The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan

“Active Adventure... Creative Connections”

Chapter 1 - Introduction
1

1

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
overvIew & purpose
of The

vIsIon plan

The vIsIon plan proCess
This Vision Plan is organized in six chapters. Each of these chapters details a major component of the planning process.

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation and Open Space Vision Plan was developed through a joint effort between the citizens, City officials, and City staff in order to enhance quality of life, preserve open space, and expand recreational opportunities in the City of Lewisville. This Vision Plan was developed under the leadership and guidance of Halff Associates, Inc. and assistance of Brinkley Sargent Architects and Raymond Turco and Associates; hereafter referred to as “the Planning Team.” The purpose of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Vision Plan (the Vision Plan) is to identify needs and provide guidance for the continued development of Lewisville’s parks, recreation, and open space system. The analysis performed as part of this Vision Plan and the resulting recommendations and priorities are based on the needs of the citizens as identified through a wide-reaching public involvement process. The Vision Plan results in a detailed Implementation Plan, which includes specific items to be implemented in the near-term and long-term future. The specific objectives of this Vision Plan are to: • Identify the need for additional parks and recreation facilities; • Evaluate the spatial location of Lewisville’s parks and recreation facilities and recommend measures to ensure a balanced distribution of facilities within the City; • Guide City officials and City staff in acquiring land to meet current and future park, open space, and facility needs; • Recommend and prioritize key park, recreation, and open space improvements so that the most significant deficiencies are addressed; • Guide City staff and City leaders in determining where and how funding should be allocated over the next five to ten years; • Identify opportunities and recommend appropriate measures for improving quality of life within the City; and • Provide a plan which is consistent with the funding and grant requirements for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Furthermore, this plan serves as a tool to help staff coordinate between City departments, with other planning efforts (such as the thoroughfare master plan, trails master plan, and the comprehensive plan), non-municipal agencies (such as utility companies and railroads), and other jurisdictions (such as adjacent cities, counties, the Lewisville Independent School District, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers). This plan will also help the City of Lewisville compete for grants from various regional, state, and federal sources, including the North Central Texas Council of Governments and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. This plan does not directly address trails or bicycle routes even though they often serve as key components of a comprehensive parks, recreation, and open space system. The 2011 Trails Vision Plan was developed specifically to address these issues. Coordination between these two documents is essential.

Introduction (Chapter 1)
In addition to defining the purpose of this Vision Plan and the process by which it has been produced, this chapter also describes the overall vision for the Vision Plan and a set of goals for the development of the parks, recreation, and open space system. It is important that a unified vision for the future of Lewisville’s system be defined and that this entire Vision Plan builds on this vision. Goals are then derived from this vision to further guide the development of this Vision Plan and the implementation of its recommendations.

Context (Chapter 2)
This portion of the Vision Plan examines the internal and external factors influencing Lewisville’s parks, recreation, and open space system. Lewisville’s background is explored, including a brief history of the City. Next, the community’s demographics are analyzed to understand how Lewisville compares to the Metroplex, the state, and the nation and how the City’s unique demographic composition might influence the use of recreational facilities. Then, a review is performed of several of the City’s previous studies, including the comprehensive plan, to better understand the past, present, and future of Lewisville and how this Vision Plan might impact, and be influenced by, other planning efforts in the City. This chapter also includes an analysis of regional and national trends related to parks and recreation.

Existing Conditions (Chapter 3)
This chapter includes an overview of the existing parks, recreation, and open space system in Lewisville. Park classifications are developed based on size, level of amenities, and functionality. Each existing park is then classified and summaries of the various components of the system is provided. A tabular overview of each park, its size, and its amenities helps to illustrate the existing parks system. Finally, individual park assessments are performed, in which each park is individually described and analyzed and individual improvement recommendations are made.

Needs Assessment (Chapter 4)
The needs assessment chapter includes three primary components: standard-based needs assessment, demand-based needs assessment, and resource-based needs assessment. The standard-based needs assessment component examines current acreage and facility levels of service to determine how well existing parks and facilities serve the population. Target levels of services (LOS) are developed based on regional benchmarks and applied to Lewisville to identify acreage and facility deficits. The demand-based needs assessment extracts the priority needs from the results of the public involvement process, which includes a telephone-administered Citizen Attitude Survey and public meetings. Finally, the resource-based needs assessment examines the natural resources and opportunities available in Lewisville that may influence the development of the parks system in the future.

Recommendations (Chapter 5)
The culmination of the results of the existing conditions analysis and the needs assessment is the development of a set of recommendations for the parks, recreation, and open space system. These recommendations cover strategic policy,

2

Chapter 1 - Introduction
land acquisition, the development or redevelopment of parks and facilities, and the preservation of open space. These recommendations are broad and comprehensive. As such, they may not all be achievable within the near-term future, but are included in order to illustrate the wide array of steps that could be taken to fully realize the vision for the future of Lewisville’s parks, recreation, and open space system. munity and provide additional recreation amenities for citizens requires seeking creative options and opportunities. The stability of Lewisville’s City governance and staff and a history of partnership with the Lewisville Independent School District and the US Army Corps of Engineers serve as a springboard for developing new creative solutions to meet the community’s recreational needs.

Implementation (Chapter 6)
Chapter 6 provides a detailed Implementation Plan for park development and improvement, land acquisition, maintenance and recreation facility development, policy implementation, and future studies and plans. This chapter provides a summary of the implementation items (determined based on the needs assessment and the recommendations), including estimated total construction costs. This chapter concludes with a discussion of funding strategies including an overview of various grant funding resources.

Connections
Connectivity within the parks, recreation, and open space system is very important to its overall quality and functionality. Utilizing greenbelts, trails, creek corridors, and other features to provide physical linkages is one type of connectivity. Another type is providing intangible connections between physical facilities and programming elements by creating amenities that enhance class experiences, special events, and other programs. Similarly, it is important to build community spirit by providing spaces that facilitate the formation of connections between citizens to celebrate Lewisville’s diversity. Finally, establishing strong lines of communication between City departments and between the City’s leadership and citizens is an important step in building strong connections.

a vIsIon

for

lewIsvIlle
In the 2011 Trails Master Plan—the precursor and companion document to this Vision Plan—the “Active Adventure...Creative Connections” vision was defined. This vision, with a slightly different interpretation, is also relevant to this Parks, Recreation and Open Space Vision Plan. At its core, this phrase reflects the will of the community to have opportunities to be active and healthy, as well as to be adventurous and explore their surrounding environment. It also underscores the need to creatively plan for the future and seek out alternative solutions while providing connectivity between parks via trails, greenbelts, and open spaces. Because this vision is core to the development of this Vision Plan, this phrase is repeated throughout this document as a reminder of the purpose and direction of this Vision Plan. In order to further define and clarify this vision as it applies to parks, recreation, and open space, each word is explored in more depth in the following section.

goals & objeCTIves
Broadening the above, a series of goals for this Vision Plan and Lewisville’s parks, recreation, and open space system have been developed based upon input from citizens, City officials, and City staff. This set of goals should be applied comprehensively to the City’s future decisions related to parks, recreation, and open space.

Stay Relevant
Provide parkland and a variety of recreation facilities and programs to meet the changing recreational needs and desires of the City of Lewisville’s population. • Develop short and long-range programs for the development, expansion, modernization, and upgrading of Lewisville’s parks system. • Identify areas with the greatest need for park facilities and pursue the acquisition and development of facilities in those areas. • Provide a diverse array of indoor and outdoor recreation facilities and programs that address the needs of all age groups, young and old, active and passive, and in all socioeconomic categories. • Provide facilities and activities that are in keeping with new and changing trends and will help compete for new citizens.

Active
From baseball games to skateboarding competitions, Lewisville’s parks, recreation, and open space system provides many opportunities for active recreation. With the ever-growing importance of health and active lifestyles, it will continue to be important to expand opportunities, both outdoor and indoor, for active recreation for people of all ages and abilities.

Adventure
While active recreation has historically been the focus of parks and recreation systems across the country, there is a growing desire for adventure and passive recreation opportunities that allow people to explore nature, learn about the surrounding environment, or just relax in a beautiful landscape. Lewisville Lake and the Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area (LLELA) provide unique opportunities for people to experience adventure close to home.

Preserve Open Space
Preserve and embrace Lewisville’s open spaces, cultural landscapes, and natural resources as unique and character-defining elements of the City. • Identify and protect areas with topography change, indigenous tree cover, unique geology, prairie land remnants, and land prone to flooding. • Acquire and preserve land along creeks and the Trinity River in order to develop an open space system that connects parks, schools, neighborhoods, and open spaces via greenbelts and complements the Trails Master Plan. • Embrace Lewisville Lake as a prime character-defining element of the City and maximize its recreational and

Creative
Lewisville is a mature community quickly approaching its build-out. Land for new parks and recreation facilities is therefore limited. Enhancing the City’s parks, recreation, and open space system to improve quality of life in the com-

3

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
open space value in order to enhance quality of life and increase tourism. • Capitalize on the value provided by the Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area (LLELA), both in terms of recreation and image, by partnering to enhance the offerings of and access to this resource for the community and region.

Celebrate Diversity
Celebrate Lewisville’s cultural and geographic diversity through the parks, recreation, and open space system. • Continue to build upon and commemorate the unique culture and history of Lewisville through festivals, events, parks, and open spaces. • Reflect the differences between areas within the City—such as existing neighborhoods, old town, lake areas, east Lewisville—through the design and character of parks and facilities. • Distinguish Lewisville from surrounding communities by means of highlighting its cultural diversity and fostering a sense of home. • Help build a strong identity for the community through parks, public spaces, streetscapes, and greenways. • Ensure that the parks, recreation, and open space system supports and enhances existing and new festivals and events.

Be Sustainable
Ensure the economic, ecological, and social sustainability of Lewisville’s parks, recreation, and open space system. • Emphasize a multi-jurisdictional approach to the provision of recreation facilities in and around Lewisville by coordinating with Denton County, the surrounding Cities of The Colony, Carrollton, Coppell, Grapevine, Flower Mound, and Highland Village, and the Lewisville Independent School District. • Provide Parks and Leisure Services staff with the manpower and funding resources to maintain all park lands and facilities in a superior manner. Provide additional operations and maintenance resources as new recreational facilities are developed and added to the Lewisville parks system. • Promote the use of native plant materials, low-maintenance design techniques, and organic landscape maintenance practices to reduce maintenance and irrigation costs in parks and on City properties. • Regularly review the Park Dedication Ordinance fee structure and requirements to reflect current true costs of land and park development. • Periodically update this Vision Plan to reflect changing conditions within the City and utilize citizen input to help guide future decisions.

4

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan
“Active Adventure... Creative Connections”

2

Chapter 2 - Context
5

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
baCkground
Lewisville is a diverse, well-established community in one of the most dynamic locations in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. It is the 14th largest city in (and a prominent gateway to) the Metroplex along IH-35E. Lewisville has a population of approximately 95,390 and is home to over 3,500 businesses. One of the more unique aspects of Lewisville is that while the City has experienced rapid growth over the last five years, it is a community with a rich history.

Total Population
Lewisville experienced rapid population growth in the 1980s and 1990s and then stabilized to a more even-paced rate of growth. Between 2000 and 2005, Lewisville continued to grow at a rate comparable to that of the Metroplex. However, since 2005, the City has grown at a slightly lower rate. The table below compares Lewisville’s population levels over time with those of the Metroplex, the State of Texas, and the United States. Table 2.1 Population: 1990 - 2011 Lewisville Metroplex Texas United States 1990 46,521 3,885,415 16,986,510 248,709,873 2000 77,737 5,030,828 20,851,820 281,421,906 2005 (est) 81,484 5,727,391 22,270,165 288,378,137 2010 95,290 6,221,286 25,145,561 308,745,538 2011 (est) 95,390 6,259,770 --Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census; North Central Texas Council of Governments 2011 Population Estimates It is difficult to compare population growth between Lewisville and much larger areas when only considering total population numbers. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 on the next page compare population growth between the four geographies considered in Table 2.1 (Lewisville, the Metroplex, Texas, and the United States) by comparing each year’s total population as a percentage of a starting year population.

A Brief History of Lewisville1
Lewisville’s history dates back to 1841 when the Republic of Texas and the Texas Emigration and Land Company established a program to bring 600 families into present-day Denton County by deeding large tracts of land to the new settlers. Prior to this, much of the land in this part of Texas was inhabited by Native Americans from the Wichita Tribe (which were subsequently driven from this area into present-day Oklahoma). The first settlers arrived in present-day Lewisville in 1844; the settlement at the time was known as “Holford Prairie.” Eleven years later, Basdeal Lewis purchased this land and changed the name of the settlement to “Lewisville.” In 1881, the Wichita Railroad (now owned by Union Pacific) was extended, which drove the development of Lewisville’s downtown area, known today as “Old Town.” Lewisville became an incorporated city in 1925 with a population of approximately 850. The City at the time had limited infrastructure, which included a low-capacity, privately-owned water utility corporation and very limited electricity. To generate electricity, many houses had their own wind turbines. The City’s founders quickly began establishing ordinances (including a city-wide speed limit of 18 miles per hour) and developing public buildings. By 1927, Lake Dallas (a reservoir built north of Lewisville on the Elm Fork of the Trinity River) was completed and began providing a water source for Dallas. In the late 1940s and early 1950s (at which time the City had a population of about 1,500), the United States Army Corps of Engineers built the Garza-Little Elm Dam and demolished the dam containing Lake Dallas. This created the Garza-Little Elm Reservoir (now known as the Lewisville Dam and Lewisville Lake). This provided a much larger drinking water supply to Lewisville and other surrounding communities and also provides one of Texas’ most popular recreational lakes. Lewisville continued to grow steadily until 1970, when it had a population of 9,200. Between 1970 and 1990, the City grew very rapidly and quickly transformed from a rural community to a booming suburb, reaching a population of 46,500 in 1990. Perhaps foreshadowing this building boom, the Texas International Pop Festival was held in Lewisville in 1969. This festival, which included stars such as Janis Joplin and Led Zeplin, occurred two weeks after the famous Woodstock Festival and is claimed to be the largest concert ever held in Texas (with estimated attendance ranging between 120,000 and 150,000 – many times greater than Lewisville’s population). Lewisville continued to grow after 1990 (reaching a 2000 population of over 77,737) but at a more stable pace than in the previous decades.

Race & Ethnicity
Lewisville’s racial composition generally reflects that of the Metroplex with two significant differences. First, Lewisville has a lower percentage of Black/African American residents; second, Lewisville has a higher percentage of Asian residents. Table 2.2 illustrates the racial compositions of Lewisville, the Metroplex, Texas, and the United States. Table 2.2 Race Lewisville Metroplex White Black/African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Other Two or More Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 65.3% 11.2% 0.7% 7.8% 0.1% 11.8% 3.2% 65.3% 15.1% 0.7% 5.4% 0.1% 10.6% 2.8%

Texas 70.4% 11.8% 0.7% 3.8% 0.1% 10.5% 2.7%

United States 72.4% 12.6% 0.9% 4.8% 0.2% 6.2% 2.9%

demographICs
Understanding demographics is an integral part of the development of any planning document, including this Vision Plan. In this section, several elements of Lewisville’s demographics—including population growth, age characteristics, and ethnicity—are analyzed and compared to those of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, the State of Texas, and the United States. Drawing such parallels helps to identify unique attributes within Lewisville and identify current and future trends. 1 This history section comes form the 2011 Trails Master Plan.

The United States Census Bureau does not consider Hispanic/Latino a race in and of itself; rather, it is considered an ethnicity and is therefore not included in the racial composition categories as illustrated in Table 2.2. Table 2.3 illustrates the percentage of the population that is Hispanic/Latino and that which is not Hispanic/Latino.

6

Chapter 2 - Context
130% 125%

Percent of 2000 Population

120% 115% 110% 105% 100% 95% 1998 Lewisville 2000 2002 2004 2006 Texas 2008 2010 2012

Figure 2.1 – Population Growth: 2000 to 2011 In this figure, each geography’s population is compared to its population in the year 2000 (which is a base of 100%). As an explanation of how to interpret this figure, consider the line for Lewisville – it is at approximately 123% for 2011, which means that it’s 2011 population is 23% greater than its 2000 population. What can be seen in this figure is that while Lewisville grew in population from 2000 to 2011, it grew at a slower rate than that of the Metroplex. In addition, between 2010 and 2011 Lewisville is estimated to have grown at a slower rate than that of Texas. Figure 2.2 – Population Growth: 2005 to 2011 When comparing population growth with a starting year of 2005, the variability between the Metroplex’s population growth and that of Lewisville becomes more apparent. In addition, the increased rate of Texas’ population growth puts it above Lewisville in overall percent increase. This figure illustrates that Lewisville’s 2011 population is 8% greater than its 2005 population and that the city had a slightly lower rate of growth between 2005 and 2011 than the Metroplex and Texas.
2005 2006 2007

Median Age
Compared to the three other geographies, Lewisville is a relatively young city with a median age of only 30.9. The median age in the Metroplex is 33.5, in Texas is 33.6, and in the United States is 37.2. The lower median age for Lewisville could indicate a greater need for recreation activities for children, teenagers, and young adults than might otherwise be identified by analyzing regional and national benchmarks.

Age & Sex
Figure 2.3 illustrates the age of Lewisville’s population by sex. It can be seen that the 20-29 and 30-39 year old age cohorts are the two largest in Lewisville. It is interesting to note the relatively small population of 10-19 year olds. Compared to a similar figure developed based on the Metroplex’s population (Figure 2.4), it can be seen that the 10-19, 20-29, and 30-39 age cohorts in Lewisville vary greatly from the regional average.

DFW Metro Area

United States

80+ years
114% 112% 110%

70 to 79 years 60 to 69 years 50 to 59 years 40 to 49 years 30 to 39 years 20 to 29 years 10 to 19 years 0 to 9 years 25% 15% 5% 5% 15% 25%

Percent of 2005 Population

108% 106% 104% 102% 100% 98% 2004

Male Female

Figure 2.3 – Age & Sex (Lewisville) This figure illustrates the age of Lewisville’s population by sex. Each bar represents a 10-year age cohort; the purple portions indicate the number of male individuals within that age group while the green portions indicate the number of females.

Lewisville

DFW Metro Area

2008 Year

2009

2010

2011

2012

Texas

United States

Table 2.3 Hispanic/Latino Ethnicity Lewisville Metroplex Not Hispanic/Latino Hispanic/Latino Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 70.8% 29.2% 72.5% 27.5%

80+ years

Texas 62.4% 37.6%

United States 83.7% 16.3%

70 to 79 years 60 to 69 years 50 to 59 years 40 to 49 years 30 to 39 years 20 to 29 years 10 to 19 years 0 to 9 years 25% 15% 5% 5% 15% 25%

Male Female

Figure 2.4 – Age & Sex (The Metroplex) This figure illustrates the age of the Metroplex’s population by sex. Each bar represents a 10-year age cohort; the purple portions indicate the number of male individuals within that age group while the green portions indicate the number of females.

In 2000, Lewisville had a Hispanic population of 13,799, which equated to 17.8% of the total population. By 2010, the Hispanic population had approximately doubled in size to 27,783 (29.2% of Lewisville’s total population). This information may impact the provision of recreational amenities as many of the Hispanic cultures tend to have slightly different recreational preferences than the Anglo majority. Lewisville also has a significantly larger Asian population, by percent of total, than the rest of the Metroplex. This includes 7,392 people, of which the largest individual group are Indian (2,314 individuals).

7

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
oTher relevanT CITy plans
This Vision Plan is strongly influenced by other planning efforts and policies. Each of the plans discussed below has informed and shaped the analysis, recommendations, and priorities set forth in this Vision Plan in varying ways.

2006 Land Use Assumption Report
This report was developed as an update to the aforementioned “2010 Plan” to reflect changing growth trends and to provide a basis for updating the City’s future land use map, zoning districts, and impact fees. The key result of this report is the identification of areas for future low- and high-density residential, mixed-use, commercial, and office development. At the time of its writing, this report projected a population growth of an additional 30,151 by the year 2015. As with the Old Town Master Plan, the Land Use Assumption Report recognizes that Lewisville is quickly approaching build-out and must shift its focus toward infill development and redevelopment of existing areas.

Comprehensive Neighborhood and City-wide Planning Program (2010 Plan)
This plan (also known as the 2010 Plan) has served as Lewisville’s comprehensive plan since its adoption in 1994. The 2010 Plan identifies six major action items and outcomes, which are: strengthen neighborhoods and housing, enhance economic development, revitalize Old Town Lewisville, ensure quality development, plan the future of east Lewisville, and create strong community image. While the 2010 Plan does not provide direct guidance for the development of the parks, recreation, and open space system, it does recognize the importance of environmental preservation, beautification, trails, and family-oriented recreation. In addition, its comprehensive guidance for Lewisville’s future growth informs the Vision Plan about future conditions and development patterns within the City.

Trails Master Plan
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the 2011 Trails Master Plan (adopted on May 2, 2011) serves as a companion document to this Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan. The Trails Master Plan includes an analysis of existing trails and greenbelts in Lewisville and surrounding cities; recommendations for trails, enhanced sidewalks, bike routes, and paddling trails; detailed analyses and cost estimates for key trail segments; comprehensive design standards; and phasing recommendations. In addition, the plan also includes an analysis of the IH-35E schematic plans and makes recommendations for accommodating trail crossings at key locations. Because trails provide ample recreation opportunities, this Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan is closely coordinated with major elements of the Trails Master Plan.

East Lewisville Land Use Plan
Completed in 2000, the East Lewisville Land Use Plan was a direct result of the aforementioned “2010 Plan” and was developed to identify land use and development potential in the area of Lewisville that is east of the Denton County Transit Authority railroad (formerly a Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad line). In the plan, areas suitable for development were identified and specific land use development concepts were created for three primary areas. In total, this plan identifies the potential for 1,919.6 acres in East Lewisville to be developed as light industrial, commercial, multifamily residential, and single-family townhouses. This plan informs the Vision Plan as to how east Lewisville will most likely grow in the future.

Economic Development
Though Lewisville does not have a comprehensive plan for economic development (rather, it has multiple smaller plans oriented toward specific issues or locations), the actions of the City’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC) is instrumental in implementing each of the aforementioned plans. The EDC is or has been involved in many projects across the City that support parks and recreation facilities, including the Levee Improvement District Master Plan. Finally, the City’s economic development activities also directly support parks and other quality of life enhancements through economic and community development (4A and 4B) sales tax funds.

Thoroughfare Master Plan
Lewisville, as with most cities, maintains a long-range plan for thoroughfares that is updated regularly and indicates the general alignment and configuration of current and future streets. Lewisville’s current iteration of the Thoroughfare Master Plan was adopted in 2003 and includes alignments for new roadways in the southern and eastern parts of the City. These new roadways are considered during the development of the Vision Plan as indicators of future growth patterns in the City.

Trends

In

parks

and

reCreaTIon

Old Town Master Plan & Old Town Transit Oriented Development Master Plan
This plan was adopted in 2003 and focuses on the revitalization of Old Town Lewisville (the area along Main Street, east of IH-35E). This plan recommends zoning revisions, infrastructure improvements, and other area enhancements, but does not make recommendations for parks, plazas, or open space. The Old Town Transit Oriented Development Master Plan was completed in 2010 and represents a significant step forward in the revitalization of the area. During the course of this plan, multiple alternatives for the future redevelopment of Old Town were created and were eventually refined into a single preferred alternative. Included in the preferred alternative are recommended locations for parks and open spaces that ensure all residential units are within a two-minute walk of a green area. In addition, the alternative includes a large central park spine along the DCTA railroad. This Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan will consider these proposed park and open space locations and incorporate them into the larger, city-wide plan for park development and improvement.

The parks, open spaces, and recreational offerings of a city play a major role in defining quality of life and the city’s identity and image. Relative to the mobile nature of society today, especially in North Texas, these offerings play a large role in determining where people choose to reside, which consequently affects population and economic growth. It is therefore important to understand regional and national trends related to parks and recreation facilities. Below, several of the most prevalent trends in parks and recreation are discussed. These are expected to carry forward into the near future and to be relevant for the lifespan of this Vision Plan.

