The URL can be used to link to this page

2009-08-03 y ~ JOINT CITY COUNCIL. PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD AND SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MEETING: AUGUST 3, 2009 LOCATION: Timarron Bent Creek Clubhouse 1240 Bent Creek Drive Southlake, Texas 76092 (A board member may be listed more than once if he or she serves on multiple boards.) City Council present: Mayor John Terrell, Mayor Pro Tern Virginia M. Muzyka, and Councilmembers Brandon Bledsoe, Carolyn Morris, and Pamela A. Muller. City Council absent: Deputy Mayor Pro Tern Laura K. Hill and Councilmember Gregory Jones. Parks and Recreation Board members present: President John Slocum, and Board members Margaret Adams, Sherry Berman, Elaine Cox, Ken Goodman, William S. Packer, and Tina Wasserman. Parks and Recreation Board members absent: Board Members Julie Landesberg and Kevin Smith. Southlake Parks Development Corporation Board members present: President Carolyn Morris, Vice-President Virginia M. Muzyka, Secretary Pamela A. Muller, and Board Members Sherry Berman, Deborah Frazier, and John Slocum. Southlake Parks Development Corporation Board members absent: Board Member Gregory Jones. Staff present: City Manager Shana Yelverton, Assistant City Manager / Director of Public Safety Jim Blagg, Assistant City Manager Ben Thatcher, Assistant to the City Manager Alison Ortowski, Director of Community Services Chris Tribble, Deputy Director of Community Services Kari Happold, Deputy Director of Community Services Kerry McGeath, Director of Finance Sharen Jackson, Director of Planning and Development Services Ken Baker, Director of Public Works Robert Price, Deputy Director of Public Works Gordon Mayer, and City Secretary Lori Payne. Agenda Item 1. Call to order. The Mayor called to order the joint meeting at 5:47 p.m. City Manager Yelverton made opening comments and discussed the meeting format and agenda. Agenda Item 2. Discussion: Current financial environment. Director Jackson provided the group with a detailed report on the finances of the Southlake Parks Development Corporation (SPDC). The presentation covered collections, debt and future fund availability. Joint City Council, Southlake Parks Development Corporation Board, and Parks and Recreation Board meeting - August 3, 2009 Page 1 of 3 Agenda Item 3. Discussion: 2005 Park, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan implementation. Assistant City Manager Thatcher presented the City's strategy map and discussed the Strategic Management System. Assistant City Manager Blagg reviewed the most recent citizen's survey, specifically the park-related responses and the areas needing improvement. The group discussed the survey results. Director Tribble presented information on the existing Master Plan including project priorities and addressed questions. The group discussed the Master Plan components. Director Price presented the pathway plan implementation status and addressed questions. The group discussed the various pathways presented. Director Tribble reviewed other projects including Safety Town, the Matching Fund Program and Joint Use. The group discussed these other projects. Agenda Item 4A. Executive Session. Mayor Terrell called for an executive session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, Section 551.072. Executive Session began at 7:22 p.m. and ended at 8:06 p.m. Mayor Terrell called for a break at 8:06 p.m. Agenda Item 4B. Reconvene: Mayor Terrell reconvened the meeting at 8:27 p.m. and asked if there was any action necessary on items discussed in Executive Session. No action was necessary. Agenda Item 5. Discussion: Project profiles. Director Tribble reviewed each of the SPDC Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) including a project profile, a map of the area, a description of each project and the estimated costs. Director Tribble answered questions from the group. Agenda Item 6. Discussion: Capital Improvement Project priorities (FY 2010-2014). Director Baker conducted a group ranking exercise of the five-year CIP. The group ranked the projects in the following manner: 1. Multipurpose Facility 2. Bicentennial Park Phase I (Development) 3. . North Park (Design and Development) 4. Safety Town Park 5. Land Acquisition 6. Pathways 7. Bicentennial Park Phase III (Design and Development) 8. Community Services Matching Funds 9A. Bicentennial Park Phase II (Design and Development) 9B. Bob Jones Park - North Playground Improvements Joint City Council, Southlake Parks Development Corporation Board, and Parks and Recreation Board meeting - August 3, 2009 Page 2 of 3 } s Agenda Item No. 7. Adjournment. There was no action taken at this meeting. Mayor Terrell adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. JCarolyn Mor s Southlake arks Development Corporation President John locum Park and Recreation Board President ATTEST: t Lori Payne City Secretary *An audio recording of this meeting will be permanently retained in the City Secretary's Office. Joint City Council, Southlake Parks Development Corporation Board, and Parks and Recreation Board meeting - August 3, 2009 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SOUTH LADE TEXAS AGENDA NOTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL, SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING: AUGUST 3, 2009 LOCATION: Timarron Bent Creek Clubhouse 1250 Bent Creek Drive Southlake, Texas 76092 TIME: 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. 1. Call to order. 2. Discussion: Current financial environment The purpose of this item is to provide the group a detailed report on the finances of the Southlake Park Development Corporation. Our presentation will cover collections, debt and future fund availability. This will be a fairly detailed presentation, but we want you to have a good understanding of the half-cent sales tax and its use for park and other purposes as we move toward a discussion to prioritize projects. Contact Sharen Jackson with questions on this item. 3. Discussion: 2005 Park, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan implementation This item has been placed on the agenda so that everyone will understand the background, survey data, project priorities and other information that has been used to set capital improvement program priorities since 2005. Note that this plan is an element of the Southlake 2025 plan. Although we are beginning preparation of the Southlake 2030 plan and we recognize that priorities may change we feel it is important to go ahead and base your budget priorities on the currently adopted master plan. Contact Chris Tribble with questions on this item. 4. A. Executive Session: Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.073, 551.074, 551.076, 551.087, 418.183(f), and 418.106(d) & (e). Refer to posted list attached hereto and incorporated herein. Executive Session may be held, under these exceptions, at any time during the meeting that a need arises for the City Council, Southlake Parks Development Corporation, and Parks and Recreation Board to seek advice from the City Attorney as to the posted subject matter of this meeting. City of Southlake values: Integrity ♦ Innovation ♦ Accountability ♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3, 2009 Page 2 of 5 1. Section 551.072: Deliberation regarding real property a. Discuss the potential purchase or lease of real property for city facilities. An Executive Session has been posted to give us an opportunity to visit with you about some opportunities for land acquisition prior to your discussion of priority funding for the CIP. B. Reconvene: Reconvene the meeting and take any action necessary on items discussed in Executive Session. 5. Discussion: Project profiles Each master plan priority (as well as other projects that have been discussed for possible inclusion in the CIP) has a project profile, complete with a map, description and estimated costs. We have developed a presentation that covers each project profile so that you will have a strong familiarity with the projects as we go through the prioritization process. Contact Chris Tribble with questions about this item. 6. Discussion: Capital Improvement Project priorities (FY 2010-2014) This is the most important item on the Joint Meeting agenda because this is where the City Council, SPDC and Park Board will interactively discuss the projects and their relative priority. We are planning an exercise that will lead us all to a better understanding of the budget priorities. Note that you will not be asked to vote on anything during the joint meeting. Our plan is to have the conversation, with the SPDC and Park Board coming together at a later date to finalize their budget recommendation. 7. Meeting adjourned. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at Town Hall, 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas, on Friday, July 31, 2009, by 6:00 p.m., pursua t to th Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. Lori Payne, TR City Secretary City of Southlake values: Integrity ♦ Innovation ♦ Accountability ♦ Commitment to Exc ence ♦ Teamwork City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3, 2009 Page 3of5 If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs, please advise the City Secretary's Office 48 hours in advance at 817-748-8016 and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. CONTACT PAGE Office Cell Ken Baker 748-8067 944-1991 Jim Blagg 748-8601 972-740-3519 Tara Brooks 748-8015 Dale Dean 748-8086 716-4438 Robert Finn 748-8168 999-7118 Kevin Hu man 748-8193 223-2607 Sharen Jackson 748-8042 980-1333 Dennis Killou h 748-8072 713-8709 Greg Last 748-8037 992-6156 Gordon Mayer 748-8089 214-535-1720 Kerry McGeath 748-8384 919-8486 Alison Ortowski 748-8261 940-736-7482 Lori Payne 748-8016 266-6390 Bob Price 748-8097 319-9057 Pilar Schank 748-8006 214-354-8276 Mike Starr 748-8106 940-390-6281 Ben Thatcher 748-8005 932-4616 Chris Tribble 748-8021 532-7016 Shana Yelverton 748-8001 999-0498 City of Southlake values: Integrity ♦ Innovation ♦ Accountability ♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3, 2009 Page 4 of 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION Section 551.071: Consultation with attorney The City Council may conduct a private consultation with its attorney when the City Council seeks the advice of its attorney concerning any item on this agenda, about pending and contemplated litigation, or a settlement offer, or on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Board of Texas clearly conflicts with Chapter 551. This includes the following pending and/or contemplated litigation subjects: 1. James Lancaster and wife, Catherine Lancaster vs. Gary M. Gordon d/b/a Gordon Taylor Custom Homes, Carleo A. Capili and wife, Regina Capili and John R. Griggs and wife, Sally Griggs, Jill T. Gordon, and City of Southlake. July 2004. 2. Michael Kenny vs. City of Southlake. April 2008. 3. Jayson Steele vs. City of Southlake. August 2008. Section 551.072: Deliberation regarding real property The City Council may conduct a closed meeting to deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property. Section 551.073: Deliberation regarding prospective gift or donation The City Council may conduct a closed meeting to deliberate a negotiated contract for a prospective gift or donation to the City. Section 551.074: Deliberation regarding personnel matters The City Council may deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of public officers, including the City Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, Municipal Judge and city boards and commission members. A complete list of the city boards and commissions is on file in the City Secretary's Office. Section 551.076: Deliberation regarding security devices The City Council may deliberate the deployment, or specific occasions for implementation of security personnel or devices. Section 551.087: Deliberation regarding economic development negotiations The City Council may discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information received from a business prospect that the city seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the city and which the City is conducting economic development negotiations; or to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect as described above. City of Southlake values: Integrity ♦ Innovation ♦ Accountability ♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork City of Southlake Joint City Council/SPDC/Parks and Recreation Board meeting August 3, 2009 Page 5 of 5 Section 418.183(f): Texas Disaster Act The City Council may deliberate information: 1) for purposes of preventing, investigating, or responding to an act of terrorism or related criminal activity and involving emergency response providers, their staffing, contact information and tactical plans; 2) that relates to the risk or vulnerability of persons or property, including infrastructure, to an act of terrorism; 3) that relates to the assembly of an explosive weapon, the location of a material that may be used in a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon, or unpublished information pertaining to vaccines or devices to detect biological agents or toxins; 4) that relates to details of the encryption codes or security keys for a public communication system; 5) that relates to a terrorism-related report to an agency of the United States; 6) that relates to technical details of particular vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to an act of terrorism; 7) that relates to information regarding security measures or security systems intended to protect public and private property from an act of terrorism. The Texas Disaster Act specifically requires that a tape recording of the closed meeting be made. Section 418.106(d) & (e): Local meetings to discuss emergency management plans regardinq pipeline safety The City Council may discuss emergency management plans involving pipeline safety and/or security of pipeline infrastructures or facilities when those plans or discussions contain such sensitive information. City of Southlake values: Integrity ♦ Innovation ♦ Accountability ♦ Commitment to Excellence ♦ Teamwork Agenda CITY OF Presentation SOUTH LADE U Financial Details - Current CIP Joint Meeting 2004 Parks Survey City Council Southlake Parks Development Corporation Master Plans and the Parks and Recreation Board • Parks: Design Priorities/ Criteria; Implementation/ Prioritization • Pathways System CIP Project Profile Project Priorities Exercise Notes 8/3/2009 SOUTHLAKE I Capital Improvement Program FY 2010 - FY 2014 A Joint Meeting of Integtiry Innovation Southlake City Council Accountability Southlake Park Development Corp. Commitment Southlake Park Board to Excellence Teamwork Meeting Purpose • Update City Council, SPDC, and Park Board on... - Current financial environment - Implementation of Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan and Trail System Master Plan; - Details related to identified projects for CIP funding I • Promote open discussion between groups about project priorities and funding options • Lay groundwork for future budget