order to consider
Item 5-B next.
Agenda Item #5-B, Resolution supporting grant application of Cross Timbers Equestrian Trails
Association for improvements to trails
Mr. Hugman presented this item noting there had been discussions in the past about creating a
multi -use trail around Lake Grapevine. An association was formed to explore the idea.
Currently, the Cross Timbers Equestrian Trails Association (CTETA) has worked on a plan to
get grant funding.
One major obstacle in having a trail around Lake Grapevine, is a bridge over Denton Creek.
The CTETA is working on the project and has an opportunity to obtain grant funding from
Texas Parks and Wildlife with the assistance of the Town of Flower Mound.
CTETA is seeking resolutions of support from Lake Grapevine cities as they move forward
with an application to Texas Parks and Wildlife for a National Recreational Trail Fund grant.
Mr. Hugman introduced Larry Vavroch, a representative from the Cross Timbers Equestrian
Trails Association.
Larry Vavroch, 2122 East Peter's Colony, Carrollton, Tx: Mr. Vavroch explained the
Association's goal to provide a link in the west end of the trail to connect the equestrian trails
on the north shore to the south side equestrian trails and to extend the length of the bicycle
trail. The bridge over Denton Creek would serve both trails. The rest of the trails would be
separate. CTETA's plans are compatible with the plans of the surrounding communities and
the Army Corp of Engineers. Mr. Vavroch stressed it was a "trails system," multi -use trails
dedicated to different users. CTETA, working with the Town of Flower Mound, can provide
the necessary match and has worked to develop partnerships and cooperation among various
user groups and Lake Grapevine communities. If the grant project is approved, it will result in
35 miles of multi-user Equestrian/hiking/nature walk trails, 10 miles of multi-user mountain
bicycle/hiking trails and connect to the planned trails in adjacent communities.
Mr. Vavroch displayed a trails system map, pin -pointed the location of the bridge, identified
the existing trails and explained the advantages of the selected routes. He mentioned the bridge
would be 8-foot wide, pre -fabricated, with 6-foot high railings and approximately 100+ feet
long. Rough costs are $50,000 for the bridge and $25,000 for installation.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 9 of 24
N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901.doc
I Mr. Vavroch explained that a developer in the Flower Mound area where the Cross Timbers
2 Trail and the Rocky Point Trail currently do not connect, has made a commitment to donate
3 the land to open space and for the trail. It's part of the Conservation Development District.
4 The Association can use that donation as the matching portion of grant from Texas Parks and
5 Wildlife.
6
7 Timing is the issue because the grant must be in place before the donation can occur.
8
9 The Town of Northlake, the Flower Mound Park Board, and Roanoke Park Board have
10 approved the proposed resolution. The Town of Trophy Club has supported it also with the
11 resolution coming forward on their agenda.
12
13 CTETA is seeking a $100,000 grant, plus the matching, with $75,000 for the bridge
14 construction, $6,000 for new trails, $4,000+ for refurbishing existing trails, erosion control
15 and equestrian parking lot.
16
17 Mr. Vavroch asked the Board to approve the resolution supporting their grant application and
18 offered to answer any questions.
19
20 Ms. White thanked Mr. Vavroch saying he had done an outstanding job and that they
21 appreciated all the work, time and effort he had put into it.
22
23 Ms. Berman commented that when she first met Mr. Vavroch and Jim Memerick, she would
24 never have thought that Mr. Vavroch would be the one doing all this --- because he was
25 considered a "bicycle" person and they were the "horse" people! She said he has done a
26 wonderful job!
27
28 Ms. White thanked Elana Summers, who was present the in audience as well saying she had
29 spent a great deal of time walking all those trails.
30
31 Ms. Stokdyk raised questions regarding signage and barriers to prevent cross -trafficking of the
32 various trail uses?
33
34 Mr. Vavroch explained the trail users demographics and said signage is included in the
35 funding. Barriers will be installed in conjunction with the Corp.
36
37 Ms. White said she is working with a committee in the Town of Flower Mound to have
38 regulatory signage placed in all the communities so the signs would be uniform throughout the
39 region.
40
41 Ms. Stokdyk asked again about the barriers -- who would address those issues? Does the
42 responsibility fall back to the municipalities?
43
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 10 of 24
N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Vavroch responded to Ms. Stokdyk that the Corp had offered materials, but does not have
the manpower or the money, even though they would like to. Therefore, CTETA seeks to
handle those issues utilizing funds allocated for refurbishment of the trails.
Ms. Berman announced this was a consider item and she would entertain a motion.
A motion was made to approve the Cross Timbers Equestrian Trails Association request with
the proposed resolution.
Motion:
White
Second:
Stokdyk
Ayes:
Berman, Nelson, Stokdyk,
Nays:
None
Approved:
6-0
Motion carried.
White, Georgia and Miltenberger
Agenda Item #5-A, Approval of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Update
Mr. Carpenter presented the Plan and asked for the Board's final opinions on the Plan and
shared the reason for the urgency.. In order to apply for a Texas Parks and Wildlife indoor
recreation grant for the proposed recreation center, we are on a tight timeline to get the Master
Plan approved and sent to TPWD for their review and approval. This must be done prior to
applying for a grant that will use the Master Plan recommendations and priorities as the basis
for the grant request. The Master Plan will still be considered by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council. We need to be able to take this to City Council prior to the end
of April to meet the timeline.
Mr. Carpenter outlined the steps the presentation would follow. Suzanne Sweek and Rob
Feister, representatives from Schrickel and Rollins, would address the technical data of the
Plan. Then the conceptual plans for the parks themselves would be considered and the minor
changes would be reviewed. Mr. Carpenter asked the Board to offer any commentary. A copy
of the exhibits handed out are hereby attached to the minutes.
Ms. Sweek briefly summarized the changes to the Plan from the last draft presented to the
Board at the February 12, 2001 meeting. She said Section 7, 8 and the Appendix would be
handed out, which would make the Plan complete with a couple of exceptions. The Farhat and
the Tucker properties remain to be done. She said they would be fairly low impact
development with equestrian trailheads and access with parking in each area to Bob Jones. In
addition, the write-up that go with each site plan in Section 7, were not complete yet. Section 8
is new material that deals with summaries of the findings of the Plan, anticipating that there
would be changes on the Park Board and staff over the life of the Plan.
Ms. Sweek asked the Board to recall at the last review, they had discussed tracts of land that
might be suitable for neighborhood and community parks and the consensus was to not show
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 11 of 24
N. I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARDI MINUTES120011031901. doc
I the tracts of land. Ms. Sweek called attention to Plate 2 and identified the smaller circles where
2 there were neighborhood parks facilities existing, proposed, and locations on school property
3 and proposed school property. Instead of designating specific tracts, the Plan looked at where
4 community park facilities (basically athletic fields along with a neighborhood park facility)
5 were needed in the city.
6
7 Ms. Georgia referred to the 80 acres the City already purchased (Marilyn Tucker, Bob Jones,
8 Farhat pieces) which is adjacent to Lake Grapevine and asked why those properties were not
9 shown on the Plan as a planned community park or planned park? She asked what the City was
10 going to do with it and how it was going to be accessed?
11
12 Mr. Hugman said it was not yet decided. A concept plan would be developed. The Farhat
13 property is envisioned to be part of the Bob Jones Park as a very passive area, probably trails,
14 picnic areas, access to the lake, fishing piers. The access issue will have to be addressed even
15 though Bob Jones Road currently does go all the way to the area. Ms. Sweek explained that
16 area was not ever considered for a community park facility on the Plan as it was to remain a
17 passive area due to the open space and transportation issues.
18
19 Ms. Georgia commented that "it costs money to buy land, so the City needs to look at the land
20 the City already owns versus what it doesn't own. "
21
22 Ms. Sweek noted there was only one minor change to Plate 1, which had been discussed and
23 minor additions to the Open Space Environmental Preservation Plan (Plate 3). The greatest
24 changes occurred on Plate 2, Existing and Proposed Parks.
25
26 Changes to the Needs Assessment section of the Plan was addressed. Ms. Sweek commented
27 on standards for athletic fields at build -out and referred to Table 6.2, pointing out several
28 areas, particularly the requirements to meet the community's soccer needs.
29
30 During the retreat, Board members had been provided a break -down based on having to light
31 every field or having enough practice fields so that they would not have to light as many fields.
32 He said those numbers were interchangeable. The grand total can be reduced as noted in the
33 footnote on the table.
34
35 As the Board reviewed the "standards" column, Mr. Polasek asked the members to keep in
36 mind that Southlake has a very high participation rate in youth athletics as compared to other
37 communities because the majority of residents living in Southlake are families with children.
38 He said Southlake has a much higher youth population and a much lower senior population
39 than does Hurst. Opportunities exists for ways of meeting these needs through additional
40 neighborhood parks, at existing and new school sites and other changes.
41
42 Practice facilities are included in the inventory table, but not private facilities or planned (or
43 platted ones) in the other remaining parks, such as Annie and Royal Smith Park.
44
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 12 of 24
N.Warks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Georgia noted in the inventory summary column pertaining to equestrian trails ("Trail
Hiking - Equestrian"), that only 1 mile of inventory was reflected when the approved Trail
System Master Plan shows 5.6 miles of equestrian trails. This correction will be made.
A suggestion was made to add a standard for LaCrosse fields to the Plan on Table 6.2 as it
would probably be a good idea to have a standard, which would then show a need, and the
City would benefit when seeking a Texas Park and Wildlife grant.
Tony DeBruno, 1023 Diamond Boulevard: Asked if the inventory figure was based on head
count or participation? In regards to the soccer fields, does that include any adult play or is that
strictly youth play? Or, were the figures arrived at by taking a population base and making an
assumption? Mr. Polasek said it was a population based figure.