Outdoor Recreation Trends
• One of the most important and impactful trends in parks and recreation today is the increased demand for passive recreation activities and facilities. Passive recreation, as compared to active recreation, includes activities such as walking on trails, cycling, picnicking, enjoying nature, and bird watching. It focuses on individual recreation rather than organized, high-intensity pastimes like league athletics (which has long been the focus of parks and recreation departments nationwide). People desire opportunities to use parks and open space on their own time and in their own way. • Across the North Texas region, the provision of trails is the top priority for citizens. Numerous telephone sur-

8

Chapter 2 - Context
veys, public meetings, questionnaires, and in-person interviews have shown that people, on average, place the importance of trails above the provision of any other single type of recreation amenity or facility. Many factors contribute to this, including the demand for passive recreation (as discussed above), greater focus on health, rising transportation costs, and increasing funding opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Related to the previous two trends, the protection of and access to open space and natural areas is growing in popularity across the nation. As people are increasingly using trails, they generally prefer trails that are located in scenic areas in order to enjoy being outdoors and to add a level of adventure to their recreation experience. • While passive recreation is in greater demand, active recreation activities still play a large role in city parks and recreation systems. One major trend over the last few years has been changing participation rates in various city-sponsored league sports. Examples of these changing participation rates include decreased participation in youth softball, dramatically increased participation in youth soccer, and the emergence of new league sports such as adult soccer and youth lacrosse. That said, it continues to be the case that league sport participation rates vary greatly from city to city depending, in part, on activities offered by the school district and other organizations such as the YMCA, Boys and Girls Club, and in some cases churches. values, and increase and enhance recreation opportunities within their community. Alternative development strategies often considered include mixed-use development, new urbanism, and conservation development. • The attributes of a community play a large role in attracting (or detracting) people to a city or region. Research shows that the quality of a city’s environment (its climate, park space, and natural resources) is the most significant factor in attracting new residents2. As such, high-quality, high-quantity parks and open space systems will attract people while low-quality, low-quantity parks and open space systems will detract people. The following tables illustrate the importance of a city’s environment on economic and workforce development. See Tables 2.4 and 2.5. Table 2.4 City Attributes Attracting Americans Score

City Attribute

Rank (2009)

Rank (2007) 1 4 3 2 5 6 8 7 9 (tie) 9 (tie)

Indoor Recreation Trends
• There is a movement away from providing multiple smaller recreation centers to providing larger regional centers that are within a 15 to 20 minute travel times of their users. This trend responds to increased diversity of programming that can be provided at these larger centers, while also being more convenient for families to recreate together. These types of centers also provide increased staff efficiency, which translates to lower costs. • There is a growing trend of combining dry side recreation with indoor aquatics. This provides a wider variety of activity choices for users. This approach is more cost effective than building separate facilities. • There is a trend of combining separate senior activity areas within a large community center. Such an area with a distinct entrance separate from the main center entrance provides the desired autonomy of seniors while providing convenient access to the various opportunities in a recreation center including indoor walking track, warm water exercising, and adequately-sized exercise areas. • Many cities today are seeking a higher fee structure to help offset operational costs. Observation reveals a range from a 50 to 60% operational cost recapture rate all the way to a 100% recapture rate in the North Texas region. A major factor that determines the success of cost recapture is the quality of the facility and diversity of its amenities. • University students today have elaborate recreation aquatic facilities at their disposal. New graduates are leaving their universities with expectations for cities to provide comparable facilities. Quality of life is an important component of a new graduate’s job search and residence decision and often influences their choice of residence.

Environment – Climate, Park Space, Natural Resources 1106 1 Affordability – Cost of Living, including Housing 941 2 Entertainment – Arts, Culture, Dining, Music, Recreation 758 3 Opportunity – Professional and Personal (for Self or Spouse) 654 4 Family – Great Place to Raise Children or Support Elderly 638 5 Community – Connectivity and Sense of Place 531 6 Image – Appearance and Reputation 481 7 People – Backgrounds, Talents, Perspectives 431 8 Health and Safety – Care and Protection 378 9 Transportation – Ease of Travel 266 10 Adapted from: Schweyer, Allan. National Talent Markets – 2009: A Study by the Human Capital Institute. Table 2.5 City Attributes Detracting Americans Score

City Attribute

Rank (2009)

Rank (2007) 1 3 2 4 5 6 7 (tie) 8 7 (tie) 9

General Trends
• As North Texas cities and towns continue to grow and expand, citizens are becoming increasingly aware of the diminishing amounts of open space and natural areas in and around their communities. Similarly, this increased awareness parallels an increased interest in preserving open spaces, rural landscapes, and natural areas along creeks, lakes, wooded areas, prairies, and other environmentally and culturally significant locations. • Related to this increased interest in the preservation of open spaces and natural areas is an increased interest among citizens to consider alternative development strategies within their communities in order to preserve and provide access to natural areas, decrease traffic congestion, encourage walking and bicycling, enhance property

Environment – Climate, Park Space, Natural Resources 928 1 Health and Safety – Care and Protection 892 2 Image – Appearance and Reputation 879 3 Affordability – Cost of Living, including Housing 839 4 Community – Connectivity and Sense of Place 659 5 People – Backgrounds, Talents, Perspectives 603 6 Family – Great Place to Raise Children or Support Elderly 451 7 Transportation – Ease of Travel 388 8 Opportunity – Professional and Personal (for Self or Spouse) 341 9 Entertainment – Arts, Culture, Dining, Music, Recreation 235 10 Adapted from: Schweyer, Allan. National Talent Markets – 2009: A Study by the Human Capital Institute. 2 Schweyer, Allan. National Talent Markets – 2009: A Study by the Human Capital Institute

9

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”

(this page intentionally left blank)

10

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan
“Active Adventure... Creative Connections”

Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions

3
11

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
InTroduCTIon
The existing conditions of the City’s parks, recreation facilities, and open spaces serve as the foundation for expanding and enhancing the City’s parks system in the near-term and long-term future. In order to determine the existing and future recreation needs of the community, it is crucial to analyze the distribution, size, and quality of the City’s parks and facilities. This chapter explores the state of Lewisville’s parks, recreation, and open space system by analyzing the system as a whole, classifying the City’s various parks, and reviewing each of the City’s parks and facilities individually. Special Purpose Parks Special purpose parks are provided in order to meet a specific need or take advantage of a unique opportunity and therefore are not of any one typical size. Rather, the size of the park is determined by the need for which the park is provided (such as athletic fields). The special purpose parks category includes pocket parks, trailheads, plazas, athletic complexes, and practice fields. This category also includes “special interest” parks that are not otherwise part of another neighborhood or community park. Examples of special interest parks include dog parks, skate parks, or any other type of park designed to accommodate one specific recreation activity. Special purpose parks are typically considered to be in the “other parks” category as described previously. Linear Parks & Open Space Preserves As the name implies, linear parks and greenbelts are long and narrow in shape and typically follow natural or manmade features such as creeks, railroads, utility lines, and streets. They vary in size depending on need and opportunity. These parks usually do not provide many amenities other than trails and their support facilities (such as benches, picnic tables, and interpretive signage). Linear parks usually contain trails and are therefore ideal for providing alternative, non-motorized connections to parks, schools, neighborhoods, libraries, retail, and other major destinations. Other than simply providing connections, these parks can provide recreational value by themselves since using trail facilities is one of the most popular recreation activities in most, if not all, communities. The value of a linear park often reaches beyond opportunities for trail connections. Linear parks along creeks, for instance, have the added benefit of providing habitat and migration/movement corridors for wildlife. Open space preserves and nature areas vary in size but are usually over 25 acres. The specific size of each open space preserve or nature area is based upon the size of the unique or ecologically valuable land that is identified as important to protect. These areas typically have very few facilities other than trails, interpretive signage, and perhaps gathering spaces. Other types of amenities (such as parking and playgrounds) may be appropriate if located near the park’s entrance. These parks serve to preserve and provide access to natural areas such as along creeks, floodplains, wooded areas, lakeshores, prairies, and particular geologic formations or areas of topographic change. As unprogrammed space, there is the added benefit that these areas are “self-maintaining.” While there may be the occasional need to check for hazards, maintenance is generally not a significant factor. Linear parks and open space preserves are typically considered to be in the “other parks” category as described previously.

park ClassIfICaTIons
In analyzing Lewisville’s current parks, recreation, and open space system, it is important to identify the functional classification of each of the City’s parks. While each park in the City is unique in its own right, each can also be assigned to one of the following broad categories. •  Close-to-Home Parks make up the core of the City’s system. In other words, they are the basic building blocks of Lewisville’s park system. This category typically includes neighborhood parks and community parks. •  Other Parks include any other type of park within the City that is not a close-to-home park. These are most often special purpose parks, linear parks, and open space preserves / nature areas. These are parks that are designed to meet special needs, capitalize upon opportunities, and/or “round out” the parks system.

Park Classification Descriptions
The following section provides an overview of each of the park classifications used to describe Lewisville’s park inventory. Each of the descriptions below provides an objective portrayal of a typical park based on regional benchmarks. As such, these descriptions should serve as guidelines to the City, which might choose to develop its own unique standards in order to better meet the needs of the community. Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood parks are typically between 5 and 10 acres in size and are designed and located to serve the surrounding neighborhoods. These parks serve as the core of the parks system and generally serve 3,000 to 4,000 residents. As a rule of thumb, all neighborhood parks should have a playground, pavilion, a loop trail, and open areas for free play. Additional amenities often provided at neighborhood parks include benches, picnic tables, basketball courts, multipurpose fields (for formal practice and/or informal play), and backstops. Neighborhood parks are typically considered to be “close-to-home parks” as described above. Community Parks Community parks are larger than neighborhood parks – typically 25 to 100+ acres in size – and have more amenities. While not intended to serve specific neighborhoods, it is ideal to evenly distribute these parks across the City so that they are easily accessed by all residents. Typically, community parks will have all of the amenities of a neighborhood park (playgrounds, pavilions, open areas for free play, trails, basketball courts, multi-purpose practice fields, backstops, etc.). In addition, these parks usually have additional amenities such as lighted competitive athletic fields, larger areas of open space for free play, natural areas, and restrooms. Quite often, community parks will also include special facilities such as recreation centers and skateboard parks. These are also typically considered to be “close-to-home parks.”

summary

of

exIsTIng parks

The following section includes a summary of Lewisville’s park system and descriptions of each park by park type. In total, the City of Lewisville maintains over 1,468 acres of park land which constitutes 14 neighborhood parks, five (5) community parks, three (3) special purpose parks, 13 linear parks and open spaces areas, four indoor recreation facilities, and Lake Park Golf Course. In addition to land owned and maintained by the City, other park lands exist in Lewisville, most notably the Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area (LLELA), which is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and managed by a consortium of entities including the City of Lewisville, the University of North Texas, Texas A&M University, and the Lewisville Independent School District. Considering the sum of City-owned parks and LLELA (which is 2,000 acres), there are almost 3,500 acres of park land in Lewisville.

12

Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions
Neighborhood Parks Lewisville currently has 14 neighborhood parks, most of which are located on the more developed western side of the City. The neighborhood parks in Lewisville range in age, size, and level of amenities and include parks like Iris Lane Park (which is an older park, is 1.3 acres in size, and includes a playground, basketball court, and picnic tables), East Hill Park (which will be developed in the near future), and LL Woods Park (which has many amenities including baseball backstops and a disc golf course and is over 28 acres in size). Community Parks Five community parks currently exist in Lewisville. These parks vary in character from Central Park, which offers predominately passive amenities (such as playgrounds, trails, natural area, and rental pavilions), and Toyota of Lewisville Railroad Park, which offers predominately active amenities (specifically, competitive baseball, football, and soccer fields; a dog park; a skate park; and fishing ponds). At just over 12 acres, College Street Park is the smallest community park in the City while Lake Park is the largest at 385 acres. These parks total about 733 acres and constitute the single largest park category (in terms of acreage) in Lewisville. Special Purpose Parks Lewisville has three special purpose parks currently—Sun Valley Aquatic Center, Vista Ridge Amphitheater, and Vista Ridge Athletic Complex. These parks are considered special purpose parks because they each provide one primary recreation function (aquatics, live performances, or athletics). Linear Parks & Open Space Preserves Lewisville has 12 linear parks and open space preserves totaling 398 acres of park land. The majority of parks in this category exist as greenbelts along creeks; many include trails. In addition, the City leases 221 acres of land from the USACE at East Hill Park (in addition to the land currently being developed as a neighborhood park), which constitutes a large portion of the total acreage for this category.

Other Significant Public & Private Facilities
Regional Parks The Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area is located within Lewisville’s City limits. While this land is not City-owned, it is supported by the City of Lewisville and serves its residents (as well as people from the surrounding region). At approximately 2,000 acres in size, this park provides trails, fishing, environmental education programs, and paddling access to the Elm Fork of the Trinity River (see the 2011 Trails Master Plan for a more detailed description and set of recommendations for a paddling trail along this portion of the river). Private Recreation Facilities The MAC Sports is a privately-owned indoor facility with basketball and volleyball courts. Many league games, tournaments, and sports camps are held in this 38,000 square foot facility, which features four NBA-sized basketball courts and seven USA Volleyball regulation courts.

Additional City-Owned Park Land
Trails There are currently more than 14 miles of trails in Lewisville. Approximately 5.4 of these miles exist along linear corridors that parallel Prairie Creek, Timber Creek, Fox Creek, and Old Orchard Lane. The remainder exist as loop trails within neighborhood and community parks. The 2011 Trails Master Plan provides detailed descriptions of existing trails within Lewisville. Recreation Facilities Lewisville has four major indoor recreation facilities. The City has two recreation centers (the Memorial Park Recreation Center and the Frederick P. Herring Recreation Center) totaling approximately 48,000 square feet, as well as the 10,000 square feet Memorial Park Senior Activity Center. In addition, the Hedrick House is maintained by the City and is available for corporate retreats, meetings, weddings, and other special events. In total, the City has approximately 53,000 square feet of indoor recreation facilities.

13

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Existing Park Facilities Inventory
Table 3.1 on the following pages provides an inventory of each of the parks in Lewisville and includes the acreage and number of facilities and amenities present at each park. Park Distribution Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the locations of Lewisville’s parks. Figure 3.1 specifically focuses on neighborhood parks and their service areas. Neighborhood parks best serve households within walking distance and therefore are shown with a half-mile service radius (which roughly equates to a 10 minute walk). Figure 3.2 focuses on community parks, which best serve households within a short driving distance. As such, community parks are each shown with a one-mile service radius (which roughly equates to a fiveminute drive). These half-mile and one-mile service radii ensure that all residents are within easy access of the “core” parks of the City’s parks system. The radii should be seen as guidelines, however, as physical barriers such as railroads, major roads, and creeks often prevent a park from serving the entire area within its halfmile or one-mile radius.

Figure 3.1 – Existing Neighborhood & DeFacto Neighborhood Parks This figure illustrates the location and spatial distribution of neighborhood parks in Lewisville. Included in this map are community parks, which are considered “de facto” neighborhood parks because in addition to ball fields, recreation centers, etc., they also include all of the amenities of a typical neighborhood park. Neighborhood parks best serve households within walking distance and therefore are shown with a half-mile service radius (which roughly equates to a 10 minute walk). The service area radii should be seen as guidelines, as physical barriers such as railroads, major roads, and creeks often prevent a park from serving the entire area within its ideal service area.

14

Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions

Figure 3.2 – Existing Community Parks This figure illustrates the location and spatial distribution of community parks in Lewisville. Community parks best serve households within a short driving distance. As such, community parks are each shown with a onemile service radius (which roughly equates to a five-minute drive). The service area radii should be seen as guidelines, as physical barriers such as railroads, major roads, and creeks often prevent a park from serving the entire area within its ideal service area.

15

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”

16

Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions

17

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
park & faCIlITy revIews
The remainder of this chapter is dedicated to providing a review of each park in Lewisville. The intention of these reviews is to provide an unbiased, subjective description of the condition, issues, qualities, and benefits of each park in the City. Though the reviews are not divided into the following structure, the various evaluation components were each considered when creating these reviews: • Classification: What is the purpose of a given park? Is it intended to serve the local neighborhood or a much larger population? • Size of the Park: How big is the park? Is it large enough to adequately accomplish its intended purpose? • Location: Where is the park located in relation to the population that it serves? Is it accessible? • Service Area: What are the limits of the area served by each park? Are there any major thoroughfares or physical features that create barriers to accessing the park? • Amenities in each Park: What amenities does the park contain? Are the facilities appropriate for the type of park? • Layout: Is the arrangement of facilities in each park appropriate? • Condition of the Park: What is the general condition of the facilities in each park? • Special Considerations: Is the park maintained in a sustainable manner? Are there natural areas in the park that require special consideration? and parking lot are all located in close proximity to each other. This provides adequate pedestrian circulation between these three areas and allows parents to easily supervise their children while they are at play. The stands and clumps of trees naturally delineate the park into different uses from open play areas to adventure and natural “discovery” areas in the more densely vegetated portions of the park. Many of the trees in this park are mature and majestic; as a matter of precaution, their health should be monitored to ensure their longevity and continued beauty. In the 2011 Trails Master Plan, a trail is proposed to run south along Old Orchard Lane from the Valley Ridge Greenbelt and then cut through Iris Lane Park and Austin Kent Ellis Park to finally link with the existing trail in the Sylvan Creek Greenbelt. This trail will enhance access to Austin Kent Ellis Park and will provide connections to numerous other parks, the library, and eventually to both recreation centers. The City should consider potential opportunities and conflicts when designing this future trail and when making improvements to this park. One significant opportunity is to utilize the area around the restrooms as a minor trailhead by adding bicycle racks, informational signage, wayfinding, and a water fountain. To enhance access to the park’s amenities and improve the overall flow of the park, additional sidewalks should be provided to loop around the playground and connect to the sidewalks along Sylvan Creek Drive. Though in good condition, the park’s pavilion is of a dated design; a modern, multi-tiered roofed pavilion would provide enhanced air circulation and would make for a more comfortable user experience. Some of the park’s playground equipment is in need of maintenance and repair (including painting and maintenance of the playground’s wood fiber fall zone). At the southern end of the site, soft-surface trails, seating, and informative signage about the flora and fauna on site would help users interact with the natural environment of the park. Though additional shade might be desirable in portions of the park (such as near the playground), the existing layout of the trees is very natural and should be maintained in order to ensure the integrity of the park’s landscape. However, additional plantings of shrubs and tall grasses could be incorporated to buffer the hard edge of the parking lot and to provide transitions between the park and the surrounding areas. Creekview Park 7.6 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Trailhead (pending future trail development): $200,000 Total Cost: $200,000

Neighborhood Parks
Austin Kent Ellis Park 4.6 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Additional Sidewalks: $10,000 • Playground Renovation: $25,000 • Additional Landscaping: $30,000 • Trailhead (pending future trail development): $200,000 Total Cost: $265,000

Austin Kent Ellis Park’s position between Iris Lane Park to the north and the Sylvan Creek Greenbelt to the south creates the feeling of a much larger, linear park. The park is bound on three sides by streets, two of which are multi-lane thoroughfares (Old Orchard Lane and Fox Avenue). However, the elevation change and organically-shaped stands of trees help to make this park feel comfortable and inviting, even though it is surrounded by vehicular traffic. This park has a full cadre of neighborhood park amenities, including a pavilion, playground, and parking lot. Unique to this park are the restrooms, which neighborhood parks typically do not have, at its northern end. The pavilion, playground,

18

Creekview Park is located adjacent to Timber Creek and is connected to the Hedrick House by the Creekview Greenbelt. The atmosphere of this neighborhood park is defined by its separation from the adjacent street and houses due to its lower elevation than the surrounding areas. While this decreases the visibility of the park, it may create a safer environment for children to play. The pavilion is in the form of an arbor, which differs from other parks in the City and adds to the particular character of this park. The proximity of the pavilion in relation to the playground allows for easy supervision of children from under the shade of the pavilion. This park has the potential to serve as a minor trailhead for the future extension of the Timber Creek Trail, which currently ends just on the other side of Old Orchard Lane.

Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions
Daffodil Park 1.2 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Playground Replacement (or renovation): $60,000 • Additional Landscaping: $30,000 Total Cost: $90,000 Hedrick Estates Park 4.8 Acres Recommended Park Improvements At just over 1 acre in size, Daffodil Park is very small by neighborhood park standards. It does, however, include the essential neighborhood park amenities: a playground, a pavilion, and open free-play areas. The land for the park consists of about a half-dozen residential lots, which means it is long and narrow, is located along a neighborhood street, and is abutted on both ends by houses. The back of the park is bordered by an active railroad track; a chain link fence provides a protective barrier between the railroad and the park. The pavilion and playground are centrally located within the park, equidistant from the adjacent homes on either side. A primary area of concern in this park is that the existing playground equipment is aging and is in need of renovation or replacement. Updated or renovated playground equipment is recommended to enhance the visual appeal to the park. In addition, while the existing pavilion is in good repair, its single-tier roof design means it retains heat, thereby negatively affecting the comfort of the space for the park’s users. There is a lack of shade trees in the park, which leaves the pavilion as the primary shaded area. Shade trees around the playground and throughout the park would create natural shade and would significantly enhance the aesthetics of the area. Turf grass is the dominant vegetation on site and creates a very open environment in the park. Shrubs and ornamental plantings would enhance the curb appeal of the park and would deter unwanted vehicular traffic from entering the park. • Small Pavilion: $40,000 Total Cost: $40,000 benches, walking trails with a connection to the adjacent neighborhood, possible future connections to adjacent USACE land, and lush yet sustainable landscape plantings. The goal for this park is to provide a distinctive and interactive area that can be enjoyed and explored by all. At nearly 22 acres in size, this is very large for a neighborhood park. This large size provides opportunities for preserving natural areas and providing access to them, providing ample space for free play, and showcasing the park’s unique character.

This secluded neighborhood park is located between the Timber Creek Greenbelt and a small neighborhood. It is connected to the Timber Creek Trail on its southern edge. The key amenities at this park are a small playground and unprogrammed open space. The majority of the park is located within a topographical depression that likely is inundated during and immediately after rain events. The playground is located in this depressed area, which may limit the life-span of the equipment. It is recommended that a pavilion be constructed to provide a shaded area for rest and for parents to sit while their children play.

Highland Lakes Park East Hill Park 21.8 Acres Recommended Park Improvements (none) 1.8 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Trailhead (pending future trail development): $200,000 (or) • Add a Playground: $60,000 Total Cost: $60,000 to $200,000 This small park is located in the northern part of Lewisville and is adjacent to a small neighborhood, Lewisville Lake, and IH-35E to the east. Highland Lakes Park was recently developed and contains a small parking lot, a short trail segment, and several picnic tables. The park includes attractive landscape features including a split-rail fence and nu-

When construction is complete, East Hill Park will be the newest park in Lewisville. The amenities at East Hill Park will include play equipment for multiple age groups, free play areas, fabric shade structures with picnic facilities,

19

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
merous landscape boulders. The park’s location along the shores of Lewisville Lake provides an attractive backdrop, however the immediate presence of IH-35E affects the visual quality of the park and results in the pervasive sounds and smells of freeway traffic. The future of Highland Lakes Park revolves around two significant planned projects: the expansion of IH-35E and a planned trail bridge to a park in Highland Village across the lake. When IH-35E is expanded, it will result in the loss of approximately half of this park’s area. In addition, the row of houses south of the park will be taken through eminent domain and a trail easement connecting from Highland Lakes Park south to Garden Ridge Boulevard will be given to the City. The combined result of these two projects will be a trail connecting Highland Village, across Lewisville Lake and into Lewisville by way of Highland Lakes Park, to the future DCTA commuter rail station at IH-35E and Garden Ridge Boulevard. Because of this potential and the significant reduction of park acreage that will occur, one option for the future of Highland Lakes Park is that it be redeveloped as a trailhead by providing bicycle racks, a drinking fountain, a kiosk containing wayfinding aids, and reconfigured or additional parking as needed. If it is determined that the primary focus of this park should be to serve as a true neighborhood park, a playground and pavilion should be added. Iris Lane Park 1.3 acres Recommended Park Improvements • Add a Pavilion or Develop a “Natural Pavilion” area: $20,000 to $40,000 Total Cost: $20,000 to $40,000

Highlands Park 7.4 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Add a Pavilion: $40,000 • Playground Renovation: $25,000 • Additional Landscaping: $30,000 Total Cost: $95,000 Highlands Park is located in the northwestern corner of the City, adjacent to Highland Village, and is linear in nature. The park includes a loop trail, two parking lots (one at each end), a playground, and two basketball half-courts. The loop trail runs in a figure-eight shape, generally skirting the edges of the park but linking with the playground in the center. This park is positioned within a large electric transmission easement and therefore is lacking in shade trees and other vertical vegetation. In addition, the lack of a pavilion means that there is not a shady space for people to sit nearby the playground or basketball courts. The lack of shade and the dominance of the 50+ foot tall power lines affect the level of comfort in this park. In order to improve the appearance, comfort, and functionality of Highlands Park, it is recommended that the City make several improvements. Namely, a pavilion placed between the playground and the basketball courts along the loop trail would help tie these locations together, would provide a shady area for resting, and would serve as a place for parents to monitor their children. The playground itself appears to be in need of maintenance; specifically, it is important to insure that the fall zone has a constant 12” thick layer of wood fiber material and the play equipment itself may need to be renovated. Though electric transmission companies generally do not allow shade trees within their easements, they are generally amenable to the planting of small ornamental trees, which would improve the aesthetics of the park and would provide a small amount of shade. The City may also wish to consider placing a textile shade structure over the playground to improve its comfort and usability.