discussions ©SOUTHLAKE 1 8/3/2009 Meeting Agenda • Welcome & Introductions • Discussion: Current financial environment • Discussion: Park, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan implementation • Executive Session: Section 551.072: Deliberation regarding real property • Discussion: Project profiles • Discussion: CIP project priorities (FY 2010-2014) ®SOUTHLAKE I VOW Introductions ®SOUTHLAKE 16. I 2 8/3/2009 Discussion: Current SPDC financial environment • SPDC funding sources: - Half-cent sales tax - Rental income - Interest earnings t - • Budget structure: - Operating budget Y (Construction Manager, joint use projects, field equipment) - Capital budget (projects) • Other park funding sources - General Fund (trails) - Park Dedication Fees - Bicentennial Concessions - Strategic Initiative Fund ® SOUTHLAKE Sales tax collection trend Southlake Parks Development Corporation Sales Tax Collection Since Inception $5,000,000 $4,]40,858 $4,500,000 $4,339,989 $1, 37 $4,000,000 $3,972,753 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $3A~9,3ky328 $2,4]4,04652,5,39,860$2'¢6.1,.692 $2,9. x;700 $2,500,000 $2,340,426P $2,000,000 S1,edi,902 $1,500,000 $1,533,773 $1,260,929 $1,000,000 $738,354 $965,508 $500,000 $516,751 $173,116 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Collected + Estimated SOUTHLAKE I 3 8/3/2009 SPDC Fund "Fast Facts" • Revenues (all sources) total about $5 million annually • Collected $36,156,986 for park projects since tax adopted in 1994 • Limited operations expenses - capital project focus • Cash funding and debt for projects • Outstanding debt - $39,634,734 • Current fund balance = Approximately $10 million • Conservative planning - sales tax volatility ®SOUTHLAKE Available Debt Funding FY 2010-2014 FY 2010 $7,500,000 FY 2011 $ 3,100,000 FY 2012 $ 8,000,000 FY 2013 $110001000 FY 2014 $ 170007000 TOTAL $2076007000 ®SOUTHLAKE 4 8/3/2009 low SPDC Purpose Implementation of Southlake Park, Recreation, & Open Space Master Plan Trail System Master Plan ®SOUTHLAKE City of Southlake Strategy Map The City of Southlake provides municipal services that support the highest quality of Fulfill Our Mission life for our residents and businesses. this by delivering outstanding value and L unrivaled quality in everything that we do. Deliver on Our Safe Moty) Infrastructure Performance Management Quality Partnerships Focus Areas and Secty urity and Service Delivery Development) and Volunteensm Serve Our Customers Manage the Business Provide Financial Stewardship Promote Learning and Growth Live Our Core Values Integrity • Innovation • Accountability • Commitment to Excellence • Teamwork 5 8/3/2009 Citizen Survey Master L Plan 'A Executive Session Section 551.072: Deliberation regarding real property ®SOUTHLAKE 6 8/3/2009 Discussion: Proiect profiles ®SOUTHLAKE Discussion: CIP project priorities (FY 2010-2014) © SOUTHLAKE 7 8/3/2009 I SOUTHLAKE Conclusion & Wrap Up Thank you for Integrity Innovation your time! Accountability Commitment to Excellence Teamwork Hyperlink Slides ®SOUTHLAKE 8 8/3/2009 SPDC Project Funding 1994 - March 2009 ■ Bicentennial F . ❑ Bob Jones ❑ Neighborhood o Sports Complex 0 BJNC ❑ Sr Center ❑ Trails ® Joint Use ® Other ®SOUTHLAKE SPDC Bonds Principal and Interest Requirements Item Principal Interest TOTAL 1997 Refunding/Improvement Sales Tax $1,775,000 $678,668 $2,453,668 Revenue Bonds 1999-A Series Sales Tax Revenue Bonds $0 $0 $0 2000 Series Sales Tax Revenue Bonds $85,000 $67,033 $152,033 2001 Series Sales Tax Revenues Bonds $0 $0 $0 2001-A Series Junior Lien Revenue Bonds $0 $0 $0 2005 Series Taxable Sales Tax Revenue $370,000 $28,000 $398,000 Bonds 2005 Series Refunding/ Sales Tax Revenue $15,585,000 $6,896,778 $22,481,778 Bonds 2006 Sales Tax Subordinate Lien Revenue $3,925,000 $1,562,248 $5,487,248 Bonds 2009 Certificates of Obligation $5,915,000 $2,899,040 $8,814,040 NET SPDC DEBT SVC. REQUIREMENTS $27,570,000 $12,064,734 $39,634,734 p 1 9 8/3/2009 2004 User Survey • Random sample telephone survey • 600 participants • Looked at - Utilization - Overall satisfaction - Park preferences - Trail preferences • Provided recommendations e ®SOUTHLAKE Survey Results Utilization • Majority of Southlake residents utilized at least some aspect of the park or trail systems. • High utilization is influenced by three interdependent factors: age, children, and area of Southlake. a r i f v r tea= y ~f ~ . ®SOUTHLAKE 10 8/3/2009 Survey Results Satisfaction • Almost 9 in 10 Southlake residents report satisfaction with the quality of parks and recreation. • Areas of highest satisfaction include: - Park safety and maintenance - Quality of athletic and recreation facilities and programs. • The Southlake trail system represents the greatest opportunity for improvement. ®SOUTHLAKE Survey Results - Park Preferences • Survey respondents want: - More parks - Focus on trails, playgrounds, open areas • What about a recreation center? ® SOUTHLAKE 11 8/3/2009 Survey Results - Trail Preferences • Trail access is limited • Trail development is a top priority ®SOUTHLAKE Survey Results - Recommendations • Continue the outstanding work in maintaining facilities and programs. Southlake residents appreciate the care taken to create a safe, family friendly parks system. • Develop new trails, particularly in Areas 1 and 2. Increase or complete trails: - From neighborhoods to local destinations such as schools and parks. - In nature areas such as parks or along city creeks. • Because support for the proposed recreation center is not overwhelming: - Hold public meetings with residents to discuss the proposed recreation center. - Due to differing preferences, hold separate meetings for each of the three areas. In order to expand support for Southlake's parks system and better serve all citizens, consider programs to involve those residents currently less likely to utilize the park system, primarily older residents or those with no children. These might include age-appropriate classes, programs, or city events. 12 8/3/2009 Master Plan • Southlake Parks, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan • Southlake 2025 element • Adopted September 2005 • Identified project priorities • Update: Southlake 2030 ®SOUTHLAKE Project Priorities* Phase 1 (year 1) - 2005 - 2006 • Nature Center- Indoor priority #1 • Liberty Park at Sheltonwood Development- Outdoor priority #1 • Royal and Annie Smith Park Development - Outdoor priority #2 • Lacrosse Facility - Outdoor priority #3 • Land Acquisition (Community Park) - Outdoor priority #4 Phase 2 (year 2) - 2006 - 2007' • Noble Oaks Park Improvements y • Bob Jones Park Development • Bicentennial West Lighted Fields ` ) • Koalaty Park Improvements • Chesapeake Park Improvements - • BMX Bicycle Facility • Skate Park '21105 Parks, Recreation d Open Space Master Plan 13 8/3/2009 Or Project Priorities* (cont'd) Phase 3 (year 3) - 2007 - 2008 • Coker Hike/Bike Trailhead • Kirkwood l Sabre Linear Park uu' ` • Farhat Property Development • Sand Volleyball Courts ` Phase 4 (year 4) - 2008 - 2009 • Recreation Center • Park Maintenance Facility Phase 5 (year 5) - 2009 - 2010 • Community Center- Park Department Offices • Bob Jones Park - Southern Playground • Bicentennial Park Drainage l Pond Development '2005 Parks, Recreabon & Open Space Master Plan Bicentennial Park Amendment • Consolidated improvements into phased overhaul • Adopted February 6, 2007 3 - Elm . 14 8/3/2009 Southlake Pathways Plan (Trail System Master Plan) • Interconnected system of corridors for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians for both transportation and recreation. • Priorities - Safe travel to schools & parks - Connect neighborhoods, - Connections to trail networks • Complimentary sidewalk plan Existing, Planned, and Proposed Trail System Map ae.+arnreas qq - , _ _ _ msrrrrrmm ~ _pl_ fm„us rmywtsaea . ,~9 '4 Southlake Pathways Plan 2005 Update 15 8/3/2009 r Pathway Priorities • School Connectors - Shady Oaks School Route - N. Peytonville from Dove to S'Ridge Lakes - E. Dove Road Pathway - North Carroll Avenue Schools Pathway - Byron Nelson Crossing Upgrades - S. Carroll Avenue Pathway - N. 4 Shady Walkway 1" - S. Peytonville Pathway - Carroll HS Walkway u_ - N. Pearson Lane Walkway Pathway Priorities • Park Connectors - North White Chapel Blvd. Pathway - Oak Pointe/Estes Park Infill - Union Church Walkway - North Kimball Walkway • Neighborhood Connectors - East Dove Road Pathway (east link) - East Dove Creek Greenway Trail - Continental In-fill 16 8/3/2009 Pathway Priorities • Intercity Connectors - Brumlow Connector - Kimball Walkway - Meadowmere Park West Entrance Park Plan Implementation Status October 2005 - Present Item Projected Cost Investment Status Nature Center (and $0 $1,018,737 05 Facility constructed cost only Preserve) Land Acquisition - prior to 2005 Liberty Park at $1,192,000 $755,549.57 Under construction (90%complete) - Sheltonwood note supplementing budget with park dedication fees. Royal & Annie Smith Park $367,000 $348,625.40 Under construction (90% complete) Lacrosse Facility $6,224,214 $1,487,214.00 Reflects reimbursement to CCPD - FY '09 and FY'10 for property. Design underway -funds allocated for construction in budget. Land Acquisition $1,150,000 $1,095,917.65 Miles purchased (Community Park) Fretwell pending Noble Oaks Park $52,000 163,000 Phase 1 complete Improvements Phase 2 planned for late 2009 Bob Jones Park $375,000 $518,475.94 Including Boo Boo's Buddies dog park Development Bicentennial -West $0 $0 = a enten a Lighted Fields 17 8/3/2009 Park Plan Implementation Status October 2005 - Present Item Projected Cost Investment Status Koalaty Park $168,000 Included in 5 Year CIP Chesapeake Park $286,000 Included in 5 Year CIP BMX Bicycle Facility $0 $0 Removed from CIP during FY 2009 budget process Skate Park $0 $0 Removed from CIP during FY 2009 budget process Coker Hike/Bike $113,000 Included in 5 Year CIP Trailhead Kirkwood/Sabre $366,000 Included in 5 Year CIP Linear Park Farhat Property $440,000 Included in 5 Year CIP Development Sand Volleyball Court $0 $0 See consoi:oated Bicenter,nie~ Park item and note arnendmen! 7a MF1 Park Plan Implementation Status October 2005 - Present Item Projected Cost Investment Status Recreation Center $10,000,000 $2,000,000 Sinking fund established through SIP in 2008 Park Maintenance Facility $TBD Community Center - Park s=~ Department Offices 31 r ] VIP Bob Jones Park - Southern $90,020.13 Matching grant to SGSA for Playground playground and shade structures Bicentennial Park Drainage - oaten B :.e:,:ermal Pa Pond Development e. arc ODIC- tc MP Bicentennial Par" &4_992.389 $1.137.610 6-1 Press ~onsirurucn uneerma~ - Redevelcpme;- 'Council-approved redevelop- ment plans - February 2007 18 8/3/2009 Pathway Plan Implementation Status October 2005 - Present Item Projected Cost Status Shady Oaks School Route $ 235,100 Planned-5' Complete-Coventry to 100' south of Shady Oaks entrance (Sherwood Drive); 4' Complete- Durham Elem to Love Henry Ct.; 8' Complete along Bicentennial Park to FM 1709 N. Peytonville (Dove to $ 396,500 Proposed Southridge Lakes) East Dove Road Pathway $ 528,000 Designed- Existing sections include 10' walk (west link) @ SH114, 6'@ Kirkwood Hollow, 6' walk @ Estes Park 1&4, 6'@ CMS N. Carroll Ave. Schools $ 1,052,000 Planned/Programmed - Existing section Pathway includes 4' walk from Taylor to Burney Byron Nelson Crossing $ 29,000 Programmed Upgrades S. Carroll Ave. Pathway $ 506,900 Under Construction North Shady Walkway $422,400 Planned S. Peytonville Pathway $ 570,300 Planned Pathway Plan Implementation Status October 2005 - Present Item Projected Cost Status Carroll HS Walkway $ 591,400 Under Design with White Chapel FM1709 to SH114 - Existing sections include 6' walk @ Tom Thumb Center, Bicentennial Park, & Carroll HS N. Pearson Lane Walkway $ 475,200 Planned N. White Chapel Blvd. $ 1,098,300 Programmed - Existing section includes 8' Pathway walk @ Cliffs of Clariden Oak Pointe/Estes Park Infill $ 475,200 Building w/ each house - Existing 6' walks complete in Phase 1, 2, & 3, 75% in Phase 4 Union Church Walkway $310,500 Planned- Built along Siena and Chesapeake Park only North Kimball Walkway $209,100 Planned- 4'-6' walk only in Grapevine from Dove to Trail Lake E. Dove Road Pathway (east $528,000 Planned- Existing section includes 6' walk @ link) Lakes on Dove E. Dove Creek Greenway Trail $ 350,600 Planned 19 8/3/2009 Pathway Plan Implementation Status October 2005 - Present Item Projected Cost Status Continental In-fill $ 256,000 Planned-8' Complete Continental to Crooked Lane; 8' Complete S. Hollow to West side of Old Union CISD site; Breezeway to Sarah Park; Remaining sidewalk complete south side west to west side of Country Walk. Brumlow Connector $ 288,000 Planned - 8' complete from Carroll/Continental roundabout south to south end of Timarron- Warwick Green Kimball Walkway $ 433,600 Planned/Proposed/Programmed in North Kimball Roadway Improvements Project - Existing section includes 6' walk from FM1709 to Continental Meadowmere Park West $150,000 Planned - No existing walks Entrance Other Projects • Safety Town • Matching Fund Program • Joint Use ©SOUTHLAKE 20 8/3/2009 Results! • Nature Center - Complete • Liberty Park at Sheltonwood - 90% Complete • Royal & Annie Smith Park - 90% Complete • Multi-Purpose Facility - Design Underway • Noble Oaks Park Improvements - Phase 1 Complete & Phase 2 Planned for late 2009 • Bob Jones Park Development - 99% Complete • Bicentennial Park Improvements - Phase 1 Sept 2009 • Significant pathway investment and construction ®SOUTHLAKE 21 0 Z O O v ~ N O .Z1 O m c ' O m CL ° (O co V 0 Ln A W N CD it O c W cn cn cn cn cn 3 13 N ~ (n cn CD p p p 0 -u p p -u D m ~D C CD 0 n n n C7 C7 n C7 C7 n d r pr pr p~ ~Z -0 Z m -n 0QOm 90w cn C Q (D 6 m Q (D O S O S O C O O -1 -n Co. ~ a~ N N a)i VOi - (D p_ 3 3 p N p N . CD CD m om -o -o N m c mCD m mm m som 3v 3v 3a > m ~.o o O v 3 W v = p cn -V CD CD m CD m O CA m v 01, m v i m (n' X, m m _ _ _ = 0 g 3- (D- m- (D3 T m m (D D O - O O 90 90 S y =-0 3 Z S 3 o 00o Do D~ 0 ~ m (n O 3 = a 0a a N N = 0 *C (D rt m w cu 0 0 m n m 3 3 m ° C p O CD CD m CD (A N U3 = O 69 69 IA -69 1 fA 69 69 fA 69 69 m A O v O O , V O = O O fA E9 69 69 fA 69 fA 69 a 3 0 N 0) N Co N N O .0. Ln , o O CT , O O O , O co n -n CD fA 69 69 69 EA 69 fA fA 63 {A C 7'I (n v N O N) 0 CL Q C) C) 13 C 0 fA -69 fA 69 I 69 fA 69 69 fA fA -n m E; A ' W N a 0 -(D CT ' ' ' i O ~0 3 O O C) 10 69 69 69 fA 69 69 fA 69 fA 69 - (D ~ A ._C. IV 0) N 0 ° CA 3 fA fA 69 69 fA 69 4.9 69 y~ O (D N 3 N -4 C O O N b9 69 EA fA fA fA 69 EA fA fA -n _C IV N U) O N O O n 19 c W = 69 69 fA EA -CA 69 fA fA O a fA ~ N m ~ W N O 3 cn O cn o a -n w w 69 69 69 6A v+ 4A fA 69 < J J A J j ' A W W N W N 0 A (n A N O O V O O O) tr O O V (n Ch CD O N rt . 3 T 'W a -V avor) ~c = 0 m 6.9M7, o TS0(o o o m D ° m0 (D N sfAp O s m-4 = w= m v c v, p) c m sv ° m S N - d S= m m= 0m m 2 N m= Q CD (D < o :3 :3 (Do n y fl c N a (n' (A is N m n (D c = S o (n 71 p) m CO m y v c ~c c = = Iv o c < m o n m - ° c = (D -4 ° m (D CD _ O cc 3 a m 3 N° _Q m a? c -.0 co 3 a n co ° m~ D o m w o N C 0 m o- v m 3.~ m 0 x~ y co m m C) ° N v m p p M , 0 c a ° m° O o?