Ms. Georgia noted the gap in Southlake --- there are not a lot of adult leagues yet.
Mr. DeBruno further stated he felt the needs assessment of our current needs was geared
around youth play. It doesn't account for adult play which is very large in North Texas. He
commented that lighting the 13 fields essentially doubled the use of those fields for games.
Without those, more fields would be required just to get the games in. He suggested using
joint use facilities for practice if the facilities were up to standards.
Mr. Miltenberger said that currently the joint use facilities were not up to standards for
practice fields. Durham is counted as two soccer fields while counting it as a baseball field. He
stated it is basically useless because of the drainage problems in that area.
Mr. Nelson commented that Table 6.2 was set up by population standards and it would be
helpful if the table could show exactly how much land is needed per type of use. He asked if
average land evaluations could be placed on each type of facility to help determine how much
land would be needed.
Ms. Sweek handed out the final section, Page 8.2, "Game Athletic Fields," stating it would
provide the land area needs Mr. Nelson was referring to after it is amended again. She asked if
the Board would prefer to have a chart to communicate those land requirements? Members
agreed a chart would work better.
The Plan does provide a table that shows where the deficiencies are by type of property.
Community parks is the major area that is deficient. A table could be added that would
correlate the field needs to an acreage and also correlate back to the other table we already
have that shows our deficiency is because that is our Land Standard and that is what we are
basing it on. So the three areas need to match and that would be another point of data to have
in the Plan.
Mr. Hugman explained that it is staff's responsibility to look at properties as they come up and
determine what is suitable and how it fits into this Master Plan and to make their
recommendations to the Park Board, SPDC and Council.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 13 of 24
N.Warks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Stokdyk spent a few minutes discussing the issue of neighborhood concept and whether it
should be a priority versus the community parks. Should we be looking at a segment of the
community park being also a neighborhood park?
Mr. Hugman commented on Plate 2 in addressing Ms. Stokdyk's concerns. The Plate does
take this into account. Bicentennial Park is shown as an existing city park, but with the
neighborhood aspects in there and the same thing with Bob Jones Park. The Plan does
acknowledge this by the use of the small circle and larger circles on the Plate.
Mr. Hugman explained the service radius associated with each kind of park -- neighborhood
park, community park, city park.
The legend on Plate 3 needs to be corrected to show the definition of a city park.
The following changes were noted by Ms. Georgia:
Table 6.2 reflect the same change given earlier in Section 4.2 in a parks and
recreational inventory
Page 5-13 "Historic Sites/Parks" -- we should take credit for the one historic
park/cemetery (Easter Cemetery) at Gateway Plaza.
Mr. Nelson asked if when this document is denominated as a Plan, is it still an organic
document? Ms. Sweek responded "yes" and referenced the end of Section 8.
Section 7, "Priorities and Recommendation" was presented. The first seven items on the list
represent recreation center facilities and the second seven items represent community park
facilities. The top seven items are the critical items when seeking grants.
Mr. Georgia shared her concerns with the Plan proposing to designate the Tucker and Farhat
properties as proposed environmental preservation open space, next to Corp property which is
being preserved for open space, when there are such needs for lands in other areas. Are we
sure we want to designate it as an environmental preservation area? She commented that she
did not feel she was getting enough detail for her to support that designation as environmental
preservation open space.
Ms. Stokdyk and Ms. White shared background information and provided their insight
regarding the purchases of the Tucker and Farhat pieces.
Mr. Carpenter suggested leaving it as undeveloped parkland on Plate 1 and removing it from
the environmentally protected list on Plate 3? This was an acceptable solution.
The members discussed what impact removing all four properties (Sheltonwood, Coker, Farhat
and Tucker) from the environmental preservation open space would have on obtaining grants.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 14 of 24
N. I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARDI MINUTES120011031901. doc
I Mr. Fiester told the Board it would not affect grant requests because the properties were
2 already owned by the city, so the removal would not affect grant opportunities.
3
4 The Park Board was asked to look at the Plan and decide which areas they foresee and want to
5 maintain as environmentally protected types of land. The Tucker property was purchased with
6 the thought of it being equestrian uses. The Coker property was purchased with the intent of it
7 being a trailhead area. So it would make sense to leave the Tucker and Coker pieces on this
8 plan. Taking the Farhat piece off would not hurt the City's chance for a grant and would
9 provide greater flexibility in the future.
10
11 After discussion, the Board agreed to remove the Tucker and Farhat properties from the
12 environment preservation open space designation.
13
14 The question was asked how open space is designated on the Master Plan? The level of detail
15 is too difficult to stamp every use so a "best guess" approach is taken to allocate acreage to a
16 neighborhood park function. The Park Master Plan presents "the big picture. " The Master
17 Plan is a guideline, but it's not exact. A schematic design becomes part of the Master Plan, but
18 can be changed which would also be changed in the Master Plan, should the needs change.
19
20 Ms. Stokdyk expressed concerns with approving the Master Plan without closer review of each
21 of the individual neighborhood parks. She was concerned with deviating from the original
22 proposal for a park, citing the Annie and Royal Smith Park as an example.
23
24 A suggestion was made to add language to the Plan to the effect that "the conceptual plans that
25 are approved as part of the Master Plan would all be reviewed and revised when the individual
26 park goes through master planning, " if the Plan does not already contain such.
27
28 It was also suggested to add a statement to Page 8.1 clarifying how the Master Plan process
29 works for a park.
30
31 Ms. Stokdyk said she would like to see more clarification on Page 7.3 regarding Royal and
32 Annie Smith Park and 7.4, stating that some of these have already been decided and the
33 neighborhoods are expecting them, but some are just suggestions. Ms. Stokdyk said the park
34 plan for Annie and Royal Smith Park did go though a process and the people understood it and
35 now it is being thrown out without any process through the neighborhoods again. Shouldn't it
36 be carried by over as part of the Master Plan instead of throwing it out?
37
38 Mr. Nelson directed the Board back to the item before them tonight. The Park Board is being
39 asked to approve this Plan. Then it will be presented to Council for their approval in order for
40 the city to receive grant money for the indoor recreation center. He said he understood Ms.
41 Stokdyk's concerns and perhaps they could be preserved by some language within the
42 document, but that we must use whatever language the Texas Parks and Wildlife expects for us
43 to get the money.
44
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 15 of 24
N. I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARDI MINUTESI20011031901. doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Having language in the Master Plan to the effect that these plans can be modified at any time
would not affect our ability to receive grant funding.
Mr. Nelson recommended saying "possible facilities included" instead of saying
"recommended facilities" on the Annie and Royal Smith portion of the Plan.
Ms. Stokdyk reiterated her request that under each of the parks listed in the Plan, she would
like notations that this has gone through some process, that there has been some conceptual
plans on the books that it has gone through the neighborhood process.
Mr. Hugman stated that this Plan is a much better plan than the current plan as far as for
planning and future development. This proposed Plan identifies our needs and shows that we
are on track for land purchases for the population we have now. It shows where we need to be
at build out and the kinds of facilities we need at build -out. It gives us a good planning tool to
see what areas of the city we needparks in, but it is not a detailed plan of every park. That is
not possible until funds exist to do topography and engineering studies, and do a detailed site
analysis.
Ms. Berman said she would entertain a motion.
A motion was made to amend Table 4.2 and Table 6.1 to list the 5.6 miles of hiking and
equestrian trails in addition that we list the historic park "Easter" cemetery located in Gateway
Plaza on what used to be Page 5.14; and that in Section 8.1 we add additional wording to
further outline or give information on how the master planning process can change what was
previously a conceptual plan. With those amendments, a motion is made to approve the 2001
Parks, Recreation, Open Space Master Plan for the City of Southlake.
Motion: Georgia
Second: White
Ms. Stokdyk commented that the Farhat and Tucker properties needed to be addressed in the
motion.
Ms. Georgia amended her motion to include removing the Farhat and Tucker properties from
Plate 3, Environmental Preservation and Open Space Plan, but leaving the Coker property.
At this point, the Board members debated if any of the properties shown in the Environmental
Preservation Plan on Plate 3 needed to remain.
Ms. Georgia amended her motion again, to remove [all the properties shown in the
Environmental Preservation and Open Space Plan] from Plate 3, and to add it into the text in
Section 7, as well as the conceptual plans.
A member of the audience pointed out that the Board had earlier mentioned amending a table
to include a LaCrosse standard.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 16 of 24
N.Warks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Georgia amended the amended motion above to add standards for LaCrosse in Sections
4.2, Park Land and Open Space Inventory.
The motion continued ...
Ayes: Berman, Nelson,
Nayes: None
Approved: 6-0
Motion carried.
White, Georgia, Stokdyk, Miltenberger
The meeting recessed for a five minute break.
The meeting was called to reconvene at 9:24 p.m.
Agenda Item #6-A, Southlake Girls Softball Association (SGSA) field location
Mr. Hugman presented this item at the request of the Southlake Girls Softball Association. He
provided a brief overview of the proposal stating that the City was in the process of developing
Bob Jones Park, which would include six practice ballfields. Also, the 2000-01 CIP budget had
allocated $1.1 million dollars for the design and construction of a four field complex for the
Southlake Girls Softball Association on the southwest corner of the park on a portion of the 13
acre tract abutting Shady Oaks in Bicentennial Park.
Mr. Hugman explained that subsequent to staff's estimate of $1.1 million dollars, the planning
and engineering firm of Schrickel, Rollins and Associates performed a preliminary review of
the site. This resulted in an estimate of well over $2 million for the full development of the
project, which would include engineering, field development (earthwork, fencing, irrigation,
lighting, hydromulch), restroom/concession building, a parking lot off of Shady Oaks, utilities,
spectator area flatwork and a pedestrian bridge across the existing drainage channel. Additional
funding for exterior landscape development and site amenities would further add to the cost of
the project if pursued.