Iris Lane Park is bordered by residential neighborhoods on the north and west. This small park is directly north of Austin Kent Ellis Park (an alley serves as a boundary between the two parks) and is similarly adjacent to Old Orchard Lane on its west side (a decorative metal fence separates the park from the roadway). This proximity to Austin Kent Ellis Park creates a fluid pedestrian and visual connection between the two parks and will eventually accommodate a major city-wide trail corridor that will connect Iris Lane Park to many other destinations (see the Austin Kent Ellis Park description on page 17 for more information). Iris Lane Park is connected to the surrounding neighborhood by way of a small neighborhood street and a partial cul-de-sac, which provides on-street parking and pedestrian connectivity to the playground. A picnic table and a drinking fountain are situated close to the playground structure and are oriented around a mature mesquite tree; since this park does not have a pavilion, this serves as the primary area of respite within the park. A full basketball court is located on the opposite side of the playground at a comfortable distance. This allows multiple age groups to enjoy the amenities of the park at the same time. This park also benefits from its proximity to the restrooms located at the north end of Austin Kent Ellis Park, which are actually closer to the playground at this park than they are to the other park’s playground. As with Austin Kent Ellis Park, one of the main issues with the park is its close proximity to Old Orchard Lane, a four-lane thoroughfare. Though it is not an incredibly high-volume roadway, its proximity introduces the noise of automobiles into the park. The addition of a vegetative buffer or screening along the fence is an aesthetically pleasing option, but may minimize the visibility of the park and cause security concerns. It would generally be desirable to add a pavilion to this park to provide a sheltered area for people to rest and view the park. However, as an alternative to adding a pavilion, enhancements could be made to the area around the mesquite tree in the form of additional picnic tables, benches, a seat wall, and a surface material that is wheelchair accessible to serve as a more “natural” pavilion area. Considering this park’s adjacency and connectivity to Austin Kent Ellis Park, the need for improvements to both parks, and the planned trail that will pass through both parks, it might be desirable to no longer provide the full array of neighborhood park amenities at both of these locations. Rather, if the time comes to completely renovate these parks, it would be more efficient economically and functionally to consolidate their amenities and identify new opportunities for the use of the parks (such as a trailhead). In considering this issue, the following questions should be answered: • Is there a need for a playground at each of these parks? • Which playground provides better functionality and is in a better location?

20

Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions
• If it is determined that each park should have a playground, should the two playgrounds offer different types of equipment/play? • If one of the playgrounds was removed, what type of amenity would replace it? • What concerns might the nearby neighborhoods have if one of the playgrounds was removed? Meadow Lake Park 1.4 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Tree Planting: $15,000 Lenard L. Woods Park 28.1 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Playground Enhancements: $20,000 • Tree Planting or Shade Structure: $15,000 to $20,000 Total Cost: $35,000 to $40,000 • New Pavilion: $40,000 • Parking Lot Reconfiguration or Removal: $20,000 to $30,000 Total Cost: $75,000 to $85,000 Meadow Lake Park is located on the southeast corner of Garden Ridge Boulevard and Brazos Boulevard. Though it is relatively small for a neighborhood park, Meadow Lake Park includes a small gazebo, a playground, and a parking lot. There is a small amount of open space for free play; however, a shallow drainage channel cuts through this area, limiting its functionality. This park is connected to the surrounding neighborhood by means of a trail that runs through an electric easement. While the trail is relatively short, it enhances the recreational value of this park since it provides an activity for adults. There are several mature trees within this park that add to the aesthetic quality and level of comfort of the park. However, many of these trees are Bradford Pears, which have relatively short lifespans. It is recommended that the City begin planting new, longer-lifespan shade trees immediately so that they are able to mature before the Bradford Pear trees die. The park’s gazebo is in good condition and is located such that it allows parents to monitor children on the nearby playground, but it is relatively small. If the opportunity arises to enhance this park in the future, it is recommended that a larger pavilion replace the gazebo. Finally, the hammerhead parking lot is fairly difficult to navigate, especially for larger trucks and SUVs. When it comes time to renovate this park in the future, consideration should be given to rearranging this parking lot or removing it altogether and allowing on-street parking instead. Removing the parking lot would increase the usable size of the park, especially in terms of free play area.

Also known as “LL Woods Park,” this is a large neighborhood park located along one of Lewisville’s many greenbelt corridors. This park is home to a large disc golf course, parking lot, playgrounds, pavilions, a ball court, hard-surface trails and open play fields. While a majority of the amenities are located relatively close together, the trail and disc golf course extend further west along Prairie Creek. Due to its extended shape, this park also acts as a linear park in a sense. LL Woods Park is encompassed on most sides by streets, drainage channels, or commercial developments and does not have very many pedestrian access points from adjacent neighborhoods. Major pedestrian access points are from the east along the trail system running from Valley Ridge Greenbelt Park or from the southwest, across the pedestrian bridge. Key connections points in the future could include a trail extension to the west creating intercity connections, as well as more opportunities to cross the creek, thereby allowing residents from the immediate south to access the park. Residents along this south side could also find it beneficial to use semi-transparent fencing in order to merge the visual character of the park environment with their own property. Additional native and ornamental planting should be incorporated throughout the park to soften the hard drainage edge and restore a natural environment along the linear portion of the park. Vehicular access to the park is provided at the parking lot near the center of the site. Adjacent to the parking lot are two separate playground areas. Future improvements should include a more permanent playground containment edge which could double as a seat wall and create a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. It is also recommended that a shade structure and/or shade trees be provided adjacent to the playgrounds in order to allow parents the opportunity to watch their children play while sitting in the shade. Future master planning of this park may warrant modifying the play area layouts and as well as providing additional vegetation around the open play areas to provide opportunities for shaded resting areas.

Orchard Valley Park 3.7 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Nature Trails and Interpretive Signage: $25,000 Total Cost: $25,000 This neighborhood park is nestled between residential homes on three sides and is bordered by a single loaded road on the fourth side. Access is also provided at the cul-de-sac intersection of Len Mar Drive and Kelly Lane, which increases the openness of the park and helps give a feeling of centrality within the neighborhood. One of the most attractive and valuable features in this park is the size and maturity of the grove of trees.

21

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Aside from the existing trees on site, this park has the basic neighborhood park amenities such as a playground, a pavilion, and a loop trail that connects to the adjacent neighborhoods at multiple locations. In the future, this park could benefit from the construction of soft-surface nature trails and educational signage in the wooded portion of the site. Raldon/Lake Cities Park 13.82 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Additional Sidewalks: $10,000 • Additional Landscaping: $30,000 • Basketball Court Renovation: $ 8,000 Total Cost: $48,000 Raldon/Lake Cities Park is linear in form and is located along a drainage corridor within a neighborhood. It is bound on the east by a concrete drainage channel and on all other sides by houses or streets. There are two park “nodes” (each of which includes a parking lot, playground, and pavilion) joined together by a concrete trail. This trail starts at the north parking lot of the park and runs along the drainage channel toward the south, where it ties into the Fox Creek Greenbelt trail (which connects to Central Park and the Timber Creek Trail). While a trail connects the two nodes within the park, there is a lack of pedestrian connectivity within each node. Specifically, there are not any sidewalks connecting the parking lots, playgrounds, pavilion, and basketball court. In addition, several improvements are recommended in order to enhance the aesthetics and functionality of this park. Specifically, it is recommended that shaded seating be provided adjacent to the two playgrounds. Also, the basketball court to the northeast should be improved to provide a more enjoyable user experience. Finally, the recently-planted trees along the trail will provide a nice walking environment once established, but additional trees and ornamental plantings should be considered around park entries and focal areas in order to continue enhancing the area’s aesthetics. Sycamore Park 4.33 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Additional Landscaping: $30,000 • Pavilion Replacement: $40,000 Total Cost: $70,000 Willow Grove Park 1.20 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Pavilion Replacement: $40,000 • Tree Planting: $15,000 • Trail Connection: $12,000 • Additional Landscaping: $30,000 Total Cost: $97,000 This small neighborhood park is located along Corporate Drive and is surrounded by neighborhoods. The western edge of the park is adjacent to a utility easement—the Trails Master Plan includes a future major trail along this easement connecting to the Timber Creek Trail to the north. The park is divided into a formalized play area with an adjacent pavilion, as well as an undeveloped area allowing for free play. While the pavilion provides shade, its single-tier roof structure does not provide the air flow of a modern multi-tier roof pavilion, which is recommended if this park is improved in the future. Natural shade is limited on site since the existing trees have not yet matured, but their future growth should provide ample shade for the play areas. However, additional trees may need to be considered along the western slopes to provide evening shade to the open play area. In addition to providing a connection from this park to the future major trail along the utility corridor, consideration should be given to providing a trail connection to the adjoining neighborhoods via the easement located at the northeast corner of the park. It is recommended that additional landscaping be provided near the park’s entrance from Corporate Drive to enhance its aesthetics while providing a buffer between the street and the open play area. Similarly, additional plantings around the guy wires and utility boxes at the northeast corner of the park can help reduce hazards and improve the aesthetics of the park. trail, which partially runs along the bank of the adjacent drainage channel. There are many mature trees along the drainage channel (but few in the western half of the park). This park feels larger than it actually is because of the large amount of undeveloped land surrounding it. There are several issues facing this park due to its unique shape and location. Specifically, the appearance of adjacent development to the south (dilapidated fencing) and the east (vehicle storage) negatively affect the aesthetics of the park. Efforts to screen these views and/or partner with or otherwise encourage property owners to replace their fencing may enhance the quality of this park. As a related issue, any future development on the land north of the park could have a negative impact on the appearance and comfort of the park if the character and orientation of the development is not sensitive to the park’s presence. Finally, the pavilion in this park is aged and should be replaced when possible. In addition, landscaping near the pavilion, as well as the two playgrounds, would be beneficial.

This L-shaped neighborhood park is located south of Old Town and includes two basketball courts, two playgrounds (one with a shade structure), a pavilion, and a large parking lot. In addition, the park also contains a 0.81 mile loop

22

Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions
Community Parks
Central Park 41.7 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Playground Area Enhancements: $20,000 • Additional Landscaping: $30,000 Total Cost: $50,000 College Street Park 12.2 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Tree Planting: $15,000 • Additional Shade Structures: $20,000 • Aquatic Center Upgrades: $740,000 Total Cost: $775,000

Central Park is uniquely situated as the hub of many uses and activities. Whether arriving at the park by car or by means of the Timber Creek Trail, Central Park is easily accessible. It is located along a main vehicular thoroughfare as well as one of the City’s major trails. In addition, there is a trail system within the park that provides the opportunity to walk shorter distances. The parking lot serves as the separation between formalized gathering areas (rental pavilions) and the playgrounds, which are shaded successfully by a well-established community of trees. Once outside the tree canopy, one can enjoy a large open play area to the south that can support a multitude of informal activities. The open play area is also recessed below the street level providing a buffer against vehicular traffic and a safer environment for park users. While the park does not have a pavilion in close proximity to the formalized play areas, the number of picnic tables that are shaded is sufficient. Additional seating could be provided around the play areas and could be provided as a seat wall, which would double as a containment edge for the playground surfacing. Multiple pavilions are located to the northwest of the site and are isolated from the play areas. Each pavilion is large enough to provide opportunities for multiple groups to gather at the same time. Fluctuations in elevations around the pavilion also add to the private environment of each structure. Additional ornamental trees and grasses in this area would further accent the approach and fluidity of these spaces.

College Street Park is a small community park located within an established neighborhood. The park is divided into a densely vegetated area on the western half and an active play environment on the eastern half. A trail carries through the western half of the park towards the neighborhood to the north but most of the development for the park is on the eastern half where a trail loop encompasses various park amenities. Two parking lots are provided at the entrance to the park. Located between the parking lots is a medium-sized shade pavilion and playground. This recently developed play ground has limited shade within the play area, but once established, the shade trees on site will provide natural shade to the playground. Additional shade trees may be beneficial in further additions to the play area. The aquatic park is located to the north of the shade pavilion and becomes the focal point of this park during the summer months. Adjacent the aquatic area to the east is a concrete basketball court. Also adjacent the aquatic area, and constituting a large portion of the park, is an undeveloped open space that provides the opportunity for open play. In this area, adjacent residences have the opportunity to provide semi-transparent fencing on their property in order to extend their backyard view shed into the park environment. Transparent fencing adds value to the park itself by encouraging informal surveillance thus adding to security at the park. Additional plantings are recommended around the open play area to provide character and shading along the trail loop. The aquatic component of this park is largely centered around the young age group. The aquatic experience for older youth could be enhanced by providing deeper water for open play. This also can be supported by other elements such as a deckmounted climbing wall and a deck-mounted basketball goal. A current channel with a vortex in the center would also be an attractive amenity. Additional elements that would enhance the aquatic experience include additional shade structures, a secure filter room, and more storage space to support pool operations.

23

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Lake Park 385.0 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Playground Area Enhancements: $20,000 • Tree Planting: $30,000 • Wayfinding Signage: $15,000 • Trails: $1,175,000 • Athletic Field Enhancements: $150,000 Total Cost: $1,390,000 development of Lake Park, these fields are critical components of the City’s inventory of athletic facilities. If they are removed to accommodate other uses, they must be replaced elsewhere in the City. Assuming these fields will remain in place into the foreseeable future, it is recommended that these areas be improved through a unifying element or theme that links the fields together aesthetically. This can be accomplished through wayfinding and informative signage, architectural elements, and/or developing a plant palette that creates interest through varying textures and colors. The golf course is set on the south side of the park and is easily accessible by vehicle as it has its own parking lot. Excellent views of the lake are available from the golf course, which give it a unique character not available at most golf courses in the Metroplex. Future master planning of the golf course may include extending it to the water’s edge allowing users the ability to enjoy a true water-side golfing experience. Because of its natural beauty, adjacency to the lake, and overall prominence, the ways in which Lake Park can serve the community and region are numerous. It currently provides much-needed opportunities for water-oriented recreation, golfing, and league sports. However, it could also be redeveloped to draw additional tourism to the City by incorporating elements such as an aquarium, a resort, or a purpose-built festival/special events area. However, if future redevelopment displaces certain park elements, namely the athletic fields, these would need to be remediated elsewhere in the City. Future master planning for this unique lake-front park is a great opportunity to identify the primary purpose of the park and develop ways to enhance the area for continued recreational enjoyment.

Lake Park is located on the southern side of Lake Lewisville immediately west of the dam and spillway. This multifaceted community park consists of several athletic facilities, a golf course, and many lake-related uses. As it is the only park in the City that fronts the main body of the lake without any obstruction from the dam, Lake Park is extremely important to the community, its character, and its image. Besides providing lake access for Lewisville citizens, this park also draws people from the surrounding region to enjoy the many recreational opportunities and lake access that it provides. The park’s lake-related amenities include camping, boat docks and ramps, beaches, and day picnic areas. Each of these amenities is centered on the lake itself and requires a fee for access. Many of the day-use picnic areas are located on the shores of the lake and include picnic tables, shade trees, and easy access to the beaches and the lake. Overnight camping is provided further inland under a large community of evergreen and shade trees. A playground, open play area, and restroom facility are located on the eastern extents of the park in the day-use picnic area, near the east boat ramp, picnic areas, and beaches. A large, fenced outdoor picnic facility is also available by reservation to accommodate large group gatherings and events. General recommendations for the park include adding more shade around the picnic areas and throughout the park (via shade trees and small pavilions), providing more seating around the play area for parents to rest while their children are at play, incorporating wayfinding and informative signage, and adding a safe trail system throughout the park to promote walking and biking. Lake Park provides many athletic fields, including the majority of the City’s baseball fields (eight out of 12 total) and half of the City’s soccer fields (eight out of 16). It also includes two football fields and two adult softball fields. The athletic facilities are generally grouped together based on facility type (i.e., baseball fields together and soccer fields together) and each is accompanied by a parking lot. Considering the long-term future and potential re-

Memorial Park 25.0 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Playground Area Enhancements: $40,000 • Tree Planting: $15,000 Total Cost: $55,000

Memorial Park serves as a community park and the site of the Senior Activity Center and the Memorial Park Recreation Center. This park is bordered on the north and east by multi-lane roadways and on the south and west by neighborhoods. The park contains a series of internal loop trails that wrap around the extremities of the park. The trails provide opportunities for exercise and a link between the different environments that the park has to offer. A large unprogrammed portion of the park is located on the northeast portion of the site along Corporate Drive and Valley

24

Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions
Parkway. This space allows for multiple unprogrammed uses and users. Berming and ornamental plantings have been provided along the roadways to provide a safety and visual buffer for park users. The trail also meanders within these varying landforms in this location providing an interesting and unique experience. The western portion of the park is more densely vegetated creating a naturally shaded environment encouraging picnicking and other passive activities. Multiple formalized play structures are provided west of the recreation center and adjacent to the stand of trees on the western portion of the site. Continuity should be considered from a design and functionality standpoint to promote safety and security when using this equipment. Also, seating is very limited within these areas considering the size and quantity of play structures. Seatwalls or shade pavilions are possible options to incorporate seating in the space. Additional natural shade, open play areas, and a volleyball court are provided on the southern extents of the site and are easily accessible by the senior center and recreation center users. This portion of the site is the only area that does not require users to cross a vehicular path to access the park. Also, all areas of the park should be evaluated with regards to drainage issues, and future master plan design would be beneficial to this park to further develop and locate uses that are more beneficial to park users.

One of the unique aspects of this park is that its naming rights have been made available as a form of sponsorship. The City of Lewisville and Toyota of Lewisville formed an agreement for a certain time period that gives naming rights for the park in return for financial sponsorship. This agreement results in the generation of a considerable amount of funding that can be used to maintain and improve existing parks in the City. Considering rising construction costs and decreasing tax revenues and grant funding sources, public-private partnerships such as this are important tools for certain park, sports facility, and indoor recreation projects. In order to safeguard the long-term sponsorship of this park and maintain its position as a flagship park for the region, it is critical to ensure that it receives a high level of maintenance.

Special Purpose Parks
Toyota of Lewisville Railroad Park 269 Acres Recommendation Maintain the park’s regional flagship position through a high level of maintenance in order to secure long-term sponsorship. Toyota of Lewisville Railroad Park is a newly developed community park that includes numerous competitive athletic fields, as well as special purpose amenities. It serves as one of Lewisville’s primary athletic complexes with facilities for football, baseball, softball, and soccer. This park also includes a state-of-the-art skate complex, a dog park, a walking and jogging trail, and multiple water features. The theme for this park is very iconic following the name of the park as it is carried out through the architectural elements throughout the park as well as through entry monuments and directional signage. Considering the number of sports fields and other amenities present here, this park provides considerably more active than passive recreational opportunities. Sun Valley Park Aquatic Center 5.5 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Improve Pedestrian Circulation: $10,000 • Tree Planting: $15,000 • Various Aquatic Center Improvements (see page 59): $120,000 Total Cost: $145,000 Sun Valley Park Aquatic Center is a uniquely developed urban park located in close proximity to Lewisville High School. The park is fully developed with an aquatic center as its primary use. It also includes access to a number of tennis courts through a joint-use agreement with the school. The park is landlocked on all sides with little room for expansion. Access to the park is primarily vehicular with the ability to use the shared parking adjacent the school. Although pedestrian access to the park is available, it is very limited due to the lack of walks along the east side and lack of pedestrian crossings along Spring Valley Parkway to the west. It is recommended that walks be extended to include a connection to the adjacent neighborhoods to the east. It is also recommended that the tennis courts be updated and that natural vegetation be included in open spaces to provide as much natural shade as possible especially since the park will primarily be used during the hot summer months.

25

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Specific recommendations for the aquatic facilities include the addition of two additional spray features/areas, more shaded areas in the park via textile shade structures and umbrellas, and an actual concession area rather than the static vending operation currently in place. Increased storage areas would be a benefit the center, as well. Vista Ridge Athletic Complex 16 Acres Recommended Park Improvements (none)

Vista Ridge Amphitheater 3.5 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Partially Cover the Existing Seating Area (optional) • Additional Parking (optional) • Update Restrooms (optional) Total Cost: $590,000

The Vista Ridge Athletic Complex is located on the southern edge of Lewisville. This triangular park is bordered on one side by Denton Creek, another by a levee, and on a third side by privately-owned land. Three softball fields and a parking lot constitute the majority of the park’s area (one of the softball field outfields doubles as a soccer field). Other facilities at this park include a loop trail, fishing pier, and fitness equipment. Because this park is located between the creek and the levee, it floods on a somewhat regular basis. Any future modifications or additions to this park should consider the maintenance implications of flood events.

Linear Parks & Open Space Preserves
Creekview Greenbelt 7.4 Acres

This facility was acquired in 1995 and has a capacity of approximately 750 to 800 people. In addition to the amphitheater itself, this facility includes an office/control room, and restrooms. Located along a water body, this facility provides a unique venue for outdoor performances. However, it is in a relatively inconvenient location for most of Lewisville’s citizens, does not have adequate parking space for larger events, and has significant accessibility issues for the physically disabled (specifically regarding the restrooms and the stage). Because of these issues, consideration should be given toward relocating, partially abandoning, or improving this facility. Relocating this facility would entail constructing a new amphitheater in a more accessibly area of the City, preferably in an existing or future community park, which would provide adequate shared parking and multi-functionality (e.g., for performances, ceremonies, and team meetings). Consequently, the best option for the existing amphitheater site would probably be partial abandonment. Partially abandoning this facility would mean continuing to not hold events here and removing or permanently closing the restroom facilities and other elements that have significant maintenance requirements. This could be an option regardless of whether a new amphitheater was built elsewhere, until such time that a better use for the site and/or amphitheater is determined. If the decision is made to improve this facility, it is recommended that the City update and improve the restrooms, provide additional parking (±50 spaces), and partially cover the seating areas for spectators.

Recommended Park Improvements • Trail: $135,000 Total Cost: $135,000

Creekview Greenbelt extends to the northwest of Creekview Park (discussed previously in this chapter) and continues on to the Hedrick House. It includes a significant amount of trees along the creek bank and a sidewalk that runs parallel to Creekview Drive. It is recommended that the sidewalk be widened into a trail, realigned to meander closer to the creek’s edge to provide a more scenic experience, and extended to connect with Creekview Park and future planned trails along the creek corridor to the west, as per the 2011 Trails Master Plan.

26

Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions
East Hill Open Space 221 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Updated Master Plan: $40,000 • Development as a Community Park: $6,000,000 Total Cost: $6,040,000 The East Hill Open Space is located on the far east side of Lewisville, adjacent to the new East Hill Park. This land is subleased from the US Army Corps of Engineers and is across the Lewisville Lake spillway from LLELA. A master plan was developed for this park area several years ago; the master plan included a recreation center, an amphitheater, six softball/baseball fields, a tennis center, 11 soccer fields, ample parking, unprogrammed areas, and natural open space. The plan for this park area demonstrates the opportunities possible at this location. However, it is recommended that the plan be revisited to reflect the needs identified in this Vision Plan. This land is located next to LLELA—a very important regional facility in terms of habitat protection and wildlife management. It is therefore essential to consider the impact of future development in this park on the natural environment and local wildlife habitats. The Hidden Creek Greenbelt is very narrow and wraps around an apartment community at the intersection of Old Orchard Lane and College Parkway. Other than providing connectivity to future trail segments (as discussed in the 2011 Trails Master Plan), there are not any major recommendations for this park. Meadow Lake Greenbelt 2.5 Acres Recommended Park Improvements (none) Hidden Creek Greenbelt 3 Acres Recommended Park Improvements (none)

Fox Creek Greenbelt 14 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Improved Trail Crossing at Bellaire Boulevard (per the 2011 Trails Master Plan): $30,000 Total Cost: $30,000 The Fox Creek Greenbelt is located due north of Central Park and provides a corridor for a trail connecting this park to Ralden Lakes Park. The majority of this land exists in its natural, undeveloped state, with the trail located on one edge. The 2011 Trails Master Plan identified the need to improve the crossing of Bellaire Boulevard for pedestrians and cyclists.

