Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2001-04-17
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TOWN HALL, 1400 MAIN STREET SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS MINUTES APRIL 17, 2001 COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rick Stacy; Mayor Pro Tern Gary Fawks; Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Ronnie Kendall. Members: Patsy DuPre, Greg Standerfer, Rex Potter, and Keith Shankland. CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Billy Campbell; Assistant to the City Manager John Eaglen; Director of Finance Sharen Elam; Director of Economic Development Greg Last; Director of Community Service Kevin Hugman; Director of Planning Bruce Payne; Senior Planner Dennis Killough; Director of Public Works Pedram Farahnak; Assistant to the Public Works Director Valerie Bradley; Senior Engineer Charlie Thomas; Engineer Mike Hutchison; Director of Public Safety Ricky Black; Chief of Police Marlin Price; Manager of Technical Services Gary Gregg; Public Information Officer James Kunke; City Attorney Rob Allibon; and, City Secretary Sandra L. LeGrand. WORK SESSION: The Work Session was called to order at 5:45 p.m. During the work session Councilmembers and city staff discussed items on the agenda. The work session is audio and videotape recorded for future reference. Copies are available from the Office of the City Secretary. Agenda Item #9-B, Resolution No. 01-017, Authorizing the City Attorney to bring condemnation action for the purpose of obtaining right-of-way for use by the City for the construction of street improvements. This item will be deleted from thc agenda, as it is not necessary, according to Pedram Farahnak, Director of Public Works. Agenda Item #8-B, Ordinance No. 801, 1'~t Reading, Amending Ordinance No. 717 and Ordinance No. 717-B, and Chapter 18, Article III, Section 18.79, of the Southlake Cit. v Code, designating the speed limit within Stone Lakes Addition as 25 mph. A discussion was held regarding the number of residents in the Stone Lakes Addition who actually want the speed limit reduced. City Engineer Charlie Thomas noted that he is not sure that the city had 50% of the signatures in favor of this action. Council decided to table the first reading of Ordinance No. 801, in order for everyone affected by this action is aware and is in favor of lowering the speed limit. This item was moved to the consent agenda to table until the May l, 200l City Council meeting. Agenda Item (46, Public Forum. Women's Shelter presentation. A representative of the Women's Shelter of Arlington made a presentation noting the program is four (4) years old and they assist victims of violence. She thanked the Department of Public Safety and stated they rely on them so Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page i of 12 much as first responders. Chief of Police Marlin Price thanked the Women's Shelter for helping the families in Southlake. Mayor Stacy reported that the Town Square Stars and Stripes event for Independence Day would be held on July 3. He noted depending on the items for the July 3 City Council meeting agenda, the Council may want to change the date of that Council meeting so that Council can enjoy the events with their families. The work session ended at 6:00 p.m. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Agenda Item #1, Call to Order Mayor Rick Stacy called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. City Council meetings are video and audio tape-recorded for future reference and copies are available upon request from the Office of the City Secretary. Agenda Item #2-A, Executive Session Mayor Rick Stacy advised the audience that the City Council would be going into Executive Session pursuant to the Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.073, 551.074, and 551.086, to seek legal advise from the City Attorney; to deliberate regarding real property matters'; to deliberate regarding a prospective gift, to deliberate regarding personnel matters; to deliberate regarding security devices, and/or to deliberate regarding economic development negotiations. Council adjourned into executive session at 6:05 p.m. Council returned to open session at 7:00 p.m. Agenda Item #2-B, Action Necessary/Executive Session No action was taken as the result of the executive session. Agenda Item #3, Invocation/Pledge to the Flag Norma Quinn, pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Southlake gave the invocation. Following the invocation, Council gave the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Agenda Item #4-A, Mayor's Report Mayor Stacy made the following announcements: Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 2 of 12 Early voting for the May 5, 2001, General/Special Elections will begin tomorrow morning at 8:30 p.m. in the office of the City Secretary. Early voting will end on May 1, 2001. April 19 at 7:30 a.m. The Metroport Partnership Meeting will be held at the Fidelity Building in Westlake for those wishing to attend. Mayor Stacy noted this would be an opportunity for anyone to go on a tour of the new fidelity building. Art-In-The-Square will be held next weekend, April 27, 28, and 29 in Town Square, for those who are interested in attending. There are a lot of special activities being planned. Agenda Item #4-B, City Manger's Report City Manager Billy Campbell noted that in the City Manager's Notes, he indicated under the Gumm Property that it was approved ~vith a 7-0 vote and that was an error as the vote ~vas 6-1 vote with Councilmember Potter voting against this item. He stated he wanted to make that correction. Agenda Item #4-C, SPIN Report Representative for SPIN #2, Martin Schelling made the report. He indicated that he didn't have anything to report tlfis month. Everything is quite in that part of town. Agenda Item #4-D, Parks and Recreation Board Report The Park and Recreation Board Report was made by Michael Nelson who reported that at their last meeting approximately thirty to forty people attended the meeting whereby the discussion regarding the placement of the Girls Softball Complex lasted approximately three hours. He reported that the Park Board is discussing the possibility of forming a committee to work on the Nature Center at Bob Jones Park. Agenda Item #4-E, Committee Reports During the Committee Reports, Councilmember Patsy DuPre, asked that a report on the Traffic Management Bond Program be given by Jim Amrich of HNTB. Agenda Item #5, Consent Agenda Mayor Stacy informed the audience that the consent agenda items are considered by one vote. 1-Ie stated if anyone had a request for an item not to be considered during the consent agenda segment, the item would be deleted from the consent agenda and considered separately with the regular agenda. The consent agenda items for this meeting include: Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 3 of 12 5-A. Approval (?j' the Minutes c?f the Re,~uktr Cit~; Council meeting held on April 3, 2001. The minutes were approved as presented. Authorize the Mayor to execute an advance ,funding agreement with the Texas Department qf Transportation (TxDOT),for the construction c~f State Highway 114 and l'Fhite Chapel Boulevard. TxDOT has been preparing construction plans for the reconstruction of SH 114 to a freeway section along this section of roadway that includes the intersection of SH 114 and White Chapel Boulevard. included in the plans are six (6) lanes on SH 114 as well as four (4) travel lanes with a left turn lane on White Chapel Boulevard. The plans are no~v complete and bids will be received for this construction in July 2001 with construction beginning in February 2002 and anticipated completion in July 2003. The Traffic Management Bond Program was approved by the voters in May 1999 and includes funds for paving and drainage improvements on White Chapel Blvd. at SH 114. The City staff has worked with TxDOT design engineers to include additional paving along White Chapel Boulevard. The City's cost includes the cost of the construction of concrete pavement, asphalt transitions, concrete box culverts, storm sewer, concrete pavers, etc. The estimated amount of City participation is $445,364.00. Funds are allocated in the Traffic Management Bond Program for this cost. Award of bid .for addition era ?ump to Booster Pump Station No. 1, High Pressure Plane. The FY 2000-2001 Capital improvement Program incorporates funds for the distribution system improvements to increase supply of water to customers citywide. Construction plans and specifications were subsequently prepared by Cheatham and Associates and reviewed by staff for this project. The project scope includes addition of a 250 horsepower, vertical turbine Booster Pump to the current pump system at the "Booster Pump Station No. 1 High Pressure Plane." The high-pressure plane supplies water to the Florence 500,000 gallon elevated storage tm~ to supplement the current system during high demand period. This addition will also enhance and improve the fire fighting capabilities within the service area. The current supply system is inadequate to keep the elevated storage tank full during high demand period. The vertical turbine booster pump and accessories improvement total is $199,000.00 Allocation of a 6% contingency ($12,000) for unanticipated construction related items is also recommended. ZA 00-118, Plat Revision for Lot 2RiR, Block B, Ravenaux l/illage on property legally described as Lot 2RI, Block B, Ravenaux Filla,ge, being 3.969 acres. The property Owner is Edwin Colc Ministries, and the Applicant is Christian Men's Network. The property is located on the south side of Countryside Court Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 4 of 12 approximately 400' west of North White Chapel Boulevard. An existing office and ministries building is located on this site. On April 5, 2001, the P & Z Commission approved (7-0), subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated March 30, 2001. Current zoning is "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District with limited "CS" Community Service District uses. I/ariance to Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 4.01(1) 2, (Plat Expiration) as amended, extending the validity qf Case No. ZA 99-100, Lot 1R2R, VK 144 Hall No. 695 Addition (Crestwood Q[fice Park). On March 21, 2000, the City Council approved the above referenced plat. This plat has not yet been filed in the County Plat Records and expired on March 21, 2001. The owner, Greenway Investment Company, has required that the validity of this plat be extended until September 21, 2001. The plat revision for this property involved easement abandonment within the old Carroll Avenue right-of- way. The owner is awaiting franchise utility companies to relocate their utilities and sign approvals tbr the abandonment. Because this plat has expired, a variance to Section 4.01(I) 2 of Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 as amended, will be required if the extension is to be granted. Award r?f bid to EtL A. Wilson, Inc., for the construction of TML intersection improvements at Shad)' Oaks Drive and F.M. ] 709. The project involves widening Shady Oaks for a distance approximately 600 feet north of the intersection at FM 1709 in order to provide a left turn lane. A total of three (3) lanes will be constructed, which includes a North and South bound and left turn lane. In addition, a westbound deceleration lane will be added on F.M. 1709. The lo~v bid from Ed. A. Wilson, Inc. is ~vithin the $648,044.00 budget. Allocation of a 6% contingency ($32,000.00) for unanticipated construction related items are also requested. Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Ed A. Wilson, Inc., in the amount of $527,512.50 and 6% of bid amount to allocated for contingencies ($32,000.00) for unanticipated construction related items. Ordinance No. 801, l'~ Readin& Amending Ordinance No. 717 and Ordinance No. 717-B and Chapter 18, Article III, Section 18-79 c?f the Southlake City Code, designating the speed limit within Stone Lakes A&lition as 25 mph. The City staff; Department of Public Safety, and Public Works has been working with the Homeo~vners Association to investigate and reduce the speeding problem in the Stone Lakes Addition. The City Engineer has received a petition of request from the Stone Lakes Property owners for the City Council to consider reducing the speed limit to Stone Lakes to 25 mph. This is a similar speed limit reduction that has been done in several subdivisions throughout the city. The cost of the signs will be in the range of $400.00 to $600.00, depending upon the number of signs needed. This amount of funds is available in the current budget. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 5 of 12 Councilmembers have put this item on the consent agenda in order to be tabled to May 1, 2001, in an effort for all the property owners in Stone Lakes Addition to be notified prior to the next meeting. 9-8. Resolution No. 01-107, Authorizing the City Attorney to bring condemnation action ,for the purpose ~f obtaining rigbt-gf-way ,for use by the City ,for the construction qf street improvements. This item has been removed from the agenda tonight, as it is no longer necessary to be considered. 10-A. Town Hall Use Policy This item is being considered for tabling to the May 1, 2001, City Council meeting as the City Attorney have indicated they have changes to make to the ordinance prior to approval. Motion was made to approve the consent agenda as noted above; Items #5-A, #5-B, 05- C, #5-D, #5-E, #5-F, #8-B, tabling to May 1, 2001, City Council meeting; item #9-B, deleting from this agenda; and # 10-A, tabling to May 1,2001, City Council meeting. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: DuPre Fawks DuPre, Fawks, Standerfer, Potter, Kendall, Shankland, Stacy None 7-0 vote Agenda Item/16, Public Forum During the work session a representative of Women's Shelter of Arlington made a presentation. No other comments were made during the public forum. Agenda Item #7-A, Ordinance No. 480-359, 2~'d Reading (ZA 00-126), Rezoning and Concept Plan for Gumm Professional Offices Ordinance No. 480-359, 2''d Reading, (ZA 00-126), Rezoning and Concept Plan for Gumm Professional Offices, on property described as a portion of Lot 2, John A. Freeman No. 529 Addition; and Tracts 2 and 2B2, John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, and being approximately 3.6 acres. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural District and "O-1" Office District, with a requested zoning of"O-1" Office District. Senior Planner Dennis Killough stated no changes have been made since the 1st reading. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were made during the public hearing. Councilmember Rex Potter asked the legal counscl, "How do you deal with the Concept Plan in "O-1" Zoning vs. the Site Plan in the "S-P-I" zoning. When you go to a straight Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 6 of 12 "O-1" as long as you fulfill the requirements of"O-l" they can put a larger building on this, or they can change the designs and direction of flow as long as they are within the limits of the code. 1 would rather see the "S-P-l" Zoning as it came from P & Z and I would like to have counsel tell us the latitude of"S-P-l" zoning vs. that of"O-l" straight zoning." City Attorney Rob Allibon responded, "I think to try and answer your questions, I think your statement is accurate. Under the "O-1" Zoning District, they could, if they chose to change their plan, as long as those changes fit ~vithin the uses of "O-1" District and complied with the ordinances and codes, they would have the ability to do that. Under the "S-P-l" District, that is not the case. Under a site plan district they would have to come to the Council on changes from what had previously been approved by the Council." Potter commented if Council did not like the changes being presented under the "S-P-l" Zoning, they would have the ability to say no. It would not be an administrative function; it would be more of a discretionary function." Allibon stated that is correct. Councilmember Gary Fawks stated, "Interestingly enough, Allen Taylor has given me a little bit different perspective in the past on that when it comes under the corridor overlay residential adjacency standards. Because our zoning ordinance, when those standards apply require a site plan, he has given me the impression, that the site plan is pretty much tied to the zoning. Allibon stated that would probably be accurate, but he is at a little bit of a disadvantage, not knowing all the districts and overlays of our ordinances, and that Mr. Taylor is more familiar with our ordinances. Councilmember Fawks stated Allen told him that when something is on the corridor, ~ve would have a great deal more discretion. Councilmember Potter stated he talked with Allen Taylor on the way to this meeting, and he was given the same opinion as stated by Mr. Allibon. Mr. Potter stated he would rather see an "S-P-l" Zoning with the "what you see is what you get" concept on this property. That takes out any question, whether it is on the corridor or wherever it is in the city, its what you see is what you get. That is why he does not support straight zoning on this property today. Councilmember Ronnie Kendall stated when she considers "S-P-l" Zoning; she considers it protection for the next owner. In case the property slipped, he is still tied to that zoning. Kendall stated when she feels very confident that the applicant is the one ~vho will be developing the property, she feels a little bit more assurance that that is what is going to happen. Kendall stated, "If they come forward with a site plan, and it is different from the concept plan that was considered with the zoning, can't you just vote no, is it that administerial that you have to okay it if it differs from the concept plan." Mr. Allibon stated, "If we are talking about an "O-1" classification, and they change from the plan that was submitted, as long as it fits within the permitted uses, I think it would be okay." Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 7 of 12 [Director of Planning Bruce Payne commented in this discussion, however, his comments were not clear on the audio recording.] Applicant, F.C. LeVrier, and engineer, John Levitt, stated they are following everything on the books in Southlake, and it is very difficult of them to represent a client when they are asked to do things that are not on the books. They stated they need to be able to £ollow the written directions they are given by the city. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-359, 2'~d Reading, with the same conditions as approved on first reading. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: Standerfer DuPre Standerfer, DuPre, Fawks, Kendall, Stacy Potter, Shankland 5-2 vote Councilmember Keith Shankland stated, "! am for the project and I know that you will build what you say you are going to build. I just don't like reversing, as I stated the last time, what the P & Z Commission spent 2 V2 hours discussing, with a ten-minute discussion. I think it will be a great project, and I trust what you are going to do, but I also trust what the Planning and Zoning Commission does, and that is what they are there for." Councilmember Patsy DuPre stated, "I also appreciate ~vhat the Planning and Zoning Commission does, and I know they work very hard for the city, but they are an advisory board and we don't necessary also have to agree with what they do. If this was a case where the applicant came in asking for an extraordinary amount of variances, I would have no problem with that, but I feel that we have very strict ordinances and have an applicant who has asked for no variances whatsoever, and that was still not good enough. I have a difficult time understanding why we [P&Z] did that." Councilmember Shankland stated, "what I said was, P&Z spent two and V2 hours debating this, they had presentations, and made their decisions. Without spending another 2 V~ hours debating this at Council level, I feel we should take their recommendation." Mayor Stacy commented that he feels the Planning and Zoning Commission should not have spent 2 and V~ hours on this case. If the man came in and did not ask for any variances, the case should have been approved in ten minutes. C0unci member Gary Fawks stated he understands that there were neighborhood concerns and respects Mr. Potter and Mr. Shankland's concern that this is built as planned. He stated he is confident that with the ordinances in place, if this concept plans changes significantly, we can find reasons under health, safety and welfare issues to deny a new concept plan. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 8 of 12 Agenda ltem #7-B, ZA 01-009, Preliminary Plat for Lots 1,2,3,4, & 5, Block 1, Gumm Offices Addition ZA 01-009, Preliminary Plat for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5, Block I, Gumm Professional Offices Addition, on property legally described as Tracts 2 & 2B, John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529; being 18.64 acres. Senior Planner Dennis Killough noted on April 5, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved (7-0) this case subject to the Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated March 30, 2001. Motion was made to approve ZA 01-009, Preliminary Plat for Gumm Professional Offices Addition, subject to the Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated March 30, 2001. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: Standerfer Fawks Standerfer, Fawks, Kendall, Shankland, DuPre, Potter, Stacy None 7-0 vote Agenda Item #7-C, Ordinance No. 480-361, 2nd Reading (ZA 01-024) Ordinance No. 480-361, 2nd Reading (ZA 01-024), Rezoning on property legally described as Tracts 2A1B, 2A1D, and 2A2, Obediah W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899, being approximately 3.0 acres. Currcnt zoning is "AG" Agricultural District with a requested zoning of"SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. Senior Planner Dennis Killough stated the purpose of the request is to comply with city regulations for new home construction. Applicant wants to construct a new home on the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) on March 22, 2001. PUBLIC HEARING: W. Ralph Evans, 315 North Shady Oaks Drive. Representing White Chapel United Methodist Church. Mr. Evans stated the church is in support of the project and feels they would be a good neighbor. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-361, 2nd Reading, as presented. Motion: Second: Nays: Approved: DuPre Kendall DuPre, Kendall, Shankland, Standerfer, Potter, Fawks, Stacy None 7-0 vote Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 9 of 12 Agenda Item #8-A, Ordinance No. 800, 1st Reading Street Name Change from Carlisle Lane to Morningside Drive. Senior Engineer Charlie Thomas presented the first reading of Ordinance No. 800, changing the street name of Carlisle Lane to Morningside Drive. Mr. Thomas stated Carlisle Lane runs from South Carroll Avenue to Momingside Drive at Rainbow Drive. South Carroll Avenue was realigned and approved with the final plat of Versailles, Phase Il. Morningside Drive, which is to the north of Carlisle Lane, was approved with the final plat for Napa Valley Estates, Phase I. Carlisle Lane currently has four addressed on it; three of these addresses have water and garbage accounts with the City of Southlake. The remaining listed address has an uninhabited house on it. A proposed plat application has been submitted to the City's Development Review Committee that will add an additional address on Carlisle Lane. Morningside Drive has 16 addresses on it. Mr. Thomas stated the street name change in the middle of the block has caused confusion for Public Safety and the public. Staff has received numerous requests from property owners on Morningside Drive to make this change. To keep a consistent name for this street, bet~veen South Carroll Avenue and Momingside Drive, which runs north to, Kingsbrook Court, it is recommended that Carlisle Lane bc changed to Momingside Drive. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Janice Myer, 2860 Carlisle Lane. Ms. Myer asked the City Council why the City would allow a developer to change an existing city street name. She suggested that the City should have thought more about it when they changed the street name to Morningside Drive. She asked Council to not approve this name change. Mayor Stacy asked Director of Public Safety Ricky Black if there were problems ~vith the street name changing in thc middle of the block and he stated he was not aware of any. Councilmember Patsy DuPre stated with respect to Mrs. Myer's comments, she suggested a directional sign be placed in that location. Motion was made to deny Ordinance No. 800, 1st Reading. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Denied: DuPre Standerfer DuPre, Standerfer, Potter, Fawks, Kendall, Shankland, Stacy None 7-0 vote Agenda Item #9-A, Resolution No. 01-020, Amendments to Adopted Park Master Plan. Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman presented Resolution No. 01-020, stating, as per the City Charter, staff has reviewed the current Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan for revision and update. Shrickel, Rollins, and Associates was contracted as the consultants on this project, having extensive experience in Master Plan Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 10 of 12 development and update, as well as being architects/engineers for many park projects. The consultants and staff held several public meetings through SPIN, as well as a number of Park Board public meetings to gather information and present findings. The Park Board recommended approval (7-0) at its March 19, 2001, meeting and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0) at its April 5, 2001, meeting. Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter made the presentation and noted the plan provides a guide for land acquisition and recreational facility development for the City of Southlake. Current facilities and parks were inventoried and a review of national and City adopted standards was conducted, resulting in a needs assessment of land and recreational facilities to meet build out population. Mr. Carpenter stated the first Park Plan was implemented in 1992, and amended in 1996. He stated Southlake currently has 21 acres of parkland per 1,000 acres, which is t~vice the local average. Suzanne Sweek, ASLA, Schrickel, Rollins and Associates were present and explained the plan to Council. A copy of the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan is hereby attached to the Minutes of this meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments xvere received dnring the public hearing. Mayor Stacy thanked all those involved for their hard work in completing this plan. Councilmember Ronnie Kendall stated she is proud of the Park Board of the work they did on this plan. Councilmember Patsy DuPre also expressed her appreciation for the plan. Motion was made to approve the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan as presented. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: Fawks DuPre Fawks, DuPre, Standerfer, Potter, Kendall, Shankland, Stacy None 7-0 vote Agenda Item #12, Adjournment Mayor Rick Stacy adjourned the Regular City Council meeting at 8:15 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 11 of 12 City Secretary Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 12 of 12 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TOWN HALL, 1400 MAIN STREET SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS MINUTES APRIL 17, 2001 COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rick Stacy; Mayor Pro Tem Gary Fawks; Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Ronnie Kendall. Members: Patsy DuPre, Greg Standerfer, Rex Potter, and Keith Shankland. CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Billy Campbell; Assistant to the City Manager John Eaglen; Director of Finance Sharen Elam; Director of Economic Development Greg Last; Director of Community Service Kevin Hugman; Director of Planning Bruce Payne; Senior Planner Dennis Killough; Director of Public Works Pedram Farahnak; Assistant to the Public Works Director Valerie Bradley; Senior Engineer Charlie Thomas; Engineer Mike Hutchison; Director of Public Safety Ricky Black; Chief of Police Marlin Price; Manager of Technical Services Gary Gregg; Public Information Officer James Kunke; City Attorney Rob Allibon; and, City Secretary Sandra L. LeGrand. WORK SESSION: The Work Session was called to order at 5:45 p.m. During the work session Councilmembers and city staff discussed items on the agenda. The work session is audio and videotape recorded for future reference. Copies are available from the Office of the City Secretary. ✓ Agenda Item #9 -B, Resolution No. 01 -017, Authorizing the City Attorney to bring condemnation action for the purpose of obtaining right -of -way for use by the City for the construction of street improvements. This item will be deleted from the agenda, as it is not necessary, according to Pedram Farahnak, Director of Public Works. ✓ Agenda Item #8 -B, Ordinance No. 801, l s ` Reading, Amending Ordinance No. 717 and Ordinance No. 717 -B, and Chapter 18, Article III, Section 18.79, of the Southlake City Code, designating the speed limit within Stone Lakes Addition as 25 mph. A discussion was held regarding the number of residents in the Stone Lakes Addition who actually want the speed limit reduced. City Engineer Charlie Thomas noted that he is not sure that the city had 50% of the signatures in favor of this action. Council decided to table the first reading of Ordinance No. 801, in order for everyone affected by this action is aware and is in favor of lowering the speed limit. This item was moved to the consent agenda to table until the May 1, 2001 City Council meeting. ✓ Agenda Item #6, Public Forum. Women 's Shelter presentation. A representative of the Women's Shelter of Arlington made a presentation noting the program is four (4) years old and they assist victims of violence. She thanked the Department of Public Safety and stated they rely on them so Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 1 of 12 much as first responders. Chief of Police Marlin Price thanked the Women's Shelter for helping the families in Southlake. Mayor Stacy reported that the Town Square Stars and Stripes event for Independence Day would be held on July 3. He noted depending on the items for the July 3 City Council meeting agenda, the Council may want to change the date of that Council meeting so that Council can enjoy the events with their families. The work session ended at 6:00 p.m. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Agenda Item #1, Call to Order Mayor Rick Stacy called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. City Council meetings are video and audio tape- recorded for future reference and copies are available upon request from the Office of the City Secretary. Agenda Item #2 -A, Executive Session Mayor Rick Stacy advised the audience that the City Council would be going into Executive Session pursuant to the Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.073, 551.074, and 551.086, to seek legal advise from the City Attorney; to deliberate regarding real property matters; to deliberate regarding a prospective gift, to deliberate regarding personnel matters; to deliberate regarding security devices, and /or to deliberate regarding economic development negotiations. Council adjourned into executive session at 6:05 p.m. Council returned to open session at 7:00 p.m. Agenda Item #2 -B, Action Necessary /Executive Session No action was taken as the result of the executive session. Agenda Item #3, Invocation /Pledge to the Flag Norma Quinn, pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Southlake gave the invocation. Following the invocation, Council gave the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Agenda Item #4 -A, Mayor's Report Mayor Stacy made the following announcements: Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 2 of 12 • Early voting for the May 5, 2001, General /Special Elections will begin tomorrow morning at 8:30 p.m. in the office of the City Secretary. Early voting will end on May 1, 2001. • April 19 at 7:30 a.m. The Metroport Partnership Meeting will be held at the Fidelity Building in Westlake for those wishing to attend. Mayor Stacy noted this would be an opportunity for anyone to go on a tour of the new fidelity building. • Art-In- The - Square will be held next weekend, April 27, 28, and 29 in Town Square, for those who are interested in attending. There are a lot of special activities being planned. Agenda Item #4 -B, City Manger's Report City Manager Billy Campbell noted that in the City Manager's Notes, he indicated under the Gumm Property that it was approved with a 7 -0 vote and that was an error as the vote was 6 -1 vote with Councilmember Potter voting against this item. He stated he wanted to make that correction. Agenda Item #4 -C, SPIN Report Representative for SPIN #2, Martin Schelling made the report. He indicated that he didn't have anything to report this month. Everything is quite in that part of town. Agenda Item #4 -D, Parks and Recreation Board Report The Park and Recreation Board Report was made by Michael Nelson who reported that at their last meeting approximately thirty to forty people attended the meeting whereby the discussion regarding the placement of the Girls Softball Complex lasted approximately three hours. He reported that the Park Board is discussing the possibility of forming a committee to work on the Nature Center at Bob Jones Park. Agenda Item #4 - E, Committee Reports During the Committee Reports, Councilmember Patsy DuPre, asked that a report on the Traffic Management Bond Program be given by Jim Amrich of HNTB. Agenda Item #5, Consent Agenda Mayor Stacy informed the audience that the consent agenda items are considered by one vote. He stated if anyone had a request for an item not to be considered during the consent agenda segment, the item would be deleted from the consent agenda and considered separately with the regular agenda. The consent agenda items for this meeting include: Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 3 of 12 5 -A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on April 3, 2001. The minutes were approved as presented. 5 -B. Authorize the Mayor to execute an advance funding agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for the construction of State Highway 114 and White Chapel Boulevard. TxDOT has been preparing construction plans for the reconstruction of SH 114 to a freeway section along this section of roadway that includes the intersection of SH 114 and White Chapel Boulevard. Included in the plans are six (6) lanes on SH 114 as well as four (4) travel lanes with a left turn lane on White Chapel Boulevard. The plans are now complete and bids will be received for this construction in July 2001 with construction beginning in February 2002 and anticipated completion in July 2003. The Traffic Management Bond Program was approved by the voters in May 1999 and includes funds for paving and drainage improvements on White Chapel Blvd. at SH 114. The City staff has worked with TxDOT design engineers to include additional paving along White Chapel Boulevard. The City's cost includes the cost of the construction of concrete pavement, asphalt transitions, concrete box culverts, storm sewer, concrete pavers, etc. The estimated amount of City participation is $445,364.00. Funds are allocated in the Traffic Management Bond Program for this cost. 5 -C. Award of bid for addition of a pump to Booster Pump Station No. 1, High Pressure Plane. The FY 2000 -2001 Capital Improvement Program incorporates funds for the distribution system improvements to increase supply of water to customers citywide. Construction plans and specifications were subsequently prepared by Cheatham and Associates and reviewed by staff for this project. The project scope includes addition of a 250 horsepower, vertical turbine Booster Pump to the current pump system at the "Booster Pump Station No. 1 High Pressure Plane." The high - pressure plane supplies water to the Florence 500,000 gallon elevated storage tank to supplement the current system during high demand period. This addition will also enhance and improve the fire fighting capabilities within the service area. The current supply system is inadequate to keep the elevated storage tank full during high demand period. The vertical turbine booster pump and accessories improvement total is $199,000.00 Allocation of a 6% contingency ($12,000) for unanticipated construction related items is also recommended. 5 -D. ZA 00 -118, Plat Revision for Lot 2R1R, Block B, Ravenaux Village on property legally described as Lot 2R1, Block B, Ravenaux Village, being 3.969 acres. The property Owner is Edwin Cole Ministries, and the Applicant is Christian Men's Network. The property is located on the south side of Countryside Court Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 4 of 12 approximately 400' west of North White Chapel Boulevard. An existing office and ministries building is located on this site. On April 5, 2001, the P & Z Commission approved (7 -0), subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated March 30, 2001. Current zoning is "S -P -1" Detailed Site Plan District with limited "CS" Community Service District uses. 5 -E. Variance to Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 4.01(1) 2, (Plat Expiration) as amended, extending the validity of Case No. ZA 99 -100, Lot 1R2R, W. W. Hall No. 695 Addition (Crestwood Office Park). On March 21, 2000, the City Council approved the above referenced plat. This plat has not yet been filed in the County Plat Records and expired on March 21, 2001. The owner, Greenway Investment Company, has required that the validity of this plat be extended until September 21, 2001. The plat revision for this property involved easement abandonment within the old Carroll Avenue right -of- way. The owner is awaiting franchise utility companies to relocate their utilities and sign approvals for the abandonment. Because this plat has expired, a variance to Section 4.01(1) 2 of Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 as amended, will be required if the extension is to be granted. 5 -F. Award of bid to Ed. A. Wilson, Inc., for the construction of TML intersection improvements at Shady Oaks Drive and F.M. 1709. The project involves widening Shady Oaks for a distance approximately 600 feet north of the intersection at FM 1709 in order to provide a left turn lane. A total of three (3) lanes will be constructed, which includes a North and South bound and left turn lane. In addition, a westbound deceleration lane will be added on F.M. 1709. The low bid from Ed. A. Wilson, Inc. is within the $648,044.00 budget. Allocation of a 6% contingency ($32,000.00) for unanticipated construction related items are also requested. Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Ed A. Wilson, Inc., in the amount of $527,512.50 and 6% of bid amount to allocated for contingencies ($32,000.00) for unanticipated construction related items. 8 -B. Ordinance No. 801, I Reading, Amending Ordinance No. 717 and Ordinance No. 717 -B and Chapter 18, Article III, Section 18 -79 of the Southlake City Code, designating the speed limit within Stone Lakes Addition as 25 mph. The City staff, Department of Public Safety, and Public Works has been working with the Homeowners Association to investigate and reduce the speeding problem in the Stone Lakes Addition. The City Engineer has received a petition of request from the Stone Lakes Property owners for the City Council to consider reducing the speed limit to Stone Lakes to 25 mph. This is a similar speed limit reduction that has been done in several subdivisions throughout the city. The cost of the signs will be in the range of $400.00 to $600.00, depending upon the number of signs needed. This amount of funds is available in the current budget. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 5 of 12 Councilmembers have put this item on the consent agenda in order to be tabled to May 1, 2001, in an effort for all the property owners in Stone Lakes Addition to be notified prior to the next meeting. 9 -B. Resolution No. 01 -107, Authorizing the City Attorney to bring condemnation action for the purpose of obtaining right -of -way for use by the City for the construction of street improvements. This item has been removed from the agenda tonight, as it is no longer necessary to be considered. 10 -A. Town Hall Use Policy This item is being considered for tabling to the May 1, 2001, City Council meeting as the City Attorney have indicated they have changes to make to the ordinance prior to approval. Motion was made to approve the consent agenda as noted above; Items #5 -A, #5 -B, #5- C, #5 -D, #5 -E, #5 -F, #8 -B, tabling to May 1, 2001, City Council meeting; Item #9 -B, deleting from this agenda; and #10 -A, tabling to May 1, 2001, City Council meeting. Motion: DuPre Second: Fawks Ayes: DuPre, Fawks, Standerfer, Potter, Kendall, Shankland, Stacy Nays: None Approved: 7 -0 vote Agenda Item #6, Public Forum During the work session a representative of Women's Shelter of Arlington made a presentation. No other comments were made during the public forum. Agenda Item #7 -A, Ordinance No. 480 -359, 2 " Reading (ZA 00 -126), Rezoning and Concept Plan for Gumm Professional Offices Ordinance No. 480 -359, 2 Reading, (ZA 00 -126), Rezoning and Concept Plan for Gumm Professional Offices, on property described as a portion of Lot 2, John A. Freeman No. 529 Addition; and Tracts 2 and 2B2, John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, and being approximately 3.6 acres. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural District and "0-1" Office District, with a requested zoning of "0-1" Office District. Senior Planner Dennis Killough stated no changes have been made since the 1 reading. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were made during the public hearing. Councilmember Rex Potter asked the legal counsel, "How do you deal with the Concept Plan in "0-1" Zoning vs. the Site Plan in the "S -P -1" zoning. When you go to a straight Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 6 of 12 "0 -1" as long as you fulfill the requirements of "0 -1" they can put a larger building on this, or they can change the designs and direction of flow as long as they are within the limits of the code. I would rather see the "S -P -1" Zoning as it came from P & Z and I would like to have counsel tell us the latitude of "S -P -1" zoning vs. that of "0 -1" straight zoning." City Attorney Rob Allibon responded, "I think to try and answer your questions, I think your statement is accurate. Under the "0 -1" Zoning District, they could, if they chose to change their plan, as long as those changes fit within the uses of "0-1" District and complied with the ordinances and codes, they would have the ability to do that. Under the "S -P -1" District, that is not the case. Under a site plan district they would have to come to the Council on changes from what had previously been approved by the Council." Potter commented if Council did not like the changes being presented under the "S -P -1" Zoning, they would have the ability to say no. It would not be an administrative function; it would be more of a discretionary function." Allibon stated that is correct. Councilmember Gary Fawks stated, "Interestingly enough, Allen Taylor has given me a little bit different perspective in the past on that when it comes under the corridor overlay residential adjacency standards. Because our zoning ordinance, when those standards apply require a site plan, he has given me the impression, that the site plan is pretty much tied to the zoning. Allibon stated that would probably be accurate, but he is at a little bit of a disadvantage, not knowing all the districts and overlays of our ordinances, and that Mr. Taylor is more familiar with our ordinances. Councilmember Fawks stated Allen told him that when something is on the corridor, we would have a great deal more discretion. Councilmember Potter stated he talked with Allen Taylor on the way to this meeting, and he was given the same opinion as stated by Mr. Allibon. Mr. Potter stated he would rather see an "S -P -1" Zoning with the "what you see is what you get" concept on this property. That takes out any question, whether it is on the corridor or wherever it is in the city, its what you see is what you get. That is why he does not support straight zoning on this property today. Councilmember Ronnie Kendall stated when she considers "S -P -1" Zoning; she considers it protection for the next owner. In case the property slipped, he is still tied to that zoning. Kendall stated when she feels very confident that the applicant is the one who will be developing the property, she feels a little bit more assurance that that is what is going to happen. Kendall stated, "If they come forward with a site plan, and it is different from the concept plan that was considered with the zoning, can't you just vote no, is it that administerial that you have to okay it if it differs from the concept plan." Mr. Allibon stated, "If we are talking about an "0-1" classification, and they change from the plan that was submitted, as long as it fits within the permitted uses, I think it would be okay." Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 7 of 12 [Director of Planning Bruce Payne commented in this discussion, however, his comments were not clear on the audio recording.] Applicant, F.C. LeVrier, and engineer, John Levitt, stated they are following everything on the books in Southlake, and it is very difficult of them to represent a client when they are asked to do things that are not on the books. They stated they need to be able to follow the written directions they are given by the city. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480 -359, 2 Reading, with the same conditions as approved on first reading. Motion: Standerfer Second: DuPre Ayes: Standerfer, DuPre, Fawks, Kendall, Stacy Nays: Potter, Shankland Approved: 5 -2 vote Councilmember Keith Shankland stated, "I am for the project and I know that you will build what you say you are going to build. I just don't like reversing, as I stated the last time, what the P & Z Commission spent 2 1/2 hours discussing, with a ten - minute discussion. I think it will be a great project, and I trust what you are going to do, but I also trust what the Planning and Zoning Commission does, and that is what they are there for." Councilmember Patsy DuPre stated, "I also appreciate what the Planning and Zoning Commission does, and I know they work very hard for the city, but they are an advisory board and we don't necessary also have to agree with what they do. If this was a case where the applicant came in asking for an extraordinary amount of variances, I would have no problem with that, but I feel that we have very strict ordinances and have an applicant who has asked for no variances whatsoever, and that was still not good enough. I have a difficult time understanding why we [P &Z] did that." Councilmember Shankland stated, "what I said was, P &Z spent two and 1 /2 hours debating this, they had presentations, and made their decisions. Without spending another 2 1 /2 hours debating this at Council level, I feel we should take their recommendation." Mayor Stacy commented that he feels the Planning and Zoning Commission should not have spent 2 and 1 /2 hours on this case. If the man came in and did not ask for any variances, the case should have been approved in ten minutes. Councilmember Gary Fawks stated he understands that there were neighborhood concerns and respects Mr. Potter and Mr. Shankland's concern that this is built as planned. He stated he is confident that with the ordinances in place, if this concept plans changes significantly, we can find reasons under health, safety and welfare issues to deny a new concept plan. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 8 of 12 Agenda Item #7 -B, ZA 01 -009, Preliminary Plat for Lots 1,2,3,4, & 5, Block 1, Gumm Offices Addition ZA 01 -009, Preliminary Plat for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5, Block 1, Gumm Professional Offices Addition, on property legally described as Tracts 2 & 2B, John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529; being 18.64 acres. Senior Planner Dennis Killough noted on April 5, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved (7 -0) this case subject to the Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated March 30, 2001. Motion was made to approve ZA 01 -009, Preliminary Plat for Gumm Professional Offices Addition, subject to the Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated March 30, 2001. Motion: Standerfer Second: Fawks Ayes: Standerfer, Fawks, Kendall, Shankland, DuPre, Potter, Stacy Nays: None Approved: 7 -0 vote Agenda Item #7 -C, Ordinance No. 480 -361, 2 " Reading (ZA 01 -024) Ordinance No. 480 -361, 2 Reading (ZA 01 -024), Rezoning on property legally described as Tracts 2A1B, 2A1D, and 2A2, Obediah W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899, being approximately 3.0 acres. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural District with a requested zoning of "SF -1A" Single Family Residential District. Senior Planner Dennis Killough stated the purpose of the request is to comply with city regulations for new home construction. Applicant wants to construct a new home on the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7 -0) on March 22, 2001. PUBLIC HEARING: W. Ralph Evans, 315 North Shady Oaks Drive. Representing White Chapel United Methodist Church. Mr. Evans stated the church is in support of the project and feels they would be a good neighbor. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480 -361, 2 " Reading, as presented. Motion: DuPre Second: Kendall Ayes: DuPre, Kendall, Shankland, Standerfer, Potter, Fawks, Stacy Nays: None Approved: 7 -0 vote Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 9 of 12 Agenda Item #8 -A, Ordinance No. 800, 1 Reading Street Name Change from Carlisle Lane to Morningside Drive. Senior Engineer Charlie Thomas presented the first reading of Ordinance No. 800, changing the street name of Carlisle Lane to Morningside Drive. Mr. Thomas stated Carlisle Lane runs from South Carroll Avenue to Morningside Drive at Rainbow Drive. South Carroll Avenue was realigned and approved with the final plat of Versailles, Phase II. Morningside Drive, which is to the north of Carlisle Lane, was approved with the final plat for Napa Valley Estates, Phase I. Carlisle Lane currently has four addressed on it; three of these addresses have water and garbage accounts with the City of Southlake. The remaining listed address has an uninhabited house on it. A proposed plat application has been submitted to the City's Development Review Committee that will add an additional address on Carlisle Lane. Morningside Drive has 16 addresses on it. Mr. Thomas stated the street name change in the middle of the block has caused confusion for Public Safety and the public. Staff has received numerous requests from property owners on Morningside Drive to make this change. To keep a consistent name for this street, between South Carroll Avenue and Morningside Drive, which runs north to, Kingsbrook Court, it is recommended that Carlisle Lane be changed to Morningside Drive. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Janice Myer, 2860 Carlisle Lane. Ms. Myer asked the City Council why the City would allow a developer to change an existing city street name. She suggested that the City should have thought more about it when they changed the street name to Morningside Drive. She asked Council to not approve this name change. Mayor Stacy asked Director of Public Safety Ricky Black if there were problems with the street name changing in the middle of the block and he stated he was not aware of any. Councilmember Patsy DuPre stated with respect to Mrs. Myer's comments, she suggested a directional sign be placed in that location. Motion was made to deny Ordinance No. 800, 1 Reading. Motion: DuPre Second: Standerfer Ayes: DuPre, Standerfer, Potter, Fawks, Kendall, Shankland, Stacy Nays: None Denied: 7 -0 vote Agenda Item #9 -A, Resolution No. 01 -020, Amendments to Adopted Park Master Plan. Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman presented Resolution No. 01 -020, stating, as per the City Charter, staff has reviewed the current Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan for revision and update. Shrickel, Rollins, and Associates was contracted as the consultants on this project, having extensive experience in Master Plan Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 10 of 12 development and update, as well as being architects /engineers for many park projects. The consultants and staff held several public meetings through SPIN, as well as a number of Park Board public meetings to gather information and present findings. The Park Board recommended approval (7 -0) at its March 19, 2001, meeting and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7 -0) at its April 5, 2001, meeting. Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter made the presentation and noted the plan provides a guide for land acquisition and recreational facility development for the City of Southlake. Current facilities and parks were inventoried and a review of national and City adopted standards was conducted, resulting in a needs assessment of land and recreational facilities to meet build out population. Mr. Carpenter stated the first Park Plan was implemented in 1992, and amended in 1996. He stated Southlake currently has 21 acres of parkland per 1,000 acres, which is twice the local average. Suzanne Sweek, ASLA, Schrickel, Rollins and Associates were present and explained the plan to Council. A copy of the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan is hereby attached to the Minutes of this meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were received during the public hearing. Mayor Stacy thanked all those involved for their hard work in completing this plan. Councilmember Ronnie Kendall stated she is proud of the Park Board of the work they did on this plan. Councilmember Patsy DuPre also expressed her appreciation for the plan. Motion was made to approve the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan as presented. Motion: Fawks Second: DuPre Ayes: Fawks, DuPre, Standerfer, Potter, Kendall, Shankland, Stacy Nays: None Approved: 7 -0 vote Agenda Item #12, Adjournment Mayor Rick Stacy adjourned the Regular City Council meeting at 8:15 p.m. e• ay•r Rick tact Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 11 of 12 `, ,,,UUntt1 N , ,,, G Y OF S •.• • •.OG ATTEST: _ • s L _14,[ `L ', ,,, �,,t/ttu ,,,,,, • andra L. LeGrand City Secretary Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2001 Page 12 of 12 FINAL DRAFT a T r ^° ' a, .� " � wr'f _ r° ,` Ca! , . 2001 PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN CITY of SOUTHLAKE DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY SERVICES 400 N. White Chapel Southlake, Texas 76092 817.481.2374 www.ci.southlake.tx.us Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. 1161 Corporate Drive West, Suite 200 .Arlington. Texas 76006 817.649.3216 Metro 817.6408212 Fax 817.649.7645 4118 Acknowledgments City of Southlake City Council Rick Stacy, Mayor Gary Fawks, Mayor Pro Tem Ronnie Kendall, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Rex Potter Keith Shankland Greg Standerfer Patsy DuPre Parks and Recreation Board Sherry Berman, Chair Mary Georgia Michael Nelson Chris Miltenberger, Vice Chair Jim Glover Lisa Stokdyk Cara White, Secretary Southlake Parks Development Corporation Ronnie Kendall, President Gary Fawks Tad Stephens Rex Potter, Vice President Rick Stacy Cara White Sherry Berman City Staff Billy Campbell, City Manager Shana Yelverton, Asst. City Manager ! �' T a��pe�' • Kevin Hugman, Dir. of Community Services - ' Keep Southlake Beautiful volunteer maintaining the IJ at Bicentennial Park ll Table of Contents Resolution of Plan Adoption Acknowledgments ii 1. Introduction • Purpose 1.1 • Previous Parks and Recreation Master Planning 1.1 • Goals and Objectives 1.2 2. Community Profile • history 2.1 • Circulation 2.2 • Physical Features and Development 2.3 • Demographics 2.4 3. The Planning Process • Planning Period 3.1 • Park Board Meetings 3.1 • SPIN Meetings 3.2 • Survey of Recreational Attitudes 3.3 • Survey of Adult and Youth Recreational Facility Attitudes 3.7 4. Park and Recreational Resources • City Park Land and Open Space 4.2 • City Recreational Facilities 4.3 • Joint Use Facilities 4.4 • Subdivision Facilities 4.5 • Park Support Facilities 4.6 • Major Nearby Recreational Facilities 4.7 5. Standards and Concepts • Land Standards by Park Type 5.2 • Recreational Facility Standards 5.3 • Topographic Considerations 5.5 • Discussion of Park Classifications 5.6 • Recreational Facility Guidelines 5.11 • Park Service Areas 5.14 iii 6. Needs Assessments • Discussion of Methodology 6.1 • Park Land and Open Space Needs 6.3 • Recreational Facility Needs 6.4 7. Priorities and Recommendations • Park Land and Recreational Facility Priorities 7.1 • Park Site Improvements 7.2 • Other Park and Recreational Facilities 7.9 8. Implementation • Conceptual Site Plans 8.1 • Game Athletic Facilities 8.1 • Environmental and Open Space Preservation 8.2 • Financial Resources 8.3 • Updating the Master Plan 8.4 Bibliography Appendix • Appendix A Project Priorities 15 -39 • Appendix B1 Questionnaire: Survey of Recreational Attitudes • Appendix B2 Questionnaires: Survey of Adult and Youth Recreational Facilities Attitudes • Appendix C Aerial Photographs List of Illustrations Plate 1. Existing Conditions and Resources Following 4.7 Plate 2. Park and Recreation Master Plan Following 6.4 Plate 3. Open Space and Environmental Preservation Master Plan Following 6.4 Site Master Plans Following 7.9 Figure 1. Bicentennial Park Figure 2. Bob Jones Park Site Conceptual Plans Following 7.9 Figure 2a. Bob Jones Park - Tucker Property Figure 2b. Bob Jones Park - Farhat Property Figure 3. Chesapeake Park Figure 4. Lonesome Dove Park Figure 5. Noble Oaks Park Figure 6. Royal and Annie Smith Park Figure 7. Sheltonwood Park iv 1. Introduction Our mission is to respond to the articulated needs of Southlake citizens through efficient harmonious programs, facilities and open spaces which optimize neighborhood and community life. Parks and Recreation Boznl Mission Statenrra Purpose The purpose of this plan is to provide a guide for land acquisition and recreational facility development for the City of Southlake. The plan is based on recognized park planning principles and guidelines and reflects input from citizens, park board, City staff, and City Council. The Southlake Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan is a tool that will aid both staff and elected officials in providing recreational facilities to the Citizens of Southlake in an orderly and economical way. The plan will help the city make the most of its financial resources including leveraging them to increase their value. Although this plan anticipates land and facility needs through build -out of the city, it should be updated periodically to reflect accomplishments and changing needs and priorities. The Southlake City Charter requires that, as a required element of the City of Southlake Comprehensive Plan, the park plan must be updated every four years. This plan has been prepared to meet the guidelines for park and recreation system master plans set forth by Texas Parks & Wildlife (TP &X. TP &W provides a variety of matching grant programs, and approved plans enhance an applicant's chances of qualifying for matching grants for the implementation of projects. Previous Parks and Recreation Master Planning A review of earlier planning projects shows that the City's park plans and accomplishments mirror Southlake's rapid growth during the preceding decade. The Southlake Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan adopted in 1996 has been updated as follows: 1.1 INIRODUC"11ON City of Southlake Parks, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan January, 1992 This was the City's first attempt to look at park and recreation resources in a comprehensive manner. At that time, the city's population was around 8,000, and the city owned 14 acres of park land, all in Bicentennial Park. The City's build -out population was projected to be more than 48,000, one -third more than the current projection. The recommended park acreage was six to ten acres per 1,000 population, which would have yielded 289 to 483 acres at build -out. Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. of Arlington prepared the plan. City of Southlake Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Updated and Adopted November 19, 1996 This plan updated land and facility inventory, planning and design criteria, plan recommendations and implementation sections of the original plan. The focus of the update was "on the preservation, development or enhancement of attributes important to reflect the native condition of the North Texas landscape that attracted residents to the community." By this time, Bicentennial Park had been expanded to forty -one acres and two neighborhood parks, Koalaty (5 acres) and Lonesome Dove (8 acres), had been acquired. Purchase of 131 acres of land for Bob Jones Park was contemplated. A park and recreation citizens survey was designed and administered by Glass & Associates. The park and open space standard was raised to 21 acres per 1,000 residents, almost double the regional standard. The update was prepared by the City of Southlake staff. The following goals and objectives, adopted with the 1996 plan, have been updated: Goals & Objectives GOAL ONE. Conserve and enhance Southlake's remaining natural resources to maintain the City's environmental health and quality of life. Objectives. Negotiate with the development community to preserve natural features within floodplains and wooded uplands. • Negotiate with the development community to provide for public access to natural features within floodplains and wooded uplands. • Market the community wide benefits of conserving the natural resources and enhancing the assets of Lake Grapevine. 1.2 INTRODUCIION GOAL TWO. Develop a system of improvements and programs that provides a wide range of park and recreational opportunities to meet the diverse recreational needs of Southlake's citizens. Objectives • Purchase and /or lease park land suitable for the development of active recreational improvements and activities. • Purchase and /or lease park land suitable for open space preservation and passive recreational opportunities. • Develop and continuously improve, expand and update recreational programming. • Ensure the development of facilities sensitive to the needs of physically and mentally disabled park users. • Develop and maintain an active program for updating and refining the Southlake park and recreation master planning process. • Update and improve outdated and /or substandard improvements and sites to increase their usefulness to the community. GOAL THREE. Provide for the involvement of the general public and educational and business communities in the planning, design, and development of the park and recreation system. Objectives • Solicit public and private input through surveys, workshops, ad hoc committees and public meetings. • Enlist public and private assistance with facility development by creating a mechanism for encouraging and organizing volunteerism. • Educate the community as to the state of its park and recreation system by publicizing its opportunities and deficiencies. GOAL FOUR. Provide facilities and programs that are accessible to people of all physical abilities. Objectives • Survey existing facilities to assure that they are in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 1.3 INIRODUCI'ION • Bring facilities into compliance as needed. • Assure that all newly constructed facilities are in compliance with the ADA. GOAL FIVE. Maintain all playgrounds in compliance with the playground standards of the Consumer Products Safety Commission. Objectives • Establish /maintain a program to inspect playgrounds for safety issues. • Replace equipment as it becomes outdated. F ��+ 3 Adventure Ally playground at Bicentennial Park 1.4 2. Community Profile The "vast canvas of land and trees where the Grand Prairie and the Cross Timbers merge" that met Southlake's first European settlers is being engulfed by rooftops in one of Tarrant County's fastest growing communities. Yet the city and its citizens are making extraordinary efforts to preserve the open space that has drawn settlers since the community's beginning. They have set a goal to preserve eleven acres of open space per 1,000 population in addition to the ten acres of land per 1,000 population to be set aside for public parks. Southlake has 14,650 acres (about 23 square miles) within the city limits of which 57 percent is developed. It is not anticipated that the city can expand its present municipal boundaries. Southlake is bordered by Westlake, Keller, Colleyville, Trophy Club and Grapevine. History Three key events propelled Southlake's growth from a rural farming community to a thriving suburb: • In 1952 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (C.O.E.) built Lake Grapevine for water supply, flood control, and recreational opportunities. The lake forms most of the city's northern boundary, and the adjacent 700 acres will remain open space. (The city currently leases 218 acres.) Much of this area is used for equestrian activities, and pedestrians also use the informal trails. • The Dallas-Fort Worth Intemational Airport opened in 1974 near the city's eastern boundary. Professionals working for the airlines and airport management have found appropriate housing close to work in Southlake. The 65Ldn and 75Ldn noise contours associated with the airport's northwest runway impact the city on a northwest/southeast diagonal, paralleling and crossing SH 114. Current airport practice favors landing aircraft in this 2.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE corridor, so the higher noise level of departing aircraft is an unusual event. Currently none of the City's parks are located within the noise contours. • In the early 90s, water and sewer lines in the southern portion of the city were completed.' Recent development patterns reflect the availability of utility services. The Carroll Independent School District was formed in 1919 from the consolidation of Lonesome Dove, White's Chapel, and Sam's Schoolhouse schools, and serves all of Southlake except for the area west of Davis Blvd. (Keller I.S.D.) Keller I.S.D. has one school, Florence Elementary, and an undeveloped site in Southlake. The southeast corner, generally east of South Kimball and south of SH 114 is served by the Grapevine - Colleyville I.S.D. Also, Northwest I.D.D. encompasses the area north of the Tarrant /Denton County Line. Circulation The city's rapid expansion is putting pressure on its thoroughfares. During the 1990s FM 1709 was upgraded to a six -lane boulevard, and freeway construction was underway on SH 114 at the time this document was published. Most of Southlake's other arterials are scheduled to be upgraded including White Chapel, which serves Carroll Junior F igh, Bicentennial and Bob Jones parks. These two parks have the city's heavily used athletic facilities. The traffic capacity of adjacent arterials and collectors will be an important factor in locating future community park facilities. A trail plan to provide pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout Southlake was developed simultaneously with this Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. The trails will link with existing and future parks and the existing walks along Byron Nelson Pkwy. and Continental Blvd. 'City of Southlake Internet Web Site, www.ci.southlake.tx.us, 2000. 2.2 CONINIUNITv PROFILE Physical Features and Development Grapevine Lake forms the city's northern edge, and, together with its permanently dedicated open space, is Southlake's principal natural feature. Several streams border and cross Southlake's gently rolling landscape. hirkwood Branch and Dove Creek drain the northern half of the city, and flow into the lake. There is some potential for linear park development along these two streams. (Please refer to Plate 3.) Big Bear Creek and its tributaries drain the city's southern half. Unfortunately, private development precludes public park or open space dedication along this stream. Southlake's development is dominated by single family houses, but commercial development is proliferating along Southlake Blvd. (FM 1709) and SH 114. Noteworthy is the "neo- traditional" Town Center project with the new Southlake City Hall and "village green" with gazebo, square and pond. The city has enacted strong development standards for such construction, ranging from tree preservation and landscaping requirements to building form and exterior materials. These standards are contributing to the high quality environment the citizens of Southlake seek. In spite of all of the development, the city's goal remains to maintain a "high quality of life and small town charm that has been preserved from Southlake's past." • 4 y � •K alai ;j $ �'1S41f "SPA, 3 is r yT Q e Southlake's successful new Town Center has rapid' become the ci s focal point. 2.3 COMMUNITY PROFILE Demographics The following tables and narrative reflect Southlake's population and its characteristics and the city's growth rate. Data was furnished by the City of Southlake. Table 2.1 City of Southlake Historical Population Compounded Year Population Annual Growth Rate 1990" 7,065 - -- 1991' 7,130 1% 1992"* 7,990 12% 1993"" 8,900 11% 1994"' 10,850 22% 1995 13,350 23% 1996"" 14,950 12% 1997' 16,850 1 13% 1998"' 19,250 1 14% 1999'' 1 21,050 9% Source: U.S. Census Source: NCl'GOG January 1 adopted current year estimates. The annual population estimates in Table 2.1 are based on building permitting and occupancy data and they represent Southlake's population history from the 1990 Census through the most recent current year estimate for January 1, 1999. The 2000 census showed that Southlake was one of the fastest growing cities in the region, 205% since 1990 with a population of 21,519. There are several methods for projecting population growth based on historical population data and on other industry - accepted modeling. The "logistic" growth curve is deemed to be the best fit for projecting Southlake's population. It is an "S- shaped" curve which denotes a period of historic slow growth (from 1974 - 1990), followed by a sharp growth rate increase (from 1991 - present), followed by a period of decreasing growth rates as the city reaches its ultimate population. An important function and built -in "reasonableness" factor of the logistic curve is that this 2.4 COMMUNITY PROFILE mathematical function assumes an upper growth limit. This adjusts the population growth to fit the amount of land available for this use. Another necessary function of the ten -year population projections is to equate population figures to housing units. Based on the NCTCOG figures of 3.51 persons per household and a 95.4 percent occupancy rate for Southlake, the number of additional dwelling units each year can also be calculated. These figures are represented in Table 2.2 below. Table 2.2 Ten -year Population Projections Using Logistic Function City of Southlake ' % Annual Year Population Pop. Increase Housing Units 1999 j 21,050 9 %* 6,321 2000 I 23,190 8% 6,957 2001 25,000 7% 7,500 2002 26,630 5% 7,989 2003 j 28,070 4% 8,421 2004 29,310 4% 8,793 2005 30,370 3% 9,111 2006 31,250 2% 9,375 2007 31,980 2% 9,594 2008 32,580 1% 9,774 2009 33,060 1% 9,918 Using 1998 -1999 increase. General Population and Housing Characteristics: 1999 This information was compiled by projecting the characteristics of Southlake from the 1990 Census to the estimated 21,050 January 1, 1999 population. Therefore, most of the following numbers ARE EXTRAPOLATIONS and should be used as such. 2.5 COMMUNITY PROFILE Table 2.3 Population by Age Group TOTAL POPULATION I 21,050 SEX Male 10,744 Female 10,306 AGE Under 5 years 1,257 5 to 17 years 5,029 18 to 20 years 801 21to24years 718 25 to 44 years 7,267 45 to 54 years 3,349 55 to 59 years 945 60 to 64 years 593 65 to 74 years 739 75 to 84 years 301 85 years and over 51 Under 18 years 6,287 t II 65 years and over 1,090 Table 2.4 Population by Race RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN OF HOUSEHOLDER Occupied housing units 6,030 White 5,892 Black 39 American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 40 Asian or Pacific Islander 13 Other race 41 Hispanic origin (of any race) 117 2.6 COMMUNITY PROFILE Table 2.5 1999 Estimated Households by Income $150,000 or more 16.00% $100,000 to $149,000 19.97% $75,000 to $99,999 14.73% $50,000 to $74,999 22.53% $35,000 to $49,999 9.45% $25,000 to $34,999 6.80% $15,000 to $24,999 4.60% $5,000 to $14,999 4.04% Under $5,000 1.89% 2.7 3. The Planning Process Public involvement is a critical element of the park planning process. The ultimate success of a park master plan hinges on the identification and incorporation of customer needs and wants that are representative of the population the plan intends to assist. The discovery of issues important to local citizens ultimately results in a master plan document that provides a greater advantage for the future planning efforts of the city staff and councils. Planning Period The planning process for the City cf Southlake 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Spar Master Plan began January 14, 2000, with a meeting of city staff and consultants working on several simultaneous planning projects, which included a citywide trail plan (reflected on the park plan) and a Traffic Management Bond (TMB) program addressing transportation needs. City staff supplied maps, population data, descriptive information on the city, and land and facilities inventories. The consultant, Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, collated the data, organized the information, prepared maps, and together with staff and citizens developed standards, needs assessment and priorities. Plan drafts were prepared for staff, park board and council review. The staff and consultant met several times to refine various aspects of the plan. At a city council meeting and public hearing , the Southlake City Council adopted the plan by resolution. Park Board Meetings On August 14 2000, city staff and consultants attended a public park board meeting to discuss parks and recreation issues, the Bicentennial Park master plan, 3.1 THE PLANNING PROCESS and to deliver a progress report on the completion of the master plan document. Following are some comments made during the course of the meeting: • Park board members were interested in what surrounding communities were doing with respect to a community recreation center. Grapevine, Hurst, Irving, Arlington, and Carrollton's community centers were all mentioned in the discussion. The final draft was presented to a Park Board meeting and public hearing on March 19, 2001. SPIN Meetings The SPIN (Southlake Program for the Involvement of Neighborhoods)' groups gathered twice to hear presentations by City of Southlake staff and consulting firm representatives and contribute their ideas and concerns. Citywide postcard mailings, signs and city publications notified citizens of the meetings. Fifty -one residents attended the September 7 and September 13, 2000, meetings and shared their master plan ideas with the staff and consultants. Followin is a list of key points mentioned at both meetings: • Requests were made for more playground locations close to athletic fields so parents could more easily supervise both younger and older children using the different facilities. • Residents are concerned with the intensity of activities taking place at Bicentennial Park and potential traffic and noise problems immediately adjacent to the park. • It was recommended that a large multipurpose facility be placed in the southern half of the city to reduce the intensity of use of Bicentennial Park. 'SPIN was created in 1993 by the City Council "to facilitate two-way communication between Southlake neighborhoods and city government." The committee includes 16 neighborhood representatives and a senior citizen delegate. 3.2 THE PLANNING PROCESS • A suggestion was made to take full advantage of utility and drainage easements as opportunities for parks and trails. • Park users would like to see more shade trees planted. • A suggestion was made for smaller neighborhood parks scattered throughout the city with just one or two practice fields for sports play. • Citizens wanted to see development of A. Smith Park occur quickly as promised upon the sale of the property to Southlake Park Development Corporation. Survey of Recreational Attitudes A detailed public opinion survey of recreational attitudes of Southlake residents was made by Raymond Turco & Associates, and the data from this survey has been incorporated into the needs assessment and priorities outlined in this document. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the Appendix. Survey Methodology Over an eight -day period in April 2000, the Turco firm conducted telephone interviews with 402 Southlake residents. The sample was constructed using a geographical segmentation scheme that divided the study region into three areas (please refer to map in Appendix), and then combined into a single result. The responses of the randomly selected respondents are considered to minor those of a poll of all residents with the chance of variance at plus or minus five percent. The complete survey report with further discussion of its accuracy level is available in the Southlake Community Services Department office. Summary of Key Findings Note: Because of the nature of many of the survey questions, responses will not always total 100 percent. 3.3 THE PLANNING PROCESS General Recreational Attitudes in Southlake • Quality of recreation in the community ❑ 38% Very satisfied ❑ 53% Satisfied ❑ 6% Dissatisfied ❑ 0% Very dissatisfied ❑ 2% No opinion Quality of Parks and Recreation System Satisfied 54% 6% 296 Very satisfied 38% • Favorite recreational hobby or sport ❑ Walking /jogging /hiking (17 %) ❑ Tennis (11 %) ❑ Golf (11 %) ❑ Soccer (7 %) ❑ Baseball (6 %) ❑ Swimming and boating (5 %) ❑ Water sports (5 %) City Facilities Available for Favorite Hobby or Sport? Outside City 29% Don't Know t% In City 70% 3. THE PLANNING PROCESS • Most popular activities mentioned by residents who went to a city park ❑ Take kids to play (61%) ❑ Walk/hike (53 %) ❑ Organized sports (42 %) ❑ Picnic (36 %) and organized sports (32 %). Thirteen percent of the people sampled acknowledged generally not going to parks. • Recreational Needs Assessment and Quality Ratings ❑ Visited a city park or facility in the last 12 months (84 %) ❑ Participated in a city event (66 %) ❑ Visited or used a city athletic field (64 %) ❑ Used a bike or pedestrian path (53 %) Conversely, survey participants were at least likely to have participated in an adult athletic league or utilized an equestrian trial (both 15 %) or visited a Corps of Engineer park (21 %). Respondents Likely to Use City Facilities Very Likely 63% e "F No Opinion �� p' 4% Very Unlikely 4% Unlikely 7% Likely 22% • From a list of 12 general recreation items, residents were most satisfied ❑ With the quality of recreational facilities (91 %) ❑ Number of programs and overall recreation program (both 89 %) ❑ Quality of programs offered (87 %) ❑ Number of facilities (85 %) 3.5 THE PLANNING PROCESS By comparison, satisfaction was lowest regarding ❑ Availability of hike and bike trails (57 %) ❑ Items impacted by higher no opinion responses: number of baseball fields (62 %, with 24% no opinion), number of softball fields (59 %, 29 %) and number of soccer fields (55 %, 29 %). • Most important outdoor recreational facilities to construct (from a comprehensive listing of potential recreational facilities) ❑ Multi -use trails (86 %) ❑ Playgrounds (82 %) ❑ Picnic areas (81 %) ❑ Pavilions or shelters (71 %) ❑ Off- road/BMX trails (63 %) ❑ Practice soccer fields (60 %) ❑ Exercise stations along trails (60 %) ❑ Fishing piers (60 %) ❑ Water park with pools and water activities (60 %) ❑ Tennis courts (35 %) ❑ Horseshoe pits (34 %) ❑ Disc golf course (41 %) • The most important outdoor recreational facility to construct ❑ Selected multi -use trails (22 %) ❑ Water park with pools and water activities (16 %) ❑ Playgrounds (8 %) • Level of satisfaction with components (number, location, quality, safet)) of general recreation ❑ Safety of parks (94 %) ❑ Maintenance of parks (90 %) ❑ Overall quality of city parks (89 %) ❑ Variety of recreational facilities within parks (84 %) ❑ Maintenance of athletic fields (83 %) ❑ Quality of athletic fields (82 %) ❑ Number of parks (81 %) ❑ Quality of hike and bike trails (55 %) ❑ Number of athletic fields (67 %) ❑ Athletic fields conveniently located (71 %) • More than 3 of 4 either supported (45 %) or strongly supported (33 %) using city tax dollars to upgrade school property for use as neighborhood parks and 3.6 THE PLANNING PROCESS practice areas. By comparison, 18% opposed the concept, including 6% who strongly opposed the use of tax dollars. • Multi-use trails (43 %) and playgrounds (40 %) were twice as popular as other items that respondents would definitely want a park in their area of Southlake to include. Additional answers generated from this open - ended question were picnic areas (20 %), and open grassy areas /landscaping (18 %). Youth Athletic Leagues Participation 60% 55% F � � 50% 45% 30% 42% 22 % 19% 18% 20% is 10% 0% • Baseball Youth Football In -line Hockey Soccer Girl. Softball Tennis Baseketball Survey of Adult and Youth Recreational Facilities Attitudes A detailed public opinion recreation survey of Southlake residents was made by Raymond Turco & Associates and the data from this survey has been incorporated into the needs assessment and priorities outlined in this document. The focus of this survey was on the recreational needs of teens and adults with reference to planned indoor recreational facilities. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the Appendix. 3.7 THE PLANNING PROCESS Survey Methodology The survey targeted 400 adults and 417 youth between the ages of 11 -18. Each group was asked similar questions and each group's results were compiled separately. Telephone interviewing for the adult survey took place June 26 — July 10, 2000. Interviewing for the youth survey was conducted August 7 — 20, 2000. For the adult survey, three primary subsectors were assigned quotas proportional to the number of households with available telephone numbers. Regarding the youth survey, the six primary grades were also assigned quotas proportional to the number of Southlake students at those particular grades in the 1999 -2000 school year at the following ISD's: Southlake- Carroll, Grapevine- Colleyville, and Keller. However, the total number of surveys was weighted to accurately reflect the appropriate grade level. Both surveys have a random sample size of over 400 respondents and are accurate to within 5% at the 95% confidence level. The complete survey report with further discussion of its accuracy level is available in the Community Services Office. Key Findings Note: Responses will not always total 100 %. General Recreational Attitudes • More than 6 out of 10 persons interviewed acknowledged voting in the 1999 school bond election (65 %), as well as the 1999 city council race (62 %). Those percentages were significantly higher than the group admitting to having voted in the 1998 city council races (49 %). Youth in Southlake were most satisfied with recreation services provided to youth in their age group (13 -18), more so than adults. • Three most popular recreational facilities adults would like to see constructed by the city of Southlake ❑ Aquatic center /pool (26 %) ❑ Recreation center (19 %) ❑ Trails Students prioritized a recreation center (23 %), followed by a teen center (19 %) and aquatic center /pool (14 %). 3.8 THE PLANNING PROCESS • Necessity of construction of an indoor recreation center ❑ Adults necessary or very necessary (76 %) ❑ Youth rated it necessary or very necessary (90 %) ❑ Adults and youth, respectively, rated it unnecessary (16 %, 9 %) ❑ Adults and youth, respectively, rated very unnecessary. (5 %, 0 %) Note that 30% of both groups rated the center very necessary. • Indoor recreational needs of adults generally fulfilled at ❑ Private clubs (49 %) ❑ Schools (34 %) ❑ Church facilities (28 %) • Indoor needs of youth generally fulfilled at ❑ Schools (51 %) ❑ Their house or a friend's house (44 %) ❑ Split between private clubs and city facilities (28 %) ❑ Three out of five adult respondents (61 %) and more than one -half (51 %) of students acknowledged having visited a recreation center in another city. Of the 243 adults and 207 youth who visited such a center respondents were most complimentary about variety of programs (36% and 41 %). The second most popular response among both groups was nice facilities /equipment, although students (16% and 31 %) mentioned it significantly more often. Recreation Center Components and Programs • When asked to give a spontaneous comment on the 3 most popular activities in a recreation center, adults would like to be able to participate in ❑ Basketball (35 %) ❑ Aerobics /exercise (33 %) ❑ Swimming (32 %) The most popular youth activities mentioned were basketball (50 %), swimming (32 %) and soccer (18 %). • From a list of 20 possible activities they or their family would participate in at a new recreation center adult respondents listed ❑ Fitness and aerobics (78 %) ❑ Jogging /walking around on an indoor track (72 %) ❑ Recreational classes (72 %) ❑ Attending community meetings (71 %) 3.9 TIE PLANNING PROCESS • Student responses to the same question included ❑ Activities geared toward teens (85 %) ❑ Lifting weights /cardio equipment (82 %) ❑ Swimming (81 %), rock climbing (80 %) ❑ Jogging /walking around on an indoor track (75 %) ❑ Indoor basketball (72 %) • Adults were most supportive of (from a comprehensive listing of 21 potential recreational components) ❑ A recreation center exercise /aerobics room and space for teen activities (both 90 %) ❑ Weight /cardiovascular room (85 %) ❑ Racquetball courts and indoor jogging track (both 82 %) ❑ Meeting rooms (81 %) ❑ Game rooms, with pool tables, and table tennis (80 %) • The components most strongly supported by youth were ❑ Basketball courts (97 %) ❑ Game room, space for teen activities and stage area for concerts (each 96 %) ❑ Leisure pool (95 %) ❑ Rock climbing wall (92 %) ❑ Exercise /aerobics room, kitchen/snack bar and exercise /lap pool (each 91%) ❑ Indoor jogging track (90 %) • More than 9 of 10 students admitted being likely (34 %) or very likely (61 %) for themselves or their families to use a recreation center if constructed. • Regarding teen center location statements, adults were in agreement that the needs of youth in Southlake would best be met by teen activities as part of the recreation center, but with a separate entrance (71 %), or by teen activities in a designated area or on a designated evening (69 %). • Teens most often agreed that the needs would be best met by teen activities as part of the recreation center, but with a separate entrance (79 %), by a teen center constructed as a stand -alone facility (73 %) and by teen activities included in a designated area or evening (72 %). 3.10 Till- PLANNING PROCESS • Three of 5 adult respondents either supported (46 %) or strongly supported (15 ° /o) the construction of a teen center, based on an estimated cost of $1 million. However, support declined to 45% when informed that construction of the teen center could delay construction of the recreation center a few years. Regarding construction based on an estimated cost, strong support was similar to strong opposition (15 % -13 %). However, the delayed construction statement led respondents to be more strongly opposed than strongly supportive (22 % -9 %). r l . y l: J ? E FVdtb4' Y -„:, ,.y y e,.ems l' .. j� / t) y F - " °9' .4 �'Y 4vg Sti j "p " / \ may! d ..r. , - .4� `+' 1 41 1:.":=7..: 'K.4 -r; 4, . j 1- ,` i 1 4 :2''''''...';W2 ,. �7 - r Bob JoneJ Park clean rip 3.11 4. Park and Recreational Resources Tables 4.1 through 4.5 inventory Southlake's park and recreation resources and provide the basis for assessing the city's present and future quantitative needs. City - owned land and recreational facilities are listed in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. Additional information on individual parks can be found in Section 7. Table 4.4 lists support facilities in each park — non - recreational but necessary to the function of these sites. Carroll I.S.D. "joint use" facilities are shown on Table 4.3. Although these are available to the public at various times, school use has priority. Because these facilities are not consistently open to use by the general public, they are not included in the needs assessments in Section 6. Cooperative agreements between cities and school districts are fairly common in north Texas. Where they exist, they raise the level of service for the facilities included in any agreement. They can reduce the need for duplicate expenditures by ttivo agencies. Such agreements could be part of the implementation of this plan, again reducing the need for certain additional facilities. Although no joint use agreements exist with the many private subdivision parks (Table 4.5 and Plate 1), these sites provide significant recreational opportunities as neighborhood park facilities. They are conveniently located within populous neighborhoods so as to relieve the city of providing these facilities (Refer to Plate 1). These facilities, since not open to use by the general public, are not included in the existing public park inventory. yt � l Trail at Koala!). Park 4. PARK AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES uy a °Ln a` o Io pasea-I - Purl aDVSf1 0 N I N slExoy purl paun�o- (Ua„ !r13. ,�-, - al grs /Poonvp!I a r, 711 oo `r '- i Ln Ln 3prd IalloD cn ..