Item 7LCity of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
September 14, 2005
TO: Shana Yelverton, City Manager
FROM: Steve Polasek, Deputy Director of Community Services (x. 802 1)
SUBJECT: Resolution 05 -033, of the Southlake Pathways (The Trail System Master Plan) as
a component of the Southlake 2025 Plan, the Comprehensive Master Plan for the
City of Southlake
Action Requested: City Council approval of Resolution 05 -033, of the Southlake Pathways (The
Trail System Master Plan) as a component of the Southlake 2025 Plan, the
Comprehensive Master Plan for the City of Southlake.
Background
Information: Per Section 11.06 of the City Charter, master plan components are to be
reviewed and updated as necessary every four years to reflect changing City
conditions. The Community Services Department recently concluded the
update of the Southlake Pathways (Trails Master Plan). While the current plan
is in good form, recommendations are proposed to better integrate the
document with the Southlake 2025 Plan and capture the changes within the
trail systems.
The Southlake 2025 Plan is the city's comprehensive plan and serves as a blue
print for its future. It is a statement of the community's values and
establishes a vision for the long term growth and development of the city. This
document provides the guiding principles for all elements of the
comprehensive plan including the land use plan, master thoroughfare plan,
water and sewer plan, master drainage plan, parks master plan and city -wide
trail plan. As such, it is critical that a relationship between the Southlake 2025
Plan and the various plan elements be established.
The Planning and Community Service staffs have thoroughly reviewed the
Trail System Master Plan. The recommendations made within the proposed
plan support the goals and objectives of Southlake 2025. The document
incorporates recommendations made by the Parks and Recreation Board and
Planning and Zoning Commission and provides additional decision making
tools to assist the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council in
implementing the recommendations of this plan.
Highlights of the proposed Trail System Master Plan include:
• Integration with Southlake 2025 Plan
• Updated trail plan map
• Updated trail segment descriptions
• Proposed priority trail segments by type
Shana Yelverton, City Manager
September 13, 2005
Page 2
Financial
Considerations: There are no financial considerations resulting from this request.
Financial Impact: There are no financial considerations resulting from this request.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval
(6 -0) at their August 4, 2005 meeting.
The Parks Board reviewed and recommended approval (7 -0) at their May 31,
2005 meeting.
In addition to a formal community survey, there have been numerous public
meetings on the development of the Parks and Trails Master Plans.
Legal Review: Not applicable.
Alternatives: Alternatives may include:
• Approval of proposed Trail System Master Plan as presented
• Approval of proposed Trail System Master Plan with changes
• Denial of proposed Trail System Master Plan
Supporting
Documents: Supporting documents include the following items:
• Resolution No. 05 -033, Adoption of the Southlake Pathways Plan (Trail
System Master Plan) as a component of the Southlake 2025 Plan, the
Comprehensive Master Plan for the City of Southlake.
• Proposed plan text with incorporated changes based upon Planning &
Zoning Commission recommendations (Adobe Reader format). Map
appendices are not included due to file size constraints.
• Proposed final version in hard copy format with all appendices distributed
with Council packets.
Staff
Recommendation: City Council approval of Resolution 05 -033, Adoption of the Southlake
Pathways (The Trail System Master Plan) as a component of the Southlake
2025 Plan, the Comprehensive Master Plan for the City of Southlake.
RESOLUTION No. 05 -033
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE UPDATE TO THE
SOUTHLAKE PATHWAYS PLAN, THE CITY'S TRAIL
SYSTEM MASTER PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE
SOUTHLAKE 2025 PLAN, THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE
MASTER PLAN AND TO INCLUDE A PERIODIC REVIEW
AND ADOPTION OF ANY AMENDMENTS AS PRESCRIBED
IN THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS.
WHEREAS, a Home Rule Charter of the City of Southlake, Texas, was approved by the
voters in a duly called Charter election on April 4, 1987 pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the
Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Local Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Home Rule Charter, Chapter XI requires an update to the City's
comprehensive plan elements every four years,
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that Southlake Pathway, 2005 Update of the
city's Trail Plan is an element of the Southlake 2025 Plan, the City's Comprehensive Master
Plan,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the document complies with
Southlake 2025 Plan, Phase I (Vision, Goals, & Objectives) and consolidates the guiding
principles and recommendations for all area plans of Southlake 2025 Plan - Phase II,
WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed that the Southlake Pathways Plan has been
formulated and updated with adequate public input,
WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed that the recommendations herein reflect the
community's desires for the future development of the city's non - motorized network,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT:
Section 1. All of the findings in the preamble are found to be true and correct and the City
Council hereby incorporates said findings into the body of this resolution as if
copied in its entirety
Section 2. Exhibit A —2005 Update of the Trail System Master Plan is hereby adopted as the
Southlake Pathways Plan, a component element of the Southlake 2025 Plan, the
City's Comprehensive Master Plan.
Section 3. The different elements of the Comprehensive Master Plan, as adopted and
amended by the City Council from time to time, shall be kept on file in the office
of the City Secretary of the City of Southlake, along with a copy of the resolution
and minute order of the Council so adopting or approving the same. Any existing
element of the Comprehensive Master Plan which has been heretofore adopted by
the City Council shall remain in full force until amended by the City Council as
provided herein.
Section 4. This resolution shall become effective on the date of approval by the City Council
PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS DAY OF 2005.
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
Andy Wambsganss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lori Farwell,
City Secretary
Exhibit A
Southlake Pathways
The 2005 Update of the
Trail System Master Plan
2005
Draft - 9/714/05
Southlake Pathways:
2005 Update of the Trail System Master Plan
Final Draft (9/14/05)
Southlake City Council
Andy Wambsganss, Mayor
Keith Shankland (Mayor Pro Tern)
Carolyn Morris (Deputy Mayor Pro Tern)
Laura K. Hill
Gregory Jones
Virginia M. Muzyka
John Terrell
Southlake Parks and Recreation Board
Frank Cornish, Chairman
Mike Mills, Secretary
Liz Durham
Katrina Peebles
Cara White
Mary Georgia, Vice Chair
Elaine Cox
Emily Galpin
Bobby Rawls
Southlake Parks Development Corporation
Keith Shankland. President Cara White. Vice - President
Sherry Berman
Carolyn Morris
Andy Wambsganss
Mike Mills
Virginia Muzyka
Southlake Planning & Zoning Commission
Vernon Stansell, Chairman Debra Edmondson, Vice -Chair
Brandon Bledsoe Michael Boutte
Don Coonan Al Morin
Michael Springer
Southlake City Staff
Shana Yelverton, City Manager
Malcolm Jackson, Director of Community Services
Steve Polasek, Deputy Director of Community Service
Kenneth Baker, Director of Planning
2
Section 1. Introduction
1.1 Plan Goals and Objectives
1.2 Definitions
Section 2. Planning Process
2.1 2005 Parks and Trails User Survey
Section 3. Southlake Pathways System
3.1 Selection Criteria
3.2 Trail Segment Descriptions
3.3 Priority Trail Segments by Type
3.4 Intercitv Trails
Section 4. On- Street Bicycle System
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Plan Update — Bicycle Level of Service
4.3 Recommendations for Near -Term Improvements to the Existina Transportation Network
Section 5. Plan ImDlementation Recommendations
5.1 Development of Paths and Walkways on Undeveloped Lands
5.2 Finding Available Space
5.3 Integrating ating Trails with the On- Street System for Bicyclists and Pedestrians
5.4 At -Grade Intersections for Pathways and Trails
5.5 Trail User Safety and Security Concerns
5.6 Liabilitv Concerns
5.7 Bicyclist Education
5.8 Operations and Maintenance
Section 6. Trail Identification. Amenities. and Sianaae
6.1
User Interfaces
6.2
Rest Areas
6.3
Interpretive Facilities
6.4
Signage
6.5
Bicycle Parking
Section 7. Conclusion
Appendices:
Appendix A: A Note on Facility Design Guidance
Appendix B: Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)
Maps:
1. Trail Plan Map — Existing, Programmed, Planned and Proposed Paths and Trails
2. Carroll ISD Attendance Zones
3. Conceptual Plan of Bob Jones Park
4. Conceptual Plan of Bicentennial Park
Southlake Pathways
The 2005 Update of the Trail System Master Plan
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
With the completion and adoption of the 2001 Southlake Pathways - Trails System
Master Plan update, Ted --by t#e- c-eR661 feam ^f R^4,m -Ar, n414-94 - AP-I CaFteF +
B6iFges the City of Southlake made giaRt rg eat strides in developing an extremely
comprehensive e#G# ef nationally accepted criteria for
implementing a system of non - motorized travel within the city. The 2005 update,
therefore, is intended to update data and provide an opportunity
for Southlake's elected and appointed officials to apply the latest most current policy
decisions and prioritize .. trail segment implementations based on ri irr °r, +'" — a il °hl°
4aTa community input and research. The second critical aspect of the 2005 update is to