The Meadow Lake Greenbelt is connected to Meadow Lake Park and extends to the east from the park’s southwest corner. This greenbelt follows an electric transmission easement and provides connectivity between the adjacent neighborhood and Meadow Lake Park. The greenbelt and trail currently dead-end into the neighborhood, but could eventually continue on and connect to Old Orchard lane, if the industrial lands between the neighborhood and Old Orchard redevelop in a manner that can accommodate a trail. Oak Bend Park 24.1 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Trail Crossing at Oak Bend Drive: $10,000 • Site Development: $100,000 • Add a Playground: $60,000 • Add a Pavilion: $40,000 Total Cost: Oak Bend Park is located within a community of apartment complexes. Though it is of adequate size for a neighborhood park, this park does not have a playground, pavilion, or open area for free play. Instead, this park acts more as a

27

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
linear park and nature area. Based on its location and limited level of amenities, this park is likely used primarily by the residents of these apartments. The park is divided by Oak Bend Drive into two densely vegetated tracts of land. Within each tract is a trail that meanders through the trees and understory with an occasional bench or picnic area nestled along the trail. Although the natural experiences provided by this park are highly desirable, security within the park might be a concern due to the density of vegetation and limited visibility. Regarding future improvements, a crosswalk across Oak Bend Drive should be considered in order to create a safe location for pedestrians to cross. Because this park is located in an area with few parks or public open space, the opportunity to increase the functionality of this park through the addition of a playground and pavilion should be considered. Creating a small clearing that is visible from the street on the south side of Oak Bend Drive could provide such an opportunity. Sylvan Creek Greenbelt 1.3 Acres Recommended Park Improvements (none) Sylvan Creek Greenbelt provides a trail connection between two residential neighborhoods and continues toward two neighborhood parks to the north (Austin Kent Ellis and Iris Lane). The meandering walk adds interest to an otherwise linear corridor. Seating nodes are provided at adequate distances along the trail to provide points of rest and contemplation. The utilization of low lying plant materials such as native grasses could promote visual interest as well as create more intimate seating nodes. The 2011 Trails Master Plan includes planned trail segments to continue to the north and south of this segment. Timber Creek Greenbelt 43.4 Acres Recommended Park Improvements (accounted for in the 2011 Trails Master Plan)

Old Orchard Greenbelt 15.3 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Additional Landscaping: $30,000 • Tree Planting: $15,000 • Seating/Benches: $20,000 Total Cost: $65,000 Old Orchard Greenbelt is a tract of land on the southeast corner of Old Orchard Lane and Corporate Drive. A trail runs along the western extents of the site and connects with the Timber Creek Trail across Corporate Drive to the north. The majority of this site consists of a small creek corridor. Additional riparian plantings along the creek and shade trees along the trail as well as seating nodes would be recommended for this linear park.

Prairie Creek Greenbelt 14.7 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Establishment of Stream Associated Vegetation: $30,000 Total Cost: $30,000 This greenbelt follows its namesake between Garden Ridge Boulevard and Valley Parkway, providing a continuation of the trails between LL Woods Park and the Valley Ridge Greenbelt. The greenbelt includes a stand of large shade trees, but is otherwise generally urbanized. The creek exists in a straight channel without any meanders or natural vegetation. Partially restoring this creek to its original, natural state would enhance the aesthetics of this area and could possibly slow down waterflow thereby improving water filtration and public safety.

Timber Creek Greenbelt is densely vegetated and provides visual and physical access to open space. The major use of this park is the linear trail that connects Creekview Park and Hedrick Estates Park. The existing trail is at a lower grade than the adjacent neighborhoods, helping to establish a visual separation. Trail improvements should be considered west across Old Orchard Lane towards Creekview Park in order to provide a safe crossing for pedestrians. These trails will eventually connect with the existing Timber Creek Trail to the east and Creekview Park.

Valley Ridge Boulevard Greenbelt 1.4 Acres Recommended Park Improvements (none)

The Valley Ridge Boulevard Greenbelt connects between the Flower Mound border and Garden Ridge Boulevard. It exists as a wide parkway area on the north side of the roadway and includes a “sidepath” trail that mirrors the type of facility provided along Flower Mound’s portion of Valley Ridge.

28

Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions
Valley Ridge Greenbelt 39.5 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Renovate the Basketball Court: $8,000 • Enhance Internal Circulation: $150,000 • Additional Landscaping: $30,000 Total Cost: $188,000 Valley Ridge Greenbelt is a linear park with a majority of its active amenities centrally located near Old Orchard Lane. The trails that run through this greenbelt connect to the west with LL Woods Park and will eventually continue along Prairie Creek to cross under IH-35E. The “activity node” located off Old Orchard Lane includes a small parking lot, basketball court, walkways, and a playground/picnic area. Enhancements to the basketball court are recommended to meet current recreation standards and to provide a safe environment for users. The unique and dividing element within this park is Prairie Creek, which separates the playground from the other elements within the park. Due to its location, access from the parking lot requires users to travel along a narrow walk in close proximity to vehicular traffic adjacent Old Orchard Lane in order to access the playground and picnic area. It is recommended that future master planning of this park focus on circulation within the park and providing a safe, user-friendly route to elements within the park. This may include locating major “activity elements” on the southern side of the creek adjacent to the parking area and focusing smaller, more intimate elements along the northern side of creek while providing a wider, safer route across the creek. Additional ornamental plantings, shade trees, and wetland planting along the creek’s edge would all enhance the park environment. Valley Vista Park 10.5 Acres Recommended Park Improvements • Develop a Master Plan for Park Development: $20,000 Total Cost: Valley Vista Park is located along the Timber Creek Trail. The open space is divided by Corporate Drove into two portions with each consisting of mostly open, undeveloped land. The eastern portion is further divided by a drainage channel that carries across the site. Each portion is surrounded by dense stands of trees creating an attractive backdrop to the open space. While active recreational use of this park is limited due to its division by a major roadway, it is recommended that a unified master plan be created for these two open spaces to establish a unique connection for people traveling along Corporate Dr. and the Timber Creek Trail. Built in 1983, this 30,000 square foot facility has served the community quite well since its last expansion in 1988. However, as the population has grown, so has the number of users. In addition, the roles of recreation centers have changed over time, which could also warrant updating the center and expanding its purpose and variety of amenities. To that end, the facility is in need of a variety of improvements. These include: • An expanded cardiovascular fitness area (4,000 sf) with new equipment; • Development of adequate staff space (1,500 sf); • Movement of control desk to south to better control flow of visitors and increase security; • Enlarge and renovate restroom and shower areas; and • Improve allocation of parking at the center’s entrance.

Indoor Recreation Facilities
Hedrick House 5,000 Square Feet Recommended Facility Improvements • Backyard Improvements • Updated Kitchen Total Cost: $90,000 The Hedrick House, acquired in 1989 and opened to the public in 1990, presents a unique venue for Lewisville. It is approximately 5,000 square feet in size and has a capacity of 130 people. The facility is available for rentals and is typically utilized for weddings, reunions, and corporate gatherings. Recommended improvements include enhancing the backyard area with fencing, landscaping and a wedding gazebo. Inside, a completely updated kitchen with commercial equipment including sinks, counters, cooler, freezer, ice maker, dishwasher, and storage area is recommended.

Frederick P Herring Recreation Center . 30,000 Square Feet Recommended Facility Improvements (see below) Total Cost: $1,625,000

29

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Memorial Park Recreation Center 18,000 Square Feet Recommended Facility Improvements • Complete repurposing (see page 59)

Even though this is the newest recreation center for Lewisville (it was completed in 1999), it is significantly smaller than the Herring Recreation Center at approximately 18,000 square feet. If this center were to continue performing its current function, the City should consider expanding the fitness facility space, add a second gymnasium, and enlarge the restroom and shower facilities to provide the amenities of a larger center. However, a complete repurposing of this center is recommended (see page 59). Senior Activity Center 10,000 Square Feet Recommended Facility Improvements • Large-scale expansion (see pages 58 and 59)

Completed in 1997, the Senior Activity Center is approximately 10,000 square feet in size and is located immediately adjacent to the Memorial Park Recreation Center. It is recommended that the City expand this facility to include additional classrooms and a larger kitchen. This expansion would alleviate the constant need to move and set-up or take down tables and chairs which is currently required. In addition, an overall expansion of the facility is recommended (see pages 58 and 59).

30

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan
“Active Adventure... Creative Connections”

Chapter 4 - Needs Assessment

4
31

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
InTroduCTIon
Building upon the analysis of the park system’s existing conditions, this chapter assesses the community’s needs and preferences with regard to park land, recreation facilities, and policies. Furthermore it analyzes how well Lewisville’s current facilities meet present and future needs within the community. The deficiencies and needs identified in this chapter influence the creation and prioritization of recommendations and actions as described in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, respectively.

demand-based needs (publIC InvolvemenT)
Assessing demand-based needs is essentially based on public involvement, which entails bringing Lewisville’s citizens into the planning process and determining their needs and preferences. The public involvement process included a telephone-based “Citizen Attitude Survey” that polled 401 of Lewisville’s citizens and one public meeting. It is estimated that approximately 420 of Lewisville’s citizens have been consulted during the development of the Vision Plan. As with the other needs assessment types, the demand-based needs assessment is one tool by which recommendations for this Vision Plan are developed. The following section details the public involvement process and summarizes the overall recreation goals of the community.

assessmenT meThods
There are three methods used for assessing current and future parks, recreation, and open space needs. These three techniques follow general methodologies accepted by national, state, and regional requirements for local park master plans, including those adopted by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The three types of assessment methods are:

Citizen Attitude Survey
The Citizen Attitude Survey, which surveyed a random sample of Lewisville’s citizenry, is considered a statisticallyvalid method of gaining input from the public. For this Vision Plan, 401 citizens completed a survey that took an average of 19 minutes to complete (an example of the survey questionnaire along with the cumulative results can be found in the appendix). In order to achieve at least 400 complete survey responses, the Planning Team made 36,668 contact attempts. The difference between the number of people contacted and the number of completed survey responses can be attributed to several factors, including no one answering the phone and people declining to take the survey. The completion of 401 surveys represents an error rate of +/-5% at a 95% confidence level. The field work (the period during which the survey was administered) took place between December 8, 2009 and December 29, 2009. Study Areas To aid in ensuring an equal geographic distribution of the survey sample, and to identify correlations between citizen attitude and geographical context, the City was divided into four areas (see Figure 4.1): • Area I includes the entire area east of IH-35E • Area II includes the area west of IH-35E and north of Main Street • Area III includes the area west of IH-35E, south of Main Street and north of Bellaire Boulevard • Area IV includes the area west of IH-35E and south of Bellaire Boulevard The sample used during the survey mimicked the population distribution of the City. That is, the proportion of survey respondents living in each area of the City correlates with the portion of the total population residing in each sector. In the survey sample, 10% of the respondents surveyed live in Area I, 12% live in Area II, 26% live in Area III, and 52% live in Area IV.

Demand-Based
The demand-based needs assessment is a reflection of needs as expressed by the citizens, as well as participation rates and league usage data. This portion of the assessment uses information gained through the Vision Plan’s public involvement process to determine how people use parks, recreation facilities, and programs as well as what the community’s wants and needs are. The results of the demand-based needs assessment help to determine the prioritization of future recreation facilities, programs, and other park related actions.

Standard-Based
The basis for a standard-based needs assessment is the set of standards developed by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) in 1995. These standards are based on park acreage (by park type) per 1,000 residents and by number of specific recreation amenities (such as playgrounds) per number of residents. These NRPA standards are used as a starting point in creating specific target levels of service (LOS) for Lewisville based on local trends, demand, and conditions within the community. This target LOS is then used to assess the surplus or deficit of park acreage at build-out population and various recreation amenities for the population five years out. The five year horizon used for recreation facilities is in recognition of the fact that these needs change over time due to changing trends and demographics, whereas park acreage needs remain relatively constant.

Resource-Based
The third manner in which needs are assessed is based on the physical resources within Lewisville and how these opportunities can be capitalized upon. Most often, the resources that have the greatest bearing on the needs assessment are the natural areas along creeks, streams and lakes, as well as the historic and cultural landscapes present within the community.

32

Chapter 4 - Needs Assessment
Figure 4.1 – Citizen Attitude Survey Study Areas This figure illustrates how Lewisville was divided into study areas for the Citizen Attitude Survey (telephone survey). In the survey sample, 10% of the respondents surveyed live in Area I, 12% live in Area II, 26% live in Area III, and 52% live in Area IV. Satisfaction with Parks and Recreation Overall Satisfaction The survey respondents showed a high level of satisfaction with the quality of parks and recreation in the City. In fact, 60% said they are satisfied while 29% said they are very satisfied; a total of 89% of those surveyed are satisfied with the quality of parks and recreation. Of the respondents, only 7% were dissatisfied and no one said they are very dissatisfied. An anecdotal comparison of similar surveys performed in nine other North Texas cities shows that Lewisville residents’ level of satisfaction is on par with that of these other cities (the overall level of satisfaction is determined by combining the percentage of people that are satisfied with the percentage that are very satisfied). In Table 4.4, the left column indicates overall satisfaction with the parks system while the right column shows the percentage of the population that is very satisfied with the system—those people that are excited or passionate about their parks. One primary way to increase the number of people that are very satisfied is to focus on enhancing the quality of the parks system in the future, not just the quantity. Table 4.4 Overall Satisfaction Compared to Other Cities Percentage Satisfied and Very Satisfied Percentage Very Satisfied Hurst Mansfield Coppell Colleyville North Richland Hills Keller Lewisville McKinney Mesquite Midlothian 96% 93% 93% 91% 91% 90% 89% 81% 86% 73% Hurst Colleyville Mansfield Coppell North Richland Hills Keller Lewisville McKinney Mesquite Midlothian 51% 45% 42% 42% 39% 32% 29% 26% 25% 14%

Respondent Profile The profile, or general characteristics, of the survey respondents are an important issue in analyzing the overall results of the survey. Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 illustrate the characteristics of the survey respondents. It is of note that the majority of respondents are older than the City’s median age (see Chapter 2) with 46 to 55 being the most common age range). In addition, the average respondent has lived in Lewisville over 10 years and does not have children living at home. Table 4.1 Age of Respondents Age Bracket Percentage of Respondents 25 and younger 3% 26 - 35 11% 36 - 45 20% 46 - 55 27% 56 - 65 21% Over 65 18% Table 4.2 Length of Residence Residence Percentage of Duration Respondents Less than 1 year 3% 1 - 4 years 13% 5 - 7 years 10% 8 - 10 years 13% More than 10 years 61% Table 4.3 Age of Children Age Bracket Percentage of Respondents* 0-4 14% 5-9 16% 10 - 14 16% 15 - 18 12% No Children 62% *Percentages total over 100% because respondents were able to choose multiple answers.

Recreation Improvement Rating Respondents were queried as to whether or not they thought that the quality of parks and recreation in the City has improved over the last three years. Overall, more than half (52%) felt that it has improved, while 38% felt it has stayed the same. Only 3% thought the quality had declined while 6% did not have an opinion. It is interesting to note that residents in Area I and Area II were more positive about the improvement in the quality of parks. It is also interesting to note that respondents that said they have had visited a City park, used a City athletic field, participated in a Parks and Leisure Services program, visited one of the recreation centers, or used a hike and bike trail were far more likely to say that the quality of the parks and recreation system has improved.

33

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Participation & Facility Utilization Survey respondents were asked whether they had visited facilities, utilized amenities, and participated in programs and activities provided by Parks and Leisure Services. This illustrates current recreation trends in the community. Survey respondents were asked whether or not they or anyone in their household had taken advantage of a list of opportunities currently offered by the City of Lewisville within the last 12 months. Table 4.5 shows the results of this question. As it can be seen, the majority of survey respondents had visited a park or used a park amenity. There were several other facilities which between 40% and 60% of the survey respondents have utilized in the last year (trails, playgrounds, pavilions, recreation centers, etc.). Less than one in five respondents said that they have visited the a fishing pond, participated in an athletic league, or used an equestrian trail within the last year. Table 4.5 Participation & Facility Utilization Facility or Activity Yes Visited or used a City of Lewisville park or park amenity 80% Visited or used a City of Lewisville athletic field 33% Participated in a City of Lewisville youth athletic league 15% Participated in a City of Lewisville adult athletic league 6% Participated in any program or event offered by the Lewisville 34% Parks and Leisure Services Department Visited a City of Lewisville recreation center 57% Used a City of Lewisville hike and bike trail 44% Fished on Lake Lewisville 24% Boated on Lake Lewisville 24% Utilized a Lewisville City facility for a meeting 24% Visited a City of Lewisville park pavilion 43% Visited a City of Lewisville playground 60% Used an equestrian trail 5% Fished at a pond at a City park 12% Visited the Lewisville Senior Activity Center 42% Importance of Providing or Expanding Recreational Activities Part of the process of updating the City of Lewisville’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space Vision Plan involves making recommendations for additional facilities and other services. Respondents were asked to give their opinion on the importance of the City providing or expanding items from a list of 47 different activities divided into three categories (see Tables 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8). The five highest rated of the 47 items all fall within the Passive Recreational Activities category (Table 4.7). This reflects regional and national trends where passive recreational amenities are given preference over active recreational amenities by the majority of citizens. Table 4.6 Overall Level of Importance to Build Additional Competitive Athletic Facilities in Lewisville* Rank Facility or Activity Very Important Unimportant Very No Opinion Ratio Important Unimportant 1 Outdoor basketball courts 9% 54% 26% 4% 8% 2.1:1 2 Youth soccer fields 11% 42% 30% 5% 12% 1.5:1 3 Sand volleyball courts 5% 49% 31% 6% 9% 1.5:1 4 Youth baseball fields 11% 39% 33% 5% 11% 1.3:1 5 Tennis courts 9% 41% 34% 5% 10% 1.3:1 6 Youth football fields 8% 42% 34% 5% 11% 1.3:1 7 Youth softball fields 11% 37% 35% 6% 11% 1.2:1 8 In-line skating rink 5% 43% 35% 6% 10% 1.2:1 9 Racquetball or handball courts 4% 46% 36% 5% 8% 1.2:1 10 BMX park 5% 38% 40% 6% 11% 0.9:1 11 In-line hockey rink 5% 35% 42% 6% 12% 0.8:1 12 Ice hockey rink 8% 34% 42% 8% 8% 0.8:1 13 Adult baseball fields 7% 26% 46% 8% 12% 0.6:1 14 Adult soccer fields 4% 30% 46% 7% 12% 0.6:1 15 Adult flag football fields 3% 24% 54% 6% 12% 0.5:1 16 Lacrosse fields 3% 23% 53% 9% 12% 0.4:1 17 Adult kickball fields 2% 20% 57% 8% 13% 0.3:1 18 Cricket fields 2% 17% 59% 10% 12% 0.3:1 19 Squash courts 2% 15% 59% 10% 14% 0.2:1 *When this question was asked, respondents were reminded of the facilities at Lake Park and the new facilities being provided at Toyota of Lewisville Railroad Park.

No 20% 67% 85% 94% 64% 43% 56% 76% 76% 75% 57% 40% 95% 88% 58%

Don’t Remember 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%

34

Chapter 4 - Needs Assessment
Table 4.7 Overall Level of Importance to Build Additional Non-Competitive Outdoor Recreational Facilities in Lewisville Important Unimportant Very No Opinion Ratio Rank Facility or Activity Very Important Unimportant 1 Multi-use trails for walking/ 29% 55% 14% 1% 1% 5.6:1 jogging 59% 2 Natural habitat/nature areas 23% 14% 1% 1% 5.5:1 3 Family picnic areas 21% 57% 18% 2% 1% 3.9:1 4 Road biking lanes 20% 53% 21% 3% 3% 3.5:1 5 Playgrounds 19% 57% 20% 2% 2% 3.5:1 6 Lake access 16% 52% 25% 2% 6% 2.5:1 7 Off-road biking trails 14% 53% 27% 3% 3% 2.2:1 8 Outdoor festival area 13% 51% 30% 1% 5% 2.1:1 9 Children’s water spray park 14% 52% 30% 3% 2% 2.0:1 10 Pavilions 8% 54% 32% 2% 5% 1.8:1 11 Outdoor swimming pool 12% 49% 34% 2% 2% 1.7:1 12 Outdoor performance amphi15% 44% 35% 3% 3% 1.6:1 theater 13 Exercise stations along trails 11% 46% 36% 4% 4% 1.4:1 14 Disc golf course 2% 32% 52% 8% 6% 0.6:1 15 Equestrian trails 4% 32% 51% 5% 8% 0.6:1 Table 4.8 Overall Level of Importance to Build Additional Indoor Recreational Facilities in Lewisville Important Unimportant Very No Opinion Rank Facility or Activity Very Important Unimportant 1 Indoor swimming facility 20% 54% 21% 2% 3% 48% 2 Senior center 19% 26% 2% 5% 3 Indoor cardio/weight training 17% 50% 26% 3% 3% areas 4 Gymnasium/indoor basketball 12% 53% 26% 4% 5% courts 5 Aerobics room 12% 54% 27% 4% 3% 6 Indoor walking/jogging track 15% 49% 29% 4% 3% 7 Gymnastics room 8% 46% 37% 5% 4% 8 Dance instruction room 8% 45% 37% 4% 5% 9 Martial arts area 9% 42% 39% 5% 6% 10 Game room (i.e. pool, foos7% 45% 38% 5% 4% ball, etc) 11 Indoor volleyball courts 8% 42% 40% 4% 6% Ratio 3.2:1 2.4:1 2.3:1 2.2:1 2.1:1 1.9:1 1.3:1 1.3:1 1.2:1 1.2:1 1.1:1

Single Most Important Activity Respondents were then asked which of the previously mentioned activities was the most important to provide or expand. The top results were indoor swimming facility (14%), multi-use trails for walking/jogging (12%), senior center (10%), and natural habitat/nature areas (8%). In addition, 25 other activities were mentioned by between two and 26 people as being the most important to provide or expand. This reflects the diversity of opinions and preferences of Lewisville citizens when it comes to recreational activities.