° p N p) o 0 m d o 3 m° O < N_. fA S fl1 a f') m O 0' (D O= 0• (D 7 2 n 6~7 = a . d 3 0 7 c (D 0 n C N m . -a N3 o v a ~ 0-0-a m< ~..0 m< a=m o a 3° 9<~ o a (n > om W O 7 S N O v, CD = p c N fA t~ = m -O _ N• = p (o (D (D n" N 0 y cn a) :3 - a) C) r CD CL CL CD it 3 II CD° 'c0 N< C< n d W -°O ~ -V y S ,y0 C m m 0 p-n m cu 0 (7' (p O = (D (D (D O 3 -4 CL cL y 3 j° 7 S co 7 y c (p' 3 K Q p) C (D CL N - N) CD (o W p N a p f0 p' O = 0 C 0 0 ° O o° :3 O N C m(n a 6) :3 N X m CL-0 o o 0~ R :E :3 3 f~0 n.co °00.0 ° 3 nCDD iA Q.a y > 7 mop (n 3 N O fA m m (D CD N O CD A S O (D S -0 (D (D = !u G_ m 7" N M C n (D 'O O A o N = (A '0 -w _ 7 O N N n (O (n fA ° 7c N O m N O O (D (D , (D o m U'<o O- o,' r0cn °oom <?m3°o v, <COo 3 ° ~~o Om m =•o.o o- j Q,~ o 0 m 0, m m° o o ~ 3 m m- X~ v o CL o N C) 0 = r Co ;o (o an d O O. 0 N N 3 x o o a Vic- C v C) w = d 0' o O 0 II N 7• - O S C U) O m (n= m 7 V) (<D (0 7' < S .n d N a N N O O 69 D _ 0 -0 ; ~ N ~ O ~ a) N EA-a N p) CC ccDD 3 ? ~ -O (D -0 0) (O :3 (O 3 o -0 D a (D a j 0 "0 O N N -0 O- N C- 7 0 N -0 T N (D j U' (D (D N a w O Q) U) = O 0) o Cn U) N 2) C7 0 M. 0 X 0 (D < 7 7 • C) CL= O a Q' p) N (p 0 - p y n C CD N a S 3 (E)? ° m m O m° v x a D - 0 m o o m o a x m c (n d (D o ° CO v_ 0 :E ° S n d = :3 _ (A o n N m (D C -0 0 (Q -0 'D 0 3 C = a) M a) N 0) ( (D N y G m N 3 m A - n (n N' (D N _O O 0 W O (D a 3 (D (D = < 7 m =r (a (D D CD 7 W CL N C co Q' N. N TI o- O O CD = 3 0 = cn = a) IV =3 ai _ mo s CD no o v ? Oo < a O~-5 < 0 CD a o~_ o' O fD j m (Q CO A m o d< m m 69 0° c) S m 3 m °o ~ (o 3 y~ m Zr N~ (fin m ~ n n m• a- o n w o cn Q m (D (o - Co (WTl ° :E 3 m v :3 l< :D 3 < 3 . =r CD C 0 o-, CD o m a a - c y =r m o =0 . y a (r j o p° o -0 cz o o a -0 (D (n m m m° a S a m c O o r o= CO :3 W ° n (O o fA EA 3° o< m 3 O < 3 n ° (n ° m a c< c N O] 7 (n N m O O" 0• N CD O 7" ° 0 = O O• (n m m :3 :3 e m O W v W c m< cu N=< a j v a o= m m 3 3° N O 0 N 0 = CD m• a << _ n• N" 0? 61" n N n'm 69 3 7 j (7 p. cc - cc - CD cn (D N (D -n 3 0 O O n• c(n 69 w -0 n C m m a en-0 c D) w n 4) n = CI 0 C C CD y. = y (nD N N -0 N 0) ° (D N N O n .y. co - co - -0 0 0 CD CD .0. _ N 0 a (n 0) y v Q= ° O 0 C .c d (D 5" 7" (D d 7 d _ (n a j O a a (D a - N" a w fA 69 69 69 fA H9 fA 6W 69 EA CD 0 CL n co 3 -n i w N O O O O O O O O 0) D1 0 0 (D to to (o -co - -C) (°O O O O O U) L71 CA U1 C°T( (n < C O O O O O O m O ccnn ~JD 7 '-J • o a O (0 Co V (J) Cn A W N C) C) n C) C) n n n n n ° U) U) Cn Cn (n Cl) (n U) (n Cn U) Cn Cn Cn U) Cn Cn Cn (f) Cn T a v v o v _u v -o c 0 O O 0 0 0 m C) n C7 n n n n n n n n CO) Um C) C) z Cn00 T ;o Co -V W ;u C ° CD o 7' o =T O m C o = °o CS CL C) it (D Cr m Cr - Q• Cr 0) C) (D.< r CD CD C_ 0) Cr C_ ~ j m Cr 0 0) (D O _S U 0 7 7 CD 7 m y m p n CD m 0) CD - N O D p 7 90 CD X N 0 Cn CD m y O CL U) CD 0) 'a 0) CD Cf) a) CD m T ° CD n~i m < X < c 7~c D N c<D O CD FD (D Zt o r 7c O , Z is -0 U) 0 cc o CD CD o ° ~ f N~ N 4 m o o = o ° =r 3 S 3 0 < CD -0 T < m CD 3 CD M ° n 3 CD CD u 3 =r it CD >r CD m o o o N CD y y C C y - a a 64 to 69 fo fo to 69 fo to w M. C) N O (n W O. O V 69 69 ffl 69 fo to 69 fA { 69 T ~ N O C) 0) O 00 O (n w Eft fo to 6A 69 fo 6A 69 fo to T V N O N O N) N Eq 69 to to 69 to 69 69 69 69 69 -n w N 00 N O O) A C? C) VI O Erg 69 6A to 69 to 69 6A fo fo fp T A N Co O V 69 69 to to 69 to 6A 69 fo fo 69 T V O N O 0 O N 69 69 69 to fo 69 6A 69 fo fo 469 T N N 14 _P6 01 O COJI W 6q to fo to to fo fo 69 60 69 fo W m N C>o < 7 O O N N Cl fA to fo fo fo fo to fo V! A 00 "i _ O CD O W i bt w O W O ONE to A O to CA W N O N N O N CA O (A O V Q) 70 2 m n C7 ° io CD T y) m -U U) Cr y^) v (T -0 m m (P:) o. G7 0 to C Eo (n C) ° Cn CD ET -U M CD - :3 ° Co o A C- c j 3 OV 7 CCDD m 7 W N O. ° (03 y Co p' 7 0' 7 y O fo _7 < V O m j> 7 m N. 7 N CD kA `Z n ] C Cn 0) : C) - C 0) C W • "O CD N O ~ u ((D N Cn (n C) CD U N O ° M O N ° (D 0) m C A m W M a L cn ? m - m - CD O O Q) O m O C) G 7 n CD CL] ,0.. m o m fD p 'D O O 7 (O (a O0 CD 7 n M C:) 7 ~ (n En 'y" N 'O O N O (n (OD N n 3 N ~ (o n M aCD v ai (n cn (n ow a- 00) m 3 a m a N a 0) o m o ° m ~ ~~co > > (D o n° CD 0 r ~ (D --15' -(on o~ ° y - v~ a ° n 3. ~ ..w(n ~~M 0 o j In f) C n - a j ° m N M Z• CD A n O o fL) j .y. j Co W O O (1 (Q Cn n CD (<-D 7 O cp CY' 0 m m C S N Q C) A 7 f7 v CD Cn CID - Q- C CD n O O CD O O. (D < C v O < v°< D= (D CD a - CD CD (D y n c o' fo o -o. 3 m m m CD O fo 5' g N c C) m -cc 3 (D v w 3 3 0 ' -u) -0 7C n 0 3 3 (n 3 C A ° o c M CD 0 T 0 7 (D 1G pnj O CD 0• < O j y m CO fL] 7 Cn N 69 U) (D m O N W 7 y O U) N 'o 7 (D in -0 CD ° 3 CD o ° o.y ~m 3 v 3 y ° 0 ?3C) may a, (cn o a°o °~C -0oo, m m CD C Eo Eo (D a C S z y c 7 N C 7 O a (D o CD < O m m w p O CD cn m CD 7 S3 3 N r N y m O 0 7 CD --0 7 N N) ~ O' N CL C O n m N y~~ l 0 C7 0 n ~ c~ d m~ M C y 'Cn v W U) Q (\I 69 O 7 a. ° C) :T N > O p O in o m O p m O 3 m m n CD 7 (D O N O O CO m 3 s m 7c d CA a C) N ONO > Co y .y. tWo N 0) y n Eo (D CL (D n^ 0 _S ? d 69 ;:w n' m 69 CD 7 7' (n CD O A CD ,3 p O CD Q) W 7 CJ) CD II n (n 69 y a) y CD C) 3 2 S N =r c II m (p ' ° ~ N Can cJl ' p O ^ y cmn C 00 p) CD m 3 7 CD C CD 0 C c n 7 fo (D =r (D N (D y m - m CS ° c O' O n _ 7 (n ' N II O 0(n 0 C) Cn m n O fn N O 3 p y-. = n O Q O n Cn U) * S n 7 y C) ° y ~ 0 0 m o c • 'o > r: (D m ° (S ° d C) m CD CD CO n o a a N 0 7 Cnp m ° _Q W n• o 0 11 n n. 0 (D 3' c n 3' p) (a CD' ° CD O (O 0 Q° N a n m ~ =r O 7 O cn O (D 7 :3 p) n p) (D (n a CD C N ~ . ° O CD 7c ° 3 CL C 3 CD (9 m n-. 7 O W ° CD 7' O CD ^ O (a - CD O (O 5 M. m N 0-0 O 7 m m O (D j (p O c) Eo • CD v) = (D < w m O 7' •p c) =3 CC] m, n _ Cn Z -0 Lyl O (n U) 8 U) O K CD n a T fD p m 7 U m S V C C) 47 CJl 7 =r 7 7 c N CD C N m< 7< O C m noy cn3'3 N3 oC (n U3 .Cn C) ocan ny 7-0 Ch (n 0 _ N O' 3 m y (D A m ? CO C ls) -O i 0 CD 3 (a o C C o v C CL W O n n CD c C Cn CD M- ;:w y. r CD m y o o 0) CD - Fn J- 7 " AO < o o CD o `G o CCDD j O N to o o UCD (n :3 O- " n m `G 3 m O to N C a fD 3 y (ci) (D n o O (D CD' m 7 cn y M O a m CD - C) 'O m O a -o o CT m 3 0 3 (cn y c Ln cn m o cn N v y m o v T y CD to CD S- m n (D CD =r O to 7 6A CD - 7c O fA w0 a Co Cn 7 D• 0 3. 1< LVI m N mcna) m (M CD c a p m 7(n N CD a CD o n WO n N 7 m 0 V° -0 (S j 69 70 -0 < p- y 0 n p nOO 7'7 Op a 3 n CD CN (D 3(° ° y)(r < .mom. 3 O N (_C TdC7y Ov C O (n . CD o 3 (D n c\ CD p Cn O CD (n (D o o 7c o m Cn C_ (p' m 3 7 (n (°O pn-j• CD O< 7 C U) p C) 3 7c m m to O O w O' O' O n 7-0 a, m Wig?. > =3 0. 0 dD Cn 5° a' m(o o'~ < N ° n n C m :(1 0) C d 7 CD' (D 'c_\'. E O _ o C) ) Eo cn a C Eo Z7 ,mom., N S :D ? (D' CD (7 N (D N 3 0= CD (D (D O~ y~ m W 0"o n C) 0) O C CD C N N y m j' m~ O 3 n CD v 0 7 p 7 CD p (n 0 a O) CL O c 3 (0 ] 7 j CD -0 7 (n M C CD' CD O N• 'O ch O C N o CD O T n n O m + cn m 7 CA CD y ~ N O~ `G a' n < C) n CD N O C) vmi 0 °O n C v O X w y m A ( m y n (n C= y m ° 0 r :3. ° y 0 ° (n m CD ° o O CD Z ° ° o m CD C) CD to 69 fo 69 to to fo Eo fo fo c 3 -n C N V V V V V O CA CA O O O r 0 C) 0 0 Co CD (0 Co O < CO N 0 N N N 0 (n (P Cn O 0 0 O O m :i1 .:s ~ = DedsionAnalyst r~ of Southlake Community Services Study # 02004-0494 2004 November • TABLE OF CONTENTS Background and Objectives 3 Methodology 4 Executive Summary 6 Detailed Findings 14 • Park, Trail, and Recreation Usage 15 o Overall Satisfaction 19 • Parks Master Plan Development 30 o Trail System Master Plan Development 34 o Respondent Profile 37 'As :aaridmAna 1 AIM& 'BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The City of Southlake, Texas plans to soon update its Parks Master Plan and Trail System Master Plan. In advance of this effort the City decided to survey a representative portion of its residents in order to get their opinions regarding the City's parks, recreation, open space, and trail system needs. The main objectives of this research were to: Determine current usage levels of parks, trails, and recreation facilities. Identify areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with current parks, trails, and recreation facilities; and identify needs not currently being met. Gain insights into park, trail, and recreation development preferences. tt _ ea.oa necidat B F_ METHODOLOGY outhlll Decision Analyst managed a telephone survey among 600 Southlake residents. The sample was pulled from a list of published telephone numbers of Southlake residents and supplemented with a random-digit dial (RDD) sample from Southlake zip codes. Quotas were set by geographic area as follows: o Areal: North of Highway 114 Area 2: North of FM 1709 but south of Highway 114 o Area 3: South of FM 1709 Throughout the report these areas are referred to as Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3. .M' DCCL9pl 2 METHODOLOGY Quotas were set so that 60% of the respondents were female and 40% were male. e• Telephone interviews were conducted from October 11 through October 21, 2004. Average length of the interviews was 14.5 minutes. :y s 2,W4,4~4 ' .M~ Q9CIS10I1 . . NON- Ni Ye i :M' Dedd nAIM 3 The majority of Southlake residents utilize at least some aspect of the park or trail systems. In the past 12 months, 80% visited a city park or park facility. 74% participated in a city event. 56% visited an athletic field or gym. 54% utilized bike or pedestrian paths. ❖ High utilization is influenced by three interdependent factors: age, children, and area of Southlake. Younger residents and those with children are more likely to take advantage of Southlake's parks, trails, and recreation services. Area 3 (southern) residents, in general, have higher utilization levels compared to other residents. They also tend to be younger and more likely to have children at home. .M'' QMI3T0/1 OVERALL SATISFACTION Almost 9 in 10 Southlake residents report satisfaction with the quality of parks and recreation. Areas of highest satisfaction include Park safety and maintenance Quality of athletic and recreation facilities and programs. The Southlake trail system represents the greatest opportunity for improvement. Residents report only moderate satisfaction with the quality and availability of hike and bike trails. Almost 2 out of 5 residents report that no trails are available in their neighborhood. Area 3 (southern) residents report the greatest access to trails. 4 PARK PREFERENCES -Southlake residents are quite satisfied with the parks system. However, they indicated opportunities for improvement. o Increase availability of park facilities, including athletic fields and gyms. Focus new park development to include multi-use trails, playgrounds, and open grassy areas. ❖ The proposed recreation center is a more popular idea than neighborhood park development-, however, support is not overwhelming. Almost half of residents prefer the proposed recreation center, but over one-third are more interested in the completion of neighborhood parks. Almost 1 out of 5 residents care for neither option or have no opinion. _ t_7y p 2004-045- :a Q~a~on PARK PREFERENCES • ❖ Overall, Southlake residents consider the proposed recreation center to be the highest priority in park development. This is particularly true for the following segments: Residents living in Areas 1 (north) and 3 (south) Those with children Females Residents more likely to prefer the completion of neighborhood parks include: Residents living in Area 2 (south of Highway 114 but north of FM 1709) Those with no children living at home Residents age 56 or older Males yx_oaa-G4_4 n Daivon 5 TRAIL PREFEREM, • Trail access is limited. Almost 2 out of 5 Southlake residents report no access to neighborhood trails and dissatisfaction with trail quality and availability. Area 3 (southern) residents report the greatest access to neighborhood trails. Trail development is a top priority. Residents name trails and sidewalks as their top need. Residents expect new trails to be accessible from their neighborhood to local areas such as parks, schools, and shopping. Scenic trails through nature areas or along city creeks are also highly desirable. RECOMMENDATIONS Ot-h1al Continue the outstanding work in maintaining facilities and programs. Southlake residents appreciate the care taken to create a safe, family friendly parks system. ❖ Develop new trails, particularly in Areas 1 and 2. Increase or complete trails: From neighborhoods to local destinations such as schools and parks. In nature areas such as parks or along city creeks. Because support for the proposed recreation center is not overwhelming: Hold public meetings with residents to discuss the proposed recreation center. Due to differing preferences, hold separate meetings for each of the three areas. :Ir DK157011 J 6 RECOMMENDATIONS • ❖ In order to expand support for Southlake's parks system and better serve all citizens, consider programs to involve those residents currently less likely to utilize the park system, primarily older residents or those with no children. These might include age-appropriate classes, programs, or city events. Study # 2(,, -V k .VDedsimAndym 7 A ~s• 4p 9~ c CURRENT UTILIZATION • Southlake residents are most likely to utilize their city parks and participate in city events. Utilization is highest among younger residents and those with children living at home. Percent Responding Yes With Children No Children Visited city park 80% 89% 62% Participated in city event 74% 81% 58% Visited a@iletic fieldigym 56% 71% 24% Utilized bike/pedestrian path 58% 46% Participated in CS class/program 30% 36% 15% Signed up for city recreation class 25% 33% 7% 0% 19% 21% Visited a retire Carter P7% Utilized horseback 7 % 6 riding trail 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 05 "In the past 12 months, have you or has anyone in your household Total Bass= 600, W th Children = 402, No Children = 183 ,`2# qa QBCL90M 8 PARTICIPATION IN PARK ACTIVITIES When visiting a park, the majority of Southlake residents prefer to walk or hike, let their children play, or participate in organized sports. Those with children are most likely to participate in park activities. Residents of Area 3 are significantly more likely (58%) to participate in organized sports compared to other residents. Top Park Activities With Children No Children Walk/Hike 66% 71% 57% Kids play 53% 66% 24% Organized sports 51 % 68% 14% R WJog 47% 54% 32% Ride bike 46% 56% 26% Walk annals 39% 41% 34% Norrorganized sports 38% 46% 22% picnic 37% 43% 26% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 06. Which of the following activities do you and your family generally participate in when you go to the park?" Total Base = 600; with Children = 402, No Children = 183 Study # 2004-0494 1' ,cT1 Daddan RECREATION/SPORTS ACTIVITIES • Very few Southlake residents report problems with the availability of their favorite sport or recreation activity. Of those who did, biking and golf were cited most often as being unavailable. Top 10 Recreational/Sports Activities and Availability in Southlake Total Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Top Not Top Not Top Not Top Not Activities Available Activities Available Activities Available Activities Available Soccer 28% 1% 26% 2% 23% 0% 32% 2% W Inn 22% 2% 23% 2% 23% 2% 21% 3% Baseball 20% 2% 20% 4% 18% 2% 21% 1% Basketball 19% 2% 15% 0% 15% 2% 23% 2% Tennis 18% 1% 23% 4% 17% 1% 17% 0% Biking 17% 8% 19% 8% 14% 8% 17% 5% Running/Jogging 14% 2% 12% 4% 13% 2% 15% 1% Football/Touchfootball 13% 1% 12% 2% 9% 1% 16% o% Swimming 13% 1% 11% 1% 10% 1% 15% 0% Golf 12% 5% 7% 2% 7% 4% 16% 5% Q31Q4 'Please tell me the recreational activities or sports in which you and others in your household participate the most"/ "Of the activities you just mentioned, which, if any, are not available for your household in Southlake?" Total Base= 6001530, Areal = 1201101 Area 2 = 1801152; Area 3 = 300/277 Y1 :.H ~[QS7al1 9 a ~lCl.Vdr1 OVERALL SATISFACTION • Almost 9 in 10 Southlake residents report satisfaction with the quality of parks and recreation. Younger residents (age 35 or less) report the highest level of overall satisfaction. Total Residents Satisfaction by Age 100% 95% 88% 87% 88% 80% 60% 71% 53% )58% 63% 40% ❑ Satisfied Don't Knout 20% refused ■ Very 4% Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissalisfie 0% 1 % 7% 35 or 36-45 46-55 56+ under Q1 'How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of parks and recreation?' Total Base= 600, 35 or under = 41*, 36-45= 236, 46-55 = 222; 56+ = 90' 'Caution Small base size - .