The Southlake Girls Softball Association approached City staff regarding the possibility of
modifying four of the practice fields currently under construction at Bob Jones Park into game
fields. The current construction plans call for a total of six fields with backstops, fencing along
first and third bases, dugouts, hydromulch, some walkways, and a restroom building. A total
of 57 parking spaces would be available.
Total estimated additional costs is approximately $1,410,000 to develop the planned practice
facilities into a gamefield four-plex. The development of the Bob Jones practice fields into
game facilities would result in the loss of four planned practice fields.
Mr. Hugman introduced Matt Tuggey, president of the Southlake Girls Softball Association,
who presented the Board with their proposal for the new fields.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 17 of 24
N. I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARDI MINUTES120011031901. doe
1
2 Matt Tuggey, 1362 Cross Timber: Thanked the Board for taking his phone calls. Mr. Tuggey
3 said this proposal began weeks ago at the groundbreaking for Bob Jones, Ph. II. He and Tad
4 Stephens viewed the site and thought it would make an ideal location for their proposed softball
5 complex. At that point, they presented the idea to their Board. They conducted an informal
6 survey of 20-25 % of the softball members to get their reaction to moving from Bicentennial
7 Park to Bob Jones Park, and there was no opposition. Mr. Tuggey turned the presentation
8 over to Jeff Sperring to discuss the handout.
9
10 Jeff Sperring, 1307 Houston Court: Mr. Sperring presented the advantages to moving to Bob
11 Jones Park. The Bob Jones location would allow them to build a four-plex square configuration
12 whereas the Bicentennial Park sites does not allow that. That type is the most efficient and
13 professional way to build ballfields. It centralizes all the needs for that facility. That is the
14 biggest reason they support the move. The second reason is the parking issue. They believe the
15 Bob Jones sites would provide a better parking situation than the current overcrowding.
16 Another reason, is that the option to move to Bob Jones Park will allow them to build a nicer
17 facility for the same money than the one at Bicentennial Park. The fourth reason is minor, but
18 they feel by being over at Bob Jones Park, it will provide the girls with a place of their own.
19 The fifth reason concerns space. The Bob Jones Park site would provide space for expansion
20 should it be needed as well as free up the space currently proposed to be used for ballfields at
21 Bicentennial Park to be used for additional baseball fields or other park facilities. Mr. Sperring
22 closed his presentation by saying they are the largest sports organization in Southlake for girls
23 and they are working as best they can to develop the female athlete for Southlake and the
24 school system as well.
25
26 Representatives of the Girls Softball Association answered questions from the Board regarding
27 the parking lot location at Bob Jones Park, the number of girls involved in the athletic
28 programs, their preference of the size of the fields, future matching funds proposals to SPDC.
29
30 Staff explained the costs which would be approximately $2 million dollars to develop at
31 Bicentennial Park. It would be an additional $1.4 million over the current construction costs
32 for the practice ballfields to upgrade them to game fields. It is not that it would cost less to
33 build at Bob Jones Park, but because there is funding already applied to those fields now in the
34 current construction project for the fields, grading work, utilities, concrete work, some
35 parking, the restroom building is .already planned there, some fencing and hydromulch, the
36 cost to take it from a practice ballfield status up to a gamefield complex. The bottom line cost
37 of the four-plex is essentially the same.
38
39 Mr. Hugman said if the City took the $1.1 budgeted now and applied to Bob Jones Park, we
40 would have a shortfall of $300,000. Whereas, if we stay at Bicentennial Park, to have a fully
41 functional complex, there's a bigger shortfall. The trade-off is six practice fields at Bob Jones
42 Park or a softball complex and two practice ballfields.
43
44 Ms. Berman asked if the site is moved to Bob Jones Park, what would this do for the citizens
45 that are not in any organized sport --- would they be able to utilize the fields? Mr. Hugman
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 18 of 24
N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901.doc
I said the two practice ballfields would be accessible to the general public and the other fields
2 when not reserved for SGSA. Mr. Tuggey said the Association did not have a problem with
3 using the game fields as practice fields.
4
5 Ms. Berman said the real issue are the lights.
6
7 Mr. Tuggey said he understands the problem and that they are not keeping their fields lit pass
8 8:30 p.m. There may be a few months in late fall and early spring, due to the time change,
9 they may have the lights on from 8:30 to 9:30. They hold 1-2 night games a week, but only
10 until9:30.
11
12 Mr. Polasek provided information about the lighting requirements for Girls Softball fields and
13 the new technology to control light spillage.
14
15 Darryl Deutsch, 1211 Woodcreek Lane: Stated that the 400 girls are 400 girls twice a year, so
16 it's closer to 800 or 900 girls.
17
18 Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Hugman when would the lights be put up in Bob Jones Park? If they did
19 move to Bob Jones Park, could the lights be put up now? Mr. Hugman responded it would not
20 be "now" as they would have to go through re -platting and site plan since they were showing
21 that as practice field. That means going back through P&Z and Council as well as engineering
22 would be involved. Next Spring or Fall would be the earliest. The fields could probably be
23 available before then, but the lights would not.
24
25 Ms. Berman asked for Tad Stephens to come forward and address the Board.
26
27 Tad Stephens, 804 Shorecrest Drive: Commented that he was probably one of the few
28 members of the softball board that isn't 100% behind going out to Bob Jones. Mr. Stephens
29 said if it is going to cost $2 million dollars to build fields they haven't even started, it probably
30 going to go up and there was resistance in the past to building girls softball fields at 1.1
31 million. So, he would love to keep Bob Jones dark, but he doesn't know where else to put
32 them. He asked if it can be kept as dark as possible for as long as possible. He doesn't want
33 the lights on till 10:30-11:00 and if he had his choice, he would rather not have any. Mr.
34 Stephens said his concern was that if they don't put the girls at Bob Jones, are they even going
35 to be able to put them at Bicentennial Park.
36
37 Mr. Hugman addressed financing issues again stating that with the $1.1 million, the City
38 believes they could do a "bare -bones" softball complex which would be the fields, fencing,
39 lighting, but there would not be any restrooms or concession building, and not the additional
40 parking. Essentially, they would build what they could with the $1.1 million and then come
41 back for future funding with additional things --- building it as they go.
42
43 If the Bob Jones Park site is approved, with the funding that is already in the Bob Jones
44 construction project and then taking the $1.1 million for the softball complex, they will get
45 95 % of the complex built.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 19 of 24
N. I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARD I MINUTES120011031901. doc
1
2 Mr. Berman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak. Being no response, Ms.
3 Berman continued, stating that this was a discussion item so staff was seeking the Board's
4 direction.
5
6 Mr. Miltenberger said he believed they should pursue it, but didn't know what the next step
7 would be. Mr. Polasek said the next step would be come back to the Board with the item on
8 the agenda as a consider item.
9
10 Mr. Nelson asked if it would be a change order on the existing bid item. Mr. Hugman said
11 some of the work might be able to be done under the old bid, in all likelihood, most of the
12 work would be bid as a separate project from the current project.
13
14 Mr. Polasek said that the quality of work being done on the practice fields now is of the quality
15 that if that specification were ever to be turned into gamefield facilities, it would be ready to
16 go in that direction. It was done that way through the design phase.
17
18 The restroom facility is being designed and laid out with the understanding that it may be
19 expanded to add a concession stand at a later date. All the utilities are already there. They are
20 ready to handle it if the fields are changed to gamefield level.
21
22 Cindy Huff, 314 Dove Creek Trail: Stated she was bothered to hear the comments about "bare-
23 bones." She asked if they thought the girl population was going to go down? There will be
24 more girls participating in sports and she believes they deserve a complex that is fitting for
25 their sport. She stated she did not like that term, "bare -bones" and that they should be provided
26 with the best. The boys are provided for. Ms. Huff said as far as a bathroom, other cities do
27 put a bathroom and a concession stand at the end of the four -complex. Ms. Huff said she loves
28 this town, but did not like what she was hearing from the Board and wanted to have a good
29 facility for her daughter and for other kids.
30
31 Ms. Stokdyd commented that she appreciated Ms. Huff's enthusiasm, but wanted to remind her
32 that the city just spent $2 million buying that 13 acres in Bicentennial Park, specifically for
33 girls softball.
34
35 Ms. Georgia and Ms. White thanked Ms. Huff for sharing her opinion with the Board.
36
37 Ms. Berman said this was a very difficult decision because she was part of the group that
38 promised the citizens they would not put lights out there in the Bob Jones Park area. We are
39 short a field, but we have long-time residents who do not want lights.
40
41 Ms. White said it is the intent of the use and compared it to the situation they had with the
42 recreations center and the "hill." Ms. White said she felt they are in too big of a hurry to
43 locate this huge lighted complex and believes that they need to be looking for another site
44 where a lighted facility would work. Ms. White said that use does not fit in that passive use
45 type park.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 20 of 24
N. I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARDI MINUTES120011031901. doc
1
2 Mr. Nelson commented that he disagreed because it has lights already, it doesn't back up into
3 very many people's homes and it is already an athletic area.
4
5 Ms. White suggested using the property next to the Star Center -- there were many benefits.
6
7 Ms. Georgia asked about the topography of the area for the proposed site at Bob Jones Park?
8
9 Ms. Berman left the meeting at 10:21 p.m.
10
11 Tony DuBruno, 1023 Diamond Boulevard: Mr. DeBruno said he believed the promises made
12 to homeowners over five years ago was a shortsighted view of developments. He said the city
13 did not exercise foresight and purchase the needed land years ago for a athletic complex. Mr.
