2001-04-09
1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
2 PARKS AND RECRETION BOARD MEETING
3
4 April 9, 2001
5
6 MINUTES
7
8 Board Members Present: Sherry Berman, Chair; Chris Miltenberger, Vice-Chair; Cara
9 White, Secretary; Mary Georgia, Lisa Stokdyk, Michael Nelson and Jim Glover
10
11 Board Members Absent: None
12
13 Staff Members Present: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services, Steve Polasek,
14 Deputy Director of Community Services; Chris Carpenter, Senior Parks Planner; Ben
15 Henry, Park Planning and Construction Superintendent; and Administrative Secretary
16 Linda Carpenter
17
18 Regular Session:
19
20 Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order
21
22 The meeting was called to order by Chair Sherry Berman at 7:08 p.m.
23
24 Ms. Berman thanked everyone in the audience for coming to the meeting.
25
26 Agenda Item No. 2, Administrative Comments
27
28 Members commented on the March 31, 2001 tour of recreation centers in Arlington,
29 Coppell and Grapevine saying it was a very educational experience. The City will seek
30 input from the Parks and Recreation Board, user groups, interested citizens, other cities,
31 organizations that operate recreation centers, and the SPIN organization as it goes
32 through the development process for its proposed Recreation Center.
33
34 SPIN will host a "Candidates Forum" on Tuesday, April 10 at 7:00 p.m. at Johnson
35 Elementary School.
36
37 A joint City Council and CISD meeting regarding the Joint Use Natatorium Agreement
38 will be held Wednesday, April 11 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Training Center 3C and
39 3D.
40
41 Ms. Karen Magnum of the Trails Task Force will make a presentation regarding an
42 interlocal effort to connect trails in the area at the May 14, 2001 Parks and Recreation
43 Board meeting.
44
45 Ms. Stokdyk asked to have the Bonnie and Clyde State Troopers historical marker at SH
46 114 and Dove Road and the Jellico Oak historical marker at Randol Mill and FM 1709
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page I of 21
1 included in the "Historical Sites" section of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master
2 Plan update.
3
4 CONSENT AGENDA
5
6 Agenda Item No. 3-A, Approval of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board meeting
7 minutes of March 19, 2001.
8
9 Agenda Item No. 3-B, Approval of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board Retreat
10 minutes of February 16, 2001.
11
12 Agenda Item No. 3-C, Recommendation to enter into an agreement with Brinkley Sargent
13 Architects for the design and construction drawings for proposed recreation center.
14
15 A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and minutes with corrections
16 submitted by Mary Georgia and Lisa Stokdyk.
17
18 Motion: Glover
19 Second: White
20 Ayes: Berman, Georgia, Glover, Miltenberger, Nelson, Stokdyk and White
21 Nays: None
22 Abstention: None
23 Vote: 7-0
24
25 Motion carried.
26
27 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONSENT ITEMS
28
29 Agenda Item No. 3-A, Approval of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board meeting
30 minutes of March 19, 2001. Approved as presented with corrections noted by Ms.
31 Georgia and Ms. Stokdyk.
32
33 Agenda Item No. 3-B, Approval of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board Retreat
34 minutes of February 16, 2001. Approved as presented.
35
36 Agenda Item No. 3-C, Recommendation to enter into an agreement with Brinkley Sargent
37 Architects for the design and construction drawings for proposed recreation center. The
38 City Council approved the use of the Timarron/Richards site for the proposed recreation
39 center at their March 20, 2001 meeting. The next step was to contract with an architect to
40 design the facility.
41
42 In May 1999, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was sent to eight local architectural
43 firms with experience in the design and construction of park and recreational facilities,
44 specifically recreation centers. Five firms responded and their qualifications were
45 reviewed by staff and interested members of the Teen Center Design Committee. Firms
46 were considered based on their overall experience and ability to perform the services
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 2 of 21
I requested within the time frame given, experience in regards to the design and operation
2 of recreation centers, activity centers, and/or related facilities, their ability to display
3 creative proficiency within the concept design while still addressing basic operating
4 concerns and budget constraints, and their experience working with public groups, city
5 officials and city staff. Brinkley Sargent Architects of Dallas was determined to be the
6 organization best suited for the Center. They are a twenty-five year old firm specializing
7 in recreational, sports, and public architecture. Brinkley Sargent has completed design
8 work on over fifteen recreational centers in the past five years including the Plano
9 Aquatic and Recreation Center, Coppell Aquatic and Recreation Center, and the Lee Park
10 Recreation Center in Irving. Staff contacted six local municipalities and all indicated that
11 they were very satisfied with the work provided by Brinkley Sargent. Funding in the
12 amount of $550,000 for the Recreation Center design is identified in FY2001/01 of the
13 SPDC Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The scope of services and contractual fees is
14 currently being negotiated and will be reviewed by the City Attorney.
15
16 Time is imperative to meet the Texas Parks and Wildlife Indoor Recreation grant
17 deadline of July 31, 2001 with a conceptual floor plan and facility components.
18
19 The Parks and Recreation Board approved this item on Consent and will forward their
20 recommendation to SPDC and City Council.
21
22 REGULAR AGENDA
23
24 Agenda Item No. 4, Public Forum
25
26 Ms. Berman opened the Public Forum and asked the audience to hold their comments
27 regarding the location of the girls' softball association fields until that item is considered.
28
29 The Public Forum was closed.
30
31 Agenda Item No. 5-A, Approval of park dedication requirements for Haltom Creek
32 Estates, a 95-lot proposed addition in the Francis Throop Survey, Abstract No. 1511.
33
34 Mr. Hugman presented this item and noted the information contained in the Board's
35 packet memo and materials, which are attached to the minutes for clarification.
36
37 Mr. Hugman told the Board that if this development was approved, the dedication
38 proposed could provide the City the opportunity to achieve a significant piece of the East
39 Dove Creek Greenway Trail that is proposed in the revised Southlake Pathways Master
40 Plan. The challenge is to determine a methodology through park dedication requirements
41 that would preserve the linear park setting and provide a trail available to the public,
42 while also being mindful that to make the trail work properly, the continuation of the trail
43 east and west would be required.
44
45 Certain risks are involved and were explained. The properties to the east and west are
46 privately held. If the trail continuations are never achieved, the City would have a public
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 3 of 21
1 trail existing within a subdivision only. The City would need to work with private
2 landowners to accomplish this type of trail. If the City accepted this as a public trail, and
3 if the connections to North Carroll Avenue and Dove Street are accomplished, it would
4 provide a unique experience for trail users along Dove Creek. Mr. Hugman explained that
5 not acquiring the opportunity now to hold this trail as public, could prevent this trail
6 segment from ever becoming a reality.