35

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Action Statements Survey Respondents were asked how much they agree or disagree with a variety of statements dealing with actions of Parks and Leisure Services. The overwhelming majority of the survey respondents (95%) strongly agree or agree that natural areas are important and should be preserved where they are available. This is by far the most supported action statement in Table 4.9. Additionally, over three-fourths of the community feel that the money they pay as taxes or fees compared to the services provided by the City is a good value. All of these statements are ranked in Table 4.9, beginning with the statements that received the most positive responses. Table 4.9 Overall Level of Agreement with Parks and Leisure Services Action Statements Rank Facility or Activity Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly No Opinion Agree Disagree 1 Natural areas and open space 29% 66% 3% 0% 1% are important and should be preserved where it is available 67% 2 I received a Horizon’s news13% 12% 2% 6% letter this year containing a listing of all the City’s summer program opportunities 3 The money I pay (as taxes or 16% 63% 12% 3% 6% fees) compared to the parks and recreation programs that the City provides is a good value 4 Improved landscaping of City 17% 58% 21% 1% 2% streets will help to improve our City image 9% 61% 24% 1% 5% 5 I would support the City developing points to where residents could access creek areas 13% 57% 26% 1% 3% 6 I support the City enhancing its “gateways to the City” so that people know they are coming into Lewisville Lakeshore Activities Lewisville Lake is one of the City’s most important physical features. The lake draws thousands of visitors per year, including many from outside of Lewisville. Survey respondents were asked how strongly they support or oppose various activities along the shores of Lewisville Lake. The results are shown in Table 4.10. Table 4.10 Level of Support for Various Lakeside Recreational Uses Rank Facility or Activity Strongly Support Oppose Strongly Support Oppose 1 Trails 20% 67% 9% 1% 70% 2 Day camp/picnic areas 14% 11% 1% 3 Leave in its natural state 19% 60% 14% 0% 4 Festivals and special events 14% 66% 14% 2% 5 Shoreline fishing 13% 62% 16% 2% 6 Swimming areas 20% 55% 15% 4% 7 Overnight camping/RV camp11% 61% 20% 2% ing 8 Kayak/canoe facilities 9% 57% 22% 3% 9 Restaurants 7% 45% 37% 6% 10 Power boat facilities 4% 40% 38% 10% 11 Resorts/hotels 5% 32% 43% 13%

No Opinion 4% 3% 6% 4% 6% 5% 5% 7% 5% 7% 7%

Ratio 8.7:1 7.0:1 5.6:1 5.0:1 4.2:1 3.9:1 3.3:1 2.6:1 1.2:1 0.9:1 0.7:1

Ratio 31.7:1

5.7:1

5.3:1

3.4:1

2.8:1

2.6:1

36

Chapter 4 - Needs Assessment
Park and Recreation Characteristics In order for the City to determine the elements of parks and recreation that need to be improved, understanding the residents’ perception of general park characteristics is crucial. Respondents were presented with a list of 32 park and recreation characteristics and asked to rate them accordingly (see Table 4.11). Among the characteristics, respondents were most satisfied with: the overall maintenance and quality of the Senior Center, the overall maintenance and quality of athletic fields, and the maintenance of the recreation centers. Items that the respondents were least satisfied with include the location, distribution, and amount of hike and bike trails, the amount of accessible natural areas, and the amount and quality of lake access points. Many respondents had no opinion on multiple items in this question. Nearly half of the respondents have not utilized the Lake Park Golf Course or Vista Ridge Amphitheater. Table 4.11 Grading of Various Aspects of Lewisville’s Parks, Recreation & Open Space System Rank Facility or Activity Excellent Good Fair 1 The overall maintenance of the Lewisville Senior Center 15% 41% 5% 2 The overall quality of the Lewisville Senior Center 18% 41% 6% 3 The overall quality of city athletic fields 14% 54% 11% 4 The maintenance of city athletic fields 12% 55% 11% 5 The overall maintenance of city recreation centers 9% 60% 13% 6 The variety of amenities of the Lewisville Senior Center 13% 37% 10% 7 The maintenance of city parks 17% 59% 15% 8 The overall quality of the Vista Ridge Amphitheater 7% 39% 9% 9 The overall quality of city parks 18% 57% 17% 10 The overall quality of parks and recreation programs and events 12% 57% 15% 11 The number of parks in the city 19% 55% 18% 12 The variety of programs and events offered by the parks and recreation department 16% 54% 16% 13 The overall quality of city recreation centers 12% 55% 14% 14 The overall quality of the city golf course 6% 33% 8% 15 The overall quality of playgrounds in the city 11% 56% 18% 16 The overall safety of city parks 14% 56% 19% 17 The overall safety of practice areas 4% 47% 13% 18 The location and distribution of parks throughout the city 16% 53% 18% 19 The number of athletic fields in the city 15% 47% 20% 20 The overall quality of practice areas 5% 45% 15% 21 The variety of amenities at city recreation centers 7% 50% 20% 22 The location and distribution of athletic fields throughout the city 10% 46% 22% 23 The overall quality of the hike and bike trails in the city 9% 47% 18% 24 The location and distribution of recreation centers throughout the city 7% 52% 20% 25 The variety of recreational facilities within parks 12% 49% 25% 26 The location and distribution of practice areas throughout the city 4% 39% 19% 27 The overall quality of lake access points 4% 37% 21% 28 The number of practice areas in the city 5% 38% 19% 29 The number of city-owned lake access points 3% 34% 23% 30 The amount of hike and bike trails in the city 4% 42% 26% 31 The location and distribution of hike and bike trails throughout the city 6% 39% 25% 32 The amount of accessible natural areas 4% 38% 31% Poor 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 5% 3% 2% 4% 4% 6% 3% 5% 5% 4% 7% 8% 6% 8% 5% 9% 6% 12% 12% 12% No Opinion 37% 34% 18% 20% 16% 38% 6% 42% 5% 13% 4% 10% 14% 49% 13% 7% 31% 5% 14% 30% 17% 17% 19% 14% 8% 29% 32% 28% 33% 16% 18% 15% Ratio 9.3:1 8.4:1 5.2:1 5.2:1 4.6:1 4.5:1 4.2:1 4.2:1 3.8:1 3.8:1 3.5:1 3.5:1 3.5:1 3.5:1 3.4:1 3.0:1 3.0:1 2.9:1 2.7:1 2.5:1 2.3:1 2.2:1 2.2:1 2.1:1 2.0:1 1.6:1 1.6:1 1.5:1 1.3:1 1.2:1 1.2:1 1.0:1

37

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Future Recreation Center Amenities Respondents were asked to say how strongly they support or oppose various recreation activities that could be provided at a potential future recreation center. The most strongly-supported amenities are a weight/cardiovascular equipment room and gymnasiums. While all of the amenities in this list are supported by a majority of respondents, rock climbing wall and current channel receive the lowest level of support. Table 4.12 Overall Support for Various Amenities to be Included in a Potential New Recreation Center Support Oppose Strongly No Opinion Rank Facility or Activity Strongly Support Oppose 1 Weight/cardiovascular equip24% 59% 12% 1% 3% ment room 2 Gymnasiums 23% 59% 11% 2% 4% 3 Family locker rooms 14% 64% 15% 2% 5% 4 Dance and aerobic rooms 14% 65% 16% 2% 4% 5 Multi-purpose rooms for 21% 57% 16% 2% 3% meetings or party rentals 6 Health assessment areas 14% 61% 17% 2% 6% 7 Indoor walking/jogging track 27% 49% 18% 2% 4% 8 Indoor leisure pool with wad22% 53% 17% 3% 4% ing area, water play area, and water slides 9 Fitness/lap lane pool 21% 55% 17% 3% 4% 10 Racquet/handball courts 15% 58% 19% 2% 6% 11 Game room, with billiard 14% 59% 20% 2% 4% tables, table tennis, etc 12 Concession area 12% 55% 25% 2% 5% 13 Rock climbing wall 12% 48% 29% 4% 7% 14 Current channel 9% 46% 29% 3% 13% Future Aquatic Center Amenities Respondents were asked to say how strongly they support or oppose various amenities that could be provided at a potential future swimming facility or aquatic center. The most strongly-supported amenities are water exercise areas, fitness lap lanes, and family changing rooms. While all of the amenities in this list are supported by a majority of respondents, a spa and indoor enhancements such as waterfalls receive the lowest level of support. Table 4.13 Overall Support for Various Amenities to be Included in a Potential Future Indoor Swimming or Aquatic Facility Support Oppose Strongly No Opinion Ratio Rank Facility or Activity Strongly Support Oppose 1 Water exercise areas 30% 55% 11% 2% 2% 6.5:1 2 Fitness lap lanes 29% 56% 11% 2% 1% 6.5:1 3 Family changing rooms 22% 62% 11% 2% 2% 6.5:1 4 Therapeutic pool 25% 57% 14% 2% 2% 5.1:1 5 Water play area 24% 56% 14% 3% 2% 4.7:1 6 Children’s play features such 20% 60% 15% 3% 1% 4.4:1 as spray areas 7 Birthday party areas 14% 64% 18% 2% 2% 3.9:1 8 Competition pool 19% 54% 20% 3% 4% 3.2:1 9 Recreational diving area 14% 55% 23% 3% 5% 2.7:1 10 Water slides 14% 54% 25% 3% 3% 2.4:1 11 Current channel or lazy river 13% 54% 28% 3% 7% 2.2:1 12 Whirlpool 13% 50% 29% 3% 5% 2.0:1 13 Steam room or sauna 17% 47% 29% 3% 4% 2.0:1 14 Spa 15% 45% 32% 3% 4% 1.8:1 15 Indoor enhancements such as 9% 42% 38% 4% 7% 1.2:1 waterfalls

Ratio 6.4:1 6.3:1 4.6:1 4.4:1 4.3:1 3.9:1 3.8:1 3.8:1

3.8:1 3.5:1 3.3:1 2.5:1 1.8:1 1.7:1

38

Chapter 4 - Needs Assessment
Future Park and Recreation Actions Respondents were queried on their opinion regarding various statements on future actions of Parks and Leisure Services in order to gauge both the City’s past success and opinions concerning the City’s priorities. As indicated in Table 4.14, residents are in support of many potential actions. The top three most-supported actions include acquiring land for future park and open space development (5.9:1 support ratio), expanding the City’s trail system (5.3:1 support ratio), and acquire land to preserve environmentally sensitive areas such as natural creek corridors (5.1:1). The remaining results are shown in Table 4.14. Table 4.14 Agreement with Future Park and Recreation Actions Rank Facility or Activity Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 1 Acquire land for future park 26% 56% 11% 3% and open space development 2 Expand the City’s trail system 26% 53% 13% 2% 3 Acquire land to preserve 30% 52% 14% 2% environmentally sensitive areas such as natural creek corridors 4 Plant more trees in the City 30% 50% 15% 2% 5 Construct a nature center or 22% 51% 18% 3% botanical gardens 6 Develop parks and facilities 10% 48% 30% 5% that are specific to tourism in the City 7 Place art in parks and other 12% 47% 30% 5% public spaces 8 Construct a tennis center 10% 42% 33% 4%

Sports Organization Needs
Each of the sports organizations active in Lewisville was contacted in order to gain their input for this Vision Plan. The organizations were asked to report their current number of participants, where their participants live, their projected five to ten year growth, what facilities they use, and what their needs are within the near future. The following organizations responded to this request for information: • Flag Football X (Adult) • Greater Lewisville Area Soccer Association • Lewisville Baseball Association No Opinion 3% 5% 2% Ratio 5.9:1 5.3:1 5.1:1 • Lewisville Football Association • Lewisville Youth Basketball Association • Lewisville/Flower Mound Force Lacrosse Club • Lewisville-Carrollton Soccer League (Adult) • North Texas Premier Soccer Association (Adult) In total, these eight organizations are estimated to have enrolled over 11,000 participants in their activities in 2010. The larger of these organizations anticipate little growth over the next five to ten years while the smaller organizations— Lacrosse and Basketball—anticipate significant growth if facilities are available. Needs Most of the more established associations do not have any needs for the next five to ten years. The Greater Lewisville Soccer Association, being one of the largest and fastest growing associations, has not identified any specific needs, but recognizes that their future growth may warrant additional fields. The Lewisville-Carrollton Soccer League and the North Texas Premier Soccer Association provided similar responses. The Youth Basketball Association has a need for additional indoor practice space (they primarily utilize LISD facilities). The Lacrosse Club has needs for game and practice fields with lighting and seating areas at existing fields.

3% 5% 6%

4.7:1 3.5:1 1.7:1

6% 10%

1.7:1 1.4:1

39

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Public Meetings
A public meeting was held on November 18, 2009 at the J. Glenmore Savage, Sr. Community Room. The intent of this meeting was to create a productive interaction between the public and the Planning Team in order to determine the desires and needs of the community. All information gathered during this meeting was analyzed and processed in order for the Planning Team to produce a plan that best fits the City and its people. The meeting started with a presentation given by the Planning Team to give an overview of the Vision Planning process and introduce the topics of discussion for the meeting. After the presentation, the discussion portion of the meeting began. The results of the meeting produced many items of interest from the public’s point of view. The following summarizes the primary issues discussed during this public input process. Parks The results of this topic produced generalized characteristics of what the public participants like and dislike about their current parks, what they would like to see in the future, and whether it was important to build new parks or expand the existing parks. Likes and Dislikes People said that they like Central Park because of the trails through the wooded areas and the variety of amenities provided there, as well as Toyota of Lewisville Railroad Park because of the diversity of activities it accommodates, especially the skate park. Items that the public would like to see improved on or added to the park system are more parks within walking distance of neighborhoods and more parks on the east side of the City. Future Desires When asked what the public would like to see in the future with respect to the parks, most of the comments focused on increased diversity among their parks and additional amenities within the parks. The public would like to see parks with multiple uses such as more diversity in play equipment, a BMX park, additional pavilions, restrooms, water spray parks, community gardens, areas for open play, and workout stations along trails. People also expressed great interest in a new recreation center for the City. An additional unique item that was discussed was a community garden. Open Space & Natural Areas The next topic focused on the open space and natural areas in and around the City. People expressed their desire to see natural areas protected because of their ecological value and the character that they lend to the City. These places also bring relief, serenity, a place to relax and explore and make Lewisville a good place to live. People also stated that it is “common sense” to protect natural areas to provide balance between ecosystems and urban development. Areas of focus within Lewisville for protection include along creeks, around the Lake, along Main Street in order to maintain a small town feel, and at LLELA. Lewisville Lake People identified the role of the Lake as something that brands Lewisville and defines its image. When asked how the Lake could be better utilized, people said that they would like to have more shoreline activities, a pier for various uses, viewing areas, more trees, and free access for Lewisville residents. Programs & Activities Meeting participants were asked if they regularly participated in activities offered by PALS. The participants mostly have not participated in any programs or activities; their stated reasons for this where that the activities are held at the recreation centers, which are too far from where they live; they do not know about them; their lives are too busy; and they are not interested in traditional programs. When asked what types of programs or activities would be of interest to them, they said farmers markets, outdoor concerts, events on Main Street, Christmas events, and remote control planes/cars. Recreation Centers This topic focused on whether people feel that the recreation centers adequately meet the needs of the community and what types of activities and/or facilities would be desirable in a potential future recreation center. People felt that the two existing centers—Memorial Park Recreation Center and Herring Recreation Center—are too close to each other and are not well-distributed across the City. An additional center on the east side of town was requested and people stated that they would be willing to drive 3–4 miles to access a recreation center. When asked what amenities would be desirable, participants said racquetball, indoor leisure aquatics, tennis courts, fitness areas, child care, BMX park, a food court or snack bar, and outdoor play fields. A future recreation center should provide activities for people of all ages and should be a destination within the community. Vision for the Future At the end of the meeting, people were asked what is their vision for the future of Lewisville. First and foremost, people see Lewisville as having a strong sense of “home” and community. They see the City as a nice and diverse place to live and a great place to grow. The relaxing aspects of the community stretch from neighborhoods to the lake.

40

Chapter 4 - Needs Assessment
sTandards-based needs
Level of service (LOS) is a term that can be used to describe how well the various components of a parks system serve the community. LOS figures represent the amount of park land and number of recreation facilities per capita in the City at a specific point in time. As such, it is important to consider both Current LOS and Target LOS (CLOS and TLOS, respectively) to understand how well the City of Lewisville is meeting needs today and to represent goals for park land and recreation facilities. TLOS versus Standard Though the two terms are often used interchangeably, there are substantial differences between a “target level of service” and a “standard.” As mentioned above, TLOS is a figure that represents a City’s goals for the LOS of various park and facility types. On the other hand, the term “standard” (which is a shortened version of “minimum standard”) represents the absolute minimum LOS that a City should achieve. These standards (including the often-cited National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) standards, which were created more than 15 years ago) are often based on assessments of CLOS amongst cities in other parts of the country and are not necessarily applicable to communities in North Texas. As such, these NRPA standards are used as a starting point for developing the TLOS for Lewisville, but are often surpassed as their applicability is obviously limited. In short, while many cities simply use the NRPA standards rather than developing their own TLOS, it is always better to plan and strive for the ideal rather than the minimum. LOS is analyzed in three ways in this Vision Plan: 1. Spatial LOS – This defines the amount of park land needed and its necessary distribution. This type of LOS actually includes two subtypes: a. Acreage LOS is typically expressed as a per-capita figure. For example, an acreage LOS for neighborhood parks might be expressed as “X acres per 1,000 population.” b. Park Service Area LOS represents the spatial distribution of parks and is typically only applied to neighborhood and community parks. For example, a target park service area LOS might be expressed as “one neighborhood park within one half-mile of every residence in the City.” 2. Outdoor Facility LOS – This defines the number of outdoor facilities recommended to serve each particular recreation need. An outdoor facility LOS is usually expressed as a ratio of units of a particular facility per population size. For example, a facility LOS for soccer fields might be expressed as “one field per X population.” 3. Indoor Facility LOS – This defines the amount of indoor facility space recommended for recreation, community, and senior centers. An indoor facility LOS is usually expressed as a per-capita figure. For example, a facility LOS for recreation centers might be expressed as “X square feet per capita.” TLOS are based on build-out conditions since land is a finite resource. For reference, NRPA’s recommended standards are shown in Table 4.15. Table 4.15 Park Acreage Guidelines Based on National (NRPA) Recommended Standards Close to Home Parks Pocket Parks Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Total recommended close to home parks per NRPA: Other Parks Special Purpose Parks Linear Parks / Linkage Parks Nature Preserves / Open Space Regional Parks 0.25 to 0.5 acres / 1,000 population 1.0 to 2.0 acres / 1,000 population 5.0 to 8.0 acres / 1,000 population 6.25 to 10.5 acres / 1,000 population Variable Variable Variable 5.0 to 10.0 acres / 1,000 population

Spatial LOS
As described above, spatial LOS incorporates acreage LOS, as well as park service area LOS. For Lewisville, the acreage TLOS was developed by first considering NRPA, then comparing benchmark cities, and finally making adjustments based on the City’s unique aspects. TLOS for park service area is based on travel distances and the potential population served by each park (i.e., one neighborhood park optimally serves approximately 3,000 to 4,000 people though this exact figure changes based on unique variables in each City). It is important to understand that spatial

41

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Acreage TLOS The NRPA standards as presented in Table 4.15 were used when developing target LOS for Lewisville. An overall target LOS of 20 acres of park land per 1,000 population was developed for the City of Lewisville. Additionally, specific target LOS were developed for neighborhood and community parks; both of which, as described in Chapter 4 – Existing Conditions, are considered close-to-home parks and therefore are the primary park types for Lewisville. No specific target LOS was developed for special purpose parks, linear parks, or open space and nature area preserves individually because the need for such park land is variable over time. Nor was a specific target LOS developed for the regional park classification for multiple reasons, including the concept that regional parks are located in an opportunitybased manner and the fact that the many regional parks in and around Lewisville are owned and maintained by other agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers. However, the acreage of Lewisville’s special purpose parks, linear parks, and open space and nature area preserves is accounted for as contributing to the overall CLOS and TLOS of the community. Collectively the target LOS for other parks is represented as 10 acres of park land per 1,000 population. These park land target levels of service are presented on Table 4.16. Park Service Area LOS In addition to determining current and future park needs by analyzing acreage figures, it is important to consider the service area of neighborhood and community parks. These are the core parks in any city’s park system and should be equally distributed throughout the community. The regional benchmark for neighborhood and community park service areas are as follows: •  Neighborhood Park Service Area – quarter-mile to half-mile radius, or approximately a five to ten minute walk •  Community Park Service Area – 1 mile radius, or approximately a five minute drive These service areas are general. While a half-mile or one mile radius is a good guideline for the area that is well-served by a neighborhood or community park, not all parks will fully serve these areas. The reason for this is that physical barriers (such as railroads and major thoroughfares) limit access between the park and some of its intended service area. Consideration should be given when developing new parks to the physical barriers that separate it from some or all of the neighborhoods that it is intended to serve.

42

Chapter 4 - Needs Assessment
Neighborhood Parks CLOS, TLOS and Service Area Currently, Lewisville has approximately 48% of the acreage for neighborhood parks required at build-out based upon the 2011 TLOS for neighborhood parks (see Table 4.17). Considering that Lewisville’s current population is at approximately 86% of its anticipated build-out, this deficit is significant. In addition to a deficit with regard to acreage LOS, there is also a moderate park service area deficit as illustrated in Figure 4.2. Table 4.17 Current and Target Level of Service – Neighborhood Parks Existing Acreage 106.4 acres Current LOS 1.1 acres / 1,000 population Target LOS 2.0 acres / 1,000 population Target Acreage at Build-Out* 222 acres Acreage to Acquire to meet Target 116 acres Existing acreage is 48% of the target for build-out conditions *Population of 111,168 Community Parks CLOS, TLOS and Service Area Lewisville currently has approximately 82% of the acreage for community parks required at build-out based upon the 2011 TLOS for community parks (see Table 4.18). Considering that Lewisville’s current population is at approximately 86% of its anticipated build-out, this category has a much less significant deficit than the neighborhood park category. In addition to a deficit with regard to acreage LOS, there is also a moderate park service area deficit as illustrated in Figure 4.3. Table 4.18 Current and Target Level of Service – Community Parks Existing Acreage 732.9 acres Current LOS 7.7 acres / 1,000 population Target LOS 8.0 acres / 1,000 population Target Acreage at Build-Out* 889 acres Acreage to Acquire to meet Target 156 acres Existing acreage is 82% of the target for build-out conditions *Population of 111,168

Figure 4.2 – Neighborhood Park Service Area Deficit The yellow, orange, and pink areas in this figure indicate the residential areas and vacant land that is zoned for residential that are not within a half-mile of a neighborhood park. As it can be seen, many households in the community do not currently receive the preferred level of neighborhood park service.

Figure 4.3 – Community Park Service Area Deficit The yellow, orange, and pink areas in this figure indicate the residential areas and vacant land that is zoned for residential that are not within one mile of a community park. As it can be seen, many households on the far west and far east ends of the community do not currently receive the preferred level of community park service.

43

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Other Parks CLOS and TLOS Lewisville currently has approximately 57% of the acreage for other parks1 required at build-out based upon the 2011 Target LOS for other parks (see Table 4.19). This results in a deficit of about 7 acres of other park land. As park service area is not a significant consideration for other park types, there is not a need to perform a service area deficit analysis such as was performed for neighborhood and community parks. Table 4.19 Current and Target Level of Service – Other Parks Existing Acreage 629 acres Current LOS 6.7 acres / 1,000 population Target LOS 10.0 acres / 1,000 population Target Acreage at Build-Out* 1,112 acres Acreage to Acquire to meet Target 483 acres Existing acreage is 57% of the target for build-out conditions *Population of 111,168 Summary of Park Land Needs The overall result of the acreage LOS analysis is that there is a need to acquire about 755 additional acres of park land in Lewisville by the time the City is built-out. An important consideration is that 272 of these acres should consist of close-to-home parks (neighborhood and community parks). These results are illustrated in Table 4.20. Table 4.20 Summary of Acreage Needs Park Category Current LOS Target LOS 2011 Acreage Needs (95,390 population) Neighborhood Parks 1.1 acres / 1,000 2 acres / 1,000 191 acres (deficit of 85 acres) Community Parks 7.7 acres / 1,000 8 acres / 1,000 763 acres (deficit of 30 acres) Subtotal (Close-to-home) 8.8 acres / 1,000 10 acres / 1,000 954 acres (deficit of 115 acres) Other Parks 6.7 acres / 1,000 10 acres / 1,000 954 acres (deficit of 325 acres) Grand Total 15.5 acres / 1,000 20 acres / 1,000 1,908 acres (deficit of 440 acres)

Outdoor Facility LOS
Outdoor facility LOS are used to determine current and future standards-based needs by defining how many people are served by each facility (e.g., “one baseball field per 4,000 people”). Custom TLOS for outdoor facilities were developed for Lewisville by using the NRPA standards as a starting point and adjusting these figures based on regional benchmarks as identified by the Planning Team, changing trends in recreation, and the experience of PALS staff regarding Lewisville’s unique patterns and intensities of facility use. The recommended target LOS for outdoor recreation facilities are specifically based on demonstrated needs, the actual number of facilities in the City, and the amount of use each facility receives. Facility needs are analyzed over a five year period rather than on a build-out horizon (as are park acreage needs). This is due to many reasons, including the fact that recreation trends change regularly and the

Build-Out Needs (111,168 population) 222 acres (deficit of 116 acres) 889 acres (deficit of 156 acres) 1,111 acres (deficit of 272 acres) 1,112 acres (deficit of 483 acres) 2,223 acres (deficit of 755 acres)

1 Other parks includes special purpose parks, linear parks, open space preserves, and nature areas, including all other city-owned park land other than neighborhood and community parks.

44

Chapter 4 - Needs Assessment
provision of facilities—as compared with park land—is not based on a finite, consumable resource. While the results of the LOS analysis are based on demonstrated needs, the decision whether to provide a facility must also include consideration of citizen demand and must be weighed against the many other priorities of the City of Lewisville. Tables 4.21 and 4.22 illustrate the cumulative results of the outdoor facility LOS analysis. The first table includes athletic recreation facilities while the second includes non-athletic facilities. Key Athletic Facility Needs Lewisville’s citizens are generally well served with regard to outdoor athletic facilities. As illustrated on Table 4.21, this Vision Plan analyzed nine different athletic facility types. The analysis shows a need for additional units of most of these nine facility types—the most significant of which are practice fields for baseball and softball as well as multipurpose practice fields for soccer and football. However, it is important to consider that the unique “culture of use” in Lewisville affects the true need for additional facilities. Specifically, while the need shown for practice fields is great, this need can be greatly reduced or completely eliminated if the City’s game fields are used for practice or if teams utilize other spaces, such as school yards. Furthermore, the TLOS for baseball/softball practice facilities and multi-purpose practice fields was developed based on regional averages and includes cities where league practice is not allowed on game fields or school grounds. A similar consideration should be given to the provision of adult softball fields. While the TLOS (based on regional averages) indicates a need for four additional fields, this need does not exist in Lewisville today due to levels of league enrollment and efficient field programming. When considering the true needs, there is a significant deficit of outdoor basketball goals and tennis courts. Additional outdoor basketball goals could be provided at existing or future neighborhood and community parks. The 12 additional tennis courts needed could be provided as a single tennis center that would meet local and regional demand while providing another avenue for sports tourism. Not including practice fields and adult softball fields, which are excluded for reasons discussed above, the key athletic facility needs are shown in Table 4.23. Table 4.23 Key Athletic Facility Standards-Based Needs Competitive Soccer Fields 2 fields Cricket Grounds 1 ground Outdoor Basketball Goals 19 goals* Tennis Courts 12 courts** *Provided as 19 half courts, 10 full-courts, or any combination thereof. **This number of courts constitutes an ideal full-service tennis center size. An additional consideration regarding athletic facilities are the challenges related to the distribution of facilities across the City. Specifically, approximately half of the City’s inventory of baseball and soccer fields are located at Lake Park while the other half are located at Toyota of Lewisville Railroad Park. This presents challenges for holding regional or state tournaments for either of these sports and results in neither sport having a single location where most of its activities are held.