14 DuBruno commented on the development of Bicentennial Park and said the City built one very
15 good complex - a baseball complex at Bicentennial Park. All the sports are growing in that
16 complex. What he is saying is, he would like for the city to build another very good complex.
17 If there is a piece of property where all the sports can coexist without offending the neighbors,
18 let's do it. He doesn't believe it exists, stating, "What is happening is the development of the
19 north side of town. The area will be very convenient for the families to go. He understands the
20 problem with lighting -- no one wants it in their back yard, however, they are only talking
21 about a couple of hours a night at the most. It is also lighting that is not coming in your
22 windows. It you come outside your house and you look across the street, yes you will see
23 lights. If this Board promised those homeowners it would be pitch black, that was a very
24 unrealistic promise because with every house that gets built, is bringing more and more light
25 into those neighborhoods. Lighting has already been approved for two fields there. He asked
26 the Board to look at this as the location to build that second best facility in Southlake --
27 Bicentennial is number one, this becomes number two.
28
29 Julie Landesberg, 305 E. Bob Jones Road: Ms. Landesberg said she was going to be the
30 Devil's advocate, and hears everybody talking about lights. But, living near the soccer field
31 she said what that means to residents close to the fields, is that they hear the noise now from 8-
32 8:30 when the games start and now they can continue until 10-10:30 with lights. To her, lights
33 mean noise and there is a constant screaming and noise.
34
35 Jeff Sperring, 1307 Houston Court: "Lights do mean noise -- the noise of laughter and joy and
36 provides all the youth of Southlake with someplace to be that is safe and giving them an
37 opportunity to do something that is ethical and fair instead of putting them in the dark
38 somewhere at night where you don't know what they're doing. At least it gives kids some
39 place to be until 10:00 at night. "
40
41 Mr. Nelson asked if there were guidelines for the use of outdoor lighting at certain hours? Mr.
42 Hugman referred to the facility usage agreements that the city has with the associations, which
43 dictates the length the lights can be on.
44
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 21 of 24
N.Warks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901.doc
I Ms. Georgia said she was ready to give her opinion as a member of the Board to give staff
2 direction. Ms. Georgia commented that having lit fields are a key requirement for Southlake
3 and that she very much applauds the Southlake Girls Softball Association for coming forward.
4 In not only making a recommendation that takes into account the current budget, but as well in
5 trying to provide a key facility that girls would be proud to play at. Ms. Georgia said she
6 supports moving the facility to Bob Jones Park and thinks we should be very sensitive to the
7 lighting issues. She stated she has confidence in the Parks staff to go ahead and fully
8 investigate those issues. Softball requires a lower intensity, there is new technology and she
9 believes it is time to embrace that and move forward.
10
11 Mr. Miltenberger said he supports it also.
12
13 Mr. Nelson said he supports it also, but with restrictions as to the time frame for lights. He
14 said 11:30 p.m. is too late for lights. He said the time will need to be cutback to accommodate
15 the people who live out there. Mr. Nelson said even 10:30 is too late.
16
17 Jim Hardland, 208 Donley Court: Commented he was the previous president of GSSA and
18 mentioned that in the previous utilization agreement, they were restricted to 10:00 p.m.. They
19 scheduled their practice and the. last slot was 8:30-10:00 p.m. He said he didn't recall
20 scheduling games after 8:30 p.m.
21
22 Mr. Hugman explained how the lights are set on automatic timers that are scheduled to turn off
23 a half-hour after the end of the game.
24
25 Tony DeBruno, 1023 Diamond Boulevard: Wanted to add to Mr. Hardland's comment, but
26 from a soccer standpoint, they would be absolutely happy to have the lights turned off
27 automatically at 10:00 p.m. The games would only go until 9:30 at night. Games are only
28 scheduled two nights a week.
29
30 Mr. Nelson said the sooner the lights are turned off after game time, the better. He asked if
31 there were any trees that could help shield the light? Being that the poles are 60' tall, trees
32 would not work.
33
34 Ms. Stokdyk commented that she knows several neighbors up in that area that will not be
35 happy about this. She said this is exactly what she was talking about earlier in the evening,
36 when something is set in writing. She thought they had both of these projects moving forward
37 and to say things like what we have at Bicentennial Park is not secure or professional enough,
38 or centralized enough, doesn't make sense to her because she feels it is a lovely facility that
39 they purchased land for and plotted it out for the Association. She said if she finds out that the
40 neighborhood is happy with these changes, she could go for it. The money has been allotted, it
41 may come over budget like other projects in this town have and groups have waited and she
42 believes we are slowing down the process on things that were moving forward. Ms. Stokdyk
43 said the city is losing practice fields, the plans for that site at Bicentennial Park, there will have
44 to be a new SPIN process --- it's painful. She thought what the city had plotted out was
45 beautiful. Ms. Stokdyk said that right now she couldn't support it.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 22 of 24
N.-Warks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901.doc
1
2 Ms. White said she hopes the association understands where she's at right now and that she
3 was not opposed to getting something for the girls and asked that it not be misunderstand that
4 she believes the girls are not entitled. Ms. White said, "Yes you do deserve the same thing as
5 the boys baseball association. But the boys baseball association comes in with huge sums of
6 matching money. They pay for sod on their fields, they pay for shade structures, they have all
7 these nice things because they pay for it. The reality is that we can not provide everything for
8 the Girls Softball Association that the boys have now. I understand that it makes more sense to
9 move out to Bob Jones, but I'm a neighbor that lives out there and it would be in my back
10 yard. We made a commitment to the people that live out there and there is a need for open and
11 natural spaces. She said she believes if this is allowed, it is just a matter of time until all the
12 fields would be lighted Ms. White said, "So # 1, I can't support it because I am a neighbor,
13 and #2, because we have spent a great deal of money on trying to locate a girls softball
14 complex. I'm staggered. 13 acres times $75,000! Now, it's going to be sitting there for
15 practice fields or for nothing. "
16
17 Bill Dillard, 2943 River Crest, Grapevine, Tx: He stated that he had been associated with the
18 Southlake Girls Softball Association for 13 years; on the board for 11. His main comment is
19 that over the years he has listened to Grapevine and Southlake say they were going to make
20 softball better for the girls. He's proud they spent the $13 million dollars and is grateful. He
21 said he did not think that the Board was opposed to doing something at Bicentennial, but they
22 were told that it probably couldn't be done because there was a shortfall. What is being said at
23 this meeting tonight, is that they are bad-mouthing the Bicentennial location and they are not.
24 They just want to get something that will be for the girls. The facilities are not the same. Mr.
25 Dillard asked the Board present to think about what type of message the girls are getting when
26 nothing gets done. Someone needs to start having a conscious about what the girls are doing.
27 We love Bicentennial, but right now it seems that the site at Bob Jones Park is more attainable.
28
29 Mr. Nelson stated that the majority of the Park Board had spoken in favor of pursing the
30 option for the fields at Bob Jones Park. He requested staff proceed as directed to look at those
31 options for everything that needs to be done, including notifying people, having additional
32 meetings, getting comments from the affected neighbors, input from the softball associations,
33 etc. During the process, everyone will have the opportunity to come forward and present their
34 views.
35
36 Mr. Hugman said staff will get started this month and bring a voting item back to the Board at
37 the next month's meeting. He said they will look into pulling other information together.
38
39 Mike Kelly, 1500 New Castle: Mr. Kelly said that it appears that the "field of dreams" is going
40 to be built, but it appears to him that the Board is at another roadblock. He asked about the
41 timeline.
42
43 Mr. Miltenberger said it will take time because they will need to get input from the citizens
44 that live out there since they are adding something that wasn't there. There will be hearings
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 23 of 24
N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINDTES120011031901.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
before Planning and Zoning, and then it will ultimately fall upon whether the council will
approve putting lights out there.
The timeline was discussed further, stating that if we were looking at the $1.1 million dollars,
we are looking at the Fall 2002 for a Bicentennial Park location. There would be several
budget factors to consider. If the Bob Jones Park location is pursued, the fields would not be
ready either until 2002, so the timing is equivalent for either option.
Agenda Item #6-C, Liaison Reports
No reports were presented at this meeting.
A citywide SPIN meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 21 on the Trail Master Plan at
7:30 p.m. in the 3`d Floor Training Room.
A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 10:52 p.m
Motion:
White
Second:
Georgia
Ayes:
Nelson, White, Georgia, Stokdyk, Miltenberger
Nayes:
None
Approved
5-0
Motion carried.
Cara White, Secretary
N:\Parks & Recreation\BOARDS\PKBOARD\MINUTES\2001\031901.doc
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 24 of 24
N.• I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARDI MINUTES120011031901. doc
w
Lake Grapevine Natural Surface
Trail Interconnection
e=*-
Leap Vawod Manna 9omaw
972402.7321 W20W5
va„odwopobox-oam uaomm• 00cod
Lake Grapevine Levels___________,
Project Goals
• Linking the existing Lake Grapevine north
shore, south shore and adjacent 'master
planned' trails.
*'Compatibility with the plans of the
surrounding communities and the Army
Corps of Engineers.
• A trait system that supports the various
recreational trail user groups.
• Seize the oaportunity to realize the goals/
Planning Activities
• We have hiked more than 90 miles around
the west end of Lake Grapevine to explore
trail location possibilities.
- Length of Denton Creek, south side,
north side, west of 377 to beyond
Cleveland Gibbs...
- With GPS'd Corps boundaries
- Both drought and high water conditions
Planning Activities, con't
• We have met with
- Corps, we were Involved in their mash plan
activities, reviewed bridge Site a nd alternatives,
tuned proposed obtained
- DORBA, coordinated trail routes$' obtained
partnership for grant applications, obtained
preliminary soil survey, guidance for grant
committee acceptance...