-Na QK1R0/1 10 *WIN ASlightly . more than half of Southlake residents would tell a friend that they like the park system overall. Fewer than 1 in 10 residents feel that the park system needs improvement. Overall Responses Like overall park system 51% Like activities, programs, and facilities 24% Park system needs improvement 8% Converrent/Accessible 8% FuVFamiyfriendy/CMldrerfsactivities 7% Like safety/maintenance 7% Trail system needs improvement 7% Like sports programstfacilities 5% 0% 200/6 4096 60% 80% 100% Q7-. "If a fiend were considering moving to Southlake, what would you tell them about the City's parks, trails, and recreation programs? , Total Base = 511 i~ Jy # 200a.G4a 3 r DanWm OVERALL SATISFACTION When probed further for positive park attributes, residents most mention activities, programs, and facilities. Park safety and maintenance are also regarded favorably. Additional Positive Responses Like activities, programs, and facilities 18% 5% Like safety/maintenance f6% Like overall park system % FWFamiyfriendy/CYrkirensactivities Cornertert/Accessible Like sports programs/facilities 0% 20% 40 % 60% 80% 100% Q7 Wh t dditi I positive aspects, ,f any, about Southlake's parks system would you tell a friend?" Total Base 514 - # Dtcidan 11 OVERALL ♦ 1 Examples of Some Positive Resident Responses I think it's one of the finest systems of anywhere we've ever lived. It's safe and a very healthy environment for everyone." "I'd say that the parks have everything, a large variety of things that interest everyone in the family." "We have all these nice things that are available to us. It is family oriented and I would want my friend to know what is available. We enjoy Southlake. It is a wonderful place to raise a family." "The parks department is very good about notifying parents about the calendar activities. The communication is excellent." Q7a.'What additional positive aspects,if any, about Southlake's parks system would you tell a friend?" DaisilmAnofyM OVERALL ♦ ♦ • When probed further for negative aspects about the parks system, close to 3 out of 5 had nothing to say. Specific suggestions include increasing programs and facilities (including athletic) and improving the trail system. Additional Negative Responses Park system needs improvement 10% 9 Improve/hcrease programs and facilities % Trail system needs improvement 9% Improve/Increase athletic facilifies/programs 6% Not convenient/accessible 4% No suggestionslrlegative comments 57% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q7b What additional negative aspects, ifany, about Southlake'sparks system wouldyou tell afnend?" Total Base = 515 ..7 ~LpOII 12 C` OVERALL SATISFACTI Examples of Some Resident Suggestions "There's a lot of potential. We do a lot of organized activities, but there is not much non-organized space." "There's not a lot of landscaped green space and there are not convenient walking trails." "It doesn't offer much if you're not young. There is nothing to draw an older person to the park, no one over the age of 45." "Well-kept and they are improving. I think they need to increase the nature trail walking path for people who don't have children." Q71, : What additional negative aspects, if any, about Southlake's parks system would you tell a frieri SWdy# 2004494 ._7QICISIOII SATISFACTION WITH PARKS • Overall, Southlake residents are quite satisfied with the park system, particularly in the areas of safety and maintenance. Residents in general are somewhat less satisfied with the availability of facilities and amount of open space. However, new residents (t year or less) report significantly higher levels of satisfaction with availability of facilities (85%) and amount of open space (90%) compared to other residents. Percent Satisfied or Very Satisfied Safety 62% 90% Maintenance 59% 88% Conveniently located 59% 82% Amount of open $6% 77% space Availabiltyof 57% 66 % Very Satisfied facilities I Satisfied o% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q6. 'Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the following aspects of Southlake's parks and trails system' Total Base = 600 Stray # 20040494 ..7" QBCLfIgI/91M 13 SATISFACTION WITH ATHLETIC41 Satisfaction with athletic facilities is also high; however, residents in Area 2 report slightly lower satisfaction with the convenience (76%) and availability (69%) of athletic facilities, compared to other residents. Percent Satisfied or Very Satisfied Overall quality 59 % 85% Maintenance 59% 82% Convenently 58o 82% located /o Availability 57% 73% ■Very Satisfied fields/gyms s ❑ Satisfied 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q8 "Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the following aspects of Southiake's parks and trails system" Total Base= 600 SATISFACTION RECREATION • Most Southlake residents are satisfied with the quality, variety, and number of recreation facilities and programs available. Percent Satisfied or Very Satisfied Qualityoffadlities 62% 85% Overall program 61 % 84% Number of 58% 82% programs Number of facilities 61 % 79% Quality of 79% programs Variety of farilities 60% 78% ■Very Satisfied 0Satisfied 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q8: 'Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the following aspects of Scuthlake's parks and trans system " Total Base- 600 .:7~ ~[!S4ldl 40 14 R. SATISFACTION WITH T The Southlake trail system represents the greatest opportunity for improvement, with residents reporting only moderate satisfaction. Percent Satisfied or Very Satisfied Quality 47% 58% Availability 47% 57% i Very Satisfied ❑ Satisfied 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q6'. 'Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are Mh the following aspects of Southlake's parks and trails system.' Total Base= 600 rte; ty # '004-v1S~ y' DwbionAwlyst 4 ~*I rT ~ IC k t ' ~Y ~ >p lay ~f I I ",~,MMMMMO Ilk Aiwi~sf 15 PARK PREFERENCIML • Southlake residents overall prefer the proposed recreation center; however, those residing in Area 2 are more evenly divided between a rec center and neighborhood parks. Residents with children are significantly more likely to prefer the recreation center (53%). Gender is also a factor, with females (50%) opting for the recreation center and males (43%) choosing parks. Total Residents Areal Areal Area3 Option 1 Construction of a Option 1: recreation center that includes Recreation basketball and volleyball courts, 47% 39% 49% center weight lifting, indoor track, crafts, 46% Option I ood dance, babysitting, and other p arks amenities rDon't Neighbofio 37% herOption 2Completion of area 35% 43% 35% knoneighborhood parks % Neither/Don't Know 18% 18% 16% Q14. "The City of Southlake is planning new developments for the Parks Department NJmch of the following options do you consider the highest pnonty?" Total Base= 600, Area 1 = 120, Area 2 = 180, Area 3 = 300 z E= PARK PREFERENCES 5_uthlal~, About 2 out of 5 Southlake residents would like a new park to include multi-use trails. One- third of residents in Area 3 would also like a park to include a playground, significantly higher than other residents. Area 1 residents are least interested in athletic fields or facilities. Total Residents Preferences by Area 46% Mliti-usetiails 41% MuXi-use its 4a% 37 23 % Playgrounds 27% Playgrounds 20% 33 % 24/0 Open Ope grassy 24% Open gscarassy areallandscaping areaAandping 22-A 25% 21% Picric 20% Picric 17% areas/payliore areasfpavifons ■ Area 1 21% • Area 2 Athletic 14% Athletic ❑ Area 3 fieklstlacilities fieklslfadifies 16% 15% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100°/, 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q12. "If Southlake was going to corbrue development of a park in your area based on your or your household s own interests, what two or three things would you defindelywant the park to lnclude~" Total Base = 600 Area 1 = 120, Area 2 = 180, Area 3= 300 .:7'~~ ~aC1370rr W) 16 PARK PREFERENCES Trail and sidewalk development is a top priority for about one-quarter of Southlake residents, as are additional athletic programs and facilities. TraiWsidewalks 27% AtlYefic 25% programs/facillfies Nature areastopen space Age appropriate 9% programs/facilifies AnrnaVdog park 5% More parks/facilifies a% Swimming pools/water 3% park 0% 20% 40% 60% e w. 100% 09 "What type of park facilities or components does Southlake need more of?' Total Base = 515 -L..r✓ # 2004-045a .m' DeCitian n117' f5'85 h ~ a F. F ~tT , "O" 17 w CURRENT TRAIL AVAI LABILI. Residents perceive trail availability to be limited. Almost 2 out of 5 residents report that no trails are available. Area 3 residents report the greatest access to trails with significantly fewer reporting no access compared other residents. Trails Available to... Total Residents Availability by Area 30% Visit friends 42% Visit friends 33% 52% 23% Schools 33% Schools 28% 39% 28% Nearby parks 31% Nearby parks 28% 34% Shopping 13% areas 24% ► No Trails Available Shopping 25% areas All residents: 38% 27% t Area 1 49% ■ Are Neighboring Area 2. 47% Neighboring 12% ■Are a2 cities 12% 8% 15% a Area 3 29% cities ❑ Area 3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q10. "To the best of your knowledge, are trails available that would allow you or membersaf your household to walk or bicycle from home to.. " Total Base = 600, Area 1 = 120 Area 2 = 180; Area 3 = 300 MTRAIL PREFERENCES residents expect new trails to be easily accessible from their neighborhood to local areas. Scenic trails through nature areas or along city creeks are also highly desired. Percent Agree or Strongly Agree Accessible from my neighborhood 44% 89% Connect to parks, schools, and shopping 39% 87% In retire areas such as unpaved trails 45% 8,3% Along creeks in the city - 22% 58°h 80% Along utility corridors 471/6 64% ■ Strongly Agree Along major thoroughfares 41 % 61% ❑ Agree 0% 2096 40% 60% 80°A 100% 011 "I would like to see trails in Southlake. Total Base = 600 vh .:V'' QK9.SIM 18 K r F 2'.~' 4-iJ4y-1 RESPONDENT PROFILE Quotas were set to interview a representative portion of residents by geographic area. Area of Southlake Area 2: North of FM 1709, South of HWY 114 \30% Area 1: North of HWY 114 20% Areal South of FM 1709 50% _ - .cNAMLO0/t 19 RESPONDENT PROFILE out a Sources of Information Regarding Recreational Activities in Southlake Newspapers 84% South lake Scene brochure 68% City of SouMllake website 58% Private Neighborhood associations 47% City water bill insert 42% Sports Associations 41% Cable TV Channel 7 21% SPIN Groups 20% City Colrxal(Board Meetirgs 18% The Park Board 16% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 013. "To get mforma bon about reaeational activities in Southlake, which of the following sources do you generally utilize?' Total Base = 600 _ :.N" QaCLt70Il RESPONDENT PROFILE In general, the majority of respondents were female, have children living at home, and have lived in Southlake for more than one year. Area 3 demographics differ significantly from those of Areas 1 and 2. On average, Area 3 residents tend to be younger and have lived in Southlake less time. Area 3 residents are also more likely to have children living at home. Total Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Gender Male 40% 37% 45% 38% Female 60% 63% 55% 62% Years in Southlake One year or less 7% 9% 5% 7% 2-4 years 28% 27% 19% 33% 5-7 years 25% 18% 26% 26% 8-10 years 21% 13% 23% 22% More Man 10 years 20% 33% 27% 11% Averagerumberofyeam 6.5 6.8 71 5.9 Children under 18 at home Yes 67% 59% 61% 74% No 31% 39% 37% 23% :M'' Q[ryya/r 20 RESPONDENT ..O TOW Ams 1 Am 1112 Area 3l 3 25 years or younger I% 0% 1% 1% 26-35 years 6% 6% 6% 7% 3615 years 39% 36% 32% 45% 46-55 years 37% 40% 42% 33% 56-65 years 13% 14% 14% 11% 66 years or older 3% 3% 3% 2% Average age 46.7 47.5 47.9 46.7 Age of Children Under 6 years 27% 30% 23% 29% 6-12 years 55% 51% 46% 60% 13-18 years 52% 48% 57% 50% swaya_ooa-r_~ , aDeritidn 21 FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005 5.2 Park Design Priorities and Criteria: The following table (Table 5.2) consolidates the design standards from the previous section and establishes design priorities for the development of private parks in conjunction with new development in the city. The extent to which a public or private park proposed in conjunction with new development receives park dedication credits (as required by the city's Subdivision Ordinance, as amended) shall depend upon the extent to which the proposed park meets the design, location, and context criteria established. All proposals for public or private parks in conjunction with new development shall be evaluated based on the land use and design criteria outlined in the following tables. 5-7 N m.0 c E? eD p a $ °~~amm 8rn °.Ba.=_c° ° mm=pg $ w Y c $ W'S w e t E = O 3 Q c 5 m (sa~esa~d g w°g=~n_ - m° aLa~ rood'=S3 al E a IeJUOWUOJInU3 a~ h poll- OSIe) E o 8i .0 E'm g m h n m c 3 . o - a~ 5 c c o E$ a .42 $ N a v c n XS 3 9'm ~ E v o m~ i3 E 0 8 seaiylemJeN z°zam -osco (ld~'awW N433 z° o _ W Y ti 30°0a16 m E - g o EQc ~E o~ 3 avo~1S mom` E a a m vc 3: W - c `v = c m d a o c 3 o m to c m ° _ _ o c u 12 2 40 .2 U m ° Um 'jO boo ° °~e 5 ° umi i`N mwm is 12 « a.$ o.m ~O-° E. -OO 8mc~ e o1.~ "~.o u°rd ENN~m -Eons=oN- N>- ~ 3 a-mx omo .E L v :E 1 s y o a c m T; m =Y c N E o - E y E 'm r ° c$ S- r °m y °a aEu $o c o m8m ~lJ a >E< $S- ed Jeauil z° z 4 a' E cm 4 °a4 m N w~ ° vc m a > x 17a W a' W °m = U8 U z a o z m mm - a c E s m°39~ ° m wm5 _ _ .E >c UAW,°~ A SQ o sesJnoo 1100 z°z~d?3E z° ~oE8 2; 8 05 c co - x - °,3 coo om ji m~ o.m o m W5 E 3dT~ ~m _ off' mt° o8-Ea 15 m v °N'S ` S'cE~m $ '-`mr ffi ~vo mo~t0mn S ~ ~a; cE ° m E- °_m°p~-'m'~ ,omn?> >,W c aEh= 'E ~'occ E c.c s ~~RmEN~>,d 'oE a m-° c ~sommm REEYYa nT 3' Q~m ~ra~m -N"E cm g> sezeld N`vW5 ao65q z° ~a aaa?~4o ~?«4m~ ~ za5°m r v `o r 5 $ o o € o n .cm a c - N 3 m v m ~ a - E E p ¢ Tt PEI S a ° o ° m n o _ w= - c m n 6`m g' anm mo 'S a.~ -cga m8 mvn g Son m o a5 ° ~ a`ovd'g mam 1o E'- ~yyc dw 'o fivm w a« '~~NN a o. 