Loading...
2000-06-12 * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 2 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD AND SPDC JOINT MEETING 3 4 June 12, 2000 5 6 MINUTES 7 8 Board Members Present: Sherry Berman, Chair; Richard Anderson, Vice-Chair; Cara White, 9 Secretary; Mary Georgia, Chris Miltenberger, Lisa Stokdyk, James Glover of the Parks and 10 Recreation Board. 11 12 Ronnie Kendall, Chair; Rick Stacy, Mayor, Tad Stephens, Rex Potter, Sherry Berman, Cara 13 White, Gary Fawks of the Southlake Parks Development Corporation. 14 15 16 Staff Members Present: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services; Steve Polasek, 17 Deputy Director of Community Services; Ben Henry, Parks Planning and Construction 18 Superintendent; John Eaglen, Administrative Assistant, Meredith Parrish, Administrative 19 Secretary. 20 21 Regular Session: 22 23 Agenda Item No. 1, Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Ronnie Kendall at 24 6:10 p.m. 25 26 Reports: 27 28 Agenda Item No. 2, Administrative Comments. 29 30 Consent: 31 32 33 Consider: 34 35 Agenda Item No. 5A, Proposed Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Parks and Recreation Division Annual 36 Budget. Mr. Hugman stated that every year staff brings forth the proposed budget for a review 37 and recommendation from the Board. Mr. Hugman mentioned that at this point in the budget 38 process, staff had just completed the first review of the proposed budget with the City Manager. 39 Mr. Hugman stated that the priority for the coming fiscal year is personnel, with a proposed 40 addition of one (1) Parks Maintenance Worker funded through the General Fund, and two (2) 41 Maintenance Workers funded through the SPDC Operations Fund. Mr. Hugman further stated 42 that the proposed Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Budget includes the addition of one (1) full-time 43 Recreation Specialist to coordinate the City's athletic programming. Mr. Hugman mentioned 44 that in return for the new positions, staff has proposed the removal of two (2) seasonal Parks 45 Maintenance Workers and two (2) part-time Recreation Specialists. 46 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page I of 13 N.IParks & Recreation lBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINIITES120001061200.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Mr. Hugman mentioned that on a Citywide basis staff has not come forth proposing a large 2 number of new requests, as the budget is forecasted to be tight. 3 4 Mr. Hugman covered the mowing contracts, and updated the Board that this line item includes 5 the maintenance of City-owned properties, rights-of-way, and the Town Square public areas, but 6 stated that this does not include ballfield maintenance, which is performed in-house by staff. 7 8 Mr. Hugman covered the special projects line-item, and mentioned that the proposed funding for 9 holiday lighting for Town Square includes the purchase and installation of lighting for the new 10 Town Hall, the re-installation of lighting for the public areas purchased last year, and for 11 removal and storage of lighting materials. Ms. Berman asked why the City did not receive the 12 award recently granted for the holiday lighting last year, as in the paper it suggested that the 13 award was presented to Town Square. Mr. Hugman stated that he did not see the article in the 14 paper. Mr. Hugman mentioned that Mr. Stuart Marshall of Christmas Decor by Zenith presented 15 a picture of the lighted pavilion with an award plaque to the City last week at the beginning of 16 the City Council meeting. Mr. Hugman stated that the picture and plaque would be displayed in 17 City Hall. 18 19 Mr. Miltenberger asked why the holiday lighting is placed in the Parks and Recreation Budget, 20 and Mr. Glover stated that this question was also asked last year. Mr. Hugman replied that this 21 item is in the Parks and Recreation Budget because the maintenance of the Town Square parks 22 and public areas fall under the Parks and Recreation Division. Mr. Anderson asked if Town 23 Square was prepared to help with funding for the project, and Mr. Hugman replied that Town 24 Square has and will fund the holiday lighting for the retail areas, and that the City funds the 25 lighting for the street trees and public areas. Ms. Berman asked if the Post Office would be 26 funded through the City, and Mr. Hugman stated that he did not know how the lighting for this 27 building would be funded. 28 29 Mr. Hugman stated that the proposed new program for Tree Transplanting is something that staff 30 has been doing on a project basis, however the scope of this proposal increases the amount in 31 Fiscal Year 2001. Mr. Hugman said that the estimates for the proposal are based upon the 32 estimated cost of one hundred dollars ($100) per transplanted tree, and mentioned that this 33 alternative is a cheaper, more aesthetically pleasing alternative to purchasing new trees. 34 35 Mr. Miltenberger stated that in the past, the Parks and Recreation Division has asked for a lot of 36 equipment and did not get these items approved, and he asked if this year any new equipment 37 was necessary. Mr. Hugman replied that staff has purchased three (3) pieces of equipment in the 38 current fiscal year, and mentioned that one limitation on the purchase of new equipment is that 39 the division needs personnel to operate new equipment. Mr. Hugman stated that based upon 40 current personnel, staff feels comfortable with the current equipment stock that they need to 41 operate. 