implement the long -range planning goals developed through the work of the Southlake
2025 the city's first mo^r ^„ °r °II comprehensive master pla -e#G#
The first pathways plan was adopted in 1995 and served as a solid foundation for the
2001 update. From the 1995 effort to 2001, however, the city began to consider that
trails can mean Ma ny m ^r° +hiRgsmuch more that just the ones typically associated with
concrete strips adjacent to roadways. The 2001 plan addressed significant factors
related to the on -road system, as well, where cyclists opt to take advantage of extra
paving width, striping, and signage to travel at higher speeds and greater distances
thant typical neighborhood bicycle traffic. In 2001, the criteria necessary to establish the
on -road systems were developed and are FepeaTed- continued in this plan. Likewise, fGT-
fireIso in 2001, natural- surfaced (and otherwise) trail corridors were
suggested for Southlake's many floodplain corridors, and the abundant and intricate
equestrian and hiking trail systems adjacent to Lake Grapevine were described in
greater detail. AItegetheKWhile the 2001 Trail System Master Plan firmly established a
gFeat majority of the criteria ef— this 2005 update policy decisions on plan
implementation priorities were revised based on community input and the Southlake
2025 Plan recommendations. -A.Ad-. ef# enly,� --� IGYd-1esTs+oas FeMaRiRg °s tee
0 MPIE ?m°n+a+i^n Pri^ri+i °c
R
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
This 2005 update also continues the more detailed terminology outlined in 2001 by
referring to the various routes described herein in the broad sense as "pathways," which
is the all- encompassing term for the route system. From there, the plan identifies the
hierarchy of pathways from "trails" - the higheP „ ^'„m° P^ atCSv a °�,gR Gl f� -�61 6168
twe way tra4el — to "sidewalks, - "- (see Definitions, Section 1.2)
6 168F Path ^n Oho noighh^Ph^^r-I i8'
Also continued from the 2001 plan, and hopefully into the future, is the hierarchy of
planning stages for the trail segments identified in the plan and on the maps. The
legend denotes four levels of planning progress: "existing" segments are. ebvie
aGlGPt "programmed" segments -are mp-�-aVe
IMPFE)VeMeRt PFGgPaff4', "planned" segments -Are these v. have PFev beeR
and "proposed" segments -AR9 these A. are b-61�
■Q - -- Definitio
1.1 PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of the Southlake Pathways P is to implement the pathwamobilitys goals
and objectives of the Southlake 2025 Plan by identif a n inter - connected system of
pGt8Rtial corridors for pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians This system will O�„ -^per
#e provide transportation choices and recreation opportunityies, thus enhancing the
quality of life available te-for all Southlake residents.
Specifically, the Southlake Pathways Plan implements Goals 1, 4, and 5 and their
corresponding fe4ew44q— objectives fr-en4as included in the Southlake 2025- Plan - Phase
I.
Southlake 2025 Phase 1, Goal 1:
7
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
Promote quality neighborhoods that contribute to an overall sense of place and
community. Quality neighborhoods are the cornerstone of our community. Quality
neighborhoods are well designed and maintained, attractive, pedestrian friendly and
safe.
Objective 1.2: Promote the creation /preservation of attractive, pedestrian
friendly streets with pleasing vistas that limit the visual impact of the automobile.
Southlake 2025 Phase 1, Goal 4:
Develop a transportation system that minimizes traffic congestion, provides alternatives
to the automobile, promotes energy efficiency, and allows expanded opportunities for its
citizens to meet some routine needs by walking or bicycling. The design of the
transportation system should act as framework that gives the city "character and
functionality ".
Objective 4.3: Promote contiguous bicycle /pedestrian /trail facilities which are
user friendly, efficient, safe, economical, and connect parks, shopping, schools,
work and residential areas.
Objective 4.4: Promote opportunities to link existing neighborhoods, shopping
areas and employment centers to the existing /future trail system, as detailed in
the Master Pathways Plan.
Objective 4.7: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle mobility on existing roadways
or when redesigning existing roadways or designing new roadways.
Southlake 2025 Phase 1, Goal 5:
SuDDort a comprehensive intearated oxen space and recreation system that creates
value and preserves natural assets of the city. Open spaces may include a combination
of natural areas, parks, trails, and greens. A recreation system includes squares,
educational and civic uses.
Objective 5.1: Encourage developers to provide useable and functional open
space that is integrated with new development. Access to such areas should be
Pedestrian friendly.
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
The Southlake Pathways Plan also incorporates the following pathways
recommendations from the Southlake 2025 Phase II area plans.
Southlake 2025 Phase 11 Recommendations:
• Develop an interconnected system of trails and sidewalks along all public and
private streets to maximize pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods,
parks, schools, shopping, employment areas, and intercity /regional trail
systems where feasible. In addition, prioritize pedestrian safety and access
to schools, sporting facilities and city park facilities.
• Require sidewalks to be provided on all public and private r q
streets.
• Encourage pedestrian connectivity between adjoining commercial
developments. Evaluate potential for pedestrian connectivity from retail /office
uses to adjacent neighborhoods.
• Continue to improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation throughout the city.
• Create an interconnected network of linear greens through the employment
center areas north of S.H. 114. Provide linkage from the employment areas
to existing and future bicycle and pedestrian trails identified on the Master
Pathways Plan.
• Encourage the development of a pedestrian greenway along floodplains and
creeks to provide alternative connectivity between neighborhoods and
adjacent commercial development.
Accordingly, Tthe primary objective of this update has been the identification of
potential connections from residential neighborhoods to local schools, parks, and other
key destinations such as shopping, work, or simply visiting friends and family.
Finally, an action plan can be developed to secure funding for the trails ranked as
priorities to provide hie —non- motorized accessibility in the near term. These are
described more fully GR page18in Section 3.3
The highest - priority trails are characterized by:
9
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
-�A. The necessity to travel safely to school, parks or other neighborhoods,
especially for younger bikers
2. Inter city trail connections
3. Programmed trails
4. Existing connections or other critical segments to complete a short
term system
5. Opportunities to incorporate bicycle lanes on streets
I ]Bike Plan t ee the Gapital Irnnrn\ eMeRt Drnnra1'Y'Y
I�Drnnr�mmor-I 4r�ilc
10
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
1.2 DEFINITIONS GLOSSARY OF TEMS
Bicycle: Every vehicle propelled solely by human power upon which any person may
ride, having two tandem wheels, except scooters and similar devices. The term "bicycle"
in this planning process also includes three and four - wheeled human - powered vehicles,
but not tricycles for children.
Crosswalk: The horizontal portion of roadways, usually at intersections, reserved for
pedestrian crossing; it may be marked or unmarked. Three marking patterns using white
striping are most common: 1) Double Parallel lines, 2) "Zebra Stripes:" white cross
hatches perpendicular to the pedestrian direction of travel, or 3) "Ladder:" perpendicular
white cross hatches combined with double parallel lines on the outside edges.
Curb Ramp: A combined ramp and landing to provide access between street level and
sidewalk level, usually at intersections or designated crosswalks. ADA accessible ramps
must achieve particular design requirements including a running grade no steeper than
1:20. Curb ramps are intended to provide street /sidewalk access to all types of
pedestrians, as well as bicyclists who maybe legally using the sidewalk or crosswalk.
Equestrian: All facilities and amenities that relate to horseback riding and riders.
Median Refuge: An area within an island or median that is intended for pedestrians to
wait safely away from travel lanes for an opportunity to continue crossing the roadway.
Nominal Width: The width of a pathway as designated on plans.
Pathway: A general term denoting a variety of improvements and provisions that are
made by public agencies to accommodate or encourage non - motorized travel, including
off -road trails, on- street bike routes, sidewalks, and bicycle parking and storage
facilities.
11
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
Existinq - Pathway segments that have already been constructed or are largely
constructed at the time of this plan's adoption.
Programmed - Segments which have not been constructed, but have been
identified via some city mechanism for funding (ex. grant funds, the 5 -year
Capital Improvement Program).
Planned - Pathway segments which have previously been identified on prior
master plans.
Proposed - Segments which are being suggested for the first time via the most
recent (i.e. 2005) Pathways Plan update.
Pedestrian: A person walking or traveling by means of a wheelchair, electric scooter,
crutches or other walking devices or mobility aids. Use of the term pedestrian is meant
to include all disabled individuals regardless of which equipment they may use to assist
their self-directed locomotion (unless they are using a bicycle). It also includes runners,
joggers, those pulling or pushing strollers, carriages, carts and wagons, and those
walking bicycles.