}- r, o in .-a o\ 0 0o iJ Lri o0 •D M •-i .-• 0 0 3 1 ; 'd poomuoatagS Z r: cC 0 H s31Jud aJEnbS umoj, v) O o 0 o O Ni rd 3A0 a III 0Sauo1 Z M Lri o0 0 o o rn a\ cii oo M o v iri M } IJud III!uWS •V I M I Z y' a el U I M O M pv, xtrd a3Iradrsaqp Z °° M .--', U 3 Izrd s aIq °1\I Z ' `r' d r-, o in N o E N N Lr; O 'Prd AlrI3O Z N. -, o oM M C 0 0 o O o -� } I 1 d sauor q °S N N > cu cu • - 4 , N "O 0 0 0 0 Q 3ITed Iutuuaauaatg ^ ev U o v td O 0 U N .� G-'r p v � . . 7:1 C' Q) C� p cn b � eA - . ' ` U U u - �b �d �a Ha H 4.2 U Q �p I zUC�v) aO Table 4.2 Park and Recreational 1 1 1 -w 1 x 1 x .e, i .x v Facility Inventory 4t Pi P. 03 c v a �. w a, a A 0 1 ', m - ,x y i Z to e O n.. E " E o to - d j �. :4 "g 2 -c I y ' C ,x :� CQ 1 Ca W Z V I a; .4 H ccr j c% ! U H Amphitheater 1 1 Batting Cage Stall 6 1 6 Baseball Diamond Practice 2 3 2 7 Game - lighted 7 7 Game - unlighted ( 1 0 Basketball Court (Outdoor) 3 j 3 Bench 5' 6 33 44 Community Center 0 Creek/River 1 1 1 2 Fishing Pier /Dock 1 1 ! 2 Horseshoe Court I 1 � 1 1 Inline Hockey Rink (lighted) 1 1 Lacrosse Field � , 1 0 Nature Center (Bldg) 1 1 Pavilion 5 2 1 1 I 9 Picnic Shelter 6 4 10 Picnic Table 28 8 8 3 47 Playground 1 1 1 1 4 Pond (Acres) 1 (2) 2 (9) 1 (4) 1 (0) 1 (1) 1 6 (16) Senior Center 11 1 Soccer Field _ Practice 6 1 6 Game - lighted 1 1 0 Game unlighted 13 f 13 Softball Diamond Practice 3 2 I S Game - lighted 3 3 Game - unlighted 0 Tennis Center with Pro Shop 1 1 Tennis Courts 15 15 Trail, Hiking / Equestrian (miles) 1 j 1 Trailhead, Equestrian 2 1 I 2 Trail, Nature (soft or interpretive) 0.5 0.5 Trail, Paved (miles) 1 2 0.4 1 3.4 Sand Volleyball Court 0 1 0 1 An additional 4.6 miles exist on the Corps property. 4.3 Table 4.3 Joint Use , Facilities C.I.S.D. - Southlake Other 1u — 'b U 4 -o c� os E 4': a, ao o -o ; � 4 o W E I H o - o 2 - c° 1 U A °, r4 U U U cn C7 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Activity Room 1 1 1 Baseball Diamond (Practice) 1 2 1 2 1' 2 9 9 Basketball Court (Outdoor) 2 1 3 3 Cafetorium 1 1 1 Exercise Room 1 1 1 Football Field (Practice) 1 2 3 3 Gym 1 2 1 1 1 2 8 8 In -line Hockey Rink 1 1 1 Recreation Center /Gym 1 1 1 Open Field 1 1 2 2 Soccer Field (Practice) 1 2 2 2 7 4 11 SUPPORT FACILITIES Gym Office /Storage 1 1 2 2 'Lighted Park and Recreation Resources 4.4 1 I saiiiesiaA X k k uoa;eutty X XIX X X X XIX X X X' k a � as cut � Z 9 Z X X yc X X X X X X X X spoof 3)1r141110S k k 1 k swirl auoaS c k 1 k X X X 1 I x x k I x X swirl a� a Pno � Z P. q S x x x x x. x x 1 x Nc x 1 x uol2ututag x. X k X "J,I, 3 1t0 k 'c X mopraNs.taiihlxk x k Xkkkk oiiaauuow I x 1 x x i ■ X x x x ezrid Ai'malup X X uotuiuxoa k 1 1 k a2pig umoJD k !' ' I I kttuanop I X � I 1 X 1 X aa>'id a2puquteD Nc x x Nc uou ppv suiepy X . °: . O ,0w� o c!) ;~ °A o O O IH � �� v oA o v o �, p. (6 : 4.5 PLi as 4 cnH HHUaP4 as Table 4.5 nz Park Support b v Facilities w 4 pi a e o ..; o! c c� j 8 n, 3 v = 4. j z , , O w c y I C o o I li U t ,x �? ' o o I © .c d o o . E "' o. Totals 0L1 x z V R: i. cn (/) (n U U Concession Building 2 1 3 Parking (paved) Spaces 540 560 j 10 12 40 1 20 1,182 Parking (unpaved) Spaces 70 60 12 1 142 Trailer /Recreational Vehicles (# of spaces) 24 24 Water Feature (fountain) 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Restroom Facilities 31 2 r ! 5 4.6 PARK AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES Major Nearby Recreational Facilities Keller Keller Sports Complex. South of FM1709 (Golden Triangle Boulevard), west of US377 (Main Street). Bear Creek Park. Bear Creek Parkway east of US377(Main Street) Sky Creek Ranch Golf Club. Bear Creek Parkway near the southwest corner of Southlake. Colleyville City Park. Bransford Road between SH26 and the DART rail line. Athletic Facilities. Colleyville Community Center. 5300 Bluebonnet Dr. Meeting and event facility. Grapevine Meadowmere Park. North Kimball Drive. Soccer /football fields, boat launch, beach. Oak Grove Park. Dove Loop Rd. & Park Road # 1. Athletic fields, hike and bike trail, large pavilion. Dove park. 1509 Hood Lane. Swimming Pool, tennis courts, play equipment. 4.7 5. Standards and Concepts The acreage and facility standards in this plan reflect local needs and trends, NRPA standards, demand levels in Southlake, comparative data from other Metroplex cities, and the consultant's experience and observations in twenty-eight years of park planning and design, primarily in north central Texas. In a recent publication, the NRPA notes ...a shift in planning from the traditional project or comprehensive master plan to the more strategic planning process which provides a wider range of opportunities for citizens to become active stakeholders in their community and more involved in the decision - making process. Community involvement in this plan is described in Section 3 of this document. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show park acreage and facility standards for Southlake. 0 y j t off ..,:"'"'?‘:,a4 ' :.1Y fi It 4 Ct+ 1 4 Wr 4 a � as � , Y Southlake Tennis Center at Bicentennial Park 5.1 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS Land Standards by Park Type Based on Southlake's local needs and the desires of the citizens, this plan recommends Southlake's standard be 21 acres per 1,000 residents, almost double the regional average. This standard is justified because of the high value that Southlake's residents give open space and the unique opportunity Southlake has with nearly 700 acres of open space dedicated to the public by the Corps of Engineers around Lake Grapevine. The average standard for park land in the Metroplex is 11 acres per 1,000 residents. The standard for open space, first presented in the 1996 plan, means that 50 percent of the park land in Southlake will be managed as undeveloped open space for natural and wildlife benefits. Only trails and other low impact development will be allowed in designated open space. Table 5.1 City Park Land and Open Space 1 Acreage NRPA Service' Southlake Park User per 1000 Size Recreational Area Type Radius /Size Service Radius Focus Residents (Acres) Neighborhood Parks lh to 1 mile Families 2.0 { 5 to 10 '/ mi., 2,500 SF - Playground Only 1 acre Subdivision Children Up to 1 Parks with School Varies /Variable 1 mile Children 3 to 5 Community Parks '/z - 3 mi. /30 -50 3 /a - 1 mile Youth/Adults 4.0 20 - 50 Parks with School NA/NA 1 mile Youth j 10 - 20 Entire Community/ City Parks 50 -75 Ac. Entire City Family /Group 3.0 50 up Variable/ Special Use Parks Variable Entire City Varies NA Varies Linear Parks NA/NA Entire City Individuals 1.0 Varies Open Space NA/NA Entire City Family /Group /Adult 11 Varies James D. Mertes, Ph. D., et. al., Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Standards, 1996, National Recreation and Park Association. 5.2 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS Table 5.2' Recreational NRPA Facility Standards (Standards are based on units per population) 1996 I Service radius and Southlake j Location Notes 1983 Standards Amphitheater I - - -- - - -- 1:25,000 Aquatics Center 15 to 30 minutes travel time 1:20,000 1:35,000 Batting Cage (Stall) - - -- - - -- 1:4,000 Baseball Diamond (Practice) - - - - 1:2,250 Baseball Diamond (Game - lighted) 1 1 /4 - 1 /2 mile. Part of neighborhood 1:5,000 i 1:3,600 complex. Lighted fields part of community complex. Baseball Diamond (Game) 1 /4 - 1h mile. Part of neighborhood' 1:5,000 1:3,600 complex. Lighted fields part of community complex. Basketball Court (Outdoor) 1 /4 - 1/2 mile. Outdoor courts in 1:5,000 1 1:5,000 neighborhood /community parks, plus active recreation areas in other park settings. Bench - - -- - - -- 1:500 Community Center - - -- - - -- 1:35,000 Fishing Pier /Dock - - -- - - -- 1:10,000 Horseshoe Court - - -- - - -- 1:10,000 Inline Hockey Rink (lighted) l - - -- - - -- 1:25,000 1 Lacrosse Field - - -- - - -- 1:10,000 Nature Center (Bldg) - - -- - - -- 1:40,000 Pavilion - - -- - - -- 1:2,500 Picnic Shelter - - -- _ - - -- 1:3,000 Picnic Table - - -- - - -- 1:500 Playground - - -- I - - -- 1:4,000 Senior Center - - -- - - -- 1:35,000 Soccer Field (Practice) - - - - 1:10,000 1:2,500 ' James D. Mertes, et. aL, Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines, 1996, National Recreation and Park Association. 2 Roger A. Lancaster, Ed., Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, 1983, National Recreation and Park Association. ' NRPA Standards do not distinguish between practice and game fields. 4 NRPA Standards do not include lighting for outdoor sports facilities. 5.3 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS Soccer Field (Game) 1 - 2 miles. Number of units 1:10,000 1:1,500 depends on popularity. Youth popularity. Youth soccer on smaller fields adjacent to fields or neighborhood parks. 1 Soccer Field (Game - lighted)' 1 - 2 miles. Number of units I 1:10,000 1:2,800 depends on popularity. Youth popularity. Youth soccer on smaller fields adjacent to fields or neighborhood parks. I Softball Diamond (Practice) - - - - 1:5,000 1:4,500 Softball Diamond (Game) 1 /a - 1 /2 mile. May also be used for 1:5,000 1:9,000 youth baseball. I Softball Diamond (Game - lighted)' '/a - 1h mile. May also be used for I 1:5,000 1:9,000 youth baseball. I Tennis Center with Pro Shop - - -- I - - -- I 1:35,000 Tennis Courts 1/4 - 1/2 mile. best in batteries of 2 - 1:2,000 1:1,500 4. Located in neighborhood/ community park or near school site. Trail, Hiking / Equestrian (miles) - - -- - - -- 1:10,000 Trailhead, Equestrian - - -- -- - -- 1:12,000 Trail, Nature (soft or interpretive) - - -- - - -- 1 1:10,000 Trail, Paved (miles) - - -- - - -- 1:5,000 Sand Volleyball Court' 1 1/ - 1 mile. 1:5,000 1 1:15,000 Standard for number of courts is found under "Tennis Courts." b NRPA's standard is for paved volleyball courts. NRPA Standards do not distinguish between practice and game fields. ' NRPA Standards do not include lighting for outdoor sports facilities. 5.4 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS Topographic Considerations Desirable grades for parks with active recreation facilities such as athletic fields, courts and playgrounds range from one to five percent. Grades exceeding five percent increase construction costs or limit development. Floodplain and floodway land is often used for parks; however, no permanent structures can be built in the floodway (paved trails are an exception). Structures are allowed in the floodplain beyond the floodway under certain conditions and development restrictions; therefore only a portion of any park should be in the 100 -year floodplain line, particularly those parks with intensively developed facilities. Exceptions could be a natural open space preserve or linear park. Although their grades may exceed five percent, high points and bluffs may be desirable in certain parks for overlooks, viewpoints, and hiking trails. Parks are often built where the land is lower priced — in the floodplain. This is acceptable, even appropriate for certain types of parks and facilities, but inappropriate for the majority of urban active park development. Problems associated with intense park development in floodplains include: • Building and structural damage to permanent facilities. • Clean up of debris lodged in fencing, backstops, and other structures required after every flood. • Erosion of playing surfaces and undermining of foundations, pads, etc. • Soggy field conditions which keep facilities out of service after flood waters recede. • Repair of damaged athletic field fencing. • Regrading of athletic fields. • Removal of silt and sediment deposits. • Additional chemical treatment to abate weed infestations caused by floods. • Floodwater intrusion into the wastewater system. Land above the floodplain is required for development of the following: • Athletic complexes and support structures including rest room and concession building. • Competitive ball diamonds and soccer and football fields • Tennis courts • Picnic pavilions 5.5 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS • Swimming pools and aquatics centers • Recreation centers Land within the floodplain is suitable for development of the following: • Linear parks • Multipurpose trails • Nature study areas • Dedicated open space for passive use Discussion of Park Classifications Park sites and their facilities are classified in Southlake as neighborhood, community, city, special purpose and linear. The multipurpose function of certain parks is possible with the overlapping of facilities as noted below. The Neighborhood Park The neighborhood park is frequently considered to be the backbone of a municipal park system. A gently sloped, semi- wooded, upland site is the most appropriate setting for a neighborhood park. It can be the focal point of the neighborhood and a source of pride for the residents. It is the local park that provides an attractive open space within easy walking or biking distance. Playgrounds for preschool and elementary- school -age children are the basic neighborhood park facility. Above all else, the neighborhood park should be a place of fun and relaxation for the entire family. Size and Location The standard size of a neighborhood park is five to ten acres. If adjacent to an elementary school, the park should be at least three acres. If the park exists independently of the school, ten acres is recommended. In Southlake, public neighborhood parks are typically in excess of five acres. In an ideal location the neighborhood park will serve residents within a one -half to two - thirds mile radius of the park and be connected to or be a part of a linkage park system. In many cities, neighborhood parks are frequently given less emphasis in favor of larger multipurpose facilities. Small neighborhood parks present many problems: their limited acreage makes it impossible to provide needed facilities and they are significantly more expensive to maintain. 5.6 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS Community, city and linear parks can provide some of the neighborhood park services as do existing elementary schools. Actual neighborhood park acreage at build -out will probably fall below the guidelines. The critical issue is that each residential area have access to neighborhood park facilities. Typical Facilities for Neighborhood Parks • Playgrounds with resilient play surfaces, perimeter edging, play structures and seating areas. It is vital that these facilities meet current ADA , CPSC , and IPEMA guidelines. • Level, open spaces for team practice and neighborhood pick-up games. • Multipurpose courts for basketball, volleyball and tennis. • Picnic areas with tables, cooking grills and litter receptacles. • Landscape development and beautification including color beds, screening, shade, benches, sidewalks, signage, and security lighting. • Other facilities may include drinking fountains, small picnic shelters, multipurpose paved jogging trails, and a small parking lot. Lonesome Dove Park is an example of a developed neighborhood park in Southlake. The Community Park The typical community park serves several neighborhoods located within approximately 1 -1/2 miles of the park. It provides more specialized and elaborate facilities than the neighborhood park. Most users reach this park by automobile. The community park can also provide neighborhood park amenities for neighborhoods immediately adjacent to it. A primary function of the park is to provide facilities for organized, competitive sports such as tennis, soccer, football, softball, volleyball, and baseball. Such facilities require a fairly open, upland site of adequate size and gentle gradient. Lighted athletic fields and parking areas should be sited for minimum disturbance to any adjacent residential areas. 5 Americans With Disabilities Act 6 Consumer Product Safety Commission 7 International Playground Equipment Manufacturers Association 5.7 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS Size and Location The size of the community park ranges from twenty to fifty acres. The community park should be located on a thoroughfare so that park traffic does not intrude upon surrounding neighborhood areas. A desirable location would be adjacent to a middle school, high school, or church site so that park users could take advantage of the existing parking areas of these facilities. A community park may also be sited in combination with larger school athletic sites. In addition to neighborhood park facilities, community parks typically have the following: • Lighted athletic fields and courts that meet competitive standards for baseball, softball, football, soccer, tennis, basketball and volleyball. • Large lighted parking areas to serve the athletic fields and courts. • Group shelters and/or picnic pavilions with tables, cooking grills and litter receptacles. • Rest rooms for athletic participants and other park users. These may be free standing or in association with organized group facilities. • Drinking fountains, concession buildings, and security lighting. • Multipurpose trails for jogging, walking, cycling, skating and nature study. • Other facilities may include a swimming pool, recreation or community building, or fishing pond. Southlake currently has no parks classified as community. However, Bob Jones Park and Bicentennial Park provide certain community park facilities. The City Park The city park serves large population segments of the city. It is usually the largest of the parks in a municipal system. This park may provide spacious natural areas and specialized attractions such as botanical gardens, historical areas, or geological features. Sites with a variety of topographic and vegetative conditions are ideal for city parks, although a high percentage of the acreage in highly developed parks should be above the floodplain. Neighborhood and community park facilities are often found within city parks. Size and Location The size of a city park ranges from a minimum of fifty acres to 200 acres. Southlake's city parks range from 72 to 266 acres. Such parks are usually located on sites with 5.8 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS special natural amenities. City parks should be located adjacent to major thoroughfares in order to accommodate the large numbers of visitors that may be expected to arrive by automobile. Typical Facilities It is desirable to leave portions of the site in a natural or minimally developed state for passive recreational uses. In addition to neighborhood and community park facilities, city parks could include: • Athletic complexes • Internal road system and parking facilities • Viewpoints or overlooks • Nature trails and interpretative areas • Equestrian trails and associated facilities • Pond or lake with fishing pier and boating - canoeing • Tennis center • Aquatics center • Botanical garden or arboretum • Community center • Amphitheater • Recreation center Bicentennial and Bob Jones Parks are Southlake's two city parks. The Linear Park The linear park has great value in a city park system. Such parks introduce corridors of green into the fabric of urban development. Although they may be very narrow, their length can provide the appearance of expansive open space particularly when the long axis of the park parallels a street. They establish links between neighborhoods, schools, parks and other community facilities. Ideally, these parks are developed into a comprehensive system that links together all the parks within a city. Linear parks usually follow creeks or utility and drainage easements or rights -of -way. This is the one park category for which floodplain land is acceptable and appropriate. Such land is undesirable for residential and commercial construction, and developers are often eager to donate it for park purposes. If a donation of land is 5.9 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS unavailable, the cost of acquiring property for linear parks is usually less per acre than the cost of acquiring land for a typical neighborhood park. Size and Location A linear park has no particular size requirements or limitations, but its shape is usually long and narrow. It is important that linear parks have adequate street frontage for public access and sight lines into the park for security. It is recommended that a minimum of forty percent of any linear park have street frontage. Where floodplains and easements are not available, a linkage park can be developed along existing streets and thoroughfares. A standard five foot sidewalk along the edge of an existing street can be replaced with a ten -foot path that is pulled away from the street for added safety and to allow room for additional landscaping. Significant portions of the floodplain should be protected from development along designated linear parks in order to provide adequate space for construction, reduce drainage maintenance problems, and avoid steep gradients that impact use and maintenance. The floodway should serve only drainage purposes. Typical Facilities The addition of permanent recreation facilities in drainage easements and floodplains is restricted because of the dense vegetation, flood hazard, and the linear nature of the space. Linear parks are especially suited to activities that are linear in nature, so the most commonly found improvement is the multipurpose trail. Other facilities suitable for linear and linkage parks include: • Landscape development and beautification • Playgrounds • Picnic areas • Carefully planned, low-impact multipurpose athletic practice fields • Nature trails and centers • Off- street parking in selected areas Kir kwood /Sabre linear park areas are examples of public facilities of this type. Numerous private linear parks exist in Southlake's southern residential neighborhoods. 5.10 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS The Special Purpose Facility The special purpose facility is usually limited to one or two uses. It is sized, located, and developed to best serve its function. Some examples of special facilities are a multipurpose athletic complex, tennis center, BMX track, aquatic center, arboretum, golf course, historical site, nature preserve, in -line skating facility and recreation center. Depending on its function, this park may serve the entire city. When possible, these parks are located on major thoroughfares. Acreage standards are dictated by the nature of the facility. An example of a special purpose facility in Southlake is the Coker property, which is currently undeveloped. This property was purchased as a potential equestrian linkage to C.O.E. property. Recreational Facility Guidelines Community Centers These facilities vary widely in size and function. Centers may provide any or all of the following: • Spaces for gymnastics, weight training, dance, racquetball, handball, and basketball. • Indoor runnin track • Meeting rooms • Banquet hall/large meeting space with stage • Craft and ceramics rooms • Dark rooms • Kitchens • Game rooms • Display space • Lockers and dressing rooms • Outdoor spaces such as an amphitheater, patio, terrace, gardens, walking paths • Less frequently, an indoor pool • Support spaces including entry control, offices, rest rooms, storage, janitor closets. 5.11 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS Although they are generally operated by municipal parks and recreation departments, NRPA does not have a guideline for ratio of recreation or community centers to population. Some cities have adopted a standard of one recreation center for every 25,000 to 50,000 citizens, or one within 2 -1/2 miles of every citizen. Other cities use the community park service radius standard which projects a community center within 11/2 to 2 miles of every resident. These centers are frequently configured as follows: • Community Center Gathering spaces dominate over recreational spaces in the traditional community center. It may be used for community-wide garage sales, large and small meetings, luncheons, banquets, pancake breakfasts, quilt shows, art exhibits, musical performances, seminars and other similar functions. Its facilities will likely include all of the above except the sports related facilities. A community center with banquet space and meeting rooms would require 15,000 - 20,000 square feet. These centers often serve a larger service radius than the recreation center. Southlake does not have a community center. • Recreation Center This center is designed to serve the population mentioned above — generally the same service area as a community park. It may, in fact, be located in a community park. It will likely have a gymnasium, work-out space, courts, and associated facilities. It may also have craft and meeting rooms and a kitchen. This center would require at least 25,000 to 40,000 square feet. These groupings of facilities are the standard for modern recreation centers. Such centers should be distributed throughout the city so as to provide convenient spaces for programming that will appeal to adjacent population and age groups. A study for a recreation/community center was underway at the time this plan was published. • Senior Center This is a specialized recreation/community center designed to appeal to older citizens. Such a center could include any or all of the facilities listed above, according to the needs and desires of the community it serves. Accessibility, 5.12 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS comfort, and security are particularly important for this population. Spaces for dinin exercise, card playing, visiting and crafts will supply the basic needs in a community center designed for seniors. Southlake has a senior center located at 307 Parkwood Drive. Aquatics Facilities Contemporary trends in municipal aquatics recreation facilities are for multi - activity centers such as: • Complex of pools including competition pool, practice pool, diving well, and wading pool with shade shelter, lawn for sunbathing, rest rooms, concessions, party room, and related support facilities. • Aquatics center including zero -depth entry pool, water slides, interactive water play, water playground, shade shelters, sand volleyball, pavilion(s), lawn for sunbathing, rest room-concession building. These types of centers are more costly to build than the traditional neighborhood pool, but they attract more users and may generate enough revenue to cover some or all operating costs. Indoor pools or natatoriums provide opportunities for all- season use by swim team members and for fitness and therapeutic programs. These are frequently developed as joint ventures between cities and school districts such as C.I.S.D. or colleges. The City has entered into a joint use agreement with C.I.S.D. and provided $1.25 million toward a natatorium, which is now under construction. Historic Sites /Parks National standards do not exist for historic properties within park systems. Communities develop and use these projects according to availability and demand. Local examples include pioneer cabins, pioneer cemeteries and the grand houses of prominent citizens of earlier eras. A structure with historic or architectural significance can form the focal point of a small park which is usually reserved for passive uses. 5.13 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS According to the Texas Historical Commission the following are listed as Texas I-Estoric Sites in Southlake: Absalom H. Chivers Cemetery, 1300 block N. Carroll Thomas Easter Cemetery, 2800 block Southlake Blvd. Lonesome Dove Baptist Church and Cemetery, 2380 Lonesome Dove White's Chapel United Methodist Church, 185 S. White Chapel Park Service Areas Establishment of neighborhood and community park service areas is a means of assuring equitable distribution of facilities throughout the city. Additionally, when the number of existing and proposed parks in the service area analysis is multiplied by the average acreage for that park type, the results should fall within the acreage guidelines range. This process can confirm the reasonableness of the guidelines. Neighborhood Park Service Areas The ideal neighborhood is said to be approximately one mile square (640 acres) with a population of 3,000 to 7,000. It is defined by major streets and/or physical barriers. Thus, the radius standard for neighborhood parks is one -half mile, as shown by the smaller circles on Plate 2. Ideally, a neighborhood has located at its center both an elementary school and a neighborhood park that have a common boundary. Since neighborhood parks are designed for families and children, and walking or bicycling is the desirable way to reach them, no street or thoroughfare in excess of two lanes should be included within a service area. This, of course, assumes that local and collector streets within these neighborhoods connect. Future community, city and linear parks may provide some of the neighborhood park services as do existing elementary schools. The actual neighborhood park acreage at build -out will probably fall between the low and high range guidelines. The critical issue is that each service area have access to neighborhood park facilities. Community Park Service Areas Community parks are designed to serve several neighborhoods. The normal service radius is one to 11/2 miles. The large circles on Plate 2 represent a 1 -mile radius. 