- Flower Mound, supported their master plan
approvals, coordinated non -Corps trail
sections, worked trap standards, trallhead
opportunity, presented to Park Board
1
be)- 5
Planing Activities, can't
• We have met with
— Trophy Club, coordinated trail route through
land being leased from Corps, identffled
'possible' Marshal Creek bypass, included in
their planning Process-
- Northlake, coordinated with master plan,
added `tail' to west loop, presented to town
council. — Roanoke, phone discuss_ of
Park master
Boaplan,
scheduled for presentird
Feb, rescheduled to March.
- LGRAW, discussing partnering with us at their
next board meeting
National Recreational Trail Fund
• Administered in Texas by Texas Parks & WndiNe
• Funds to construct new recreational trails,
improve I maintain existing trans, develop I
improve trailhead or trailside facilities, and
acquire trail corridors.
• rants are up to 80% of
prroject cosuires t, upittoo a maxifundsmum grant of $100 000)
• $1.7M allocated to Texas (last year non -motorized grant applications�traits
totaled $4.5M)
— Essential to sail what they strand
• 100+ feat lag, aft vvide, 6 R raging, recreational fridge
• Rgrgh4rder4agnitude Cost
— $50,000 for Bridge
_ SN,000 installation
• Makes acquiring a grant essential to achieve the Project
Grant Selection Advantages
• Basic trail work versus support (trailhead /
trailside facilities)
is New construction / refurbishment versus
maintenance
• Multi-user trail projects, projects with
partnerships, Projects with public support
• Ability to execute project (matching funds,
existence of organization, track record)
• Greater than 20% match
2
5 to
Matching Funds Sources
• Match required before
grant funds released
• Material and land donation
cannot occur before
project agreement signed
• $26,000 Donated Land
- Donation currently
planned
- Timing issue of when
land Is donated (too
early?)
Budget ($100,000 Grant Money)
• $75,000 +1- Bridge
• $6,0W New trail
- $4,500 Loop Trail, EquestdordHike West
- $1,600 Mountain Bike
• :4,000t Existing trail refurbishment
- Cross Timbers, Rocky point, Walnut Grove;
Equestrian/Hike
- Knob Hitt; Mountain Bike
• $7,500t Trallhead Parking Lot plus i? in donations
• $7,500 Reserve and 1,000 hays
— Assessments, Overruns volunteer labs
Competitive Analysis, con't
• New construction I refurbishment versus maintenance
- ✓ $6% new construction
• Ability to execute project (matching funds, existence of
orgenu ation, track record)
- ✓ Land donation secures matching portion
_ ✓` makwashourgrantorWmeperformance
- ✓ Existing, Incorporated 601(c)(3) rwn-prdn.
• Greater than 20% match
- ✓ Land donation alone meets 20%;
- ✓ Volunteer labor, fundralsers, corporation 6 material
donations Icing on cake
Matching Funds Sources, con't
• $6,250 (1,000 hrs) Volunteer Labor
• $? Material & Cash Donations
— Corps will donate some materials
— Top 200,corporate Focused fundraising
underway
Don t even make it In the from door unless you are a
601(c)(3)
% or more require applications in 1* part of the year
Second step` written proposals off to Kodak, AA
Competitive Analysis
• Basic trail work versus support (tralihead I
trallside) facilities
_ we 20 mties new trails resulting in 45 mile
system; 35 mile multi-user,10 mile mountain
bicycle
— t e <10% of grant to 'trallhead, trallskle'
• Multi-user trail projects, projects With
partnerships, public support
— ✓ Equestrians I Bicyclists I RunnerlWaiker
— ✓ CTETA, DORBA, LGRAW, cities
— ✓ Interconnects to community master plans
Schedule
• Marc&AWM Corps Master Plan I Environmental
Assessment released for public comment,
moratorium on projects lifted at end of comment
period.
• Am# 1: Draft application out for review.
• June t: Grant application deadline.
• 122MMW, Grants awarded.
• januiltrig Paperwork signed and In place.
• FAdirlmm Matching land I material donations can
occur.
3
5 (b -'I
Summary
• We are in an unique position to finally achieve the
north / south natural surface trail link -up.
— 'Irons are hot' In the user groups,
communities, and Corps due to the master
planning activities.
— Land donation provides matching portion of
the grant essential to bridge Denton Creek.
• We're getting support from communities and user
groups.
0
C13
C13
Cld
z
(U
0
(U
Cd
Cd
4005.- *or
411
I
F—
CL
CIO
00)
Mr-
w LI)
M co
(1) x
Cl) W
x
C5
Southlake Girls Softball Association
New Fields Proposal
Objective:
Adjust the current plans to construct a girls -softball complex in Bicentennial Park by
moving the site to the Bob Jones Park area.
Justification:
1. The Bob Jones Park location will allow for a four -field, square configuration to be
constructed. This configuration is the most efficient and professional looking
approach to a softball complex. Benefits of this configuration are:
• Professional looking complex that is the most efficient approach for players,
coaches, and fans due to the common access for all four fields.
• A more secure gathering point for players for before and after practice and game
times.
• The ability to centralize field control, including supplies, concession, scoreboard
operations, etc.
2. The Bob Jones location provides additional parking. Parking at Bicentennial Park has
been a problem during the past few years. The proposed location of the softball fields
in Bicentennial Park will not provide much relief. Parking will be shared for softball,
some baseball, hockey, tennis, basketball, and Adventure Alley.
3. The Bob Jones location will allow for more "amenities" for the same price.
4. A location separate from baseball will provide a space for the Southlake Girls
Softball Association to call their own.
5. The Bob Jones site provides space for future growth. More space would be available
if additional software fields are needed. Also, Bicentennial Park will continue to
have space available for future growth requirements there.
Conclusion:
SGSA is the largest sports organization, for girls only, within Southlake. We play an
important role in the development of female athletes for our community and schools.
The girls deserve a first-rate complex, matching the quality facilities that the city has
provided for baseball. The Bob Jones site provides the land to accomplish this. You can
provide the means.
DRAFT MARCH 2O01
2001 PARKS, RECREATION
OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
CITY of SOUTHLAKE
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY SERVICES
450 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
4118
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 Michael Nelson
Chris Miltenberger, Vice Chair Jim Glover Lisa Stokdyk
Cara White, Secretary
Southlake Parks Development Corporation
Ronnie Kendall, President GaryFawks Tad Stephens
Rex Potter, Vice President Rick Stacy Cara White
Sherry Berman
City Staff
Billy Campbell, City Manager
Shana Yelverton, Asst. City Manager
Kevin Hugman, Dir. of Community Services
ii
Table of Contents
Resolution of Plan Adoption
Acknowledgments
1. Introduction
■ Purpose
■ Previous Parks and Recreation Master Planning
■ Goals and Objectives
2. Community Profile
■ History
■ Circulation
■ Physical Features and Development
■ Demographics
3. The Planning Process
■ Planning Period
■ Park Board Meetings
■ SPIN Meetings
■ Survey of Recreational Attitudes
■ Survey of Adult and Youth Recreational Facility Attitudes
4. Park and Recreational Resources
■ City Park Land and Open Space
■ City Recreational Facilities
■ joint Use Facilities
■ Subdivision Facilities
■ Park Support Facilities
■ Major Nearby Recreational Facilities
5. Standards and Concepts
■ Land Standards by Park Type
■ Recreational Facility Standards
■ Topographic Considerations
■ Discussion of Park Classifications
■ Recreational Facility Guidelines
■ Park Service Areas
iii
6. Needs Assessments
■ Discussion of Methodology
■ Park Land and Open Space Needs
■ Recreational Facility Needs
7. Priorities and Recommendations
Implementation
Bibliography
Appendix
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 3. Chesapeake Park
Figure 4. Lonesome Dove Park
Figure 5. Noble Oaks Park
Figure 6. R. A. Smith Park
Figure 7. Sheltonwood Park
Figure 8. Tucker Property
Figure 9. Farhat Property
iv
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 aryl Raraxtiar Baan1 Missian States m
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&W). 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
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, Koalty (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 acreage 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.
.FRI.9 yr • Wi
1.2
INTRODUCTION
Objectives. Negotiate with the development community to 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.
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
publicizing its opportunities and deficiencies.
GOAL FOUR. Provide facilities and programs that are accessible to people of all
physical abilities.
1.3
Objectives
• Survey existing facilities to assure that they are in compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
• 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.
INTRODUCITON
1.4
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
COMMUNITY PROFILE
corridor, so the higher noise level of departing aircraft is an unusual event.
Currently none of the Ctty'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 Parkway and Continental Boulevard.
'City of SoutWake Internet Web Site, www.ci.soutWake.tx.us 2000.
2.2
COMMUNITY 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. Kirkwood 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 Boulevard (FM 1709) and SH 114.
Noteworthy is the "neo-traditional" Town Center project with the new Southlake
City Hall and "village green" with gazebo 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."
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"
7,065
---
1991''11
7,130
1%
1992**
7,990
12%
1993'1"
8,900
11%
1994"1
10,850
22%
1995"
13,350
23%
1996'1''
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
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
Population
% Annual
Pop. Increase
Housing Units
1999
21,050
9%11
6,321
2000
23,190
8%
6,957
2001
25,000
7%
7,500
2002
26,630
5°l0
7,989
2003
28,070
4%
8,421
2004
29,310
4%
8,793
2005
30,370
3%
9,111
2006
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
593
65 to 74 years
739
75 to 84 years
301
85 years and over
51
Under 18 years
6,287
65 years and over
120
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
COMMUNITY PROFILE
2.6
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
2253%
$35,$49,999
o
9.45%
$25,000 to $34,999
6.80%
to $2499
4.60%
99$15,000
$5,000 to $14,99
4.04%
$5,000
189%Under
COMMUNITY 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 of Sowhlake 2000 Parks, Ra7vation 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. The 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`h, 2000, city staff and consultants attended a public park board
meeting to discuss parks and recreation issues, the Bicentennial Park master plan,
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.