7
8 Mr. Hugman said staff met with the developer and reviewed their proposal and the
9 unique opportunities of an off-road, multi-use trail along the Dove Creek natural corridor.
10 At that time, they discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the park acreage being
11 dedicated entirely as public or private. Staff felt the best option would be for the land
12 itself to be maintained as private by the homeowners association, but dedicating a public
13 pedestrian easement through the property and building a public trail. This plan affords the
14 City the opportunity to connect the trail on the north end to Dove Street and connect the
15 south end to Carroll Avenue.
16
17 Mr. Hugman noted the "Expense Credit Worksheet for Physical or Equipment
18 Improvements to Park Land" in the Board's packet. He said the Pedestrian Bridge
19 Crossing Dove Creek line item shown as "public" on the document would be corrected to
20 be shown as "private." Deducting that $50,000 still leaves the developer over on his
21 credits, and also taking into account a six-foot off-road trail along North Carroll. The
22 amount of the credit comes to $174,005, which exceeds the required fees plus the
23 required trail along North Carroll. The trail along North Carroll Avenue is currently
24 required by the Trail System Master Plan, but instead of requiring the developer to do
25 that trail at this time and not connecting to the north or south along Carroll, the City
26 would transfer the requirement of that trail to the other public trail interior to the
27 development. That cost is added to the summary.
28
29 The location of the bridge was identified on the map (attached to minutes) for members.
30 It would be located in a "private" area.
31
32 Mr. Glover asked Mr. Hugman how a public trail would work in a "private" area - would
33 there be "private property" signs? Mr. Hugman said that issue was discussed with the
34 developer and the developer had suggested putting up signs to the affect that the "Trail is
35 Public Property." Also, having a wider easement would help.
36
37 Mr. Glover asked if the area designated on the map as "rest area with bench" was
38 included in the public area? Mr. Hugman responded yes.
39
40 Ms. Berman said the goal of the trail system is to connect trails and questioned why the
41 trail to the north was not extended all the way to the border of the property? She
42 suggested that the developer add a loop at the north border to serve notice to users that
43 the trail ends at that point until future development.
44
45 Tom Matthews, developer, Four Peaks Development, 726 Commerce Street, Southlake:
46 Mr. Matthews explained the reason why the trail was not extended to the property border.
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 4 of 21
I He said it was due to the level of uncertainty of when and if the adjacent property would
2 be developed. The developer's rationale was to discourage activity beyond the trail since
3 the trail currently dead-ends at that site. The easements are obtained and fully dedicated
4 for future improvements for the trail extension.
5
6 Ms. Berman asked the developer if a loop could be put on the north end of the trail?
7
8 Mr. Matthews explained the difference between the public and private uses. The
9 dedication is for the public, but until the park trail is completed north and south, it dead-
10 ends into private property. The plan does offer a loop system with the gazebo on the
11 north (located near the street entrance area) and the loop on the south end of the trail.
12
13 Mr. Hugman said staff was concerned also about having dead-end segments of trail on
14 the north and south ends. He mentioned safety issues. Staff's recommendation was to
15 leave the trail as it was presented on the map.
16
17 Mr. Nelson asked what use was intended for the space designated on the map as "amenity
18 structure" at the north end of the trail? Would it have gravel or be a greenspace? Mr.
19 Matthews said it would be a small gathering area, like a school bus stop. It would not be
20 grass covered, but have some pavement, perhaps concrete, material. That piece would be
21 private park land.
22
23 The property designated as "7" on the map was a residential lot.
24
25 Ms. Berman asked Mr. Matthews if he would be willing to say for the record that "when
26 this trail is continued, then we can come onto your property to finish the trail off so that
27 they connect?" if a loop could not be put at the north end as earlier suggested. Mr.
28 Matthews responded yes. It was the developer's intention that the trails connect and Mr.
29 Matthews commented that he felt that aspect of the trail was the "hole of the donut" of
30 the trail system through the development - that it was an enhancement to the subdivision.
31
32 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the roads in the subdivision were private? Mr. Matthews said he
33 believed the roads were public.
34
35 Mr. Glover stated concerns he had about public access to the trail. He said with the
36 current design, citizens would technically have to pass through private property to get to
37 the trail. Public access would ultimately be from the north and south ends of the trail at
38 Carroll Avenue and Dove Street.
39
40 Until such time as the public access points are complete on the north and south ends of
41 the trail, the City asked if the developer would grant an access easement to the trail at the
42 point where the trail comes closest to the road across from Lot 4, Block E, as shown on
43 the map? The developer said he had no objections to granting that access easement. Mr.
44 Hugman said it would be dedicated as a public pedestrian easement and the trail
45 constructed as public trail. Mr. Matthews said once the trail was completed and the north
46 and south public access points were created, the public access across from Lot 4 would
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 5 of 21
I go away, however, he was favorable to keeping the easement there permanently, as a
2 maintenance access point for the trail.
3
4 Mr. Matthews clarified conditions, stating that the developer agreed to grant the City a
5 20-foot easement and agreed to build an 8-foot wide physical trail to be maintained by
6 the City. He said the remaining 12-foot easement area, contiguous to the trail, would be
7 maintained by the homeowners association as well.
8
9 Ms. Berman asked the developer to remind home builders not to dump their construction
10 debris in the trail.
11
12 A motion was made to accept the dedication requirement with the amendment that
13 the City have the access easement for maintenance across from Lot 4.
14
15 Motion: Glover
16 Second: Georgia
17
18 Discussion:
19
20 A comment was made to have the developer seek additional trail access from an adjacent
21 property owner to the east of the trail, as discussed earlier in the meeting.
22
23 Mr. Miltenberger asked if the developer had agreed to construct the loop on the north
24 segment of the trail? Mr. Matthews responded that a small loop could be constructed
25 within the 20-foot easement.
26
27 The motion was amended to also include a loop at the north end of the trail, within
28 the 20-foot easement.
29
30 Ms. Stokdyk asked whether the amounts shown on the worksheet under the columns
31 labeled Trails, 1996 Count, Buildout and Needed were correct? Mr. Hugman said those
32 amounts would be updated as the figures were not relevant or based on the current
33 proposed Trail System Master Plan.
34
35 The motion continued with a vote.
36
37 Ayes: Berman, Georgia, Glover, Miltenberger, Nelson, Stokdyk and White
38 Nays: None
39 Abstention: None
40 Vote: 7-0
41
42 Motion carried.
43
44 Agenda Item No. 5-B, Approval of park dedication requirements for Parc Place, a 46-lot
45 proposed addition in the J. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 18.