'm a`m?t me mN °a g'cm N~'N me N °o ~w> E sajenbg m.E.E a m m joaa - m E`m= ~d.n~ _ m E" c o `o of t c n n o m E c 'R o ;z S S u )pedesodmd a E~aa n8rnd a.;ama z° ~E °a~°? 2.a 4 m3 8U zcm3 leloadg 0 to r~`Wd 3aEo= v° c 5 2 m c ° 0 8 E S°i x c E w S E m 8.2 c E 8 c E E m Hf W.r 01 o v DaE 2 me ~ccE~ mm °°cm E o m, Lo£m°m m _ $ r _ 5 Hn ~,w, `m N ros Ved40 nw`?Ea~.1 8 N i ~E` z82d.s~om oU^ £ 8oy5 -05 M. 1.2 ~R mm c u:22 1E.~ Emd~ S8_.3 `52 c °vE WS W i '6 G ~Ved a d r N = n °m' 'o ° E° m F 00 K $ a `ma'r E f 0, .2 E '5:a m .2 AJlUnww0o m U '3 N U a E qK > w U ~ Q¢ N E z~ E E E E °m ~ m °1 n U U Um g E _ c - 8a8° ux `mr E w gt o h E L v E E N; S m o u o x a ann anTw ~ `o ° «ca v .c Sao ma v - .5~ ¢O °m `va v Na d d- mE=d° d m~ m 1 „ E o' c oa«v~ nn ~a`Y ~ °mg mo.U ay .2 =ca.ES r°iE E~ m Ved >M Z -BRw so a~{=g° m ° a TcsB o« PooyiOgy6iaN a «2 m n© z ¢ 8 z o = v 3 v o z o `3 41 .0 U. C N U Q m N C O Iu O m V U m N ~i rn c m Ec h ~N N C ? Cr C O N N N J N a U m 2 d C m~ N N C N EE l a .N rn io d Q Q~ Q am a c~ O aU d N c~ v ~i sd m CD o c~i of FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005 5.3 Appropriate Park Type by Land Use Designation The table below (Table 5.3) establishes the relationship between the appropriate park types and land use categories based on the scale, context, and mix of land uses appropriate in land use category. Both the 1998 and the 2005 Consolidated Land Use Plans include a land use category for Public Parks and Open Space. This land use category is a catch all land use category for all public parks. This following table is not intended to contradict that land use designation, rather it attempts to better link the design and type of all future parks based on the land use category in which they are proposed. The following table, when used in conjunction with the table in the preceding section, provides citizens, decision makers, and developers information on the appropriate park design based on land use category. This can in turn be used to evaluate the design of new parks based on their development context. Table 5.3 Open Space by Land Use Category Land Use Category LD- MD- RCS Retail office Mixed T-1/ EC Town Res Res Comm. Comm. Use T-2 Center Open Space Type Neighborhood X X X X X X Park Community Park X X X City Park X X X Special Purpose Parks: o Squares X X X X X X o Plazas X X X X X X o Golf Courses X X X Linear Parks X X X X X X X X X Natural Areas X X X X X X X X X 5-9 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Section 8 Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs Policies and Guidelines Conceptual Park Development Plans Program Implementation and Priorities A 8.1 Policies and Guidelines Suggested during the 2004-2005 Plan Update The following are issues that arose during the recent plan update and, along with the previously stated NO r, x goals, have guided the thought processes in the suggestions made„ aid& for future development. Most come from public input, many come from the direction of the Park Board, and some come from the Community Services department's internal policies and recommendaions. Together, they shape the provisions and recommendations in this plan. Strive to educate the public on the intrinsic value of natural areas in park development. Southlake's policy of providing 50% open space in park design is often difficult to do when faced with such a large percentage of active recreational k needs. This plan update further stresses the open space provision and further recommends a change from the term "open space" to "natural area". This reduces the connotation that "open space" is simply land that hasn't been built upon yet. 8-1 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Stress the value of linking neighborhoods to parks and schools. Though more formally applied in the Trails System Master Plan, a recurring theme was to concentrate on making parks accessible by non-motorized means. Every opportunity to provide hike and bike-friendly paths and amenities will be explored. Provide more diverse recreational opportunities and explore non-traditional sporting venues. Older youth, especially those who may not participate in the traditional sports such as baseball and soccer, often feel neglected in park plans. This message was especially strong in this plan update, and strong direction has been given to boost the priority of facilities such as disc golf, skate parks, BMX tracks, sand volleyball, and others. 8.2 Conceptual Park Development Plans Perhaps the most important aspect of the periodic Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan updates are the changes to the individual park concept plans. Persons curious about future park development will often turn directly to these plans for guidance, making them a critical part of the plan document and worthy of careful consideration. It should be noted that these plans are guidelines, however; all are subject to changing conditions and evolution. However, now that several historic revisions have been made and a large portion of the public has provided input, these plans are basically in a refinement stage and large wholesale changes are not necessary. The text below is descriptive of the graphical representations illustrated in Appendix C - Park Maps and Conceptual Plans. Bicentennial Park - Figure 1 Bicentennial Park is a city park comprised of the first land ever assembled for park purposes in Southlake, with initial purchases and donations beginning in the 1970s. It is located north of Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), west of White Chapel Blvd., and east of Shady Oaks Rd. As additional land was purchased west from White Chapel, the park became the center of athletic facilities in the city, and largely remains that way today, with baseball facilities outnumbering all other uses. The park also includes basketball goals, an in-line hockey rink, a Tennis Center with pro shop, a maintenance building and yard, a large playground, two small community buildings, the Liberty Garden demonstration garden, and support facilities. In 2004, the city completed the purchase of the remaining 6.5 acres adjacent to Shady Oaks, which provides roughly 80 acres of contiguous land for park uses. The area surrounding these 6.5 acres west of the west drainage channel represents the majority of undeveloped property in the park. However, there are a number of amenities proposed that will both soften the feel of the park as well as add activities which are lacking in the park system. New development proposed for Bicentennial Park includes: 8-2 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 o Four lighted athletic fields west of the drainage channel, including drive access off of Shady Oaks, parking, and support structures (previously denoted as Girls Softball Complex, now located at Bob Jones Park). It should be noted that the four fields shown may need to be reduced to three if one of the fields be constructed to the dimensions necessary for semi-pro or collegiate play. o Large open space picnic area in the northwest property in the area of the planned Shady Oaks access o Skate Park o Lighted sand volleyball courts (2) o Additional parking east of the drainage channel o Additional trails o Landscaping and entry upgrades o A detention area created from the existing west drainage chanel as an amenity feature, with stair-stepped banks, fountains, waterfalls, etc. o Additional phases of the Liberty Garden at the N. White Chapel entrance, to include a labyrinth, interactive water feature, and other amenities o DPS "Safety Town" - a demonstration area for children to learn bike and pedestrian safety The Park Board has also indicated that Bicentennial Park may be well-suited for the reconstruction and display of Southlake historical structures. Bob Jones Park and the Tucker Property - Figures 2 and 2a Bob Jones Park began as a series of purchases, a large portion coming from an underdeveloped, small-lot mobile home park which had fallen into disarray. Eventually, with other acquisitions and the Corps of Engineers lease, the park grew to total nearly 500 acres - most of which is prime native Cross Timbers habitat. The first major construction at the park involved completion of 13 soccer fields (several subsequently lighted) and parking in the first phase, followed by support facilities. The nearby six-acre pond with the bat-wing pavilion serves to collect drainage for use as field irrigation, not to mention a first-class fishing area. On the far north drive entrance, an equestrian parking lot houses trailer parking, corral pens, hitching posts, a picnic area, and a ranch faucet. An opportunity arose in 2004 to take advantage of the six practice backstops in the second phase and finish them out as the much-needed lighted Girls' Softball Complex, which also includes support facilities, buildings, and another pond. The possibility also exists to add additional parking south of the complex near the pond(s). Bob Jones Park and the Corps lease were also officially recognized by the City Council in 2002 as the location for the Bob Jones Nature Center. To provide an immediate location, the ranch house on the 60-acre Tucker property purchase has been designated to serve as headquarters. Rounding out recent approved additions is Southlake's first 8-3 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Dog Park, which will sit on about 2.5 acres on north side of the remote parking lot to the east of the Girls' Softball Complex. Other conceptual planning for Bob Jones Park includes: o Extension of looped trail system and trail access from recreational areas to Nature Center property; o Further remodeling of the Tucker house and property to fully convert it to a Nature Center; o Additional remote parking prior to entering the Corps lease; o Upgrades to north equestrian lot to include additional round pen, covered picnic area; o Cover for northern playground; and o Playground with cover for Girls' Softball Complex plaza Farhat Property - Figure 2b The Farhat property is a 36-acre tract with near-shoreline access and lies mainly in the floodplain and/or Lake Grapevine flowage easement. Therefore, this property's best use would be as extremely low-impact passive natural area. During this plan update, citizens expressed concern about the remote location of the property and possible illicit activity. Several proposals were made to consider selling the property because of its low profile and low priority for development considering other needs. However, its remote nature may also provide nature enthusiasts and families solitude and quiet. Because of the wide range of possibilities surrounding the development of this property, it is recommended that any future development remain consistent with prior planning and be extremely low impact. Also, administratively, staff must work diligently to coordinate any improvements with Public Safety and Public Works to ensure patron safety and deter criminal mischief through a permit system to account for park patrons wishing to reserve the area. The possibility also exists to formally recognize this property for conservation of natural area. Improvements to the park may include: o Short entry drive o Small parking area (10 -15 spaces) o Picnic shelters (3) o Trail improvements on-site and through Corps property south and west to Tucker property Chesapeake Park - Figure 3 As one of the only public parks on the southwest area of the city, Chesapeake is an almost completely developed neighborhood park, well-enjoyed by area residents. Minor improvements to this park could include: o Mid-sized pavilion o Irrigation o More benches 8-4 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 o Landscaping o Fishing pier o 1/2 court basketball o Rubberized surfacing for existing playground Lonesome Dove Park - Figure 4 This neighborhood park is one of the first such parks perfectly sized for the adjacent neighborhood at 8 acres and was dedicated and constructed by the developer of the subdivision. This park is completely developed, with the exception of the following item: o New playground equipment Noble Oaks Park - Figure 5 Noble Oaks Park is a 5-acre tract in the most densely populated area of the city, located adjacent to Old Union Elementary School. Residents have long enjoyed its simple open space and shade trees for impromptu events and youth sports practice. Items suggested for improvement include: o A mid- to large-sized family pavilion o Pond improvements o Benches, etc. o Trail additions The Park Board has also indicated Noble Oaks Park may be well-suited for the reconstruction and display of Southlake historical structures. Royal and Annie Smith Park - Figure 6 Royal and Annie Smith Park was purchased from the Smith family, who had long occupied the premises. The property has a significant bit of history, and includes a hand-dug well, rumored to be the final resting place of a notorious gangster named "Pinky." As the property develops, and to address a safety concern at the Johnson Road frontage, all efforts should be to concentrate the main entry to the park from the existing school parking lot or as part of a city-sponsored school lot addition. The city must also work very closely with Keller ISD to jointly develop Florence Elementary School's southern open space for use as practice fields. The history and abundant natural area suggest the following improvements to the park: o Asphalt drive and small parking area off Johnson Road o A mid-sized pavilion o Irrigation o Amenities such as benches, etc. o Farm implement display o Landscaping o Trail additions 8-5 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 o Small children's play area The Park Board has also indicated that Royal and Annie Smith Park may be well-suited for the reconstruction and display of Southlake historical structures. Liberty Park at Sheltonwood - Figure 7 This park, on the north side of Dove Road at Ridgecrest, is a relatively large (17.7 acres) undeveloped neighborhood park. It was formerly the site of a "summer camp" area, complete with a pavilion and swimming pool (the swimming pool was in disrepair and has since been filled in, while the old metal pavilion is salvageable). It is suited for a number of mid- to low-impact activities, with proposed improvements as follows: o Crushed granite drive and remote parking bays in the interior of the property o Security and activity area lighting o Sand volleyball and horseshoes o Disc golf o Security cameras o Two mid- to large-sized pavilions o Irrigation o Site amenities (benches, tables) o Landscape improvements o Utility upgrades and basic remodeling of existing pavilion o Trails o Playground Koalaty Park - Figure 8 Koalaty Park is a mostly open neighborhood park with a small stand of tree in the southern end. It currently contains four backstops and is heavily used by local youth sports teams. The minor improvements suggested to this park include: o Landscaping o Replacement of natural trail with concrete surface o Picnic areas in the natural area by the creek Coker Property - Figure 9 In northeast Southlake, this undeveloped four-and-one-half-acre tract is situated on the border of Southlake and Grapevine. It is heavily wooded and has direct access at the rear of the property to the Corps of Engineers property and Lake Grapevine. Trailhead development on this site could provide a connection between Southlake and Meadowmere Park on the shore 8-6 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 of Lake Grapevine. Grapevine leases the 160-acre park from the Corps of Engineers. Suggested improvements include: o Mini-shelters (3) o Parking lot o Amenities (bike racks, fountains) Kirkwood/Sabre Linear Park Areas - Figure 10 This small, triangular site is on the west side of North White Chapel near Kirkwood Blvd. at the Sabre phone center site. It is classified as a linear park, and it connects to other linear parks throughout the Kirkwood/Sabre area. This site, when the North White Chapel trail is constructed, would make an ideal rest area and picnic spot. Planned improvements could include: o A small pavilion/rest station o Crushed granite parking with 5 spaces and culvert o Site improvement - signs, fountain o Benches, etc. Rustin/Family Park - Figure 11 As part of the Town Square development, approximately one acre of park land was dedicated to the city. Included with this dedication were sidewalks, benches, a small pond, two fountains, a pavilion/band shell, enhanced pavement, etc., typical of a small downtown park. This park is relatively complete, and the city does not foresee anything other than minor enhancements in the future, if any. Town Square "Summit" Park - Figure 12 Town Square (Cooper & Stebbins) is also the developer of this downtown park, on a 2.5 acre site adjacent to the Brownstones residential development. It will feature a loop trail, benches, ornamental grasses, and improved open space. No other development is anticipated. Also note that, though this park (and several other Town Square Parks) have been assigned to the city in the Commercial Developer's agreement(s), the city has not formally taken possession of them, though it is anticipated that the transfer will occur shortly after the adoption of this plan. The Park Board has indicated that Summit Park may be well-suited for the reconstruction and display of Southlake historical structures. 8-7 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Town Square "State Street" Park - Figure 13 This Town Square-developed 3.4-acre park will be adjacent to the Hilton Hotel and feature a loop trail around a pond and site amenities. No additional development is anticipated. (See note on "possession" above.) Town Square "Plaza" Park - Figure 14 Town Square will also develop this pocket park in the new restaurant district in the Grand Avenue phase. It will feature a paved plaza with a trellis system and ornamental planter boxes and plants. No additional development is anticipated. (See note on "possession" above.) Southlake Sports Complex - Figure 15 This 16-acre facility was constructed as a private baseball instructional facility and was purchased from the original owners since the last plan update. The property contains three lighted baseball fields (adult and two youth), roughly 100 parking spaces, a 20,000 sq. ft. indoor training facility (currently leased to a private gymnastics instruction group), and approximately six acres of undeveloped property north of the drive entrance. This facility will require substantial material upgrades for use as anything other than its original purpose. The proposed improvements to this site include: o Possible realignment of current baseball fields and fencing to approximate three regulation-sized lacrosse fields. It should be noted that the existing baseball fields are heavily used and it is the recommendation of this plan that this facility not be redesigned for lacrosse until such time that baseball has additional fields. o Sports lighting upgrades o Sod and irrigation o Flag / Pee-Wee Football practice area(s) to the north of the existing drive It should also be noted that in early 2005 the gymnastics company exercised their option for an additional 5-year lease term, which will cover the planning period of this update. At that time, possible conversion to public use is recommended. Oak Pointe - Figure 15a This public neighborhood park on the west side of Ridgecrest just north of Dove Road consists of a series of "pocket park" areas totaling 8.2 acres within a residential development linked by a public pathway system. The areas are to be kept in a relatively natural state, and area residents can enjoy the public pond and a number of shaded areas with benches and tables. Very minimal, if any, further park development is anticipated. 8-8 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Estes Park - Figure 15b As part of a comprehensive plan for the East Dove Road area residential development, Estes Park compliments Oak Pointe (above) with a 2.3-acre public park area and public pathways. This small neighborhood park, dedicated and built by the developer (as was Oak Pointe), features a small pond and large oak trees. No further development is anticipated. East Haven (former Metro Pool) Property - No map (see Figure 17) The SPDC purchased this property in the late 1990s from a previous commercial owner who has stored noxious chemicals related to swimming pool supplies in the building. The city saw the opportunity to gain park property and solve a neighborhood safety issue. The city currently utilizes the building for storage of recreational and other supplies and has no plans for other development during this planning period. Other Park and Recreational Facilities Most of the following facilities have not been included in the Needs Assessment or in the recommendations above, but they are features of many American parks and might be of future interest to the citizens of Southlake. o Shuffleboard o Children's Garden o Botanical Garden o Bocce Ball o Sculpture Garden o Croquet Green o Sculpture and Art in Parks o Rugby o Murals o Field Hockey o Interpretive Signage: Nature, Historical, Cultural o Group Pavilion (event rental) o Model Airplane Runway o Mechanical Batting Cage o Interactive Play Fountain o Restaurant in a Park o Family Aquatics Center/Leisure o Memorial Groves and Gardens o Exercise Stations o Community Gardens Figure 17 deals with existing and potential open space areas. The valuable natural resources of these areas are worthy of preservation, which the City recognizes with its goal of securing eleven acres of open space per 1,000 population. Secondarily, inclusion of the Environmental Preservation and 8-9 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Open Space Master Plan in this document may make the City of Southlake more competitive on certain Texas Parks and Wildlife grant applications. The following facilities are appropriate for preserved open space areas: o Natural Surface Trails o Bench o Fishing Pier o Picnic Table o Canoe Launch o Wetland, Natural or Restored o Small amphitheater o Interpretive Trail 8.3 Program Implementation and Priorities A plan is only as good as the methods by which it is used as a tool for the ultimate goal: implementation. While several substantial athletic facilities needs remain, the city is relatively on schedule (compared to population size) with it's previous and current implementation needs. Those that remain, along with several desired non-traditional venues and the ever-conscious need to obtain and/or preserve natural areas, make for some difficult decision-making when placed in priority order and weighed against available funding. This section will provide somewhat of a blueprint for plan implementation and in what priority order. 8.4 Project Ranking Through the 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Process The CIP planning process has become very sophisticated in recent years in the City of Southlake. The process, however, begins and ends with projects suggested by the Park Master Plan. In the early part of each year, city staff analyzes the adopted master plan and notes facilities and improvements which have not been implemented yet. Staff then prepares a comprehensive list of projects group by park, area or other logical purpose and prepares detailed data sheets and preliminary cost estimates. The Park Board then has an opportunity to make broad suggestions and to advise of project deletions or new projects. Staff then submits the project list to the CIP Technical Committee (department directors), who ranks them based on set criteria. The Park Board, SPDC and City Council all have the opportunity to study those rankings and make adjustments. The ranked projects are then allocated priority status from the current fiscal year out to year five. Each year, the process begins again and projects vie for ranking order all over again. Below are the funding priorities for FY 2005-2006 through 2009-2010: 8-10 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Phase 1 (year 1) - 2005 - 2006 o Nature Center- Indoor priority #1 o Liberty Park at Sheltonwood Development- Outdoor priority #1 o Royal and Annie Smith Park Development- Outdoor priority #2 o Lacrosse Facility - Outdoor priority #3 o Land Acquisition (Community Park) - Outdoor priority #4 Phase 2 (year 2) - 2006 - 2007 o Noble Oaks Park Improvements o Bob Jones Park Development o Bicentennial West Lighted Fields o Koalaty Park Improvements o Chesapeake Park Improvements o BMX Bicycle Facility o Skate Park Phase 3 (year 3) - 2007 - 2008 o Coker Hike/Bike Trailhead o Kirkwood / Sabre Linear Park o Farhat Property Development o Sand Volleyball Courts Phase 4 (year 4) - 2008 - 2009 o Recreation Center o Park Maintenance Facility Phase 5 (year 5) - 2009 - 2010 o Community Center- Park Department Offices o Bob Jones Park - Southern Playground o Bicentennial Park Drainage /Pond Development Should the City seek Texas Parks & Wildlife funding for any projects in this list, the application would be enhanced (receive more points) because of their ranking as listed priorities. TPWD requires that plans more than two years old be updated to reflect changes in land and facility inventories and accomplishments since the plan was written. Goals and objectives may need revision, as well as priorities. These changes, when adopted by the City Council, become an amendment to the plan. (The plan and any amendments to it must be reviewed and approved by TPWD in advance of the submittal of any grant application.) As mentioned in the Introduction, the Southlake City Charter requires a full update of the parks, recreation, and open space master plan every four years. 8-11 Resolution 05-032 Adopted September 20, 2005 Also, a critical consideration for implementation is the maintenance of facilities once they have been constructed. Security is also a major concern. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has suggested strategies that are useful for addressing the maintenance and renovation of park facilities. The actions relevant to the City of Southlake include: o Address maintenance at the planning stage by employing design solutions for new construction and renovations that are heavy duty, vandal proof, durable, o Low maintenance facilities using state-of-the-art building materials such as recycled plastics. o Maintenance and renovation should be equal to new acquisition, giving priority to projects that provide ways to mitigate costly upkeep and are environmentally sound. o Establish a park maintenance trust fund which requires funds to be set aside each year for park maintenance (endowment up front, interest for maintenance and operations.) o Establish and meet maintenance standards for existing facilities before spending on additional facilities. (Source: 1995 TORP - Assessment and Policy Plan, TPWD, 1995) r .s v r 73 y TO1f f n fit 8-12 Resolution 05033 Adopted September 20, 2005 SECTION 3.0 SOUTHLAKE PATHWAYS SYSTEM In the wake of booming development in and around Southlake, many possible trail corridors have been lost. This loss, combined with the expansion of State Highway 114, comprise two major challenges to establishing connected intra and inter city non- motorized routes. Although some private subdivisions provide trails for their residents, these generally have transportation value only within that subdivision when they do not connect to public corridors, making non-motorized connections between those neighborhoods and common destinations difficult. Residents near Lake Grapevine have expressed strong support for the existing natural trails in their area. These natural areas also have high value to important and sensitive wildlife species for resting, nesting, feeding, or roosting areas, according to recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studies of the area. More than 6 miles of moderately easy equestrian/hiking (E/H) trails that currently meander through Marshall Creek and Walnut Grove Parks already serve the area well. However, several relatively steep creek crossings may need structural improvements or rerouting to avoid further erosion. Alignments of the greenway trail segments in as-yet undeveloped areas should be viewed as flexible, and city staff and leadership should remain receptive to adjustments in alignments, as long as the connectivity they provide is maintained. Flood levels and sensitive natural areas must be carefully assessed and potential trail impacts on natural, historic and archeological resources must be considered before deciding the final alignments. The intent of this plan is to increase opportunities for non-motorized access and mobility to routine destinations throughout the city. Alternatives beneficial to the overall objectives of this plan and reflective of the community's desires should be anticipated, encouraged, and accommodated. Through implementation in the most recently adopted Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan, many of Southlake's existing street corridors will eventually be reconstructed to 16 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 accommodate bicyclists on the roads and pedestrians on the sidewalks. However, many of the interim cross-sections do not currently accommodate these modes. Careful coordination is essential during implementation of this thoroughfare plan, to ensure that the non-motorized networks are fully developed and integrated in the final construction designs. 3.1 SELECTION CRITERIA Previous plan goals and objectives were examined to formulate recommended plan revisions. In order to provide a mechanism for the orderly development of these trails and paths, they have been prioritized based on the following criteria: • Existing or fairly readily obtainable right-of-way space • Links residential neighborhoods to parks, schools and other key destinations • Limited tree preservation issues • Street typology Southlake's Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan has adopted a street typology classification for the city that links street functionality with broader mobility and livability goals. Southlake's street typology classifications address pedestrian facilities and bicycle facilities in addition to other design and mobility elements. The priority of pedestrian and bicycle facilities based on street typology is indicated in the table below. Further detail on this topic, including the definitions for each typology, may be found in the Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan. 17 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 Pedestrian and Bicycle Design Priority by Street Typology: Street Typology Pedestrian Orientation Bicycle Facilities Freeways Low Low Regional Boulevards Medium Medium Boulevards Medium Medium Rural Roads Low/Medium Low/Medium Avenues Medium/High Medium/High Local Streets High Medium Main Streets High Medium Commercial Streets Medium/High Medium Residential Streets High Medium Alleys None None 3.2 TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONS The following trails are indicated for the overall trail system and are described in detail below. To follow these descriptions is a ranking of the trail segments for funding and construction by level of importance. The segment lists below can be found in Map 1 in the Appendices. In addition to the trail segments described below, all new development should provide sidewalks along all public and private streets to form a continuous network that links existing and proposed trails to destinations such as neighborhoods, parks, schools, shopping areas, and employment areas. Trails along floodplains and creeks are also recommended to provide alternative connectivity between destinations. 18 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 Table 3.1 Existing. Programmed. Planned, and Proposed Trail Segments TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION STATUS LENGTH (MILES) 1. Marshall Creek Greenbelt Trail - 6' nominal width natural equestrian/hiking (E/H) trail. Ebsting 0.56 2. Shoreline Equestrian/Hiking Trail - 6' nominal width informal trails from near Trophy Club Ebsting 3.10 city limits. 3. Bob Jones Park Spur - 6' natural equestrian/hiking path leading northward from North Planned 0.43 Bob Jones Trailhead to the Shoreline Trail. 4. Crown Ridge Equestrian/Hiking Trail - 8' natural surfaced equestrian/hiking path. Also Planned 0.80 includes planned connection to trailhead at T.W. King. 5. Bob Jones Park Equestrian/Hiking Trail - 6' natural equestrian/hiking trail from the North Planned 0.93 Bob Jones Trailhead, along the edge of Bob Jones Park to the Lower Walnut Grove and Shoreline E/H Trails. 6. Lower Walnut Grove Trail - 6' nominal width natural equestrian/hiking trail network. Ebsting 1.95 7. Bob Jones Park Hike & Bike Pathways - 10' paved multi-use (hike, bike, skate or scoot) Programmed 1.08 paths through Bob Jones Park. Trail detail is in contained in the Bob Jones Park Conceptual Plan in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, Figure 2, attached as Ma 3 in the Appendices. a. Kirkwood Branch Greenway Hike & Bike Trail - 8-10' paved pathway mostly meandering Planned 0.73 through Corps property. 9. Sabre/Kirkwood Hike & Bike Pathway - 8' paved multi-use greenway path north from SH Planned 0.60 114 to Kirkwood. 10. Kirkwood Greenwalk - 6' paved from Sabre to Dove Road. Ebsting 0.46 11-N. North White Chapel Boulevard Pathway - (TMB Project 2C North) paved 8' mufti-use Programmed 2.60 pathway from Bob Jones Park to S.H. 114. 11-S. Carroll High School Walkway - (TMB Project 2C South) paved 8' multi-use pathway on Programmed 1.40 N. White Chapel from S.H. 114 to Bicentennial Park. 12. West Dove Road Pathway - 8' paved multi-use pathway from Westlake city limit to North Planned 1.55 White Chapel Boulevard. 13-W. East Dove Road Pathway (West Link) - 8' paved pathway from S.H. 114 to Carroll Ave. Planned / 0.95 Note: A segment of this route will be constructed with the DPS North Facility and the Programmed intersection improvements. 13-E. East Dove Road Pathway (East Link) - 8' paved pathway from Carroll Ave. to Grapevine. Planned 1.25 14. Aventerra Hike & Bike Trail - paved 8' multi-use pathway through proposed campus Planned 2.97 development. 15. -West Dove Crook Greenway Trail - large-scale natural or paved 8' cross-country Planned 0.63 greenway trail. Connecting under S.H. 114 was not feasible during construction. 16. East Dove Creek Greenway Trail - natural surfaced or paved 8' cross-country greenway Planned 0.83 trail between Carroll and planned trailhead on Foxfire. 17. East Highland Street Walkway - 6' sidewalk between Carroll and Kimball. Planned 0.96 18-N. North Carroll Avenue Schools Pathway - paved 8' multi-use trail link on North Carroll Planned 2.49 from Grapevine to S.H. 114 to 1709. 18-S. North Carroll Village Center Connector - paved 8' segment of N. Carroll multi-use trail Planned 1.00 link on North Carroll from SH 114 to 1709. 19. North Kimball Walkway - paved' 6' pathway from Dove to Meadowmeare Park. Planned 0.66 20. Kimball Walkway - paved 6' mufti-use path between Dove and East Continental, with Planned 2.84 eventual connection to Cottonbelt Trail. 21. Sunshine Greenway Trail - 8' paved multi-use path from Highland to the planned Planned 0.33 Aventerra H&B Trail. 19 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION STATUS LENGTH (MILES) 22. Northside Veloway - paved, 8'- 10' (minimum) bikeway along the entire north side of Planned 5.40 S.H. 114 ROW from Westlake to Grapevine. NOTE: Trails in the S.H. 114 R.O.W. require a R.O.W. use permit from TxDOT. Construction plans must be coordinated through TxDOT and the city. 23. North Pearson Lane Walkway - 6' sidewalk from Florence to Union Church. Planned 1.50 24. Royal & Annie Smith Path and Walkway - 6' paved walkway which now goes through Existing / 0.50 existing Vermillion Addition, plus a eight-foot (8') internal trail meandering through the 13 Planned (existing) acre wooded Royal & Annie Smith Park, then as a planned 6' walkway eastward along 0.65 Johnson Road to Randol Mill Avenue. (proposed) 25. Jellico Greenway Trail - 8' paved multi-use greenway path from Florence Rd. to 1709. Planned 1.10 26. West Southlake Boulevard Pathway - (Projects 2A & 2B West) 8' paved paths from Existing / 3.16 Keller city limit at Pearson to Bicentennial Park. NOTE: Small trail segments at major Planned intersections to be completed by TxDOT with CMAQ funding through NCTCOG. (on r both sides of 1709 27. Chesapeake Place Greenwalk - 6' paved walkway to connect neighborhoods with Existing 0.52 neighborhood park between West Southlake Boulevard and Union Church. Potential spur to St. Martin in the Field. 28. Southwest Pathway - paved 8' pathway to extend from large development tract to Planned 0.51 Continental 29. Union Church Walkway - 6' sidewalk from Pearson to Davis. Potential connection to Planned 0.98 Keller's planned Big Bear Creek and Eastern Trails. 30-N. Randal Mill Avenue Pathway - 8' paved multi-use pathway between Westlake to Keller. Planned 1.94 30-S. Davis Greenway Pathway - 8' paved (or natural surfaced) pathway through floodplain Proposed 0.70 area to the rear of large tracts which front the west side of Davis Blvd. Southlake 2025 Plan recommendation. 31. Big Bear Creek Greenway Trail - 8' paved multi-use greenway link along creek from Planned 1.15 Davis to Carroll Elementary School and Continental. 32. South Peytonville Pathway - 8' paved multi-use path between 1709 and Continental (on Planned 1.05 the east side of S. Peytonville) and 8' + paved multi-use path from 1709 to Stonebury (on + the west side of S. Peytonville). 0.30 = 1.35 33. Continental In-fill - 6' paved pathway to connect neighborhoods to each other and to Planned 0.65 CISD facility. (E. Continental from Carroll Ave. to Kimball Ave.) 34. Clow Pathway - paved 8' east/west route on proposed Clow Collector Road across school Planned 1.00 property and east to White Chapel. NOW NO LONGER INCLUDES PEYTONVILLE SEGMENT, WHICH IS INCLUDED in #50. 35-S. Shady Oaks School Route - 8' paved multi-use path from entrance at Coventry to 1709. Planned 1.03 35-N. North Shady Oaks Walkway - 8' paved multi-use path from entrance at Coventry north Planned 1.00 to Dove Road. 36. West Highland Walkway - 6' sidewalk between Shady Oaks and SH 114 southern R.O.W Planned 0.49 trail. 37. Bicentennial Park Trail Network - 8'- 10' paved multi-use routes not previously Planned 0.25 constructed, mainly on undeveloped west side. Trail detail is in contained in the Bicentennial Park Conceptual Plan in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, Figure 1, attached as Ma 4 in the Appendices. 38. South Bicentennial Linkages - 8' natural (or paved) multi-use access from Planned 0.70 neighborhoods to trail on south side of FM 1709. (Two neighborhood trail linkages.) 39. Southside Town Square Pathway - 8'- 10' (minimum) multi-use path along the Planned 3.34 southwestern edge of the SH 114 ROW from Westlake to Town Square. NOTE: Trails in the S.H. 114 R.O.W. require a R.O.W. use permit from TxDOT. Construction plans must be coordinated through TxDOT and the city. 40. Bicentennial Park/Town Center Pathway - 8' multi-use paved multi-use link along north Planned 1.30 side of Southlake Boulevard - between Bicentennial Park entrance on F.M. 1709 and North Carroll Avenue and Town Center. 20 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION STATUS LENGTH (MILES) 41. Town Square Pathway - 8' paved path from North Carroll along the north and east side of Programmed 0.57 Town Square to East Southlake Boulevard. Align with future road through Town Square. 42. South White Chapel Walkway - 6' sidewalk from 1709 to Colleyville. Planned 1.77 43. Rockenbaugh Greenwalk - 6' natural surfaced or paved walkway through the greenway Planned / 1.03 east of Byron Nelson Parkway, from 1709 to Continental. Note southern end is a new Proposed proposed route through Timarron greenbelt. 44. South Carroll Avenue Pathway - 8' paved multi-use path from 1709 to Continental. Planned 1.20 45. Woodland Heights Veranda - paved 8' pathway along 1709 between Carroll and Kimball. Planned 1.01 46. Brumlow Cottonbek Link (TMB Project 2C South) - 8' multi-use path from existing trail Existing/Prog 0.80 stub on the west side of Brumlow at Timarron to SH 26 and the Cottonbeft Trail. See rammed segment #55 for alternate route. 47. Crooked Walkway - 6' paved walkway between Kimball and SH 114 and Nolan Drive Planned 0.96 walkways. 48. Town Center/Gateway Pathway (Project 2A East) - 8' paved pathway along north side of Existing 1.92 1709 from Carroll Ave. to S.H. 114. 49. Southridge Lakes Infill Project - rehab/addition/modification of intermittent sidewalks and Planned 0.33 trails on the north side of F.M. 1709 from Peytonville to Southridge Lakes Pkwy. 5o. N. Peytonville from Dove to Southridge Lakes - 6' path to link N. Peytonville residential Proposed 1.25 to parks, schools and other trails. 51. Byron Nelson Crossing Upgrades - upgrades to walkway crossings and signage near Proposed N/A school to increase visibility and safety. 52. Oak Pointe / Estes Park Infill - 4' and 6' pathway routes which will be mainly built by Proposed 1.80 developers. Proposed aspect is for public R.O.W. areas not in development. Entire length shown. 53. Rucker Extension- 8' path to follow proposed new road from Byron Nelson Pkwy to Carroll Proposed 0.50 Ave. 54. Woodland Heights Extension - 8' path to follow new road from F.M. 1709 to Kimball Ave. Proposed 0.50 55. Brumlow Alternate Route to S.H. 26 - 8' paved trail; trail R.O.W may be difficult to obtain Proposed 0.50 as proposed by segment #46, so any alernate route may be to cross Brumlow where trail currently ends and acquire trail corridor from developing industrial sites on the east side of the road, all the way over to the existing railroad crossing at S.H. 26. 56. Pine Street Connector - 6' sidewalk connecting S. White Chapel Blvd. to Byron Nelson Proposed 0.76 Pkwy along Pine Street and Lilac Lane. 57. T.W. King Walkway - 6' sidewalk connecting the Kirkwood Trail at S.H. 114 to Lake Proposed 1.60 Grapevine 58. West Bob Jones - White Chapel Connector - 8' multi-use natural trail in conjunction Proposed 0.56 with any proposed conservation subdivision and corresponding open space. 59. The Cliffs connector - 8' multi-use trail connecting T.W. King with Bob Jones Park Proposed 0.70 through the Cliffs development as an alternative to #8. 6o. Employment Center (EC) Multi-Use Trail Network - 8'+ natural multi-use trail network to Proposed 1.00 be developed in conjunction with any proposed EC open space network to prove an atemative link between neighborhoods, employment areas, and shopping. 61. Sunshine Lane - Dove Creek Greenway - 6' natural pathway to be developed in Proposed 0.74 conjunction with any rural conservation subdivision along Sunshine Lane. 62. Milner Walkway - 8'+ paved trail to be developed in conjunction with development and Proposed 0.40 linking to #63. 63. Carroll - Whtte Chapel Connector - 8'+ paved, multi-use trail connecting Carroll Avenue Proposed 1.00 and White Chapel Blvd. to be developed in conjunction with any proposed development of the Milner property. Project to include addition of sidewalks on Chapel Downs and Lakewood Drives. 64. Southwest Connector - 6' paved walkway connecting #30-S and 28 to be developed in Proposed 0.50 conjunction with any open space proposed with the development of the subject properties 21 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION STATUS LENGTH (MILES) 65. Rucker - Prade Walkway - 8'+ natural, multi-use trail connecting #43 with Carroll Avenue Proposed 0.40 to be developed in conjunction with open space proposed with the development of the subject properties. 66. W. Jones Branch Greenway - 8'+ natural, mufti-use trail connecting Kimball Ave. to Lake Proposed 0.55 Grapevine through Corps of Engineers' property. 67. Dove Creek Greenway Extension - 8'+ natural, multi-use trail extending # 16 into Lake Proposed 0.60 Grapevine through Corps of Engineers' property. 68. Aventerra Blvd. S.H. 114 Connector - 6' paved pathway connecting #14 to #22. Proposed 0.25 69. Oak Pointe - Loch Meadows Connector - 6' paved pathway connecting # 52 to the Proposed 0.42 Corps of Engineers property through Ridgecrest Dr. and Loch Meadows neighborhood. 70. Oak Pointe - White Chapel Walkway - 6' paved pathway connecting #52 to #11-N Proposed 0.27 3.3 PRIORITY TRAIL SEGMENTS BY TYPE Trail segments have been ranked to reflect the attitudes stated in the most recent Parks and Trails User Survey (2004), knowledge of key missing connectors, and the ever- present and overriding goal of moving pedestrians and cyclists, especially the younger ones, safely from their homes to their schools and parks system. While acquisition of right-of-way and tree mitigation factors pose a challenge in many of the highest priority trail segments, these factors are not insurmountable and trails remain the single most desired amenity by Southlake residents. The trail segments of highest priority are those: (1) which make connections to schools, (2) which make connections to parks, (3) that connect populous neighborhoods, and (4) those that connect intercity trails. The rankings listed below are based on the above factors. Map 1 in the Appendices can be used to locate those sections and Map 2, Carroll ISD Attendance Zones explains the rationale for the trail segments prioritization. In most cases, the trail segment of priority is one which has the ability to carry the largest volume of non- motorized travelers safely from their home to the school in their attendance zone. 22 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 Table 3.2 Trail Segment Prioritization TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION STATUS ROUTE TO: 1.0 School Connectors 35-S. Shady Oaks School Route - 8' paved multi-use path from entrance at Coventry to Planned School / Park 1709. 