5. 14 STANDARDS AND CONCEPTS Because it is assumed that most park users will travel to community parks by automobile, location of thoroughfares adjacent to these parks is desirable. The remaining park categories— city, special purpose, and linear— serve the entire city. An athletic complex may function within a community park service area depending on the distribution of similar facilities in a city. These variables demonstrate the flexibility needed in application of the park planning standards and guidelines. 5.15 6. Needs Assessments Discussion of Methodology The needs assessment compares existing land and facilities in Southlake's park system with a variety of data in order to determine the city's needs. Texas Parks and Wildlife has specified the following three approaches as acceptable for park and recreation plans that meet the department's guidelines. A plan that meets the guidelines will enhance Southlake's prospects of obtaining matching funds for park construction. Standards Based Needs The standards -based approach uses established standards or guidelines to determine the amounts of facilities and park areas needed to meet the needs of a given population size. It is based on a mathematical process that determines the quantitative requirements for recreational facilities and parkland. The standards may be based on studies of demand, or the professional judgement of parks and recreation planners and designers. The guidelines for Southlake in Section 5 are the standards applied in the needs assessments. The guidelines reflect National Parks and Recreation Association standards, community demand, and available resources. Dernand Based Needs The demand -based approach relies on information gathered from participation rates, surveys, and other information that indicates how much of the population wants certain types of facilities. Recreational demand in Southlake as expressed in the Turco Surveys described in Section 3 of this document. Resource Based Needs The resource -based approach examines natural and cultural resources of the area for open space, parks and recreation facilities, and defines how these resources can be utilized. These include woodlands, wetlands, stream corridors and floodplains, 6.1 NEEDS ASSESSMITNTS historic sites and cemeteries. Southlake has several creeks, as described m Section 4, which are the city's primary natural resources. Needs Assessments Tables, 6.1 and 6.2 show park land and recreational facility needs for Southlake, citywide and by service zone, for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and buildout. Baseball, soccer and softball practice and game fields are listed as independent standards. It is likely that combinations of game and practice facilities will be used to meet the overall need, lowering the number total shown for all categories. „. ., s!. 1 ' , _ -. .s.; ,�'2' - IV ,.,_. x : - /1 Halloween has decoration for the Pinks and Recreation Departments Spooktacular event. 6.2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT o - o o ■ oo ', .0 +-I 0 � 7.y 0\ ' I. ' u'i O N O O y = •--1 ,t- ON N v> et -b M Q + '5 6., �„ o 0 o. o o 0 � 0 ( u N. 0 •' i W e 1 . 00 O` : in O O N w it '-4 M O N M . O en N „ an '"t 00 •--- 7 ¢ 1\ ON O • u M O ^ M M N I Q .--■ 00 et O 'd. Cr 0 v en 0 N -4 000 N Q V) `''' + , M N O M •--4 N M et 00 ..O � < N M M p y N O" ,o M (3-. '" M O. u v .--4 M 1 Qw N. .--a M 0\ \C O -- , \ 00 .O , 00 0 N i N N o Q N r , + O N N tj,,, O •--■ �0 . M 00 0 O `" O FIN' 00 00 0. et Pi q 3 , oo N M CSI ..4 Or o v ; + o. M- O u', + N in O N Q cip O N N • O O M< in M � Q N r) O M M N 0\ ON N O M O u-') 00 O 0 h iA M .--1 eh v Q o 0 0 o Z o o 0 0 ; o -o N o "•'i N -4 - 0 - -O -O R7 - O b b ^t7 y V/ v/ .0 .0 .0 � U t, "� . 0 . c; ,r, CLe Al 00 0 w 0 0 et 0 4 a a a 0 o o M. P"I (: ::5 * 7:1 RI 4U A c a a s a a v O 0 0 0 0 0 "- •-, •� o § a cn wwww4. 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U v 63 NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1 .•-i M C:1•• ' O M 7 00 1.-• N r .1 ., N if1 if 1 1 00 I .--1 • M r• j • --1 Cr, ' SD . - 1 .--$ 1 00 1 N a .--1 N 1 i 1 i N 1 .--1 .--1 1 1 1 ' 3. N r� r _o v� 1 b r+l i ..� •, . ON s....0 O O ' 1 N •--1 T ' 'V' -4 d' I � ' '�' � N N O . •--� I e} e} M 100 ' d � 'vt i .-� ' rt' ; � M 1 .D � I N � N 00 0.1 ••• M CO O r V •- I' •-4 .-+ N 1 M ' VI N N 1.n 00 ' O I N I r 1 'd' •-1 1 1 1 00 1 1 .-4 1 0. 1 If N \ , . . . .-- 1 N 1 , . 1 1 1 ; 1 N 1 1 .-.1 1 1 i 1 1 3.., 1 i I i 1 i 1 i 1 N M M v j I I 1 I Q CA I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 1 I 1 I u'7 �. 0 .' rrl 1 1111 1 •-■ 1 -• 4 I O` O 0 N. O .--1 r M •--1 M 1 .--� '.t N S O. ^1 •::1 MIN 100 ' 'cY 1 . • --1 ' M ir, r N I D\ I N C•1.• I .--1 .--1 4.--.1 .D .--� .-a .D .--1 N r+ I N M M 1 P-1 cu P4 i 1 1 1 I 1 1 i 1 1' l 11 1 1 4 .--4 1 N 00 0 1 cV 1 1 � N • --1 • --1 N : M 1 7' OT 1 'V' 1 1. ON 1 N I N .1- 1 ". 1 1 1r..... rl -i 100 I N 1 N 0 1 w , 1, 1 , $ N $ 1 1 . .-� i $ 1 1 $ 1 .- $ 1 $ X 1 1 1 N i $ N 11 M e-r 1 v Z i 1 1 i I � I 1 1 O N Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 r. r 11 j i 1 1 I O i .--1 .--1 00 I or. a. 1\ •--1 r M • --1 M ' M •--1 . D 0 •-1 M N N 1� �' 'V' ^� N I M ' M M , .D I N N O .--1 .D ."1 •--1 .D 1 N •--1 1 ■ N r'1 re .D P" 1 P; 1 I 1 ; ,, r1 00 v--1 r~1 ul 4--1 .--1 N M M N re i � � .-1 � .D N. I •--1 N r'� I um I 0 1 (r) 1 u•) N 0 1 w , 1 1 1 , 1 .--1 1 , 1 ' .--1 1 ' I N 1 , N 1 N 1 M -4 = 1 In (-.) 1 1 1 o N 1 1 1 j i I O 1 Ni , 11\ M 00 100 .D O. .--1 M M . M . --1 N O Ov N. . --1 N O • --1 1 � I rn M . 1 0 1 0 N 1 0 1 ON N • , , I . 1 .- I 1 r. f'1 . --1 . u> • --1 N 1 N M M Li') 1 1 1 1 1 l ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,' 1 1 I 1 • --1 1 M .D .- N .-- .• 1 r, N 1 N N 1C$4 1 M N CO M 1 1 r 00 ' N 0 • , I 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 , + +1, 1 1 1 1, '1 , ,I.� , 1� ' 0 0 1 1 I 1 O N 1 1 I j 1 .--1 .--1 .D O .D ••.0 u7 • rfl -..4 N N •"1 N •--1 O\ 0o Le-) .D • --1 1 Q\ I 00 u j r� r•l .--1 ' Ln •I r' N [ M � '1 1fl ; N • - , 'Cr • cr ti • o Sao & N NI -1-1 ••4 1 P4 1 1 1 1 I 1 v 0 .D 1 Ns. 0 1 r O N ••-1 0 .4-.1 0 0' N 'Cr 1 • --1 .D . 0 1 Lfl O f" 11-1 10 N 1 u 1 1 1 re re 1 0 ° , 1 1 1 1 1 1 j i 1 O o v 1 1 I 1 N `~ I 1 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0I0 010 0'010 O x - 0 O O O u> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 O 1 0 0 I 0 m 0 0 0 N .D .D O 1.n 0 0 0 0 0 0 in. O O 0 u, u? 0o Lr 0 0 0 ' O 0 0 0 0 ,.N .. u - ui N (-4 M Lc) "Li u'i 0 0 Le 0 O N M • -.4 Lf N 7- N �t Q\ rfi I •-, O N I 0 E z N r.•1 .""1 • --1 • --1 • --4 •-1 rrl . 7. N 7! •.--i .--1 .--1 M ri .--/ e-, .--1 .-, ('rl •H .-, .-, .--1 ti .-1 . ti .-1 4-1 .- 1 . .- 1 .-1 •-y .- .--1 .--1 •-, 1 .--4 "' N 11$■....1 1 I = O W a^.l E •� Z I 1 ' U > D (� F-1 :- ^ 1 0 = o b '' a v ° o on a e 1 I U �1C7C7 CI . a , � C7C7P " 1� o ^ � p4 0 w 0 0 0 a o ro 't a Z 1W v o 1 V, ° °' :; V D•. � " a_; ,f,12, a• -� - O - v ra cd rd C c^ W 4- - 3 ' I' U � � � a Q Q� 0 �' c� ..4 vs 0 C� C � Q Q d(.5 - o on .- F.3 b.° h , a� o cn H o ., �. ,. 1,.., I, era v CU 1K-$ P, 7 cr et ca ea es at v �Q 2 . � 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ' � I c 6 . 4 d P'a PP PP PP PP PP V � 1 x F-1 1-4 Z P 4 4-, P' -1 P, v) v) cn cn cn v) , v) I E -•1 1 I E -1 H H Cr) 7. Priorities and Recommendations Park Land and Recreational Facility Priorities The distillation of this park, recreation, and open space planning process - public opinion surveys, public meetings, staff and park board input, application of national and local standards, and consultant recommendations - has resulted in the project priorities shown below. The land acquisition and the recreational facilities listed represent the earliest projects to be undertaken. The balance of the priority list is included in Appendix A. Southlake currently has no recreation center offering the listed facilities 1 through 7. Items 8 through 14 - a new community park - will fulfill some of the greatest deficits shown in the Needs Assessment in Section 6. Both projects would be good candidates for funding assistance through Texas Parks and Wildlife. (Refer to Section 8 for more information.) 1. Gymnasium/Sport Court 2. Indoor Jogging Track 3. Exercise /Fitness Room 4. Youth Activity Center 5. Classroom 6. Aerobics /Dance Studio 7. Craft Room 8. Community Parkland Acquisition 9. Soccer Field 10. Baseball Field 11. Softball Field 12. Lacrosse /Football Field 13. Multi - purpose Trail 14. Picnic Station 7.1 PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Park Site Improvements As a part of this project, the Consultant prepared a detailed master plan for Bicentennial Park and additions to the Bob Jones Park Master Plan, which had been prepared by another consultant, (Figures 1 and 2). Currently, these two parks provide the City's only present and designated future space for athletic game facilities. In addition, the Consultant prepared conceptual site plans for seven other park sites in the City's system. Following are comments and suggestions relative to these sites. Bicentennial Park Refer to Figure 1 The Bicentennial Master Plan included in this document envisions full build -out of this park. Located north of Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709), west of White Chapel Blvd. and east of Shady Oaks Rd., Bicentennial is well-known for its intensely developed athletic facilities. The park currently offers baseball, softball, T -ball, basketball, in -line hockey, playground equipment, and the City's Tennis Center. With the recent acquisition of land to west, adjacent to Shady Oaks Rd., additional land is available for development of athletic facilities as well as another point of vehicular access for the park. The Master Plan of Development for Bicentennial Park provides more athletic facilities to accommodate many users simultaneously. Realignment and reconfiguration of baseball fields, the addition of a 4 -plex for girl's softball play, an additional T -ball field, two sand volleyball courts, an additional in -line hockey facility, pavilions, restrooms, multi -use trails, additional support facilities, and more parking are all planned for future development. Along with the addition of game fields, more efforts are being made to limit the extent of light and noise trespass into neighboring households to the north and east. Additional tree plantings are planned to provide shade and screening. Trails, in conjunction with the Trails Masterplan, are proposed to provide more convenient pedestrian and bicycle traffic in and through the park. The additional trees and trails will help ease the perceived intensity of the park, and provide a more enjoyable experience for the recreation users and sport viewers. 7.2 PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Enhancement of the park entries, particularly on Southlake Blvd., will improve access and help to provide a sense of arrival to the park. Ornamental plantings and entry signage will lead the development with potentially tree -lined medians and divided access to help circulate an increased traffic flow also planned. Bob Jones Park Refer to Figure 2 The Bob Jones Park plan is an earlier park site master plan with added equestrian facilities including a trailhead, parking lot suitable for horse trailers, and two anima pens. Located in far north Southlake, the park's soccer and ballfields and related facilities are being planned and built on the west side of the park along North White Chapel Rd. Less than one -half of this 266 -acre park is planned for intense recreational facility development; the rest is to be preserved as open space. A trail system and future nature center will make the open space area available to park users. Tucker Property Refer to Figure 2a The 60 acre Tucker property is part of Bob Jones Park (refer to Plate 2) and is planned for equestrian and other low impact uses. The only street access is from Walnut (off Bob Jones Rd.). No vehicular access is planned at this time; a trail from the northwestern section of Bob Jones Park and a trailhead from the Walnut - Brooks Ct. intersection will provide pedestrian and equestrian access. The Tucker tract is a rolling savannah that is representative of Southlake's native landscape, and the projected uses are entirely appropriate for this exceptional tract. Possible facilities include: • Trail from Bob Jones Park west section • Trailhead • Small Shelter • Picnic Tables • Natural Surface Loop Trail • Connecting Trail through the Corps property to the Farhat site • Park entry sign • Distance /Directional Signs on Trails 7.3 PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Farhat Property Refer to Figure 2b The Bob Jones Park Farhat property comprises 32 acres, most of which is heavily wooded with significant brushy areas. Bob Jones Rd. deadends at the tract's southern border. Like the Tucker property, it is undeveloped and likely to remain as preserved open space with a few low impact uses, similar to the Tucker site. Its proximity to the shore of Lake Grapevine suggests future development of waterfront activities on the adjacent Corps property. Possible facilities include: • Small Parking Lot • Trailhead at Parking Lot • Connecting Trails to Lake Grapevine Trail and through Corps property to the Tucker site • Natural Surface Trails • Park Entry Sign • Distance /Directional Signs on Trails • Picnic Tables • Fishing Pier on Lake Grapevine • Picnic Pavilion Chesapeake Park Refer to Figure 3. This eleven -acre park in the southwest corner of the city, on Union Church Rd., was being developed at the time the plan was completed. The subdivision developer is constructing the detention/retention pond, trail, playground, benches, water fountain, and several parallel parking spaces. Possibilities for further improvement include: • Tree Planting. The site is open, so the addition of trees is vital to give the site a park -like ambiance. • Benches • Picnic Stations • Pavilion • Security Lighting in shelter and on playground. • Park Entry Sign/landscaped bed • Park Rules Sign 7.4 PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Lonesome Dove Park Refer to Figure 4. This eight -acre site provides neighborhood park facilities for its adjacent residential neighborhoods. Existing facilities include a playground, shelter, picnic tables, and small parking lot. A trail, benches, and planting of additional trees is planned and will enhance the site, which also has a detention area. Possible additions include: • Connections to City Trail System • New Playground Equipment • Security Lighting • Park Rules Sign • Tree Planting • Park Entry Sign • Irrigation Expansion • Practice Areas Noble Oaks Park Refer to Figure 5. This small park benefits from its highly visible location on Continental Blvd. E., adjacency to a new C.I.S.D. elementary school, a handsome grove of Post Oak trees, and a pond that straddles the shared property line with the school. Other than a small parking lot, the five -acre park is undeveloped. However it is used for practice soccer games and other informal activities. The pond has potential for teaching, demonstration, and observation of wetland habitat. Suggested improvements for the park include: • Multi- purpose Trail • Connections to City Trail System and School Grounds • Small Shelter at Pond Edge • Security Lighting in Shelter • Benches • Picnic Stations • Practice Areas • Addition of Aquatic Plants and Animals to Pond • Park Rules Sign • Park Entry Sign • Irrigation System 7.5 PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS A playground is not recommended for this neighborhood park because of the availability of play equipment at the adjacent elementary school. Royal and Annie Smith Park Refer to Figure 6. The undeveloped thirteen -acre Smith park is an old home site with fine old trees and remnants of its earlier agricultural uses. It has significant topography that drops away from Johnson Road. The large trees provide shade on the northern part of the site; the southern portion, which is gently sloping, is mostly open. Adjoining to the west is the Florence Elementary School, a property of the Keller I.S.D. This site is one of the city - I.S.D. joint use properties, so the two sites will share the play equipment presently located on the school grounds. Facilities could include: • Preserve site features including wells and masonry wall. • Multi - purpose Trail • Interpretive Signage - Cultural and Nature • Benches • Picnic Shelter • Picnic Tables • Pioneer Demonstration Garden • Practice Baseball/Softball Field • Practice Soccer Field • Two Tennis Courts • Trail Connections to School and City -Wide Trail System • Security Lighting • Parking Area • Irrigation • Park Entry Sign • Park Rules Sign Sheltonwood Park Refer to Figure 7. The Sheltonwood site is a heavily wooded former "gathering spot" site with a pavilion, pool, cabana, and sun deck, which are old and in poor condition. Disposition of these facilities was in question at the time this document was completed. In keeping with its location in a residential neighborhood and the City's policy of preserving Open Space, this park is slated for "passive" improvements. Facilities could include: 7.6 PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS • Natural Surface Trails • Benches • Picnic Stations • Park Entry Sign • Park Rules Sign • Connection to City Trail System • Security Lighting • Parking Area Addition of a small, "naturalistic" playground would be appropriate for the site and would make Sheltonwood a true neighborhood park in a part of the City where neighborhood park facilities are very limited. No conceptual plans were prepared for the following sites, the smallest in the Southlake System Koalaty Park Refer to Figure C1 in the Appendix. This six -acre site is located on Continental Blvd. between the Country Walk Subdivision and Carroll Elementary School (Carroll I.S.D.). Most of the site is open and gently sloping, but there is a thick grove of native trees along the site's southern edge (and extends onto school property). Its facilities consist of four unlighted practice fields. It is also a joint use site, so users may use the school parking and playground equipment. Additional facilities might include: • Benches and Picnic Tables, particularly along the northern edge of the grove. • Nature Trail on park and school property that includes the riparian habitat of Big Bear Creek. • Interpretive Signage on Trail • Trees along Continental • Park Entry Signage • Irrigation 7.7 PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Coker Property Refer to Figure C2 in the Appendix. In northeast Southlake, this undeveloped four- and - one -half -acre tract straddles the Southlake- Grapevine boundary at the southeast corner of Lonesome Dove and Foxfire Rd. It is heavily wooded with canopy and understory trees and brush. The Dove Creek Floodplain crosses the property and the site has a small pond. The City classifies it as a special purpose park. Trailhead development on this site could provide a connection between Southlake and Meadowmere Park on the shore of Lake Grapevine. Grapevine leases the 160 -acre park from the Corps of Engineers. Suggested improvements include: • Small Parking Lot (About 6 cars) • Park Entry Sign • Park Rules Sign • Directional Signage • Bike Rack • Picnic Tables • Benches • Security Lighting • Trail Connections • Potential Equestrian Trailhead A small playground might be accommodated in this park. If the Coker site is developed, selective clearing of understory vegetation would improve its security, visibility, and utility. Kirkwood /Sabre Linear Park Areas This small, triangular site is on the west side of North White Chapel near Kirkwood Blvd. at the Sabre phone center site. It is classified as linear park, and it connects to other linear parks throughout the Kirkwood/Sabre area. Rustin /Family Park As part of the Town Square development, approximately one acre of park land was dedicated to the city. Included with this dedication were sidewalks, benches, a small pond, two fountains, a pavilion/bandshell, enhanced pavement, etc., typical of a small downtown park. This park is relatively complete, and the city does not foresee anything other than minor enhancements in the future, if any. 7.8 PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Other Park and Recreational Facilities Most of the following facilities have not been included in the Needs Assessment or in the recommendations above, but they are features of many American parks and might be of future interest to the citizens of Southlake. • Shuffleboard • Community Gardens • Horseshoes • Children's Garden • Bocce Ball • Botanical Garden • Croquet Green • Sculpture Garden • Rugby • Sculpture and Art in Parks • Field Hockey • Murals • Lacrosse • Interpretive Signage: Nature, • Disc Golf Historical, Cultural • Model Airplane Runway • Group Pavilion (event rental) • Dog Park • Mechanical Batting Cage • Restaurant in a Park • Interactive Play Fountain • Memorial Groves and Gardens • Family Aquatics Center /Leisure • Demonstration Garden Pool(s) (Xeriscape, Wildlife Habitat, • Exercise Stations Water, Butterfly, Sensory, • BMX & Mountain Biking Facilities Pioneer) • Skate Park Plate 3 deals with existing and potential open space areas. The valuable natural resources of these areas are worthy of preservation, which the City recognizes with its goal of securing eleven acres of open space per 1,000 population. Secondarily, inclusion of the Environmental Preservation and Open Space Master Plan in this document may make the City of Southlake more competitive on certain Texas Parks and Wildlife grant applications. The following facilities are appropriate for preserved open space areas: • Natural Surface Trails • Bench • Fishing Pier • Picnic Table • Canoe Launch • Wetland, Natural or Restored • Small amphitheater • Interpretive Trail • Pond • Boardwalk • Bird - watching Blind • Small Pavilion 7.9 8. Implementation This section outlines some special considerations for implementing the 2001 Parks Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. Implementation of the projects described would help eradicate existing deficits in athletic fields, tennis courts, trail miles, and picnic facilities. (Plate 2 illustrates existing and proposed parks and recreation areas.) Conceptual Site Plans The conceptual park site plans and facility lists in Section 7 suggest ideas for development and improvement of these tracts. As conceptual plans they show logical development of these parks to meet some of the City's recreational facility needs at the time this plan was written. Topographic, geotechnical and other studies may be required before final master planning, design, construction documents, and development are undertaken. Further citizen input would contribute to the planning process and may reveal new opportunities and constraints for each site that should be considered. The site plans for Bicentennial Park and Bob Jones Park were developed in more detail. The Bob Jones Plan is a combination of an earlier park site master plan with the addition of more facilities. The Bicentennial Master Plan included in this document envisions full build -out of this park. Currently, these two parks provide the City's only present and designated future space for athletic game facilities. Game Athletic Facilities Although the plan's Needs Assessment shows needs (at build -out if not before) in all facility categories, special mention is made of land that will be needed for game athletic facilities. To best serve the City's population, these facilities should be located in the southern and /or eastern sections of the City. Tracts of land that can accommodate complexes of lighted athletic facilities are disappearing rapidly in the current environment of high growth. This plan shows the need for 24 additional game ballfields and 24 additional game soccer fields at build -out. These needs reflect the high level of participation in team 8.1 IMPLEMENTATION sports in Southlake and the number of facilities needed to accommodate the games. For planning purposes, the ballfield (baseball and softball) total may be reduced by the additional fields planned at Bob Jones Park and Bicentennial Park. Additional tracts for community parks (144 acres at buildout, according to the Needs Assessment) will be required to provide space for the needed athletic facilities. Athletic facilities and their associated amenities consume significant acreage. The following chart indicates space requirements for common facilities and may be helpful in planning gross space requirements for a combination of facilities on a particular site. Table 8.1 Space Allocation Parking for Athletic Minimum Total Facilities Facility # Spaces Ac. Buffer Area Acres Diamond Sports Baseball, Softball 4 -Plex of Game Fields 8 ac. 300 3 1 ac. 12 Single Game Field 250' Foul Line 1.1 ac. 75 .75 .5 ac. 2.3 Practice Field 175' Foul Line .55 ac. 10 .1 .25 ac. .9 T -Ball Field 100' Foul Line .2 ac. 20 .2 .1 ac. .5 Field Sports Soccer, Lacrosse, Football Game Field 195' - 255'x330' 1.7 -2.1 ac. 75 .75 .5 ac. 2.95 -3.35 Practice Field 180'x300' 1.5 ac. 15 .15 .5 ac. 2.15 Tennis 2 -Court Battery .33 ac. 6 .06 .25 ac. .6 Vehicular circulation, pavilions, picnic areas, playgrounds, trails, topographic variations, drainage facilities, and the green space and landscaping typical of community parks, are variable and ideally will consume one -third to one -half of a community park site. Environmental and Open Space Preservation Plan Plate 3 shows existing and potential public open space. In keeping with Southlake's standard of eleven acres per 1,000 population (the highest in the Dallas/Fort worth metropolitan area), the plan is a graphic depiction of the City's intention. Much of the City's open space acreage in is the Corps of Engineers Land surrounding Lake 8.2 IMPLEMENTATION Grapevine, but the City has made some significant recent purchases including the "Tucker" and "Farhat" properties that are reserved for open space and low impact uses. Should the City seek Texas Parks & Wildlife funding for any projects on this property, the application would be enhanced (receive more points) because of the adoption of this plan as a part of the master plan. Financial Resources In 1994, Southlake residents approved a referendum for a 1 -cent City sales tax dedicated to support development of parks and recreation facilities in place. Recent and rapid growth of retail businesses in the City has swelled sales tax collections making this cash flow a valuable resource in the implementation of this plan. According to staff, FY 1999 -2000 collections totaled $3,985,750 and $7,701.750 was anticipated for FY 2000 -2001. (These figures included carry - forward balances and returns on senior lien debt refinanced at lower rates.) However ample these returns may seem, the projects anticipated by the master plan will be costly to implement. Development of a neighborhood park can run $750,000 to $1 million. A recreation center will cost several million dollars, depending on its size and facilities. The first phase of a community park including four lighted game fields, rest room - concession building, pavilion, picnic facilities, playground, trails and walks, parking, landscaping, and related facilities can easily cost $4 - $5 million. Additionally, the City has established high development standards for the private sector and in the design and construction of its new City Hall. Surely these standards will be reflected in new park facilities. City leaders and staff should be alert to ways to leverage local funds such as TP &W matching grants, land donations, and foundation support. Updating the Master Plan Master planning should be viewed as a continuing press rather than the result of a study undertaken at a particular time. Southlake is well organized to maintain this process with the SPIN groups and the City's tradition of encouraging and implementing citizen input. This master plan was completed in Spring, 2001, but it will need to be reviewed and updated to reflect changes in available resources, the changing needs and desires of Southlake's residents, unexpected challenges and opportunities, and the city's changing population and demographics. 8.3 I \IPLEMILNTATION The Community Development Department staff has indicated interest in seeking matching grants from Texas Parks & Wildlife. TP &\W' requires that plans more than two years old be updated to reflect changes in land and facility inventories and accomplishments since the plan was written. Goals and objectives may need revision, as well as priorities. These changes, when adopted by the City Council, become an amendment to the plan. (The plan and any amendments to it must be reviewed and approved by TP &W in advance of the submittal of anv grant application.) As mentioned in the Introduction, the Southlake City Charter requires a full update of the parks, recreation, and open space master plan every four years. ti i z \j o r kV_ G > _ ( '� sue„ �'•. Children enjoying a story from the Scarecrow at Turkey Day Bonantia, an annual Parks and Recreation Department Event. 8.4 Appendix A. Project Priorities 15 - 39 The following list represents the balance of project priorities (Refer to Section 7 for Priorities 1 -14) developed by City Staff. Although these are likely to be revised over the life of the plan, ordering of the projects provides a planning tool for city staff, park board and council. 