46
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 6 of 21
I Mr. Hugman presented this request stating the developer was requesting to pay fees, less
2 credit for privately maintained open space (value of $5,017), resulting in payment of fees
3 of $63,983. The developer acknowledged that if the revised Southlake Pathways Master
4 Plan was approved, they would either build the required trail or escrow the costs.
5
6 Linda Jordan, PBS&J representative, 5999 Summerside Drive, Dallas: Ms. Jordan
7 briefed the Board on details of the proposed development. She pointed out features of the
8 development's location, roadways, and access points into the subdivision shown on the
9 Concept Plan.
10
11 Ms. Jordan explained the developer's reason for wanting to pay the fees, stating that
12 based on the number of lots, the amount of required parkland would be only 1.2 acres and
13 since at least five acres is preferred, the developer agreed to provide the money in lieu of
14 land.
15
16 Ms. Berman asked if the developer would consider doing a private playground, such as a
17 tot lot?
18
19 David Howell, applicant and representative of Paramount Land Development, 13800
20 Montfort, Dallas, responded to Ms Berman saying the developer had considered a small
21 playground or some more active feature in the common space shown on the Plan, but had
22 not formalized the plans yet. He said they believe that type of amenity would be very
23 beneficial to the neighborhood and if they could work it in, they "may" do it, but could
24 not commit 100% without more consideration.
25
26 Ms. Jordan questioned the Board about park land credits as the developer had applied for
27 50% credit on the acreage. Board members responded that credit was given for the
28 improvements, in addition to the acreage.
29
30 After the Board clarified the application of park land credits, Mr. Howell said the
31 developer could agree to provide the small playground in the subdivision. Staff will work
32 with the developer to get the estimated cost and apply the multiplier. It will still be below
33 the 50% maximum credit called for by ordinance. If the Park Board's motion is to accept
34 the remainder in fees, staff will work out appropriate numbers and forward to Public
35 Works, recognizing that the amount will depend upon the ultimate number of lots that are
36 approved.
37
38 A motion was made to approve the park dedication requirements for Parc Place
39 with the developer working on a playground/kid lot, as an additional credit for the
40 park dedication fees; staff to have the authority to determine the appropriate
41 remaining fees.
42
43 Motion: White
44 Second: Georgia
45
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 7 of 21
I Discussion: Placement of the playground would be on the lot designated as common
2 space on the Concept Plan presented.
3
4 The motion was clarified to apply private credit for the tot lot and the open space and
5 then accept the remainder in fees.
6
7 The motion was amended to say that staff has the authority to work with Mr.
8 Howell on developing a playground/kid lot, and what fees exist beyond that point
9 then, that will be what he owes in park dedication fees.
10
11 Motion: White
12 Second: Glover
13 Ayes: Berman, Georgia, Glover, Miltenberger, Nelson, Stokdyk and White
14 Nays: None
15 Abstention: None
16 Vote: 7-0
17
18 Motion carried.
19
20 Agenda Item No. 5-C, Consideration: Southlake Girls Softball Association (SGSA) field
21 location.
22
23 Chair Sherry Berman asked the audience to remember when considering this item that the
24 Parks and Recreation Board were volunteers and Southlake residents. The Park Board
25 must consider the whole picture. Ms. Berman asked for citizens and Board members alike
26 to control their emotions during this item. Ms. Berman informed the audience that the
27 Parks Board was an advisory board and that the decision would go on to SPDC, Planning
28 & Zoning and City Council, allowing many opportunities for citizens to voice their
29 opinions.
30
31 Mr. Hugman reviewed the events leading up to this item being placed on the agenda for
32 consideration and reminded the Board it was discussed at their March meeting
33
34 A worksheet (attached to the minutes) of additional comparison cost information and an
35 envisioned timeline for both options, which was prepared just prior to the meeting, was
36 presented on the overhead. Mr. Hugman explained the worksheet and said an effort was
37 made to compare costs for a softball complex at Bicentennial Park, compared to
38 upgrading the existing practice ballfields at Bob Jones Park (6 fields) and then
39 constructing four practice ballfields somewhere else. He pointed out there was not a
40 substantial difference in the estimates on the chart.
41
42 The worksheet attempted to identify potential costs for each facility in greater detail so
43 that a more equivalent determination could be made from a cost standpoint. The costs
44 provided are only estimates - further planning and engineering would be required to
45 refine the costs in greater detail. It was also noted that with any construction project, true
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 8 of 21
1 costs are not known until bids are received, and vary by contractor between the various
2 components of the overall project.
3
4 Mr. Hugman and Mr. Polasek addressed numerous questions from the Board. They talked
5 about items included in the $1.1 million budgeted for next year at Bicentennial Park, the
6 $300,000 cost of a restroom/concession and storage building at Bicentennial Park and the
7 $300,000 cost for a concession building at Bob Jones Park. They provided information
8 about the spectator area (bleachers and shade structures) proposed for Bicentennial Park,
9 parking issues and landscaping for the practice fields. Mr. Hugman and Mr. Polasek
10 discussed the configurations of each park and the different "feel" of each park
11 Bicentennial Park is identified as being "urban" and Bob Jones Park "rustic." and how
12 those different design aspects affect the cost associated with each. Mr. Polasek said that
13 there would probably not be landscaping or new parking for the practice fields at
14 Bicentennial Park. He said the parking would exist in the existing parking lot through the
15 use of a pedestrian bridge. Additional parking would run approximately $350,000, based
16 on game fields, which could be reduced for practice fields. Mr. Hugman stated the figures
17 provided were conservative. He explained why it was very difficult to itemize the
18 bleachers, shade structures and scoreboards for Bicentennial Park, adding they were
19 included in the $1.1 million cost.
20
21 Mr. Glover commented that he felt the elements of the "urban" design at Bicentennial
22 Park was more expensive than the "rural" look of Bob Jones Park. He asked if the four
23 practice ballfields were placed at Bicentennial Park, did the estimates for the practice
24 ballfields reflect Bicentennial Park costs or were those costs estimates for "just
25 someplace" and additional costs needed to be added if they are planned for Bicentennial
26 Park? Mr. Hugman said the figures were reflective of Bicentennial Park.
27
28 None of the amounts on the worksheet take into account the prospect of any matching
29 funds from the Southlake Girls Softball Association.
30
31 Staff was asked if the practice fields at Bicentennial Park would ever become game fields
32 at some point and if staff had projections from the baseball association as to what their
33 needs would be in the next five years? If a need was demonstrated and a request to
34 upgrade the practice fields was presented to Park Board and SPDC, it would be
35 considered. Projections of field needs from the baseball association are included in the
36 Park Master Plan. It is possible that if a softball complex is developed, a couple of the
37 existing softball fields at Bicentennial Park could be converted to game baseball fields.
38 That would provide an increase in baseball fields. One field will remain an adult softball
39 field, but the other two will convert to baseball fields, giving the association additional
40 two fields.
41
42 Ms. Berman commented that both costs were higher than what is available through
43 SPDC. She said ball fields and practice fields were needed. The cost is $2 million on both
44 of these and asked how to get $2.2 or $2.6 million out of $1.1 million?
45
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 9 of 21
I Mr. Hugman explained there was not enough money to fund a softball complex and six
2 practice ballfields. Additional funding would be required and would have to be looked at
3 with SPDC to determine where or how that could happen. It could mean delaying a
4 project.
5
6 Ms. Georgia made comments about the $1.1 million appropriated in FY2000/01 and
7 mentioned certain things that physically could not be put in 2001, such as lighting and
8 other things. She asked to identify the items that could be done in 2001 and the items that
9 could not be done until FY2002/03. The current CIP for SPDC identifies those items.
10 Lighting for the soccer fields at Bob Jones Park would come up in FY2001/02. Lighting
11 for the softball fields is included in the $1.1 million appropriated.
12
13 Board members talked about projects out of the initial park upgrade requirements that
14 might be delayed - perhaps the shade structures, the expansion of the restrooms and
15 other items.
16
17 Mr. Hugman restated that the cost figures provided were only estimates and that when
18 engineering and designs were done, the costs could change.
19
20 The Board said they were faced with a difficult decision and needed to explore what
21 items would be cut if either option was chosen. They asked what items would be cut at
22 Bicentennial Park? Staff would work with Schrickel, Rollins and Associates to reduce the
23 cost wherever possible less landscaping, fewer walkways, smaller restroom, concession
24 building if possible, reduced parking, and different amenities. Schrickel, Rollins can
25 design a plan to meet whatever cost level the City chooses. They do tend to be
26 conservative in their costs because they would rather decrease costs instead of having to
27 ask for more.
28
29 Mr. Glover asked the Board to look at the agenda item before them from a different
30 approach other than the cost considerations. He noted there had been public hearings for
31 the Bob Jones Park Master Plan where public input was received on the design of the
32 park and elements of the master plan. The proposal before the Board this evening to
33 change the Bob Jones Master Plan to include the lighted fields was not a part of that
34 approved Plan, and has not been presented to the community for their input.
35
36 Mr. Nelson suggested that practice fields, which would not be lighted, be placed at
37 another park other than at Bicentennial Park. His reasoning was that it might be easier to
38 locate the type of fields that require lights, such as LaCrosse, at Bicentennial Park and put
39 the type of fields that do not require lights (such as practice fields) at another location.
40 Mr. Nelson asked why commit to putting four un-lighted practice fields at Bicentennial
41 Park when that is an area that could probably be lighted? Mr. Hugman said there was not
42 a park location where all of the fields would fit and noted that some practice ball fields
43 would be built at Royal and Annie Smith Park at the time the park was developed.
44
45 Mr. Miltenberger stated he felt it was short-sighted to build a practice field without lights.
46
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 10 of 21
I Ms. Stokdyk asked the Board to revisit the concern raised earlier by Mr. Glover about
2 changing the Bob Jones Master Plan without gathering public input. She asked would
3 changing the intent of the Park to include lighted game fields mean that the community
4 input process through SPIN, etc., would need to be restarted and what affect that process
5 would have on delaying the current projects - the practice fields and the softball fields?
6 Mr. Hugman responded by detailing the community and the design processes involved in
7 making changes to Bicentennial Park and Bob Jones master plans. He said it would take
8 approximately fifteen months to completion for both projects, taking into account the
9 design and the community input process for both options.
10
11 Mr. Hugman explained that since the City already had an approved concept plan for the
12 current construction at Bob Jones Park, the City would have to go back through the steps
13 of meeting with the SPIN neighborhood, then present the proposed revised concept plan
14 to the Park Board, SPDC, Planning & Zoning and City Council. The Bicentennial Park
15 process would be shortened in that the fields are already shown on the Bicentennial
16 Master Schematic and people are aware of them from previous meetings. The process
17 would still involve going through SPIN and the other approval steps.
18
19 Ms. Berman stressed her concerns with the cost estimates. She asked if more accurate
20 figures could be obtained without delaying the projects further? She said this issue was
21 such a critical one that it would be hard to make a judgment knowing that the figures
22 were not solid. An architect could be hired, at great expense to the City, to produce a
23 design, but that would only provide "better" cost estimates. Final costs can only be
24 determined once bids are received.
25
26 Matt Tuggey, president, Southlake Girls Softball Association, 1361 Cross Timber Drive:
27 Mr. Tuggey made a presentation on behalf of the Southlake Girls Softball Association.
28 He commented on several cost estimates shown on the memo from Mr. Hugman. He
29 noted the $300,000 cost to expand the restroom facility at Bob Jones Park versus
30 $350,000 to construct a new one at Bicentennial Park. He said moving the game fields to
31 Bob Jones Park, would eliminate the need for the bridge and that $100,000 cost. Staff
32 interjected that even if the bridge was eliminated, $100,000 would still have to be applied
33 toward parking for the practice fields. Mr. Tuggey continued his presentation pointing out
34 cost differences associated with Bob Jones Park versus Bicentennial Park. He talked
35 about substantial costs involving the parking, the bridge, about grading issues, the need
36 for retaining walls, configuration of the ballfields and noted the design features of a
37 traditional four-plex in Cedar Hill. He said the Association would like to take advantage
38 of the matching funds program. Mr. Tuggey said he spoke with Mr. Bill Stroope,
39 president of the Southlake Baseball Association, about their practice fields needs at
40 Bicentennial Park and was told SBA would be happy with the three fields that open up.
41 Mr. Tuggey said one of their fields is shared with an adult league softball team on Friday
42 night only. Mr. Tuggey summarized the Association's position stating that if they
43 relocate to Bob Jones Park, three fields will open up, in addition to an additional game
44 field for SBA, plus two practice fields at Bob Jones Park. He said their requirements
45 would be more than satisfied at Bob Jones Park. He added that with the additional
46 practice fields, they could be shared with boys baseball to at least delay funding of any
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page I1 of 21
1 more practice fields at Bicentennial Park. Mr. Tuggey said there would be a cost savings
2 of $600,000 outlay by going to Bob Jones Park. Mr. Tuggey's final point was about
3 aesthetics. He said a much nicer facility could be built for the same amount of money at
4 Bob Jones Park.
5
6 Ms. Georgia asked Mr. Tuggey to refresh the Board on the Softball Association's hours
7 of operation. Presently at Bicentennial Park, all their games are Saturday, 9:00 a.m. until
8 3-4:00 p.m. Make-up games are held Sunday afternoon, 1:00 p.m. to 6-7:00 p.m. Practice
9 times are a little different than they would be at Bob Jones because they are limited to
10 three fields, but their latest practice session starts at 8:30 p.m. and ends by 9:30 p.m. With
11 daylight savings time, the lights are on an hour to an hour and a half. Mr. Tuggey said
12 there certainly would not be anyone there after 10:00 p.m. The team practices and games
13 are always supervised by adults. Mr. Tuggey said they are considerate to the neighbors
14 whose homes back up the park and try to be good neighbors. They have never received a
15 complaint about lighting, etc.
16
17 Ms. Berman commended the SGSA and SBA on being good neighbors and said they
18 have done a great job of keeping their promise about the lighting issue.
19
20 Mr. Tuggey was questioned about tournaments. Mr. Tuggey shared that during the
21 regular season their Association does not hold tournaments. He explained their
22 registration policy and their goal to allow any girl to play regardless of ability.
23
24 Another point Mr. Tuggey wanted to make was that he did not believe that their request
25 to move to Bob Jones Park, even taking into consideration the time involved with the
26 approval process, would delay building any fields.
27
28 Public Forum
29
30 Ms. Berman opened the public forum and asked that comments be limited to 2-3 minutes,
31 and not be repeated.
32
33 The following are excerpts and summaries of the comments made by citizens during the
34 meeting they are not their complete statements.
35
36 Tony DeBruno, 1023 Diamond Boulevard: Mr. DeBruno was present as a citizen and as
37 the president of the Grapevine- Southlake Soccer Association (GSSA). He said as
38 president he represents 1,500 players that are unique Southlake residents. A number of
39 parents have children playing other sports at the same times, which creates problems. The
40 GSSA supports the move of the girls softball complex to Bob Jones Park because that
41 would aid their youths' parents. Mr. DeBruno asked the Board to consider the athletic
42 associations independently, supporting the Park Boards. Think of them as Youth Sports
43 Organization. Mr. DeBruno asked the Board to consider Bob Jones as the premier
44 athletic complex in Southlake. Mr. DeBruno said he was sympathetic to the
45 neighborhood's concern about noise, traffic and lighting and said that when he moved
46 here, his home was in a rural area. Mr. DeBruno added that he lives near a busy
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 12 of 21
1 commercial area with a park nearby and is not bothered by the traffic, noise or lights
2 because of an adequate buffer. He asked the Board to share the vision and said let's build
3 a complex now, before we run out of space.
4
5 Dick Anderson, 4553 North White Chapel Boulevard: Mr. Anderson said he commended
6 everyone for looking at the numbers and trying to figure out where the money would be
7 best spent. His feeling was that the costs associated with both locations would be about
8 the same. Mr. Anderson talked about the philosophy of Bob Jones Park. He said that
9 throughout all the public hearings he had attended, Bob Jones Park was never destined to
10 be a sports complex - it was designed to be a complex that was open with a rural
11 character that would be maintained and preserved for the city. The soccer fields and the
12 baseball or softball fields that are designed to go there, were there only because of the
13 need, but were designed to be very low impact - very low key and unlit. He commented
14 about hearing the kids on the soccer fields just as if they were in your back yard. He
15 urged the Board to put the softball complex at Bicentennial Park and leave Bob Jones
16 Park as it was meant to be - rural saying that if it is changed, it will be changed forever
17 and it will never be able to return to what it is today.
18
19 John Richardson, 4537 Homestead: Mr. Richardson focused on the vision for Bob Jones
20 Park. He asked the Board to visit other cities sports complexes and said that Plano was
21 the most centralized sports centers in the state of Texas. He commented that what other
22 cities do not have is a park that is as close to nature as anyone could ever find, such as
23 Bob Jones Park. Mr. Richardson said Southlake has an incredible capability to connect
24 with a number of Corp of Engineer land around Lake Grapevine. Southlake has
25 something that is unique from all the other places and suggests that once the land is gone,
26 there is no more. Mr. Richardson recalled a previous park meeting that ended at 11:00
27 p.m. and seeing all the ball field lights still on upon walking outside. He said that was not
28 low impact. Mr. Richardson said that by starting the process, Southlake will forever lose
29 something that is unique that Southlake can bring to the table that nobody else has
30 brought and he asked the Board to remember that as they evaluate this request.
31
32 Boyd Dollar, 525 Brooks Court: Mr. Dollar said "we like our neighborhood the way it
33 is." He said a lot of time was spent on the Master Plan that was amended last week. Mr.
34 Dollar said the approved Plan did not contain a softball complex. He said they are now
35 being asked to turn totally upside down a Master Plan that people had the courage to say
36 is unique and we're not going to put athletic fields on every inch of dirt. Mr. Dollar
37 continued saying that the Plan included the absolute minimal of lights and so the first
38 thing that happens when discussing moving the softball complex to Bob Jones Park is to
39 put lights in, microphones, etc. He said, up until now the Master Plan has said minimal
40 lighting, but now we're being asked to undo all that again. His sentiments were that as
41 soon as one does it, you have to let them all do it. The other area he wanted to mention
42 was "rural" and "natural," and said lights and athletic complexes and audio were
43 incongruent with rural and natural - they don't go together. Mr. Dollar said the impact
44 will be huge on their neighborhood - the one small area that is rural in Southlake. The
45 opportunity is here to maintain a passive, natural park which would be unique.
46
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 13 of 21
I Mr. Nelson commented on the shortfall of park property in Southlake as shown by
2 the Turco Survey and Schrickel, Rollins and Associates analyses. He said the
3 difficulty in being on the Park Board, was to look at what land is remaining in
4 Southlake to develop, to buy, to put in a park to address the needs for additional
5 baseball, LaCrosse, etc. Mr. Nelson said promises were made to the citizens
6 where Mr. Dollar lives, but it is difficult to balance all the needs and desires when
7 property is available versus trying to go out and buy property to meet the need. He
8 asked Mr. Dollar if he appreciated the fact that there was a limited amount of land
9 resources in Southlake and that lighted parks are much the same as a recreation
10 center or a sewer plant - everybody believes are needed, but nobody wants them
11 in their neigbborhood.
12
13 Ms. White interjected that according to the buildout figures, the City is only built
14 out to 57% right now, which means that there is 43% of land available in this city
15 to be developed. Ms. White said she believes that what the Park Board's problem
16 is, they have not always given a clear direction to SPDC as to what kind of
17 property is needed and there is not anyone actively procuring property.
18
19 Mr. Nelson said that Schrickel, Rollins and Associates did give the Park Board
20 indications of places to look for park land.
21
22 Ms. White said her concern was trying to turn Bob Jones Park into an athletic
23 park just because it is available right now.
24
25 Mr. Nelson said it was not just because it was available, but because there isn't
26 much else available. He asked what the alternatives were if they don't put lighted
27 fields there?
28
29 Mr. Dollar suggested that thinking that the Bob Jones Park land was available, was an
30 error. Mr. Dollar stated that the park is master planned. It had huge participation citywide
31 and was master planned as passive. Mr. Dollar asked when will the time come that people
32 who are not in an athletic association, don't have children, be considered as a
33 constituency? He said the Plan called for one lighted competition soccer field. Mr. Dollar
34 said this Bob Jones Park is for someone like him that doesn't want to play ball, but wants
35 to take his grandson for a walk through the trails. He believes that time difference and
36 cost are not significant and asked why this request was even being considered? Mr.
37 Dollar said to put the softball complex where it was planned. Bob Jones Park is unique
38 and shouldn't be turned into the same thing that every other city has. Mr. Dollar
39 encouraged the Board to have the courage not to do that.
40
41 Ms. Georgia thanked Mr. Dollar for his comments and enthusiasm. She asked if
42 he was aware that the City owned the Farhat and Tucker properties immediately
43 adjacent to Bob Jones Park? The Corp of Engineer property is 218 acres, and the
44 City has another 70+ that is currently 100% passive with no plans. So the only
45 property that is being discussed is the Bob Jones Park area with activities
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 14 of 21
1 localized to the southern portion of Bob Jones Park and away from homeowner
2 activities.
3
4 Mr. Dollar said he hears the Caterpillars being started up on Saturday morning at Bob
5 Jones Park. He talked about rural passiveness and urged the Board to keep Bob Jones like
6 it is.
7
8 Ms. Stokdyk asked whether the Tucker property was considered part of the Bob
9 Jones Master Plan? Mr. Hugman said the Tucker property and the Farhat property
10 are considered part of Bob Jones Park, although there is not a connection to the
11 Farhat property yet. Mr. Hugman said the pieces are separated in the Master Plan
12 being considered right now because the Concept Plan for the piece of Bob Jones
13 Park being looked at, has been approved, whereas the rest of it has not been yet.
14
15 Mr. Hugman said the city is looking at platting the entire piece together - the
16 Tucker and West Beach area - all as one.
17
18 Bob Rice: Mr. Rice said everything he wanted to say was been said. Mr. Rice is opposed
19 to the softball complex being built at Bob Jones Park.
20
21 Rick White: Passed. Opposed.
22
23 Irene Holcomb, 4488 Soda Ridge Road: Ms. Holcomb said two years ago they went
24 through this and they were promised that there would be no lighting or ballpark in
25 addition to the passive type. She asked whose to say that two years from now there are
26 not other promises that will be broken? She also commented that even if she did have
27 kids, they would go to Northwest School District. They couldn't even be part of those
28 leagues that would play at Bob Jones Park. Ms. Holcomb said most of the citizens in the
29 area are grandparents. She added that she did not object to kids; she likes kids but she'd
30 rather not have the noise in the neighborhood. She said this is what they went through
31 two years ago and asked the Board not to put them through it again.
32
33 Lloyd Holcomb, 4488 Soda Ridge Road: Did not wish to speak but opposed also.
34
35 Larry Dodson, 1215 Whispering Lane: Mr. Dodson said this was his first time to speak to
36 the Board. Mr. Dodson said he also was a constituent and has a daughter that has played
37 softball for five years. He asked that his Southlake friends not to be personally offended
38 by what he had to say. Mr. Dodson said the bottom line was he opposed the move to Bob
39 Jones Park and believed that Bicentennial Park is the central place for all the
40 baseball/softball activities. He talked about his son playing 8 years at Bicentennial Park.
41 Bicentennial is a great family facility and all kinds of events can take place there. Mr.
42 Dodson said a negative aspect of taking your child to Bob Jones Park would be that it
43 would add another 15-20 minutes drive time for parents for practices and games. He
44 talked about traffic congestion on White Chapel. He said the issue is to keep it centralized
45 where everybody operates. Mr. Dodson said that he was not aware that the SGSA had
46 asked any parents their opinion about the proposed relocation. He said there may have
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 15 of 21
1 been a straw poll. Mr. Dodson talked about the girls softball having their own identity.
2 He felt that the benefits of keeping the softball at Bicentennial Park was that it is
3 convenient for overlapping activities and that the infrastructure is there. Mr. Dodson said
4 it was his opinion that the proposed facilities for the girls would be appropriate and
5 beneficial. He commented on what he thought the future impact Lacrosse would be and
6 said that Lacrosse can utilize soccer fields because of the similarities. He asked if one or
7 two of the fields could be downsized to accommodate younger athletes and suggested
8 that the girls softball fields size be reduced.
9
10 Mr. Miltenberger asked Mr. Dodson where he proposed that the City put Lacrosse
11 fields? Mr. Dodson said he believes that they could practice on the soccer fields
12 or on the Carroll Middle School football field. Lacrosse fields are smaller than
13 soccer fields and all that is needed is a four-by-four net. Lights are not needed and
14 parking is available.
15
16 Mr. Tuggey responded to Mr. Dodson's comments stating that the SGSA did survey
17 approximately 25% of their membership at Mr. Nelson's suggestion. Out of the 25%
18 polled, ninety-five percent actually favored the Bob Jones Park location, especially
19 because the location next to the soccer fields made it more convenient. Mr. Tuggey said
20 this proposal was discussed at all their Association board meetings.
21
22 Darryl Deutch, 1211 Woodcreek Lane: Mr. Deutch commented that the City
23 electronically controls the lights and are programmed to turn off at a certain time. As
24 much as he thinks that Bob Jones Park is a unique place, unique is subjective. He said to
25 him a park full of kids is a very unique experience. He said two parks full of kids, is
26 twice as good! Mr. Deutch said as a coach for probably five years, he has never heard a
27 microphone. He said that they may have done the Star-Spangled Banner at the opening of
28 tee-ball, but that was all he remembers of a microphone. Mr. Deutch said that the people
29 involved in this are not asking for anything for themselves, but are asking it for the kids.
30 He said they are not trying to be intrusive to the neighborhood, but are trying to comply
31 with what the residents want to the best of their abilities. The reason they want to move is
32 that they were under the impression that it would be cost-effective to do so. Mr. Deutch
33 said that as the City grows and there are more parks needed, Bob Jones Park could
34 become like Bicentennial Park, but even nicer, with better lighting and less obtrusive to
35 the neighborhoods. Mr. Deutch recalled that when he moved to Southlake, there were lots
36 of cows north of SH 114. Now there's Sabre Corporation. The cows were replaced with
37 dogs and roosters replaced by kids. His house was rural too when he move here and now
38 3,000 cars a day go behind Mr. Tuggey's house. Mr. Deutch said they were not trying to
39 intrude on the neighborhood as much as they were trying to add to the city and add
40 something for the kids.