50. N. Peytonville from Dove to Southridge Lakes - 6' path to link N. Peytonville Proposed School residential to parks, schools and other trails. 13-W. East Dove Road Pathway (West Link)) - 8' paved pathway from SH 114 to Carroll Planned School / Park Ave. 18-N. North Carroll Avenue Schools Pathway - paved 8' northern segment of Carroll multi- Planned School use trail link from Grapevine to SH 114 to 1709. 51. Byron Nelson Crossing Upgrades - upgrades to walkway crossings and signage near Proposed School school to increase visibility and safety. 44. South Carroll Avenue Pathway - 8' paved mufti-use path from 1709 to Continental. Planned School / Park 35-N. North Shady Walkway - 8' paved mufti-use path from entrance at Coventry north to Planned School Dove Road. 32. South Peytonville Pathway - 8' paved multi-use path between 1709 and Continental. Planned School (2) 11-S. Carroll High School Walkway - (TMB Project 2C South) paved 8' multi-use pathway Programmed School / Park on N. White Chapel from S.H. 114 to Bicentennial Park. 23. North Pearson Lane Walkway - 6' sidewalk from Florence to Union Church. Planned School / Park 2.0 Park Connectors 11-N. North White Chapel Boulevard Pathway - (TMB Project 2C North) paved 8' multi-use Programmed Park pathway from Bob Jones Park to SH. 114.. 52. Oak Pointe / Estes Park Infill - 4' and 6' pathway routes which will be mainly built by Proposed Park developers. Proposed aspect is for public R.O.W. areas not in development. Entire length shown. 29. Union Church Walkway - 6' sidewalk from Pearson to Davis. Potential connection to Planned Park Keller's planned Big Bear Creek and Eastern Trails. 19. North Kimball Walkway - paved' 6' pathway from Dove to Meadowmeare Park. Planned Park 3.0 Neighborhood Connectors 13-E. East Dove Road Pathway (East Link) - 8' paved pathway from Carroll Ave. to Planned Neighbors Grapevine. 16. East Dove Creek Greenway Trail - natural surfaced or paved 8' cross-country Planned Neighbors greenway trail between Carroll and planned trailhead on Foxlire. 33. Continental In-fill - 6' paved pathway to connect neighborhoods to each other and to Planned Neighbors CISD facility. 4.0 Intercity Connectors 46. Brumlow Connector- connecting to existing Cottonbeft Trail in Grapevine and Planned Intercity programmed trail in Colleyville 20. Kimball Walkway - connecting to existing Cottonbelt Trail in Grapevine Planned Intercity 18N. Meadowmere Park West Entrance - leading to planned park trails (includes Coker Planned Intercity tract) 23 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 3.4 INTERCITY TRAILS Portions of the Cottonbelt Trailway along Dallas Area Rapid Transit's Cottonbelt Railroad are complete. Other segments are currently funded and will be built once construction documents are developed. This "rail-with-trail" is part of the planned Veloweb, a region-wide planned network of spine trails first adopted in 1995 by the Regional Transportation Council of the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). An expanded bikeway network is included in Mobility 2025, the NCTCOG's long-range transportation master plan. The Cottonbelt Trail project stretches 8.2-miles from Northeast Loop 820 in North Richland Hills, through Hurst, Colleyville, and Southlake to near downtown Grapevine eventually linking Plano and Fort Worth through northeast Tarrant County. Other intercity connections include: • Westlake a. Kirkwood Road Pathway existing 8' crushed granite path from Solana area 9 and 10). b. Kirkwood Branch Greenway Trail planned connections to Randol Mill and West Dove Street 8). c. Cedar Creek Greenway Trail planned potential link to West Dove Street 12). • Keller a. Florence Greenwalk planned 8-10' paved pathway from city limits to Randol Mill Greenway Trail and/or Randol Mill Road 24). b. Eastern Trail planned N/S greenway trail west of Pearson Road 23). c. Astronaut Connector planned 10' pathway along Pearson Crossing leading to Florence Elementary School 28). d. Big Bear Creek Trail planned ENV greenway trail south of Union Church - connects to proposed Southlake Big Bear Creek Trail 29 & 31). 24 Resolution 05-033 Adopted September 20, 2005 • Colleyville a. Pleasant Run Pathway planned 42) • Grapevine a. Cottonbelt Trailway existing 20, 46, & 55) b. Pool Road Pathway existing continuation of Brumlow links to programmed extension eastward along Big Bear Creek - southeast to SH- 360 and Bear Creek Park 46). c. Kimball Road Pathway planned connection from Pickering Park to existing C. Shane Wilbanks Trail along Lake Grapevine shoreline. Links to Meadowmere Park and Cottonbelt Trailway along S.H. 26 20 and 19). d. Meadowmere Park West Entrance leading to planned park trails (includes proposed Coker tract trailhead) 18-N). 25 SOUTHLAKE ® Department of Community Services CIP Project Profiles Integrity Innovation FY 2010 - 2014 Accountability Commitment to Excellence i Teamwork SOUTHLAKEI SPDC CIP Project Profiles FY 2010 - 2014 Integrity Innovation Accountability Commitment to Excellence i i Teamwork I 1 SPDC CIP PROJECTS Project Operating (Design A. Bicentennial Park Phase I Development) $10,050 $233* (Design B. Bicentennial Park Phase 0 Development) (Design C. Bicentennial Park Phase M Development) ri -D Bob Jones Park - North Playground Improvements (Shaft Rubberized) $375 $1 Chesapeake Park Improvements $286 $12:1 Coker Hike/Bike Trall $113 $12- „$10,000 $TBD,l Community Services Matching Funds $1,200 $TBD Farhat Property Development $440 slir J. Kirkwood I Sabre Linear Park $366 $18, K. Land Acquisition $1,900, $TBD Development L. Lib" Park at Sheltonwood Phase 11 1 $2211 D: N Safety T*%v Park 1 $150: $22 TOTS=L $62,94s 5711 Note: Initial maintenance equipment costs (up to $75K) not included ®SOUTHLAKE Return to Joint CC / SPDC /Parks and Rec Board Presentation ®SOUTHLAKE 2 Bicentennial Park Phase I Improvements • Project Cost: $10,050,000 - FY 09 Construction ($6,050,000) - FY 10 Construction ($4,000,000) • Annual Operating Cost: $233,000* ©SOUTHLAKE Bicentennial Park Phase I Improvements (cont.) • Location: FM 1709 and White Chapel - Renderer) Man - Schematic - --!ierna-c Phases • Proposed Phase I improvements as part of the approved Bicentennial Park schematic design: - Shady Oaks entrance, entry road, and roundabout - West baseball four-plex and parking - Drainage improvements with pond enhancements - FM 1709 entrance improvements - Evans House modifications - Tennis Courts (phase III)" - Design/contingency ©SOUTHLAKE 3 Bicentennial Park Phase II Improvements • Project Cost: $17,080,000 - FY 10 Design ($1,900,000) - SPDC - FY 11 Construction ($7,590,000) - SPDC - FY 12 Construction ($7,590,000) - SPDC • Annual Operating Cost: $129,000* ® SOUTHLAKE Bicentennial Park Phase II Improvements (cont.) • Location: FM 1709 and White Chapel - Rendered Plan - Schematic - Schematic Phases • Proposed Phase II improvements as part of the approved Bicentennial Park schematic design: - White Chapel Entrance and entry road - East baseball five-plex - Playground - Spray Park - Site parking - Satellite Maintenance Facility - Design/contingency ®SOUTHLAKE 4 Bicentennial Park Phase III Improvements • Project Cost: $15,800,000 - FY 13 Design ($2,200,000) - FY 14 Construction ($2,600,000) - TBD Construction ($11,000,000) • Annual Operating Cost: $95,000* ®SOUTHLAKE Bicentennial Park Phase III Improvements (cont.) • Location: FM 1709 and White Chapel - Rendered Plan - Schematic - SchWmat c Phases • Proposed Phase III improvements as part of approved Bicentennial Park schematic design: - Tennis Center expansion (included in Phase 1) - Stadium - "Hill" improvements - Existing structure architectural modifications - Parking improvements - Design/contingency ®SOUTHLAKE 5 n~ered Plan r41' Fg, ttT~ Fccccc[C c r ti~t.}.~ DTI} f'~~ ctSf ~r~ ~ji{~~1 Cc Cc tzt~FL-c~~.y.,&~ Y Ir ©SOUTHLAKE L s„.„emir ©SOUTHLAKE 6 Key: Phase Phase II °th1ak`Bwd. Phase III ®SOUTHLAKE ®SOUTHLAKE 7 i A` Bob Jones Park North Playground Improvements • Project Cost: $375,000 • Annual Operating Cost: $1,000 ®SOUTHLAKE Bob Jones Park North Playground Improvements • Location: 3901 N White Chapel Blvd • Details: - Shade structure: • Install shade structure over northern playground • Current playground gets too hot in summer • Improve public health - Rubberized surfacing • Replace wood chip playground surface with rubberized surface ®SOUTHLAKE 8 Y 3. i •r ®SOUTHLAKE ®SOUTHLAKE 9 Chesapeake Park Improvements • Project Cost: $286,000 • Annual Operating Cost: $12,000 ®SOUTHLAKE Chesapeake Park Improvements • Location: Old Union at Pearson Ln. - Map and concept a Ian • Finish-out of existing neighborhood park in southwest area of city - Pavilion - Irrigation - Amenities such as tables, benches, etc. - Landscaping - Fishing Pier - 1/2 Court Basketball - Park Entry Sign/Feature - Design/Contingency ® SOUTHLAKE 10 a AP 4 C'nesaP kiln f_ , • Aff ®SOUTHLAKE (.heat IAr'!n 1 - 'L I ham. lwd ~ I I _ ~ uwooumwmrmd 11 , i PnY Min l J I I IIUN? IAriIIN:l.vllltlf II' t .n I.. nn +MUr I I III II~II~ III FoW. 7. CONCEPTUAL PLAN I F I II lIU nul \ I "h,. Y~~R CHESAPEAKE PARK - -.v •It n-.~- Ci".f SmRhwk.,Tea. © SOUTHLAKE 11 Coker Hike/Bike Trailhead • Project Cost: $113,000 • Annual Operating Cost: $12,000 ©SOUTHLAKE Coker Hike/Bike Trailhead • Location: Foxfire at Lonesome Dove Rd. - Map and drawing • Hike and bike trailhead with Corps property and lake access - Mini-shelters (3) - Parking lot -Amenities (bike racks, fountains) - Site improvements/utilities - Design/contingency ©SOUTHLAKE 12 Fox Frre vAy, as4 Hill :4h0 FI B w,w-.. 9.1CQ91CU h[5I fAgJMS P.ao.lr t►. C0NCEPTUALPLAN4vvl~wt rw Crivpr rdP COKER PROPERTY Clty of Soulhloko, T-- P.aPOM Nlnl-Mrlr L tt Z' ®SOUTHLAKE ©SOUTHLAKE 13 AM' Community Center / Senior Center • Project Cost: $10,000,000 - Based on cost estimate provided by Brinkley, Sargent during City-wide facility analysis • Annual Operating Cost: TBD ®SOUTHLAKE M!j FMARNMR- M a - - N may. i t r..:.: ~J ~ ~ t' ■ it 1~ p- ~ e` ] FSIIC r't~~b a Se ,Or - r r1l L4 l ®SOUTHLAKE 14 ASP* Community Services Matching Funds • Project Cost: $200,000 Annually - Annual commitment - "Double" the city's buying power by encouraging private fundraising - Known Potential Future Requests - Safety Town - SGSA SBA - SHS • Annual Operating Cost: TBD ®SOUTHLAKE ®SOUTHLAKE 15 Farhat Property Development • Project Cost: $440,000 • Annual Operating Cost: $18,000* ®SOUTHLAKE Farhat Property Development • Location: Far east end of E. Bob Jones Rd. - a Anci -.awin • Site improvements for public use: - Drive access and parking - Picnic areas (3) - Site amenities - Natural (crushed granite) trail - Design/Contingency ®SOUTHLAKE 16 APD, '1~ e. » t f q.y~ a t s~ 1 .ter ;F , 4 ,;.T `.fin May ©SOUTHLAKE 17 Kirkwood / Sabre Linear Park • Project Cost: $366,000 • Annual Operating Cost: $18,000 ®SOUTHLAKE Kirkwood / Sabre Linear Park • Location: Between Kirkwood and N. White Chapel 1' (I • Construction of linear park: - Natural (crushed granite) trail - (1) 24' pavilion/rest station - Concrete parking with 5 spaces and culvert - Site improvement - signs, fountain, benches, tables - Design/contingency ®SOUTHLAKE 18 I Awl J S I 1} b IN J 1~ ~11:~I ~1 a t k 4y ~5 .77'"FF55 1. ae Fipue lp ,3E✓ . COMC[PIWLPl41MMICM"1pD. `p~p ~ ]Mp: LMfAR FMR I~ # S' City w lwNbb. Isus [r p t ®SOUTHLAKE ©SOUTHLAKE 19 ®SOUTHLAKE Liberty Park at Sheltonwood Phase II B, C, and D • Project Cost: $446,000 - Phase IIB - Phase IIC - Phase IID - Design & Contingency • Annual Operating Cost: $22,000 ©SOUTHLAI<E 21 E Liberty Park at Sheltonwood Phase II B, C, and D • Location: 500 E. Dove Rd. - Schematic Desicin • Details: - Phase 1113 - Playground - Phase IIC - Discovery Trail, Artwork, Interpretive Signage, Fountain, Landscape - Phase III) - Trail extension for secondary pedestrian access entrance ®SOUTHLAKE RIDOECREST DR. PHASE Il 12'PATHWAY I1+ PARK ENTRANCE MARKER ENLARGED WILDFLOWER ME1100W POND PHASE Ila HISTORYIMEMORIAL WALK OPTION #1 PARKING L01 \ G~'a1 PHASE SleCOVERY NATURAL SURFACE TRAIL "D TRAIr MEMORIAL„ FOUNTAIN \ NATIVE GRASS 1 l.f b LEANING TREE PLANTING POND OVERLOOK PARK ENTRY LION'S DEN SIGNAAGE' f III.O V~ PHASE III, L SECONDARY PARK ENTRY T R~BER'S SIGNAGE A WALK ROOD r FUTURE 10'/12' TRAIL j HANGMAN'S GULCH PHASE Ile CHILOflEN'S ENHANCED PLAYGROUND PAVILION LIBERTY PAR K AT S 1 1 1 1 ®SOUTHLAKE I 22 Milk ®SOUTHLAKE North Park Development • Project Cost: $4,737,000 - FY 09/10 Design ($413,700) - FY 11 Construction ($4,323,300) • Annual Operating Cost: $149,000* ® SOU, THLAKE 23 North Park Development • Location: NE corner of White Chapel & Dove Rd. - j,;er;cam' Plana`/MaQ • Funding identified in SPDC budget for land acquisition • Proposed Site Amenities - Multi-purpose Sports Fields (Lacrosse & Flag Football) - Playground - Concession/Restroom/Pavilion - Joint Parking with DPS Facility - Trails - Landscape/Irrigation - Open space ® SOUTHLAKE :tit - =41, V, I j •e 11 t' to \ \ \ \ r I "°"T" North Park Site 75 160 300 _ Southlake, Texas ®SOUTHLAKE "PAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 24 ®SOUTHLAKE S A F J Y Safety Town Park T D W N • Total Project Cost: $1,375,051 \~J - $150,000 (SPDC) - $150,000 (PDF) - $200,000 (SPDC Matching Funds - $50K Allocated to date) - Assumes SPDC Matching Funds & Grant Assistance • Annual Operating Cost: $22,000 ©SOUTHLAKE 25 Safety Town Park Location: Randoll Mill, west of DPS West - Drawings: • Site Plan • Floor Plan • Elevation Plan ®SOUTHLAKE cs,k w r~~sV a pit~ ~ N 1 t_ I~ A P Q - ®SOUTHLAKE 26 TAY Af --LLl ARFA „ ~ A®IA . OFFKESI~ moe, Ul FLOOR PUN ® SOUTHLAKE p~FRONf EIfVATION p21HI.flEYATgn Q e 1 w RAIX E,EVAnON r .v p~RicE,r E,EVnnau I.1 R P O A _ L J. ©SOUTHLAKE 27 ®SOUTHLAKE SOUTHLAKE PDF CIP Project Profiles FY 2010 - 2014 Integrity Innovation Accountability Commitment to Excellence Teamwork 28 Park Dedication Fund Projects Project Operating Cost Cost • Koality Park Improvements .r TOTAL $168 $0 ® SOUTH LAKE Return to Joint CC / SPDC /Parks and Rec Board Presentation Koality Park Improvements • Project Cost: $168,000 • Annual Operating Cost: ®SOUTHLAKE 29 Koality Park Improvements • Location: W. Continental adjacent to Carroll Elementary - Ma and conceptual plan • Improvements to existing Neighborhood Park - Landscaping - Replacement of natural trail with concrete surface - Picnic areas in the natural area by the creek - Irrigation - Park Entry Sign and Landscape Feature - Design/contingency ©SOUTHLAKE l 4 44 URY' © SOUTHLAKE W' L6 YMEO~• 30 oil i SOUTHLAKEI I I Questions? Integrity Innovation i Accountability Commitment to Excellence Teamwork I Return to Joint CC / SPDC / Parks and Rec Board Presentation O 31 CITY OF SOUTH Al<,.,,,,E SPDC PROJECT RANKING FORM 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.