15. Land Acquisition for Neighborhood Park(s) 16. Park Maintenance Facility Development 17. Bicentennial Park Master Plan Development (girls softball, ballfield re- arrangement, trails, plantings, etc.) 18. In -Line Hockey Court (additional junior or full-sized rink) 19. Koalaty Park Development 20. Nature Center (new construction) at Bob Jones Park 21. Lacrosse Facilities (through matching funds) 22. Tennis Center Storage 23. Additional Trail Construction 24. Sheltonwood Park Development 25. Equestrian Center at Bob Jones 26. Disc Golf Course 27. Dog Park 28. Noble Oaks Park Development 29. Skate Park 30. BMX Facility 31. Lonesome Dove Park Playground Replacement 32. Working Farm 33. Family Leisure Aquatics 34. Smith Park Development 35. Fishing Pier /Launch on Lake Grapevine 36. Lacrosse Facilities (CIP) 37. Log Cabin Reconstruction 38. In -Line Hockey Court Cover 39. City Portals A -1 Appendix B.1 Sample Questionnaire A Survey of Recreational Attitudes About Recreation in Southlake July 2000 APPENDIX: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE PROJECT 2190202 RAYMOND TURCO & ASSOCIATES MARCH 2000 MY NAME IS AND I'M WITH THE SUNRAY RESEARCH GROUP. OUR SURVEY THIS EVENING IS ABOUT PARKS AND RECREATION IN YOUR COMMUNITY. I WAS WONDERING IF I COULD TAKE A FEW MINUTES OF YOUR TIME TO ASK YOU A FEW 'QUESTIONS? AREA AREA I . . . . . . . 1 AREA II 2 AREA III 3 SEX MALE 1 FEMALE 2 1. THESE FIRST FEW QUESTIONS DEAL WITH YOUR COMMUNITY. HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE QUALITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION? VERY SATISFIED . . . 1 SATISFIED 2 DISSATISFIED 3 VERY DISSATISFIED . 4 NO OPINION 5 2. AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED AT YOUR PRESENT LOCATION? UNDER 1 YEAR . . . . . 1 2 - 4 YEARS . . . . . 2 5 - 7 YEARS . . . . . 3 8 - 10 YEARS . . . . . 4 OVER 10 YEARS . . . . 5 REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 6 3. IF A FRIEND WERE CONSIDERING MOVING, WHAT ONE POSITIVE ASPECT ABOUT RECREATION IN YOUR COMMUNITY WOULD YOU TELL THEM? 4. OUR NEXT FEW QUESTIONS DEAL WITH RECREATION IN GENERAL. PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOUR FAVORITE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY OR SPORT IN WHICH YOU ENJOY PARTICIPATING? 5. CAN YOU PARTICIPATE IN THAT ACTIVITY USING SOUTHLAKE FACILITIES OR DO YOU HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE THE CITY? IN CITY 1 (IF OUTSIDE, ASK #6 AND #7. ALL OTHERS, OUTSIDE CITY 2 SKIP TO #8) DON'T REMEMBER . . . . 3 REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 4 6. (IF OUTSIDE CITY) PLEASE TELL ME WHERE YOU HAVE TO GO TO PARTICIPATE? 7. (IF OUTSIDE) IF THE CITY HAD THOSE FACILITIES AVAILABLE, HOW LIKELY OR UNLIKELY WOULD YOU BE TO UTILIZE IT IN PLACE OF WHERE YOU GENERALLY GO? VERY LIKELY 1 LIKELY 2 UNLIKELY 3 VERY UNLIKELY . . . 4 NO OPINION 5 8. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HAVE YOU OR ANYONE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD . . . . YES NO DON'T REM A) VISITED OR USED A CITY PARK OR PARK FACILITY 1 2 3 B) PARTICIPATED IN A CITY EVENT 1 2 3 C) VISITED OR USED A CITY ATHLETIC FIELD 1 2 3 D) PARTICIPATED IN A YOUTH ATHLETIC LEAGUE 1 2 3 E) PARTICIPATED IN AN ADULT ATHLETIC LEAGUE 1 2 3 F) PARTICIPATED IN ANY OTHER CLASS OR PROGRAM 1 2 3 OFFERED BY SOUTHLAKE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT G) VISITED THE CORP OF ENGINEER PARKS, SPECIFICALLY 1 2 3 WALNUT GROVE AND MARSHALL CREEK PARKS H) UTILIZED A BIKE PATH OR PEDESTRIAN PATH 1 2 3 I) UTILIZED AN EQUESTRIAN TRAIL 1 2 3 9. (IF YES TO YOUTH LEAGUE) IN WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING YOUTH ATHLETIC LEAGUES DO YOUR CHILDREN PARTICIPATE? SOCCER 1 BASEBALL 2 (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) GIRLS SOFTBALL . . . . 3 YOUTH FOOTBALL . . . . 4 TENNIS 5 IN -LINE HOCKEY . . . . 6 BASKETBALL 7 10. PLEASE TELL ME HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED YOU ARE WITH THE FOLLOWING. VS S D VD NO A) NUMBER OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 1 2 3 4 5 B) QUALITY OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 1 2 3 4 5 0) NUMBER OF PROGRAMS OFFERED 1 2 3 4 5 D) QUALITY OF PROGRAMS OFFERED 1 2 3 4 5 E) OVERALL RECREATIONAL PROGRAM 1 2 3 4 5 F) AVAILABILITY OF ATHLETIC FIELDS FOR USE 1 2 3 4 5 G) NUMBER OF SOCCER FIELDS 1 2 3 4 5 H) NUMBER OF BASEBALL FIELDS 1 2 3 4 5 I) NUMBER OF SOFTBALL FIELDS 1 2 3 4 5 J) AVAILABILITY OF NON ATHLETIC FACILITIES 1 2 3 4 5 FOR USE K) AVAILABILITY OF HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS 1 2 3 4 5 L) AMOUNT OF PASSIVE PARKLAND, OR OPEN SPACE 1 2 3 4 5 11. THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING ITS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ITS PARK SYSTEM. WHEN COMPLETED, THE PLAN WOULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AND OTHER SERVICES. PLEASE TELL ME HOW IMPORTANT OR UNIMPORTANT YOU THINK IT WOULD BE TO EITHER BUILD NEW OR ADDITIONAL IN SOUTHLAKE? VI I U VU NO A) TENNIS COURTS 1 2 3 4 5 B) PRACTIC SOCCER FIELDS 1 2 3 4 5 0) COMPETITION SOCCER FIELDS 1 2 3 4 5 D) PRACTICE BASEBALL FIELDS 1 2 3 4 5 E) COMPETITION BASEBALL FIELDS 1 2 3 4 5 F) SOFTBALL FIELDS 1 2 3 4 5 G) FOOTBALL FIELDS 1 2 3 4 5 H) SAND VOLLEYBALL COURTS 1 2 3 4 5 I) OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COURTS 1 2 3 4 5 J) HORSESHOE PITS 1 2 3 4 5 K) DISC GOLF COURSE 1 2 3 4 5 L) MULTI -USE TRAILS 1 2 3 4 5 M) PAVILIONS OR SHELTERS 1 2 3 4 5 N) EQUESTRIAN TRAILS 1 2 3 4 5 0) EXERCISE STATIONS ALONG TRAILS 1 2 3 4 5 P) PLAYGROUNDS 1 2 3 4 5 Q) PICNIC AREAS 1 2 3 4 5 R) FISHING PIERS 1 2 3 4 5 S) OFF -ROAD BICYCLE /BMX TRAILS 1 2 3 4 5 T) WATER PARK, WITH POOLS AND WATER 1 2 3 4 5 ACTIVITIES 12. FROM THE LIST I JUST READ, WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT RECREATIONAL FACILITY TO CONSTRUCT? 13. BASED ON WHATEVER IMPRESSIONS YOU MAY HAVE, HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ARE YOU WITH SOUTHLAKE IN TERMS OF . . . . VS S D VD NO A) THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC PARKS IN THE CITY 1 2 3 4 5 B) HAVING CITY PARKS CONVENIENTLY LOCATED FOR 1 2 3 4 5 PEOPLE IN ALL AREAS C) THE OVERALL QUALITY OF CITY PARKS 1 2 3 • 4 5 D) THE OVERALL SAFETY OF CITY PARKS 1 2 3. 4 5 E) THE MAINTENANCE OF CITY PARKS 1 2 3 4 5 F) THE VARIETY OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 1 2 3 4 5 WITHIN CITY PARKS G) THE QUALITY OF HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS 1 2 3. 4 5 H) THE NUMBER OF ATHLETIC FIELDS IN THE CITY 1 2 3 4 5 I) HAVING ATHLETIC FIELDS CONVENIENTLY 1 2 3 4 5 LOCATED FOR PEOPLE IN ALL AREAS J) THE OVERALL QUALITY OF CITY ATHLETIC FIELDS 1 2 3 4 5 K) THE MAINTENANCE OF CITY ATHLETIC FIELDS 1 2 3 4 5 14. WHAT DO YOU GENERALLY DO WHEN YOU GO TO THE PARK? IF YOU DON'T GENERALLY GO TO PARKS, PLEASE TELL ME THAT ALSO. TAKE KIDS TO PLAY 1 PICNIC 2 (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) WALK /HIKE 3 PARTICIPATE IN ORGANIZED SPORTS 4 PARTICIPATE IN NON ORGANIZED SPORTS 5 WALK ANIMALS 6 BIKING 7 OTHER . 8 DON'T GO TO PARK 9 15. THE CITY IS IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THE MASTER TRAIL PLAN. PRESENTLY, CAN YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY, USING CITY TRAILS, WALK OR BICYCLE FROM YOUR HOME TO . . . . YES NO DON'T KNOW A) NEARBY PARKS 1 2 3 B) SCHOOLS 1 2 3 C) SHOPPING AREAS 1 2 3 D) VISIT FRIENDS 1 2 3 16. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS, AGAIN, RELATING TO HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS IN SOUTHLAKE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE TRAILS IN SOUTHLAKE . . . . SA A D SD NO A) CONNECT TO ROUTINE DESTINATIONS LIKE 1 2 3 4 5 PARKS, SCHOOLS AND SHOPPING AREAS 3) BE ACCESSIBLE FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD 1 2 3 4 5 C) ALONG THE CORPS PROPERTY AT LAKE GRAPEVINE 1 2 3 4 5 D) ALONG UTILITY CORRIDORS 1 2 3 4 5 E) ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES 1 2 3 4 5 F) ALONG CREEKS IN THE CITY 1 2 3 4 5 17. THE CURRENT TRAIL PLAN CALLS FOR NATURAL SURFACE TRAILS, (THAT IS, DIRT TRAILS) FOR HORSEBACK RIDING. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ADDITIONAL NATURAL SURFACE TRAILS IN THE CITY FOR . . . . SS S 0 SO NO A) HIKING 1 2 3 4 5 B) NATURE STUDY 1 2 3 4 5 C) CROSS COUNTRY RUNNING 1 2 3 4 5 D) MOUNTAIN BICYCLING 1 2 3 4 5 18. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE USING CITY TAX DOLLARS TO UPGRADE SCHOOL PROPERTY FOR USE AS NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND PRACTICE AREAS? STRONGLY SUPPORT . . 1 SUPPORT 2 OPPOSE 3 STRONGLY OPPOSE . . 4 NO OPINION 5 19. IF SOUTHLAKE WAS GOING TO CONTINUE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARK IN YOUR AREA, BASED ON YOU OR YOUR HOUSEHOLD'S OWN INTERESTS, WHAT TWO OR THREE THINGS WOULD YOU DEFINITELY WANT THE PARK TO INCLUDE? (PROBE ONCE: WHAT ELSE ?) 1 . 2. 3. 20. THINKING ABOUT CURRENT EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN SOUTHLAKE, HOW COULD CURRENT FACILITIES BE IMPROVED TO MAKE THEM MORE USEFUL OR MORE ENJOYABLE FOR YOU? (PROBE: WHAT OTHER SUGGESTIONS CAN YOU THINK TO IMPROVE CURRENT FACILITIES ?) 1. 2. 3. 21. I'M GOING TO READ YOU A LIST OF STATEMENTS. PLEASE TELL ME HOW STRONGLY YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH EACH . . . . SA A D SD NO A) I'M SATISFIED WITH THE RECREATIONAL 1 2 3 4 5 FACILITIES IN SOUTHLAKE B) I AM WILLING TO PAY ADDITIONAL CITY TAXES 1 2 3 4 5 TO SEE THE QUALITY OF PARKS UPGRADED 0) THE EXISTING PARK SYSTEM IS ADEQUATE 1 2 3 4 5 D) THE CITY SHOULD IMPROVE THE EXISTING 1 2 3 4 5 PARKS AND NOT DEVELOP ANY NEW ONES E) I HAVE ADEQUATE AVENUES TO VOICE MY 1 2 3 4 5 CONCERNS ABOUT RECREATION IN SOUTHLAKE F) THE CITY HAS A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF 1 2 3 4 5 ATHLETIC FIELDS 22. TO GET INFORMATION ABOUT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN SOUTHLAKE, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING SOURCES DO YOU GENERALLY UTILIZE? DALLAS MORNING NEWS . 1 STAR TELEGRAM . . . . 2 SOUTHLAKE JOURNAL . . 3 SOUTHLAKE TIMES . . 4 (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) CITY WATER BILL INSERT PARK BOARD 6 INTERNET HOME PAGE . 7 CABLE TV CHANNEL 7 8 SOUTHLAKE SCENE - CITY PROGRAM BROCHURE . . 9 TOWN HALL MEETINGS . .10 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC. 11 SPORTS ASSOC. . . .. .12 OTHER 13 23. THESE LAST FEW QUESTIONS ARE JUST FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING AGE GROUPS DO YOU COME UNDER? LESS THAN 25 YEARS . . 1 26 - 35 YEARS . . . . 2 36 - 45 YEARS .... 3 46 - 55 YEARS .... 4 56 - 65 YEARS . . . . 5 OVER 65 YEARS . . . . 6 REFUSED TO ANSWER . . 7 24. PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18 AT HOME (IF YES: IN WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING GROUPS DO THEY COME UNDER? NO CHILDREN . . 1 UNDER 6 2 6 - 12 -' 13 - 18 4 REFUSE TO ANSWER . . 5 25. DO YOU BELONG TO A SOUTHLAKE SPORTS ASSOCIATION? YES 1 NO 2 REFUSE TO ANSWER . . 3 THAT'S THE END OF OUR SURVEY BUT COULD I CHECK TO SEE IF I DIALED THE CORRECT NUMBER. I DIALED . AND COULD I HAVE YOUR FIRST NAME, ONLY IN CASE MY SUPERVISOR HAS TO VERIFY THIS INTERVIEW? . THANK YOU AND HAVE A NICE EVENING. CALLER INI. SHEET NUMBER ZIPCODE SURVEY LENGTH Appendix B.2 Sample Questionnaire A Survey of Attitudes About Recreation Facilities in Southlake 2000 Adult Recreational Facility Attitudinal Survey 2000 Youth Recreation Facility Attitudinal Survey September 2000 SAMPLE ADULT QUESTIONNAIRE PROJECT 2190100 RAYMOND TURCO & ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY 2000 MY NAME IS AND I'M WITH THE SUNRAY RESEARCH GROUP. OUR SURVEY THIS EVENING RECREATION IN TIME TO ASK YOU FEW QUESTIONS? IF I COULD TAKE A FE W AREA I ........ 1 AREA AREA II 2 AREA III . . . . . . • 3 MALE 1 SEX FEMALE 2 1. THESE FIRST QUESTIONS CL 7RRENTORESIDENCEDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION. HOW LONG HAVE YOU L IVED AT LESS THAN ONE YEAR . . 1 1 - 3 YEARS 2 3 - 5 YEARS 3 5 - 7 YEARS 4 OVER 7 YEARS 5 REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 6 2. AND WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING AGE CATEGORIES DO YO BELONG? 1 26 - 35 YEARS . • . • 2 36 - 45 YEARS . . • • 3 46 - 55 YEARS . - . • 4 56 - 65 YEARS .. • . 5 OVER 65 YEARS . • • . 6 REFUSE TO ANSWER . • • 7 3. .DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN, LIVING IN YOUR HOME, UNDER THE AGE OF 18? (IF YES: OF THOSE, ARE ANY . • • •) NO CHILDREN 1 AGE 3 OR UNDER . . • . 2 (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) AGE 4 - 6 3 AGE 7 - 9 4 AGE 10 - 12 5 AGE 13 - 15 6 AGE 16 - 18 7 (DO NOT READ) REFUSED . . . • • . • 8 4. PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU RECALL VOTING IN THE FOLLLOWING ELECTIONMEMBER A) 1999 CITY COUNCIL 1 2 3 2 3 B) 1998 CITY COUNCIL 1 2 3 C) A 1999 SCHOOL BOND ELECTION 5. PLEASE TELL ME HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED YOU ARE WITH RECREATIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FOR PEOPLE IN THE FOLLOWING AGE GROUPS . . VS S D VD NO A) YOUNG CHILDREN (UNDER AGE 6) 1 2 3 4 3 5 B C HILDREN, AGES 7 - 12 4 5 0) CHILDREN, AGES 13 - 18 1 2 3 D) ADULTS, AGES 19 - 45 1 2 3 4 5 E) ADULTS, AGES 46 - 65 1 2 3 4 5 F) ADULTS OVER THE AGE OF 65 1 2 3 4 5 6. WHAT ONE RECREATIONAL FACILITY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE CONSTRUCTED BY THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TO IMPROVE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES? 7. THE CITY IS PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT AN INDOOR RECREATION CENTER IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS. HOW NECESSARY OR UNNECESSARY DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS FOR THE CITY TO CONSTRUCT AN INDOOR RECREATION CENTER FOR 1 NECESSARY 2 UNNECESSARY 3 VERY UNNECESSARY . . 4 NO OPINION 5 8. WHERE DO YOU CURRENTLY GO FOR YOUR INDOOR RECREATION NEE DLITIES 1 SCHOOLS 2 CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY PRIVATE CLUBS . . . • 3 CITY FACILITIES . • • 4 REFUSE TO ANSWER . . • r 9. AND HAVE YOU EVER VISITED A CITY -OWNED RECREATION CENTER IN ANOTHER CITY? YES 1 (IF YES, ASK #10, ALL OTHERS NO 2 SKIP TO #11) DON'T REMEMBER 3 REFUSE TO ANSWER . 4 10. IN TERMS OF PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES, WHAT DID YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT THE RECREATION CENTER YOU VISITED? 11. PLEASE NAME THREE ACTIVITIES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN AT THE NEW CENTER. A. B. C. 12. NOW, LET ME NOW READ YOU A LIST OF SOME ACTIVITIES. PLEASE TELL ME HOW LIKELY OR UNLIKELY YOU OR A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY WOULD BE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES AT NEW RECREATION CENT • . NO A) INDOOR BASKETBALL 1 2 3 4 5 B) JOGGING /WALKING AROUND ON AN INDOOR 1 2 3 4 5 TRACK C) FITNESS OR AEROBICS 1 2 3 4 D) LIFTING WEIGHTS /CARDIO EQUIPMENT 1 2 3 4 5 5 E) PARTICIPATING IN RECREATIONAL CLASSES 1 2 1 2 3 5 F) INDOOR VOLLEYBALL 5 G) DANCING LESSONS 1 2 3 4 H) ACTIVITIES GEARED TOWARDS TEENS 1 2 3 a 5 VL L U VU NO I) IN -LINE OR ROLLERBLADE SKATING 1 2 3 4 5 J) RACQUETBALL 1 2 3 4 5 PARTICIPATING IN ARTS & CRAFT CLASSES 1 2 3 4 5 l ,) ATTENDING COMMUNITY MEETINGS 1 2 3 4 5 M) TAKING COMPUTER TRAINING OR LAB 1 2 3 4 5 N) ACTIVITIES GEARED TOWARDS SENIOR 1 2 3 4 5 CITIZENS 5 0) GYMNASTICS 1 2 3 4 P) SWIMMING 1 2 3 4 5 Q) KARATE 1 2 3 4 5 R) COMMUNITY THEATER /DRAMA 1 2 3 4 5 S) ROCK CLIMBING 1 2 3 4 5 T) KITCHEN /COOKING CLASSES 1 2 3 4 5 13. AS I READ THE RESPONSES TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE TELL ME WHICH ACTIVITY YOU WOULD MOST LIKELY PARTICIPATE IN AS WELL AS WHICH ONE YOU WOULD LEAST LIKELY PARTICIPATE? (PRIN LETTER OF LIKELY A. MOST LIKELY 14. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS BEING INCLUDED IN A RECREATION CENTER . . • S 0 SO NO A) BASKETBALL COURTS 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 B) RACQUETBALL COURTS 1 2 C) SAUNA /STEAM ROOMS 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 D) COMPUTER LABS 2 3 4 5 E) LEISURE POOL 1 3 4 5 7) WEIGHT /CARDIOVASCULAR ROOM 1 2 4 5 G) MEETING ROOMS 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 H) EXERCISE /AEROBICS ROOM 1 2 3 4 5 I) SPACE FOR SENIOR ACTIVITIES 1 2 3 4 5 J) INDOOR JOGGING TRACK 1 2 3 4 5 K) KITCHEN /SNACK BAR 1 2 3 4 5 L) DAYCARE /NURSERY 2 3 4 5 M) GAMEROOM, WITH POOL TABLES, 1 TABLE TENNIS, ETC. 2 3 4 5 N) EXERCISE /LAP POOL 1 5 0) SPACE FOR TEEN ACTIVITIES 1 2 3 4 P) KARATE ROOM 1 2 3 4 5 5 Q) GYMNASTICS ROOM 1 2 3 R) COMMUNITY THEATER /DRAMA 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 S) ROCK CLIMBING WALL 1 5 T) STAGE AREA FOR CONCERTS 1 2 3 4 I. WHAT TYPE OF ACTIVITIES THE DO THE CITY SHOULD OFFER RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY? A. E. 16. AND WHAT TYPE OF RECREATIONA PROGRAMS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE OFFERED TO YOUTH AT THE NEW RECREATION CENTER? B. A. 17. THE CITY IS ALSO STUDYING THE POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF A "TEEN CENTER" FOR YOUTH IN THE COMMUNITY. HOW FAMILIAR OR UNFAMILIAR WOULD YOU SAY YOU ARE WITH THE "TEEN CENTER" PROJECT? VERY FAMILIAR 1 FAMILIAR 2 UNFAMILIAR . . . . . 3 VERY UNFAMILIAR . . 4 NO OPINION 5 18. MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF JUST WHAT A "TEEN CENTER" IS. IF A FRIEND IN A NEIGHBORING CITY ASKED YOU TO EXPLAIN WHAT A TEEN CENTER IS, HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT? 19. WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOUR CONCEPT OF A TEEN CENTER EMPHASIZES ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES, SOCIAL ACTIVITIES OR BOTH? ATHLETIC 1 SOCIAL 2 BOTH 3 REFUSE TO ANSWER . . 4 20. WHAT ONE OR TWO THINGS WOULD YOU EXPECT TO BE INCLUDED IN A "TEEN CENTER "? 1. 2. 21. HOW NECESSARY OR UNNECESSARY DO YOU BELIEVE A "TEEN CENTER" IS FOR THE YOUTH OF SOUTHLAKE? VERY NECESSARY 1 NECESSARY 2 UNNECESSARY VERY UNNECESSARY . . 4 NO OPINION 5 22. LET METELLDME YOU HOW STRONGLY STATEMENTS AGR D POTENTIAL ISAGREE WITH EACH. A" AS I TEEN READ EACH, CENTER . . • • SA A D SD NO A) WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR YOUTH TO BE ABLE 1 2 3 4 5 TO GATHER FOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 4 5 B) IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, BECAUSE MOST TEENS IN 1 2 3 SOUTHLAKE WOULD NOT EVEN USE THE FACILITY 5 C) WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR YOUTH TO BE ABLE 1 2 3 4 TO GATHER FOR ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES D) WOULD CREATE SAFETY CONCERNS IF IT WERE 1 2 3 4 5 CONSTRUCTED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF POTENTIALLY LARGE GATHERINGS OF YOUTH 4 5 E) IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE 1 2 3 SUFFICIENT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WHEN THE REC CENTER IS OPENED 4 5 F) IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE CURRENTLY ARE NO 1 2 3 FACILITIES WHERE JUST TEENS CAN GATHER 4 5 G) WOULD BE A GOOD TOOL WHEN ENCOURAGING 1 2 3 FAMILIES TO MOVE TO SOUTHLAKE 23. IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT A TEEN CENTER BE GEARED TOWARDS NONATHLETIC ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DANCES, KARAOKE NIGHTS, COMEDY NIGHTS, CLASSES AND MEETINGS. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A TEEN CENTER IN DUTHLAKE THAT DID NOT INCLUDE ATHLETIC FACILITIES? STRONGLY SUPPORT . 1 SUPPORT 2 OPPOSE 3 STRONGLY OPPOSE . . 4 NO OPINION 5 24. IF A TEEN CENTER WERE CONSTRUCTED, WOULD THESE ISSUES BE OF MAJOR CONCERN TO YOU, MINOR CONCERN, OR OF NO CONCERN? MAJOR MINOR NO C NO A) SAFETY TO YOUTH AT THE FACILITY 1 2 3 4 B) VANDALISM TO THE PROPERTY 1 2 3 4 C) LOUD NOISE 1 2 3 4 D) LOITERING IN THE AREA 1 2 3 4 E) LACK OF SUPERVISION 1 2 3 4 F) HAVING BOYS AND GIRLS OF DIFFERENT AGES 1 2 3 4 TOGETHER 25. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS. THE NEEDS OF THE YOUTH OF SOUTHLAKE WOULD BE BEST MET . . . . SA A D SD NO A) BY A TEEN CENTER CONSTRUCTED AS A STAND -ALONE 1 2 3 4 5 FACILITY B) BY TEEN ACTIVITIES AS PART OF THE RECREATION 1 2 3 4 5 CENTER, BUT WITH A SEPARATE ENTRANCE :) BY TEEN ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN A DESIGNATED 1 2 3 4 5 OR ON A DESIGNATED EVENING AT THE REC. CENTER D) THE NEEDS OF YOUTH ARE BEING ADDRESSED NOW 1 2 3 4 5 26. AND HOW IMPORTANT OR UNIMPORTANT WOULD YOU SAY IT IS TO BEGIN IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEEN CENTER? IS IT . . . . VERY IMPORTANT . . . 1 IMPORTANT 2 UNIMPORTANT 3 VERY UNIMPORTANT . . 4 NO OPINION 5 27. A PROPOSED TEEN ACTIVITY CENTER, AT AN ESTIMATED SIZE OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET, COULD COST APPROXIMATELY $1 MILLION. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE. CONSTRUCTION OF THIS CENTER, BASED ON THE ESTIMATED COST? STRONGLY SUPPORT . . 1 SUPPORT . . . . . . 2 OPPOSE 3 STRONGLY OPPOSE . . 4 NO OPINION 5 28. IF $1 MILLION IS APPROPRIATED TO CONSTRUCT A TEEN CENTER, THE RECREATION CENTER CONSTRUCTION MAY HAVE TO BE DELAYED A FEW YEARS. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEEN CENTER, BASED ON THIS INFORMATION? STRONGLY SUPPORT . . 1 SUPPORT . . . . . . . 2 OPPOSE . . . . . . . . 3 STRONGLY OPPOSE . . . 4 NO OPINION . . . . . 5 29. REGARDING THE PROPOSED TEEN CENTER AND RECREATION CENTER PROJECTS, WHICH WOULD BE YOUR PREFERRED CHOICE. STAND -ALONE TEEN CENTER . . 1 TEEN CENTER AS PART OF, BUT SEPARATE FROM REC CNTR . . 2 REC CNTR THAT INCLUDES TEEN CENTER ACTIVITIES . . 3 A RECREATION CENTER ONLY 4 NO RECREATION CENTER OR TEEN CENTER 5 NO OPINION 6 30. IF IT BECAME NECESSARY TO CHARGE RESIDENTS A MONTHLY FEE FOR OPERATIONAL COSTS AT THE INDOOR RECREATION FACILITY, HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE PAYING EACH MONTH FOR UNLIMITED USE. . . . VL L U VU NO A) UNDER $20.00 1 2 3 4 5 B) $20.00 - $25.00 1 2 3 4 5 C) $25.00 - $30.00 1 2 3 4 5 D) MORE THAN $30.00 1 2 3 4 5 31. AND WHAT ABOUT A FAMILY OF FOUR. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE PAYING EACH MONTH FOR UNLIMITED USE OF THE INDOOR RECREATION CENTER . • . • VL L U VU NO A) UNDER $30.00 1 2 3 4 5 B) $30.00 - $40.00 • 1 2 3 4 5 0) $40.00 - $50.00 1 2 3 4 5 D) MORE THAN $50.00 1 2 3 4 5 THAT'S THE END OF OUR SURVEY BUT COULD I CHECK TO SEE IF I DIALED THE CORRECT NUMBER. I DIALED AND COULD I HAVE YOUR FIRST NAME, ONLY IN CASE MY SUPERVISOR HAS TO VERIFY THIS INTERVIEW? . THANK YOU AND HAVE A NICE EVENING. CALLER INI SHEET # LENGTH OF SURVEY SAMPLE YOUTH QUESTIONNAIRE PROJECT 21901002 RAYMOND TURCO & ASSOCIATES JULY 2000 MY NAME IS AND I'M WITH THE SUNRAY RESEARCH GROUP. WE HAVE BEEN HIRED BY THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TO CONDUCT A SURVEY OF YOUTH IN YOUR AREA TO DISCUSS RECREATION NEEDS AND DESIRES FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU HAVE A CHILD IN GRADES 7 THROUGH 12 WHO MIGHT LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN A TELEPHONE SURVEY. THIS IS NOT A SALES CALL AND THE SURVEY SHOULD TAKE 10 MINUTES. IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE CHILD, WE CAN TALK TO THEM ALSO. DO YOU HAVE A CHILD WHO MIGHT LIKE TO PARTICIPATE? (IF YES: READ INTRO AGAIN. IF NO: THANK YOU.) AREA AREA I . . . . . . . . 1 AREA I I . . . . . . 2 AREA III 3 SEX MALE 1 FEMALE 2 1. THESE FIRST FEW QUESTIONS ARE TO GATHER DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION. HOW LONG HAS YOUR FAMILY LIVED AT ITS CURRENT RESIDENC THAN ONE YEAR 1 1 - 3 YEARS 2 3 - 5 YEARS 3 5 - 7 YEARS 4 OVER 7 YEARS 5 REFUSE TO ANSWER . . • 6 2. AND WHAT GRADE WERE YOU IN LAST YEAR? 7TH GRADE 1 8TH GRADE 2 9TH GRADE 3 10TH GRADE 4 11TH GRADE 5 12TH GRADE 6 REFUSE TO ANSWER . - 7 3. PLEASE TELL ME HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED YOU ARE WITH RECREATIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FOR PEOPLE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 13 AND 18? VERY SATISFIED . . . . 1 SATISFIED . . . . . • 2 DISSATISFIED . . . . . 3 VERY DISSATISFIED . . 4 NO OPINION . . . . . . 5 4. WHAT ONE RECREATIONAL FACILITY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE CONSTRUCTED BY THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TO IMPROVE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES? 5. THE CITY IS PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT AN INDOOR RECREATION CENTER IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS. HOW NECESSARY OR UNNECESSARY DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS FOR THE CITY TO CONSTRUCT AN INDOOR RECREATION CENTER FOR 1 NECESSARY 2 UNNECESSARY 3 VERY UNNECESSARY . . 4 NO OPINION 5 6. WHERE DO YOU CURRENTLY GO FOR YOUR INDOOR RECREATION NEEDS? IF YOU DON'T GO ANYWHERE FOR INDOOR RECREATION, PLEASE TELL . FACILITIES 1 SCHOOLS 2 CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY PRIVATE CLUBS . . . 3 CITY FACILITIES . • • 4 YOUR HOUSE /FRIENDS . • 5 NOWHERE 6 REFUSE TO ANSWER . . • 7 7. AND HAVE YOU EVER VISITED A CITY -OWNED RECREATION CENTER IN ANOTHER CITY? YES 1 O 2 (IF YES, ASK #8, ALL OTHERS N N OWT REMEMBER 3 SKIP TO #9) REFUSE TO ANSWER . . . 4 8. IN TERMS OF PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES, WHAT DID YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT THE RECREATION CENTER YOU VISITED? 9. PLEASE NAME THREE ACTIVITIES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN AT THE NEW A. B. C. HOW N LET UNLI KELY READ YOU WOULD LIST TOFPARTICIPATEIINETHIS PLEASE ACTIVITYTELL ME AT A HOW LIKELY OR NEW RECREATION CENTER . . . . VL L U VU NO A) INDOOR BASKETBALL 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 B) JOGGING /WALKING AROUND ON AN INDOOR 1 2 TRACK 1 2 3 4 5 C) FITNESS OR AEROBICS 4 5 D) LIFTING WEIGHTS /CARDIO EQUIPMENT 1 2 3 4 5 E) PARTICIPATING IN RECREATIONAL CLASSES 1 2 1 4 5 3 INDOOR VOLLEYBALL 1 2 3 4 5 G) DANCING LESSONS 2 3 4 5 H) ACTIVITIES GEARED TOWARDS TEENS 1 2 3 4 5 I) IN -LINE OR ROLLERBLADE SKATING 1 2 3 4 5 J) RACQUETBALL 3 4 5 K) PARTICIPATING IN ARTS & CRAFT CLASSES 1 2 1 2 5 L) ATTENDING COMMUNITY MEETINGS 1 2 3 4 5 M) TAKING COMPUTER TRAINING OR LAB 1 2 3 4 5 N) GYMNASTICS 1 2 3 4 5 0) SWIMMING 1 2 3 4 5 P) KARATE 1 2 3 4 5 Q) COMMUNITY THEATER /DRAMA 1 2 3 4 5 R) ROCK CLIMBING 1 2 3 4 5 S) KITCHEN /COOKING CLASSES 11. AS I READ THE RESPONSES TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE TELL ME WHICH ACTIVITY YOU WOULD MOST LIKELY PARTICIPATE IN AS WELL AS WHICH ONE YOU WOULD LEAST LIKELY PARTICIPATE? (PRINT LETTER OF SPORT) MOST LIKELY B. LEAST LIKELY 12. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS BEING INCLUDED IN A RECREATION CENTER . . . • NO SS S 0 SO A) BASKETBALL COURTS 1 2 3 4 5 B) RACQUETBALL COURTS 1 2 3 4 5 C) SAUNA /STEAM ROOMS 1 2 3 4 5 D) COMPUTER LABS 1 2 3 4 5 E) LEISURE POOL 1 2 3 4 5 F) WEIGHT /CARDIOVASCULAR ROOM 1 2 3 4 5 G) MEETING ROOMS 1 2 3 4 5 H) EXERCISE /AEROBICS ROOM 1 2 3 4 5 I) SPACE FOR SENIOR ACTIVITIES 1 2 3 4 5 J) INDOOR JOGGING TRACK 1 2 3 4 5 K) KITCHEN /SNACK BAR 1 2 3 4 5 L) DAYCARE /NURSERY 1 2 3 4 5 M) GAMEROOM, WITH POOL TABLES, 1 2 3 4 5 TABLE TENNIS, ETC. 2 3 4 5 N) EXERCISE /LAP POOL 1 2 3 4 5 0) SPACE FOR TEEN ACTIVITIES 1 4 5 P) KARATE ROOM 1 2 3 Q) GYMNASTICS ROOM 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 R) COMMUNITY THEATER /DRAMA 1 S) ROCK CLIMBING WALL 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 ,) STAGE AREA FOR CONCERTS 1 13. IF A RECREATION CENTER WERE CONSTRUCTED, HOW LIKELY WOULD YOU OR YOUR FAMILY BE TO USE IT? VERY LIKELY 1 LIKELY . . . . . . • • 2 UNLIKELY . . • . . . • 3 VERY UNLIKELY . . . • 4 NO OPINION . . • . . • 5 14. AND WHAT TYPE OF RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE OFFERED TO YOUTH AT THE NEW RECREATION CENTER? A. B. FOR YOUTH 15. OUT C IN Y THE COMMUNITY. THE "TEEN FOR ARE WITH THE "TEEN CENTER" PROJECT? VERY FAMILIAR 1 FAMILIAR . . . • . . . 2 UNFAMILIAR . . . . . . 3 VERY UNFAMILIAR . • • 4 NO OPINION 5 16. MANY IN A P NE GHDFCITYTASKEDSYOU JUST WHAT CENTER" A TEENCENTER IS, A FRIEND IN A NEIGHBORING HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT? 17. WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOUR CONCEPT OF A TEEN CENTER EMPHASIZES ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES, SOCIAL ACTIVITIES OR BOTH? ATHLETIC 1 SOCIAL 2 BOTH 3 REFUSE TO ANSWER . . • 4 18. WHAT ONE OR TWO THINGS WOULD YOU EXPECT TO BE INCLUDED IN A "TEEN CENTER "? 1. 2. 19. HOW NECESSARY OR UNNECESSARY DO YOU BELIEVE A "TEEN CENTER" IS FOR THE YOUTH OF SOUTHLAKE? VERY NECESSARY 1 NECESSARY 2 UNNECESSARY . • . . • 3 VERY UNNECESSARY . • - 4 NO OPINION 5 20. LET ME READ SOME "TEEN AS I TEEN READ EACH, TELL M CENTER . . . • SA A D SD NO A) WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR YOUTH TO BE ABLE 1 2 3 4 5 TO GATHER FOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 4 5 B) IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, BECAUSE MOST TEENS IN 1 2 3 SOUTHLAKE WOULD NOT EVEN USE THE FACILITY 4 5 C) WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR YOUTH TO BE ABLE 1 2 3 TO GATHER FOR ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES 3 4 D) WOULD CREATE SAFETY CONCERNS IF IT WERE 1 2 CONSTRUCTED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF POTENTIALLY LARGE GATHERINGS OF YOUTH 3 4 5 E) IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE 1 2 SUFFICIENT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WHEN THE REC CENTER IS OPENED 3 4 5 F) IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE CURRENTLY ARE NO 1 2 FACILITIES WHERE JUST TEENS CAN GATHER 1 2 3 4 5 G) WOULD BE A GOOD TOOL WHEN ENCOURAGING FAMILIES TO MOVE TO SOUTHLAKE 21. PLEASE TELL ME HOW STRONGLY YOU WOULD SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE CITY CONSTRUCTING A TEEN CENTER IF IT CONTAINED S THE FOLLOWING OITEMS S • NO 1 2 3 4 5 A) BASKETBALL COURTS 1 2 3 4 5 B) STAGE AREA FOR CONCERTS 1 2 3 4 5 C) COFFEE SHOP -LIKE AREA 1 2 3 4 5 D) POOL /BILLIARD TABLES 1 2 3 4 5 E) SWIMMING POOL 1 2 3 4 5 F) WEIGHT /CARDIOVASCULAR ROOM 1 2 3 4 5 G) MEETING ROOMS FOR PROGRAMS 1 2 3 4 5 H) EXERCISE /AEROBICS ROOM 2 3 4 5 I) CASUAL AREA, INCLUDING BIG SCREEN 1 TELEVISIONS AND COUCHES 1 2 3 4 5 J) MAGAZINE /READING ROOMS 1 2 3 4 5 K) KITCHEN /DINING AREA 22. IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT A TEEN CENTER BE GEARED TOWARDS NONATHLETIC ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DANCES, KARAOKE NIGHTS, COMEDY NIGHTS, CLASSES AND TETINGS. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A TEEN CENTER IN JUTHLAKE THAT DID NOT INCLUDE ATHLETIC FACILITIES' SUPPORT 1 SUPPORT 2 OPPOSE 3 STRONGLY OPPOSE . . 4 NO OPINION 5 23. PLEASE TELL ME HOW LIKELY OR UNLIKELY YOU WOULD BE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS ACTIVITY IF IT WAS HELD AT THE TEEN CENTER . • - • VU NO VL L U A) KARAOKE NIGHT 1 2 3 4 5 B) YOUTH BASKETBALL LEAGUES 1 2 3 4 5 C) CONCERTS 1 2 3 4 5 D) TEEN FORUMS OR SPEAKERS 1 2 3 4 5 E) DANCES /GUEST DJ NIGHTS 1 2 3 4 5 F) MOVIE NIGHTS ON BIG SCEEN TELEVISION 1 2 3 4 5 G) POOL TABLES /PING PONG TABLES 1 2 3 4 5 H) COMPUTER LABS 1 2 3 4 5 I) SPECIAL INTEREST CLASSES, LIKE 1 2 3 4 5 TAEBEO AND SWIMG DANCING 4 5 J) GROUP MEETINGS 1 2 3 K) RACQUETBALL COURTS 1 2 3 4 5 L) SAND VOLLEYBALL 1 2 3 4 5 24. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU OTHE DISAGREE OF WITH THE COMMUNITYMCAN •USE TEEN THE ENTER IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE RECREATION CENTER FOR THEIR NEEDS ?" STRONGLY AGREE 1 AGREE 2 DISAGREE 3 STRONGLY DISAGREE . 4 NO OPINION 5 25. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS. THE NEEDS OF THE YOUTH OF SOUTHLAKE WOULD BE BEST MET A D SD NO A) BY A TEEN CENTER CONSTRUCTED AS A STAND -ALONE 1 2 3 4 5 FACILITY 5 B) BY TEEN ACTIVITIES AS PART OF THE RECREATION 1 2 3 CENTER, BUT WITH A SEPARATE ENTRANCE 4 5 C) BY TEEN ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN A DESIGNATED 1 2 3 OR ON A DESIGNATED EVENING AT THE REC. CENTER 4 5 D) THE NEEDS OF YOUTH ARE BEING ADDRESSED NOW 1 2 3 26. REGARDING THE PROPOSED TEEN CENTER AND RECREATION CENTER PROJECTS, WHICH WOULD BE YOUR PREFERRED CHOICE. STAND -ALONE TEEN CENTER 1 TEEN CENTER AS PART OF, BUT SEPARATE FROM REC CNTR . . 2 REC CNTR THAT INCLUDES TEEN CENTER ACTIVITIES . . 3 A RECREATION CENTER ONLY • 4 NO RECREATION CENTER OR TEEN CENTER . • • - • - - 5 NO OPINION 6 27. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT: "IF THE vOUTH CITY COUNCIL DECIDES TO NOT CONSTRUCT A TEEN CENTER, THE NEEDS OF THE IN THIS COMMITTEE ARE NOT BEING MET." STRONGLY AGREE 1 AGREE 2 DISAGREE 3 STRONGLY DISAGREE . 4 NO OPINION 5 THAT'S THE END OF OUR SURVEY BUT COULD I CHECK D TO O SEE EE IFHI DI D TI CORRECT NUMBER. I DIALED NAME, ONLY IN CASE MY SUPERVISOR HAS TO VERIFY THIS INTERVIEW? THANK YOU AND HAVE A NICE EVENING. CALLER INI SHEET # LENGTH OF SURVEY • Appendix C Aerial Photographs C-1 Koalaty Park C-2 Coker Property L f # ` ` 'y am.- * e .. r 4 4 ,... _.. .„,,,: `tt S T i / � , Yom. N„, ,..., t cd 4 w r , ''-':6C,''''-'- ' . ''" f ^ O ti •; o =�=z � �. ✓ O # i.. 'ma ,, f.0 o JI xv. w,,r. • w ,�. M ..•*"` O 4if 9' 2 s ,' . � o o o ins I t tit Y , a I " - p i Cti O r. o i { �� � ..r z: r... � o ' *. _ Sew , a s- . t . \ ✓ . \ �' ' - "°'+'° 0 �e � % -�9 A. 4; .fit" ' I _\ . st F � �-,_ � _. 0 tizi irk- t. .„. ..m, a 1 .,,,, .. ., I, ,,., , , kioi. ti, ,,... .0... : li .t.„... .1 .,..;:,,,,-, 1 ...i.,,-.-.„,,_„.,. - , .n.. ,..i A i \ki,„ In .... z r. 3 A. P •ti. N • r t ' , 1 ,. Wii , R. :- _._ -,-., . ,:....„ - . , , -.,,, -- iii ' ,�,� .T� s 1 O /� "Z 1' a °' 1 Tr "rs"yP,.'� .. X41 ." 1 C < _ P � ,q, U o CD I .4. - o i ems; • N i i � e . ! � o • • p yo 4't ', ',. .,...c !' � - . •,„ � '�� --,V -t NOTE: Language proposed to be added to text, per P &Z motion, inserted immediately before the section titled "Park Service Area" on preceding page 5.14: "The potential exists to incorporate any number of markers, signs, displays, or other contextual items within the parks system to commemorate historically significant places, events or persons relating to the City of Southlake. As part of the park planning process, any avenues which exist to incorporate these elements will be explored and given a high priority." UNOFFICIAL MINUTES NOT APPROVED BYP &Z COMMISSION 1 Chairman King closed the Public Hearing. 2 3 (Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 04- 05 -01, tape 1, section #3100) 4 5 Commissioner Muller thanked staff for their hard work on this and said they did an excellent job in 6 notifying the public of the hearings for this plan and for the Master Park Plan. She also thanked all 7 the Park Board members for their time. 8 9 Commissioner Horne also thanked staff for their time and said this plan is very clear and he 10 appreciates that. 11 12 Motion was made to approve the Amendments to the currently adopted Trail System Master Plan 13 and to add a connection between North Peytonville Avenue and Southridge Lakes Parkway and to 14 add text associated with the possibility of adding a footbridge across F.M. 1709 with access to Town 15 Square and to Bicentennial Park or as otherwise appropriate. 16 17 Motion: Stansell 18 Second: Muller 19 Ayes: Stansell, Terrell, Boutte, Muller, Jones, Horne, King 20 Nays: None 21 Approved: 7 -0 22 Motion carried. 23 24 (Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 04- 05 -01, tape 1, section #3296) 25 26 AGENDA ITEM #11, AMENDMENTS TO THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED PARK MASTER 27 PLAN: 28 Senior Park Planner Chris Carpenter presented this item to the Commission. After holding several 29 information gathering community meetings, Schrickel, Rollins and Associates provided a 30 preliminary draft of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan Update to staff and to the 31 Park Board for discussion at their February 12, 2001, meeting and for approval at their March 19, 32 2001, meeting. He said staff has also provided suggestions for future development of some of the 33 undeveloped parks based on prior discussions with area residents and possible other improvements 34 over the life of this Master Plan Update. 35 36 Suzanne Sweek (Schrickel, Rollins, and Associates) presented the Park Master Plan and discussed 37 the developed and undeveloped aspects of each park. 38 39 Rob Fiester (Schrickel, Rollins, and Associates) presented the Master Plan for Bicentennial Park and 40 discussed possible uses with the Commission. 41 42 Commissioner Jones said he knows we have an outstanding baseball association in Southlake and 43 one of the things the association has trouble with is meeting the demand for practice fields. He Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on April 5, 2001 8 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES NOT APPROVED BYP &Z COMMISSION 1 questioned how much demand there is for sand volleyball courts and asked if that area is taking up 2 enough room that there could be another baseball field. He asked if it is possible that the sand 3 volleyball courts could go into the proposed pavilion area that is further west. 4 5 Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman said he knows we have a deficiency of practice 6 fields right now which is why the association is using game fields for practices and to some extent 7 they will probably always do that. In their needs assessment, they recognize the need for practice 8 fields and that is one of the things with a community park, they can address some of those with 9 practice areas and with joint use with the schools. They know the need is there, and they are trying 10 to address those issues. As far as putting it in the location of the sand volleyball courts, he said that 11 area is not quite large enough to put another field in there. He said Bicentennial Park is becoming 12 quite a sports complex and what they are trying to do is to make it more multi -user and soften it with 13 trails throughout the park and add pavilions along with the sand volleyball courts. 14 15 Commissioner Stansell discussed the number of lighted and unlighted soccer fields available. He 16 asked when the soccer fields at Bob Jones Park will be lighted. Director Hugman said they are 17 programmed for fiscal year 2002 and the reason is that the original grant that was to cover the lights 18 was under - funded. He said SPDC approved the funding but phased it over three years which caused 19 them to go back and break up the project into pieces. He said they were concentrating on the grant 20 items and getting those items in first because of the timing on the grant. 21 22 Commissioner Stansell said this is a sport that doubles baseball in participation and baseball has half 23 a dozen lighted fields, SPDC did not see right to light these fields sooner rather than later. Director 24 Hugman said we did not have the funding. 25 26 Commissioner Horne said development is coming to the area of town around Bob Jones Park and 27 stated that inline hockey rinks and basketball courts are not there. He asked if there are plans to 28 incorporate those types of things in that park. Director Hugman said because of the natural beauty 29 and charm of that area and the heavily wooded areas, most of that park was envisioned to be a 30 passive park. He said the corps property has to be left undisturbed, but they did put sports -type uses 31 along White Chapel Boulevard because it is close to the road and it did not have many trees. 32 33 Commissioner Horne said there will be more people in that area in the very near future and asked 34 if there is any chance they could rethink that. Director Hugman said their recommendation at this 35 time is that these are the only sporting facilities up there with the rest of Bob Jones being more 36 passive. 37 38 In reviewing Noble Oaks Park, Commissioner Muller said this is the park that Scott Martin has been 39 working on a plan for. Director Hugman said Mr. Martin has shared his plan with staff on a couple 40 of occasions, and they have gone over it in detail with him. He said Mr. Martin has also been to the 41 Park Board with the plan but at this point, they have not told staff to implement that plan. He said 42 they are trying to keep these plans very conceptual in nature, and Mr. Martin's plan is a very different 43 type of park than what we had envisioned. He said Noble Oaks is going to be a neighborhood park. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on April 5, 2001 9 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES NOT APPROVED BYP &Z COMMISSION 1 At this point, he said they have not gotten direction to go that way so they are going with what they 2 see as a more traditional park. 3 4 Commissioner Muller stated that Mr. Martin's plan could happen, and it is something for 5 consideration in the future and thanked Mr. Martin for all the time he dedicated to this. He has talked 6 about it for years and gave his time freely. We may not use all of it, but she is hopeful we will 7 consider it in the future. 8 9 Commissioner Horne agreed and thanked Mr. Martin and said it offers our young people more 10 activities that they can partake in. He said every kid does not have a horse, but he does have a 11 basketball and some skates. He said the children are going to want to do more than just look at some 12 trees. 13 14 Director Hugman said the parks that are the most conceptual in nature and have the fewest things 15 shown on them are the ones they envision to be the longest range as far as development — that would 16 be Sheltonwood and Noble Oaks. 17 18 Commissioner Muller asked that Mr. Martin's packet be added to the meeting record. 19 20 Commissioner Jones asked if Southlake has a Historical Society. Commissioner Muller said we did, 21 but it was disbanded when we burned down the Fechtel Farm for the Town Square. She said we 22 would like to see it started up again. 23 24 Commissioner Jones asked if it would be possible to have some Historical Society information in 25 these parks. He said there will be children there, and it would be a great way to give them an idea 26 of the origin of Southlake or the historical significance of that particular area. Director Hugman said 27 that is something they would like to do and hopefully eventually they will be able to do that. 28 Certainly in Bob Jones Park, he said they would like to put some historical markers describing the 29 origins of the park and who the land had belonged to. He said Royal and Annie Smith Park also 30 lends itself to that. 31 32 Commissioner Jones said Southlake is really an old city; it is not a new city. He would think there 33 would be some families who have lived here for generations, and we could gather some information 34 from them. 35 36 Commissioner Muller said we have all that; Mrs. Payne has tons of information on Southlake. 37 38 Commissioner Stansell asked if the people from the Soccer Association wanted to voice their 39 concerns about the development of the fields, who would they need to talk to. Director Hugman said 40 they could either talk to Chris Carpenter or himself on staff or encourage them to come before the 41 Park Board. 42 43 Mr. Carpenter said pending the action of the Commission tonight, this plan will be at the City Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on April 5, 2001 10 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES NOT APPROVED BY P &Z COMMISSION 1 Council meeting on April 17, 2001. 2 3 (Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 04- 05 -01, end of tape 1, section #7186) 4 5 Chairman King opened the Public Hearing. 6 7 Ed McAdams, 1203 Lorraine Court, Southlake, Texas, said he considers himself very fortunate that 8 a brand new school is being built behind his house as well as Noble Oaks Park. He said he did not 9 see Mr. Martin's plan for the park, but he assumes it is different than the concept shown on the 10 overhead screen. He said that currently the field is an excellent practice soccer field and said his 11 neighborhood had a picnic there last year and had 129 people walk across to the park and had a great 12 picnic. He said it is great the way it is, and it met their needs as a community. He said there is a 13 sports court in the neighborhood that their kids can use. He said the original plan called for the pond 14 to be filled in but he understands that has changed. The last he heard from CISD is that if the pond 15 remains, they will fence the entire property line between the school and the park. He thinks that is 16 very sad. He hopes we can work with the school board on that. He said he would like to leave the 17 park basically undeveloped because they have the school right next door with the play equipment 18 and basketball courts. Regarding the historical aspects of this site, he said the school is going to be 19 named Old Union because there was a old school, the first school in the area, on the park site which 20 was named Old Union. 21 22 Commissioner Horne said when he mentioned basketball courts or hockey rinks, he did not mean 23 the southern part of the city; it is dotted with them. He is talking about the future development in the 24 northern part of the city, and that is where he thinks we need to look at ball fields or courts. People 25 up there need to have something so they do not have to drive five miles to get to it. 26 27 Chairman King closed the Public Hearing. 28 29 (Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 04- 05 -01, tape 2, section #0390) 30 31 Motion was made to approve the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan Update and to 32 include text that will outline opportunities to incorporate historically related events within Southlake. 33 34 Motion: Stansell 35 Second: Jones 36 Ayes: Terrell, Boutte, Muller, Jones, Horne, Stansell, King 37 Nays: None 38 Approved: 7 -0 39 Motion carried. 40 41 (Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 04- 05 -01, tape 2, section #0475) 42 43 Chairman King said he appreciates all the hard work staff has done on this plan and appreciates them Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on April 5, 2001 11 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES NOT APPROVED BYP &Z COMMISSION 1 staying here late this evening with the Commission. 2 3 AGENDA ITEM #12, MEETING ADJOURNMENT: 4 Chairman King adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m. on April 5, 2001. 5 6 (Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, 04- 05 -01, tape 2, section #0485) 7 8 9 19 12 Dennis King 13 Chairman 14 15 16 ATTEST: 17 18 21 Lori A. Farwell 22 Administrative Secretary 23 24 N: \Community Development \WP - FILES \MTG \MIN \2001 \04- 05- 01 .DOC 25 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes on April 5, 2001 12 1 Ms. Stokdyk asked again about the barriers -- who would address those issues? Does the 2 responsibility fall back to the municipalities? 3 4 Mr. Vavroch responded to Ms. Stokdyk that the Corp had offered materials, but does not have 5 the manpower or the money, even though they would like to. Therefore, CTETA seeks to 6 handle those issues utilizing funds allocated for refurbishment of the trails. 7 8 Ms. Berman announced this was a consider item and she would entertain a motion. 9 10 A motion was made to approve the Cross Timbers Equestrian Trails Association request with 11 the proposed resolution. 12 13 Motion: White 14 Second: Stokdyk 15 Ayes: Berman, Nelson, Stokdyk, White, Georgia and Miltenberger 16 Nays: None 17 Approved: 6 -0 18 19 Motion carried. 20 21 Agenda Item #5 -A, Approval of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Update 22 23 Mr. Carpenter presented the Plan and asked for the Board's final opinions on the Plan and 24 shared the reason for the urgency. In order to apply for a Texas Parks and Wildlife indoor 25 recreation grant for the proposed recreation center, we are on a tight timeline to get the Master 26 Plan approved and sent to TPWD for their review and approval. This must be done prior to 27 applying for a grant that will use the Master Plan recommendations and priorities as the basis 28 for the grant request. The Master Plan will still be considered by the Planning and Zoning 29 Commission and City Council. We need to be able to take this to City Council prior to the end 30 of April to meet the timeline. 31 32 Mr. Carpenter outlined the steps the presentation would follow. Suzanne Sweek and Rob 33 Feister, representatives from Schrickel and Rollins, would address the technical data of the 34 Plan. Then the conceptual plans for the parks themselves would be considered and the minor 35 changes would be reviewed. Mr. Carpenter asked the Board to offer any commentary. A copy 36 of the exhibits handed out are hereby attached to the minutes. 37 38 Ms. Sweek briefly summarized the changes to the Plan from the last draft presented to the 39 Board at the February 12, 2001 meeting. She said Section 7, 8 and the Appendix would be 40 handed out, which would make the Plan complete with a couple of exceptions. The Farhat and 41 the Tucker properties remain to be done. She said they would be fairly low impact 42 development with equestrian trailheads and access with parking in each area to Bob Jones. In 43 addition, the write -up that go with each site plan in Section 7, were not complete yet. Section 8 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 11 of 25 N:IParks & RecreationlBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901 .doc 1 is new material that deals with summaries of the findings of the Plan, anticipating that there 2 would be changes on the Park Board and staff over the life of the Plan. 3 4 Ms. Sweek asked the Board to recall at the last review, they had discussed tracts of land that 5 might be suitable for neighborhood and community parks and the consensus was to not show 6 the tracts of land. Ms. Sweek called attention to Plate 2 and identified the smaller circles where 7 there were neighborhood parks facilities existing, proposed, and locations on school property 8 and proposed school property. Instead of designating specific tracts, the Plan looked at where 9 community park facilities (basically athletic fields along with a neighborhood park facility) 10 were needed in the city. 11 12 Ms. Georgia referred to the 80 acres the City already purchased (Marilyn Tucker, Bob Jones, 13 Farhat pieces) which is adjacent to Lake Grapevine and asked why those properties were not 14 shown on the Plan as a planned community park or planned park? She asked what the City was 15 going to do with it and how it was going to be accessed? 16 17 Mr. Hugman said it was not yet decided. A concept plan would be developed. The Farhat 18 property is envisioned to be part of the Bob Jones Park as a very passive area, probably trails, 19 picnic areas, access to the lake, fishing piers. The access issue will have to be addressed even 20 though Bob Jones Road currently does go all the way to the area. Ms. Sweek explained that 21 area was not ever considered for a community park facility on the Plan as it was to remain a 22 passive area due to the open space and transportation issues. 23 24 Ms. Georgia commented that "it costs money to buy land, so the City needs to look at the land 25 the City already owns versus what it doesn't own." 26 27 Ms. Sweek noted there was only one minor change to Plate 1, which had been discussed and 28 minor additions to the Open Space Environmental Preservation Plan (Plate 3). The greatest 29 changes occurred on Plate 2, Existing and Proposed Parks. 30 31 Changes to the Needs Assessment section of the Plan was addressed. Ms. Sweek commented 32 on standards for athletic fields at build -out and referred to Table 6.2, pointing out several 33 areas, particularly the requirements to meet the community's soccer needs. 34 35 During the retreat, Board members had been provided a break -down based on having to light 36 every field or having enough practice fields so that they would not have to light as many fields. 37 He said those numbers were interchangeable. The grand total can be reduced as noted in the 38 footnote on the table. 39 40 As the Board reviewed the "standards" column, Mr. Polasek asked the members to keep in 41 mind that Southlake has a very high participation rate in youth athletics as compared to other 42 communities because the majority of residents living in Southlake are families with children. 43 He said Southlake has a much higher youth population and a much lower senior population Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 12 of 25 N :IParks & RecreationlBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901 .doc 1 than does Hurst. Opportunities exists for ways of meeting these needs through additional 2 neighborhood parks, at existing and new school sites and other changes. 3 4 Practice facilities are included in the inventory table, but not private facilities or planned (or 5 platted ones) in the other remaining parks, such as Annie and Royal Smith Park. 6 7 Ms. Georgia noted in the inventory summary column pertaining to equestrian trails ( "Trail 8 Hiking - Equestrian "), that only 1 mile of inventory was reflected when the approved Trail 9 System Master Plan shows 5.6 miles of equestrian trails. This correction will be made. 10 11 A suggestion was made to add a standard for LaCrosse fields to the Plan on Table 6.2 as it 12 would probably be a good idea to have a standard, which would then show a need, and the 13 City would benefit when seeking a Texas Park and Wildlife grant. 14 15 Tony DeBruno, 1023 Diamond Boulevard: Asked if the inventory figure was based on head 16 count or participation? In regards to the soccer fields, does that include any adult play or is 17 that strictly youth play? Or, were the figures arrived at by taking a population base and making 18 an assumption? Mr. Polasek said it was a population based figure. 19 20 Ms. Georgia noted the gap in Southlake - -- there are not a lot of adult leagues yet. 21 22 Mr. DeBruno further stated he felt the needs assessment of our current needs was geared 23 around youth play. It doesn't account for adult play which is very large in North Texas. He 24 commented that lighting the 13 fields essentially doubled the use of those fields for games. 25 Without those, more fields would be required just to get the games in. He suggested using 26 joint use facilities for practice if the facilities were up to standards. 27 28 Mr. Miltenberger said that currently the joint use facilities were not up to standards for 29 practice fields. Durham is counted as two soccer fields while counting it as a baseball field. He 30 stated it is basically useless because of the drainage problems in that area. 31 32 Mr. Nelson commented that Table 6.2 was set up by population standards and it would be 33 helpful if the table could show exactly how much land is needed per type of use. He asked if 34 average land evaluations could be placed on each type of facility to help determine how much 35 land would be needed. 36 37 Ms. Sweek handed out the final section, Page 8.2, "Game Athletic Fields," stating it would 38 provide the land area needs Mr. Nelson was referring to after it is amended again. She asked if 39 the Board would prefer to have a chart to communicate those land requirements? Members 40 agreed a chart would work better. 41 42 The Plan does provide a table that shows where the deficiencies are by type of property. 43 Community parks is the major area that is deficient. A table could be added that would 44 correlate the field needs to an acreage and also correlate back to the other table we already Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 13 of 25 N :IParks & RecreationlBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901 .doc 1 have that shows our deficiency is because that is our Land Standard and that is what we are 2 basing it on. So the three areas need to match and that would be another point of data to have 3 in the Plan. 4 5 Mr. Hugman explained that it is staff's responsibility to look at properties as they come up and 6 determine what is suitable and how it fits into this Master Plan and to make their 7 recommendations to the Park Board, SPDC and Council. 8 9 Ms. Stokdyk spent a few minutes discussing the issue of neighborhood concept and whether it 10 should be a priority versus the community parks. Should we be looking at a segment of the 11 community park being also a neighborhood park? 12 13 Mr. Hugman commented on Plate 2 in addressing Ms. Stokdyk's concerns. The Plate does 14 take this into account. Bicentennial Park is shown as an existing city park, but with the 15 neighborhood aspects in there and the same thing with Bob Jones Park. The Plan does 16 acknowledge this by the use of the small circle and larger circles on the Plate. 17 18 Mr. Hugman explained the service radius associated with each kind of park -- neighborhood 19 park, community park, city park. 20 21 The legend on Plate 3 needs to be corrected to show the definition of a city park. 22 23 The following changes were noted by Ms. Georgia: 24 25 Table 6.2 reflect the same change given earlier in Section 4.2 in a parks and 26 recreational inventory 27 Page 5 -13 "Historic Sites /Parks" -- we should take credit for the one historic 28 park /cemetery (Easter Cemetery) at Gateway Plaza. 29 30 Mr. Nelson asked if when this document is denominated as a Plan, is it still an organic 31 document? Ms. Sweek responded "yes" and referenced the end of Section 8. 32 33 Section 7, "Priorities and Recommendation" was presented. The first seven items on the list 34 represent recreation center facilities and the second seven items represent community park 35 facilities. The top seven items are the critical items when seeking grants. 36 37 Mr. Georgia shared her concerns with the Plan proposing to designate the Tucker and Farhat 38 properties as proposed environmental preservation open space, next to Corp property which is 39 being preserved for open space, when there are such needs for lands in other areas. Are we 40 sure we want to designate it as an environmental preservation area? She commented that she 41 did not feel she was getting enough detail for her to support that designation as environmental 42 preservation open space. 43 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 14 of 25 N: I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARDI MINUTES120011031901. doc 1 Ms. Stokdyk and Ms. White shared background information and provided their insight 2 regarding the purchases of the Tucker and Farhat pieces. 3 4 Mr. Carpenter suggested leaving it as undeveloped parkland on Plate 1 and removing it from 5 the environmentally protected list on Plate 3? This was an acceptable solution. 6 7 The members discussed what impact removing all four properties (Sheltonwood, Coker, Farhat 8 and Tucker) from the environmental preservation open space would have on obtaining grants. 9 10 Mr. Fiester told the Board it would not affect grant requests because the properties were 11 already owned by the city, so the removal would not affect grant opportunities. 12 13 The Park Board was asked to look at the Plan and decide which areas they foresee and want to 14 maintain as environmentally protected types of land. The Tucker property was purchased with 15 the thought of it being equestrian uses. The Coker property was purchased with the intent of it 16 being a trailhead area. So it would make sense to leave the Tucker and Coker pieces on this 17 plan. Taking the Farhat piece off would not hurt the City's chance for a grant and would 18 provide greater flexibility in the future. 19 20 After discussion, the Board agreed to remove the Tucker and Farhat properties from the 21 environment preservation open space designation. 22 23 The question was asked how open space is designated on the Master Plan? The level of detail 24 is too difficult to stamp every use so a "best guess" approach is taken to allocate acreage to a 25 neighborhood park function. The Park Master Plan presents "the big picture." The Master 26 Plan is a guideline, but it's not exact. A schematic design becomes part of the Master Plan, but 27 can be changed which would also be changed in the Master Plan, should the needs change. 28 29 Ms. Stokdyk expressed concerns with approving the Master Plan without closer review of each 30 of the individual neighborhood parks. She was concerned with deviating from the original 31 proposal for a park, citing the Annie and Royal Smith Park as an example. 