41
42 Cindy O'Brien, 820 Strafford Drive: Ms. O'Brien stated she had lived in the area for
43 over thirty years and that as far as the Master Plan, none of these homes were here thirty
44 years ago. She said she felt the city will continue to change. She said you can't look at it
45 as "we decided two years ago we weren't going to do this, because 30 years ago we
46 weren't doing any of it!" Ms. O'Brien is a working mother of five kids and said she had
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 16 of 21
1 14 games during the last three days. She said her kids play softball and soccer and
2 commented that if they were in one location, if would be wonderful. Ms. O'Brien said
3 she was in favor of the move to Bob Jones Park. She said she does not see that having
4 playgrounds, horse trails, etc. at Bob Jones Park as a detriment. She and her family are all
5 happy to see it happen at Bob Jones Park.
6
7 Bill Dillard, 2943 Rivercrest, Grapevine: Mr. Dillard said the sports organizations
8 represent several hundred constituents and live in an area that is being more and more
9 land-locked. All they are trying to do is find a place where they can go. He said Bob
10 Jones Park fits from a financial standpoint. All they are trying to do it play softball.
11
12 Vicky Reese: Opposed to the move to Bob Jones Park.
13
14 Donna Walker: Opposed to the move to Bob Jones Park.
15
16 Bill Sawchuk,4553 Homestead Drive: Mr. Sawchuk said he lives next to Bob Jones Park
17 and is concerned about it. Mr. Sawchuk said that a park and an athletic facility is not one
18 in the same. He said he was confused and didn't see how they compare. He talked about
19 needing a blank slate in which to build soccer fields and baseball fields. Mr. Sawchuk
20 said he was always opposed to this development, but someone else won out - they put in
21 soccer fields and now they want to put in ballfields and God knows what else is going to
22 come after this. He said he can't see another tree being cut down on this [Bob Jones Park]
23 property - it just too gorgeous. Mr. Sawchuk shared that another point he wanted to make
24 was that he could hear the races from the Speedway on I-35, which is miles away on
25 Friday and Saturday nights. He said the noise and light cannot be barricaded. Mr.
26 Sawchuk talked about hearing the kids play and scream at the soccer field at Bob Jones
27 Park. Mr. Sawchuk said it will not just drive him out, but it will drive out all the wildlife
28 from the area. The noise is so bad that Mr. Sawchuk said he and his wife take their walks
29 at Solana. He said Bob Jones Park is not a passive park anymore and he is fully opposed
30 any more development there.
31
32 Bob Icard, 530 Brooks Court: Opposed. Support the original concept of a passive park.
33
34 Susan Icard, 530 Brooks Court: Opposed.
35
36 Susan Quinn, 192 Sam Bass Ridge: Ms. Quinn said she was very involved with the
37 original development of Bob Jones Park and recalls that the bottom line was that the City
38 ended up with a better park than if they hadn't gotten into a fight and tried to fit the
39 City's needs and also hadn't destroyed the neighborhood. Ms. Quinn said the Plan that
40 was developed and approved by the City was not done so just to appease the
41 neighborhood that wanted it dark and quiet, it was done in response to what the citizens
42 wanted. She said that in first or second place of a citizen survey, was a place to go that
43 was a passive facility. Ms. Quinn believes that is what we have with Bob Jones Park. She
44 said costs were confusing and sounded like the numbers for Bicentennial Park were a bit
45 inflated so that there wouldn't be any surprises with cost overruns. She said that common
46 sense says that you should centralize the use of the City's park facilities. She believes that
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 17 of 21
1 we should keep baseball activities at Bicentennial Park and keep soccer and Lacrosse
2 activities at Bob Jones Park.
3
4 Ms. Georgia asked Ms. Quinn what year she was involved with the development
5 of Bob Jones Park? Ms. Quinn stated it was in 1995 and 1996. Ms. Georgia asked
6 if she would support additional Lacrosse fields at Bob Jones Park if Lacrosse and
7 soccer were kept at that location? Ms. Quinn said that something could be
8 designed that wouldn't scrap the Master Plan that so many people worked so hard
9 on.
10
11 Jim Farley, 807 Boston: Mr. Farley also owns properties in Coventry and is aware of
12 traffic problems. Mr. Farley handles the "14 and under" girls softball teams. He said that
13 costs factors were the reason they supported moving to Bob Jones Park. They believe that
14 they could cut the cost, have the fields faster and have more fields for the girls to play on.
15 Mr. Farley mentioned the interlock they do with other surrounding cities. He said there
16 have been occasions where the games were played until 11:00 p.m. in NRH. They don't
17 play that late in Southlake. His main concern was to get more field times for the girls and
18 felt that the move to Bob Jones would provide that.
19
20 Noreen Richardson, 4537 Homestead Drive: Ms. Richardson said that she was sorry that
21 the gentleman left that was with the Soccer Association because she was also in the with
22 group that had many long nights of negotiations with the Park Board, including the
23 Soccer Association. One of the things she heard them say repeatedly at that time was how
24 desperately they needed soccer fields and how quickly they needed them. Ms. Richardson
25 said that once they had agreed on the Plan, it was a long time before the soccer fields
26 were used. She said that putting the fields out at Bob Jones Park would not allow them to
27 get them any faster than where they are already planned and the designs are somewhat in
28 place. She said the Board must look at the overall plan and what is best for the
29 community, for the Associations and for the growing demographic of senior citizens. She
30 concluded stating that there needs to be quiet passive things that grandparents can do with
31 their grandchildren.
32
33 Ronnie Kendall, City Councilmember: Ms. Kendall said she was present to provide
34 background and history information and to answer any questions. What struck Ms.
35 Kendall about this request, that appears to be on the surface just a simple location
36 decision, was that it would require changing a major component of a park plan, which
37 translates into changing a Master Plan. That decision starts the whole process over again
38 of going through SPIN. She said it was her hope that the Park Board would never make a
39 decision about locating anything or any change to a major component without holding a
40 SPIN meeting first. She said it would not get through the process without that occurring
41 first. Ms. Kendall said she hoped the Park Board's recommendation would always be
42 based on input received at a SPIN meeting. The process is very long and tedious. The
43 Park Master Plan was started in 1996. Negotiations were long and difficult and it took
44 almost a year to come to a compromise between the soccer association, the residents and
45 other users in Southlake. That compromise produced the Park Master Plan. Ms. Kendall
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 18 of 21
1 suggested that if the Park Board and staff want to change the Plan, go through the process
2 over again and hold SPIN meetings before making a formal recommendation.
3
4 Ms. Kendall gave a brief history of the Bicentennial Park Master Plan and the softball
5 association's involvement.
6
7 Jacquelyn Carney, 4492 Soda Ridge Road: Opposed to the move to Bob Jones Park.
8
9 Pieter Andries, 4520 Soda Ridge Road, Roanoke: Opposed also.
10
11 Rosie Graham: 122 Sam Bass Road: Opposed.
12
13 Ms. White thanked Ms. Kendall for her input and announced this was Ms. Kendall's last
14 month as a City Council member. Ms. White said the residents in the area appreciated all
15 Ms. Kendall and Ms. Berman have done on their behalf.
16
17 Ms. Berman reminded Board members this was an item for their consideration and asked
18 for direction.
19
20 Mr. Glover said he would start since he was in dissent. His first point was related to his
21 concern with changing the Park Master Plan. His understanding was that Bicentennial
22 Park was the city's sports complex saying that was what it was designed for and what the
23 intent was. Mr. Glover said even at complete buildout, Southlake would not be a large
24 community and he believes that a single sports complex in a city this size is probably
25 appropriate. He stated that there was no room for soccer at Bicentennial Park with all the
26 other activities. There is room for an additional hockey rink when and if it is desired. Mr.
27 Glover said that the community has put a lot of time and effort into creating master plans
28 and that although plans do change, he did not believe they change without a great deal of
29 consideration. A great deal of consideration went into making the original master plans
30 and Mr. Glover said we owe it to ourselves to take that into consideration. Mr. Glover's
31 second point he wanted to reiterate was an important comment he heard said at this
32 meeting. That comment was "that the sports complex known as Bicentennial Park was
33 put where it is because it is centralized to the majority of the homes in Southlake." Mr.
34 Glover's third point was the issue of infrastructure - the support facilities. Mr. Glover
35 coaches older kids in roller hockey and he agreed that the infrastructure that is necessary
36 to support a sports complex such as grocery, convenience and drug stores, gas stations,
37 are all around Bicentennial Park and there is not anything like that out at Bob Jones Park.
38 Mr. Glover's final point was about promises. Mr. Glover referenced when Bicentennial
39 Park was bought and people on Love Henry Court were promised a lot of things when the
40 Park was built. One of the promises was for a buffer against the noise and lights of the
41 park. To-date, that buffer has not been built. He mentioned the promises made to citizens
42 when the master plan for Bob Jones Park was created. Mr. Glover quoted a line from the
43 movie Evita, "...just doing a few of the things we promised to do." Mr. Glover said that
44 as a community we have an obligation to fulfill the promises and as a Board, whether we
45 made these promises or they were made by another Board, we have an obligation to
46 honor them or at least to make sure that the system is followed before we dishonor them.
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 19 of 21
1
2 A motion was made to table this item until there is an opportunity to hold a SPIN
3 meeting and get input from the community on whether a master plan should be
4 changed to accommodate this facility.
5
6 Motion: Glover
7 Second: Georgia
8
9 Discussion:
10
11 Ms. Stokdyk said that Mr. Glover covered most of her opinion in that when they speak of
12 promises people keep losing sight - they keep referring to it as the Bob Jones Park
13 neighborhood. The Bob Jones Park Plan and vision was promised to all the community,
14 not just the neighborhood up in that area. She said it has been emphasized by the city's
15 master plan consultant, that the City probably needs to purchase more property for more
16 lighted fields. Ms. Stokdyk said she finds it very short-term to try to change Bob Jones
17 Park and its vision and the intent of that park.
18
19 Ms. White stated she was opposed to tabling the item at this point because the Board had
20 discussed everything related to the fields and there had been thorough discussions of the
21 Open Space Park Master Plan at SPIN meetings just a month ago. Ms. White said her
22 problem with tabling the item was that they would be postponing what everyone wants
23 them to hurry up and get done - construction of the playing fields. She said going
24 through the whole SPIN process, going through the Master Land Use Plan, reviewing and
25 reinventing the wheel on both Bicentennial and Bob Jones Park, will create a delay. Ms.
26 White said she didn't know if it was necessary at this point. She said the Park Board gave
27 the SPIN process the ability to attend all of the master planning meetings on both of these
28 properties.
29
30 Mr. Glover said he was willing to withdraw his motion if someone else had one that
31 made more sense. He gave his reasons for the motion to table.
32
33 Ms. Berman explained her thought process on this issue stating that there was enough of
34 a margin between the two sets of costs, that she was not comfortable making a decision.
35 It would be expensive for the City to get more accurate numbers. She said she would not
36 be willing to go forward with a SPIN meeting as she felt there had already been ample
37 opportunity for input.
38
39 Mr. Miltenberger said he was in favor of continuing the process and noted the outcome of
40 the previous Park Master Plan process when the soccer association came forward and
41 after long and hard negotiations and hearings, a plan was adopted. He said he was not
42 prepared to say just nix the whole idea and not consider it any further because it does
43 deserve consideration.
44
45 Ms. Berman asked Mr. Tuggey if they were willing to wait if this item was taken through
46 the SPIN process again? Mr. Tuggey indicated they would.
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 20 of 21
1
2 Mr. Tuggey said he did not see where that would create a delay.
3
4 The motion continued with the vote.
5
6 Ayes: Georgia, Glover, Miltenberger, and Nelson
7 Nays: White, Berman and Stokdyk
8 Abstention: None
9 Vote: 4-3 to Table and move forward with a SPIN meeting.
10
11 Motion carried.
12
13 Ms Berman thanked everyone for coming and said the process would move on to the
14 SPIN meeting. The date and location information would be determined and disseminated.
15
16 The meeting recessed for a break at 10:10 p.m.
17 The meeting was called to reconvene at 10:25 p.m.
18
19 Agenda Item No. 6-A, Discussion: Registration procedures for non-residents
20
21 Committee members discussed this item, noting that the City of Grapevine has started
22 such a policy. The Board talked about whether Southlake should follow suit and agreed
23 that we should just monitor our registrations at this time to see if there are any problems
24 with accommodating our residents.
25
26 Agenda Item No. 6-B, Liaison reports
27
28 Board members received reports in their packets.
29
30 Agenda Item No. 8, Adjournment
31
32 The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
33
34
35
36 Sherry Be a
37 /~&R 'on o hair
38
39
40 ara White
41 Secretary
42
43
44 N:\Parks & Recreation\BOARDS\PKBOARD\MINUTES\2001\040901.doc
April 9, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 21 of 21