42 43 Ms. Stokdyk arrived at 7.22 p.m. 44 45 Mr. Anderson asked if the new personnel guidelines would be similar to last year, and Mr. 46 Hugman replied that the budget would once again be tight. Mr. Hugman stated that the priorities Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page 2 of 13 N.IParks & Recreation lBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001061200.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 for new personnel would include Public Safety, Library Services, and Parks and Recreation. Mr. 2 Hugman said that staff is reviewing the potential to fund necessary personnel through other 3 funding sources, such as the current proposal to fund two (2) Parks Maintenance Workers 4 through the SPDC Operations Fund. 5 6 Ms. Georgia asked if there are any expenses included for the Teen Center or Recreation Center 7 in Fiscal Year 2000-2001. Mr. Hugman replied that the upcoming Teen Center survey results 8 would lead to a final decision on the direction for the City to pursue, and stated that the decision 9 timeline and planning for a facility would push any budgetary requirements into Fiscal Year 10 2001-2002. Ms. Berman asked if SPDC would fund facility expenses, and Mr. Hugman replied 11 that there would be some items earmarked for funding through the General Fund Operations 12 Accounts. 13 14 Mr. Glover asked if the Recreation Specialist position would be difficult to fill, as it has in the 15 past, and Mr. Hugman replied that with the new pay plan adjustments completed in January the 16 City is competitive with other surrounding cities. Mr. Glover asked if the seasonal and part-time 17 positions would be removed once the full-time positions are hired, and Mr. Hugman responded 18 that the seasonal and part-time positions are either not currently filled, or positions have been 19 consolidated into a full-time equivalent position already. Mr. Hugman stated that the budget 20 proposal consolidates the part-time and seasonal positions into a full-time position with benefits. 21 22 Mr. Miltenberger asked why there was reductions in the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) 23 section of the budget, as there are increasing maintenance needs. Mr. Hugman replied that the 24 reduction is due to the inclusion of high-dollar projects in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 that have not 25 been carried into Fiscal Year 2000-2001. 26 27 Ms. Berman asked about the status of the Metro Pool property. Mr. Hugman stated that staff had 28 reviewed the potential to utilize the storage areas of the property as a Parks Service Center. Mr. 29 Hugman mentioned that when this item was discussed with the City Council, the only clear 30 direction provided was for staff to proceed with the demolition of the substandard buildings at 31 the site. 32 33 Mr. Anderson asked if the site demolition line item was intended for the Metro Pool property, 34 and Mr. Hugman responded that there is funding available to proceed with the demolition in the 35 current fiscal year without allocating additional funds. 36 37 Ms. Berman asked why the irrigation improvements at Bicentennial Park game fields #4, #5, and 38 #10 were removed. Mr. Polasek replied that the fields are currently irrigated, however they are 39 controlled manually. Mr. Polasek stated that the proposed improvements coincided with the 40 proposed MAXICOM irrigation control system upgrades, but that as the upgrades have been 41 postponed, staff will proceed with the irrigation improvements for these fields in future years 42 also. 43 44 Ms. Berman stated that irrigation at Bicentennial Park is a concern among the user groups. Mr. 45 Polasek stated that there has been progress achieved in the current fiscal year, however the Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page 3 of 13 N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001061200.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 irrigation improvements at Bicentennial Park would require the completion of several large scale 2 projects to completely upgrade the park irrigation system. 3 4 Mr. Miltenberger stated that the baseball association has discussed removing the current grass at 5 fields #4, #5, and #10 in coordination with irrigation improvements to these fields, and 6 converting the fields to an all grass field with cut out base pad areas. Mr. Polasek stated that 7 these improvements would need to be in conjunction with irrigation improvements in order to 8 allow the grass roots to completely take hold, and tailor the field irrigation equipment to cover 9 additional interior grass areas. Mr. Polasek stated that the staff would be interested in discussing 10 a joint project with the baseball association for fields #4, #5, and #10 in the future. 11 12 Motion to approve a recommendation on the proposed Parks and Recreation Division Fiscal 13 Year 2000-2001 Budget. 