32 33 A suggestion was made to add language to the Plan to the effect that "the conceptual plans that 34 are approved as part of the Master Plan would all be reviewed and revised when the individual 35 park goes through master planning," if the Plan does not already contain such. 36 37 It was also suggested to add a statement to Page 8.1 clarifying how the Master Plan process 38 works fora park. 39 40 Ms. Stokdyk said she would like to see more clarification on Page 7.3 regarding Royal and 41 Annie Smith Park and 7.4, stating that some of these have already been decided and the 42 neighborhoods are expecting them, but some are just suggestions. Ms. Stokdyk said the park 43 plan for Annie and Royal Smith Park did go though a process and the people understood it and Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 15 of 25 N:IParks & RecreationlBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901 .doc 1 now it is being thrown out without any process through the neighborhoods again. Shouldn't it 2 be carried by over as part of the Master Plan instead of throwing it out? 3 4 Mr. Nelson directed the Board back to the item before them tonight. The Park Board is being 5 asked to approve this Plan. Then it will be presented to Council for their approval in order for 6 the city to receive grant money for the indoor recreation center. He said he understood Ms. 7 Stokdyk's concerns and perhaps they could be preserved by some language within the 8 document, but that we must use whatever language the Texas Parks and Wildlife expects for us 9 to get the money. 10 11 Having language in the Master Plan to the effect that these plans can be modified at any time 12 would not affect our ability to receive grant funding. 13 14 Mr. Nelson recommended saying "possible facilities included" instead of saying 15 "recommended facilities" on the Annie and Royal Smith portion of the Plan. 16 17 Ms. Stokdyk reiterated her request that under each of the parks listed in the Plan, she would 18 like notations that this has gone through some process, that there has been some conceptual 19 plans on the books that it has gone through the neighborhood process. 20 21 Mr. Hugman stated that this Plan is a much better plan than the current plan as far as for 22 planning and future development. This proposed Plan identifies our needs and shows that we 23 are on track for land purchases for the population we have now. It shows where we need to be 24 at build out and the kinds of facilities we need at build -out. It gives us a good planning tool to 25 see what areas of the city we need parks in, but it is not a detailed plan of every park. That is 26 not possible until funds exist to do topography and engineering studies, and do a detailed site 27 analysis. 28 29 Ms. Berman said she would entertain a motion. 30 31 A motion was made to amend Table 4.2 and Table 6.1 to list the 5.6 miles of hiking and 32 equestrian trails in addition that we list the historic park "Easter" cemetery located in Gateway 33 Plaza on what used to be Page 5.14; and that in Section 8.1 we add additional wording to 34 further outline or give information on how the master planning process can change what was 35 previously a conceptual plan. With those amendments, a motion is made to approve the 2001 36 Parks, Recreation, Open Space Master Plan for the City of Southlake. 37 38 Motion: Georgia 39 Second: White 40 41 Ms. Stokdyk commented that the Farhat and Tucker properties needed to be addressed in the 42 motion. 43 Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 16 of 25 N:IParks & RecreationlBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011031901 .doc 1 Ms. Georgia amended her motion to include removing the Farhat and Tucker properties from 2 Plate 3, Environmental Preservation and Open Space Plan, but leaving the Coker property. 3 4 At this point, the Board members debated if any of the properties shown in the Environmental 5 Preservation Plan on Plate 3 needed to remain. 6 7 Ms. Georgia amended her motion again, to remove [all the properties shown in the 8 Environmental Preservation and Open Space Plan] from Plate 3, and to add it into the text in 9 Section 7, as well as the conceptual plans. 10 11 A member of the audience pointed out that the Board had earlier mentioned amending a table 12 to include a LaCrosse standard. 13 14 Ms. Georgia amended the amended motion above to add standards for LaCrosse in Sections 15 4.2, Park Land and Open Space Inventory. 16 17 The motion continued ... 18 19 Ayes: Berman, Nelson, White, Georgia, Stokdyk, Miltenberger 20 Nayes: None 21 Approved: 6 -0 22 23 Motion carried. 24 25 The meeting recessed for a five minute break. 26 The meeting was called to reconvene at 9:24 p.m. 27 28 Agenda Item #6 -A, Southlake Girls Softball Association (SGSA) field location 29 30 Mr. Hugman presented this item at the request of the Southlake Girls Softball Association. He 31 provided a brief overview of the proposal stating that the City was in the process of developing 32 Bob Jones Park, which would include six practice ballfields. Also, the 2000 -01 CIP budget had 33 allocated $1.1 million dollars for the design and construction of a four field complex for the 34 Southlake Girls Softball Association on the southwest corner of the park on a portion of the 13 35 acre tract abutting Shady Oaks in Bicentennial Park. 36 37 Mr. Hugman explained that subsequent to staff's estimate of $1.1 million dollars, the planning 38 and engineering firm of Schrickel, Rollins and Associates performed a preliminary review of 39 the site. This resulted in an estimate of well over $2 million for the full development of the 40 project, which would include engineering, field development (earthwork, fencing, irrigation, 41 lighting, hydromulch), restroom /concession building, a parking lot off of Shady Oaks, utilities, 42 spectator area flatwork and a pedestrian bridge across the existing drainage channel. Additional 43 funding for exterior landscape development and site amenities would further add to the cost of 44 the project if pursued. Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, March 19, 2001 Page 17 of 25 N: I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARDI MINUTESI20011031901. doc 1 . , ; te c"4 'L"F' - 1. ,/ , , i �. by ti - ' , , , ._ ' R `` I 4` • y LEGEND i r ' ° 1 - .' L - - ` x 1 PUBLIC PARK OPEN SPACE y ■ BOB J N S p ∎ 1 ° ONES RD -- l_�_ 4 ` . sir g ' 4 j c "„ ' UNDEVELOPED PUBLIC PARK PRIVATE PARK L 1 • "' roe CISD JOINT USE PROPERTY 1 '{ t , " R ,� , ky CISD PROPERTY 0 i X 43 ` 0:::::74 UNDEVELOPED CISD PROPERTY z _ ' "' r t � ' f � <+ LAKE • � ? -�+' �, �' r3 .. GRAPES /NE KELLER ISD JOINT USE PROPERTY a ` ▪ " w� 1 1 ..: L I k 4 .Cfa : "'Sx , „ siw9 p. . A atA Y _ T ",IIIS� , r x � . ' KELLER ISD PROPERTY (UNDEVELOPED) � � LINEAR PARKS AND TRAILS - , . '1 ' r I ' Y om' s f J 4 u a US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS PROPERTY I t2' J 1 • * HISTORIC SITE @ , _, r ` " � 4 I - Ism 111 - 1 �ii cast J Y - f1 - i_.. . , 1 YW �•_ r r 1 rl - I L ' 1 __ - - _I °.' maearayeas•a � __ 1 �� - . / ,� wag \ , O :- - -1 V i , 5 , ! L 11 II •. E S �. O E 1 I ' � � ,I 7 _ - _ C _ _ _ I - I. � DOVE BAPTIST 1 I A� (` I r 1 Y ---- __._ Z CHURCH AND - -J ' _ L I I - - i 1 r I 1. ) 1 CEMETE - T- y L U I I I I 41 ! T - � I I a Y €/'I� li I j 1 .- 1 I -'f , 1 _ ]',_ 1 �, �z J G * • 1� I �' I - F DOVE f / I . ; � fi I O I �= � ti � �v I I r H _..- r r I , i I - W S ' I I I, Oj � , �� 1 - ND; 1 - •:CEMETERY 1� a 1 H IGH ' r - IIII .- 1 11 - 4 ■ , ' v �i ` , aaae a � 1 I ,A 1 �. ' . i i L i 0 y � ' ease \ r I as ra i .1 ' � I : a I j + J ��� i: :: ¢ a c r "7 i1 -� // ° I � I 1 I i aaesmo o 1 I � 8C 1 i I y ) ITT,, „ - I! km.k. tlYBW l,i E- _ -I aeaa «n.� f I `.I � `c 4 h i � ' T I;t I T^ I / 4 y I I FLORENCE I ti � , , \ I ` r } ' I - • �i ,1 , G a, j II�. I I� � I� �J7_ 1C r�12 7- - �� I I r i 1� 1 I ! i 1 II Li' 31 I ,. ! - 1 I _ „� � , 1 � � i % � I I I T I-'-' i �= • I '' ' �� �'! 1 1 ” \ 1 .. -. 1 \ j ' , 1 �- , i � � l � �L ' �TM�E —�L �' 1 K�_ J 2 ) 1 $ J Hi w � \ � \� I - HITE ,� a Ii - I , . _ -- � 1 - O ` I j. , I ' , /, , '1 i. '7 � :v --\ ∎ / v /. ._ y I ? QyJ - - C HUR CH M ETHODIST A. , L. li r I 1 I I I , I rn\ e 9 \ k 4 A ,,,- ` 1 - , , 1 CHAPEL a '- 1 11 Ll jj _ ` 1 r HEASTER CEMETERY ~J� - a 4 II rnrnrn�\� � YY i 1 _ a ��;; I ...lw 1 , , ; " i , C J - I I - !- IIIIII ■ I 1 I r -- _..- RXT _. E x � I _I_ I ' ■ 1 f / // 1 1 1 1�,, ,- ' ? i , (�\ ;' � T� I I , - �`� r F 4., d �/ \ili i l I p ��� @,,�, , : 1 - I- r'" I 11 :. - 1� �Z I�I� I' r' � ' , , C.i 1 , t. - -- I,II; t� `I. ..1 - Z 1 q I I III 1 L I x 11 1 1 � 1 �_ >! 1 -m 1 - � I 1 � a .�, 1 � � _ f I , 1) ;° N Du i� --� I - ( I I J }L g}}) 11 r . I '�� _�I. I. �. �, T I O L \ 1y � � � - I � . � A li t T L � . 1 r ' I Ir'` f 7 4 r ��' � n i y I � r ��� l � P I S '1, .: =a ! - ' ' 1 1 5 j A'1 �I > �. _ . i - '�� a JJ L - I .� -j _ I I I 1 ! { LJL 1 I 1 1 + VYC ' b 1 , , - ' uu ' - `�, } 1 ° walt1 i ' >; rc TAd : ` • ° t7 _ k, 1 _,.,- s.HI TINIEnT •• ,1r I ,, Ma I • i l_ ■ �.: i UNION CHURCH RD g m C i1u � �men ti �dN a Efy i I( y 4 I �I r '' � ti t; - ;r ' �nwom�g '1 1 ® Q - 7 . f l � k � � � F j f �ii 1 *i = I rl I 1 I 'I. L G t fi, , � , � 4� T v� , 4 \ I y I 1 , ,, e �1F' '- a i'' \ N' _ I -i_i p5 P PUBLIC PARK LAND PRIVATE PARKS `� ' , ® 1. BOB JONES PARK �^ ° S A ADAMS ADDITION . K i • ,� S � • 2. LONESOME DOVE PARK B. CAMBRIDGE PLACE 3. BICENTENNIAL PARK C. COVENTRY , s , ,. ' Y 4. RUSTIN /FAMILY PARK SCHOOLS. y D. DOMINION 5. CHESAPEAKE PARK a. CARROLL MIDDLE E. GATEWAY PLAZA 6 b. JOHNSON ELEMENTARY . SHELTONWOOD PARK F. LAKE CREST 7. COKER PROPERTY c. CARROLL INTERMDIATE G. MONTICELLO 8. ROYAL and ANNIE SMITH PARK d. DURHAM ELEMENTARY /INTERMEDIATE H. MYERS MEADOW 9. KOALATY PARK e. CARROLL JUNIOR HIGH I. OAK TREE 10. NOBLE OAKS PARK J. REMINGTON f. FLORENCE ELEMENTARY City of Southlake 11. KIRKWOOD SABRE LINEAR PARK g. CARROLL HIGH K. SOUTHRIDGE LAKES h. ROCKENBAUGH ELEMENTARY E. mil NI EN L STONE LAKES L_ _ _ _ _ _ _A L MIDDLE/INTERMEDIATE M. SOUTHLAKE WOODS / j. SHADY GROVE ELEMENTARY oUthIak N. TIMBER LAKE k CARROLL ELEMENTARY - - - -- O. TIMARRON Ill io I. ELEMENTARY #5 P. VERSAILLES Q. FOXBOROUGH m. ELEMENTARY #6 2001 Parks, Recreation and NORTH Open Space 0 1500 3000 6000 Master Plan PLATE 1 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET EXISTING CONDITIONS & RESOURCES LEGEND PUBLIC PARK I UNDEVELOPED PUBLIC PARK t ot', ;,:;--„,,,\ 1e 1■1111 LINEAR PARKS AND TRAILS , .tt , t . ' ''OT ' , 1 ,',", 1 US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS PROPERTY -: irlir., , ,k.' ■ ckii. i,i Ih',' • ,_,K,,!, ,,,,,, __ I In , ' ,';.: •t ,44,, 4' .rt;i0 ISD PROPERTIES / ' ,.',, MIN CISD JOINT USE PROPERTY . '', t" w .. 1 UNDEVELOPED CISD PROPERTY 1 ! 1 1111poial O AIM Yrj\q" - AA -,' e, FET:: CISD PROPERTY BOB 1 1 l'; AIM po,,,....-Agaihuitakz m mo i c,,,,,,e •-, ,- 4. 'it,,ty: 1 1 1 11 \ ..4 r KELLER ISD JOINT USE PROPERTY h _ A „ ' i 1 Ptil, sams9usti at': -;, 1 KELLER ISD PROPERTY (UNDEVELOPED) r ' ,11 it ',,; ' ' _---',,t ,,-,, Illit%•,,,, + ,' 0 P' I ,,,,,.: tP.,4'.: „. ', ii •..)(.Ni' TO PARK .,, o 1 1 , z SERVICE ZONES 2 I - . - ' ''' • 1 ' Nft .P. ?Oa' ..., IfillIUMI- $ _,&,.. ,, ..„,, - , \ EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PARK DEVELOPED 1 --- ii-- • 4,.., .,,.,;(-1, ; ica ff. , , ry & UNDEVELOPED mip;GrArkTek4L I.. \:ifikt;iti ' - • , ' ' ;''' Rai , Il N ' ft.,, : ie.* ill Nr4Q1tt - "11 i l , . A .‘4* PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ! ' , 4" 1 . 411 - it NIle : ir , IIIIM li ti a - ' • itk, EXISTING SCHOOL (NEIGHBORHOOD PARK FACILITIES) .. ?h v ill. r/ 41 " Au la °••/ -IIII 1 1 ' FA 1 i 6 'IV g l-- 7.5. ■ m a) ,, - 4 4 a1m1 PROPOSED SCHOOL (NEIGHBORHOOD PARK FACILITIES) " sA. ih \ t • \ ,, ''d '''''''' ) / 7 PROPOSED COMMUNITY cre1101111 , l• 1 si ...1., -1 N S*, -- *64441 N ittpstste, PARK ' ,:s EXISTING FACILITIES DEVELOPED COMMUNITY PARK * T: ___/- I N i I p , ,.....'• `-, ' kr , A ;*.=..' : - , . „„_, • .•; 7, NZ. 2 I - - -n_[ Mk* ..75 ).:`,i,----- 6 r .: kroppF3.4 ,,'''''" r lit l ". ei ,, .._-, ,,....._ , ....., LII,L1 PA - s' 1 1 .. illItattud , , .-2 _ is 911111--...1F,p EIN L , __ LI li 1 i,,, , e..s ,sw, :‘, aiiiinniiiIIINTIGA VII. k V u i ! --I . 1 - ,, Il ‘f & 1 il . ' . ff' MNIIMIIIIMAIIRME /- APIIIII•••9 / ....g.. • 7 ,.... - e-c - 4 ,1 , „ - - voliTmt i p mil . lii• 1 ires011pli 1E401 .. ,I lit i . _ All 1_. IIEFIENAD1 wii k t ., t om . wbeiki k I a u ,..., 04, • 1t6,-.4 milviliprpr • r.i, TILI: liik. 11: 111 ,,,,,,,,, ,i ,, 1/4, NE.IN is adtgl..IntaCiNV It =airman's 2 ,..- 1.... I , ,.. 1•, - / 7 11/ 4 MIIIIIFILI7ir 11.1.11111W A gri /NIL :17 I HIGH 1ill k71 ° .......A.mpaciala I nx, m okir.... dir ii•''.',;(,,: ) an qk kill:: A a MIN .1 rl • ' a ' 1 mai Ili 7: — ovest...3rata EL,_,D3E,..... ird..... -ow.. omnosal fi*Imin ■ -,,„,:,:.,:: 116 i , : ----- IV ■ • •"*.N.‘t.".rilil'fi fr MN :114,az EL 1- MO Ix k t . t 1 - [-, 8 A . In ...%, , ftwossm. I T i IN IiA3MW iii 116141 Al r, IS OirlUI ex gm" • ,,,.„,,..,,, ,,,y,:i. r mrg.; - '." $117 vtli'm • l■ ''.:. . t. infinftli - _ i 2 sr 1, pantumpi., - ,, - - , in.., ..4...1..."..1 • gm. Elm - ' .„.- I' L_ = ...mot LORENCE RD '''Iquir aff $4 wrizAvis ago all Inotitio- - idNiiiii 1 ' 7 1111 IN 7 :., 4111-12 :litOtitk lin _ ;1111//**Ij CCU ' IN I /47 :-.E•g.!.7.mmo Lim ir th " ^.-APAittfirdAtZl ____..im IN, 7; - 10#- * Nwm...-- was, 1 ,''..(, /_ , A-- , i..,, riu- . I 4 51111111 mir ,=- -- A At% 41574lialiqVigralM-1-94111_1'1-.C'' nA llit li trielitti.• la , _ASSN NM 1 p , .0 i . $$$$ #1, 0 .• , m v 4. 1.1. 4:21: gi 0 t ,,_ • Vgli , , / frisla IM I • Nall lial Er 144 Eh, ' •'. I . LI 7„1",4 ' ' f .1111 " l' - n r 1 m• irmi pi- .... If. „ ,„ :N i v ....., ,,,, li ,,,, , acuillIII NE i \ mi ilitild: tigill 111 Ilk "2 1 polv-.. m". . . a '. '" eigir won ,Il IP mmu 1 N kill 1113 111% • JUL il III II 111 IN ,,, . np.,; ,,..,,,,,.. IP • ' lllu llglINI 1 4t m4, 4 • 1 St' .t '.,' '',:z IF gi, Ist,.. 4 op.- Sor 4 , pm - i r _i 't i t ' :Li i l 1 1- 1 / (- Iiiik UK - , 1 *A . 1" MI aim II 0 1 1 1 : ;,' I a' ' " A --.. _ ,..„.., ,. ,,,. . °ELI a eit,,,,,44. 1 I Ille ' '''' ' ''- ' ,! t 1; fl :raj llll D Irian 1 1/4%." ' .; stsy:06 ' ' ) ' 11 rm- • Iry On Mt IIIIM ,:a.. s• C f a ftl u i : r al rAwAtti dulk zAH.2...mittN:41s., iZt:q., _ E 11 ti pintibilm 1 . : "MI .4 , i iiLi -------. •-------- ' i' 11 m orrall. 0mmii12:44.11•11.1 VA 711• _ 1 --- 1- ' - spiii . ' i ir# - tem A ono .. _. I 1 ,..... z ,il: f , 4 , _ Fr _. , , III mum lll l l l l lll ll ll l llllll NM 41 . -- 1 d All : : / 1 i f 2 • ill . - itli lett...,:-... L • VA* *iv if •• cal:. 4 "-, Of If im i) 1 4 .. Nt 1 na 1 0 1 .1. . 1 - . i 9 Nur 64 0 3 lig ' 'L..0 .._ ill. /4 -4,1 It — 'H- - - ' At - m ilUX-TrWri l ariki 71 /61oftate i rai :- ,f;;Amil,..:4 —.4Eff -7 lir , smouride K : itbiltb;I:ffirell'f•VA k rtzkivdtiii.IN , ii,„,„..„, ...,,,,,,,..,...,,........„,„....__ ._,... ,............,,,.....!,.,,,,..„.„.,,,..., 1 ' i _..., MN in. • lb, 11,1 Nan sm. ■elg ''• .. sual'irr.- ••-• !id" _ t woo I witt,- 010/0 vologrill6purli 4.4-7 :—..411,1v,..i..igi • L„..ia t..1 . h . • .1, 11 ' I boas. 1Kil 1 ' 14 "&.5l'i: riffaritatieala frialll _ma 1■10a.Oli•J.—, Ur .......... I .. = . UNION CHURCH RD ,- 4 6...... - ......, 0 „ 0 . wr miar4,...ameaum. -17:7;:i ihillito,permilat,,, ___,_, r _-_ - - 111 q1F A II I I 14: , `•::, 1 :i iipp,111 it: ..,Igt4 o tly vet t o wircu in 44 , inrionsr: outivii v 4liewsit _.! 1 r) c,_ _ , II" 'tko ' =■"' int/40a .1 . fa a..\VS-a<47,4/ Er,. .. 400, ,, - 0 soiP Art t --/ ' - rl ? ' ` 0, - - .„. 7411,,, '- ip gills Lt. 40.. ,•611, 4•4 • 1,,_ ,, T z II A I m -- , - , s t■ )\lilli 1 01 1 011.044' -1 7:.`11aWill'ationer . it ,,.,.. -it...L ,.... o vitv . , N -,- --/ m _ - _ ;.•0129rte / • ..- ••••• 4 0 0. 4 ... nu 1 -- -- ___ - . , Ir! 10%46 mu Iwo limg . N: 8011111 . 4,4• 44 - , - 4 4/ 4 4 .k. • ‘. ,NE a .116.-ari I i ■ ti..T: 1 , 70:474t# 4 ,4 1 6,,„,, .... z „ .... ... 0 . , 1- ‘o 45111 A or 1 -,.:'..--.., ' , T , ? , **....tsrA elder ' PUBLIC PARK LAND SCHOOLS '''- •,,, , ,„ ., 1. BOB JONES PARK a. CARROLL MIDDLE '----17—c-- . \ / , ,., .... . ..- 2. LONESOME DOVE PARK b. JOHNSON ELEMENTARY 3. BICENTENNIAL PARK c. CARROLL INTERMDIATE 4. RUSTIN/FAMILY PARK d. DURHAM ELEMENTARY/INTERMEDIATE 5. CHESAPEAKE PARK e. CARROLL JUNIOR HIGH 6. SHELTONWOOD PARK f. FLORENCE ELEMENTARY 7. COKER PROPERTY g. CARROLL HIGH 8. ROYAL and ANNIE SMITH PARK h. ROCKENBAUGH ELEMENTARY 9. KOALATY PARK L MIDDLE/INTERMEDIATE City of Southlake 10. NOBLE OAKS PARK j. SHADY GROVE ELEMENTARY 7 = .., 11. KIRKWOOD-SABRE LINEAR PARK k. CARROLL ELEMENTARY mi no Ir . ) , 12. SENIOR CENTER I. ELEMENTARY #5 m. ELEMENTARY #6 ClUthlak - 2001 Parks, Recreation and NORTH Open Space Master Plan 0 1500 3000 6000 1 PLATE 2 imomswesso GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET EXISTING & PROPOSED PARKS - , y * r "v�+ LAKE GRAPEVINE SHORELINE t 1 I 1 _ ,� , I t 1�{ q q. e ? 4 � 4 i Mt gl _ � $3 p O ES ■ = 1 if ■ 'III LEGEND i - I I , 1 1 � x d : i. . P k,.4, PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL J t a 1 •' I PRESERVATION /OPEN SPACE o r s� oe `y 1 v r n s NOTE (.7 ., ,, � 3 7 This plan reflects both existing public open space z r v and areas with potential to be preserved. Some 'c I i- -, a " , private property may be included. It includes water ` " P P oP Y Y 3 q. P t > ,.,. .c ��� ' surface, creek corridors, floodplains, natural drainage r ar ail z fia r stiIS� A basins, prairies, woodlands and related vegetation. 1 _ r �T , onions of existing and potential YP g P 4 ,,-.1t,',., , ,,,,541, - :„:,5 , s .. " s A il dditional) parks, part of which are or may be developed are -'j y <'' �� � s it included. Development of preserved open space t should be limited to pedestrian and equestrian trails x�'' and related facilities (benches, si na e, )erne tables, • - r` I ,� , r g 6 P fishing piers, canoe launches, etc.). _ i ii s n '," 1 ' I I L ` \ L I l l r ono k J ,. „, v = o _ : 1 l,� _. .. .. J - - -� f FI 1 .'.._ _. 1 . �... I lI E m J ■■ E'' S I T1 ' ti 1 I aid I I ( I I 1 .� _ f I 1� h 1 I I 'to,-f,,,-,W- . -' i I E t r e L S 1 r f I I 3 r 1 - L LU l l l 1 x < _ _ _ I . Il i 1 u ) 1 � �pj[ - - - 1 $ _ - � _ _ I I . III � " 1 . 1 = \ - it � _ ,� 1 L O ' 71 — I N D I 1 i j �l ) t �z � � 1 W S ma ■ ND � 1 1 t HI CHI � " 1 111 1 1 / _;; ) __. 1 0 tI 1 . � " -I I y'I L. - I� 1 � t i- i 1 k ■ ■ ei �i �� i _ q' l, I , O J 1 r 1 + _ I z 1 ! �� 1 t , tll J I i L, ` ` - I FLORENCE RD I 11 1 I ) S I T 4 i� �∎/1� \ L,�� j 1 ' 1 1 1 , - 1 r I k I 1 - i !. , ;,1.. „ja � j ! 1 111 11 I , 1 � 1 1 I N4)� - ,1 -J,s � " I k , 1 I_ I _ -__ �:, - { :�r 1 � 1 , , , 1, 1 1 h Ilr� Hi:', , , 1 f �1 I�� , � t , v 1 l Ti 1 1 ! 1 1 �' ' 'I ,IJI 1 ',',,,,z., - � � l l'r_ f i l l I l� it � � 1_ � 1 71 -( _ AO ."lutes — � I e -\ n� ,, I1 U m • II 1 I - � t _ , l l I� _ 1, I v �iS H - �� I I /171].1_1 HL 11 5 T LA E L I _ . - l 1 1 7I In 1 1 ( � I �� i Ii I � _ ! I 1 I _ � r a j l / J I Il l � L11 , i5 l .)` { 45T L ] ll� ' . ' '.n - I- '� 1 .lam ' - l - � 4 - � I_ . � I ? fin j I i 1 ! i 1 i � ii, z '4 I X11 1 7.1 o I ,, � , I � �1ir �1 - vi ;T _ . _rn j f trolly , s ` _ T r j 1.1 l - " j _l ■ / ( -- LrJY ( �' _ . - __ I _ Li � - - _ j : 1 ,; � _ .t _ i . ! . Y y^Ls,:�`' �; 1 S ' fff f I 1 1 R i _ _ 111i 1 1 ' 1' III — sue' 1 w_' YJ' -' �, 1 i_ - _ p u I ' - I - ` n }i ' - ��„r • �Z�••�i �. f { - i1 ) 1 -- �P UNION CHURCH RD i - t T-,- �1Lu E T �� ■ � L 1. 1 , - _ 1 I TAL .i mnumui ■ r L E6 j I _ . _ - 1..... 1 / City of Southlake Li 4 '� 2uthlok . 2001 Parks, Recreation and NORTH Open Space Master Plan 0 1500 3000 6000 ■■i — PLATE 3 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AND mn� -� `II_ ..Im OPFN SPAr' DI A A I 1 n Oak Ro Shad — _� ti s cn t.n '1 3 pa i 3/ no in �— f• : dill �•• n — -- ❑ � ''''s, ..... mh et111111J o r" . p , "0 .. CIA ''• ill. . -- , Til p ' p� ►►a ► ► 111P' u� I -- _ _ / Alp 11111. .. �In '► 1 0. iii '4,411 41111 IIP IN4 4 41 .11S. IF 4 plea I n ❑ o►o ► I a ►iv ►q o ■ I ' \ J ..... gib .. ,., ..., _..... ....,„ ....i....„....0 .. ., ,i, _. OA vit, .140a v.. taitait Ski yin . - i ,, ,, .. 4 O s. v p %p �� .._...,.. _...............:/.. ....._ _ . a. 1 ---� - ' * I 1 1 1 I ' 1 f + i i %ii�� h' j. ' ; O - iv -- - - --_____------ Al, 0 0 4140 t \ ' s t . tk.: ; .lii.......; :' : •.;, , .' 1 „....',1 , ,,: ,,,' ,' . 4 . : :' , , , ,,,. 4 .4\ \.: / .... :::.--: _ , I •.� CL in Ar o �./ . rD � O ►1 i . lj «41 I yon .77. ,0 11 1 _ ? , 1 ,! l l ' . d el ,° 0 ∎ 11%/ 04W41 � � , i',� ; ,... _�� oo to o � 4 _ • , Li , ,� � P. yii � f T� : �� 1 1 � , ►�' •• Ia /: 1 ` n� ` a te, q. w► •.• 411 0 4 • 14 ' a► ES ,k_/. %i:1: 11. I • I iii I O C/) NO rO 0 I ►4 ,... ► dal I �� 4. ‘:, o , . ,-:,) c „, ;,. C(?___' • ON 4 ;._. , ' : ..',.._.:_; L : ' . 1 ' ' ■■ *4 9.% .. ,-,- ►� . i 11",,,,111 � ii i r�i i J1 � ` Ti I Vi c► \�. 11 " NO. .► I �! 'i►� " i lrl 1 L / s �► 1 f f ___ 0 4� o O . o Q 0 x1 I ` t) • ? � � —�__.- R ?� 'fir 1 441�r . � 0," Ms j t) . '6.•' 2 _ � , � ti a Ai a � , ' ,, . lesion simai � . i ce' � ' n p D -. _.�. - -- -� O,•� c 7 ❑ a ql. MO : ga : °I — r ,:.w ,. _ i ,... ,,,„. ioo. r C/1 o N 7%7 ' 7a n Z �� IA D i - - 1 „ ______ .,,,_. _,,_;}__ r:,„, r `- �� -� =J ° .n .t/ ll 111 I. ,--r, _ _ _� - — 3 R�' : i I z , ' ; .t., R r. ........: .. : ,. . .. ,.„,.. m ;- I � Ai: 11 I i E 1 ,% I LI . I ►� _ m . vii III Yi 7 - 1 4 • " , ' _ ••� � :-_3 — - ' 1 d 1 • I � / /._ i r N -ny v �i is I - yt;. IlQ iyy� �''',y O ^^ a w a O n w w o m �� • n ® ^T �o� o I U U c L ca. el �••� 0 D tQ -v X O n -o a n D 0 a u �' r mV) -N o L<• 0 o S . rr -- H , ' 0. Z '•A � a 5 ' o o > 3 5 S rn oa c C n cp x — . i r r-- '* stilt 414 �► C Z 13 fD rD f D tD m Ca �.,• U. `►�•� �� .. -' Z r eo n N ;` ` �� '•� .. _ sf ► G4 ' � � 1 , va , f Z r ... ., • • • • • • • • • • m CD o a W o White Chapel Blvd. _1 a n x- x- a n < , co m 7J CD ro j 1 11+ 3 3 -I' t AI , H: \Job14118 \1 MPlan \sheets \Bicentennial_11 x17.dwg, 03/22/01 03:15:37 PM, RFiester, 1:1 i X • • X m v O Ia: t!JIHT p, 0 P. O n I 0 to D' m m c o ,- a m _ o 3 3 f x o m w 3 m C c j �+ r- r 5 ao N m 1 � \ ......�w.y..\� 1 o N �\ O rD ' ' O N (D a \ ■ II I{ I W c _ I l OQ mn nm mi iU mnr mn nrifiY my mtm,nr� T • ` : i 1 - 01HHIIfHHfHIHiIHfH INfHHHIIiIfHIHHfO � u Ulwuutn —_ _ - - — :_z_= - - - ---- - ' - I l� ',1 .--- 1 — I tAlm I ( 1 • /% rl r � ` 1 1 a o' i) L_] LJN L_J L—1 I _�� ! , Z rifiiliffiiii [TIM' rtiirfrfrilrlfiltitrrinfrrra J ♦ o { 61-11+11111411i11119 IHHIHfHHHIHff f� 'a� -/ — � J _ 73 1) -� c}IIHffHIHHHNI OHHHIH f �` ' ; ✓ �. --1 = T 1 � �` - - 0 ( ,) - ,..,N\ \ /., /1 -k.„., :, „, -............. i , � if `/ (D o I ! D / C .-- D o / r 44 / O op , .. \__. \ , \ , .. _...., . . o 1 � 1 i —` , / � ` \ ,�S � ; . rn l j 111 - k '' ' -------... --_,--_, .. , -- __ ___ . 7 4 7 ''---...,___ ---N 1 t , r r fl i /'� / \ 1 ,1 I L ( ) Q � m _ / j /i / p � D a —1 . CD -p X fD a ,,' su It) . t � I II1 11) , /,' 111," II_ H:\Job \411811MPIan \sheets \Bob Jones_11x17.dwg, 03/22/01 03:36:02 PM, RFiester, 1:1 1,:). 'ialsei jb 'V d L9:8E :Z0 1.0 /6Z /£0 '6nnp.JaPPnl\s1aays \ue(dn l \8 L LV \g :H i V fa) C 110 il • . J W w (» co (.1) D N w ` w n_ N c 1.LI I I (1;) 0 O Q i Q W Y fl p C D `n Q c v �, ` v w ° " a aW W ( ) 9'o Q N O U L ) O <IZina. Er W W y.- d � ) • • • • • IL. >°, ) )( )L I 1 � 1 CO L ao F- ) ( uaV ° V) Z I �( _( )l --.‘--'-\ C a. 1 l y \ J ---',--. A. r ( 1 ��� . , ,----, 2 `.,..,_ )) r ' -) ) (L, -) O O > > `, Q ) I ( to N �( Z I ( ( ( l l ) ( H C l ( Q 111141k / ( l J) ' _) ( ) (.� C, C �r (' c i) K }}) , -) {- -- ) (`� • ....L. �-- ( ) ( ' (J c ' �/ ,—' J ly)(� \ ,. 't '' • o ,..._, � ( � ( ) / ( l \ ) ( ) �/ ( , - � � \ J ( �� O � 1 r \ , . ( ) ' \ � � � � l ) l tip/ / , r �J ( (� /) (J) �- ,- � ;� l ( (- J J - _r Y A ) ) / ti ) O .) ( A ) ( � 1 l ) OD 4- N ( (.) I ' ` CI / ..._ . _ /\ ,------ 1.:1, 'Jaasalda ' Nd 6E:ZO:Z I 1.0 /9Z /E0 '6MP •iegJed \siaays \ueldW L \8l l4 \9af \:H O IF CD 41 C O r I li �l W E1 0 LI CII ` bO N N W Lo !C •W ) 43 C V H td CL O V Q z O N r l— a LU W V C N C W II 1— `t N to 0 Q Q W X I ( r N N a` ) O �' N �w Z Z ca 1 0 . b- I s 0 ( ) N O O O c O L) G 1 Z ( )® O 5 o �-� -- � U ' S0 wZa O fa_ UJ o a L 0 a cv . U l ) 0 �Z.�a�V0_ cc O L u ' ) CL, • • • • • • O = m ii E a) c o� o R- m o E� 0 L a) V D N I— N V V Q 1 \ J I � '' ( - ) l 1 w., Y v ■- . - .7- � �. �� �! --'� -" -�.� ) I ■ ( � ) l r 7 r Th J - --") = I N O ci� ( \ ) � � - __. � V N CO C C (i , ) l ) ` C 0 V 0 C W � ) � i O C j Y . � �� � r 15.. --I b 0- cti V C . - - ) (( ) ) li II —.. r 1 ��) 1 ( � ) 1 i O �� --�{ �• ( � y !' r ( .--, - - --.. l l: I. ' ial Seidel ' IAld VS:CC"CO 1-0/ZZ/£0 '6AAP LOCH. )1-led \B 1. pqory H fiu - 1: 1 1 I • r - i 4- 1 hut t 1 1 v) (/) 0:1 Z W CL CL _Nd _J w gi < -c 11,9>i lo Aft3 1— W o py liddrao uolup ri a - 0 - u) UJ of - -4. 4- _ -- — — — 0 U) 0 I 3 z MI >.% 4 .7- 6 • O 1 ... db. ti I V . 4 To IL. C.) C) C.) ' ti0 krAV A. - WA I— , -0 0 a) 1 ' . WA 6 0 , ta. a o .0b ci: ti I-- 44 WO VA AZO o z P O CV ILI r 4 PA. i ig 111/ I v) I cu a) E 1 (r) o (..) 1 4Pfr a) > 0 0 x — --=. a't41:16%A. -■fr- 4 - o - < c cc E VP* A 4g, 0 0 IrOir a c 0 Li) @ o %a. 0 c i 46- Ili c is hie a) 0 1 0 1: 07 za. ir c 41* tiO o WAIV.A. c **SI e / 71 a) 41 0 • i i. z ce Iiill* ..,41P lk* 11..1 4,11"A AI* WOA t11 - o - 13 41P4 = c .c s: I ( /-4PA -41* r40 '30 = v) ‘41■ I I: EA 2 u mt. yip ao c PO 4 >. ea u h.. 6 2- WA 1:3 I too si or I 0 CI- 7Z co. 4rA I i p *Al NI- f 2 A% "mei ' . , • VA- 412 4r,ft, : NA 'OA 411A t.L1 /` op orar -.4111%. _ ,,e4plif 0111/ idle 4-A. .4A*417;avioro 4i - NIII1r to tea/ I ii v * 740 1r 1 1= ..-:.. a) v) , , D LLI z - F.) - 0 -0 . — CU f t Li- Li: Li CD w sr) trs c a) Q.) ` X I-- 0 •S2 -C _ i '''' ; CV L) CU LU CC ' ...t , U L' u bi- b. a_ a. co a_ CI a_ D v.) 1 - 1 l e 1 ■ c .— 1 _c u a.) _J c a , co ccl I- 73 tz - o 0 2 . to 5,' -, ,Su 0. (sa!_ilippj asn_ I u!c)p) a.) c o u u cr) 1:) tf) S a '4 qp.Ingo spiatj 2 ii ° t-J 2 <C I a. w a: — @LH_ Li! s,utliovN - Is • I cri a , CI) 0 I 04 © D ' z I 111* 0 1 c4 .ri- 2 I , - .-6 ..x z.- u , 1:1 ',a1saidIA 'Wd 617 :6£:£0 1.0/Z3/£0 ' 1X 11 Ted anon awoseuol \sways \ueldW 1.\811V \qof\ H 1 r 1 11 7 11. 411 1111 1 Ce (13 �w a >. < .c mo w;. � 2 o o • v. W U) 4-. CD s- O ADO u.V --io 1r. s a 4 ro �� r / 1- t ' �: C GJ � O C O z t 04 f, ■ . ' W 0 a. 9 MI 4 N W III* ` � , f / a �� 1 . . r� f ` • ji 0 VP' Alb p ' c `�►* a 0 04 r Ilk �� r O /' 1 O / .- 1 h a' O O a J ® / F- CY r.fl Q �! ►- ` Z ,* (k)// fi i � R / . gyp . lo. I l v t ;' Lf,.;� rte; � , , / E ns CL. l c ) 124 10 16 o ;, , �� �r , f v d0 "Do. V , . 14 0 fg t o -© ji okr / c c E �� o 1 04 ®* ° � '- a, r Ul ,'` J© Y cp a) 2 C a) O a , - v � � ��', 0i4 r ,� / y o. a a I CI � � L , ' r y d.1/1 W W 4_ a. V a. a. �O L I : lib � !, ° ® O ►) W 1 �, . � r / r '1 ' ` 4 , vi ) It , tn a ,r �.c S o N Two alb g < o C r -i `l O CO CO 22 Eti o 1= > c H a) o o O w •EUV a j � H1 • = v7 • • • . 0 0 U '' -- (../) C I.: ( 'Jaiseida 9Z :Z£ :£O l0 /ZU£0' s)le0 algoN \siaags \ueldWl \Su4 \go \:H d V O � ' m C w vin U U a ,� a � a ¢ Z F�- it O ` • O ` U O b w •c0 v, a w o. d o. F- 1- to 0 J tj Q z 0 ,0 6 z � aaY _1 its 0 o © 0 w " 'v U v -C w U O u= b y = Q U U �o-t, — c E /^ ' O N III O /A z m >, —c SaWOH LL Q z V `O i. A�iWD j aibu�s p�181�1u co r i I IIVAPA i m iip %. , 4111111.1.1a111642 eb ino A ter vor-..7.0w 0 , CI vi . . yr' 4101 Ali 10 ": ' 4411 -. „mu irsakill-411,, , ,1 ii aiLLJ a_ Lo-z .o: „.1„, 0 4 ,„...," _CV AA C733 ell rte" � C N late �• 1a7i O d NIP 0 el , o /� CO 0 a . I \ II 0 , O cr 0 ‘„ M ,, 144, :., . "Ash IL, O .. r / i iia 94.6,..i. p' o Po 0 f ikk w o , z 0 , , :f, i III - oil ill 6 al 1_7: v isi, ,,, Tv o \ ill ..0 iroai ..c, 11111 E a) 1111411 „, E W I f 6110 r . o I 0 © 0 0 1 (f) el , / 0 , 0 ( 41 4 o ...et., 0 MI 0 • c v * •Y S % o�� ti ll- a i ' e0 v ° ..� �, a 0 0 0 J' r s U 0 C vVi , 6 Y E vi ‹ ro O (u U 0 V) W1 cn •_ 'b w g ti T n 7 F3 .yi c_ U U ''2 V] 3 1,, 1, 'Jalsa!da 'Wy 6Z :£Z :80 1.0 /LZ /£0 ' l >Jed 4UWS y a \slea4s\ueidW l \8l lV \9of\ H iailuapisaa III g ir '� lii. \___________________:—_____________________ __________-_—_____ 3 NNI I NIHHJ � o L V Q CU (9 _Q u- _ v I s a D Q ~ N ✓ � X (•) 0 a Z d — ' E Q Ili F- 0 cti _ a 1. 1 • O JZ 0 C Y I a.o ,_ mo — •:( 7( \ \ 1- AL i� / 41) W J 4- \ w cu t., - \ D i -13 \ 0 \ .... 0 1 ._ x- — -x — x —x � O 0 It co Tu iZ ft: td 1 p ..0 \ , 0 u tut: / 1 M 1 — W 7/: --�a W \ \__/ L� \ / a m Z o — W J �. _I j 3 la / ( \ 0 ,II, m C..) o YV, Q __ N 3snolrl N N J - in [-;1 _., i C ❑ J 'A o CC ( I— 0 ,---n w z Y m o IC::\\\//' z (j C O ` .o = a) r 63 I () OO a. Ev cu p o o - l\ - cn `�_..J 0, T C U k ti{ -- «s (�f W — st e� a' o Z It ,/ Er_ • 0 e '' D '6.D. \ e C.SD Iis ev ( in •O C Y C. ao ra tz) 0 r 4 0 r c f L u � C U 11• = e - - ) O v =o aHU 0 _ C 'r V1 - • • • •v ci, T ( •p?f 1108141/Of J J �' m °' IDPIuapisaa o c o u o v Q ' v — v O. 0 = o u o �, 0- U w 0- G. F- -0 N ` Z ro 0 = o 4' O co I 0 min O 2.L (� w CI) a) U en Z ( ® O W V U C V x c w D ..G y U k � I.: I. 'Ja3sa!da 'Wd LZ :L£ :£0 LOW/£0 ' LX L l 5 1Jed PoonnuoLlayS \slaaysweldW L18 L Lb19of1.H N to w u • u p w 111-_ I. a� >, v u u = + (I r J 0 m 4. a) J O H O a)) N U O O O U O C '4-, ` i 22 O Oro 'b w O '� co Y H (l O. N )- 2 v, 0 x °- u _, Z Q a) 0 N j v ' C Q a u I x © V !- m a Q I ? JOcc tn QOM pboy aetou isbg m �- z o ........ .... tiWOcn .� _ —T � U J o I �, � =Zw >, 1 g o U.. U cn U _ 4- r O ` w ) w E w o I ) /J L L z o w Ti (k °� J Q )) on C � O d � C --- _ __..__ J 0 O ,t ct .. 1 J WI_ I ) m Z • i >. y� 00 r,---,--, cn O. ) ..-... __. . .41 41,..... L, Q) c ...,e 1 x___ — v v ` O ..... 0- ..c W cm > � � I r ..., rIG ( la) ) c © -.)--k..-- © -- )e- --- -4 )) .....(f). 1 C p o J L. i ) (-- / ( m C ) // J 1 x rr I „Imp., 9 4) u ''''UPSIX3 ) ( L ") ...,__} . )".... i ---- ') ( � x ,, -- .4 ---„,......\____/.._(-- , 1 . 1 s , ss i U vi ao •c 0 • V7 on U7 . a 0 v c 75 r • Cn v C.------------;:--1:-s■-____....= o V I r -, v- x c SaL,Uo_H AIIwtJ� 915UIS V — _ - — C� 6