45

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Key Non-Athletic Facility Needs There are additional areas of deficiency in the non-athletic facility category projected for the next five years (see Table 4.24). Many of these facilities (such as playgrounds, water spray parks, and skate parks) can be provided as part of an existing or planned park. As with the analysis of athletic facility needs, there are certain facility types that the analysis shows as having “needs” that actually serve the community well. Namely, the analysis shows a need for an additional skate park and an additional dog park. However, as the TLOS figure was developed based on regional averages and considering the fact that Lewisville’s skate park and dog park are generally twice as large as those of other cities, these needs can easily be refuted. Not including skate parks and dog parks, which are excluded for reasons discussed above, the key non-athletic facility needs are shown in Table 4.24. Table 4.24 Key Non-Athletic Facility Standards-Based Needs Water Spray Park 3 parks* Disc Golf Course 1 course Trails 12 miles** Playgrounds 1 playground Pavilions 10 pavilions *This is in addition to the one spray park that is currently under design. **Based on the LOS analysis of the 2011 Trails Master Plan. Summary of Outdoor Facility Needs Tables 4.21 and 4.22 illustrate the CLOS, TLOS, and resulting surpluses and deficits for outdoor facilities in Lewisville. The overall result of the outdoor facility LOS analysis is that the City of Lewisville has been very proactive in providing athletic facilities (and programming these facilities to provide a high level of service for the community) and therefore does not need to develop many additional facilities of this type within the next five years. However, this analysis does indicate a significant need for certain athletic outdoor recreation facilities including basketball goals and tennis courts. The non-athletic facility analysis reveals a need for water spray parks, pavilions, and trails. These needs align with the results of the public involvement process in which many residents expressed the need for more trails, a new recreation center, and enhanced park amenities. Target Levels of Service for Recreation Centers The Planning Team has sought to benchmark cities in the DFW Metroplex that are comparable in location and demographics to Lewisville. Benchmarking cities for indoor facility LOS included Carrollton, Coppell, Denton, Flower Mound, Frisco, Garland, Grand Prairie, Grapevine, Irving, McKinney, Plano, and Richardson. Benchmarks were established by developing ratios of square footage per capita for each of these cities and were based upon existing facilities and facilities planned for the near future. In instances where indoor aquatic areas were part of a recreation center, that square footage was included in the study. These benchmark cities had a low range of 0.31 square feet per capita to an upper range of 1.11 square feet per capita with an average of 0.73 square feet per capita. Of the cities utilized for benchmarking, four cities are currently in the study phase of expanding their recreation/aquatic facilities in order to maintain a service level consistent with the DFW area in general. Therefore although the 0.73 square foot per capita reflects current averages of benchmarked cities, these averages will increase in the near future to more closely approximate a 0.90 to 1.00 LOS. The City of Lewisville currently has a ratio of 0.61 square feet per capita. The results of this analysis are illustrated in Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4 – Recreation Center LOS Analysis This figure illustrates the recreation center level of service of each of the benchmark cities that were analyzed. The red line indicates the average of these figures while the green line indicates Lewisville’s current level of service.

Recreation Center TLOS Considering the results of the benchmark City analysis, a TLOS of 0.9 square feet per capita for recreation centers is recommended for Lewisville. Based upon the projected 111,168 build-out population of Lewisville, this translates to a need for 100,050 square feet of recreation center space to be comparable to peer cities in the near future (this is 52,050 more square feet that currently exists in the City’s recreation centers). The industry trend is to create more activities within a center that would address the needs of all ages of a family (referred to as a multi-generational center), which would suggest that a response to this need would be satisfied by placement of one larger facility located somewhat centrally within the City and renovating the current Herring Center. Those two combined square footages would help reach the Target LOS. The current Memorial Park Recreation Center would be repurposed for expansion needs of the Senior Center (see Table 5.2 on page 58).

Indoor Facility LOS
Indoor facility standards and TLOS define the number of facilities recommended to serve each particular type of recreation need. They are expressed as the square footage of indoor facility per capita. The TLOS shown is based on comparisons with national standards and other similar cities in Texas, as well as the actual size of facilities in Lewisville. For the purposes of the Vision Plan, only indoor facilities operated by the City were considered in the development of these TLOS.

46

Chapter 4 - Needs Assessment
Target Levels of Service for Senior Centers Senior facilities are not currently included in any standards that are accepted in the industry. Senior center programs typically transition from using facilities originally designed for other uses (such as churches and large houses) until they have matured to the point of requiring centers designed specifically for their needs. In looking at the benchmark cities, the ratios range from 0.07 square feet to 0.32 square feet per capita, with the average around 0.18 square feet per capita. The City of Lewisville currently has a ratio of 0.10 square feet per capita. The results of this analysis are illustrated in Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5 – Senior Center LOS Analysis This figure illustrates the senior center level of service of each of the benchmark cities that were analyzed. The red line indicates the average of these figures while the green line indicates Lewisville’s current level of service.

resourCe-based needs
The resource-based needs assessment is the final component of the needs assessment. It includes the identification of key physical and natural resources within Lewisville and an analysis of what opportunities and constraints each resource presents in relation to parks, recreation, and open space. This section examines some of Lewisville’s most valuable physical and natural resources, including Lewisville Lake, LLELA, the City’s creeks and greenbelts, and the extensive floodplain of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. Lewisville Lake The lake provides many opportunities to the community, including recreation, drinking water, open space, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic character. Recreation opportunities possible or available at the lake include shoreline activities (such as trails, bird watching, picnicking, camping, athletics, and environmental education) and water-based activities (such as skiing, sailing, kayaking, canoeing, and motor boating). Living up to its namesake, Lewisville Lake is strongly identified with the City of Lewisville and is perhaps the community’s strongest identity-giving element. However, only a relatively small portion of the lake is accessible from Lewisville; the majority of the shoreline within the City limits consists of the dam and spillway, all of which exist within LLELA. The lake is an incredibly valuable resource for Lewisville and should be protected and celebrated as a major and unique component of the character and marketability of the City. Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area As one of the last remaining natural areas of significant size in the Metroplex, LLELA presents a great opportunity for connecting people with nature through trails, environmental learning programs, fishing, and simple exploration. LLELA sits on an ecologically and geologically significant site, where the Cross Timbers and Blackland Prairie meet. The area provides habitat to a broad array of wildlife, including bobcat, river otter, deer, mink, wild turkey, painted bunting, and American bison. This area is bisected by the Elm Fork of the Trinity River and provides an open space connection between Lewisville and The Colony. Great opportunities may lie in expanding and deepening the partnership between LLELA and the City of Lewisville to help support the area and its management and preservation goals while providing increased marketability and access for the public.

Senior Center TLOS Lewisville’s current center, though relatively new and well appointed, is undersized to serve the community with a CLOS of 0.10 square feet per capita. Considering the results of the benchmark analysis, on-site observations, and discussion with staff, a minimum TLOS of 0.18 square feet per capita is recommended for senior centers . This would translate to a need for about 20,000 square feet of senior center space (including the existing Senior Activity Center). It is important to understand that there is a trend for recreation centers to include dedicated areas for seniors, especially baby boomers who are much more active than the previous generation of senior citizens. With regard to senior citizens 70 and older, dedicated senior centers effectively provide services to this growing population segment because the needs of this age group are more defined. Summary of Indoor Facility Needs As noted, the condition and size of the current facilities do not properly address the requirements of current or future facility needs. In addition to outdoor seasonal aquatics, there is a great need to provide indoor leisure and wellness aquatics for the various age segments of the population. The benchmark analysis and public involvement results support the need for additional recreation/indoor aquatic and senior center space.

47

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Creeks & Greenbelts Creek corridors provide natural beauty to the City and are unique opportunities for recreation. Creeks and their floodplains provide environmental services such as flood protection, wildlife habitat, and improved water quality through natural filtration. In addition, these corridors provide excellent opportunities for trail linkages, linear parks, and “green ribbons,” throughout the City. Creeks and greenbelts also provide value by acting as natural gateways along streets and roads. Timber Creek and Prairie Creek are perhaps Lewisville’s most prominent creeks and greenbelts. Both of these flow west-to-east and are roughly parallel to each other. The 2011 Trails Master Plan recommends continuing the trails along each of these creeks to enhance connectivity within the park system and the community. To date, the City’s Engineering Division has made good progress toward protecting these resources through the provisions made in the floodplain ordinance. It is important, however, to also ensure that the very nature of these areas remains fully protected by means of limiting or disallowing floodplain reclamation and other potentially irreparable actions. The Trinity River and its Floodplain More than seven miles of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River flows through Lewisville’s City limits. Along these seven miles, the river’s floodplain is considerably wide, spanning several thousand feet in width in some area. There are many unique recreational opportunities provided by this natural feature, including water-based activities (a paddling trail is recommended in the 2011 Trails Master Plan), shore fishing, hiking, environmental learning, and bird watching. One of the primary steps needed in order to open up this unique and valuable corridor to the public is the development of river access points. While LLELA constitutes much of the river’s floodplain within Lewisville, much of the land south of Business 121 and within or immediately adjacent to this floodplain consists of landfills. They do not enhance recreational value currently, but once the landfills close they can provide unique recreational and ecological restoration opportunities. The Trinity River’s floodplain is extensive and continues to be a challenge for urban development and infrastructure provision on the east side of Lewisville. However, long-term opportunities for unique recreational value within the larger urban context may be present here and should be explored.

48

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan
“Active Adventure... Creative Connections”

Chapter 5 - Recommendations
49

5

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
InTroduCTIon
This chapter contains a series of recommendations for the improvement and future expansion of Lewisville’s parks, recreation, and open space system. These recommendations are based upon the vision and goals (Chapter 1), the City’s context (Chapter 2) the analysis of existing conditions (Chapter 3), and the needs assessment (Chapter 4). The recommendations contained herein should be implemented or initiated over the general life of this Vision Plan. Recommended items in this chapter are prioritized in Chapter 6 – Implementation. The recommendations fall into four general categories: •  Cultural Landscape & Open Space Preservation – Recommendations to preserve and protect important cultural landscapes and natural open space areas in the City. •  Land Acquisition & Park Development – Recommendations for acquiring land based on needs and opportunities and guidelines for developing new parks and enhancing existing parks. •  Outdoor Recreation Facilities – Number and type of outdoor recreation facilities that should be implemented within the next five years. •  Indoor Recreation &Aquatic Facilities – Recommendations for expanding, modifying, and building recreation center, senior center, and indoor aquatic facilities. The overarching greatest need identified in this Vision Plan is to upgrade and modernize Lewisville’s existing parks and facilities to enhance quality of life in the community and respond to regional and national recreation trends (see pages 8 and 9). Specific recommendations for individual parks can be found in Chapter 3 – Existing Conditions while the broad, system-wide recommendations in this chapter will also help to modernize the parks, recreation, and open space system.

CulTural landsCape & open spaCe preservaTIon
The protection and preservation of open space, which includes natural areas, creek corridors, prairies, floodplains, lakeshores, wooded areas, and other types of undeveloped land, is an increasingly important goal for the Lewisville citizens. In the Citizen Attitude Survey (telephone survey), 95% of respondents agreed that “natural areas and open space are important and should be preserved where it is available.” There are a multitude of potential physical and policy-based actions which the City can and should take in order to ensure the protection of the unique cultural landscapes and natural areas that make Lewisville special; however, the following actions are arguably the most important for the City to take over the next five to ten years.

Protect Floodplains
Rivers, creeks, and streams provide both challenges and opportunities for Lewisville. On the one hand, drainage systems are by nature dynamic and change over time through erosion and sediment processes, typically exacerbated by upstream development. Therefore, creeks and streams must be carefully managed in order to ensure adequate flood conveyance and to protect water quality and public safety. One the other hand, they also provide ample opportunities for recreational use, as well as corridors and habitat for wildlife and unique areas of vegetation. In conclusion, these pieces of “green infrastructure” are of vital importance to the health of the community and should be protected utilizing the strategies discussed below. Floodplain Protection Plan In order to manage drainage corridors for public use, public safety, water quality, and the protection of open space, it is recommended that the Engineering Division of the Community Development Department (in cooperation with the Economic Development and Planning Department and Parks and Leisure Services) create a city-wide Floodplain Protection Plan. The major component of such a plan would be the development of a detailed hydraulic and hydrology study that identifies the fully-developed 100-year floodplain at anticipated build-out conditions for all major drainage corridors in Lewisville. It is important to consider fully-developed conditions in order to ensure the long-term health and quality of floodplains and economic sustainability of the City. Furthermore, protecting the floodplain at fully-developed conditions affords more opportunities for recreational uses, such as trails, nature exploration, and open space preserves, along creek corridors.

50

Chapter 5 - Recommendations
Floodplain Management Strategy While the development and implementation of a Floodplain Protection Plan (as described above) might be a longerterm action, the City of Lewisville can take immediate actions that will provide long-term benefit to the community. It is recommended that the City of Lewisville adopt a floodplain management strategy that preserves the City’s creek corridors by means of guidelines, public-private partnerships, and developer incentives. Such a strategy may include policies relative to five concepts: • Consider allowing no reclamation within the 100year fully-developed hydrologic floodplain. Reclaiming floodplain can impact public safety, water quality, erosion, wildlife habitat, visual quality, and tree cover, as well as greatly reducing outdoor recreation opportunities. Otherwise, the City should provide best practice guidelines for limited floodplain reclamation, the placement and design of structures, and the provision of trails and other amenities in environmentally sensitive areas. • Acquire floodplain land for public use or otherwise ensure its protection and acquire access easements for linear trails. While preserving the floodplain (regardless of ownership) is the primary goal, it is also important to ensure that people can access floodplains and creek corridors by means of trails. • Do not locate high-intensity recreation facilities within the floodplain. Ball fields and other recreation facilities often require floodplain reclamation, the removal of trees, and disturbance of floodplain vegetation, which has the function of absorbing floodwater and filtering pollutants. While it is often desirable to have parks that include these types of facilities adjacent to creek corridors, it is important to ensure that the highly-developed portions of these parks are outside of the floodplain. • Develop guidelines regarding the management of floodplain land (including the clearing/removal of vegetation, mowing, and wildlife management). Educate landowners (large and small) and developers on the value of floodplains and provide them with these floodplain management guidelines. • The City should consider incentivizing developers for exercising site-specific LID (Low Impact Development, a form of stormwater best management practices) and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Sustainable Sites practices. Employing these practices can result in improved water quality, reduced property damage, the slowing of water runoff thereby reducing erosion, and the reduction of flood intensity.

Protect Cultural Landscapes & Natural Open Space
Ensuring the protection of the cultural landscapes that make the City unique is an important priority of the community. The following recommendations are made in order to identify and protect important cultural landscapes and natural areas. Develop a Cultural & Environmental Resource Inventory Lewisville has unique cultural and natural characteristics, including creek corridors, the lakeshore, prairie remnants, and historic neighborhoods. Protecting culturally and ecologically valuable areas requires having a firm grasp on what resources exist and the relative quality and quantity of each. It is recommended that the City creates a Cultural and Environmental Resource Inventory of the important areas within Lewisville that provide wildlife habitat, reflect the City’s identity, provide ecosystem services (such as carbon sequestration, water filtration, and pest control), and/or include other characteristics that warrant their protection. Developing and maintaining such an inventory will aid the City in guiding future development actions, developing policy, and prioritizing open space acquisition. Acquire Open Space While ensuring the preservation of open space through ordinances and regulations is important, it is also essential to actually acquire open space for public use. It is recommended that the City acquires at least enough open space to provide trails along all major creeks and floodplain areas in the City, as well as space for trailheads and access points. Other areas may include sites of important ecological value including tree covered areas, areas of topographic interest, and the lake shore. It is recommended that the City strive to locate many of its parks along open space corridors so that the establishment of a network of trails and open spaces will also serve as physical linkages and habitat corridors between parks.

Embrace Lewisville Lake
Lewisville Lake is a great asset for the community and is one of the City’s strongest identity-giving features. The lake provides many recreational opportunities to the community and surrounding region, but is also one of Lewisville’s most important landmarks. One of the most important ways in which the community can embrace the lake is to enhance and increase visual and physical connectivity to the lake and its shoreline. It is recommended that the City strive to create trail connections between the lakeshore and the rest of the community (utilizing corridors identified by the 2011 Trails Master Plan). In addition, it is recommended that the City look for opportunities to provide additional amenities along the lakeshore, such as overlooks, piers, natural surface trails, and play areas. Such amenities will provide recreational benefits, as well as help solidify the presence of and importance of the lake as a component of Lewisville’s character and image. Finally, increasing the regularity of festivals and special events at Lake Park will help draw more attention to the lake and strengthen its presence in the community.

51

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
land aCquIsITIon & park developmenT
Ensuring that adequate land is available for future recreation opportunities is the determining factor in developing a quality and sustainable parks, recreation, and open space system. In addition to simply providing space for needed facilities, it is important for the City to acquire land in order to maintain the target levels of service and park service areas set forth by this Vision Plan (see pages 41-43) as the City continues to grow. In the Citizen Attitude Survey, 82% of respondents agree that it is important to “acquire land for future park and open space development” (see Chapter 4). The following specific acquisition and park development actions are recommended per sector (these sectors correspond with the study areas used during the Citizen Attitude Survey). •  Sector 1 (east of IH-35E) – 5 Neighborhood Parks (one on existing park land), 1 Community Park (on existing park land) •  Sector 2 (west of IH-35E and north of Main Street) – 1 Neighborhood Park (on existing park land) •  Sector 3 (west of IH-35E, south of Main Street and north of Bellaire Boulevard) – No new parks •  Sector 4 (west of IH-35E and south of Bellaire Boulevard) – 2 Neighborhood Parks (one on existing park land and one on Lewisville ISD land)

Figure 5.1 – City Sectors This figure illustrates how Lewisville was divided into sectors for park recommendations. These sectors directly correspond with the study areas used for the Citizen Attitude Survey (telephone survey).

52

Chapter 5 - Recommendations
Neighborhood Parks
Lewisville’s current and future LOS indicates a need for 116 additional acres of land for neighborhood parks, as well as a significant service area deficit (see page 43). In order to address these needs, eight additional neighborhood parks are recommended for Lewisville. While some of the land to be acquired might need to be purchased outright by the City, it is the intent that the majority of the necessary land acquisition mentioned above (and illustrated in Figure 5.2) will occur through parkland dedication during the development process (either through outright dedication or acquired fees in lieu of land) so that accommodating the needs of additional residential growth in Lewisville is shared between the City and the development community. In addition, three of the proposed park sites are located on existing park land or land owned by the Lewisville ISD. This would reflect a reallocation of land, rather than an acquisition. Figure 5.2 shows locations of existing, potential, and “de facto” neighborhood parks. The locations for new parks were chosen based on perceived land availability, proximity to natural features and potential trail corridors, and their ability to provide service area coverage for existing and future residential areas. A “de facto” neighborhood park indicates the location of a community park, which also serves as a neighborhood park because of the amenities that it provides. The potential neighborhood parks shown at Valley Ridge Boulevard Greenbelt, Oak Bend Park, Rockbrook Elementary School, and near the southernmost DCTA station would not require land acquisition because this land is already owned by the City or Lewisville ISD.

Figure 5.2 – Existing & Proposed Neighborhood & DeFacto Neighborhood Parks This figure illustrates the location of existing and proposed neighborhood and “de facto” neighborhood parks in Lewisville. “De facto” parks are community parks that also serve as neighborhood parks because in addition to ball fields, recreation centers, etc., they also include all of the amenities of a typical neighborhood park.

53

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Community Parks
Lewisville’s current and future LOS indicates a need for 156 additional acres of land for community parks (see page 43). In order to address these needs, one additional community park is recommended for Lewisville in the far eastern portion of the City on land currently leased from the USACE (currently referred to as the East Hill Open Space, described on page 26). In addition to generally addressing the acreage deficit, an additional community park can help address the need for additional athletic and non-athletic facilities (namely soccer fields, adult softball fields, a cricket ground, practice space, and tennis courts—see Tables 4.21 and 4.22). Because of its large size (221 acres), this land can accommodate a community park that provides both active and passive recreation activities. Being located next to LLELA—a very important regional facility in terms of habitat protection and wildlife management—it is essential to consider the impact of an intensely developed recreation facility including the affect of lights on nocturnal wildlife species. It is recommended that the previous master plan for a community park at the East Hill Open Space be updated and revised to address the community’s current recreation needs and to determine whether the character of this park should be focused more on active or passive recreation.

Figure 5.3 – Existing & Proposed Community Parks This figure illustrates the location of existing and proposed community parks in Lewisville.

54

Chapter 5 - Recommendations
Other Parks
In addition to considering land for future neighborhood and community parks, it is important to consider the need for other types of park land. Specifically, future land acquisition might be warranted for trailheads, linear parks, open space and nature areas, and special purpose parks. Special Purpose Parks Special purpose parks are provided in order to meet specific needs or to take advantage of specific opportunities. The size, location, and character of land acquired for parks of this type will depend on the park’s intended purpose. Stand-alone skate parks and athletic complexes are typically considered special purpose parks. Recommendations for indoor and outdoor facilities are shown on the following pages. Many of these facilities can be provided on existing park land. However, some may require the acquisition of new land in order to accommodate the facility’s size or site requirements. Linear Parks and Open Space Preserves It is recommended that the City acquire key pieces of natural open space along creek corridors for use as linear parks or nature preserves. In general, the City should seek to acquire land that is along a planned trail corridor or that has unique ecological value. Potential maintenance challenges should be considered when determining whether a parcel of land should be acquired. In some instances, the City may choose to acquire a permanent trail easement rather than purchase land. This will reduce overall costs to the City and might require less maintenance. Trailheads Expanding the City’s trail system is one of the citizens’ top priorities. In addition to constructing additional trails, it is important to provide trailheads to allow access to the system. The 2011 Trails Master Plan includes recommendations for trailhead locations and design. While each existing park that is connected to the trail system can automatically serve as a trailhead if appropriate facilities are provided, the trailhead locations recommended by the Trails Master Plan should be carefully considered as it may be necessary for the City to acquire land in these locations in order to provide a trailhead. Riverfront Parks & River Access Points The Elm Fork of the Trinity River is an important natural resource in Lewisville. Due to its expansive floodplain and wide channel, it has the potential to offer many recreational opportunities as discussed on page 48. Providing access to the river via access points and trails is an important first step to providing these opportunities for the community. The 2011 Trails Master Plan includes recommendations for a paddling trail along the river, canoe/kayak put-in and take-out points, and traditional trails paralleling portions of the river. It is recommended that those recommendations be implemented and that the canoe/kayak put-in and take-out points be provided as part of more holistic river access points that Figure 5.4 – Trinity River Focus Area This figure illustrates the Elm Fork of the Trinity River, its floodplain, and adjacent land uses. Potential river access points are identified. provide amenities such as parking, fishing piers, overlooks, lighting, drinking water, and opportunities for environmental learning (see Figure 5.4). The specific nature of each of the three access points may vary significantly based on each one’s location. The northern access point is located within LLELA. Due to the environmental sensitivity of that area, only minimal improvements (such as more clearly delineating the parking area) are warranted. The central access point is on existing Cityowned land that is heavily wooded. Providing a parking lot, lighting, drinking water, and an overlook are viable options, so long as the natural beauty of the corridor is preserved. The southern access point is also on existing City-owned land; however, this land is generally level and free of significant vegetation, which would allow a higher-intensity access point with more amenities (possibly even a playground or ball fields). It is important to note, however, that this area is within the 100 year floodplain, which will shape what improvements are possible. Beyond these recommendations, there are longer-term opportunities to provide large open space preserves along the river corridor, especially as the existing landfills cease operation.

55

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Park Development Guidelines
Neighborhood parks and community parks are the core components of Lewisville’s parks system. The nature of the design, development, and improvement of these parks is dependent on each park’s unique site characteristics. However, there are certain guidelines and considerations that are applicable to each of these park types, regardless of its unique characteristics. In order to provide guidance when establishing a new park or improving an existing park, a set of neighborhood park and community park development guidelines have been developed. These guidelines can be found in Appendix D and consider the following issues: • The overall size of the park; • The general location of the park, including proximity to various types of land use and transportation facilities; • Essential and typical facilities provided at these types of parks; • General design and layout considerations; • Guidelines for how the park interacts with adjacent land uses; and • Parking guidelines. In addition to these more pressing needs, it is also recommended that the City begin anticipating future needs by providing additional soccer fields and one additional cricket ground. The specific recommendations for athletic facilities are: •  Outdoor Basketball Goals – 19 goals (19 half courts, 10 full courts, or any combination thereof) in existing or future neighborhood, community or special purpose parks •  Tennis Courts – 12 tennis courts at a full-service tennis center with locker rooms and pro shop. •  Cricket Grounds – 1 ground in an existing or future community or special purpose park •  Soccer Fields – 2 fields in existing or future community or special purpose parks •  Lacrosse Fields – No fields are recommended, as soccer and football fields can accommodate lacrosse use

Non-Athletic Facilities
Non-athletic facilities are just as important to the parks system as athletic facilities. As opposed to athletic facilities, which generally cater to the needs of organized sports, non-athletic facilities typically provide opportunities for individuals of all ages and families to recreate on an informal basis. This Vision Plan makes the following recommendations regarding core and specialty non-athletic recreation facilities. Core Facilities There is a set of core facilities, including playgrounds, pavilions, open play areas, and loop trails, that should be provided at every neighborhood and community park in the City. These can also be provided in special purpose parks to add recreational value. The following specific facilities are recommended: •  Playgrounds – As a general practice, the City should provide a playground at each neighborhood park and community park. While the LOS analysis only indicates a need to provide one additional playground in Lewisville, it is important that at least one playground be provided at each neighborhood and community park (including the eight proposed neighborhood parks and one proposed community park identified earlier in this chapter). In addition, several playgrounds are identified in the Park & Facility Reviews section of Chapter 3 that should be renovated or replaced. •  Pavilions – As with playgrounds, the City should generally provide a pavilion at every neighborhood and community park. The LOS analysis indicates a need for 10 additional pavilions. These could be provided at the neighborhood parks that do not currently have pavilions or large shade structures (Hedrick Estates, Highland Lakes, Highlands, Iris Lane, and Meadow Lake) and two community parks without pavilions (Memorial and potentially Toyota of Lewisville Railroad Park). In addition, each of the proposed neighborhood and community parks should include pavilions.

ouTdoor reCreaTIon faCIlITIes
The following recommendations for outdoor facilities are based on the LOS analysis, public demand, and the needs of Lewisville’s sports organizations. These recommendations relate to the provision of new facilities and the redevelopment of existing facilities. Many of the recommended new facilities can be provided at existing parks. However, some of the larger, higher-intensity, or specialized facilities might require land acquisition.