3.1
FIT I 31 TO \ C 5iM
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.
• 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 RA. Smith Park occur quickly as
promised upon the sale of the property to Southlake Park Development
Corporation.
'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
THE PLANNING PRoc Ess
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 of Key Findings
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% Very satisfied
❑ 53% Satisfied
❑ 6% Dissatisfied
❑ 0% Very dissatisfied
❑ 2% No opinion
Quality of Parks and Recreation System
Satisfied
36%
Favorite recreational hobby or sport
❑ Walking/jogging/hiking (17%)
❑ Tennis (11%)
❑ Golf (11%)
❑ Soccer (7%)
❑ Baseball (6%)
❑ Swimming and boating (5%)
❑ Water sports (5%)
THE PLANNING PROCESS
Dissatisfied
6%
No opinion
2%
City Facilities Available for Favorite Hobby or Sport?
Outside City
Don't Know
1%
/Ullo
3.4
TI-IE 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%
cely
0
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%)
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%).
3.5
THE PLANNING PROCESS
• 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
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%).
3.6
TEE PLANNING PROCESS
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Youth Athletic Leagues Participation
ro— rootoan In -line Hockey
Soccer Girls Softball Tennis Baseketball
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.
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.
3.7
'ftIE PLANNING PROCESS
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 (230/6), followed by teen center (19%)
and aquatic center/pool (14%).
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%
THE PLANNING PROCESS
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%)
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%)
3.9
THE PLANNING PROCESS
❑ 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%).
• 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% 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%-9%).
3.10
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,
particularly neighborhood park facilities. They are conveniently enough 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.
4.1
pasea-I - purl awsa I O
N I IN
I 919101 PUVII Pauaa4-f4x I I
-i
;)jges/PooA"jl-I la I - `r I0 ILn
4�lc]q*
�
3fird Ja3103 31JUd poomuoip% N�
s31xed ;)j7enbs umol
o
xiEd anon 31Uosauo-I
z
0
Cl)
0
L
0
00
31ird ql,,u s•�•xz
N
N
31jed wjv;)dusag3
z
0M0
o
31ird s31up 31goN
z
W)
Ln
31sud ,14utuox
z
31jud sauol qog
0
O
N
O
O
Ln
O
` -4
N
-4
N
31iled 1�►uua�uaaTg
(�
O
"
O
N
O
O
Ln
�
All
^
0
O
U.
U
O
�
C14
V
J��004
PARK AND RECREATIONAL RI:sOURCI?S
N
A
W
0
00 '- O
..0 cn
-'may
U v
w�zcg�`)
M
O
if1 .-4
C\
O
00
M ifj
�c
O
H
0
0
o a,
a�
N
oo
M
M
O I-
1f)
cl
cn
V
O
cV
O
O
Lf)p
L O
M
M
N
O
9 Q)
Q
O
O
O
'(4
U
�a0
0
0
H
4.2
Table 4.2
Park and
Recreational
UA
Facility Inventory
U
x
°
v
x
o
w
c
c
CQ
GQ
�i
O
z
O
�
1"
O
y
�
O I
m
O
Amphitheater
1
Batting Cage Stall
6
1
6
Baseball Diamond
Practice
2
3
2
Game - lighted
7
7
Game - unlighted
7
Basketball Court (Outdoor)
3
0
Bench
3
5
6
33
44
Community Center
Creek/River
1
1
0
Fishing Pier/Dock
1
1
2
Horseshoe Court
2
1
1
Inline Hockey Rink (lighted)
1
Nature Center (Bldg)
1
1
Pavilion
5
2
1
Picnic Shelter
6
4
1
1
9
n:,...:.. ter_ L, _
I
1 n
4.3
Table 4.3
Joint Use
i
Facilities
C.I.S.D. - Southlake
Other
'G
v
U
b
o
u
o
o
U
q
0
o
P�
V
U
V c"n
C7
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Activity Room
1
1
1
Baseball Diamond (Practice)
1
2
1
2
1
2
9
9
Basketball Court (Outdoor)
2
1
3
3
Cafetorium
1
1
1
Exercise Room
1
1
1
Football Field (Practice)
1
2
3
3
Gym
1
2
1
1
1
2
$
g
In -line Hockey Rink
1
1
1
Recreation Center/Gym
1
1
1
Open Field
1
1
2
2
Soccer Field (Practice)
1
2
2
2
7 4
11
SUPPORT FACILITIES
Gym Office/Story e
1
1
2
2
'Lighted
Park and Recreation Resources 4.4
saiii�sJaA
k
k
k
UOJJ70TUIIkx�x
kxx�k�kx�
k
a31e-IJaquiry
k
X
X
k
k
k
k
spoo& axvIgjnoS
k
k
k
saxr-I a.2ppTnoS
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
X
k
k
u012uiuxa2I
k
k
k
aaJl31ro
mopeaiq sJaAN
X
X
X
X
ollaa?Iuow
;saJ� ax�-I
X
wield AVmajT3q
k
k
uoiulwo(j
k
X
a.2pig udAOJ:)
k
fJ;uaAOD
aaeld a.�pTJgLue�
k
k
�
k
uoll!ppv suxep`d
k
� • v' �= y
00�cd
u
0
O
1
O
U
qC
C
QGG
N
I
v
�A
'.0
i'—�i
E
H
4.5
Table 4.5
Park Support
Facilities
w
a
-14
ti
c
`�
V
v
m
Z
U
d
a
H
v
v
Totals
Concession Building
2
1
3
Parking (paved) Spaces
540
560
10
12
40
20
1,182
Parking (unpaved) Spaces
70
60
12
142
Trailer/Recreational Vehicles (# of spaces)
24
24
Water Feature (fountain)
1
1
1
3
Restroom Facilities
3
2
5
wo
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.
5.1
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
Recreational Area Type
NRPA Service'
Radius/Size
Southlake
Service Radius
Park User
Focus
per 1000
Residents
Size
(Acres)
Neighborhood Parks
'12 to 1 mile
Families
2.0
5 to 10
'/a mi., 2,500 SF -
Playground Only
1 acre
Subdivision
Children
Up to 1
Parks with School
Varies/Variable
% mile
Children
3 to 5
Community Parks
'/z - 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/
City Parks
50-75 Ac.
Entire City
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 1
NA/NA I
Entire Qty I
Famil /Grow /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 CONCEPTS
Table 5.2
Recreational
Facility Standards
(Standards are based on units per
population)
NRPA
19961
Service radius and
Location Notes 1983'
Southlake
Standards
Amphitheater
1:25,000
1:35,000
Aquatics Center
----
15 to 30 minutes travel time
----
1:20,000
Batting Cage (Stall)
----
Baseball Diamond (Practice)
----3
----
1:4,000
Baseball Diamond (Game - lighted)'
t/ - 1/ mile. Part of neighborhood
1:5,000
1:2,250
1:3,600
complex. Lighted fields part of
commun. y complex.
Baseball Diamond (Game)
1/ - 1/ mile. Part of neighborhood
1:5,000
1:3,600
complex. Lighted fields part of
community complex.
Basketball Court (Outdoor)
1/ - 1/ mile. Outdoor courts in
1:5,000
1:5,000
neighborhood/community parks,
plus active recreation areas in other
park settings.
Bench
Community Center
""--
----
----
1:500
Fishing Pier/Dock
----
1:35,000
Horseshoe Court
----
----
1:10,000
Inline Hockey Rink (lighted)'
----
----
----
1:10,000
Nature Center (Bldg)
----
----
1:25,000
Pavilion
----
1:40,000
Picnic Shelter
---
1:2,500
Picnic Table
"--"
----
1: 00
Playground
----
1: 5 0
Senior Center
----
----
1:400
,0
Soccer Field (Practice)
""--
----
1:35,000
----3
1:10,000
1:2,500
'James D. Mertes, et. al., Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenwav Guidelines, 1996, National Recreation and Park Association.
'Roger A. Lancaster, Ed., Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, 1983, National Recreation and Park Association.
' NRPA Standards do not dutmg ish between practice and game fields.
' NRPA Standards do not include lighting for outdoor sports facilities.
5.3
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
Soccer Field (Game)
1 - 2 miles. Number of units
1:10,000
1:1,500
depends on popularity. Youth
Popularity. Youth soccer on smaller
fields adjacent to fields or
neighborhooI parks.
Soccer Field (Game - lighted)1
1 - 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.
Softball Diamond (Practice)
Softball Diamond Game
( )
----'
t/ _ 1/ mile. May also be used for
1:5,000
1:5,000
1:4,500
1:9,000
youth baseball.
Softball Diamond (Game - lighted)'
1/ - 1/ mile. May also be used for
1:5,000
1:9,000
youth baseball.
Tennis Center with Pro Shop
____
Tennis Courts
t/ - 1/ mile. best in batteries of 2 -
1:2,000
�1:35,0005
:1,500
4. Located in neighborhood/
community park or near school
Trail, Hiking / Equestrian (miles)
site.
Trailhead, Equestrian
----
-'-'
1:12,000
Trail, Nature (soft or interpretive)
----
1:12,000
Trail, Paved (miles)
--
---'
1:10,000
Sand Volle all Court'
1
/z - 1 mile.