14 15 Motion: Glover 16 Second: Anderson 17 Ayes: Berman, Anderson, White, Georgia, Miltenberger, Stokdyk, Glover 18 Against: None 19 Approved: 7-0 20 21 22 23 Discussion: 24 25 Agenda Item No. 6A, Bicentennial Park Schematic Design. Mr. Hugman stated that the City is 26 currently under contract with Shrickel, Rollins, and Associates for the update of the Parks, 27 Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan and the update of the Bicentennial Park Schematic 28 Design. Mr. Hugman stated that the current Master Schematic does not reflect the adjustment of 29 Phase II facilities, and that staff wanted to update the schematic design to assist in planning for 30 the recently acquired thirteen (13) acres on the western edge of the park. Mr. Hugman stated that 31 updating the Master Schematic Design also provided an opportunity for staff to address their 32 concerns regarding egress in and out of the park. Mr. Hugman said that the purpose of this item 33 tonight is for the Parks and Recreation Board to review the current draft and gather the Board's 34 input prior to meeting with the surrounding neighborhoods. 35 36 Mr. Polasek introduced Mr. Eric Wilhite of Shrickel, Rollins and Associates. 37 38 Mr. Polasek reviewed with the Parks and Recreation Board the current facilities and the 39 proposed revisions to the Bicentennial Park Schematic Design draft. 40 41 Mr. Glover stated that the proposed through road onto Shady Oaks does not make sense to him 42 on the surface, and asked if there could be a stoplight installed at the F.M. 1709 access point. 43 Mr. Polasek replied that a potential stoplight at the F.M. 1709 access point would be too close in 44 proximity to the stoplight at the intersection of F.M. 1709 and Shady Oaks, and that the Texas 45 Department of Transportation (TxDOT) would not allow that. Mr. Glover stated that he feels the 46 through road is still a mistake, and asked if there could be a right turn only sign installed at the Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page 4 of 13 N.-Warks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001061200.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 F.M. 1709 access point. Ms. Berman stated that she agreed, and Mr. Hugman replied that he 2 feels that limiting traffic flow out of the F.M. 1709 access point would be a concern. Mr. 3 Hugman stated that in the future F.M. 1709 is forecasted to be a six (6) lane thoroughfare, and 4 that having only one (1) access point that would be limited to a right turn would result in 5 accidents by people trying to force a left turn out of the park. 6 7 Mr. Hugman stated that the proposed through road would not be a major thoroughfare, and it 8 would be a low speed limit that is separated from parking areas and other facilities in order to 9 make it as safe as possible. Ms. Berman asked if staff could install a "right turn only" sign at the 10 F.M. 1709 access point, and Mr. Hugman replied that he does not believe that it would prevent 11 traffic from the park from attempting to make a left hand turn onto F.M. 1709. 12 13 Mr. Henry stated that when MESA Design group first worked on the initial Schematic Design, 14 there was a through road from F.M. 1709 to N. White Chapel. Mr. Henry said that this was 15 problematic, as there would be a benefit to cut through the park. Mr. Henry stated that with the 16 through road connecting into Shady Oaks, there is no benefit to cut-through traffic, as anyone 17 going north or south on Shady Oaks would not benefit by cutting through the park. 18 19 Ms. Stokdyk stated that with her experience in Dallas and other area parks, having a through 20 road encourages cruising and loitering that causes problems. Mr. Polasek responded that he 21 understands the concerns expressed, however the proposed through road is short in distance. Ms. 22 Stokdyk stated that she still feels it would breed cruising and loitering, as is the case on 23 Peytonville. Mr. Polasek stated that in planning the road, staff would design the road based upon 24 recommendations by traffic engineers, utilizing techniques such as a one-way direction and other 25 traffic calming devices, to discourage cruising and loitering within the park. Ms. Stokdyk 26 mentioned that she believed that White Rock Lake in Dallas had begun to utilize the one-way 27 through roads, and Ms. Georgia stated that is the case. 28 29 Mr. Anderson stated that in regards to the park entrance feature off of F.M. 1709, it seemed that 30 there would be limited land opportunities to place an entry feature at the current access point. 31 Mr. Anderson asked if it would be feasible to move the park entrance over to an area behind the 32 GTE enclosure, thus freeing up room for an entry feature along F.M. 1709. Mr. Polasek 33 responded that this has not been considered, however the proximity to the basketball courts and 34 other activities is a concern. Mr. Polasek stated that with the development of the property east of 35 the current access point, staff could work with the developer to fit an access point and entry 36 feature in that location. Mr. Henry stated that towards the east it would not be possible to fit an 37 entry feature in, however staff is working with HNTB, the traffic management bond program 38 contractor, to try and develop a feature on the west side of the access point. 39 40 Ms. Berman asked if the City knew what was going in on the eastside of the access point, and 41 Mr. Hugman replied that they did not know that information. Mr. Hugman stated that with 42 discussions with the Planning Department have centered around future development in the area 43 utilizing the park access point to prevent an additional curb cut along F.M. 1709. Mr. Anderson 44 asked about the potential to abandon the park access point on F.M. 1709, and Mr. Hugman 45 replied that a future development would then need to install a curb cut for access onto F.M. 1709. 46 Ms. Berman asked if it would be possible to swap land with the future development, and Mr. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page 5 of 13 N:IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001061200.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Hugman stated that in working with HNTB, a right-turn lane into the F.M. 1709 access point is 2 planned for the area. Mr. Glover asked if staff has already made up their mind on the plans, and 3 Mr. Hugman replied that there has been a lot of preliminary work already completed on this area. 4 Mr. Hugman stated that moving the access point over by the GTE building would be a tight fit, 5 and it would put the road close to park activities. Mr. Glover asked if the access point along 6 F.M. 1709 could be abandoned completely, and Mr. Hugman stated that it is possible, however it 7 would significantly reduce acess to the park. 8 9 Mr. Glover stated that since the problem seems to be the traffic on F.M. 1709, can the access be 10 abandoned along F.M. 1709 and utilize the proposed entrance along Shady Oaks. Mr. Polasek 11 stated that the F.M. 1709 access point does still serve a purpose, and mentioned that abandoning 12 or trading parkland would require a public referendum. Ms. Berman stated that the City 13 swapped land with Kroger, and Mr. Hugman stated that the land swapped was not designated as 14 parkland, it was bought several years ago with the purpose as a potential City Hall site, thus 15 making it easier to do in that particular case. Mr. Hugman stated that the City can look at a 16 number of different options regarding the through road, however he feels that cutting off the 17 access to F.M. 1709 will increase the traffic onto Shady Oaks. Mr. Miltenberger stated that he 18 felt that Shady Oaks was too small of a road to have the major park entrance located there. 19 20 Mr. Anderson asked if the City was aware of GTE's long term plans regarding the building. Mr. 21 Polasek responded that they were not aware, however in his experience the facility is a vault area 22 where a lot of GTE cables come together, making it convenient to access. Mr. Miltenberger 23 stated that he understands that the building is planned to stay in that location. Mr. Hugman 24 reminded the Board that the frontage property along F.M. 1709 is very expensive, as it is prime 25 commercial retail property. 26 27 Ms. Georgia stated that with her experience at White Rock Lake Park in Dallas, she agrees with 28 a lot of the commentary regarding through roads in parks. Ms. Georgia said that her observation 29 is that with these roads, the more convoluted the road pathway through the park is, the less likely 30 the road will be used as a cut-through. Ms. Georgia stated that in a lot of the things that are 31 being discussed here, the City could address the potential problems in the design of the road. 32 Mr. Hugman stated again that the City would work with traffic engineers to address the concerns 33 of cut-through traffic, cruising, and loitering. 34 35 Mr. Miltenberger stated that in the context of White Rock Lake, cruising activities are increased 36 because of the proximity of the lake to the road, whereas in Bicentennial Park the road would be 37 adjacent to ballfields. Ms. Stokdyk stated that these activities are due to more than just simply 38 that lake, that cruising and loitering is due to looking at other people, cars, etc. Ms. Georgia 39 suggested that it might be possible to close of the road at certain times to discourage excess 40 traffic. Mr. Miltenberger stated that it wouldn't be feasible to close the road off when people are 41 trying to exit the park. Mr. Polasek stated that when the actual design of the road would occur, 42 that the traffic engineer would take the concerns expressed, and design a roadway system to 43 address the needs and concerns of the public. 44 45 Ms. Stokdyk stated that she would like to revisit the F.M. 1709 access point, and suggested that 46 while people like to turn right off of F.M. 1709 into the park, a park entry off of Shady Oaks Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page 6 of 13 N.Warks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001061200.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 provides the same benefit. Ms. Stokdyk asked what the distance of the proposed through road 2 was from F.M. 1709 to Shady Oaks, and Mr. Polasek replied the length of the road is estimated 3 at a quarter of a mile. Mr. Miltenberger stated that locating the park entrance off of Shady Oaks 4 would cause traffic to stack up on the road. Mr. Polasek stated that the F.M. 1709 entrance is 5 important due to the utilization of the road. Mr. Glover asked that staff explore all of the 6 potential options regarding access points and traffic. 7 8 Ms. Georgia left at 7.50 p.m. 9 10 Mr. Anderson asked about the ability to construct the proposed softball fields, as it requires a lot 11 of grading. Mr. Wilhite stated that while it would be a challenge, the preliminary plans included 12 the usage of small retaining walls similar to some of the existing fields. Mr. Wilhite also 13 mentioned that the proposed fields have been located as close to the drainage channel as 14 possible. 15 16 Ms. Berman stated that Mr. Matt Tuggey and Mr. Tad Stephens from the Southlake Girls 17 Softball Association are in attendance, and asked if the Softball Association was satisfied that the 18 fields are not laid out as a traditional four-plex facility. Mr. Matt Tuggy, 1361 Cross Timber 19 Drive, replied that the four (4) fields are what is important. Mr. Tuggy stated that the Southlake 20 Girls Softball Association (SGSA) is excited that the softball fields have become a priority. Mr. 21 Tuggy suggested that there are examples of quality facilities in White Settlement, Coppell, and 22 North Richland Hills, and that it would be beneficial to tour these facilities for input. Mr. Tuggy 23 mentioned that the North Richland Hills fields are terraced, and would be similar to what is 24 proposed at Bicentennial Park. Mr. Polasek stated that there are a lot of examples that would be 25 beneficial to tour and speak with the development firms to gather input on the proposed 26 Bicentennial Park softball fields when the time comes to develop this area. 27 28 Mr. Tuggy stated that one possible concern down the road is that their understanding is that the 29 proposed fields would be for games only. Mr. Tuggy mentioned that the SGSA is concerned 30 about the lack of practice space for forty (40) or fifty (50) teams. Ms. Berman stated that she has 31 had discussions with staff regarding this issue, and that the eventual goal is that there would 32 eventually be enough parkland available to designate fields as a game field or a practice area. 33 Mr. Anderson stated that practice fields should also be adequate for playing on. Mr. Tuggy 34 mentioned that practices are increasingly held during evening hours in the early spring and late 35 fall due to the time changes. Ms. White clarified that the issue is availability of lighted practice 36 areas, and Mr. Tuggy replied that is the case. Mr. Tuggy stated that softball fields have dirt 37 infields, and therefore the wear and tear on the grass is not as big of a concern as it is with 38 baseball. Mr. Miltenberger stated that the Southlake Baseball Association prefers more grass, as 39 it holds water better and requires less preparation than a dirt infield. Mr. Polasek stated that 40 softball fields are traditionally a dirt infield. 41 42 Mr. Polasek stated that other than the Bicentennial Park fields, the only other lighted practice 43 area is the field at the Carroll Intermediate School. Mr. Tuggy said that the field at Carroll 44 Intermediate field is not a well maintained field, and there have been logistical problems with the 45 School District on turning the lights on and off. Ms. Berman asked if staff could discuss these 46 problems with the Joint Utilization Committee. Mr. Hugman stated that the City had discussed Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page 7 of 13 N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001061200.doe * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 this field with the School District, and that last year the City had allocated some money for field 2 improvements. Mr. Tuggy stated that after the high school quit utilizing the Bicentennial Park 3 softball fields, the SGSA abandoned the Carroll Intermediate School site altogether. 4 5 Mr. Tuggy suggested that there are several excellent facilities currently in operation from which 6 to gather input. Mr. Tuggy stated that on another note, the open drainage channel in 7 Bicentennial Park is a hazard to people utilizing the current fields. Mr. Tuggy mentioned that he 8 has talked with Mr. Polasek regarding this issue, and that the channel would need to be buried 9 underground. Mr. Tuggy mentioned an example of a child slipping in the channel fielding a ball, 10 and came back to the field soaking wet. Mr. Tuggy stated that this is a regular occurrence every 11 weekend, and that he doesn't see another alternative other than burying the channel. 12 13 Mr. Polasek pointed out the location of the current channel, and mentioned that the channel is 14 depicted underground on the Schematic Design, however this is a costly process. Mr. Polasek 15 stated that staff is currently trying to minimize the hazard, and has placed some stepping stones 16 along the channel. Mr. Polasek stated that staff is also designing a bridge to pass over the 17 channel, however this does not address players fielding balls. Mr. Polasek stated that in the long 18 term the plan is to take this channel underground. Mr. Hugman mentioned that this channel 19 carries a lot of water, and therefore it would be costly to take this drainage underground. 20 21 Ms. Berman asked the timeline for completing this project, and Mr. Hugman replied that it 22 would be contingent upon the priorities of the Board and SPDC. Ms. Berman stated that she 23 feels that this is a hazard, and should be discussed at SPDC. Mr. Hugman said that staff could 24 develop some cost estimates on the project for the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Capital Improvements 25 Budget. Ms. Stokdyk asked how deep the channel is, and Mr. Tuggey mentioned that the 26 channel is not very deep, but it is constantly wet. Mr. Hugman stated that with the drainage from 27 the Oak Hills Subdivision, it is constantly wet. Mr. Tuggy mentioned that if a ball gets loose, it 28 would roll into the channel. 29 30 Mr. Tad Stephens, 804 Shorecrest Drive asked how many warm-up areas are depicted. Mr. 31 Polasek reviewed the warm up areas with the Board and the audience. Mr. Stephens stated 32 that the concern is that there are warm-up areas distanced from the spectators. Mr. Polasek 33 replied that this has received consideration in the concept planning, and will be further reviewed 34 upon design of the facility. Mr. Miltenberger asked about the current softball batting cages, and 35 Mr. Polasek replied that these cages would revert to the baseball association, as the current 36 softball fields will be converted to baseball fields. Ms. White asked if the bottom two (2) fields 37 could be moved further apart to fit batting cages and additional warm-up areas. Mr. Polasek 38 stated that this is possible, and would be further reviewed during the design phase of the facility. 39 40 Ms. Berman asked in regards to the parking lot expansion in the middle of the park, are there 41 some large trees that would have to be removed. Mr. Henry stated that there is one tree, and 42 mentioned that this tree could be saved. Mr. Miltenberger asked where the current parking lot 43 ends, and Mr. Polasek reviewed the location with the Board and the audience. 44 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page 8 of 13 N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001061200.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 Ms. Berman asked what happens to the Community Center building and the Lodge, and Mr. 2 Polasek replied that the current buildings would be removed, and the functions would be 3 incorporated into the proposed Recreation Center. 4 5 Ms. Stokdyk asked if the proposed parking lot expansion is grading into the hill. Mr. Polasek 6 stated that the parking expansion goes southward, and the northern parking is currently in 7 existence. Ms. Stokdyk inquired about the presence of zoning change notification signs and the 8 construction trailers adjacent to the Waterscape. Mr. Hugman replied that staff is currently 9 working on changing the zoning of Bicentennial Park to a "CS" Zoning designation, as the park 10 currently has a multitude of zoning designations. Mr. Hugman clarified that the zoning changes 11 are only for facilities currently developed. Mr. Hugman stated that the construction trailers are 12 for the construction crews performing intersection improvements for the Traffic Management 13 Bond Program. 14 15 Mr. Miltenberger asked about the status of the loop trail from Bicentennial Park to Shady Oaks, 16 and Mr. Polasek reviewed trail alternatives on the Schematic Design. Ms. Berman suggested 17 that a trail be depicted along the northern edge of the park crossing over to Shady Oaks. Mr. 18 Polasek stated that the trail heads south to utilize the one (1) proposed channel crossing. Ms. 19 White suggested a pedestrian crossing along the northern edge of the park, similar to those 20 discussed in conjunction with the Traffic Management Bond Program. Mr. Polasek stated that 21 trail designs are flexible, and that this could be marked on the Schematic Design. 22 23 Ms. Berman mentioned the location of the Community Center, as it is depicted on property not 24 owned by the City. Ms. Berman asked if there is a contingency plan for the facility should the 25 City not be able to purchase this property. Ms. White asked if the property could be purchased 26 within the context of the current long-range Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Hugman stated 27 that the City has a right-of-first refusal for this property within a five (5) year period, therefore 28 the assumption is that the City would negotiate with the property owner to purchase the property 29 prior to the expiration of the clause. Ms. Berman asked that in the result of the City not being 30 able to purchase the property, are there any contingency plans for the Community Center. Mr. 31 Hugman stated that as staff has previously discussed with SPDC, it would be very difficult to 32 place four (4) softball fields, a Community Center, and adequate parking on the recently 33 purchased thirteen (13) acres. Mr. Hugman stated that if the City does not purchase the 34 additional property, another location for the Community Center would have to be determined, 35 and if that is the case, then the required parking capacity drops as well. Ms. Berman asked if the 36 configuration of the facilities could be reworked to fit, and Mr. Hugman replied that it could not. 37 38 Mr. Polasek reviewed the baseball facilities with the Board and audience on behalf of the 39 entrance of Mr. Ted Stroope of the Southlake Baseball Association (SBA). Mr. Ted Stroope 40 inquired about the two (2) practice fields currently utilized by SBA in Bicentennial Park. Mr. 41 Stroope stated that with the demographics of the association, the proposed fourth field located 42 adjacent to fields #4, #5, and #10 would be immediately absorbed, and SBA had begun to review 43 the potential of developing additional game fields in the practice area. Mr. Polasek stated that 44 when the additional baseball fields are developed, staff would work with the SBA to determine 45 the field sizes required by the Association. Ms. Berman asked if the proposed northern baseball 46 field could be adjusted and/or divided into multiple fields, and Mr. Polasek replied that at this Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page 9 of 13 N:IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001061200.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 time a field size for that area was not determined. Mr. Polasek mentioned that prior to the 2 ballfield development, staff would work with SBA to determine the applicable field size. Mr. 3 Hugman added that staff has worked with the School District on the lack of practice areas, and 4 upon school development the School District has committed to construct practice areas with 5 backstops. Mr. Miltenberger stated that if staff relied on the School District to provide practice 6 areas, field quality would be an issue. Mr. Polasek replied that the staff would continue to look 7 for practice field opportunities within the City's parks system. 8 9 Mr. Miltenberger expressed concern over the lack of definitive space for a Community Center 10 within Bicentennial Park. Ms. White replied that there are other options for the Community 11 Center on the table, and Ms. Stokdyk stated that the Community Center has always been 12 depicted on property that was not currently owned by the City. Ms. White stated that Mr. Ralph 13 Evans has held onto the property he owns to provide his children with an opportunity to purchase 14 the property, and that he has expressed no long-term desire to stay on the property. Ms. White 15 stated that the road could be adjusted to fit the Community Center in the location. Mr. Polasek 16 replied that with the setback and slope requirements, it is very difficult to fit the facility within 17 the current City-owned property. Ms. White then asked if there are other contingency plans 18 should the City not be able to purchase the property. Mr. Hugman replied that there are other 19 options that were discussed with SPDC last month, and that the City is working on developing 20 these alternatives. 21 22 Ms. Stokdyk asked if there was an aquatic facility shown on the current Schematic Design, and 23 Mr. Hugman replied that this is true. Ms. Stokdyk asked if this was removed due to the Joint 24 Use Natatorium, and Mr. Hugman replied that no determination has been made to scrap the 25 facility. Mr. Hugman stated that during development of the long-range Parks Capital 26 Improvements Program there was no priority for such a facility, and combined with the Joint Use 27 Natatorium, the Bicentennial Park facility has not been addressed in this Schematic Design 28 update. Ms. Stokdyk asked if Grapevine has a pool inside their Community Center, and Mr. 29 Hugman replied that they have outdoor pools. 30 31 Ms. White asked about the feasibility of locating the Community Center on the hill at the North 32 White Chapel entrance. Mr. Polasek mentioned that this location has been discussed, and there 33 are concerns about adequate space, parking, grading, and the proximity to the surrounding 34 neighborhoods. Ms. White stated that with the depicted location there is neighborhood concerns, 35 and Mr. Polasek stated that these concerns are mitigated because the west-side of the park is a 36 larger area to work with. Mr. Miltenberger asked about reconfiguring the parking areas for the 37 Community Center, and Mr. Hugman stated that one (1) consideration in developing the parking 38 area was to save trees. Mr. Hugman stated that on the current Schematic Design, there are a 39 number of facilities that are shown on land depicted as "future acquisition." Mr. Hugman said 40 that on this update, staff has tried to put as many facilities on City-owned land, and consideration 41 has been given to things that could help increase open space within the park, as it currently is a 42 very high intense use facility. 43 44 Ms. Stokdyk asked about the "existing building" shown south of the Community Center, and Mr. 45 Miltenberger replied that it is the home of Mr. Ralph Evans. Ms. Berman stated that she feels 46 that there are several options regarding the Community Center, and that plans should become Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page 10 of 13 N.Warks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001061200.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 more firm over the coming months. Mr. Hugman replied that staff is attempting to lock down as 2 much as possible, recognizing that there still are some unknowns, but that the facilities impacted 3 by this can be adjusted once options become available. Mr. Anderson stated that the issue of the 4 Community Center will still need resolution, however he liked the idea of keeping the sports 5 fields in a certain location and having the flexibility to relocate the Community Center if 6 necessary. Mr. Anderson stated that hopefully all of the facilities could be located in the same 7 area. 8 9 Ms. Stokdyk asked for clarification on the property that is not currently owned by the City, and 10 Mr. Polasek reviewed the City-owned property. Mr. Anderson asked what the next step in this 11 process is. Mr. Hugman replied that staff and the consultant would work to incorporate the input 12 provided tonight, and then the next step would be to have a SPIN meeting with the adjacent 13 neighborhoods to gather more input. Ms. Berman suggested that the youth sports associations be 14 advised of public meetings so that their input could be submitted. 15 16 Mr. Miltenberger asked if there are usage records kept for the Tennis Center, and Mr. Hugman 17 replied that the Tennis Center Manager maintains usage records for the facility. Ms. Berman 18 asked if usage was recorded at the two (2) tennis courts on the hill, and Mr. Hugman replied that 19 information is not recorded regarding this facility. Mr. Miltenberger asked how the Tennis 20 Center is doing, and Mr. Hugman replied that there is significant usage of the facility, however 21 the Tennis Center Manager would like to see more. 22 23 Mr. Miltenberger asked how the meetings would be publicized, and Mr. Hugman replied that the 24 SPIN meeting would be publicized in a normal fashion. Ms. White asked if this plan could be 25 published in the Southlake Journal, and Mr. Hugman replied that he would like to have further 26 work occur prior to publishing the proposal. Mr. Miltenberger asked what the timeline for 27 completing this park, as he gets asked frequently on this topic. Mr. Hugman replied that the next 28 phase of construction for this park would most likely be the development of the softball fields, 29 and then the Community Center. Mr. Hugman stated that the components would be completed 30 as funding allows. Ms. Berman stated that the Board could look at the components when 31 reviewing the long-range Parks Capital Improvements Program. 32 33 Agenda Item No. 6B, Liaison Reports. 34 35 Youth Parks and Recreation Board - No report from the Parks and Recreation Board members. 36 37 Recreation and Special Events - No report from the Parks and Recreation Board members. 38 39 Teen Center - Ms. Berman stated that the survey instrument has been finalized, and Mr. Hugman 40 stated that the survey instrument would be distributed to the City Council prior to implementing 41 the survey. 42 43 Youth Sports Associations - No report from the Parks and Recreation Board members. 44 45 Community Groups - No report from the Parks and Recreation Board members. 46 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page 11 of 13 N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001061200.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS 1 SPIN - Ms. White mentioned that there would be a meeting on Thursday. Ms. White stated that 2 the Trail System Master Plan public meetings are completed, and asked Mr. Hugman when the 3 trail user groups meeting with Bowman-Melton Associates would occur. Mr. Hugman stated 4 that staff would consult with the equestrian community and other trail user groups to gather 5 further input when the consultants have further opportunities to compile the input from the three 6 (3) public meetings. Ms. White asked if this would be necessary at this point, as that staff would 7 have completed recommendations Mr. Hugman stated that the compilation of input would not 8 equal a recommendation from staff. Ms. White asked if there would be another Citywide SPIN 9 meeting, and Mr. Hugman suggested that the trail user groups would meet first, and then another 10 Citywide public meeting would be possible. Ms. White asked if the equestrian and bicycle trail 11 user groups could be coordinated with the general Citywide meeting to avoid the perception of 12 an exclusive meeting. Ms. White suggested that the user groups still need to discuss the Trail 13 System Master Plan update to discuss issues. 14 15 SPDC - Ms. Berman stated that the City had purchased thirteen (13) acres from Mr. Ralph Evans 16 on the west side of Bicentennial Park. Mr. Hugman stated that there will be no meeting in June 17 due to the City Council retreat. 18 19 JUC - No report from the Parks and Recreation Board members. 20 21 Equestrians - Ms. White stated that in regards to DELTA, there are two (2) historical bridges 22 that have been identified, and there are historical societies that have expressed interest in helping 23 DELTA move the bridges to assist in the equestrian trail at Lake Grapevine. Ms. White 24 mentioned that Mr. Charlie Burger had not been replaced by the U.S. Corps of Engineers at this 25 time. Ms. White mentioned that meetings will occur once a new contact person with the U.S. 26 Corps of Engineers is in place. Ms. White mentioned that June was the deadline for grants, and 27 that DELTA did not have the time to complete an application for the bridges. 28 29 Traffic Management Bond Steering Committee - Ms. White stated that the bid has been secured. 30 Mr. Henry mentioned that the trails in conjunction with the intersection improvements have been 31 completed, but that the bid for the trail package along F.M. 1709 is forthcoming soon. Ms. 32 Berman asked about the status of the Continental Blvd. trail, and Mr. Henry stated that Phase II 33 would begin once the Phase I trail is completed later on this summer. Ms. Berman asked if the 34 construction would coincide with the beginning of school, and Mr. Henry stated that this is the 35 case. 36 37 Ms. Stokdyk asked when the glass on the Eagle Scout project would be repaired, and Mr. 38 Polasek replied that he thought it had already been completed. Mr. Polasek stated he would 39 investigate the status of this project. 40 41 Ms. White mentioned that the kickoff meeting for the Bob Jones cleanup meeting would be in 42 June, and that the project is scheduled for an October implementation. 43 44 Motion to adjourn. 45 46 Motion: White Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page 12 of 13 N.Warks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001061200.doc * * OFFICIAL MINUTES * * APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS I Second: Stokdyk 2 Ayes: Berman, White, Miltenberger, Stokdyk 3 Nayes: None 4 Approved: 4-0 5 6 Chair Sherry Berman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. 7 8 9 10 She Berman, it 11 12 13 14 Cara White, Secretary 15 16 17 18 19 20 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, June 12, 2000 Page 13 of 13 N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120001061200.doc