Athletic Facilities
Overall, the City is adequately meeting the majority of the community’s athletic facility needs. The recent completion of Railroad Park has, for the most part, accommodated the current and nearterm needs for league-use athletic facilities. However, there are a few key recommendations for new or expanded facilities that should be considered within the next five years. As shown in the needs assessment in Chapter 4, there is a great need for outdoor basketball courts and tennis courts. It is recommended that priority be given to developing these facilities. While outdoor basketball goals can be provided incrementally in existing and future parks (either as half courts or full courts), it is recommended that the tennis courts be provided in concentrated centers. Regarding the 12 proposed tennis courts, it is recommended that they be provided in one fullservice tennis center with locker rooms, a pro shop, and other amenities that can attract tournaments, as well as users from the surrounding region.

56

Chapter 5 - Recommendations
•  Loop Trails & Circulation – Simple yet very popular, a loop trail can be as short as one-eighth of a mile and as long as the park allows (though it is generally desirable to provide cut-offs or short-cuts that provide quartermile loops). It is recommended that loop trails be provided within every neighborhood and community park in Lewisville. It is desirable to connect these loop trails to the City-wide trail system where possible (see the 2011 Trails Master Plan). At a minimum, loop trails or trails connecting to the City-wide trail system should be eight feet wide. Austin Kent Ellis, Creekview, Daffodil, Willow Grove, and Lake Park would all benefit from loop or connector trails. In addition, there are several parks within the system that need additional sidewalks to provide enhanced circulation and connectivity between amenities. The Park & Facility Reviews section of Chapter 3 has identified parks in need of enhanced circulation and connectivity. •  Open Play Areas – It is important for each park to have a balance between programmed and unprogrammed space. Open play areas provide space for playing catch and informal games and should be provided at each neighborhood and community park. Multi-purpose practice fields for football, soccer, baseball, etc. can meet the need for open play areas. It is important to ensure that existing open play areas remain and additional areas are provided at new parks. Specialty Facilities Specialty facilities provide an additional level of recreational value beyond the core facilities and athletic facilities discussed previously. They are intended to diversify the recreational offerings of the City’s parks system and to meet the needs of often under-served groups. •  Water Spray Park – Also called “spray grounds” or “splash pads,” water spray parks provide unique recreation opportunities for children. As a relatively low-cost aquatic facility, they include amenities like water jets and cannons, fountains, and dump buckets. There is currently one water spray park being designed that is to be constructed in the near future, but it is recommended that three additional units be provided where and when the opportunity arises. •  Disc Golf Course – A disc golf course is one of the most affordable recreation facilities that the City can provide. They cost very little to install and have minimal maintenance costs other than occasional tree trimming. They are especially popular with young adults, but also often attract teenagers and middle-aged adults. Ideal locations for disc golf courses are in undeveloped open spaces, such as along creek corridors. The City already has one disc golf course (at LL Woods Park), but an additional course is recommended to allow more people to enjoy this popular activity. •  Special Events Park – Lewisville is well-known for its festivals and special events, including the Western Days Festival, which attracts thousands of visitors each year. A park designed to accommodate festivals and special events would expand the opportunities for the number and size of events held each year. The design of such a space should provide recreational value between such events so that it maintains a constant level of activity. Special considerations must be made for a park of this type, such as supplying adequate parking, having welldistributed power and lighting, and providing overnight security for multi-day events or previous-day set-up. Potential traffic implications must also be considered. The size and location of a park such as this will depend on the size and character of potential events.

Indoor reCreaTIon & aquaTIC faCIlITIes
Based upon information from citizen surveys and public meetings, the condition and size of current facilities, and the analysis of comparable facilities provided by surrounding communities, Lewisville has a shortage of indoor recreation/ aquatic center space and senior center space. The benchmark analysis indicates an approximate need for 20,000 square feet of senior center space and 100,050 square feet of recreation center space. This results in a deficit of 10,000 square feet and 52,050 square feet, respectively.

Improvements to Existing Facilities
In addition to the provision of new facilities, the following improvements are recommended in order to enhance the functionality and enjoyment of the City’s existing indoor recreation facilities and aquatic centers1. Frederick P Herring Recreation Center . Recommendations for this center include: • An expanded cardiovascular fitness area (4,000 sf) with new equipment; • Development of adequate staff space (1,500 sf); • Movement of control desk to south to better control flow of visitors and increase security; • Enlarge and renovate restroom and shower areas; and • Improve allocation of parking at the center’s entrance. Estimated Project Budget: $1,625,000 Senior Activity Center This scope of work includes combining the existing Senior Activity Center with the Memorial Park Recreation Center with a new lobby, two new classrooms, storage, and expanded staff support area (5,000 square feet) resulting in a 32,000 square foot senior center space (see Table 5.2). Specific recommendations are to update the existing recreation center restrooms and modify the lobby space to accommodate a physical connection to the existing Senior Activity Center building. In addition, it is recommended that the existing Senior Activity Center lobby and the office area be modified to provide an expanded craft area and corridor. Estimated Project Budget: $1,700,000 1 The project budgets are expressed in terms of October, 2011 dollars. Project budget estimates include construction costs; professional fees; furniture, fixtures, and equipment; and contingencies. These costs do not include site acquisition or extensive site development costs such as off site utilities, etc.

57

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Hedrick House Recommended improvements include enhancing the backyard area with fencing, landscaping and a wedding gazebo. Inside, a completely updated kitchen with commercial equipment including sinks, counters, cooler, freezer, ice maker, dishwasher, and storage area is recommended. Estimated Project Budget: $90,000 J. Glenmore Savage, Senior Community Room Proposed improvements include creating a new entry space in the lobby vestibule to facilitate after-hours use. In addition, new carpet, paint, supplemental lighting, and updated audio/visual equipment are recommended to modernize the facility. Estimated Project Budget: $70,000 Sun Valley Aquatic Center Add canvas shade structures and umbrella shade structure totaling 5,000 SF, add two spray features, and add 140 SF concession area. Recommendations for this facility include the addition of two additional spray features/areas, more shaded areas in the park via textile shade structures and umbrellas totalling 5,000 square feet, and a 140 square foot concession area to replace the static vending operation currently in place. Estimated Project Budget: $120,000 College Park Aquatic Park Recommendations for this center include: • Add a four lane, 25 yard pool that is 3.5 feet to 4.5 feet in depth; • Add a deck-mounted climbing wall; • Construct an 80-foot long current channel with a vortex inside a channel loop; • Provide 4,000 square feet of fabric structure shade structures; and • Create a secure filter room and provide 400 square feet of storage. Estimated Project Budget: $740,000 Memorial Park Recreation Center converted to Senior Use with a new 4,000 SF connector: 22,000 SF Senior Activity Center: 10,000 SF New State of the Art Recreation / Aquatic Center: ±76,000 SF (56,000 SF for recreation; 20,000 SF for indoor aquatics) Memorial Park Recreation Center: 18,000 SF Net Result: 32,000 SF Net Result: ±106,000 SF In addition to reallocating existing facilities, the development of a new ±76,000 square foot recreation center with indoor aquatics is recommended. The new center would include a fitness area, gymnasium, two aerobic rooms, child care, kids’ fitness area, and 7,500 square feet of indoor leisure fitness aquatics area. The estimated budget for this center is $21,400,000. Table 5.3 illustrates a potential building space program for this future recreation center. Senior Activity Center: 10,000 SF

Future Facilities
The two existing recreation center facilities are relatively small in size compared to more modern recreation centers and therefore are not capable of offering the wide array of amenities demanded by the population. In addition, the Senior Activity Center is undersized for the demand and population of Lewisville’s seniors. In order to serve existing and future community recreation and aquatic needs, several space reallocation and facility development actions are recommended (see Table 5.2). This table identifies the methodology of maximizing the use of existing facilities while meeting the long term needs of the City. Although this new expanded center exceeds the 0.18 square feet per capita LOS, it does provide adequate growth space for the Senior Activity Center. It also provides a large meeting or multiple-use space in the existing gym that could be utilized when not used for senior programming. Table 5.2 Recreation Facility Space Allocation Recommendations Existing Facilities Recreation Center Needs 48,000 SF 100,050 SF Herring Recreation Center: 30,000 SF

Senior Center Needs 20,000 SF

Herring Recreation Center: 30,000 SF

58

Chapter 5 - Recommendations

59

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”

(this page intentionally left blank)

60

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan
“Active Adventure... Creative Connections”

Chapter 6 - Implementation
61

6

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
InTroduCTIon
The primary purpose of this Vision Plan is to provide a broad vision and a detailed course of implementation for the future of Lewisville’s parks, recreation, and open space system. This chapter summarizes, prioritizes, and estimates costs for the primary implementation actions recommended for the future. These actions are based on the existing conditions analysis, needs assessment, and recommendations discussed in previous chapters. For a better understanding of the implementation items contained herein, refer to Chapter 3 – Existing Conditions (especially the Park and Facility Reviews section on pages 17–29), Chapter 4 – Needs Assessment, and Chapter 5 – Recommendations. The methodology used to prioritize the recommendations and implementation items contained in this chapter was based on the following criteria: • The level of need based on citizen demand and standards (Chapter 4); • The logical order of facility development (that is, land must be acquired and plans must be developed before a facility can be constructed); and • The potential of capital funding in the near-term future.

aCTIon plan
The Action Plan included in this chapter is a tool that translates the diverse and detailed recommendations within this Vision Plan into concrete action items, which are then prioritized and given estimated costs. These implementation items are in one of two groups: Phase I and Phase II. These groups reflect needed improvements based on levels of service (as discussed in Chapter 4 – Needs Assessment) and forecasted population growth. It is important to understand that this Action Plan is not intended to serve as a business plan or capital improvement plan for Parks and Leisure Services, the Park Board, or the City Council. Rather, this Action Plan should be viewed as a tool and guideline for the City of Lewisville for preparing its annual capital improvement plan and making funding decisions. The funding levels shown in the Action Plan reflect the costs associated with improving and maintaining Lewisville’s quality of life, maintaining the City’s unique charm and character as it continues to grow, and helping the City in providing a balanced level of service across the community. While it is possible that the City may not be able to fund every improvement listed in the Action Plan, it is necessary to have a plan in place for three reasons: 1. To provide guidance for the capital improvement plan; 2. To illustrate the City’s goals during the process of applying for grants; and 3. To have a plan in place in the event of a financial windfall. Table 6.3 on the following pages presents both phases of the Action Plan and includes estimates costs and anticipated funding sources for each item.

hIgh prIorITy needs
The following lists the top priorities for parks, recreation, and open space in Lewisville. These priorities have been determined based on demand-based needs (i.e., public input), standards, City staff and City official input, and guidance from the Planning Team in order to provide the best set of actions to enhance quality of life in Lewisville. The priorities are broken into two lists: one for outdoor facilities and one for indoor facilities. Table 6.1 High Priority Needs Outdoor Priorities Indoor Priorities 1. Modernize existing parks with new playgrounds, pavil1. Renovate and upgrade the Frederick P Herring Recreation . ions, loop trails, and basketball courts Center 2. Develop a City-wide network of multi-use trails 2. Develop a new Recreation/Indoor Aquatic Center 3. Create access points along the Elm Fork of the Trinity 3. Renovate the Senior Activity Center and repurpose the River Memorial Park Recreation Center for senior use 4. Construct new neighborhood parks in under-served 4. Renovate and update the Hedrick House areas 5. Build a new 12-court, full-service tennis center 5. Update the J. Glenmore Savage, Senior Community Room Beyond these priorities, it is important to consider land acquisition as being an underlying priority that is related to each of these items. That is, in order to achieve the priorities listed above, land must first be acquired or otherwise set aside to house many of these facilities.

Action Plan Summary
Table 6.2 is a summary of the costs of the Phase I action items. This table reflects the total costs associated with these action items but should not be seen as an indication of committed funding. Table 6.2 Action Plan (Phase I) Summary Category Estimated Cost Policy Actions $0 Land Acquisition (315 Acres) $31,500,000 Park Development & Improvement* $18,177, 688 Development of Recreational & Maintenance Facilities $27,835,500 Studies & Plans $235,000 Total: $77,748,188 *Includes the costs for Phase 1 of the 2011 Trails Master Plan

62

Chapter 6 - Implementation

63

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”

64

Chapter 6 - Implementation

65

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Action Plan Summary (continued)
The items described in the Action Plan are divided into five categories – policy actions, land acquisition, park development and improvement, development of recreational and maintenance facilities, and studies and plans. Each of these categories is discussed in more detail below. Policy Actions Two policy actions are included in the Action Plan. While these actions were described in Chapter 5 – Recommendations, they have also been included in the Action Plan so that it may serve as a comprehensive set of necessary steps to realize the vision of this Vision Plan. These policy actions do not present a cost to the City, but can positively influence its ability to meet the needs of the citizens. Land Acquisition Acquiring land is often the essential first step in making improvements to the parks, recreation, and open space system. As a basic building block of parks and recreation, it is important to ensure adequate park land to house future parks and recreation facilities. The needs assessment performed in Chapter 4 demonstrates the need to acquire additional park land in order to meet the target level of service (20 acres per 1,000 residents) and provide a well-distributed park system. Since land is finite and its costs are continually increasing, the Action Plan’s land acquisition recommendations are based on long-term development conditions to ensure that there is adequate park land to provide future recreation facilities. These long-term development conditions are based on the forecasted population for 2030 and the assumption that land in the City’s current ETJ will eventually be annexed and developed. Land for Future Neighborhood Parks In order to meet the target level of service for neighborhood parks and to ensure their adequate distribution across the City, it is necessary to provide additional neighborhood parks in Lewisville. It is assumed that the land for these parks will be dedicated to the City through the development process. However, additional park land may need to be acquired by other means. The Action Plan includes recommendations to acquire new neighborhood park sites as follows: • Phase I: 5 park sites (1 through acquisition and 4 through land reallocation) • Phase II: 3 park sites (through land dedication as development occurs) These eight new park sites are needed to provide neighborhood park service to areas within Lewisville’s current City limits and ETJ. Land for Future Community Parks In order to meet the target level of service for community parks and to ensure their adequate distribution throughout the City, one new community park will need to be developed within the next ten years. The East Hill Open Space land (owned by the USACE and leased by the City of Lewisville) is an ideal site for a future community park on the east side of the City. It is recommended that the City begin taking steps within the next few years to develop this area as a community park by discussing plans with the USACE, updating the master plan that was previously developed for this area, and acquiring funding for the park’s development. With these steps taken, the City can be poised to develop the park in the future. Other Land Acquisition In addition to acquiring land for neighborhood and community parks, there is a need to acquire land for lakeshore access, open space protection, trails, trailheads, and future recreation facilities. The most sizeable land acquisition actions in the Action Plan are the acquisition of land for open space protection. This land (in conjunction with the development of trails) would provide the community with access to the beautiful natural areas within the City and would help preserve the landscapes that define the Lewisville’s character. Alternatively, this land could be made available to the public through dedicated easements, rather than land acquisition. Such would minimize the cost to the City and taxpayers, but would still allow the provision of trails and other amenities. Proposed Acquisition versus Standards-Based Need Table 6.4 compares the Action Plan acreage acquisition levels to the acreage needs identified in Chapter 4 – Needs Assessment. The purpose of this table is to illustrate how the recommended land acquisition in the Action Plan closely aligns with the City’s identified need for park acreage. The acquisition and needs columns differ slightly with regard to acreage by park category, but the end result is that the overall acreage of parks and open space acquired closely aligns with demonstrated needs. Table 6.4 Land Acquisition Recommendation Compared to Acreage Need Approximate Acreage Acquisition as per Action Plan Standards-Based Acreage need at build-out population Acquisition Reallocation* Total 35 0 35 30 221 251 65 221 286 116 156 272

Park Type Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Subtotal

Other Parks 500 0 500 483 Total 535 251 786 755 * Indicates land already owned or leased by the City which can be reallocated as neighborhood park land. ** Includes Special Purpose Parks, Linear Parks, Open Space Preserves/Nature Areas, Hike and Bike/Equestrian Trails, and Recreation and Other Park Facilities. Park Development and Improvement There are multiple park development and improvement recommendations included in the Action Plan as follows: Phase I Park Development Action Items • Neighborhood park amenities in two existing parks and one elementary school • Neighborhood park renovations and improvements (one park per year) • Lake Park improvements (see page 23) • Three river access points • 12.1 miles of paved trails

66

Chapter 6 - Implementation
Phase II Park Development Action Items • Four new neighborhood parks (three on new land and one on existing land) • Neighborhood park renovations and improvements (one park per year) • One new community park (at the East Hill Open Space) • Memorial Park improvements (based on a future master plan for this park) • 16.2 miles of paved trails These recommendations are based on the facility level of service figures shown in Chapter 4 and the public’s expressed desire for additional facilities. Development of Recreational Facilities Many outdoor recreational facilities, such as sport fields and support facilities, should be constructed along with park development. However, some recreational facilities will likely be constructed independently of other park development projects. Specific to this category, the Action Plan includes actions for redeveloping, expanding, and improving the City’s indoor recreation facilities; building a new recreation center; improving the aquatic centers; and developing a major tennis center. Studies & Plans Finally, this Action Plan includes items pertaining to future studies and plans that will assist the City in implementing the actions included in this Vision Plan. Recommended studies include a floodplain protection plan, a cultural and environmental resource inventory, and individual site master plans for Memorial Park, Austin Kent Ellis/Iris Lane Parks, and the East Hill Open Space.

City Funding
Municipal Bonds Debt financing through the issuance of municipal bonds is one of the most common ways in which to fund park, recreation, and open space projects. This type of funding is a strategy wherein a city issues a bond, receives an immediate cash payment to finance projects, and must repay the bond with interest over a set period of time ranging from a few years to several decades. The interest rates for municipal bonds are significantly lower than rates for corporate bonds or consumer loans (such as home mortgages). There are two main types of municipal bonds: •  General Obligation Bonds – This is the standard type of municipal bond and is repaid through property taxes. This is the most common form of bond for parks, recreation, and open space purposes (as well as other infrastructure uses such as streets and storm sewers). •  Revenue Bonds – This type of bond is repaid through revenues generated by a facility, such as the user fees generated by a water utility. This type of bond is often used to finance the development of recreation centers, senior centers, aquatic centers, and other recreation facilities that charge entry or membership fees. Other Local Funding Sources In addition to bond issuance, there are other local funding sources available for the implementation of park projects. The following provides a brief description of some of these sources. •  Developer Requirements – Requires the new development to provide a dedication of land for neighborhood and community parks (or fee-in-lieu of land), park development fees, and trail rights-of-way or easements to offset the City’s costs. Allowing developers to construct parks in accordance with City standards is an alternative implementation method. •  Tax Increment Financing / Public Improvement Districts – These related tools allow a development district to divert a portion of its property taxes to fund infrastructure improvements within its area. This can include trails, plazas, pocket parks, linear parks, and other types of facilities. Businesses within these districts greatly benefit from the implementation of such park and trail facilities. The Levee Improvement District serves as an example of this type of financing tool in action. •  Private Sponsorship Programs / Naming Rights – Obtaining private sponsorship for parks and recreation facilities—often by selling naming rights—can be an effective tool for acquiring additional financing. Toyota of Lewisville Railroad Park is a good example of this type of program. The long-term success of this financing tool depends greatly on a concerted effort by the City to ensure the continued prominence of the sponsored facility through appropriate marketing efforts and a commitment to an excellent maintenance program.

fundIng sTraTegIes
For a period of five years, between FY2007 and FY2011, the City of Lewisville’s budgeted capital expenditures for parks, recreation, and open space totaled $56,746,096 with an average annual budget of $11.3 million. Budgeted capital expenditures range from $3.6 million in FY2011 to $22.2 million in FY2008. Given the current economic recession, the City may not be capable of increasing its capital funding for parks, recreation, and open space in the near future. Therefore, the Action Plan is presented as a menu of options (all of which are important) for the City to choose from. The City Council, Park Board, and City Staff should use this as a guide for decision making and should focus on investing in parks and facilities that provide the greatest value for the community. This is typically achieved through a business plan prepared and revised on an annual basis. In order to achieve as much of the Action Plan as possible, it is necessary for the City to strategically implement this Vision Plan utilizing multiple funding sources—both real and potential. The following describes some of the potential funding strategies available to the City of Lewisville. For funding sources specific to trails and other bicycle/pedestrian facilities, see the 2011 Trails Master Plan.

67

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
•  Continue Coordination with Economic Development – Encouraging economic development is an important objective for the community and there is a symbiotic relationship between parks and economic development. High-quality, well-maintained parks and recreation facilities that are distributed across the City and are visible from streets and surrounding development indicate high quality of life and economic prosperity. This plays a large role in attracting new businesses. As a direct and well-documented economic benefit, research indicates that properties within 600 feet of a park or open space sell for up to 20% more than similar properties that are not near parks or open spaces.1 On the other hand, funding for parks is dependent on sales and property tax revenues, which increase with additional economic development. Because a quality parks system encourages and supports economic development, it is important that the City’s economic development activities continue to support the parks system. The Lewisville Economic Development Corporation (EDC) has a history of financially supporting the development and enhancement of the City’s parks and open spaces. It is recommended that this practice be continued as a key component of the EDC’s purpose, policy, and strategy. Community Outdoor Outreach Program (CO-OP) Grants The CO-OP grant helps to introduce under-served populations to the services, programs, and sites of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. This is not a land acquisition or construction grant; this is only for programs. Grants are awarded to non-profit organizations, schools, municipalities, counties, cities, and other tax-exempt groups. Minimum grant requests are $5,000 and maximum grant requests are $50,000. The application deadline is February 1st and October 1st with awards on April 15th and December 15th. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Grants TPWD administers the Texas apportionments of LWCF through the Texas Recreation and Parks Account. If an entity is applying for an Indoor Grant, Outdoor Grant, or Small Community Grant, TPWD may consider the application for LWCF funding. No separate application is required. Funding for this program exceeded $1.4 million in 2009. North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Sustainable Development Funding Program The North Central Texas Council of Governments Sustainable Development Funding Program was created by its policy body, the Regional Transportation Council, to encourage public/private partnerships that positively address existing transportation system capacity, rail access, air quality concerns, and/or mixed land uses. By allocating transportation funds to land use projects promoting alternative transportation modes or reduced automobile use, NCTCOG and its regional partners are working to address mounting air quality, congestion, and quality of life issues. The program is designed to foster growth and development in and around historic downtowns and “Main Streets,” infill areas, and passenger rail lines and stations. To support this effort, the Regional Transportation Council designated $41 million in 2009 for sustainable infrastructure and planning projects throughout the region. Types of projects include: •  Infrastructure: An infrastructure project is a construction project that provides public infrastructure in the public right-of-way and can be used to support private vertical development (i.e., buildings). Examples include pedestrian amenities, landscaping, intersection improvements, lighting, street construction, traffic signalization, etc. •  Planning: Planning projects include market, housing, and economic analyses, transit station planning, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) planning, general planning (subdivision regulations, creation of new code/zoning regulations, master planning, updates to pedestrian and/or bicycle plans, etc.), and others. Regional Transportation Council Partnership Program Through the Local Air Quality Program, NCTCOG’s Regional Transportation Council funds transportation projects that address the new air quality standard, including traffic signal timing, trip reduction, air quality outreach and marketing programs, vanpool programs, bicycle/pedestrian regional connections, high-emitting-vehicle programs, diesel freight programs, off-road construction vehicle emissions reduction programs, park-and-ride facilities, and other air quality strategies.