Trailhead: A trailhead is the point at which a path, usually intended primarily or solely
for walking, biking, and /or horseback traffic, starts. Modern trailheads may contain rest
rooms, sign posts and distribution centers for informational brochures about the trail and
its features, and parking areas for vehicles and trailers.
Trails: The word "trail" has come to mean a wide variety of facilities types, including
everything from a beaten path to a paved multi -use trail. The word "trail" is used to
describe hiking trails, equestrian trails, and bicycle routes. For this reason, this planning
document will precede the term "trail" with a specific type noted in this section.
Equestrian /Hike: A trail of a natural surface suitable for the passage of horse and
rider. These trails should be regularly inspected for rutting and drainage
problems and vegetation intrusion.
Sidewalk: A pathway of less than 8' which is designed to accommodate lower-
volume, one -way traffic.
12
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
Multi -Use: A bicycle and pedestrian trail separated from motorized vehicular
traffic by an open space, barrier or curb. These trails may be within the
street right -of -way or within an independent right -of -way, such as on an
abandoned railroad bed or along a stream. Multi -use paths typically
accommodate two -way travel and are open to pedestrians, in -line skaters,
wheelchair users, joggers and other non - motorized path users. They are
typically surfaced in asphalt or concrete, but may have hard - packed /all
weather gravel or dirt surfaces as well. To safely accommodate a range of
users, shared use paths should be a minimum of 8' wide (10' for higher -
use or higher -speed trails).
Natural Surface: A pathway constructed of a compacted naturally - occurring base
material, usually consisting of decomposed granite, pea gravel, or re
compacted soil.
Bikeway: A generic term for any road, street, path, trail or way, that in some
manner, is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether
such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be
shared with other transportation modes.
Bicycle Lane: A portion of a roadway that has been designated by striping,
signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of
bicyclists.
P athway . • D nonoral 4orm r l _QAA_ inn vaRety of imnrn-romon4c aR d nrn�ricinnc 4hA4 Ar
o bar ni U anonruioc 4n nr-1 -A49 nr onGni irano nnn_mn4nriZorl tr - Avel inGIi 1 dine
far-il i4ioc
�T
4 c4PQ _ PathWaY conmontc that hero _AIroadY boon Gnnctri irte-I nr aro iaF \/
GGRStn U G4ord -A4 +ho 4im9 of thic nlan'c ar-Inn4inn
on4ifio I rim cnmo r�i4 r mor�hgnicm fnr fi in lien /ov nran4 fi in Jc the F_vo�r
�ni4�l Imnrn\/eMeRt Drnnraml
lannor/ PathWaY conmontc 'nrhir -h hero nroVini SIl boon i lon4ifia I nn nrinr
enactor nl�nc
13
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
14
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
iniinlo Lane.- 0 nnrtinn of a roadway that has; boon d8SOrvnat8d by ctrininrr
15
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
16
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
17
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
18
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
SECTION 2.0 PLANNING PROCESS
The plan development process for the Southlake Pathways Plan followed two parallel
tracks. The first track is the mobility recommendations from Southlake 2025 Plan
Phase I and II and the second track is the Park Board planning process which involved
an update of the 2001 Pathways Plan based on community input.
T he 22-05 update of the Se uthl -aU° R Ath\n /aYS PaR WaS a PaFt of the develnnm °nt of
-t 11-8 2Q 9, the- s+tY's fOR4 TeheR61A-Q ra-;4ste� -P4, Southlake 2025 Plan
forms the blueprint for the physical development of the city for the next 20 plus years.
This plan process began in October 2003 and was undertaken in two phases. Phase
was adopted in March 2004 and established a vision as well as goals and objectives for
developing all the comprehensive plan elements of the city. Phase II, Area Plan
development began in July 2004 and concluded in May 2005 with the adoption of the
last area plan. Both phases included several meetings of the Southlake 2025 Steering
Committee, the Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Southlake City
Council. Several overarching goals, objectives, and recommendations as they pertain
to pathways were adopted by City Council as a part of the Southlake 2025 Plan.
tr�SyStem nlaRRORg TheF°f� Parks and Recreation staff recognized early in the
process of the 2005 update that the '„mss sh-aremg ority of technical information
provided in 2001 r remains °d ex °'" relevant in 2005 requiring only
minor revisions . At the same time, the 2005 Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Master Plan was also coming under revision, and like the 2001
Southlake Pathways Plan, it was also overhauled to very high standards in 2001 and
only ed needed basic revisions. Therefore, both 2005 plan reviews, Parks and
Trails, were conducted internally by staff and focused only on changes as necessary to
reflect policy decisions. The public meetings conducted for the Parks and Trails plans
19
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
were held in a manner that both plans were considered simultaneously, since parks and
trails are so inextricably linked. As is typically the case, the public meetings were
facilitated a majority of the time by the Southlake Program for the Involvement of
Neighborhoods (SPIN), a body which serves as the main source of disseminating public
information to Southlake residents. At each meeting, the first part of the discussion
focused on the park system, and the second half was reserved for trail system issues.
The public meeting schedule is l isted bel ^ included
12 -06 -04
Kick -off Meeting hosted by SPIN
12 -13 -04
Park User Survey Results and Analysis at Park Board
01 -03 -05
Open Space Planning hosted by SPIN
01 -19 -05
Athletics Forum hosted by SPIN
02 -02 -05
Southlake Youth Action Commission (SYAC)
02 -07 -05
Park Issues North of SH 114 (SPIN)
02 -10 -05
Daytime (2:00 p.m.) Meeting with Com. Svc. Groups
02 -17 -05
Park Board Work Session - Parks
02 -21 -05
Central Area Park Issues (114 to 1709) (SPIN)
02 -23 -05
Library Board / FOSL
03 -02 -05
Park Board Work Session - Parks
03 -07 -05
Southern Park Issues (South of 1709) (SPIN)
03 -10 -05
Joint Use Issues with CISD
03 -11 -05
Senior Advisory Commission
03 -31 -05
Park Board Work Session - Trails
04 -11 -05
Park Board Work Session
04 -25 -05
Park Board Work Session
05 -09 -05
i Park Board Recommendations
5 -31 -05
Park Board Recommendations
07 -21 -05
P &Z Consideration
08 -04 -05
P &Z Recommendation
September 2005 City Council Adoption
jc a 2003 P Z GensodeFatmen
ju 2005 Git G d ^r
2.1 2005 USER SURVEY SUMMARY Use Surve SuFn''''�r•
',R 2 885a�a� TEally t#e— c-ase t The entire ^61h'i^ �^ ^' err+ plan update
process began with a statistically relevant phone survey of Southlake trails (and parks)
users' attitudes and opinions. The highlights of the findings of that survey are
summarized below:
20
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
CURRENT UTILIZATION
The majority of Southlake residents utilize at least some aspect of the park
or trail systems. In the past 12 months,
0 80% visited a city park or park facility.
0 74% participated in a city event.
0 56% visited an athletic field or gym.
0 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.
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.
TRAIL PREFERENCES
• 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.
21
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
PARK PREFERENCES
• Southlake residents are quite satisfied with the parks system. However, they
indicated opportunities for improvement.
• Increase availability of park facilities, including athletic fields and gyms.
• Focus new park development to include multi -use trails, playgrounds,
and open grassy areas.
• Overall, Southlake residents consider the proposed recreation center to be
the highest priority in park development. This is particularly true for the
following segments:
o Residents living in Areas 1 (north) and 3 (south)
o Those with children
o Females
• The proposed recreation center is a more popular idea than neighborhood
park development; however, support is not overwhelming.
o 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.
cor-1montc•
eTihese nrith rUhilr-Fe
eFemar°s
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
o Males
RECOMMENDATIONS
22
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
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:
o 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.
23
FINAL DRAFT
SECTION 3.0
September 14, 2005
SOUTHLAKE PATHWAYS SYSTEM-5 I Dre I A I A KS,
In the wake of booming development in and around Southlake, many po ssiblet8Rt+al
^r^°°- ^ ^„ RtFy trail corridors have been lost. This loss, combined with the expansion of
State Highway 114, comprise two major o establishing
connected intra and inter city non - motorized routes acurass th ^i+ 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, w 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.
24
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
Through implementation in the most recently adopted Mobility and Master Thoroughfare
Plan, many of Southlake's existing street corridors will eventually be reconstructed to
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 P8GleStFiaR and b+Eycul+s+ mehility ssfemsnon- 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.
25
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 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.
26
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 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.
Existing
0.56
2. _Shoreline Equestrian /Hiking Trail - 6' nominal width informal trails from near Trophy Club
Existing
3.10
city limits.
3. _Bob Jones Park Spur - 6' natural equestrian /hiking path leading northward from North
Planned
9 -0.43
Bob Jones Trailhead to the Shoreline Trail.
4. _Crown Ridge Equestrian /Hiking Trail - 8' natural surfaced equestrian /hiking path. Also
Planned
0.4980
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. a-.�
mg"
Existing
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 � in the Appendices.
8. _Kirkwood Branch Greenway Hike & Bike Trail - 8 -10' paved pathway mostly meandering
Planned
^4° 0.73
through Corps property.
9. Hike & Bike Pathway (PlaRRGGI)_8' -paved multi -use greenway path
Planned
0.60
_Sabre/Kirkwood
north from S H 114 to Kirkwood.
10. _Kirkwood Greenwalk - 6' paved from Sabre to Dove Road. 9 46 Miles
Existing
0.46
11 -N. White Chapel Boulevard Pathway - (TMB Project 2C North) paved 8' multi -use
Programmed
2- 992_60
_North
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
4- 991.40
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. 4 Miles
13 -W. Dove Road Pathway (West Link)} - 8' paved pathway from S.H. 114 to Carroll Ave.
Planned /
4-4-40.95
_East
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
a- 4-91.25
14. Aventerra Hike & Bike Trail - paved 8' multi -use pathway through proposed campus
Planned
2.97
development.
15. _West Dove Creek 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. Dove Creek Greenway Trail - natural surfaced or paved 8' cross - country greenway
Planned
0.83
_East
trail between Carroll and planned trailhead on Foxfire.
17. _East Highland Street Walkway - 6' sidewalk between Carroll and Kimball. Q Q66 a-;+les
Planned
0.96
18 -N. Carroll Avenue Schools Pathway - paved 8' multi -use
Planned
2.49
_North
trail link on North Carroll 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' multi -use path between Dove and East Continental, with
Planned
2.84
eventual connection to Cottonbelt Trail.
27
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION
STATUS
LENGTH
(MILES)
21. _Sunshine Greenway Trail - 8' paved multi -use path from Highland to the planned
Planned
0.33
Aventerra H &B Trail.
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 fp anned}_6' sidewalk from Florence to Union Church.
Planned
1.50
24. _Royal & Annie Smith Path and Walkway - 6' paved walkway which now oes
Existing /
0.50
through existing Vermillion Addition, plus a eight -foot (8') internal trail meandering through
Planned
existin
the 13 acre wooded Royal & Annie Smith Park, then as a planned 6' walkway eastward
4-450_65
along Johnson Road to Randol Mill Avenue.
(proposed)
25. _Jellico Greenway Trail -8' paved multi -use greenwaypath from Florence Rd. to 1709.
Planned
1.10
26. Southlake Boulevard Pathway - (Projects 2A & 2B West ) 8' paved paths from
Existing /
9-83 3.16
_West
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 e+K-er
both sides of 1709?
27. _Chesapeake Place Greenwalk - 6' paved wa Ikway 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. _SoW feast- Southwest Pathway - paved 8' pathway to extend from large development
Planned
0.51
tract to 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. Randol Mill Avenue Pathway -8' paved multi -use pathway between Westlake to Keller.
^
- �
Planned
4:7-51_94
30 -S. _Davis Greenway Pathway - 8' paved (or natura I surfaced) pathway through floodplain
Proposed
4-4-90.70
area to the rear of large tracts which front the west side of Davis Blvd. South lake 2025 Plan
recommendation.
31. _Big Bear Creek Greenway Trail - 8' paved multi -use greenway link along creek from
Planned
4-94-1.15
Davisto Carroll Elementary School and Continental.
32. _South Peytonville Pathway -8' paved multi -use path between 1709 and Continental.
Planned
1.05
33. In- fill -6' paved pathway to connect neighborhoods to each other and to
Planned
9- 590_65
_Continental
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
9- 691_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. Highland Walkway- 6' sidewalk between Shady Oaks and SH 114 southern R.O.W
Planned
0.49
_West
tra i I.
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 MasterP/an,
Figure 1, attached as Map 45 in the Appendices.
38. _South Bicentennial Linkages {p�- 8' natural (or paved) multi -use access from
Planned
965 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. Park/Town Center Pathway - 8' multi -use paved multi -use link along north
Planned
9,95 1_30
_Bicentennial
side of Southlake Boulevard - between Bicentennial Park entrance on F.M. 1709 and
North Carroll Avenue and Town Center. 9Q2 miles
28
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION
STATUS
LENGTH
(MILES)
41. _Town Square Pathway -8' paved path from North Carroll along the north and east side of
Town Square to East Southlake Boulevard. Align with future road through Town Square. +mss
Programmed
0.57
42. _South White Chapel Walkway - 6' sidewalk se from 1709 to Co Ile yviIle.
Planned
1.77
43. _Rockenbaugh Greenwalk - 6' natural surfaced or paved walkway through the greenway
east of Byron Nelson Parkway, from 1709 to Continental. Note southern end is new
p roposed route through Timarron greenbelt.
Planned /
Proposed
1.03
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 Cottonbelt Link (TMB Project 2C South) - 8' multi -use path from existing trail
stub on the west side of Brumlow at Timarron to SH 26 and the Cottonbelt Trail. See
segment #55 for alternate route.
Existing / Prog
rammed
0.80
47. _Crooked Walkway -6' paved walkwaybetween Kimball and SH 114 and Nolan Drive
walkways.
Planned
0.96
48. _Town Center /Gateway Pathway (Project 2A East) - 8' paved pathway a long north side of
1709 from Carroll Ave. to S.H. 114
Existing
2- 92 1_92
49. Southridge Lakes Infill Project - rehab /addition /modification of intermittent sidewalks and
trails on the north side of F.M. 1709 from Peytonville to Southridge Lakes Pkwv
Planned
0.33
50. N. Peytonville from Dove to Southridge Lakes - 6' path to link N. Peytonville residential
to parks, schools and other trails.
Proposed
1.25
51. _Byron Nelson Crossing Upgrades - upgrades to walkway crossings and signage near
school to increase visibility and safety.
Proposed
N/A
52. _Oak Pointe / Estes Park Infill - 4' and 6' pathway routes which will be mainly built by
developers. Proposed aspect is for public R.O.W. areas not in development. Entire length
shown.
Proposed
2-2-5 1.80
53. _Rucker Extension -8' path to follow proposed new road from Byron Nelson Pkwy to Carroll
Ave.
Proposed
9- x50_50
54. Woodland Heights Extension - 8' path to follow new road from F.M. 1709 to Kimball Ave
Proposed
9250_50
55. _Brumlow Alternate Route to S.H. 26 - 8' paved trail; trail R.O.W may be difficult to obtain
as proposed by segment #46, so any alternate 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. 26.9- 89 -R41a6
Proposed
9.290_50
56. _Pine Street Connector -6' sidewalk connecting S. White Chapel Blvd. to Byron Nelson
Pkwy along Pine Street and Lilac Lane
Proposed
950.76
57. T.W. King Walkway - 6' sidewalk connecting the Kirkwood Trail at S.H. 114 to Lake
Proposed
1.60
Gra pevi ne
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 4G
0.70
through the Cliffs development as an alternative to #8.
lei
444-
60. 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
alternative link between neighborhoods, employment areas, and shopping,
61. Sunshine Lane -Dove Creek Greenwav - 6' natura I pathway to be developed in
conjunction with any rura I conservation subdivision along Sunshine Lane.
Proposed
0.74
62. Milner Walkway - 8'+ paved trail to be developed in conjunction with development and
Proposed
0.40
linking to #63.
63. Carroll - White 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 Mi I ner property. Project to inc I ude addition of sidewalks on Chape I 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
29
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
TRAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION
STATUS
LENGTH
(MILES)
65. Rucker— Prade WalkwaV — 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 GreenwaV — 8' + natural, multi -use trail connecting Kimball Ave. to Lake
Proposed
0.55
Grapevine through Corps of Engineers' property.
67. Dove Creek GreenwaV Extension — 8'+ natura I. 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 WalkwaV -6' paved pathway connecting #52 to #11 -N
Proposed
0.27
3.3 PRIORITY RANKING TRAIL SEGMENTS BY TYPE
Trail segments have been ranked to reflect the attitudes stated in the most recent Parks
and Trails User Survey (2004), persenal 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 euF 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:
LL44�-which make connections to schools, fellewed -by
L:IL + which make connections to parks, felfewed -by
L { L - � ese- that connect populous neighborhoods and task
(4) (4) ;n+orG,+„ trail rA_RPeG , ^4 °those that connect intercity trails
The rankings listed below are based on th above factors. Map 1 in the
Appendices can be used to locate those sections As we" and ° ^'°°°° r °f °r +^ Map
2, Carroll ISD Attendance Zones, +tG R 4e ex lains the rationale for wh�the trail
segments ^f h priorit Y Fe- I GGa ted 4.1h they oro In afmost ap-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.
30
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
Table 3.2 °r, Trail Segment Prioritizations
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
1709.
Planned
School / Park
50. N. Peytonville from Dove to Southridge Lakes - 6' path to li nk N. Peytonville
residential to parks, schools and other trails.
Proposed
School
13 -W. _East Dove Road Pathway (West Link)) - 8' paved pathway from SH 114 to Carroll
Ave.
Planned
School / Park
18 -N. _North Carroll Avenue Schools Pathway - paved 8' northern segment of Carroll multi-
use trail link from Grapevine to SH 114 to 1709.
Planned
School
51. Byron Nelson Crossing Upgrades - upgrades to walkway crossings and signage near
school to increase visibility and safety.
Proposed
School
44. South Carroll Avenue Pathway- 8' paved multi -use path from 1709 to Continental.
Planned
School / Park
35 -N. _North Shady Walkway -8' paved multi -use path from entrance at Coventry north to
Dove Road.
Planned
School
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
on N. White Chapel from S.H. 114 to Bicentennial Park.
Programmed
School / Park
23. North Pearson Lane Walkway 4p anned}_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
pathway from Bob Jones Park to SH. 114..
Programmed
Park
52. Oak Pointe / Estes Park Infill - 4' and 6' pathway routes which will be mainly built by
developers. Proposed aspect is for public R.O.W. areas not in development. Entire
length shown.
Proposed
Park
29. Union Church Walkway - 6' sidewalk from Pearson to Davis. Potential connection to
Keller's planned Big Bear Creek and Eastern Trails.
Planned
Park
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
Grapevi ne.
Planned
Neighbors
16. East Dove Creek Greenway Trail - natura I surfaced or paved 8' cross - country
greenway trail between Carroll and planned trailhead on Foxfire.
Planned
Neighbors
33. Continental In- fill -6' paved pathway to connect neighborhoods to each other and to
CISD facility.
Planned
Neighbors
4.0 Intercity Connectors
46. Brumlow Connector — connecting to existing Cottonbelt Trail in Grapevine and
Planned
Intercity
programmed trail in Collevville
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
31
FINAL DRAFT
3.4 INTERCITY TRAILS
September 14, 2005
Portions of the Cottonbelt Trailway along Dallas Area Rapid Transit's Cottonbelt
Railroad are completeiR th(_Q d_es+g„ Phase With c-e 8tieR 8XFcct8d by late 20-0-1
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 lap nned
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 Feg+e 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
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
c. Astronaut Connector planned 10' pathway along Pearson Crossing
leading to Florence Elementary School (# 28 ?) .
d. Big Bear Creek Trail planned E/W greenway trail south of Union Church
— connects to proposed Southlake Big Bear Creek Trail (# 29 & 31 ?) .
32
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
• Colleyville
a. Pleasant Run Pathway planned (# 42 ?)
o Gottenbelt Trailway pFegFammed (# 46
• Grapevine
a. Cottonbelt Trailway existing (# 20, aPA -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 ?)
33
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
SECTION 4, ON- STREET BICYCLE SYSTEM
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Many of Southlake's residential streets are accessible to all types of bicyclists, including
adult and child bicyclists. This accessibility is due to both the roadway's adequate
width and its low traffic volume. However, at this time, these local streets do not connect
to bicycle - friendly thoroughfares, and aFe 61661ally GRly able— temost often serve
circulation within that neighborhood.
Today in Southlake, even experienced, proficient adult cyclists will find many of the
city's thoroughfares a„ -sahl° ^r in ° ^ ^ ° ° cihl °difficult to navigate at least during peak
traffic periods, due to heavy traffic flows, high speeds, and /or narrow roadway widths.
4.2 PLAN UPDATE – BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE (BLOS) ANALYSIS
Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) is an emerging national standard for quantifying the
bicycle friendliness of a specific roadway. S GFV O GG analysis
evaluates factors that create stress for bicyclists, and can be used to examine the
dynamics of installing the pathways noted in this plan update.
Generally, adult and child bicyclists are comfortable riding on streets with a BLOS
of A or B. Experienced, proficient adult cyclists operate comfortably on streets with a
BLOS of C. Streets with a BLOS of B are generally suitable for on- street signed bicycle
routes, while those with a BLOS of C are intended to serve proficient bicyclists and
provide route continuity when needed.
Appendix B discusses, in detail, the application of BLOS and the evaluation criteria
used to develop the recommended on- street master bicycle plan. The, felln41iRg DrimaFy
inc4 _A11 _A4inn of 4h° nn_c4r° °4 mac4 8r hiGyGl° Plan•
+L 7
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
35
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEAR -TERM IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Much of the effort associated with the on- street portion (see Map 1) of this master plan
update has been to identify potential areas for improvement to the roadway when
roadway sections are constructed. Performance criteria utilized in selecting particular
near -term bike routes included a route's ability to provide accessibility to destinations,
directness, continuity, route attractiveness, low conflict with other users, cost and ease
of implementation.
BLOS analysis data which is commonly utilized in the evaluation of roadway segments
for serving cyclists in the short term include:
• traffic volume (from traffic counts where available, estimate where data is
unavailable)
• speed (posted speed I im it)
• potential lane width (existing pavement width from sample measurements,
divided by the number of lanes, or potentially as part of roadway improvements in
the existing Capital Improvement..:: Program )
When existing pavement width is not adequate, given traffic volumes, two options exist.
One is to lower speed-s,,speeds; the other is to provide additional pavement width. In this
plan, since so many of the roadways in Southlake are not built to ultimate conditions
and are unsafe to travel at any speed, the recommended on- street system almost
always denotes the assumption that a wider (and. �: striped) outside lane has been
provided or will be provided. These considerations, when made in the context of the
overall road construction project, are only minor additions to the project budget. The
Department of Public Works must maintain close contact with roadway engineers to
design the proper roadway sections to accommodate this plan.
36
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
SECTION 5. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Spine trails - ate sidewalks and bikeways will connect across the city west to east and
north to south as an eventual outcome of the 1999 Traffic Management 4Bond T( MB)
program the completion of the intersections that remain.
Trails seldom lead from door to door, however residents should be able to anticipate
accessing trails from their homes as pedestrians along sidewalks, and along roadways
that accommodate bicycle traffic, or multi -use trails that accommodate both. Given safe
facilities in attractive surroundings, studies show that people will generally walk up to a
mile to a destination such as trail access, or bicycle 3 -5 miles to get to a destination —a
journey of usually less than 20 minutes. NCTCOG uses 5 miles as a typical one -way
bicycle trip, and' /2 mile for a typical one -way pedestrian trip.
The Southlake Subdivision Ordinance requires sidewalks ^r Path W ith;r MGM
for all
residential development with less than 1 -acre (average) lots However, Tthere are no
sidewalk requirements for commercial development, unless t# °r° identified in the
Pathways Plan. The Southlake 2025 Plan, specifically the adopted Mobility and Master
Thoroughfare Plan, emphasizes pedestrian mobility in the form of trails or sidewalks
along all the city's roadways and pathways along creeks and floodplains. Further, the
Southlake 2025 Plan prioritizes pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods,
shopping, employment areas, parks, and schools. Since a continuous network is critical
in order to link all existing and proposed trails to destinations, this plan recommends
amending the city's development regulations (zoning and subdivision) to require all new
development to:
o Provide sidewalks along all public and private streets;
o C4e44-Eonnect to existing or future trail networks; or provide stubs whenever
feasible; and
o Provide internal pedestrian access within the development to existing /proposed
37
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
trails or sidewalksT his �Sid- ^e °lU nrr-lin _AnGG 6 8FVeS tG_ P-RSI- baS
In addition, pathways should be provided along creeks and floodplain corridors to
provide alternative connectivity between destinations.
The key plan objective is to make access possible from neighborhoods to the city's
schools, parks, °^"�,ee; ; and other everyday destinations for Southlake family members
of all ages and abilities. All --hee;eneighborhoods like Village GeRteF,Te�
Squa� areas, and other major traffic generators should be the next prime
focus for including such access, given the rapid development patterns of recent years.
I Re
The
Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends the development of a
comprehensive sidewalk plan for existing neighborhoods. Such a plan would identify
critical areas for pedestrian linkages, funding opportunities, street retrofit options, and
develop policy recommendations to prioritize the implementation of the plan through a
variety of means including the city's Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
The recent efforts of new development districts in the Southlake 2025 planning effort
offer the best opportunity for achieving a truly pedestrian- oriented environment.
Property owners in the area bounded by S.H 114, F.M 1709 and Carroll Avenue, as
well as other areas of the city, must now strive to make pathway and sidewalk
connections with each other wherever possible.
DEVELOPMENT OF PATHS AND WALKWAYS ON UNDEVELOPED LANDS
In light of the rapidly changing landscape in Southlake, opportunities to create elements
in this community - building, human - powered network are quickly disappearing. Critical
connections that seem obvious one day may become suddenly blocked by
neighborhood site plans the next. This plan makes it easier for land planners and
developers to access information necessary to address these quality of life and
38
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
transportation choice issues �itie° like SG61thlake
The current pace of development in Southlake increases the need for ongoing
vigilance to ensure appropriate implementation of these pathway opportunities. This
plan should be made widely available to residents and developers alike This plan
should also guide decision makers when reviewing development plans in the areas of
non - motorized access and connectivity Modifications to some greenway trail
alignments in this plan may become necessary — and should be anticipated and
accommodated — as site plans are developed. The impacts of any modifications should
be considered in the context of the proposed development and in relation to, the rest of
the system, keeping in mind the interconnectivity of the system and how any
realignment relates to the overall plan's goal of connectivity for functional and
recreation non- motorized trips.
Implementing this plan will require a range of strategies including the creation of
partnerships with developers, property owners and neighborhood groups to assemble
sufficient right -of -way, and dedicate adjacent space where necessary for the creation of
a given pathway. It is also essential to pursue a variety of funding opportunities to
ensure adequate financing.
Most important is for each SPIN sector to embrace its segments as opportunities for
gateways and pathways from their neighborhoods to community resources — parks,
schools, employment, and commercial and civic center. For this plan to be most
successful, the public process to make it happen should be initiated by SPIN sector
groups. Support demonstrated for creating these pathways in a given neighborhood
should result, over time, in action to develop that project. Even then, citizens will need
to be aware that the process often takes years from vision to reality on the ground.
Implementation of this plan can be accomplished by approaching it from several fronts.
Pathways in undeveloped areas can be established through consistent application of
the Southlake revised subdivision, park dedication, sidewalk requirements, and through
39
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
Southlake 2025 Plan proposed deyelepmepA new land use categoriesd- 46tr,r+ rUh -rno�
Nearby businesses, especially retail_ and service pFevi e use s, will benefit greatly
from the neighborhood's newfound access as well.
.e
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
5.2 FINDING AVAILABLE SPACE
One of the principal issues confronting the constructability of the Southlake Trail syst e m
MasterPathways, Plan is the quality, feel and appearance of the journey environment
that is possible in the limited amount of space available in the right -of -way. Given
current planting requirements, and prescribed fencing offsets in the current zoning
ordinance, severe root damage may result from constructing properly engineered
sidewalks and pathways within the available right -of -way.
Development of pathways can be fostered by increased partnering with developers and
neighborhood organizations. Southlake has so few opportunities remaining that it must
endeavor to continue shaping the way future development looks and functions,
especially along Southlake Boulevard, around Town Square, and in the Village Center
area of the city. With its mixed retail and office uses, along with City Hall, this city center
provides a wide range of services to Southlake residents and visitors who may someday
more easily access the area via the pathways proposed in this plan.
Similarly, multi -use paths along both sides of the S H 114 right -of -way will be
critical to resolving the barrier created by the upgraded freeway corridor. As
development along the freeway is eXpand occurs it will become increasingly
important to provide a formal pedestrian and bicyclist routing system within the right -of-
way for passage along and across the highway corridor. Properly designed, these
pathways can also serve as worthwhile relievers of local motorized traffic congestion
generated by businesses along the corridor. These pathways should be integral
components of the road widening project.
While retrofitting 8p —most city roadways adjacent to existing development use of
bufferyards through pedestrian easements may be the only option in providing space for
the development of a path facility. Creating attractive, safe, predictable, ;nt- it+ve
4&46 4-functional connections will require finding additional corridor space in many areas
of the city, or perhaps a future narrowing of the planned roadway lane- widths to allow
41
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
room within the adjacent bufferyards for construction of pathway facilities. The single
greatest obstacle to implementation of this plan is lack of available space within the
roadway rights -of -way, based on dimensions described for sidewalks as approved in
prior master plans. Careful monitoring of development conditions and proposals where
trail space is tight, along with the use of bufferyards to create unique solutions, will be
important duties of city staff in order to accommodate some of these proposed trails.
While finding this space will be difficult, the rewards for doing so will be great over the
long -term Special places invariably h -ave ^r° °+ °F are pedestrian friendly public corridors
and spaces. Attractive public space is one of the most compelling reasons to live, work,
visit or play in a community. Southlake is in the position of having made an excellent
start in 1995, then producing an award - winning Trail Pathways Plan in 2001.
INTEGRATING TRAILS WITH THE ON- STREET SYSTEM FOR BICYCLISTS
AND PEDESTRIANS
Where trails merge with roadways, special consideration will need to be given to on-
road segments to ensure bike route and sidewalk continuity. While the proposed trail
system provides access to most parks in the city, in some instances connections will
need to be made via on- street routes utilizing continuous sidewalks and bicycle friendly
streets. Sidewalks are a critical component in the citywide network for non - motorized
transportation. They must continue along the roadway from where a trail ends.
It is also essential that the street system accommodate Peeple -en 19
On- street bikeways should be designed to integrate bicycle traffic into the normal
vehicular flow of the roadway. Ideally these routes will have low traffic speeds, low
traffic volumes, and wide outside lanes if traffic volumes warrant. Additionally, these on-
road bikeways should have few stop signs or signal lights, few curb cuts or driveways,
and minimal interference from turning or parking traffic.
In planning for a trail's iR+. intersection with an existing roadway, it is important to
42
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
take into consideration the design requirements to accommodate bicyclists' transitions
between the path and the roadway. Predictable crossings at established intersections
are the most appropriate treatment in these situations. If trail /road intersections are
required at mid - block, they should be located well away from intersections — 150' or
more — to minimize the danger of distracted drivers engaged in turning maneuvers.
However, each roadway crossing should be specifically designed to account for traffic
volumes and speeds, as well as that roadway's design and viewsheds created by
adjacent bufferyards. For the sake of safety ,_ clear, open sightlines must be
maintained near and at every intersection in the system.
A very effective way to increase motorists' cone of vision at intersections is to setback
the stop bar in the travel lanes. This allows a wider view of cross traffic, including
pedestrians and other occupants within the crosswalk.
A typical road cross - section in the thoroughfare plan includes 2' additional space in the
outside travel lane on each side for on- street bicycle accommodation. Although this 2'
additional space should be included in the design of most all new roadways, there are
situations in Southlake where this 2' space is insufficient — generally the on- street bike
routes along Southlake Boulevard that were adopted in 1995. For Southlake Boulevard
to be fully bicycle - accessible, an additional foot of space is necessary to achieve a
bicycle level of service appropriate for this designation. It is a recommendation of this
plan to seriously consider this need when Southlake Boulevard is scheduled to be re-
striped in the near future.
People who walk or use bicycles for transportation tend to travel to the same
destinations as those who drive cars. To evaluate the current accessibility of the
existing road system, an analysis of traffic counts and speeds, combined with other
factors, was deployed to determine each of Southlake road's most appropriate
accommodation for bicyclists. A more thorough analysis of each road segment should
be undertaken during the design phase, prior to implementation to assure system
continuity for bicyclists.
43
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
May PFG)V
denied _AEC -ess to the Keg llaF Fea syste Texas law states that bicyclists have the
same rights and responsibilities as drivers of motor vehicles. Additional guidance can be
found in NCTCOG's 1995 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design
Guidelines, and the 1999 AASHTO Guidelines for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.
Useful design treatments can also be found in the National Highway Institute's 1996
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Accommodation. Many bicyclists ride too fast for
trails, and sometimes seek a higher level of efficiency than is available on trails. While
the convenience of a trail along a roadway may provide expedient shortcuts for those
who choose them, bicyclists should not be denied access to the regular road system.
5.4 AT -GRADE INTERSECTIONS FOR PATHWAYS AND TRAILS
Since this plan recommends not only new trails within parks, but also focuses on
creating non - motorized access trails connecting neighborhoods to schools, parks, and
commercial areas, there will necessarily be numerous at -grade crossings of streets.
Trail and sidewalk design should focus on these critical intersections. A key element in
the plan's implementation should be bicycle and pedestrian friendly crossings of
Southlake Boulevard and SH 114, which should be achievable through appropriate
design treatments at all existing crossings, in conjunction with the grade separated
crossings across creeks and drainage areas.
Intersection enhancements involve either "active" motor vehicle traffic controls, such as
stop signs or signals, or passive treatments, such as warning signs, and perhaps
flashing lights. Each intersection must be carefully reviewed prior to any modification
from current status.
..
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
Where trails and sidewalks cross roadways — medians, ADA curb ramps, curb
extensions and bulb -outs can all be effective design treatments. Pedestrian refuge
islands Med-i an r°fi at street intersections are essential for roadways with pavement
widths wider than about 45 feet. Any longer crossing should allow a refuge part way, for
slower moving pedestrians. An angled walkway across the median is a construction
option that, aS °hG)WR OR fig FE? at right forces path users to face oncoming traffic as they
cross -#. This is especially effective for mid -block crossings, but can sometimes work at
intersections. This configuration also provides additional room on the median for
queuing of students, parents with baby joggers, and parents on bikes with trailers in
tow.
5.5 TRAIL USER SAFETY AND SECURITY CONCERNS
While most citizens expressed support for trail projects, some citizens continue to
have security and privacy concerns. It is generally recognized that concerns of this
nature can be addressed effectively by adhering to sound trail design principles related
to view sheds. These may include moving the trail further away from properties, or
involve landscaping to assure residents' privacy.
Frequently used trails help ensure trail safety. Another key way to minimize the potential
for crime is through volunteer or professional trail patrols, in addition to good trail
design. Removing overgrown vegetation and tall shrubs near the trail eliminates
potential hiding places and to provide longer sight lines for users. This is an important
element in establishing a sense of safety. However, it is also important to maintain or
create vegetative screening at strategic locations to ensure privacy for nearby residents.
Other strategies that increase security include signage, lighting and call boxes. Posting
trail rules at trailheads with reminders along the trail lets people know what is expected.
Strategic lighting, especially at trailheads and in parking lots, may be needed. Generally
all roadway /trail intersections should be lighted to enhance safety. The need for
emergency call boxes and emergency access should be considered during trail design.
45
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
In recognition of trail user safety concerns, the Rails -to- Trails Conservancy and the
National Park Service's Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program issued a
1998 report, Rail- Trails and Safe Communities, showing that an individual's chances of
being the victim of an assault, burglary or rape are two to three times higher when on
the street or in a parking facility than in a park or on a trail. The report also states that
while the national rate of suburban burglary is 820 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants,
only one suburban trail reported a break -in to adjacent property in 1996. This survey
found that 67% of suburban rail - trails are patrolled in some way. Trail patrols range from
informal clean -up and maintenance volunteers to daily police patrols.
5.6 LIABILITY CONCERNS
Lawsuits related to trails are very rare. According to Greenways: A Guide to Planning,
Design, and Development, most trail - related lawsuits involve cases in which the
landowner or manager did something outrageous, charged fees for access, or failed to
perform simple risk management, or are in states where the courts are biased against
recreational use statutes. Although serious injuries on trails are unusual, an overriding
fear of lawsuits makes liability a concern for entities that build trails. Regardless of how
well a trail has been designed, there is always some risk associated with its use.
Several common conditions that can result in liability lawsuits are: poor management
and maintenance, failure to recognize potentially hazardous situations, and facilities
inadequate to handle the volume and intensity of use.
The Texas recreational use statute passed in 1965 implies liability only for willful or
wanton misconduct (on the part of the trail owner or manager). Of the recreation - related
injury cases in Texas from 1982 -1991, there were only three lawsuits filed against public
agencies, according to Liability and Immunity: A National Assessment of Landowner
Risk for Recreational Injuries. None of the cases against public agencies or private
landowners in Texas were related to hiking, nature study, horseback riding, bicycling,
M .
FINAL DRAFT
off -road vehicles or other trail oriented activities.
5.7 BICYCLIST EDUCATION
September 14, 2005
The National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warn that obesity caused by
inactivity and sedentary lifestyles will be a major cause of death in the next thirty years.
Studies show that children who are fit make better students, and that bicycling is one of
the best exercises for people of all ages. The Texas SuperCyclist Project is an effort
undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation and is administered by the
Texas Bicycle Coalition (TBC) to provide bicycle safety education training available to
physical education teachers in every school district in Texas. The program has heady
won awards for public awareness and consumer education. For information on bringing
this program to Southlake, contact TBC at (512) 476 -7433 or brAwse tA . visit -
http://www.supercyclist.org/
Adult cyclist education is available from the League of American Bicyclists through their
"Bike Ed" program modules, a series of programs for all levels of experience and
interest, including a Motorist Education program. These courses, taught by certified
instructors, can be scheduled anytime throughout the year. Most courses take 8 -16
hours to complete. For more information, brewse te visit : http: / /www.bikeleague.org/
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Trails, pathways, sidewalks and streets should all be well maintained to ensure the
safety and functionality of pedestrian and bicycle flow. Periodic refurbishing and debris
removal will be necessary to assure ongoing serviceability. The degree of maintenance
provided has a direct impact on facility service life, level of use, liability and community
image. Inadequate facility maintenance conveys a feeling of lack of security or usability,
resulting in fear for personal safety, and leading to decreased facility usage. A strong
maintenance regimen — for both on- street and off - street routes — is essential to the
security and safety of users.
47
FINAL DRAFT
SECTION 6.
September 14, 2005
TRAIL IDENTIFICATION, AMENITIES,
SIGNAGE
AND
Besides the trail itself, there are other facilities that increase the user experience. These
amenities fall into three general types:
el. toe -user interface with the trail (ingress and egress points).
e2. rest areas,
e5. interpretive facilities.
e4. signage and
e5. bicycle parking.
The importance of these facilities is sometimes overlooked, but they should be
incorporated into the initial and final planning of all trail projects. The quantity, spacing,
specific facilities, and size of these support facilities will vary depending on a trail's
proximity to cities and towns, the traffic volume of the trail, the type of use, and
environmental considerations. The following guidelines give a general overview of what
and how many support services should be included in trail projects, but each project
must be evaluated on a case -by -case basis to determine the best balance of facilities
and cost.
.1 USER INTERFACES
This refers to areas designed as primary means of accessing a trail such as trailheads
They may include restrooms, maps, parking, picnic facilities, and other recreational
amenities. Access points refer to minor connections between the trail and nearby parks,
communities, or roadways. Access points are important because many trails will run for
long stretches surrounded by private property, and access should be provided wherever
possible, but controlled so that ad hoc trails do not occur on private land. Some access
points are automatic, such as when a trail crosses a roadway, and others may be
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
carefully planned and implemented, such as a connection to a trail which would require
a railroad crossing.
When developing trailheads and access points, it is important that designers recognize
that people with disabilities enjoy all types of trails in addition to pedestrian facilities and
hiking trails. Furthermore, people with disabilities participate in trail activities at a wide
range of skill levels. Therefore it is recommended that an accessible pathway be
provided to all trailheads and access points, regardless of the permitted use modes.
Furthermore, built facilities, such as restrooms and parking lots, should be designed
according to the ADA accessibility guidelines. The following guidelines relate to the
development and placement of trailheads and access points:
o Trailheads should be placed at each terminus of a trail corridor, and any place
where a large concentration of trail users is expected, such as at +^� %T major
pa*'.nodes along the trail.
o An accessible pathway should be developed that connects parking and other
accessible elements to the trailhead.
o Trailheads should at least include parking and a trail map, but may also include
restrooms, drinking water, picnic facilities, horse tie -ups, and other recreational
amenities.
o Trailheads associated with equestrian and,- spevtee OHV and m^+ ^r^„ ^I°
trails should provide parking and turn - around space for trailers and SRE)WMA
o Trail access points should be placed wherever trail access is expected, such as
at adjacent communities, schools, commercial areas, and parks.
o Trail access points should include signage identifying the trail (see "Signage" to
follow), and may include a map and drinking water. Limited parking may also be
included, but because trail access points are designed to give access from local
amenities to the trail, it may be unnecessary.
49
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
6.2 Rest ^ r° -as REST AREAS
Rest areas are generally small support facilities located along a trail, which do not
provide access to surrounding amenities. Rest areas are places to stop and rest off the
main traveled way of the trail. They may also serve as interpretive areas or overlooks.
The design of rest areas can be as varied as the trail modes they serve, and the specific
design at each location should be considered individually. The following guidelines set
forth some general recommendations regarding trail rest areas:
• Trail rest areas should at least include a seating area and a place to park the trail
vehicle (bicycle, horse, etc.). They may also include drinking water, restroom
facilities, and signage. Rest areas on equestrian trails should include hitching
posts.
• Trail rest areas should be located approximately every half hour of travel time.
The distance between rest areas is dictated by the use modes on the trail.
• Trail rest areas should be located after any prolonged uphill slope, especially for
bicycle and walking trails.
6.3 ' FACILITIES
Part of the draw to a trail is to gain an understanding of the environment through which
it passes. Many trails will offer the opportunity to educate the user on various aspects of
the landscape, including native plants and animals, geologic history, local history, and
local economy. Interpretive facilities should offer a view of the item to be interpreted,
whether that the agricultural landscape in general or a specific type of tree. Some
trails may capitalize on many interpretive opportunities, while others may offer them as
educational diversions incorporated into rest areas. Each trail's interpretive program is
different and the extent of interpretation should be based on the use of the trail, with
interpretation facilities decreasing as user speeds increase. The following guidelines
offer some general suggestions regarding interpretive facilities:
50
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
o Interpretive facilities should include signage with ample graphics, to engage
users of all ages. They may also include any of the rest area facilities listed
above.
• Consideration should be given to providing interpretive information in a format
that is accessible to people with vision impairments and people with limited
English skills. This may include providing objects that can be examined or
manipulated, or providing audio information in addition to written information.
• Interpretive facilities should be placed wherever there is a significant cultural,
historical, or natural phenomenon.
• Small interpretive facilities may be implemented more frequently if user speeds
are low, as on walking /hiking trails.
6.4 eSIGNAGE
Frequent signs aid in keeping trail users on their designated route, and provide
information as to directions, destinations and points of interest. The 1980 Texas Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (along with subsequent
revisions /updates) provided helpful sections that address school areas, grade
crossings, and signing of bicycle facilities. Also, upon the conclusion of the 2005
Southlake Pathways Plan update, staff will prepare a complete sign
package based on currently available routes. Directional signs give street names, trail
names, direction arrows, mileage to points of interest, and other navigational
information. Some typical signage that will likely be incorporated include:
• Cautionary signs - warn of upcoming roadway crossings, steep grades, blind
curves, and other potential trail hazards.
• Regulatory signs - tell the "rules of the trail" by prohibiting certain uses or
controlling direction of travel.
• Interpretive signs - offer educational information on the trail environment (these
are covered in further detail under "Interpretive Facilities ").
• Objective signs - provide information about the actual trail conditions, including
51
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
grade, cross slope, surface, clear trail width and obstacle height. This allows
users to make more informed decisions about which trails best meet their trail
needs and abilities. For example, a wheelchair user may be able to travel over
very steep grades provided the trail is at least 36 inches wide. Learning this
information at the trailhead will help this user avoid the potential frustration of
having to turn back if the trail becomes too narrow.
The inclusion of signage in a trail project should be planned from the outset, but
each project is vastly different, and signage should be considered on a case -by -case
basis. The following guidelines relate to the general placement and design of trail
signage:
o Signs should be placed where they will be clearly visible. Placement is
dependent on the sight lines (relative to user speed) of each trail.
o Signs should be placed at a constant distance from the trail edge, 3 feet 6 inches
is preferred.
• Lettering less than two inches in height is not recommended for directional signs.
• Text should be avoided on regulatory or cautionary signs wherever possible.
• Multiple signs may be mounted on the same post, but the primary message
should be in the top position on the post.
A volunteer project is currently underway to install directional and regulatory signs in the
Corps of Engineers and Bob Jones Park area equestrian /hike trails. The Park Board
Las expressed a keen interest in staff working with the volunteers to install the trails and
mark them for use with GPS coordinate as assistance to distressed trail users. The
signs will be of a simple rustic design and include the Corps' traditional small regulatory
plaques on the posts.
52
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
6.5 B m GVG'° °arW ^ BICYCLE PARKING
The lack of a--secure bicycle parking can sometimes e keep many people from
using their bikes for basic transportation. Leaving a bicycle unattended, even for short
periods, may easily result in damage or theft. Finding a bike rack that doesn't work
or isn't conveniently located makes for a frustrating experience. The purpose of this
section is to assist with the selection and placement of appropriate bicycle racks for
short -term parking.
Racks should be intended to accommodate conventional, upright, single -rider bicycles.
It is assumed the cyclist will use a solid, U- shaped lock, or a cable lock, or a
combination of the two. The rack should consist of a grouping of rack elements, or
individual slots. The rack elements may be attached to a single frame or remain single
elements mounted within close proximity to each other. The rack elements should not
be easily detachable from the rack frame or easily removed from the mounting surface.
The rack should be anchored so that it cannot be stolen with the bikes attached; vandal -
resistant fasteners can be used to anchor a rack in the ground. An exception is a rack
that is so large and heavy that it cannot be easily moved or lifted with the bicycles
attached.
A rack area or "bicycle parking lot" is an area where more than one rack is installed.
Aisles separate the racks. The aisle should be wide enough so that there is enough
space for one person to walk one bike through the aisle. In high traffic areas where
many users park or retrieve bikes at the same time, such as near a school or major
shopping center, the recommended minimum aisle width is 72 inches. Conventional
upright bicycles are just less than 72 inches long and can easily be accommodated in
that space. Some rack types will allow the racks to be mounted closer to the wall. This
will not change the space required by the bicycles or the aisles. Large rack areas with a
high turnover rate should have more than one entrance. This will help facilitate the
arriving and departing of cyclists and pedestrians. If possible, the rack area should be
protected from the elements. Racks along building walls can be sheltered by an awning.
53
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
Even though cyclists are exposed to sun, rain, and snow while en route, covering the
rack area keeps the cyclist more comfortable while parking, locking the bike, and
loading or unloading cargo. An awning will also help keep the bicycle dry, especially the
saddle.
In Southlake, the opportunity exists in several areas to promote non - motorized travel
and economic development by providing high - quality, large- volume bicycle parking:
o Southlake Town Square — The city will own at least four public parks in this major
regional center. In several or all of these parks, the design measures noted
above can achieve a destination area for area cyclists.
o Aventerra Development — Aventerra will also be dedicating significant areas for
public parks or public use as their development progresses. Bicycle parking
areas should play a large role in the amenity packages constructed in this
development, especially considering the opportunity for the workforce within the
development to commute by bicycle with the improvement to S.H. 114 and the
planned improvement to F.M. 1938 and S.H. 121.
o Other proposed developments including Shops at Southlake and future
Transition and Employment Center areas.
54
FINAL DRAFT
SECTION 7. CONCLUSION
September 14, 2005
Southlake has many opportunities to create improve, and expand pathways, but may
encounter obstacles as well. Each of the recommended pathway segments is a key
linkage in the citywide system. Investment in the development of these pathways will
foster the creation of a secure sense of place for Southlake parents, their children and
guests. The plan's vision is to provide recreation opportunities while fostering greater
non - motorized accessibility for Southlake residents to its public assets. Implementing
this plan will help alleviate traffic congestion and air pollution, thereby enhancing
opportunities for residents to participate in a healthy, active lifestyle.
Topographic variation along many routes is aR eppeFt6iR4yL as well as a
mean opportunity — to create a truly unique Southlake look and feel. Citizen
support for greenway connections through undeveloped areas is growing as booming
development continues to encroach on Southlake's rural environment. Greenway
pathway linkages are included in this plan as a way for Southlake to retain and preserve
its rural flavor, open space and the other natural resources – while at the same time
providing healthy, time saving alternatives to driving to nearby destinations.
While this plan provides for a network of pathways throughout the city, specific
alignments should be viewed as flexible, and adjusted as needed to achieve the
objectives of residents, businesses and developers. By implementing this plan fully,
Southlake can provide safer, more secure transportation choices and recreational
opportunities throughout the city, making Southlake a more attractive place to live, work
and visit.
55
FINAL DRAFT
September 14, 2005
Appendix A. A NOTE ON FACILITY DESIGN GUIDANCE
Important Note: Specific trail design suggestions can be culled from a wide variety of
sources. In an effort to reduce the volume of this plan update and create a more user-
friendly document, it is the city's preference to rely upon the accepted standards of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
guidelines unless otherwise noted, rather than listing the rather voluminous standards
and calculations in this document.
56
FINAL DRAFT September 14, 2005
Appendix B BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE (BLOS)
The following Primary BLOS Design Factors (and data sources) can be used to
determine the proper installation of the recommended on- street master bicycle plan:
• traffic volume (traffic counts)
• speed (design speed from the Mobility and Master Thorouphfare Plan, or from
posted speed limits for local existing streets)
• and potential lane width (from the Mobility and Master Thorouphfare Plan, or
actual sample measurements for existing local streets).
Secondary BLOS desian factors were not analvzed for this reaort. Secondary desian
factors include street parking turn -over rates, levels of truck traffic, and frequency of
spacing for commercial driveways. On -site inspection, prior to actual signing of routes,
should be conducted to confirm that the secondary factors do not excessivelv imaact
the Primary Stress Level
While a continuing policy of 14' wide outside lanes on many thoroughfares throughout
the city will serve bicyclists well, it is recommended that the policy should be modified to
require 15' wide outside lanes and /or shoulders where traffic volumes and speeds are
high. Any roadway with 45 mph or greater speed limit should provide bike accessibility
with a 15' outside lane and /or shoulder, but generally should not be signed as a bike
route. FM 1709, FM 1938 and SH 114 are facilities that should provide bicycle
accessibility without being signed as bike routes. (Shoulders should be of the same
pavement type as travel lanes, not chipseal.)
Prior to thoroughfare plan implementation, each roadway in the on- street bike system
should be evaluated to determine whether 14' or 15' wide lanes are needed, given
existing and project traffic volumes, speeds and secondary factor influences at the time
roadway design is undertaken.
57