2001-08-13
I CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
2 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING
3
4 August 13, 2001
5
6 MINUTES
7
8 Board Members Present: Chris Miltenberger, Chairman; Cara White, Vice-Chair; Mary
9 Georgia, Secretary; Frank Cornish, Bobby Rawls, Lisa Stokdyk and Tim O'Connor
10
11 Board Members Absent: None
12
13 Staff Members Present: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services (was present
14 for a portion of the meeting), Chris Carpenter, Senior Park Planner and Linda Carpenter,
15 Administrative Secretary.
16
17 Regular Session:
18
19 Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order
20
21 The meeting was called to order by Chair Chris Miltenberger at 7:00 p.m.
22
23 Agenda Item No. 2, Administrative Comments
24
25 City staff asked the Park Board for a volunteer to present the Park Board Report at the
26 August 21, 2001 City Council meeting. Ms. Stokdyk and Mr. Miltenberger, as a back-up,
27 agreed to make the presentation. Future Park Board Reports will be made as follows:
28 September 18 - Cara White; October 16 - Frank Cornish and November 20 - Lisa
29 Stokdyk. The City Council meeting in December falls on Christmas and will be cancelled
30 or rescheduled.
31
32 Staff provided the Park Board with updates on the following topics:
33
34 Fire at Bob Jones Park Concession/Restroom Building and Playground
35 Equipment Vandalism: Senior Park Planner Chris Carpenter briefed the Board on
36 the latest development. Four suspects have been questioned and will be
37 prosecuted. The City is currently involved in processing the claim for damages
38 with either the contractor or subcontractors. Damages are estimated to be
39 approximately $475,000.
40
41 Mr. Miltenberger commented that if the perpetrators' families had insurance,
42 claims could be made against them.
43
44 Status of large prints of Park Master Trail Plan map: The booklets are in, but the
45 maps are still not available. GIS is currently working on all mid-year city-wide
46 updates and will produce the Trail Plan maps as soon as possible.
August 13, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 1 of 12
1
2 Irrigation at Bob Jones Park: Deputy Director Steve Polasek and Park Planning
3 Superintendent Ben Henry met with the contractor last week to discuss irrigation
4 issues. The contractor has been urged to have the system repaired this week.
5 Watering of some of the soccer fields is being done manually.
6
7 Concrete Trail at Bob Jones Park: Although some citizens are using the trail prior
8 to construction being completed, staff prefers that it not be used.
9
10 Tennis Center Update: Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman briefly
11 explained the recent changes. The management agreement with the Tennis Center
12 Director has been terminated. Mr. Hugman described the operational arrangement
13 of the tennis center which allowed the tennis pro to set up and essentially run the
14 center, handling all finances, personnel issues, program development and
15 operations of the facility. The City's responsibility was the maintenance and
16 payment of utilities for the facility. Mr. Hugman said that management has had
17 concerns over a number of deficiencies outlined in the agreement. To-date, City
18 staff members are working at the tennis center to learn the basic operations. Other
19 cities are being consulted about their operation procedures. During the interim,
20 the city will staff and run the facility. The budget process is currently underway
21 and the assumptions being considered are based upon the staffing and operations
22 associated with the tennis center. City Council will provide direction during the
23 budget work sessions whether to continue the operation of the center as is under
24 City management, or to pursue another management agreement. Mr. Hugman said
25 if the City continues operation, a tennis center manager would be hired as a City
26 employee to handle marketing, league work, scheduling, and administrative
27 issues. The City would contract with a head pro who would be responsible for all
28 the tennis aspects - development of programs, working with tennis center
29 manager, selection of the assistant pros who would also be contracted.
30
31 Mr. Hugman passed out a copy of an email he received regarding the firing of the
32 junior program development director, Steven Poorman, by Joe Snailum.
33 Numerous emails have been received by the City in support of each party. Mr.
34 Hugman commented that the City's decision to terminate the contract with the
35 tennis center director was not related to the firing of the junior tennis pro.
36
37 The City's primary goal is to continue to provide the service to the patrons of the
38 tennis center and to make sure everyone (leagues, casual user, etc.) is
39 accommodated. The City's second goal is to put together an interim solution
40 which will carry the service through this interim period. Third, an evaluation of
41 operations and a decision will be made regarding the long-term success of the
42 tennis center. Mr. Hugman said he would be happy to discuss issues with
43 interested persons and will keep the Park Board notified of developments.
44
45 Arrangement of Park Board meeting room: Ms. Stokdyk asked if the tables could
46 be arranged differently to avoid getting a "creak" in her neck and Ms. White said
August 13, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 2 of 12
I it would be nice if there were microphones available. These issues are being dealt
2 with.
3
4 There were no further Administrative Comments.
5
6 CONSENT AGENDA
7
8 Agenda Item No. 3-A, Approval of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board meeting
9 minutes of July 16, 2001.
10
11 A motion was made to approve the minutes of the July 16, 2001 Parks and
12 Recreation Board meeting as corrected.
13 Motion: Stokdyk
14 Second: Miltenberger
15 Ayes: Cornish, Georgia, Miltenberger, O'Connor, Rawls, Stokdyk and White
16 Nays: None
17 Abstention: None
18 Vote: 7-0
19
20 Motion carried.
21
22 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONSENT ITEMS
23
24 Agenda Item No. 3-A, Approval of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board meeting
25 minutes of July 16, 2001. Approved with a correction noted by Ms. Stokdyk to show on
26 Page 3, Line 5, "Abstention" - both Ms. Stokdyk and Mr. Miltenberger abstained from
27 the vote.
28
29 REGULAR AGENDA
30
31 Agenda Item No. 4, Public Forum
32
33 Chairman Miltenberger asked if anyone present would like to speak during the Public
34 Forum.
35
36 Kelly Riley, president, Southlake Lacrosse Association, 208 Bob-O-Link, Southlake,
37 shared information about the Association and their need for a lighted playing field. Ms.
38 Riley explained the two issues she wanted to present to the Board.
39
40 Ms. Riley's first point on behalf of the Association, was to request that the Board
41 consider and support installing lights at the Carroll Middle School (CMS) field.
42 She spoke about their need during the February Parks and Recreation Board
43 meeting and about using a Texas School of Baseball (TSB) field at the July 23
44 SPDC meeting. The Carroll Middle School field is currently undergoing major
45 improvements and the Association feels that it is urgent to have the lights
46 replaced as soon as possible as a delay could result in opposition to the lights.
August 13, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 3 of 12
1 Lacrosse season is November - May and the fields are dark beginning the end of
2 October. The season does not conflict with other athletic games.
3
4 Ms. Riley's second appeal was to ask the Park Board to reconsider the Capital
5 Improvements Projects priority ranking list and to move the Lacrosse item up on
6 the list. She said the Association is going into its second year and is already 300
7 strong in participants. She said the Lacrosse Association would never be as old as
8 all the other sports associations in Southlake; however, Lacrosse is the oldest
9 sport in America. She mentioned that many of the Lacrosse athletes play soccer
10 and other sports as well.
11
12 She stressed how important Lacrosse is to the community and noted that several
13 local talented players are being sought after by various Ivy-League and prominent
14 universities. Ms. Riley displayed a local newspaper article about Lacrosse and
15 quoted a statement from the article stating, "The grandest illustration of
16 Lacrosse's appeal in Tarrant County is the astronomical acceleration of the
17 Southlake-Carroll Lacrosse Association." She added that the Association does not
18 even have a field to call their own.
19
20 Although the Association is working toward securing money for matching funds,
21 it is not likely they can come up with the $75,000 needed to light the CMS field.
22 The total estimate was $150,000. The CISD cannot pay for lighting of the field,
23 but has said they would agree to allow Lacrosse to use the land for play. Ms.
24 Riley is waiting to hear from John Craft, CISD Assistant Superintendent for
25 Financial and Business Operations, regarding an agreement for use of the field.
26
27 Ms. Riley said the Association does not care where the field is located; they just
28 need a lighted field!
29
30 The Public Forum was closed.
31
32 Before considering Agenda Item 5-A, Ms. Stokdyk and Ms. Georgia asked staff several
33 questions.
34
35 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the CIP priority ranking list had already been presented to
36 SPDC? It is on the agenda to be considered at the SPDC meeting on August 20,
37 2001. There is still an opportunity for changes to be made to the list prior to going
38 to City Council.
39
40 Ms. Georgia wanted to know when the Park Board would have an opportunity to
41 review initial plans for the usage of the Texas School of Baseball property? A site
42 plan will be presented to Park Board, SPDC and City Council in the near future
43 showing existing features, planned changes and cost estimates according to Mr.
44 Carpenter.
45
August 13, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 4 of 12
1 Agenda Item No. 5-A, Approval of park dedication requirements for Park Meadow, 14
2 residential lots and 2 non-residential lots.
3
4 Senior Park Planner Chris Carpenter presented this consideration item and illustrated the
5 features of the development on an overhead diagram. Mr. Carpenter said the development
6 is situated just south of the south end of Royal & Annie Smith Park. The general concept
7 of the plan was to have the first two lots that front FM 1709 as non-residential and the
8 remainder as residential. The City saw an opportunity to make an entrance into the Park
9 at the end of the cul-de-sac. This entrance would provide a mid-block connection into
10 Royal & Annie Smith Park without having to go around subdivision. The developer
11 proposed to set aside a 20-foot easement that would include an 8-foot trail as well as
12 some decorative fencing and landscaping. Maintenance for the strip between the two lots
13 would be the homeowners association's responsibility.
14
15 According to Section 7.03(A)(1) and (2) of the City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance,
16 this addition, at 14 residential lots and 3.12 gross non-residential acres, would be required
17 to dedicate .41 acres of park land. The equivalent in park dedication fees, as established
18 in the Fee Schedule for a developer's payment of fees in lieu of park land dedication, for
19 this addition would be $23,496.
20
21 The applicant requested credit toward required fees for both the public land dedication of
22 0.05 acres for the trail into Royal and Annie Smith Park in the amount of $3,000 and
23 additional width of the trail in the form of ornamental fencing between the lots,
24 landscaping, irrigation, etc., in the amount of $16,560, for a total fee credit request of
25 $19,560. This would leave a cash balance of $3,936 due to the city.
26
27 Ms. Georgia asked Mr. Carpenter to clarify the footage for the trail described in the
28 packet memo.
29
30 A motion was made to approve the applicant's request to provide the access in
31 exchange for some of the fees with a balance left of $3,936, with an amendment to
32 change the notation [on handout page 5A-4] to read "8 foot concrete path" instead
33 of 118 inch concrete path." The motion was further amended to include a 20-foot
34 easement with an 8-foot concrete trail, correcting the wording on the cover memo on
35 page 5A-4 to read, 1120' wide easement.
36 Motion: Georgia
37 Second: White
38
39 Discussion: Ms. Stokdyk asked to have the cover letter corrected to say "20-foot wide
40 easement..." instead of "20-inch wide trail..."
41
42 Ayes: Cornish, Georgia, Miltenberger, O'Connor, Rawls, Stokdyk and White
43 Nays: None
44 Abstention: None
45 Vote: 7-0
August 13, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 5 of 12
I Motion carried.
2
3 Agenda Item No. 5-13, Reconsideration of park dedication requirements for Dove Creek
4 Estates (formerly Haltom Creek Estates and Hidden Creek Estates).
5
6 Senior Park Planner Chris Carpenter presented this consideration item for Dove Creek
7 Estates.
8
9 According to Section 7.03(A)(1) of the City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance, this
10 addition, at 83 residential lots would be required to dedicate 2.08 acres of park land. The
11 equivalent in park dedication fees, as established in the Fee Schedule for a developer's
12 payment of fees in lieu of park land dedication, for this addition would be $124,500.
13
14 The applicant requested no credit toward the required fees.
15
16 This project was presented to the Park Board in April, composed of 95 lots with a
17 combination of dedicated public and private park land, amenity features, etc., and a
18 request for a certain amount of fee credit. The Park Board approved: full credit for the
19 value of the 20' public easement along Dove Creek and the value for the installation of
20 the 8' public trail within that easement, with the remaining 12' area around the trail
21 maintained by the homeowners association; an access easement from Lot 4 for public and
22 maintenance access; credit for $71,250 toward privately owned and maintained open
23 space and small amenity features; and a waiver of installation of 6' trail on North Carroll
24 Avenue right-of-way.
25
26 Due to citizen input at subsequent Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council
27 meetings and the demand for minimum one-acre lot sizes, the developer placed the lots
28 contiguous to each other along the creek to maintain the one-acre minimum lot size and
29 therefore proposed no public or private park or trail areas, other than the required off-
30 road trail on North Carroll Avenue.
31
32 The developer, David McMahan, Four Peaks Development, was present to answer
33 questions.
34
35 Ms. Stokdyk stated concerns about flooding in the area. She asked to have the
36 "buildable" areas identified in the lots that were in the floodplain. Mr. Carpenter
37 noted the overhead diagram of the proposed subdivision and showed that the
38 buildable areas were located in the front section of the lots.
39
40 Mr. McMahan responded to Ms. Georgia's question about whether sidewalks
41 would be installed on either side, saying that one-acre zoning developments were
42 not required to have sidewalks.
43
44 In response to Ms. White's question about what type of amenities (open space for
45 play fields, etc.) would be provided for children in the area, Mr. McMahan said
46 there were none planned.
August 13, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 6 of 12
1
2 Ms. Georgia noted trails were shown through this property in the newly approved
3 Pathways Plan and asked if Mr. McMahan was subject to the new Plan or if he
4 had purchased the property prior to the Plan being approved? Mr. Carpenter
5 answered saying that Mr. McMahan's string of permits had started before the
6 Pathways Plan was approved. He added that when Mr. McMahan and his
7 associate, Tom Matthews, were informed that the Pathways Plan was being
8 updated and that a trail would be shown on the new plan, Mr. McMahan
9 graciously said they would try to accommodate the trail and work it into their
10 plan, which they did initially. Mr. Carpenter stated that at this point, it can not be
11 required.
12
13 Park Board members expressed their concerns that the current configuration of the
14 development did not provide open space areas for a playing field or playground.
15
16 Ms. White commented that two acres could accommodate a playground or field.
17
18 Mr. Rawls responded to Ms. White's comment saying that the City did not want
19 to maintain a two-acre park site - the City preferred a 5-acre or larger size piece
20 of land.
21
22 Mr. Miltenberger expressed his opinion that a development of this size should
23 include some open space area set aside for its residents. He would like to work
24 with developers to provide open space areas in the subdivisions.
25
26 Ms. Stokdyk mentioned the need for "pocket parks" and that although the City
27 prefers a park to be at least 5 acres, smaller pocket parks were needed as
28 highlighted in the City's overall needs survey.
29
30 Mr. Carpenter discussed the history of the developer's plan and how that plan originally
31 did accommodate the trail and open space that the Park Board was desiring, however, due
32 to opposition from residents about less than one-acre lot sizes, and given the direction by
33 the P&Z and Council, the developer re-designed the configuration of the lots to meet the
34 one-acre size limit.
35
36 Ms. Stokdyk said she still had concerns about how to protect water quality and
37 flood control and was told by Park Board members that those issues should be
38 addressed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Ms. Stokdyk stated that
39 normally what they are told is that floodplain is kept as natural open spaces and
40 FEMA approves and allows for low impact uses such as trails. She said this all
41 plays together and asked if the Board was concerned enough about how all this
42 hinges together for open space for trails, etc.? "Are we willing to walk away from
43 all that open space and usage for our community and settle for that eight foot
44 trail," Ms. Stokdyk asked
45
August 13, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 7 of 12
1 As a private citizen, Ms. Georgia said she was an advocate of open space and
2 trails, but as a Park Board member, there was nothing legally or in the City
3 ordinances prohibiting this plan. She said that the developer had tried to work
4 with the citizens; the citizens spoke and said they wanted one-acre lots and that
5 was what this proposed plan reflects. Ms. Georgia stated that within the guidelines
6 of the law, that is what is reflected on this plan.
7
8 Mr. Miltenberger agreed, but said that the Park Board does have the right to ask
9 the developer if two of the lots can be left as open space.
10
11 Ms. Georgia asked the developer, Mr. McMahan, if he "could possibly foresee
12 providing maybe two of the lots that would join theses [referencing the overhead
13 diagram] two loops together for maybe walking from one loop to the other, and
14 maybe having like a linear lot
15
16 Mr. McMahan responded saying that he appreciated what Ms. Georgia was asking
17 and said that the developer had favored their other plan with the open space. The
18 other plan was 84 lots and the current plan was for 83 lots. Mr. McMahan said
19 they couldn't get that plan approved and had to change their entire focus on how
20 they were going to achieve the requested one-acre lot sizes. Mr. McMahan said at
21 this point in time, they are not "driving this engine." It's being driven by a buyer
22 that wants the plan as presented. Mr. McMahan stated he did not have a choice.
23 He said he did not have the liberty to make changes to the proposed plan. At this
24 time he could not concede to giving the two lots for a linear playground area that
25 the Board requested. The developer would have to pay the park fees.
26
27 Mr. Rawls brought up the issue of the City not wanting to maintain a
28 neighborhood park less than 5-acres in size. Mr. Carpenter said that most of the
29 one and two-acre parks in Southlake are private, homeowner association-
30 maintained parks and the City is fine with those. Mr. Miltenberger and Ms. White
31 said that was what they were asking for. Mr. Carpenter said he had not yet seen
32 anyone not get their maximum 50% credit for it. A one or two-acre park in the
33 middle of a subdivision, especially in a floodplain, dedicated to the City, would be
34 a nightmare he said. Mr. Carpenter said it would be irresponsible on the City's
35 part to accept that size. He said it could be nice for the homeowner's association
36 to develop something that would benefit them.
37
38 When asked if the City would prefer two acres adjacent, such as a playground
39 area, or two lots that would potentially join two cul-de-sacs, such as a linear park
40 with playground equipment, Mr. Carpenter responded that staff would prefer
41 whatever the homeowner association wanted to do. He said staff's
42 recommendation to the Board would be to give them the maximum 50% credit,
43 that the city would not really be interested in trying to obtain something internal -
44 fee simple to the city.
45
August 13. 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 8 of 12
I Ms. Georgia asked Mr. Carpenter if in this case it would be good to have the
2 acreage versus the credit? Mr. Miltenberger said yes, it would be better to have
3 the acreage. Mr. Carpenter said, "The only acreage that I would even recommend
4 that you consider would be something that would be beneficial to the subdivision
5 in a private thing so that we are now released from having to worry about it other
6 than giving them the credit for what is substantial park fees."
7
8 A motion was made that the development satisfies park dedication requirements by
9 taking two of the lots and making them a private park within its development and
10 that would satisfy their requirement.
11 Motion: Miltenberger
12 Second: Stokdyk
13
14 Discussion:
15
16 Ms. Georgia questioned if it is a private park within the development itself, does the two
17 acres satisfy the "dedication requirement" or does the 50% apply? Mr. Carpenter
18 responded that it could be whatever you want it to be. He said in general it is $60,000 an
19 acre. Mr. Carpenter said this information would go along as a recommendation to
20 Council.
21
22 Mr. O'Connor asked Mr. McMahan if his take down was contingent upon a fixed number
23 of lots, that being 84 or 83? Mr. McMahan responded that his take down was irrelevant
24 to the discussion.
25
26 Ms. Georgia commented that since the City only gets the 50% credit on the land, she
27 asked Mr. Miltenberger if he would amend his motion to ask for some amount of
28 playground equipment to go along with the acreage to satisfy the full dedication?
29
30 Mr. Miltenberger agreed to make that amendment to his motion.
31
32 The collective motion was restated by Mr. Miltenberger, "The motion is to request that
33 two acres be set aside with the corresponding amount of equipment, which would
34 then total up to the $124,500."
35
36 Ayes: Cornish, Georgia, Miltenberger, O'Connor, Stokdyk and White
37 Nays: Rawls
38 Abstention: None
39 Vote: 6-1
40
41 Motion carried.
42
43 This recommendation will proceed to City Council with the consideration of the plat.
44
45
46
August 13, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 9 of 12
1 Agenda Item No. 5-C, Revised Site Plan for Bicentennial Park maintenance facility
2 improvements.
3
4 Senior Park Planner Chris Carpenter presented the site plan for the maintenance facility,
5 explained the improvements being requested and asked the Park Board for their
6 recommendation to P&Z and Council.
7
8 The current maintenance facility in Bicentennial Park is the only one in use by the entire
9 Parks Maintenance staff. It is in need of expansion in key areas to make it as efficient for
10 the staff as possible until another facility can be built. During their annual mid-year
11 review of the current operating budget, the City Council gave approval totaling $35,000
12 in mid-year FY 00-01 budget amendments to improve this facility.
13
14 Park Board members were directed to Exhibit A - a reduction of the proposed
15 preliminary conceptual layout for the maintenance facility improvements - as Mr.
16 Carpenter explained the following facility improvements:
17
18 • Reconstruction of new, expanded wood stockade fencing enclosing the
19 maintenance yard
20 • New poured concrete apron for maintenance vehicle cleaning
21 • New gravel drive interior to maintenance yard with larger turning radii and level
22 surface
23 • Shade structures erected over the edge of the perimeter wood stockade fence to
24 serve as protective canopies for the park maintenance equipment
25 • Canopy structure erected over the rear entrance to the existing maintenance
26 facility to provide additional all-weather work area
27
28 Staff has advertised the improvements as a legal notice and will be proceeding with a
29 Revised Site Plan for Bicentennial Park through the Planning and Zoning Commission
30 and City Council to publicly authorize the improvements, since modifications to any
31 structure in the park requires this process.
32
33 Park Board members asked a few questions about the size of the canopies and the
34 location of the stockade fence.
35
36 A motion was made to approve the design as proposed by the Park staff of the
37 maintenance facility improvements.
38 Motion: White
39 Second: Georgia
40 Ayes: Cornish, Georgia, Miltenberger, O'Connor, Rawls, Stokdyk and White
41 Nays: None
42 Abstention: None
43 Vote: 7-0
44
45 Motion carried.
46
August 13, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 10 of 12
1
2
3 Agenda Item No. 6-A, Discussion: Revised Park Dedication Guidelines and Worksheet
4 (Appendix 11, Subdivision Ordinance No. 483).
5
6 Senior Park Planner Chris Carpenter led the discussion stating that with revisions to the
7 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, staff proposed to revise the Park Board's
8 Worksheet (Appendix 11) for review of park dedication requirements. Staff requested
9 that the Park Board provide input on the draft enclosed in their packet and attached to
10 these minutes.
11
12 Mr. Rawls left the meeting at this time (8:15 p.m.)
13
14 Mr. Carpenter noted the commitment made over the years in every park plan to open
15 space and said a column/row will be added to the Worksheet, below line 3, Linear Parks,
16 "Open Space" and show what "percentage of the above" will be open space.
17
18 Ms. Georgia had the following recommendations regarding the Worksheet:
19
20 Correction to line 27, Trail (hiking, equestrian), under "Current Inventory" to
21 show at least "7.8" instead of "1." Ms. Georgia recalled this number because that
22 was a correction she had made after tallying up all the equestrian trails that are
23 currently in the Bob Jones area and in the system. She recalled the figure was
24 above 5 miles; not sure if it was 7.8 or 5.6.
25
26 Check the figures under the Current Inventory and Current Deficiencies columns.
27
28 Clarify the form to show line 30, Trail (paved) as "Trail (paved, multi-use)."
29
30 Ms. Georgia said she believed the Current Deficiency number in line 30 should be
31 lower, but couldn't recall for sure. She will check her notes and call Chris
32 Carpenter with the information.
33
34 Ms. White asked if the form included joint use features, noting that some of the shown
35 deficiencies are being met through joint use. Mr. Carpenter said a separate column could
36 be added to the Worksheet to show Current Joint Use Inventory.
37
38 Ms. Stokdyk recommended attaching a sheet to the Worksheet showing a legend of the
39 different park definitions (i.e., community park, neighborhood park, etc.), including the
40 acreage requirements for each type of park. Mr. Carpenter said his intention was to add
41 the map from the Park Plan that displays that information to the Worksheet.
42
43 The corrected Worksheet will be formally presented to the Park Board prior to
44 presentation to the City Council.
45
August 13, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 11 of 12
I Agenda Item No. 7, Liaison Reports.
2
3 (a) Youth Parks and Recreation Board - no report
4 (b) Recreation/Special Events - no report
5 (c) Youth Sports Associations - no report
6 (d) Community Groups - KSB is starting their new year. Everyone is invited
7 to attend the board of directors meeting to be held on August 20, 2001.
8 The boys and girls scouts groups are still looking for their weekly badge
9 meetings.
10 (e) SPIN - Joint City Council meetings have been rescheduled.
11 (f) SPDC - The priority rankings list was considered at their last meeting.
12 Land acquisitions were discussed during Executive Session.
13 (g) JUC - no report
14 (h) City Council Monthly Report - Either Lisa Stokdyk or Chris Miltenberger
15 have agreed to present the monthly report at the August 21, 2001 City
16 Council meeting.
17 (i) Equestrians - Work is being done on the trail head.
18 (j) Traffic Management Bond/Portal Committee - meetings are not being
19 held
20
21 Mr. Carpenter reported on the Texas Parks & Wildlife (TPWD) grant application process
22 stating that he and Park Planning and Construction Superintendent Ben Henry were very
23 optimistic after a meeting they had with TPWD officials. Elaine Dill, TPWD, indicated
24 that TPWD had not received many indoor recreation grants.
25
26 Agenda Item No. 8, Adjournment
27
28 The Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
29
30
31
32
33
34 Chns Mi to er
35 Parks & Recre in Board Chair
36
37
38 M org
39 Secretary
40
41
42 Attachments: Appendix 11, Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 - Revised Park Dedication Guidelines and Worksheet (included
43 w/official, executed minutes kept in Office of City Secretary)
44
45
46 N:\Parks & Recreation\BOARDS\PKBOARD\MINUTES\2001\071601.doc
August 13, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 12 of 12
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
August 10, 2001
TO: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
FROM: Chris Carpenter, Senior Park Planner
SUBJECT: Revised Park Dedication Guidelines and Worksheet (Appendix 11, Subdivision
Ordinance No. 483)
Action Requested: Parks and Recreation Board consideration and recommendation of the
proposed revised Park Dedication Guidelines and Worksheet.
Background
Information: As you know, the City of Southlake contains a provision in Article VII of the
City's Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 (attached), as amended, which gives
the City the statutory authority to require anyone who subdivides (plats)
property to set aside an "exaction," or reasonable percentage, for park
dedication. The current requirements are 1 acre of park land for every 40
dwelling units and 1 acre for every 50 gross acres of non-residential
development.
Section VII also outlines alternatives to pure land dedication, including the
payment of fees in lieu of land dedication and/or credit for physical
improvements, such playgrounds, picnic tables, benches, water fountains,
etc. In the prior Park Master Plan (1996), both existing and proposed park
acreage, park amenities (such as those just mentioned) and other park-related
facilities were inventoried and listed in tabular format in an "Expense Credit
Worksheet for Physical or Equipment Improvements to Park Land" by park
service zone. However, a number of changes were made from the 1996 Plan to
the newly adopted 2001 Park Master Plan which make worksheet revision
necessary. The following changes are reflected in the proposed revised park
dedication worksheet:
(1) The 2001 Plan no longer proposes amenities by 10 different park service
zones. The "zone" concept was more applicable when the city was rapidly
being developed residentially and there was a much greater disparity
between park facilities from one area to the next. The new 2001 Park
Master Plan shows "zones" by service area radius by type of facility, rather
than by numbered regions. Therefore, the proposed new worksheet will be
differentiated by the service area "type" (i.e. neighborhood park,
community park, city park, etc.) the development falls under rather than
numbered zone. It also gives developers a good indication of what the city
needs as a whole, and how valuable the dedication is to the park system,
regardless if it is located within their immediate area or not.
• I, I
Kevin Hugman, Director of Parks and Recreation
August 10, 2001
Page 2
(2) The acreage calculations and type of amenities (i.e. benches, playgrounds,
etc.) come directly from Tables 6.1 and 6.2 in the 2001 Parks Master Plan.
Only the facilities for which there are deficiencies are listed as needs in the
revised worksheet.
(3) Credit is no longer given in the worksheet for required trails (i.e. those
which are required by the Subdivision Ordinance by an amendment that
was approved in 1997 after the last Park Master Plan in 1996). Any trail
shown on the approved 2001 Southlake Pathways is a required trail and
one for which no credit is given. The trail credit noted in the worksheet
would be for trails above and beyond those that are required.
(4) The previous credit worksheet showed a "multiplier" column. This was
originally intended to weight certain amenities to encourage them over
others. There is no multiplier column in the proposed chart, and the
maximum value for private amenities is set at the ordinance maximum of
50% credit.
(5) The table is created to allow the developer and the Park Board the greatest
flexibility in meeting the overall needs of the city's park system, and to
work properly, it must reflect accurate inventories. Each time a park
dedication contributes to the needs expressed in the worksheet, the reduced
deficiencies will be reflected in the next worksheet presented to the Park
Board.
Financial
Considerations: No changes to park dedication ratios or fee structures are proposed. Though
the demands for large-scale land dedication and acquisition have been largely
met over the past five years, park acquisition and construction of 2 to 3
community park sites (for lighted athletics use - or use of existing park
property for those functions) continues to justify the current land dedication
and fee levels.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: The Park Board, P&Z and City Council approved the new 2001 Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, which contains the inventory and
needs assessment for the city's park system. The current park dedication
requirements in Article VII of the Subdivision Ordinance were approved in
1997.
Legal Review: Article VII of the Subdivision Ordinance contains language allowing periodic
updates of Appendix 11, which states the Park Board's recommended
guidelines for park dedications, without requiring ordinance revision. Since
there is no ordinance revision required, modifications to Appendix 11 (and
the proposed worksheet) are a Park Board recommendation to Council.
144 W,2
Kevin Hugman, Director of Parks and Recreation
August 10, 2001
Page 3
Alternatives: Input toward the worksheet as desired.
Supporting
Documents: Supporting documents include the following:
• Draft - "Appendix 11 - Park Dedication Guidelines and Worksheet"
• City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 (as amended), Article
VII - Park Dedication Requirements, including the existing Appendix 11
Staff
Recommendation: Parks and Recreation Board discussion and recommendation of the proposed
Revised Park Dedication Guidelines and Worksheet.
Appendix 11 - Park Dedication Guidelines and Worksheet
Project Information
1. Project Name:
2. Project Park Service Area Type (see Plate 2, 2001 Park Master Plan):
(a) Existing Proposed (b) Neighborhood Park Community Park City Park
3. Project is Residential (go to line 4) or Non-residential (go to line 5)
4. Residential: Number of new dwelling units
5. Non-residential: Number of gross project acres
6. Credit for land dedication, physical improvement, or amenities requested?
Yes (fill out both line 7 (a) or (b) and worksheet below) No (see line 7 (a) or (b) only)
7. Dedication/Fee Calculation:
(a) Residential: 1 acre per 40 dwelling units = acres OR
-dwelling units x $1,500 per dwelling unit = $ project fees due
(b) Non-residential: 1 acre per 50 gross acres = acres OR
acres at $800 per gross acre = $ project fees due
Expense Credit Worksheet A B C D E F G
Current Current Proposed Proposed Private? TOTAL
Item Units Inventory Deficiency Units Value (50% max.) CREDIT
Land Dedication
1. Neighborhood Park Land Dedication acres 52.3 19.7
2. Community Park Land Dedication* acres 0 144
3. Linear Parks acres 10.2 25.8
The acreage shown is needed assuming no "community park" facilities such as lighted sports complexes, concession/restrooms, etc., are constructed on existing park property
Facilities/Amenities
4. Aquatics center facility 0 1
5. Batting cage (stall) stall 6 3
6. Baseball diamond (practice)*** diamond 7 9
7. Baseball diamond (game)*** diamond 0 10
8. Baseball diamond (game - lighted)*** diamond 7 3
9. Basketball court (outdoor) court 3 4
10. Bench each 44 28
11. Recreation center facility 0 1
12. Fishing pier/dock pier/dock 2 2
13. Horseshoe pit each 1 3
14. Inline hockey rink (lighted)** rink 1 0.3
15. Lacrosse field field 0 4
16. Pavilion each 9 5
17. Picnic shelter each 10 2
18. Picnic table each 47 25
19. Playground each 4 5
20. Soccer field (practice)*** field 6 8
21. Soccer field (game)*** field 13 11
22. Soccer field (game - lighted)*** field 0 13
23. Softball diamond (practice)*** diamond 5 3
24. Softball diamond (game)*** diamond 0 4
25. Softball diamond (game - lighted)*** diamond 3 1
26. Tennis courts court 15 9
27. Trail (hiking, equestrian) mile 1 2.6
28. Trailhead each 2 1
29. Trail (nature, soft or interpretive) mile 0.5 3.1
30. Trail (paved) mile 3.4 3.8
31. Sand volleyball court court 0 2
32. Other (specify): value
33. TOTAL CREDIT REQUESTED**** (Sum of right column above)
34. REQUIRED FEE (line 7(a) or 7(b) abov (See "Project Information" section)
35. BALANCE (Excess only credited to other projects at Board and Council discretion)
Standard is 1:25,000 population. Ultimate population of 35,000 will create a burden. Need most likely met with youth facility in Bicentennial Park per Master Plan.
Standards are based on game and practice fields being mutually exclusive of each other. Fields which may be lighted and/or used as practice and game fields will lower overall numbers.
Total value of credit for private dedications (Column "F") cannot exceed 50% of "Required Fee" (Line 34)
ARTICLE VII
PARK AND RECREATION DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
(As amended by Ord. No. 483-F)
Section 7.01 Purpose and Intent:
The requirements for open space, park and recreational areas contained in this section are
intended to ensure that there will be sufficient land dedicated or otherwise set aside to
meet the demand and need of the future residents for open space and parks. In
determining the size, shape and quality of open space and parks areas that should be set
aside and reserved in the manner set out in this section, the City has considered the
projected growth in population and development within the municipality and the amount
of open space and park and recreational facilities needed to accommodate such growth as
stated in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan.
Section 7.02 Applicability:
A. Unplatted Property: This section, as amended, applies to all property for which a
final plat has not been formally submitted to the City for approval, unless
otherwise noted herein.
B. Exempt Property: Any tract or lot occupied by an existing residential dwelling
unit at the time of adoption of this ordinance shall be exempt from the dedication
requirements of this section herein if the residential dwelling remains on the lot.
This exemption pertains only to the tract or lot with the existing residential
dwelling. Any additional lots created by further subdivision of the property shall
be subject to the requirements herein.
C. Date of Assessment: All requirements contained in this section shall be assessed
at the time of approval of the final plat of any applicable property.
Section 7.03 Land Dedication Requirements:
A. General: Land dedication requirements herein are based on the City's adopted
Land Use Plan and the Parks Recreation & Open Space Master Plan. It is within
the sole discretion of the City to require a developer to show the anticipated land
dedication requirements herein with the development plan, concept plan,
preliminary plat or other appropriate development submittal.
1. Residential Developments: Based on the population projected to reside in
the City of Southlake and the stated desire in the Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space Master Plan adopted by the City Council to provide 21 acres
of park land for every 1,000 residents in an ultimate condition, park land
meeting the requirements contained within this section shall be dedicated
to the City at a ratio of one (1) acre of park land for every forty (40)
residential dwelling units or prorated portion thereof.
7-1 1w,4,. " 6
2. Non-Residential Developments: Although non-residential development
does not generate residential occupancies per se, it does create
environmental impacts which may negatively affect the living
environment of the community. These impacts may be ameliorated or
eliminated by providing park or open space areas which buffer adjoining
land uses, prevent undue concentration of paved areas, allow for the
reasonable dissipation of automotive exhaust fumes, provide natural
buffers to the spread of fire or explosion, and provide separation of
lighting, waste disposal, and noise by-products of non-residential
operations and activities from adjacent residential areas. The City has
therefore determined that non-residential developments must provide
dedicated parks and/or reserved open space at a ratio of one (1) acre of
park land for every fifty (50) non-residential gross acres of development or
prorated portion thereof.
3. Off-site Dedications: A developer may dedicate the required park land for
a development at another location owned by the same developer within the
City with the consent of the City, provided that the off-site land dedication
is in accordance with this section.
B. Transfers and Credits for Prior Dedications, Fees and Gifts: In considering the
amount of land dedication required of a proposed development, the City may, at
its discretion, apply former dedications which were in excess of the requirement at
that time to current or future dedication requirements of the same owner/applicant.
A dedication or cash payment in lieu of dedication made prior to the passage of
this Ordinance shall be controlled by the provisions of the ordinance in effect at
the time such obligation arose, provided the final plat has been submitted to the
City for approval prior to the passage of this Ordinance. At the discretion of the
City, any former gift of land to the municipality may be credited under the terms
of the current Ordinance toward eventual land dedication requirements imposed
on the donor of such lands.
Section 7.04 Characteristics of Parkland:
General: The Park Board shall annually recommend to the City Council a summary of
the character of dedicated park land most desirable in meeting the objectives of the Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. These characteristics shall be provided in an
abbreviated written report to all elected and appointed officials, city staff, and the
development community, and shall be placed in Appendix 11 of this ordinance. In
determining whether to accept or refuse the dedication of park lands, fees, facilities or a
combination thereof as outlined in section 7.05 below, the Park Board and City Council
shall consider this written report as a guideline for such decisions.
7-2 &4 • 4
Section 7.05 Alternatives to Land Dedication:
In any case where a dedication is required, the City shall have the right to accept the
dedication as submitted for approval, or in the alternative, to refuse dedication of the
same, and in lieu thereof to require payment of cash under the formula contained in this
Section or to allow the developer to construct recreation or park improvements. The City
may permit a combination of dedication, improvements and fees to be used to fulfill this
requirement.
A. Fee Payment Alternative:
1. Approval of Fee Payment Alternative: The City Council shall, upon
recommendation of the Park Board, determine the acceptability of a
developer's payment of fees in lieu of the land dedication requirement of
this section.
2. Calculation of Fees: The City Council shall annually establish an acreage
land value cost figure to be used in calculating park fees. This
determination shall be based on a reasonable study and investigation
performed annually, and may be performed by an independent registered
land appraisal firm as to the average fair market value, as opposed to tax
value, of acreage in the City. This figure shall be the acreage cost under
which all park fees are calculated for the fiscal year.
a. Residential Dwelling Unit Fees: Fees paid in lieu of dedication
shall be based on the determined cost of one (1) acre of land
divided by forty (40), for a resulting fee per residential dwelling
unit.
b. Non-Residential Development Fees: The fee payment alternative
for non-residential development shall be calculated by dividing the
determined cost of one (1) acre of land by fifty (50), for a resulting
fee per non-residential acre cost, or prorated portion thereof. In the
event the non-residential development is less than fifty (50) acres,
the total acreage, net of perimeter right-of-way dedications, shall
be divided by 50 to determine the prorated fee payment.
3. Collection of Fees: No building permit shall be issued nor shall any
construction be allowed to begin until payment of any fees required by this
section has been made.
B. Physical or Equipment Improvements to Parks
1. Compatibility with Park Master Plan: A developer may have the option of
improving existing facilities within municipal parks or improving
dedicated park land in lieu of park land dedication or payment of cash,
based on recommendations made in the Parks, Recreation, and Open
7-3 Lh, I
Space Master Plan. Should any of these options be exercised, the
municipality and the developer shall, prior to initiation of work on such
improvements, enter into an agreement for credit of expenses for
authorized park improvements. In no case shall the municipality be
required to reimburse the developer if he chooses to improve parklands at
an amount greater than required. Such a proposed agreement to provide
facility improvements in lieu of dedication shall be submitted in writing
with the application for any required Concept Plan or Site Plan. In the
event that no Concept Plan or Site Plan is required, the agreement shall be
submitted with the application for the preliminary plat.
Section 7.06 Private Parks:
If a developer desires to incorporate private park, recreation or open space areas or
amenities within his development, he may request limited credit for these facilities
against his public open space dedication requirements. A developer may request credit for
any private park, recreation or open space area, but such private park, recreation or open
space amenities may never satisfy more than 50% of the total park and open space
dedication requirement of this ordinance.
Section 7.07 Approval Process:
A. Land Dedications:
I. Park Board Recommendation: The Director of Parks and Recreation or
their designee shall report to the Park Board regarding any park land
dedication issues arising from development applications submitted to the
City for approval. The Park Board may then make a formal
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to accept or
refuse any proposed dedicated park land prior to the Commission's action
on the development.
2. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and
Zoning Commission shall consider the recommendation of the Park Board
in determining the acceptability of any land dedications proposed on any
development. The Commission recommendation shall then be forwarded
to the City Council for final approval where applicable.
3. Final Plat Dedications: Where review of development applications has
resulted in the City's desire for land dedication, such land dedication shall
be shown on a final plat and shall contain a clear fee simple dedication of
that land to the City.
7-4 ~
B. Fee Payments in Lieu of Dedication and/or Facilities Improvements:
1. Park Board Recommendation: The Park Board shall make a formal
recommendation to the City Council as to the acceptability of any
proposed alternatives to park land dedication.
2. City Council Consideration: Upon receiving a formal recommendation
from the Park Board, the City Council shall enter into an agreement with
the developer for the provision of dedicated park land, fees in lieu of
dedication, facilities construction or improvement, or a combination
thereof as outlined below.
a. Developer's Agreements: Developer's Agreements between the
City and the developer shall include the following requirements as
applicable:
(1) Boundary Corners Established: Each corner of the park
land to be dedicated shall be permanently monumented
with 3/4" iron pins set in concrete. These shall be located
and identified on a recordable plat or land survey
completed by a land surveyor registered in the State of
Texas and provided to the City by the Owner and/or
Developer.
(2) Utility Extensions to Park: A minimum size of 6" water
main and sanitary sewer, where available, shall be extended
to the park, in location(s) specified by the Director of
Public Works.
(3) Short-term Maintenance: The Owner and/or Developer
agree that no construction materials shall be disposed of or
deposited within the park by its contractor, subcontractors,
employees or agents at any time while the subdivision is
being built. If materials are deposited or disposed of within
the park, the Owner and/or Developer shall be required to
remove these materials within 72 hours of written notice by
the City. Before the City accepts this land, the Developer
shall remove all trash and dead trees.
Section 7.08 Use of Funds:
A. Fund Established: Funds received by the City pursuant to this Section will be
deposited in a special fund dedicated to the accumulation of monies required by
this section.
B. Permitted Expenditures: Monies placed in this fund may be expended only for the
purchase, lease, or other acquisition of park and open space areas by the City of
7-s (
/l~ • q
Southlake, the improvement and site preparation of such areas and sites, the
extension of utilities to or within such sites, the installation of landscaping, play
equipment or recreation improvements on such sites, and/or attendant engineering
and planning costs associated with such park development.
C. Inappropriate Expenditures: Monies placed in this fund may not be utilized for
any other general business activity of the City or for maintenance of park
facilities.
D. Authorization for Use of Funds: All expenditures from this fund shall be made in
accordance with the City's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan and
shall be approved by the City Council after a formal recommendation of the Park
Board.
7-6 GA
These appendices are not considered a part of this ordinance and essay be revised or updated as necessary by the City Staff.
APPENDIX 11
Guidelines for Park Land Dedication
(Approved by Park Board 5/12197)
A. Land dedication or otherwise set aside for open space and park and recreational areas shall be of
such size, dimensions, topography and general character as is reasonably required for the type of
use necessary to meet the demand and need of future residents, e.g., open space, linear space,
trails, active recreation for team or individual sports, playground, etc.
B. Natural areas or flood plains which provide unique opportunities may be included in areas
dedicated or otherwise set aside or reserved for open space or linear greenbelts. In considering
any area for dedication which does not meet the standards of this ordinance and where the
ordinance allows the municipality to employ its discretion, the following may be considered:
1. Preserve area of unique natural beauty, area possessing unique natural features, or other
ecologically valuable areas.
2. Facilities may be developed in partial fulfillment of required parkland dedication. -
3. Whether the area is proposed to be contiguous to an existing or proposed school site.
PM
4. A combination of land dedication and fees paid in lieu of a portion of the land dedication. PM
5. Where developments are contiguous, two or more required dedications may be combined
to form a single, viable park area.
b. Acreage dedication which would expand existing parks or recreation facilities. PM
7. An applicant may transfer the required parkland in a subdivision to another location owned
by the same applicant within the City of Southlake with the consent of the City Council. PI
PM
January 19, 1996 A - 11 11
Kevin Hugman
From: Martha Lube [texlube@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 6:20 PM
To: khugman@cityofsouthlake.com
Subject: youth tennis program
Dear Members of the Parks and Recreation Board,
For the past year, our son has been actively involved in the youth tennis program under the
direction of Stephen Poorman at the Southlake Tennis Center. Bryan started as a beginner and
achieved qualified player status in May of this year. He has enthusiastically attended summer
camps, school year sessions, and played in the Team Tennis Program. Coach Poorman made
the programs fun while instilling high standards of sportsmanship. He has always emphasized
participation and support for all of the players. We consider Coach Poorman an exemplary role
model for our son and we are grateful for all of the hard work and enthusiam that he has shown in
working with the kids.
We recently learned that Coach Poorman's future with the Tennis center is in jeopardy. We
implore the board to keep him in Southlake; the City would be hard pressed to find another such
dedicated individual to work with our kids.
Sincerely,
Edward and Martha Lube
PUBLIC FORUM Sign-In
for
Park Board Meeting
Monday, August 13, 2001
Name (please print) Address Phone or Email T opic
2cs C S
WAT-FILES\FORMS\Sign In Sheet.doc