----
1:5,000
1:5,000
1:15,000
s Standard for number of courts is found under "Tennis Courts."
6 NRPA's standard is for paved volleyball courts.
NRPA Standards do not distinguish between practice and game fields
s 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 CONCEPTS
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
family.
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,la structures and
seating areas. It is vital that these facilities meet current ADAS , CPSC6 , and
IPEMA7 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-V2 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 CONCEPTS
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
OR
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
sites with special natural amenities. City parks should be located adjacent to major
thoroughfares in order to accommodate the large numbers of visitors that may be
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, cityparks 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
city.
are developed into a comprehensive system that links to all the parks within a
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 2-1/z miles of every citizen. Other cities use
the community park service radius standard which projects a community center
within V/ 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 communitypark. 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.
5.12
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
■ 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,
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,
parry 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 is working with ($1.25 million) toward construction of a joint -use natatorium.
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
5.13
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
significance can form the focal point of a small park which is usually reserved for
passive uses.
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 11/z miles. The large circles on Plate 2 represent a 11/2-mile
radius. Because it is assumed that most park users will travel to community parks by
automobile, location of thoroughfares adjacent to these parks is desirable.
5.14
STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS
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
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 determine
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,
61
NEEDS ASSESSMENTS
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.
RE
\
1�
O
O
O
'ct
1�
N
O
M M
+
it
h
O
O
O
Q'
0
0
O
•--�
.--q
M
M
W
.--i
00
O
N
v
g�
Q
(C,4)
+
N
M
M
O M
N
H
d
oo
c)
—1
o
z
M
all
N
\
r
00
1t
i
O
N
41
~
f'V
LA
N
M
N
M
M
DD
N
p M
M
Q
+
�
O
00
—4
4
C�
00
�p
v
`
N
+
�--�
N
O
N
O N
A
O
N G
y
O
'1
�O
Q�
oo
O
���00zC:
N
o
M
�p
M
O
to
M
�O
e•-i
O N
+
N
O N
N
O "
O
Lrn
O
Ln
Q'
M
Lr)
Lf)
O 5
M
�
O
N
N
N
O
C
O�
ono
p
C3
N
.44Q,o
0
0
�'
zoo
O
o
p
0
r/
r:j
t
f� � 4)
F~ z
(�
. �
U��
O
Os. �'
o
]
G
C�
m
caan
N
6
a4
vi
u u U ee
� �
v
O O O 1 IN
M +�+
0 O O O O
4 0 i
-o T1 -b -o
y � 4 sUi i�i
w
•:3-i-ti•b-d
oo04
o�o�
�uiuiwwk?
�ddoo0
j c1 U U U d
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
63
NE'EDs ASSL:SSMFNT an
S O M 3 'V- 00 .-�
O ~ Ln
N N M i i N N 00 r 1 00 N
ON 00
v
.-�- v
M 00 O M d N N i N N 9
p
0
N I.
Q � ,
O M
N cL
/ O O 1� i� �M N 00 et ' N M M N M cO
w e-+ a
O W y N 0o Q� N er N N i i d ^ N I� M 00 N N w
N n (! ' ; N N M
O M �'-1 u
o G,,
"0 -4 i
.M-� .•-•� � 00 .•••� M N �y N M M M �p (V
en
w
M
Y--1 ' , , N ; N N
Ln
O N N 0. � 00 00 -0 � . -� � N CSO, h � O �-r 0
�O �C .-� MN� n M M -4 O ID N O ON N 11
M M Lfl �
O N M N 00 M ' M 00 ti N
O .
O cn N
O T�
N "O O 'p u� L -' N N i ON 00 N \O
CN 00 Ln M M �" Ln M N M N N
N N �
q
-- v
M O O N •--� ti .--i O� O N
C
.� a �p rM O N O M �'+ V1 O N U-) cr O t]
O v
O ; O M
N
►-� 7C
v
N
6) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
M O O O N O p p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
y O O O O O O O O O O O
Ni Mi `� a i ri er i e M ti0 �O N .OU, ti MO �T O N n" et (7 C, 0 i O O O b
^C -o
s .O _ bA w3 0
u o n u
�0
O v v y v 0 u
.S"i • u S"y p
OA ca
1 OOr �0 O �u U a� f v
.� 00 p o 0
uR,i'
u u vGq Pq Pq u u
P V)c°n .�'.�-1 �,� •-vi
6.4
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 the Appendix.
Southlake currently has no recreation center offering the listed facilities 1 through 7.
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
Park Site Improvements
PItIORITIFS AND Rl?COM�NIFNI)ATIONS
As a part of this project, the Consultant prepared conceptual site plans for five of the
smaller park sites in the City's system. Following are comments and
recommendations relative to these sites.
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. Recommendations 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/landscaped bed
• Park Rules Sign
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. Recommended additions
include:
• Connections to City Trail System
• New Playground Equipment
• Security Lighting
• Park Rules Sign
• Tree Planting
• Park Entry Sign
• Irrigation Expansion
• Practice Areas
7.2
Noble Oaks Park
Refer to Figure 5.
PRIORITIES AND REC0MXMNDATI0NS
This small park benefits from its highlyvisible 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
ooer than
small parking lot, the five -acre park is undeveloped, oped However line with the its sedh for practice
a
soccer games and other informal activities. The pond has potential for teaching,
pr
demonstration, and observation of wetland habitat. Suggested improvements for
park include: the
• Multi -purpose Trail
Connections to Ci T
Small Shelter at P d Edge
and School Grounds
• Security Lighting in Shelter
• Benches
• Picnic Stations
Practice Areas
• Addition of Aquatic Plants and Animals • Park Rules Sign to Pond
• Park Entry Sign
Irrigation System
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 northernpart f the
site; the southern portion, which is gently sloping, is mostly open. Adjoining to th
west is the Florence Elementary School, a roe g e
one of the city-I.S.D. ' Property rty of the Keller I.S.D. This site is
joint use properties, so the two sites will share the play
equipment presently located on the school grounds. Recommended facilities
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
7.3
• Practice Baseball/Softball Field
• Practice Soccer Field
• Two Tennis Courts
Trail Connections to School and Cit
• Security Lighting y-Wide Trail System
• Parking Area
Irrigation
• Park Entry Sign
• Park Rules Sign
Sheltonwood Park
Refer to Figure 7.
PRIORITIES AND RECO1vWNDATIONS
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 Ci s
Policy of preserving Open Space, this park is slated for "passive" improvements.
Recommended facilities include:
• 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 Al in the Appendix.
This six -acre site is located on Continental Blvd. between the Count Walk
Subdivision and Carroll Elementary School (Carroll I.S.D..
and gentlysloping, but there is a thick grove of native trees along the site's southe
Most of the site is open
edge (and extends onto school roe rn
practice fields. It is also a jointusesite, so usersamatyuse hesscho offOurunlighted
playground equipment. Additional facilities might include: of parking and
74
• Benches and Picnic Tables PRIORI-REs
' Nature T � particularly along the northern edge of � �CO��Arro�
Trail on park and school property that includes the riparian
Big Bear Creek g the grove.
• Interpretive Signage on Trail habitat of
Trees along Continental
Park Entry Signage
Irrigation
Coker Property
Refer to Figure A2 in the Appendix.
In northeast Southlake, this undeveloped four -and_
Southlake-Grapevine bounds one -half -acre tract straddles the
Foxfire Rd It heavily�'at the southeast corner of Lonesome Dove and
Dove Creek Flood j • wooded with canopy and understo
ry classifies it as a special p Drosses the property and the site has a sees and brush The
Provide a connectionP rPose Park Trailhead developmentmall Pond. The City
between Southlake and on this site could
Lake Grapevine. Grapevine leases the 160-acre Mdowmere Park on
Park from the the shore of
Small Par Corps of Engineers.
g Lot (About 6 cars)
Park Entry Sign
• Park Rules Sign
Directional Signage
Bike Rack
• Picnic Tables
• Benches
• Security Lighting
Trail Connections
Potential Equestrian T railhead
A small playground mi
developed, selective clearer ht e accommodated in this Of undeisto Park If the Coker site is
visibility, and utility. g rY Vegetation would improve its security
Kirkwood/Sabre Linear Park Areas
small, triangular
Blvd. at the riangular site is on the Est side of
other linear ark Sabre phone center site. It is classified ash White Chapel near Kirkwood
p throughout the linear ctst
Kirkwood/Sabre park' and it connects to
Rustin/Fa area.
mily Park
Other Park & Recreational Facilities
Most of the following facilities have not been included in the recommendations above, but the in the
might be of future ' y are features
Needs Assessment or
interest to the citizens lures of rnanyAmeric izens of Southlake, an Parks and
75
1:GisN1
PUBLK -aKK
PRIV-,1 NP,:'1,
( ISO JOINT US, PROPERTY
t!NDIVELOPED (_U) PROPERTY
KI I i t ), ISl) 101NT t ; [ PROPER I
k.fLi.tF. IiU PROPFRT?' ((1:?;f)t-VHOFF[))
��
I ; •ii::=.K PARKS rRNII I h:Y1LS
I J
US ARMY CORP OI i,4 _INLERS PROI'rRIY
Tj
UNION CHURCH RD
PUBLIC PARK LAND
1. BOB JONES PARK
2. LONESOME DOVE PARK
3. BIONTLNNIAL PARK
4. RUSTIN/FAMILY PARK
S. ( HESAPEAKE PARK
b. SHELTONWOOD PARK
7. i,)KLR PROPERTY
N. ROYAL and ANNIE SMITH PARK
9. KOAi AP' PARK
IU. NOB' E OAKS PARK
11 KIRKWOOD-SABRE LiJFAR PARK
A ADAMS ADDITION
B. CAMBRIDCE PLACE
C. COVENTRY
`_f
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
D. DOMINION
E. GATEWAY PLAZA
a. CARROLL MIDDLE
F. [.nJ F CRLtiT
b. JOHNSON ELEMENTARY
G. A.1UN7"ICELLO
r. ('AkROLL INTERMDIATE
H. A1YEKS MEADOW
d. DURHAM ELEMENTARY/INTERMEDIATE
I. OAK TKEE
e. CARROLL JUNIOR HIGH
J. REMINGTON
f. FLORENCE ELEMENTARY
K. SOUTHRIDGE LAKES
B• CARROLL HIGH
L. STOI,lE LAKES
it. ROCKFNBAUGH 13.EivILi4IARY
M. SUUTHIAKE WOODS
i. MIDDLE/INTERMEDIATE
N. TIMBER LAKE
J. SHADY GROVE ELEMENTARY
O TIMARROF+
k. (ARROLI ELEMENTARY
r'. VtkSF"IItF
ELEMEN i ,aRY #5
O. KiXHOROUGH
in. ELEMENTARY #6
�-.� ODS P
��O
it ST10
City Of SOLJt_hlake
2001 Parks, Recreation and
Open Space
Master Plan
PLATE 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS & RESOURCES
. f
x�t
�x7
t
PROPERTY
a
�t
h a
L • i__LI �
_
� �rsyr 'R '4 �5:a1
}y
d
��� ��� ♦
e i , K i
OC
{ ILAKEEEK iSD IOINI l'SF PROPF.R11" z �g�l
— i { kEl I Lk ISU PkOPERTII I �NDEVELOPED)
xi
PARK III
I
SkRVI T ZONES
LXISTING PARK DEVEI OPLD & UNDEVELOPED
PRO(r)AL) PARK
lI INC SCHOOL
l_L
PROPUSED jl_Li0UE
Z.
k � I s __ a ��`,� \ •� �,`" , , � r w � l- '
G° P E S
�1
"j
kOPUSED COMMUNITY
PARK
�1. PARK x
is EXISTING COMMUNITY
I
�- �Y -
i.
i 1 � ' '— 1.1
I \
�-F-
L _
2 - �7
VV�ST Hld Nbl h
LOREN CERD
_
i
I � L
V _ _
Sb,T LA E B'L�!
z i I ;
,C II
,n I
L �
�1; I
i F=
' I
- - _
UNION CHURCH kU
� "-_!J
9 apt �S
c_
Ej w t
\
, . .
PUBLIC. PARK LAND SCHOOLS
'I. Bob )ONL5 I', KK a. C:ARROLL MIDDLE Z
2 I rlh7E>UME DOVE PAKK h. JOHNSC)N LLEMLNT.ARY
i. Bit INII'4Ni,u PAKK t. CARROLL iNfERMDIAIF
+. K.t _ ; I1NI O AlI PARK d. DURHAM ELEW*4TARY/INTERMEDIAT1
C.Et;,:'�"t =Kf 1",l e. CARROLE ).!NIOK rili.rt
tr, tiHEL� ,r4V4t. FLORENCE ELEMtNTAPY
(:CiKIT' r`kf:P i?l1 g. (.rtt;kOLL HIGH
6 t;'(JI.! au.1 AN'gll 'A1lll i V,,PtK ^ ,;. !dNBAUGH LLEMEWARY
1A'lY !'ARY. M10DLE/INfLRME:UI-Ali
0. PJt�=flC :,.P ftikK E. SHADY GROVE, ELEMENTARY
Kif .vr+ lu-�.;LriKI i6NEP.r I:r-N. k IARkOII. FICf.4ENfARY
'�-uviOk (:_EI+l!ik I. EiHAI N1ANY #5
m. LLEMENTARY #6
I
NORTH
C r AF'I I!C; S;AI i._ IN FEE
City of Southlake
2001 Parks, Recreation and
Open Space
Master Plan
PLATE 2
EXISTING & PROPOSED PARKS
I.i_GEi' D
f'K(X'(. 10 ENVIRONMENIAL
I'kESERVAIION/OPEN SPA'
NOI L
fhis plan reflects both existing public open space
and areas with potential to be preserved. Some
private pruperty may be included. It includes water
su,race, creek corridors, floodplains, natural drainage
banns, prairies, woodlands and related vegetation.
Additionally, portions of existing and potential
parks, part of which are Or may be developed are
included. Developmec, of preserved open space
should be limited to pedestrian and equestrian trails
and related facilities (benches, signage, picnic tables,
fishing piers, canoe launches, etc.).
FLORENCE RD
IL
� �II
41
�}
rr
t
� I W�u�
1 �I
(
fi
Ali
z � X,�i Zj-);
1 0
_ Y I WES if tI / i1r
-w CHURCH KD 'I!](
E
3000 6000
GRAPHIC :SCALE IN FEET
LAKE VINE SHONELINI-
City of Southlake
2001 Parks, Recreation and
Open Space
N'taster Plan
PLATE 3
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AND
OPEN SPACE PLAN
a p y p w -v
cco�c=K
n n ? (e o c'
?�nwo• mW
w20 �'(D
°Q O p
3
w p
C. 0
Q d.
W
z
0
a
x
�.l
N
O
N
O
O
n ca m �1
ou c�
0, ` '� rn CD
inZ�N
c M -o
>
ro
x
a)
N
-a
O
a
O
m
p
m
T1
C
20
rn
V)
• •
N O
x^
OQ
T
i�
a_
0
rn
x
+-1
Z
n
mm
T1
D
C
70
m
Lon
N. AJ��b'�A'11ti\tl`:�Pianlsl�, .���Hqu i
,,. 1, ... „ ,.�, �.., ��. i_-r. i-r. 14 rlvl, 1 Flt: ICi, I.1
z
0
X
cf)
Cil
C) 0
F_
c)
>
F_ 0
ii m
02
0 TI
c) cn p -n
X 0 (3,
mzr
0 C-) -1
--#% m Ct)
Cl) -4
0 Z
>py
K
— _U
o
rn
(D
-V
ru
0
0
N0
eD-71
"
(D
n
-0
(D
(D
0
n
eD 1 Lo
Lon
CD
W I
(D
-U
Co
CD
-0
:3
e)
::r
CL
r—
m
C) m
Z.
FAINI mauve AOUU
Job'! 1 hi i ,,,Si,eitonwood Park -I IX1 /.owg, ('13/1910 1 02:26A8 PNI Rv iester
C2)
0
r',
CL
CD
n n n
i
0 0 0""
m
'ir z(Ei,
t=
0 (1) (-) i;
,-"> m
U)
CD
U'l
I. Mar tire' t h e
�Jo mt
rD
m
CL
Um'on Church Rd.
Citv oi Keher
I
C) r-
:3 0
0
-D
@
, I
(D �-
-) C.)
&� 17
n -0
--a
m ryl
X
0 n
2
0 a
1—0
F
-6
"n
Cl
0
=)
Cl
r1
GQ aQ
(D
(D
CD
(D (D m
(D
r)
CD
0
(D
6
0
r-
M
�"Om
7-es
2w
rn)-<
0
rb
LA
0
(IQ
CD t"
... . .. . .....
0 (D
(D
%
Sin 91 e
F-cl rnl/yl/
�HOrtl�('s
ll.\Jot)\4118'\1MPlan�sii(,ets\Lorif-.s�)riie. Dove Park-1 IM—mg, 03/19/0102:46:46 PM, RFi—Aer, 1:1
W,
0
U)
n
iD-
0
0
f T1
q z o -n
0
tir w z
0 0'"%
CD
71
(D
X >
CD X Z
X
w
U)
Continental Blvd.
C:
(D
IM
C)
rn
eD .0
z
(D
0
M
0
-0
>
-0
0
:3..o
0 0
A+
15'
co
cn
r)
(D
=3
nog
,t. --q
Single Family o
Hoomes :3
a-,+
T-0
li:1JOb',4118\IMPlafl\sli(,Pt,,'Nloble O,.,k,,,-,l 1x17.dwg, 03/19/01 02:54:51 J,M, Uiester, 1:1
h
iv
TI
C)
ryl
Ln
r) (V CD
ryl
(D 0 VI M
no
rr
0
0
(D
n
0
LA
0
ro
3
0 04
(D
UQ 'A
CL 0
3
m
0
e s d e n �i a I
Johnson Rd.
C-11
C)
1
0 001,
07
z E-
0 > 0
(D
M
>-a
��
0
C: Z
1
C r,�
>
-
> r
1
z -0
Z
—i ffin
CD z
x cn
4) 0 0
CL cD
:3
CD
W (D
(D
(D
CL
Sign -In
for
Parks and Recreation Board Meeting
Monday, March 19, 2001
Name (please print)
Address
---.._._..------
Phone or Email
Topic
a � u4
1 C
8c7 -48(6 - 6Q3
JeT4 S n.,'
13v 7 r5 >✓� , C`�
8J`7 - �- 2-
k � _V,
1
JLA
C7
f - 1-
5
�►�� rd
9_5 u 3 ?' j-er Crest
XC7 l -3 l/4
�o F T _L (_c_
►ram +fRj
2-08 &5AJLEY8(7-
Q� &'8-S-16S
<)F—e
L �v L
1 -L41 low
':27 - (eO -7
;'� S�aoo'f
��G i�z.
)i-KBE- 7ar►
o{.r
AL� S✓�ISi
IOA�eDru��°
IVL3 1�.c.vti...�Q B1.�.
8l7-3Z�i-�
GSSA
�E7L C'L-
'�US i t LAkr
817 - `/2 - I q 1
05
�O LfAq ofetVC
117 - Z-4 -l7(o fJ
µ -
i
3.s