Grant Programs
Grants offer the opportunity to greatly enhance Lewisville’s parks, recreation, and open space system. While the majority of items on the Action Plan will be funded through traditional means, grant funding can be utilized to help offset the cost of certain projects and reduce the strain on the City’s budget. However, because of current economic conditions, grants are becoming increasingly competitive and in many instances are decreasing in scale. For these reasons, it is important for the City to make a concerted effort to apply for grants as competitively as possible. A variety of grant sources exist, but two major sources account for most of the major potential sources of grants for parks in Lewisville: the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Outdoor Recreation Grants This program provides 50% matching grant funds to municipalities and other local units of government with a population less than 500,000 to acquire and develop park land or to renovate existing public recreation areas as identified and described per a TPWD-approved Parks Master Plan. There are two funding cycles per year with a maximum award of $500,000. Eligible sponsors include cities, counties, municipal utility districts, river authorities, and other special districts. Projects must be completed within three years of approval. Application deadlines are March 1st and August 1st each year (the Parks Master Plan submission deadline for TPWD approval is 60 days prior to application deadline). Award notifications occur six months after deadlines. Indoor Recreation (Facility) Grants This program provides 50% matching grant funds to municipalities and other local units of government with a population less than 500,000 to construct recreation centers, community centers, nature centers and other facilities (buildings) as identified and described per a TPWD-approved Parks Master Plan. The grant maximum is $750,000 per application. The application deadline is August 1st each year (the Parks Master Plan submission deadline for TPWD approval is 60 days prior to application deadline). Award notifications occur the following January. 1 John L. Crompton – Parks and Economic Development (Planning Advisory Service Report Number 502; American Planning Association)

68

Chapter 6 - Implementation
Alternative Funding Sources
In addition to the funding sources described above, there are other, alternative funding sources and implementation strategies which might be available or become available to the City in the future. Purchase of Development Rights and Transfer of Development Rights Purchase of development rights (PDR) and transfer of development rights (TDR) are programs for landscape preservation whereby a municipality, county, or other entity can pay landowners (typically farmers and ranchers) to limit development on their land. Through PDR, landowners are paid an amount relative to the development potential of their land, required to maintain their land generally as-is (greatly limiting any future development), and maintain ownership of the land and residence. The land is thereby conserved, either in a natural or cultivated state. Taking the PDR model a step further, TDR programs conserve rural landscapes through “trading” potential development intensity between sending areas and receiving areas. Areas to be protected (significant cultural, rural, or natural landscapes) are designated as sending areas while areas where more intense development is desirable are designated as receiving areas. In this model, landowners in sending areas are allowed to sell their right to develop their land to developers in receiving areas. Both of these programs can offer a financially competitive alternative to selling land for development. Tree Mitigation Funds The source of such a fund results when a city levies fines against developers for removing quality trees for development. The revenue generated is used to plant trees and to irrigate city properties, thereby enhancing the community. Electric Utility Partnerships This type of partnership can be established for the purpose of providing and enhancing linear parks and trails along utility easements. This partnership typically does not involve monetary contributions. However, through use agreements and/or easements, it makes land for trail corridors accessible at little or no cost to the community. Utility Bill Contributions In many cities, residents are allowed to electively add a small amount to their utility collection bills to fund park improvements. As an example, the City of Colleyville has a Voluntary Park Fund, which allows citizens to donate $2.00 per month through their water utility bills. This results in approximately $150,000 per year, which is used to fund park improvements throughout their community. Land Trusts Land trusts provide a valuable service to municipalities across the country in helping to acquire natural areas, open space, and other land for public use. Typically, land trusts not only assist in funding land acquisition but also assist in managing the transaction and financing. Often, each land trust will have a specific set of requirements for the types of land they are willing to help acquire and/or how that land will be used. The Texas Land Trust Council can be contacted for more information (http://www.texaslandtrustcouncil.org). Land trusts operating in Denton County include the following: Table 6.5 Land Trusts Operating in Denton County Name Phone Web Site American Farmland Trust (413) 586-4593 http://www.farmland.org/ Connemara Conservancy (214) 351-0990 http://www.connemaraconservancy.org/ Conservation Fund (512) 477-1712 http://www.conservationfund.org/ Native Prairies Association of Texas (512) 772-4741 http://www.texasprairie.org/ The Nature Conservancy (409) 385-0445 http://www.nature.org/texas/ (210) 224-8774 Texas Agricultural Land Trust (210) 828-0074 http://www.txaglandtrust.org Texas Cave Management Association (210) 699-1388 http://www.tcmacaves.org/ Texas Land Conservancy (512) 301-6363 http://www.texaslandconservancy.org Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation (214) 720-1478 http://www.tpwf.org/ The Trust for Public Land (512) 478-4644 http://www.tpl.org/ Upper Trinity Conservation Trust (972) 219-1228 http://utct.org Source: Modified from Texas Land Trust Council’s Prairies and Lakes Region Land Trust Database

69

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
plan updaTes
This Parks, Recreation and Open Space Vision Plan is a guide to be used by the City to develop and expand the existing parks, recreation and open space system for future needs over the next five to ten years. Since trends and needs change over time, it is necessary to consider this Vision Plan as a living document that should be updated regularly. Potential factors that might bring about the need to revise this Vision Plan include: • The population may increase more or less rapidly than projected; • The needs, wants, and priorities of the community may change; and • The implementation of certain items may stimulate and inspire other needs. As of January 2008, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department stipulates that park master plans must cover at least a ten-year period. Plans must be updated every five years to remain eligible for grant funding (a completely new plan is required every ten years). At a minimum, updates should include a summary of accomplishments, new public input, most recent inventory data, updated needs assessment, priorities, new implementation plan, demographics, population projections, goals and objectives, standards, and maps. Priorities should be updated as implementation items are accomplished. A new resolution is not required when updating priorities; however if the City changes or revises its priorities, it must submit a new resolution adopting the new priorities. A completely new plan is required every ten years. It is recommended that City Staff conduct a review of this Vision Plan every two years or when significant changes occur. These updates can be published in short report format and attached to this Vision Plan for easy use. Four key areas for focus of these periodic reviews are as follows: •  Facility Inventory - An inventory of new facilities should be recorded as well as any significant improvements of facilities provided by the Lewisville ISD whenever such facilities may become available for public use. •  Facility Use - Facility use is a key factor in determining the need for renovation of additional facilities. Updates on league participation of sports facilities should be prepared each season with data from each association. Changes in participation of those outside the City limits as well as the citizens of Lewisville should be recorded. •  Public Involvement - As mentioned previously, this Vision Plan reflects the current population and attitudes as expressed by the citizens. However, those attitudes and interests may change over time as the City changes. Periodic surveys are recommended to provide a current account of the attitudes of the citizens and additional direction from the public on issues that may arise. •  Action Plan - As items from the Action Plan are implemented, updates should be made to this prioritized list to provide a current plan of action for City Staff. Maintaining a regularly-updated Vision Plan will ensure that the needs of Lewisville’s citizens continue to be met and that the vision and goals set forth in Chapter 1 can be achieved.

Business Plan / Capital Improvement Plan
As a method of implementing and building upon the Vision Plan, the City of Lewisville should prepare and maintain a business plan or capital improvement plan (CIP) specifically for parks, recreation, open space, and trail projects. The business plan or CIP should be developed as a refinement of the Action Plan and based on annual available funding. It should identify and prioritize specific projects to be funded each year based on City Council, Park Board, and EDC input. Finally, it should also be flexible over time to respond to changing needs and to account for implemented actions.

70

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan
“Active Adventure... Creative Connections”

A

Appendices
71

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
appendIx a Telephone survey CumulaTIve resulTs
Raymond Turco & Associates conducted the City’s 2009 Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment Survey, which is a component of the City’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space Vision Plan. This public opinion poll captured attitudes on parks and recreational issues in the community from respondents randomly selected from phone-matched households. The full sample of 401 respondents was interviewed with a comprehensive questionnaire that collected attitudinal data on a variety of recreational issues including frequency of participating in various activities as well as whether or not certain ones should be provided or expanded, the need for constructing various amenities and satisfaction with recreational characteristics. The information gathered in this survey will allow City Council members, City staff, and concerned individuals to better understand how Lewisville residents view the issues surrounding these subjects. It will also provide citizen input into the on-going planning process for the parks and recreation master plan update. It is important to understand that a survey is an attitudinal “snap-shot” of the community during the time of the survey and has not been influenced by either positive or negative publicity. The telephone survey included the responses of 401 individuals, which equates to an overall error rate of +/- 5%, at a 95% confidence level. The following pages include the cumulative results of the telephone survey. These pages illustrate each question and how it was asked, as well as the overall response to each question. In addition to the cumulative results, a 477 page report that includes detailed analyses of each question was prepared and provided to the City of Lewisville.

72

Appendices

73

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”

74

Appendices

75

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
appendIx b publIC meeTIng noTes
In addition to the telephone survey, which gained the input of 401 citizens, a public meeting was held on November 18, 2009. An analysis of the results of this meeting can be found on page 40. The following represents the notes that were taken during the meeting on large-format flip charts.

Open Space / Natural Areas / Lewisville Lake
Why is the protection of natural areas in Lewisville important? • They have ecological value • They give character to the city • They bring relief and make Lewisville a good place to live • They bring a slower pace and serenity • They allow people to relax in nature • It is common sense to protect them in order to provide a balance of ecosystems • They allow exploration • They balance development Where is it important to protect natural areas in Lewisville? • Along creeks • Around Lewisville Lake • In the Main Street area to preserve the small town feel • In and around the Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area (LLELA) • Along Business Highway 121 to Main Street What role does the lake play in the City’s culture? • It helps brand Lewisville • It provides opportunities for recreation (such as fishing) How can the lake be better utilized? • Provide more shoreline activities • A pier for multiple types of uses • Additional viewpoints/overlooks • More trees • Provide free access to residents

Parks
What do you like and dislike about current parks? • The need to be within walking distance • Parks should have the quality and variety of Lewisville’s Central Park (specifically the trails). • People like the new Railroad Park • People like the new skate park • People do not like that there are not any parks on the far east side1 • Marianas (a subdivision on the far east side) provides good amenities. What would you like to see in the future? • A new Recreation Center • BMX Park • More diversity in play equipment • More diversity in the size of play equipment • More pavilions (for rain and sun protection) • Park restrooms • Workout stations along trails Are there any types of special or unique parks that you would like to see in Lewisville? • Parks that offer year-round opportunities • Areas for informal play • BMX racing facility • Spray parks • Community gardens

Programs & Activities
Have you ever been involved in a City-offered program or activity? If not, why? • The distance to programs is too far • I don’t know about them • Live is too busy/chaotic • I’m not interested in traditional programs

1 The ongoing development of East Hill Park and the future utilization of the East Hill Park Open Space will help address this concern.

76

Appendices
What types of programs/activities would you like to see in the future? • Farmers Market • Outdoor/free concerts • Utilize Main Street area for programs • Santa on the Fire Truck (Christmas parade) • Remote control planes/cars What types of special events/festivals would you like to see in Lewisville, if any? • Kite flying festival • Saturday Night Out during the summer time

Overall Vision
In one word or phrase, what is your overall vision for the future of Lewisville? • Home • Community • Housing community and recreation • Relaxing • Good Community • Great place to grow • Our refuge • A nice place to live • A diverse place and community • Home and lake

Recreation Centers
How do you like the two existing recreation centers and what would you change? • People like the raquetball courts • Would like more tennis courts • Would like an indoor pool with a high dive • Would like more variety Are they too close together? • Yes, people would like an additional facility on the east side of the City. How far would you travel in town to a recreation center that has all the features you want? • 3-4 miles, depending on what is offered at the center What types of amenities would you like to see in a future recreation center? • Racquetball courts • Aquatics/swimming pool (leisure) • Tennis courts • Fitness area • Day care • BMX park • Food court / snack bar • Outdoor play fields • Exercise for all ages • Water aerobics • Make it a destination

77

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
appendIx C sporTs organIzaTIon requesT
• Flag Football X (Adult) • Greater Lewisville Area Soccer Association • Lewisville Baseball Association • Lewisville Football Association • Lewisville Youth Basketball Association • Lewisville/Flower Mound Force Lacrosse Club • Lewisville-Carrollton Soccer League (Adult) • North Texas Premier Soccer Association (Adult) A request for information (RFI) was sent to a representative of each sports organization. The RFI included the following questions: 1. Name and contact information of your organization. 2. What is the current number of members/participants and groups/teams? 3. How many of the participants are from Lewisville and how many are from other Cities (by name)? 4. What is the growth projection of your particular sport activity for the next 5 to 10 years? 5. What is your need to meet the future requirements? 6. What city and non-city facilities do you currently use? 7. Are the current facilities for your specific sport activity adequate? If not, why and what should be done to correct it? 8. For each division / classification / age group within your organization, when does each season begin and end? (Include from first practice to last game; if a season is not clear, use registration periods). 9. How does your organization/league fit into a regional context in terms of the use of facilities within Lewisville? Examples include regional tournaments, gatherings, events, conventions, etc. The responses to the request for information are reproduced on the following pages as they were received. A summary of the needs identified from these responses can be found on page 39.

Flag Football X (Adult)

for InformaTIon

responses

Each of the sports organizations active in Lewisville was contacted in order to gain their input for this Vision Plan. The following organizations responded to this request for information:

78

Appendices
Greater Lewisville Area Soccer Association Lewisville Baseball Association

79

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Lewisville Football Association Lewisville Youth Basketball Association

80

Appendices

Lewisville/Flower Mound Force Lacrosse Club

81

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Lewisville-Carrollton Soccer League (Adult) North Texas Premier Soccer Association (Adult)

82

Appendices
appendIx d neIghborhood & CommunITy park developmenT guIdelInes
In order to provide guidance when developing new parks and when improving an existing park, the following neighborhood park and community park development guidelines have been developed.

Neighborhood Park Development Guidelines
Neighborhood parks are the backbone of Lewisville’s park system. The development and general design of neighborhood parks is important to ensure that they serve the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. But beyond simply meeting certain levels of service, it is important to ensure that neighborhood parks are unique in character, respond to the surrounding environment, provide a variety of experiences for the park’s users, and unify the neighborhood informally. The following development guidelines (that focus on size, location, facilities, design, and parking) were developed to ensure that the City is able to efficiently provide the best possible neighborhood parks for its citizens. Size - The size of a neighborhood park may vary considerably due to the physical location of the park and condition of the site. Generally, neighborhood parks should be 5 to 10 acres or larger. A neighborhood park would ideally serve 3,000 to 4,000 residents per park. Location - If possible, neighborhood parks should be centrally located in the neighborhoods they serve and should consider the following location attributes: • Neighborhood parks should be accessible to pedestrian traffic from all parts of the area served. Ideally, neighborhood park facilities should be located within a one-quarter mile radius (five minute walk) or one-half mile radius (ten minute walk) of the residents who will use those facilities. • These parks should be located adjacent to local or minor collector streets that do not allow high-speed traffic. A neighborhood park should be accessible without having to cross major arterial streets and should be far enough from major streets that traffic noise is not obvious in the park. • It is desirable to locate neighborhood parks adjacent to creeks and greenways, which allows for trail connections to other parks and City amenities. • It is ideal for neighborhood parks to be located adjacent to elementary schools in order to share acquisition and development costs with the school district. Adjacencies of park and school grounds allow for joint use and sharing of facilities. It also lends itself to the community’s involvement with the school grounds and vice versa, leading to a synergistic result that adds to the quality of life for everyone. Figure D.1 – Typical Neighborhood Park Layout This figure illustrates a typical neighborhood park and some of the elements that the park might contain. Note that this is simply a typical arrangement, and each neighborhood park should be designed as a unique part of the neighborhood that surrounds it. This particular example shows an adjacent school facility, which is typically preferable but is not always possible.

83

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
Facilities – Neighborhood parks would ideally include the following facilities: • Playground equipment with adequate safety surfacing • Playground equipment that allows for easy use by children with disabilities or limited mobility impairment • Unprogrammed and unstructured free play areas • Adequately sized pavilions with multi-tiered roofs • Loop trails or a connection to the city-wide trails system Additional facilities often provided in a neighborhood park include (but are not limited to): • Unlighted basketball courts and half courts • Picnic areas with benches, picnic tables, and cooking grills • Unlighted tennis courts • Skate parks • Security lighting • Drinking fountains Design – The overall design and layout of a neighborhood park is an important determinant of its final quality and timelessness. These parks should generally be designed with the programmed space (playgrounds, pavilions, basketball courts, etc.) clustered into an “activity zone” within the park. These areas need ample seating and shade to be hospitable year round. Placing these areas near existing stands of trees is recommended as this eliminates the years of waiting for shade trees to mature. The open/unprogrammed space should be visible from this activity area but should be clearly delineated through plantings and hardscape features such as paved trails and seatwalls. Finally, a loop trail is a preferred component of a neighborhood park. When a segment of the city-wide trails system passes through a neighborhood park (which is recommended), it is important to connect it to the park’s loop trail. Adjacency and Interaction – How the park integrates with the surrounding land uses (residences, schools, wooded areas, etc.) is crucial to the quality of experience within the park. When a road borders the park, the houses across the street should face the park. It is recommended that at least 80% of the park’s boundary be bordered by singleloaded roads or creeks. No more than 20% of any park’s boundary should be bordered by the backs of houses. When houses must back up to a park, the fencing between the houses and the park should be transparent (such as wrought iron fencing or similar) rather than opaque wooden fortress fencing. Transparent fencing allows a softer transition between park and residence and provides for informal surveillance of the park. High-limbed trees along the fence line furthermore allow for a combination of privacy and transparency. When a park is constructed adjacent to a school, the two sites should interact. That is, there should be pedestrian connections between the school and the park and it could even be recommended that when schools are constructed, expanded, or renovated, windows overlooking the park should be provided. Parking – In general, the use of shared-use trails, sidewalks, and bike routes should be encouraged to decrease automobile traffic in and around neighborhood parks. When parking is deemed necessary, the number of parking spaces will vary based on the size of the park, the facilities it contains, and the number of users. Generally, depending on the carrying capacity of adjacent streets, parallel on-street parking may provide sufficient parking space. Opportunities to share parking may be beneficial to different yet compatible functions, such as churches, schools, libraries, and other City facilities.

Community Park Development Guidelines
Community parks are larger than neighborhood parks and serve much larger portions of the city. These parks typically include facilities that serve the entire community (such as lighted playing fields for competitive sports) and therefore have a larger service area, attract more users, and require higher-intensity facilities such as considerable off-street parking. While the primary function of community parks is to serve a broad population and geographic area, it is also important to develop them in such a way that they are integrated into the surrounding area. Because they are often in fairly close proximity to neighborhoods, community parks can serve many of the same functions as neighborhood parks because of similar basic amenities and proximity to residential areas. As such, it is crucial to consider the needs of the immediately surrounding residents as well as the community as a whole when developing a community park. There are two general types of community parks—active and passive. The type is largely dependent on the unique conditions of the site, the intended character of the park, and facilities included in each individual park. Two of Lewisville’s existing community parks (Toyota of Lewisville Railroad Park and College Street Park) are active in nature due to their inclusion and focus on high-intensity facilities such as lighted competitive game fields, aquatic centers, and manicured landscaping. Passive community parks, on the other hand, typically have low-intensity uses such as hiking, picnicking, and free play and generally have a large amount of natural and unprogrammed space in the park. Central Park and Memorial Park are both passive community parks. Lake Park has both passive and active areas. The general design of a park, therefore, will vary depending on the intended character of the park; as such, the amount of natural open space, number of game fields, amount of parking, and spatial orientation of amenities will vary. Size – The size of a community park should be large enough to provide a variety of amenities while still leaving open space for unstructured recreation, practice space, and natural areas. The park should also have room for expansion as new facilities are required. Community parks may vary in size from 20 acres to over 200 acres depending on needs and site opportunities. Location – Because they are intended to serve large portions of the city, community parks should be centrally located and easily accessible by major thoroughfares and trails. When connected by major trails and greenbelts, community parks are not only more easily accessed, but they also serve as a hub for the trails system and other parks in the community. Care should be taken when locating a high-intensity community park adjacent to or near residential areas. In these instances, it is important to provide adequate buffers to minimize noise and bright lights at night when possible. Because of the requirement for lighted facilities, it is often desirable to have higher-intensity or “active” community parks located adjacent to commercial, retail, and/or light industrial areas, rather than residential neighborhoods. Facilities – Community parks would ideally include the following facilities: • Playground equipment with adequate safety surfacing • Playground equipment that allows for easy use by children with disabilities or limited mobility impairment • Unprogrammed and unstructured free play areas • Adequately sized pavilions with multi-tiered roofs • Picnic areas • Unlighted multi-purpose practice fields for soccer and football • Backstops for baseball and softball practice

84

Appendices
• Loop trails or connection to the City-wide trails system • Sufficient off-street parking based on facilities provided and size of park Additional facilities often included in a community park include (but are not limited to): • Restrooms • Natural open space where available or present including access to these areas via trails • Lighted competitive baseball, softball, soccer, and football fields (the actual type and number of competitive fields should be based on demonstrated need as per the facility target LOS put forth in this Vision Plan) • Lighted multi-purpose practice fields • Security lighting • Other facilities as needed which can take advantage of the unique characteristics of the site, such as fishing adjacent to ponds, swimming pools, open air amphitheaters, etc. Design – As is the case with neighborhood parks, the overall design and layout of a community park is important to the park’s final quality and timelessness. Activity zones of programmed space are important within community parks. Playgrounds, pavilions, and basketball courts make up one type of activity zone while ballfields, concession stands, and equipment storage buildings make up another type. Providing shade by means of placing the former of these two activity zone types near existing stands of trees is recommended, as is the provision of benches and picnic tables. In community parks and other large parks, it is often desirable to delineate between activity zones and unprogrammed areas by the use of natural features, such as stands of trees and creek corridors. This helps to break up the park visually and delineate space. Paved trails should connect these various areas with each other, as well as provide a walking/ jogging loop for recreational use. The interaction between a community park and the surrounding areas is crucial to the quality of experience within the park. As with neighborhood parks, a community park should be bordered by single-loaded roads and creeks or other natural areas. When development does border the park, the type of neighboring development dictates how the edge is addressed. If the development is residential, the fencing between the houses and the park should be transparent (such as wrought iron fencing or similar). In addition, a row of trees and/or shrubs should be used along this fence line to soften its appearance. However, if the development is industrial in nature or otherwise aesthetically unpleasing or potentially a nuisance, the border should be well-screened with dense plantings of trees and shrubs to soften this edge. It may also be desirable to place a fence and/or masonry wall at these borders for safety reasons (such as reducing the likelihood of a ball rolling out of the park or debris entering the park). Community parks often interface well with schools. In such instances, work with the LISD to provide visual and physical connections between the school and the park. Figure D.2 – Typical Community Park Layout This figure illustrates a typical community park and some of the elements that the park might contain. Note that this is simply a typical arrangement, and each community park should be designed according to the specific needs of the community.

85

The 2011 Lewisville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Vision Plan - “Active Adventure...Creative Connections”
As a final consideration, it is important to understand that active community parks can sometimes be a nuisance to nearby residential neighborhoods. Bright lighting at night, excessive noise from cheering spectators, or the overflow of parking onto neighborhood streets can all become issues. If a park is to be developed in close proximity to a neighborhood, take measures to address these issues and identify any other potential issues. Specifically related to the issue of light impacts, a good option to be considered is “cut-off” lighting, which allows light patterns to be controlled, thus avoiding nuisance to neighbors. Parking – This varies based on the facilities provided and the size of park. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) recommends a minimum of five spaces per programmed acre, plus additional parking for specific facilities within the park, such as pools or ballfields. The actual amount of parking provided in each park should be determined by the facilities provided in that park. Even so, consideration should always be given toward the concept of “shared parking.” The benefit of shared parking is the reduction in the number of parking spaces that need to be built. There are two ways shared parking can be implemented in a park: • Typically, the number of spaces required to be constructed in a park is determined by the peak parking requirements of each of the uses. This can result in the provision of excessive amounts of parking. Instead, determine the number of parking spaces by considering the different peak parking schedules of various uses, thereby potentially reducing the number of parking spaces needed by “sharing” parking between uses (i.e., football fields and baseball fields can share parking since football and baseball games are typically not played concurrently). • The traditional concept of shared parking is to create an agreement with adjacent land uses like schools, churches, and other City facilities so that parking can serve both the park and the adjacent land use. In addition to reducing the overall amount of off-street parking, it is important to consider the design and construction of parking and its impact on the park and the environment. In order to offset the surface water runoff and pollution from large areas of parking, it is recommended that consideration be given to Low Impact Development (LID), which includes the use of permeable paving combined with shade trees and bio-swales to bio-filtrate runoff water.

86

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful