Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
2014 PARKS, RECREATION
AND
OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
for the City of Temple
All photos on this page and the cover are courtesy of the City of Temple Parks and RecreaĆ&#x;on Department
DECEMBER 2014
Foreword
Page i
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
This page was intenĆ&#x;onally leĹŒ blank.
Page ii
Foreword
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Foreword
Page iii
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
This page was intenĆ&#x;onally leĹŒ blank.
Page iv
Foreword
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan December 18, 2014 City of Temple Mr. Kevin Beavers Director of Parks and Recrea on 2 North Main St., Suite 201 Temple, Texas 76501 Reference: Parks, Recrea on, and Open Space Master Plan Dear Mr. Beavers: Halff Associates, Inc. is please to submit the final version of the 2014 City of Temple Parks, Recrea on, and Open Space Master Plan for your review. This document is the culmina on of an extensive planning process involving the elected officials, city staff, the Parks and Recrea on Master Plan Advisory Commi ee, the Parks Advisory Board, and most importantly the ci zens of Temple. The plan’s recommenda ons encompass the many varied components of Temple’s parks system - from parks, athle c fields, aqua c facili es and trails to nature facili es and the preserva on of open space. Our purpose has been to create a meless document that represents the vision for the parks system over the next ten years. This document is intended to guide the parks system, but also incorporates flexibility in responding to unique opportuni es as they arise. We deeply appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you, your ci zens and your staff, and we believe that this document will help guide Temple as it creates a great park system. Sincerely, Halff Associates, Inc.
Carrillo, Jim m Ca C rrillo, FAICP, ASLA Vice President/Director of Planning cc: Lenny Hughes, RLA Vice President, Halff Associates Inc.
Foreword
Page v
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
This page was intenĆ&#x;onally leĹŒ blank.
Page vi
Foreword
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Temple Parks, Recrea on, and Open Space Master Plan was developed by the City of Temple Parks and Recrea on Department with the technical assistance and design help of Hal Associates, Inc. A special thanks goes to the many residents, landowners, business owners, and community leaders for their insight and support throughout the dura on of this study. The following individuals are recognized for their significant contribu ons to the prepara on of the 2014 Parks, Recrea on, and Open Space Master Plan.
City Council
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
Danny Dunn, Mayor Tim Davis, District 1 Judy Morales, District 2 Perry Cloud, District 3 Russell Schneider, District 4, Pro Tem
Doug Smith, Chair David Rapp, Vice Chair Sco Allen John Bailey Jus ce Bigbie Fabian Gomez Mary McGlory Mike Pilkington
Parks & Recreation Master Plan Advisory Committee Sco Allen Mark Clardy Willie Floyd Fabian Gomez Garfield Hawk John Howe David Jones Vincent Mundy Jason Parks Mike Pilkington Zoe Rascoe Travis Sawin Will Sears Mathew Wilson
City Staff Jonathan Graham, City Manager Kevin Beavers, Director of Parks and Recrea on Chuck Ramm, Assistant Director of Parks and Recrea on Val Roming, Parks Superintendent Kim Me enbrink, Park Planner, RLA
Foreword
Page vii
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
This page was intenĆ&#x;onally leĹŒ blank.
Page viii
Foreword
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Chapter 1 | Introduction to Park Planning
Chapter 5 | Needs Assessment
Why Do We Plan for Parks ........................................................................... 1-2 Trends in the Recrea on Profession ............................................................ 1-6 Benefits of Parks and Recrea on ............................................................... 1-11 Goals and Objec ves for Temple’s Parks ................................................... 1-14
Introduc on to Needs Assessment ............................................................. 5-2 Standard-Based Assessment ....................................................................... 5-3 Demand-Based Assessment ...................................................................... 5-15 Resource-Based Assessment ..................................................................... 5-17
Chapter 2 | Current Character of Temple
Chapter 6 | Master Plan Recommendations
The History and Economy of Temple ........................................................... 2-2 Demographic Characteris cs of Temple ...................................................... 2-4 Previous Planning Eorts in Temple .......................................................... 2-10
Introduc on to Recommenda ons ............................................................. 6-2 Land Acquisi on .......................................................................................... 6-4 New Park Development ............................................................................... 6-6 Exis ng Park Improvements ...................................................................... 6-14 Indoor Facility Recommenda ons ............................................................. 6-18 Recrea onal Trail Development ................................................................ 6-24
Chapter 3 | Public Participation Public Par cipa on Process ........................................................................ 3-2 Survey Results ............................................................................................. 3-2 Public Mee ng ............................................................................................ 3-9 Parks & Recrea on Master Plan Advisory Commi ee............................... 3-10
Chapter 4 | Standards and Existing Inventory Purpose of the Exis ng Inventory................................................................ 4-2 Park Categories............................................................................................ 4-2 Park Types and Standards in Temple ........................................................... 4-3 Size of the Parks System in Temple............................................................ 4-10
Chapter 7 | Implementation Strategy Funding Strategies ....................................................................................... 7-2 Policies and Ordinances............................................................................... 7-4 Budget Levels .............................................................................................. 7-6 Opera ons and Maintenance ...................................................................... 7-7 Plan Updates ............................................................................................... 7-9
Foreword
Page ix
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
This page was intenĆ&#x;onally leĹŒ blank.
Page x
Foreword
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Page 1-1
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
WHY DO WE PLAN FOR PARKS? Temple is a fast-paced growing city that is s ll able to maintain much of its small-town charm. Located within the heart of Central Texas, Temple is a very desirable place to live, work and play. With its proximity to IH-35 and rela vely short distances to most major ci es within the state, Temple has become a premier loca on for distribu on companies and services. In the midst of all this growth, it is important to remember the quality of life factors that a racted residents and business to Temple in the first place. These include excellent municipal facili es, award winning schools, advanced medical facili es, and a variety of recrea onal ameni es. Well developed parks and natural areas are o en the first places that visitors no ce in a community. In fact, parks are one of the most visible elements of a city government at work, and can ins ll a strong sense of pride in its residents. A great parks system lets both ci zens and visitors know that the leadership of the city is interested in providing the best for its ci zens. Temple city staff and elected officials recognize that recrea on plays an important role in the quality of life in the city, and that a strong parks system provides for a healthier environment, improves the well being of children and adults, and reminds us every day about what is a rac ve and fun in our city.
“Parks are a good measure of local pride and integral to our sense of well-being...Everyone should have a nearby park they can be proud of with plenty of opportuni es for fun, exercise and the enjoyment of beau ful things.” ~Dame Liz Forgan, English Journalist
Page 1-2
The purpose of this 2014 Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan is to provide an assessment of Temple’s parks and recrea on system. The park planning process allows the ci zens of Temple to determine what their preferred park and recrea on priori es should be for the next five to ten years. A Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan is exactly what its name indicates. Parks typically refer to land dedicated to outdoor areas programmed for RecreaƟon, which refers to both ac ve and passive recrea on ac vi es including sports play, jogging, picnicking, etc. Open space lands can be dedicated for conserva on and preserva on due to their ecological value, wildlife habitat quality, cultural significance, or func onal role to assist with flood management. The importance of open space is o en overlooked since the concept of open space does not always fit the idea of land programmed for a par cular recrea onal ac vity that would require regular landscape maintenance. However, the very reason for it not requiring regular a en on can be a great asset, offering outdoor enjoyment, visual pleasure and ecological func on at a minimum cost.
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Purpose of the Master Plan The primary func ons of this master plan are to assess the current state of Temple’s parks, recrea on, trails and open space system; define needs and deficiencies in the system; and establish goals and priori es for improving the system. In addi on to performing these primary func ons, the master plan also: ▪ Iden fies changing trends locally, regionally and na onally. ▪ Iden fies ci zen needs and opinions. ▪ Look at the poten al growth of the city over the next ten years, assess where addi onal facili es will be needed as the city grows, and assess what types of facili es are most needed. ▪ Point out opportuni es and recommend alterna ves to improve the parks system. ▪ Guide city staff in acquiring land to meet future park and open space needs, specifically in terms of regional parkland. ▪ Priori ze key recommenda ons so that the most significant deficiencies are addressed as quickly as possible. ▪ Guide city staff and city leaders in determining where and how parks funding should be allocated over the next five to ten years. This master plan assesses what is great about parks and recrea on opportuni es in Temple, and what should be done to fill key needs to make the city an even be er place to live. It is an ambi ous plan, but one that can be tackled by all who live in Temple in readily achievable steps. It is a plan that will help contribute to Temple being a great place to live, work, play and visit. This document is the culmina on of the park planning effort, and is intended to guide the staff and elected officials of the city as they decide how best to meet and priori ze the recrea on needs of Temple over the next ten years.
Steps in the Planning Process The planning process is illustrated by the figure shown to the right. The single most important element of the master planning process is the extensive interac on with stakeholders, residents, staff, and appointed and elected city representa ves. This plan should fully embrace the needs, concerns and dreams of the residents of Temple. The plan is divided into sec ons that address exis ng facili es and key needs, then lays out recommenda ons for each type of park facility and major programs for the city. The plan divides each recommenda on into two categories:
GOALS
AND
OBJECTIVES
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REVIEW INVENTORY NEEDS ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION
▪ The first part addresses those ac ons that are immediate and that should be undertaken to renovate or be er u lize exis ng facili es. It also addresses ac ons that meet the needs of today’s popula on. Steps in the park planning process
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Page 1-3
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan ▪ The second part of the recommenda ons addresses longer range, visionary ac ons that can maintain Temple’s posi on as having one of the best systems in the region.
Master Plan Timeframe The master plan is formulated to address a ten year meframe from 2014 to 2024. Many of the recommenda ons of the plan are valid for a period of more than ten years, and should be reassessed periodically. Per planning requirements issued by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), the master plan should be updated a er a five year period, or before if any major developments occur which significantly alter the recrea on needs of the city. The following steps are recommended for periodic review of this master plan. ▪ An annual review by the Temple Parks and Recrea on Department staff should be conducted to assess progress and successes. ▪ Any updates will be reviewed by the Parks and Recrea on Advisory Board and the Temple City Council. ▪ More frequent updates may be required if special needs or occurrences require modifica ons to the plan. ▪ In all cases, public involvement through ci zen mee ngs, interviews and workshops will be included in any upda ng process.
Jurisdiction and Recreation Provider This plan analyzes the park needs of the City of Temple and its surrounding extra territorial jurisdic on (ETJ). The recommenda ons of this plan should be implemented by the City of Temple. The city limits of Temple are approximately 74.4 square miles in size, and the ETJ adds another 161 square miles. The map on the following page shows the exis ng city limits of Temple. The City of Temple is the primary governmental en ty charged with providing recrea onal facili es for the ci zens of Temple. Ancillary recrea onal facili es are provided by Temple Independent School District on the school campuses, and smaller homeowners associa on (HOA) parks. The implementa on of this plan will be lead by the City of Temple and the Parks and Recrea on Department. However, everyone in Temple has a vested interest in ensuring the parks system in the city con nues to be one of the best in the Central Texas region. This includes: ▪ Primary responsibility - Temple Parks and Recrea on Department ▪ All governmental en es, including the City of Temple, Temple ISD, and other advisory group en Parks and Recrea on Advisory Board. ▪ The business community in Temple, including property owners, developers, commercial en Page 1-4
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
es such as the
es, and others.
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
ETJ Limits
its
ETJ Lim
City its
Lim
its
im
yL
Cit
“The progressiveness of a city may be measured largely by its parks and recrea onal facili es, for these are the expression of the aspira ons of the community beyond the purely material and obviously necessary things…But these have more than esthe c value and have been found to pay real, if indirect, dividends which may be translated into cash. The dividends come in a rac ng new ci zens, in keeping the old ci zens, and reducing the labor turnover, and in the tourist trade.” ~ George Kessler, City Planner, 1925
Temple’s City Limits and ETJ Limits
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Page 1-5
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan ▪ All ci zens of Temple, no ma er which part of the city they live in. ▪ Nearby residents of Bell County, since the Temple parks system can offer services to non-residents. The parks master plan follows the general guidelines for local park master plans established by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). This document will be filed with TPWD and allows the city to be er qualify for grant opportuni es as they become available.
TRENDS
IN THE
RECREATION PROFESSION
The parks, open spaces, and recrea onal offerings of a city play a large role in defining quality of life, as well as a city’s iden ty and image. It is therefore important for a marke ng plan for parks to understand regional and na onal trends related to parks and recrea on facili es. Below, several of the most prevalent trends in the recrea on profession are discussed. These are expected to carry forward into the near future and be relevant for the lifespan of this plan. Many relevant ar cles and research findings are published by the Na onal Recrea on and Parks Associa on (NRPA) that discuss the current and foreseeable trends in the recrea on profession. For instance, technology advances, changes in our popula on, and the percep on of public health are changing the parks and recrea on industry standards and how people recreate. In one such ar cle wri en in the summer of 2013, Brad Chambers, Past Chair of the Supervisors Management School sponsored by NRPA, discusses how the technological advances that are being made can dras cally change the opera ons of a parks and recrea on department. For example, most of society is now cashless. Very few people carry cash, and even fewer will carry their wallet when they are out exercising on a trail or in a park. Park and recrea on departments taking credit cards and having online registra on was cu ng edge nearly a decade ago. However, if the point of technology is to be convenient and secure, then staying up to date is crucial. In the very near future, there will be ways to register for programs or leagues on your mobile phone, by scanning a QR code or using your paypal account. Satellite community centers and swimming pools could very likely have tablets and smart phones to accept payment and user fees through Square (a device that allows businesses to swipe and charge credit cards using a smart phone or tablet).
Population Trends A decade ago, the use of online registra on and accep ng credit cards for user fees was considered state of the art. As technology changes, the park and recrea on program user experience will become even more convenient.
Page 1-6
The popula on of the United States is star ng to shi somewhat drama cally from what it was decades ago. This will have a direct effect on recrea on programming in terms of the types of people our ci es are now serving and the types of ac vi es they are interested in doing. Emilyn Sheffield of California State University at Chico notes five key demographic changes occurring the in United States that directly impact recrea on. These include (1) the popula on is growing, but more slowly. The na on’s popula on from the 2000 to 2010 Census only increased 9.7%. That is down from
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan a 13.2% growth rate from the decade before. (2) Baby boomers are shi ing the median age of our popula on. From the 2010 Census it was determined that 23% of the popula on is between the ages of 50 and 69. In fact, the baby boomer genera on as a whole and elderly seniors over 70 create a combined total of about 32% of the current popula on. This shi demonstrates the need to program our facili es for ac vi es that accommodate re rees, and offer events that are mul -genera onal for the whole family grandparents, parents and children. (3) As the older por on of our popula on increases, the younger popula on is decreasing. In 2010, the popula on under the age of 18 reached an all- me low at 24%. Children, youth and teens will con nue to be primary users of recrea on facili es, so the change in programming for this group might not be as drama c as for other groups. (4) The popula on is becoming more racially and ethnically diversified. This is especially true in Texas which is a majority- Mul -genera onal events, such as fes vals and minority state, meaning the majority of the popula on is of a minority background. This shi can call for a change in concerts in the park, can offer something for the en re family. a parks department’s programming by offering events that cater to the popula on’s unique cultural backgrounds and tradi ons. (5) The distribu on of our US popula on is changing. It is no surprise to those of us living in Texas that the US Census in 2010 reported that more than half the na onal popula on lives in only ten states (Texas being one of them along with California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan). In fact, they further reported that 25% of the na onal popula on lives in Texas, California and New York alone. The rapid growth of our popula on in Texas will con nue, and it is important to con nue developing programs and facili es that meet the needs of both exis ng residents and future residents.
Health Trends
Ci es mustt con con nue to to provide provid ide ffacili acili ili es tthat hatt appeal appeall
For the past several years and even decades, the health in America has been declining rapidly. It is es mated by the to both exis ng and future residents. Center for Disease Control and Preven on (CDC) that one in three children are obese and more than two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese. The CDC con nues to report that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, accoun ng for one in four deaths. We all know that exercise and being outdoors is important to our overall health “Growth is inevitable and and well-being. A er years of being bombarded with sta s cal evidence about how unhealthy our na on has become, desirable, but destruc on of we may now be at a turning point. For the first me in decades, the CDC reports a decrease in obesity for low-income community character is not. The preschoolers in 2013. This is a hopeful sign that people are becoming more ac ve and living a healthier lifestyle. ques on is not whether your part Maureen Hannan, former editor of the NRPA magazine Parks and Recrea on, discusses key trends that communi es and even parks and recrea on departments across the country are taking part in to help improve overall public health.
of the world is going to change. The ques on is how.”
(1) It is becoming more mainstream for doctors to actually prescribe spending me in parks and in nature. The purpose
~Edward T. McMahon
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Page 1-7
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan of such prescrip ons is to increase ac vity outdoors in order to improve mental health, decrease obesity, and even reduce the risk of developing asthma. (2) More and more ci es across the na on are banning tobacco use in parks. Many communi es have found it easy to gain support among their residents that tobacco use in parks should be banned because of the problems it creates, from li er and second hand smoke, to se ng a bad example for children.
“A big factor which is affec ng levels of sports par cipa on is the ongoing a rac on of electronic op ons which are sedentary in nature such as laptop computers, iPods, internet chat rooms, hand-held games, computer games and cell phones. While these items are dynamic innova ons, they do consume large amounts of our life and, as a result, cut into the me that could have been set aside for recrea onal or athle c pursuits. People who want to get in shape need to make exercise a daily priority - just as the ancient Greeks emphasized the importance of a sound mind and a sound body.” ~Tom Cove, 2008 President of Spor ng Goods Manufactures Associa on
Page 1-8
(3) People are walking more. The CDC reports that the percent of people who walk at least one me for ten minutes or more per week rose from 56% in 2005 to 62% in 2010. Because walking can be done by people of all ages, trails con nue to be one of the top recrea onal needs in most communi es throughout Texas. (4) Communi es are star ng to take no ce of areas that are underserved by parks and recrea on, and are seeking ways to provide improved infrastructure and safer access to those ameni es.
Ongoing Trends These overall trends have had a significant impact on recrea on over the past decade, and are expected to con nue to have an impact throughout the lifespan of this master plan. ▪ We have many more leisure ac vity choices. Greatly increased at-home leisure opportuni es are available today, such as hundreds of channels on television, sophis cated game consoles, smart phones, tablets, e-readers, and the internet. ▪ Safety is a great concern to parents. Many parents no longer allow their children to go to area parks una ended. In many places the use of neighborhood parks has gone down. ▪ We live in an era of instant gra fica on. We expect to have high quality recrea on, and to be given ac vi es that we will like. Ci es must be willing to provide a much broader menu of recrea on ac vi es, but must draw the line if those ac vi es become too costly. ▪ Through the media and internet, we are exposed to the best from around the world. Because of this, we expect our facili es and ac vi es to be of the highest quality possible. ▪ Concern over the health of our popula on is rapidly growing. Obesity is now recognized as a na onwide problem. Funding to reduce obesity rates by increasing outdoor ac vi es may be more readily available in the future. It may also be a source of grants for parks and recrea on programs and facili es. ▪ New revenue sources for public funding are difficult to come by. The federal surpluses briefly experienced at the turn of the century are now a thing of the past, and deficit spending is probable for the next decade. As a result, li le help
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan can be expected from the federal and state government, and even popular grant programs such as enhancement funds for trails and beau fica on are not always available.
Outdoor Recreation Trends One of the most important trends in parks and recrea on today is the increased demand for passive recrea on ac vi es and facili es. Passive recrea on, as compared to ac ve recrea on, includes a variety of ac vi es such as walking and jogging on trails, picnicking, enjoying nature, geocaching, visi ng dog parks, and bird watching. It focuses on individual recrea on rather than organized high-intensity pas mes like team athle cs (which has long been the focus of park and recrea on departments na onwide). People desire opportuni es to use parks and open space on their own me and in their own way. Trails con nue to be a key facility need in ci es Across Texas, the provision of trails is the top priority for ci zens. Numerous surveys, public mee ngs, ques onnaires, across Texas, including Temple. and in-person interviews have shown that people, on average, place the importance of trails above the provision of any other single type of recrea on amenity or facility. Many factors contribute to this, including the demand for passive recrea on (as discussed above), greater focus on health, rising transporta on costs, and increasing funding opportuni es for bicycle and pedestrian facili es.
Related to the previous two trends, the protec on of and access to open space and natural areas is growing in popularity across the na on. As people are increasingly using trails, they generally prefer to use trails that are located in scenic areas in order to enjoy being outdoors. Lions Park and Wilson Park are excellent examples of scenic areas with walking trails in Temple. Even though passive recrea on is increasing in
While passive recrea on is in greater demand, ac ve recrea on s ll plays a large role in city parks and recrea on demand, ac ve recrea on will con nue to be a focus systems. One major trend over the last few years has been changing par cipa on rates in Texas in various city-sponsored of the Temple Parks and Recrea on Department league sports. Examples of these changing par cipa on rates include decreased par cipa on in youth so ball, drama cally increased par cipa on in youth soccer, and the emergence of new league sports such as adult soccer, kickball, and youth lacrosse. That said, it con nues to be the case that league sport par cipa on rates vary greatly from city to city, depending in part on ac vi es oered by school districts and other organiza ons such as the YMCA, Boys and Girls Club, and in some cases churches.
Indoor Recreation Trends There is a movement away from providing mul ple smaller recrea on centers to providing a single large indoor recrea on center that is within a 15 to 20 minute travel me from its 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 sta eďŹƒciency. There is also a trend of combining separate senior ac vity areas within the large recrea on center. Such an area with
Indoor on In ndo door or recrea rec ecre rea a o n has has adapted adap ad apte ted d over over me ffrom rom ro m th thee mul ple small centers to one large citywide center.
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Page 1-9
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan a dis nct entrance separate from the main center entrance gives the desired autonomy of seniors while providing convenient access to the various opportuni es in a recrea on center including an indoor walking track, warm water exercising, and adequately-sized fitness areas. Many ci es today are seeking a higher fee structure to help off set opera onal costs. Observa on reveals a range from a 50% to 60% opera onal cost recapture rate all the way to a 100% recapture rate across the State of Texas. University students today have elaborate recrea on and aqua c facili es at their disposal. New graduates are leaving their universi es with expecta ons for ci es to provide comparable facili es. Quality of life is an important component of a new graduate’s job search and residence decision, and has influenced what new city recrea on centers will provide.
Environment and Recreation Trends As ci es and towns con nue to grow and expand, ci zens are becoming increasingly aware of the diminishing amounts of open space and natural areas in and around their communi es. 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 loca ons. Related to this increased interest in the preserva on of open spaces and natural areas is an increased interest among ci zens to consider alterna ve development strategies within their communi es. This is in order to preserve and provide access to natural areas, decrease traffic conges on, encourage walking and bicycling, enhance property values, and increase recrea on opportuni es within their community. Alterna ve development strategies o en considered include mixed-use development, new urbanism, and conserva on developments. The a ributes of a community play a large role in a rac ng (or detrac ng) people to a city or region. Research shows that the quality of a city’s environment (its climate, park space, trails, and natural resources) is a significant factor in a rac ng new residents. As such, high-quality, high-quan ty parks and open space systems will a ract people while lowquality, low-quan ty parks and open space systems will detract people.
Drought Conditions and Water Use in Central Texas
The preserva on of vital open space areas will be a key need as the city con nues to grow.
Page 1-10
Record drought condi ons throughout Texas in recent years, including Temple, have driven home the point that city parks can no longer be kept green through a limitless supply of water. Key points regarding water and conserva on related issues considered in this master plan are as follows: ▪ Temple’s parks represent a huge capital investment. They also represent some of the more a rac ve environments throughout the city. Mature trees that have lived for decades are extraordinarily hard to replace, and even then will take addi onal decades to reach a similar level of maturity.
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan ▪ Temple’s park system should ac vely invest in efforts to become more efficient. In other communi es in Central Texas, this has included using treated effluent water for irriga on, and irriga ng only the ac ve use zones of parks and plan ng na ve grasses in the peripheral areas. ▪ Parks and a rac ve streetscapes are cri cal to Temple’s future. It cannot be overstated as to how much they posi vely contribute to the appearance of the city today. Without the rela vely few exis ng green areas and parks that are spread throughout the city, Temple would become less appealing as a place to live. ▪ The lack of water should not be used as an excuse not to provide parks and addi onal streetscape throughout the city. Rather, technology, alterna ve sources and drought tolerant materials should be used to increase the amount of green in Temple.
BENEFITS
OF
PARKS
AND
RECREATION
Developing an excellent parks and recrea on system demonstrates a local government’s commitment to offer a high quality of life for its residents. A superior parks and recrea on system increases the quality of life in a community because of the many benefits it offers. Parks are the single most visible posi ve expression of a city government at work. Parks and recrea on offer many benefits, from relaxa on and improved health to increased property values. Below is a summary of the benefits that can be provided to Temple residents.
Opportunities to Relax So many people face increased challenges every day, whether it is from their job, their family life, financial obliga ons, or any other combina on of things. People come to parks to relieve some of their daily stress. Whether it involves kicking a soccer ball, watching their children play on the swings, or fishing in lakes and ponds, the idea of “restora on” is that people feel be er a er they leave a park than when they first arrived. ▪ Parks and recrea on allow for people to reflect and discover what is on their mind. This can come from viewing wildflowers, listening to birds, watching a water fountain, enjoying the scenery, or countless other natural occurrences. Placing benches or bridges where people can stop to no ce nature increases the opportuni es for restora on. ▪ Parks need to have invi ng things to allow the mind to wander. Japanese gardens offer outstanding examples of how small spaces can achieve this. They posi on viewpoints so the en re garden cannot be seen at once, they have looped pathways to make the area seem larger, or they have vegeta on that divides larger spaces. ▪ By providing a slight sense of enclosure, the users of a park feel as if they are somewhere else, away from life’s distrac ons. Enclosures can be achieved by having a tree canopy or plan ng vegeta on along building sides to hide them.
The natural environment offers opportuni es for relaxa on and restora on.
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Page 1-11
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Opportunities to Get Involved Parks and recrea on offer opportuni es for ci zens to become involved in the community such as: ▪ Having an Adopt-A-Park program lets residents volunteer to help maintain one specific park in their neighborhood. ▪ Allowing residents to be instructors for a recrea on program gives them the opportunity to share and teach their skills to other members of the community. ▪ Organizing work day projects to install a playground or plant new trees lets residents feel a sense of ownership in the park they helped build.
Community work day projects are a great way for residents to get involved.
By providing opportuni es for residents to become involved in the community, parks and recrea on is also providing opportuni es for residents to socialize and meet their neighbors.
Benefits to At-Risk Youth and Teens One major benefit of parks and recrea on is the impact it can have on at-risk youth. Teenagers are the hardest market of the popula on to reach. By providing ac vi es and recrea on programming for this segment of the popula on, a city is providing a safe place for the youth to go and o en mes a supervised environment for them to be in.
“Revitalized ci es need revitalized park systems. They help clean the air, reduce stress, improve health, diminish crime, increase tourism and property value, and provide an alterna ve to sprawl. Parks are the urban land issue of the 21st century.” ~Peter Harnik, Director of Trust for Public Land Center for City Park Excellence
Tourism Impacts of Parks and Recreation People visit a city for the a rac ons that are offered. Several a rac ons in a community include parks and recrea onal facili es, as well as fes vals, concerts, athle c tournaments, and special events that take place in those facili es. In essence, people o en visit a city because of the parks and recrea on. Parks and recrea on are also good for a community’s economy because of the impact it can have on other businesses. For example hotels o en charge more for a room if it overlooks a park, lake, ocean, garden or open space as opposed to a roof top or parking lot. By charging more, the hotel/motel tax that the city receives is higher. Other business impacts include the opera ons that people start in conjunc on with a park or trail. As examples, people can rent canoes and kayaks at Zilker Park in Aus n, and people can rent bicycles along the Cape Cod Rail Trail in Massachuse s. Each creates an a rac on, a business opportunity, and a possible revenue genera on that would not otherwise be there without the park or trail facility.
Environmental Benefits of Parks Parks and recrea on offer several environmental benefits to a community. Parkland, open space, greenbelts and trails all contribute to ensuring that a community is green and not overrun with concrete and construc on. Furthermore, parks and open space can control storm water runoff and reduce the likelihood of flooding. Rain water that falls onto impervious surfaces can be slowed down by plan ng trees which impede the fall rate.
Page 1-12
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Parks, open space and trees also contribute to cleaner air in a community. Trees can absorb air pollutants that would otherwise increase sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. Parks and open space protect wildlife habitat as well. Habitats of endangered species and areas specific to migratory pa erns are o en protected and designated as parkland or open space. By preserving these lands, a community is helping the survival of these species. Parks and open space contribute to the preserva on of land in general. The parks and recrea on department within a community ensures that all the land is not developed. It is important to have green space and places of nature within a city. Parks and greenbelts are the most significantly preserved open spaces in a community.
Personal Health Benefits of Parks and Recreation Parks and recrea on at its most basic func on offer places for exercise. With heart disease, diabetes, and child obesity rising to staggering numbers, we all need to be more physically ac ve. Parks and recrea on gives us the opportuni es to be physical. Whether it is jogging along a trail, playing in a so ball league, taking a fitness class, or swimming at a pool, the most common places for exercise are in our parks and through our recrea on programs. Furthermore, play is cri cal for child development. Organized sports, playing on a playground, and even unstructured ac vi es such as tag or hide-and-seek will help children develop muscle strength, coordina on, cogni ve thinking and reasoning, and develop language skills. Also, play teaches children how to interact with one another. The places where children play are again o en at a community’s parks and recrea onal facili es. Parks and recrea on have been shown to have psychological benefits as well. Physical exercise helps develop new nerve cells which increase a person’s capacity for learning. Being in nature and exercising have both been shown to reduce feelings of stress, depression and anxiety. Parks and nature conjure a sense of relaxa on. A person does not have to be in nature for extended periods of me to experience those feelings. Just driving through a park or looking at green space through a window of a building has been shown to be enough to relax the mind.
Economic Benefits of Parks and Recreation In the parks and recrea on profession, there has been a movement in the past few decades to prove that parkland has a direct impact on the property values of homes in a community. The Proximity Principle, developed by Dr. John Crompton of Texas A&M University, is a theory that people are willing to pay more for their home when it is close to a park or green space. ▪ The Proximity Principle divides houses into different zones and the zones closest to a park have the highest value. People living in Zone A (within 200 feet of a park or green space) pay the most for their home, people living in Zone B (between 200 and 400 feet of a park or green space) pay less than Zone A but more than Zone C, and people living in
The most common places for exercise in a community is in our parks and through our recrea on programs and leagues.
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Page 1-13
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Zone C (between 400 and 600 feet from a park or green space) pay the least. See the image to the le . ▪
If people pay more for their property, then this results in higher property taxes being paid to the city.
▪ Finally, park maintenance typically costs much less to a city than providing services to the addi onal homes that would have otherwise been built on the site. For example, if ten addi onal houses were built on a piece of land instead of a park, it would cost the city more money each year to provide water, sewer, trash service, police and fire protec on for the ten houses than it would to maintain a park. In a study done by the Trust for Public Lands for the Philadelphia Parks Alliance in June 2008, it was calculated that parks in Philadelphia generate $18 million in added property tax revenue, $689 million in increased equity for homeowners near parks, $16 million in municipal cost savings, $23 million in city revenue, and $1.1 billion in cost savings for ci zens.
GOALS
AND
OBJECTIVES
FOR
TEMPLE’S PARKS
Goals and objec ves for a plan such as this create the founda on for guiding future decisions and development. Goals are an important part of the planning process in that they provide the underlying philosophical framework for decisions and also guide decision makers on issues. The goals expressed in this master plan reflect the desires of the ci zens, elected and appointed officials, and the staff of Temple. They are also intended to build upon the city’s overall mission and vision shown the le . These goals are based on the input received from the public input mee ngs, the ci zen survey, during workshops with the plan’s advisory commi ee, and mee ngs with the Parks and Recrea on Department. Goals describe the desired outcome for a plan. They are different from a vision in that they speak directly about a component of the overall system. ObjecƟves are iden fied statements or policies that work toward the goal. They are more specific than a goal, and address par cular issues related to the elements to achieve the desired goal. AcƟons include specific strategies or steps to take in order to reach a specified objec ve. Ac on items are specific enough to include a recommended meframe for implementa on, other agencies or en es to partner with, and o en a poten al cost. Benchmarks are target measures which the objec ves and ac ons are working toward. They measure progress toward achieving the goal over me, and are ways to measure progress of plan implementa on.
Page 1-14
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Goal 1 Work towards transforming Temple’s parks, recrea on, and open spaces into one of the best systems in the State of Texas.
Objec ve 1.1: Implement a long-range program for expansion and development of Temple’s parks system based upon the Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan. Objec ve 1.2: Through the park planning process, iden fy benchmarks that will indicate progress towards mee ng this goal. Objec ve 1.3: Iden fy park-planning areas with the greatest need for park facili es, and pursue the acquisi on of land or resources as needed, and the development of facili es in those areas. Objec ve 1.4: Interpret and priori ze ci zen needs and desires for recrea on facili es. Objec ve 1.5: Provide facili es for a wide range of both ac ve and passive recrea onal ac vi es throughout the city. Objec ve 1.6: Provide a reasonable balance of recrea onal facili es that address the needs of all age groups, young and old, ac ve and passive, athle c and non-athle c, and in all socioeconomic categories.
Goal 2 Expand the parks system to meet the needs of all future residents in Temple, and develop
neighborhood parks as central recrea on green spaces within the neighborhoods they serve.
Objec ve 2.1: Use the Parkland Dedica on Ordinance requirements to ensure all new neighborhood parks are centrally located within their neighborhood. Objec ve 2.2: Seek opportuni es to acquire neighborhood parkland in exis ng developed residen al areas that are underserved. Objec ve 2.3: Seek opportuni es to acquire land for large community parks in west Temple. Objec ve 2.4: Use diverse and reasonable criteria to iden fy park needs, including reasonable calcula ons of poten al level of use, but also the ability of each facility to respond to citywide needs in a cost effec ve manner. Objec ve 2.5: Preserve the ability to respond to unique acquisi on or development opportuni es as they arise, even if out of the proposed sequence of improvements, provided that they respond to key citywide needs and goals.
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Page 1-15
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Objec ve 2.6: Encourage and provide opportuni es for ci zens to par cipate in planning, development, maintenance, and opera on of the city’s parks and open space system.
Goal 3
Con nue to fund the Parks and Recrea on Department to provide a superior level of maintenance and quality facili es. Objec ve 3.1: Provide city parks staff with the manpower and resources to maintain all parkland and facili es in a superior manner. Provide addi onal opera ons and maintenance resources as new recrea onal facili es are developed and added to the Temple parks system.
Goal 4
Create a citywide trails network that connects parks, schools, businesses, neighborhoods, civic facili es, and key des na ons with a series of off-street pedestrian and bicycle facili es. Objec ve 4.1: Con nue to develop trails citywide, following the recommenda ons in the city’s Trails Master Plan.
Goal 5
The parks system will be environmentally sustainable.
Objec ve 5.1: Treated effluent automated irriga on should be installed and used on all athle c fields, at community parks, and at any neighborhood park over 10 acres in size where feasible. Objec ve 5.2: Promote the use of na ve plant materials to reduce maintenance and irriga on costs in parks and on city proper es.
Goal 6
Preserve open space, cultural landscapes, and natural resources within Temple.
Objec ve 6.1: Preserve as much as possible the remaining undeveloped 100-year floodplain within the city limits and ETJ. Objec ve 6.2: As part of the citywide park planning and development process, establish criteria to iden fy key open space areas and natural areas worthy of preserva on throughout the city and ETJ. Objec ve 6.3: Iden fy key natural space corridors and lands with unique natural quali es throughout the city, and priori ze key areas for preserva on.
Page 1-16
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Objec ve 6.4: Establish policies and methods to preserve key natural areas in and around the city. Use mechanisms that preserve needed floodway and drainage ways throughout the city to also preserve greenbelt corridors. Objec ve 6.5: Establish mechanisms to acquire lands for protec on through acquisi on, purchase of easements, or outright dedica on of floodplain lands where these are deemed to have open space value. Focus on high quality natural or open space areas that are likely to be developed with incompa ble uses in the near future. Objec ve 6.6: Establish policies that encourage private owners to preserve and protect key natural areas within the city. Objec ve 6.7: Encourage educa onal ins tu ons, semi-private land trusts and other nonprofit organiza ons to acquire, manage, and maintain high value natural and open space conserva on areas within the city.
Goal 7
Create a unique, customized “Temple� look within parks.
Objec ve 7.1: All parks should be improved to include shade structures over the playgrounds, customized park signs, customized benches, customized pavilion and enhanced landscaping so visitors easily recognize and feel that they are in a City of Temple park. Objec ve 7.2: Renovate exis ng park sites in Temple so that each park becomes a vegetated and green focal point of the neighborhood around it. Objec ve 7.3: Where appropriate, incorporate public art into major parks or green spaces in the city. Objec ve 7.4: Provide funding and resources for adequate landscaping and irriga on when renova ng exis ng parks or designing and construc ng new park facili es.
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Page 1-17
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
This page was inten onally le blank.
Page 1-18
Chapter One | Introduction to Park Planning
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Page 2-1
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
INTRODUCTION The 2014 Parks Master Plan builds upon the best features of Temple. It enhances what Temple is, how it came to be, and what the ci zens of Temple want of their city. Understanding the current character of the city is an important part of the park planning process. Both the physical and demographic makeup of the city help determine the current and future park needs for its ci zens. This chapter summarizes the current character of Temple in 2014, including the city’s history, demographics and popula on trends. This chapter also summarizes previous planning efforts in Temple.
THE HISTORY & ECONOMY
OF
TEMPLE
Temple is located in Bell County in the Central Texas region along IH-35. It is adjacent to the county seat, Belton. Temple is approximately 65 miles north of Aus n and 35 miles south of Waco. Because of its premier loca on along IH-35 and being in proximity to most large ci es within Texas, Temple has become an ideal loca on for distribu on services.
“The right of children to play, to sing and to dance; the right of youth to sport for sport’s sake; the right of men and women to use leisure in the pursuit of happiness in their own way, are basic to our American heritage.” ~Harry S. Truman, 33rd President
Page 2-2
The City of Temple was founded in 1881 by the Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe Railroad. The town was named a er one of the railroad company’s engineers, Bernard Moore Temple. The town quickly grew, and within three years there were 3,000 residents as well as three churches, a school, two bank, two newspapers, and an opera house. Around that me, William Goodrich Jones moved to Temple to become president of a new bank. He later became known as the “father of Texas forestry” because of his influence in conserva on and reforesta on which led to the crea on of the Texas Forestry Associa on in 1914, later renamed the Texas Forest Service in 1926. Jones Park in Temple is named a er him. Temple has always had a significant medical industry. At the turn of 20th century, the city was considered to be a leading medical center in the southwest with three major hospitals and many doctors. This strong medical presence helped the community grow, and by 1940 the city had over 15,000 residents. Because of its close proximity to the Fort Hood military base in Killeen, Temple has also been a key choice for re rement among military personal since the 1940s. Today, Temple has a very diverse economy. Major economic generators include medical facili es (such as Baylor Sco & White Health), agriculture, transporta on and manufacturing. Major employers are listed in Table 2-1.
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 2-1 Major Employers in Temple* Employer Baylor Sco & White Health Fikes Wholesale, Inc. Temple Independent School District Wilsonart Interna onal Sprint/Nextel Corpora on McLane Company, Inc. City of Temple McLane Southwest Wal-Mart Distribu on Center Pac v Corpora on Sco & White Health Plan Central Texas Veterans Health Care System**
# of Employees 8,290 1,400 1,327 1,021 1,000 914 759 747 700 600 550 2,250 +/-
*Source: Temple Economic Development Corpora on 2014 **Includes medical sta, trainees, residents and fellows for the en re system serving Temple, Waco, and outpa ent clinics in Aus n, Brownwood, Bryan/ College Sta on, Cedar Park, and Pales ne: h p://www.centraltexas.va.gov/ about/index.asp
Regional Context Ci es are influenced and shaped by regional physical, economic and social forces. By recognizing its posi on in the region, the city can benefit from regional opportuni es. The City of Temple is located in the greater Central Texas region, and is a city within the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood Metropolitan Sta s cal Area (MSA). A MSA is formed around urbanized areas within a popula on of at least 50,000. It includes the central county containing the core, plus adjacent outlying coun es that have a high degree of social and economic integra on with the central county as measured through commu ng. The Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood MSA includes Bell, Coryell and Lampasas Coun es. Temple is in northeast Bell County at the intersec on of IH-35 and State Highways 53 and 95.
Loca on of Temple within Bell County. Image source: Wikipedia
Historic park photos source: City of Temple Parks and Recrea on Department
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Page 2-3
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
OF
TEMPLE
Understanding the current and future size and characteris cs of the popula on to be served is a key part of the park planning process. Establishing a base popula on for today is the founda on from which the projec on of popula on growth extends and influences the demand and needs for future parks and recrea onal facili es. This sec on examines historical growth in Temple, reviews recent growth trends, and establishes a poten al popula on projec on range for the Parks, Recrea on, and Open Space Master Plan. The US Census Bureau is the primary source for popula on es mates used by government en es across the na on. Not only does the US Census Bureau es mate the popula on, but they also collect detailed characteris cs of the popula on that o en have planning implica ons. However, the US Census does not provide future popula on projec ons. There are several sources that project popula on for Central Texas, which were used to evaluate the projected popula on for Temple. Overall, resources for this evalua on include the Texas State Data Center (TXSDC) and the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). Historical Population Growth and Future Projected Population 100,000 90,000
91,759
80,000
79,253 70,000
66,102
60,000
40,000 30,000
Historical and Projected Growth
70,190
The City of Temple has experienced steady growth over the past several decades, and today it is es mated to be one and a half mes that size it was in 1990 increasing from 46,000 to over 70,000. It is expected that Temple will con nue to experience this growth over the next two decades with an es mated popula on of over 90,000 by the year 2030.
54,514
50,000
42,474
46,109
33,431
20,000 10,000 1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2013
2020
2030
Source: 1970-2010 actual decennial US Census, 2013 US Census es mate, 2020-2030 Texas Water Development Board 2016 Regional Water Plan popula on projec ons
Page 2-4
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Furthermore, a variety of more specific demographic characteris cs are evaluated on the following pages. Each sec on of demographic informa on includes a comparison with the county, MSA, and overall state where available. Demographic characteris cs include age, gender, race and ethnicity, and household characteris cs such as income and employment.
The city’s comprehensive plan was completed in 2008. In that document, the projected future popula on growth used different growth scenarios. Today’s popula on is es mated to have surpassed what many of those scenarios projected. Because recent growth has occurred more rapidly than what was calculated in the comprehensive plan, the recent projec ons developed by the Texas Water Development Board will be used for the purposes of this parks master plan when assessing future facility needs based on the projected popula on.
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Popula on growth scenarios prepared for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Source: City of Temple and Kendig Keast Collabora ve
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Page 2-5
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Age and Gender Characteristics Greatest GeneraƟon - Grew up during the Great Depression then went on to fight in World War II. They are known to have fought because it was the right thing to do. Silent GeneraƟon - Born during the Great Depression and World War II era then went on to fight in the Korean War. They experienced the most stable family life of any genera on and started the trend towards early re rement. Baby Boomer GeneraƟon - Born during the post-World War II baby boom between 1946 and 1964. They were the first genera on to reach peak levels of income, and benefit from abundant food, clothing, re rement, and lifestyle ameni es.
Evalua ng the popula on by age helps the city understand what the needs and lifestyles are of the residents it serves. Generally, the Temple popula on is largely made up of the Millennial genera on, approximately ages 10 to 34. The largest age segment is between 25 and 29 years old with 8.8% of popula on within this age range. The median age in Temple is 37.1 years. 49% of the popula on is male and 51% is female. The popula on in Temple is slightly older when compared to Bell County as a whole and the State of Texas overall. The popula on in Temple between the ages of 20 and 44 is 33% while in Bell County it is 39.5% and 35.5% in the State of Texas. The popula on in Temple that is over the age of 65 is 14.7% compared to 8.9% for Bell County and 10.4% for the State of Texas. Age comparisons are shown in Table 2-2.
Age and Gender Characteristics in Temple 85 and over
Female
80 to 84
Male
75 to 79 70 to 74
}
65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59
GeneraƟon X - Born from the early 1960s to early 1980s. They tend to be highly educated, ac ve, and embrace social diversity.
50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 29
Page 2-6
25 to 29
15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 Under 5 2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
Source: US Census 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5 Year Es mates
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Silent Genera on
Baby Boomers
}
Genera on X
Millennials (Genera on Y)
20 to 24
0.0%
}
}}
30 to 34
Millennials - Typically born between early 1980s and early 2000s. They tend to be confident, op mis c and tolerant, but with a sense of en tlement. GeneraƟon Z - Typically born from the late 1990s to today. They have had access to personal technology and internet communica on their en re lives.
} Greatest Genera on
18.0%
20.0%
Genera on Z (Internet Genera on)
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Race and Ethnicity Characteristics
Age Range Under 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 and over
City of Temple 7.6% 6.9% 6.0% 5.7% 5.9% 15.5% 11.6% 13.9% 6.6% 5.5% 7.1% 5.1% 2.5%
Bell County 9.1% 8.1% 7.0% 7.1% 9.8% 17.0% 12.7% 11.8% 4.6% 4.1% 5.0% 2.9% 1.0%
State of Texas 7.7% 7.6% 7.4% 7.5% 7.3% 14.4% 13.8% 13.5% 5.6% 4.7% 5.9% 3.3% 1.2%
Median Age
37.1
29.7
33.6
Source: US Census 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5 Year Es mates
The racial and ethnicity characteris cs for the City of Temple, Bell County and State of Texas are shown below. Temple has a higher percentage of the popula on that is white than when compared to Bell County, and a lower percentage that is Black/African American than when compared to Bell County overall. The Hispanic or La no popula on for Temple is similar to Bell County, but is lower when compared to the State of Texas. According to the US Census demographic categories, a person of Hispanic or La no heritage can be of any race. Therefore, in the table below, the percentages can add up to more than 100%.
Table 2-3 Race and Ethnicity Comparisons Race
RACE
Table 2-2 Age Comparisons
White Black/African American American Indian/Alaska Na ve Asian Na ve Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Other Two or more races
Hispanic or La no of any race
City of Temple 76.7% 15.6% 0.1% 2.7% 0.2% 3.3% 1.5%
Bell County 66.5% 21.3% 0.6% 2.9% 0.7% 3.3% 4.7%
State of Texas 74.1% 11.8% 0.5% 3.9% 0.1% 7.5% 2.2%
20.9%
21.7%
37.6%
Source: US Census 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5 Year Es mates
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Page 2-7
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Educational Attainment When the educa onal a ainment for Temple is compared to Bell County and the State of Texas, the percentages are rela vely similar. 33.4% of the popula on in Temple and 31.6% of the Bell County popula on has an Associate’s degree or higher, compared to 32.6% for the State of Texas overall. Only 13.2% of the Temple popula on has less than a high school diploma. That is higher than Bell County at 10.9% but much lower than the State of Texas at 19.3%. Educa onal a ainment comparisons are shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4 Educational Attainment EducaƟonal AƩainment Less than 9th grade High school, no diploma High school graduate, GED Some college, no degree Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree Graduate or professional degree
City of Temple 6.1% 7.1% 31.2% 22.1% 8.5% 14.8% 10.1%
Bell County 4.7% 6.2% 28.9% 28.6% 10.2% 13.9% 7.5%
State of Texas 9.7% 9.6% 25.3% 22.8% 6.4% 17.5% 8.7%
Source: US Census 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5 Year Es mates
Household Income The household income for Temple is very similar to that of Bell County overall. 31.7% of the Temple popula on has a household income of $75,000 or more, compared to 29.8% for Bell County. This is slightly less when compared to the State of Texas which has 33.3% of households with an income of $75,000 or more. The median household income for Temple and Bell County are very comparable to the State of Texas; however, the average household income for Temple is less than the State of Texas but more than Bell County. The poverty level for both City of Temple and Bell County is less than the State of Texas overall.
Table 2-5 Household Income Income Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more Median Household Income Average Household Income Poverty Level
City of Temple 7.8% 5.3% 9.5% 11.8% 14.4% 19.5% 13.7% 10.7% 4.0% 3.3%
Bell County 7.3% 4.7% 9.9% 11.9% 16.0% 20.3% 13.1% 11.1% 3.5% 2.1%
State of Texas 7.4% 5.4% 11.0% 10.9% 13.9% 18.0% 11.8% 12.4% 4.6% 4.5%
$51,192 $68,598
$50,085 $63,219
$51,563 $71,651
12.3%
14.6%
17.4%
Source: US Census 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5 Year Es mates
Page 2-8
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Employment by Industry The employment by industry percentages are calculated based on the popula on over the age of 16 that is employed. As men oned previously, Temple has a very strong medical presence. This is again demonstrated by the employment percentages of the city. Over one-third of the Temple popula on (33.7%) works in the educa on, health care, social assistance industry. Other key industries in Temple include retail trade (11.7%) and manufacturing (8.4%).
Means of Transportation to Work The vast majority of residents in Temple, 85.8%, drive a personal vehicle alone to work. 8.7% indicate that they carpool, while 2.8% work from home. Very small percentages of the popula on use other means to commute to work, such as walking (1.4%), public transit (0.4%), bicycling (0.3%), and other means such as taxicabs, motorcycles (0.5%). The average travel to work for Temple residents is approximately 16 minutes.
Work at home, 2.8%
Table 2-6 Employment by Industry Industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hun ng and mining Construc on Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Transporta on, warehousing, u li es Informa on Finance, insurance, real estate Professional, scien fic, management, waste management Educa on, health care, social assistance Arts, entertainment, recrea on, accommoda on, food service Public administra on Other services
City of Temple 0.8% 4.6% 8.4% 4.4% 11.7% 3.6% 2.9% 4.3% 6.6% 33.7% 7.3% 6.1% 5.7%
Source: US Census 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5 Year Es mates Other, 0.5% Drive alone, 85.8%
Bicycle, 0.3% Walk, 1.4%
Carpool, 8.7%
Public transit, 0.4%
Source: US Census 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5 Year Es mates
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Page 2-9
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS
IN
TEMPLE
Part of the planning process for a citywide parks system includes knowing what was envisioned and proposed in previous plans. O en mes, the recommenda ons of other plans can directly relate to the needs that were discovered in this planning effort. The following pages summarize many of the different plans in Temple, including the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the 2010 Trails Master Plan, the 2011 Killeen-Temple MPO Thoroughfare and Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan, and the 2013 Downtown Master Plan as well as park concept master plans prepared by the City of Temple Staff.
2008 Comprehensive Plan The city’s comprehensive plan was completed in 2008, and addressed all areas within the city. The comprehensive plan noted that community image and beau fica on was an important priority to the residents of Temple, and beau ful parks and public open spaces is a key component of that priority. One recommenda on to help address beau fica on was to establish a formal neighborhood planning program which could eventually offer assistance to develop enhancement plans for streets, parks, common areas, neighborhood gardens and gateway treatments. Specific recommended ac ons that are relevant to parks included: ▪ Increase open space and preserve suburban character ▪ Consider tree protec on standards ▪ Adopt specifica ons protec ng tress ▪ Minimize development in “protec on areas” ▪ Consider reworking the parkland dedica on/fee requirements Cover of the 2008 Temple Comprehensive Plan
▪ Prepare a bike and pedestrian plan ▪ Consider adop ng alterna ve street sec ons that incorporate bike lanes ▪ Iden fy intersec ons heavily used by pedestrians and implement safety improvements ▪ Work with Central Texas Trails Network on trails that link the communi es in Bell County ▪ Consider amending street design standards for pedestrian and bicycle-actuated traffic signals ▪ Consider allowing off-street trails in lieu of local street sidewalks ▪ Expand cultural programs in downtown
Page 2-10
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Citywide Trails Master Plan The Trails Master Plan was completed in 2010, with the inten on of providing the City of Temple guidance in crea ng an interconnected network of trails, bike lanes and sidewalks. Six key goals were established through the trails master plan planning process and included: 1. Create a strong vision for a citywide trails system, through equal opportunity for par cipa on of the community. 2. Accommodate the convenient, eďŹƒcient and most importantly the safe movement of people while endeavoring to maintain and enhance neighborhood integrity. 3. The primary goal is to create a network of trails that allows mul ple connec ons to an overall system of con nuous trails. 4. A clearly defined hierarchy of trails capable of suďŹƒcient capacity and ameni es should create a spine of regional trails, while smaller segments should connect neighborhoods and des na on points in the city to the regional trail system.
Cover of the 2010 Trails Master Plan
5. Foster coordina on of trail development with other city departments so that all en es work together to fully recognize and maximize trail opportuni es. 6. Develop a system that can be implemented incrementally by both public and private en es. The trail recommenda ons were priori zed into three categories. The first category is the Priority Trails Master Plan. This priori zes trails that look to iden fy a community-wide network which will connect many of the key des na ons around Temple. The second category iden fies the need for safe pedestrian routes traveling to and from Temple’s elementary and middle schools. The third and final category is the Trail Priori es within Park Lands. This category iden fies the exis ng parks that are in need of new trails, trail extensions or be er trail connec ons. No order was assigned for the implementa on of these trails or neighborhood sidewalks discussed in the three categories; they should be implemented as funding comes available, development or redevelopment takes place, road projects occur, and as ci zen demand and needs warrant priori es. Proposed citywide spine trails. Source: City of Temple 2010 Trails Plan, TBG Partners
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Page 2-11
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Killeen-Temple MPO Regional Thoroughfare and Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan The Killeen-Temple Metropolitan Planning Organiza on is responsible for establishing a con nuing, coopera ve, and comprehensive transporta on planning process within the urbanized area located in Central Texas. The Killeen-Temple MPO planning area includes all of Bell County and small por ons of Coryell and Lampasas Coun es. The 2011 plan was intended to update the MPO’s 2008 because the boundary of the MPO had more than doubled in size. The plan included both a thoroughfare component and a pedestrian/bicycle component. The primary focus of the 2011 update was to incorporate the significant efforts made by MPO member jurisdic ons in the realm of bicycle facility planning, especially in the ci es of Belton, Killeen, and Temple. The three main goals from the MPO plan that related to pedestrians and bicyclists included: 1. Promote the increased use and safety of bicycling as a mode of transporta on through the development of a comprehensive system of on-street and off-street facili es, by suppor ng facili es at des na ons and developing programs for educa on and public awareness. 2. Promote pedestrian safety and mobility through the provision of sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian accommoda ons, and through the enhancement of the comfort, convenience, and popularity of pedestrian ac vi es.
Cover of the 2011 Killeen-Temple MPO Regional Thoroughfare and Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan
3. Increase the awareness of local policy-makers, planners, engineers, and motorists of walking and bicycling as viable modes of transporta on to further their public acceptance as legi mate users of the publicly-financed transporta on infrastructure. The priori za on of recommended pedestrian and bicycle facili es was based on these criteria: connec vity of demand, public support/ commitment, cost effec veness, funding commitments, right of way, network development, barriers, and reduces accidents.
Future On- and Off-street Bicycle/Pedestrian System for Temple. Source: Killeen-Temple MPO Regional Thoroughfare and Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan, Wilbur Smith Associates
Page 2-12
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Downtown Temple Master Plan The city is currently involved in developing a master plan for the downtown area. This ongoing plan makes several recommenda ons that pertain to parks. The most signature park component of the proposed downtown plan is the linear greenbelt that is proposed along the railroad corridor. Other park components included in the proposed downtown plan include several plazas and gateway features, three designated parks, a trail connec on from the southeast into downtown, and streetscaping improvements along major roadways in the downtown area.
Concept plan for the Downtown Master Plan
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Page 2-13
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Park Concepts and Master Plans The City of Temple has prepared several concepts and master plans for many of the exis ng parks to address improvements and future developments. These master plans were mostly prepared internally by Parks and Recrea on sta. The master plans are primarily for neighborhood parks, and address facili es such as playgrounds, basketball courts, restrooms, parking, athle c fields, and landscaping. A total of 26 master plans have been prepared, and a selec on of them are shown on this page. All concept plans are shown in the appendix.
Concept master plans for various parks through Temple. Source: City of Temple Parks and Recrea on Department
Page 2-14
Chapter Two | Temple Today
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Chapter Three | Public Participation
Page 3-1
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS Public par cipa on is a cri cal part of any planning process. Public en es work for their ci zens by providing and managing the types of park facili es that residents and taxpayers of a community want to have. In essence, our ci zens are our “customers” and it is the city’s responsibility to provide what our customers want. In the parks planning process, ci zen input helps iden fy what types of exis ng facili es are being used, where key deficiencies may occur, and where the ci zens of Temple would like to see their funding targeted. In other words, the residents of a community determine what they want to have in their city through their use of those facili es and through their input. This master plan incorporates an extensive amount of public input, u lizing several alterna ve methods. By using mul ple methods, feedback from many varying parts of the community was received, leading to a broader consensus on the direc on that the master plan should take. The methods that were used to generate ci zen par cipa on included: ▪
Citywide paper survey (351 responses)
▪
Companion online survey (1,000 responses)
▪ Two citywide public mee ngs/open houses
“Life is best enjoyed when Ɵme periods are evenly divided between labor, sleep and recreaƟon...all people should spend one-third of their Ɵme in recreaƟon which is rebuilding, voluntary acƟvity, never idleness.” ~Brigham Young, 2nd President of the Mormon Church
Page 3-2
▪ Workshops with the Parks and Recrea on Master Plan Advisory Commi ee
SURVEY RESULTS A citywide paper survey and a companion online survey were conducted as part of the parks planning process. The surveys were designed to examine residents’ current par cipa on in recrea onal ac vi es and to assess recrea onal needs in Temple. The paper survey was available at 10+ key civic des na ons throughout the city. The online survey was linked through the city’s website, and was available to all residents in the city limits and surrounding ETJ. Over the next several pages, the key results of the paper and online surveys are shown and compared because of age differences for each survey type. 30% of the respondents of the paper survey were 56 years in age or older, while 52% between ages 25 to 55. In contrast, only 16% of the online survey respondents were older than 55 years, while almost 80% were between 25 to 55.
Chapter Three | Public Participation
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan What are your favorite recreaƟon acƟviƟes? Residents were first asked what their favorite recrea on ac vi es are in which they par cipate. This establishes a baseline of what ac vi es residents currently enjoy in Temple. The responses for both the paper survey and online survey were combined then cross-referenced against characteris cs of the respondents. The responses below are the top five favorite recrea onal ac ves based on the age of the respondent. The answers were very similar with swimming, walking/ hiking on trails, and going to fes vals being top ac vi es for each age group.
By Age: Under 18
By Age: 18 to 24
1. Swimming 2. Walking/hiking on trails 3. Going to fes vals 4. Basketball 5. Playing on playgrounds
1. Swimming 2. Going to fes vals 3. Walking/hiking on trails 4. Walking my dog 5. Viewing nature/wildlife
By Age: 25 to 35
By Age: 36 to 55
By Age: 56 to 65
By Age: Over 65
1. Swimming 2. Going to fes vals 3. Walking/hiking on trails 4. Playing on playgrounds 5. Fishing
1. Swimming 2. Walking/hiking on trails 3. Going to fes vals 4. Playing on playgrounds 5. Viewing nature/wildlife
1. Walking/hiking on trails 2. Going to fes vals 3. Viewing nature/wildlife 4. Swimming 5. Walking my dog
1. Walking/hiking on trails 2. Swimming 3. Viewing nature/wildlife 4. Exercising at city rec center 5. Going to fes vals
If you do not use parks, why not? For those who responded that they do not recreate, they were asked a follow up ques on of why not. The most common answer for those to responded to the paper survey was “we use parks in nearby ci es” with 7% indica ng this was a reason why they did not use parks in Temple. For the online survey, the most common response was “parks do not meet our needs” with 6% selec ng this answer as a reason why they do not use parks in Temple. 5% of all survey respondents indicated that there are “no parks located near us” as a reason for not using parks in Temple.
Paper Survey
Online Survey
1. We use parks in nearby ci es (7%) 2. No parks located near us (5%) 3. We have no me or interest (4%) 4. Lack of adequate security (2%) 5. Parks do not meet our needs (2%)
1. Parks do not meet our needs (6%) 2. No parks located near us (5%) 3. We use parks in nearby ci es (5%) 4. Lack of adequate security (4%) 5. We have no me or interest (2%)
Chapter Three | Public Participation
Page 3-3
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Park Statements The survey respondents were given a list of statements about their a tude towards parks in Temple, and were asked how strongly they agree or disagree with each of those statements. For those who completed the paper survey, 93% agreed or strongly agreed that they are sa sfied with the overall quality of parks and recrea on Temple. 86% agreed or strongly agreed that they are sa sfied with the overall quality of parks in their area of the city. For those who responded to the online survey, 80% indicated they agree or strongly agree that they are sa sfied with the overall quality of parks and recrea on Temple. Three-fourths of the online survey respondents (75%) agreed or strongly agreed that they are sa sfied with the overall quality of parks in their area of the city.
Paper Survey I feel that parks help strengthen our city economically. Better parks will help to improve our city image. I feel safe when I visit a park in Temple. I’m satisfied with the overall quality of parks in my area of the City. I’m satisfied with the overall quality of parks and recreation in Temple. 0%
20% Strongly Agree
In terms of safety, 85% who completed the paper survey and 83% of those who responded to the online survey agreed or strongly agreed that they feel safe when they visit a park in Temple. These responses demonstrate an overall high level of sa sfac on with parks in Temple. Future surveys regarding parks conducted by the city should include these ques ons so as to establish a trend over me and ensure that the city maintains a high level of sa sfac on.
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
40% Agree
60% Disagree
Online Survey
80%
100%
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree I feel that parks help strengthen our city economically. Better parks will help to improve our city image. I feel safe when I visit a park in Temple. I’m satisfied with the overall quality of parks in my area of the City. I’m satisfied with the overall quality of parks and recreation in Temple. 0%
Page 3-4
Chapter Three | Public Participation
20% Strongly Agree
40% Agree
60% Disagree
80% Strongly Disagree
100%
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Quality of Parks Respondents were given a list of dierent characteris cs about the quality of parks in Temple and were asked to rate each one on a scale of excellent to poor. 82% of those who completed the paper survey felt that having parks conveniently located for people in all areas of Temple was either excellent or good. Two-thirds of those who completed the online survey (67%) also felt that having parks conveniently located was either excellent or good.
Paper Survey Having parks conveniently located for people in all areas of Temple
Fair / Poor
Excellent/Good
The maintenance of parks The overall safety of parks The variety of recreational facilities within parks The maintenance of athletic fields The number of athletic fields in the City The number of trails in the City Having athletic fields conveniently located for people in all areas The amount of accessible natural areas
In terms of maintenance, 79% of those who completed the paper survey and 70% of those who completed the online survey felt that the overall maintenance of parks was either excellent or good. 77% of the paper survey respondents and 70% of the online survey respondents indicated that the overall safety of parks in Temple was either excellent or good.
The number of practice fields in the City Having practice fields conveniently located for people in all areas 0%
20% Excellent
40% Good
Fair
60%
80%
Poor
No Opinion
OnlineExcellent/Good Survey
100%
Fair/Poor
The overall safety of parks
The maintenance of parks Having parks conveniently located for people in all areas of Temple The variety of recreational facilities within parks The maintenance of athletic fields The number of athletic fields in the City The number of trails in the City Having athletic fields conveniently located for people in all areas The amount of accessible natural areas The number of practice fields in the City Having practice fields conveniently located for people in all areas 0%
20% Excellent
40% Good
Fair
60%
80%
Poor
No Opinion
Chapter Three | Public Participation
100%
Page 3-5
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Favorite Park The survey respondents were asked what their favorite park was in Temple. The two most popular parks were Miller and Lions. The responses are shown to the right.
As a follow up ques on, respondents were asked how frequently they visit their favorite park. 30% of those to completed the paper survey and 27% of those who completed the online survey indicated that they visit their favorite park several mes per week. Another one-third of respondents (36% for both the paper and the online survey) indicated they visit their favorite park several mes per month. This demonstrates a high level of usage for the exis ng park because more than two-thirds of all survey respondents visit a park several mes per month or more.
Paper Survey
Online Survey
1. Miller (26%) 2. Lions (17%) 3. Sammons (9%) 4. Pepper Creek (3%) 5. Wilson (2%)
1. Lions (42%) 2. Miller (19%) 3. Whistle Stop (7%) 4. West Temple Park (4%) 5. Wilson (3%)
Paper Survey Once a year or less, 6%
Several times per year 28%
Online Survey Once a year or less, 6%
Several times per week 30%
Several times per year 31%
Several times per month 36%
Respondents were asked one final follow up ques on about their favorite park. They were asked what amenity or recrea onal feature would they add to improve that park. Common answers among all the responses were restrooms, a swimming pool and shade. The top five answers for each survey are shown to the right.
Page 3-6
Chapter Three | Public Participation
Several times per week 27%
Several times per month 36%
Paper Survey
Online Survey
1. Swimming pool (10%) 2. Restroom (10%) 3. Lights (6%) 4. Playground (6%) 5. Shade (4%)
1. Splash pad (18%) 2. Trails (10%) 3. Swimming pool (10%) 4. Restrooms (7%) 5. Shade (6%)
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Most Important FaciliƟes to Provide The respondents were given a list of different park ameni es and facili es. They were asked to rank how important or unimportant each facility was to their family. This is important because it helps the city determine which facili es are lacking and where to direct its efforts to meet the needs of the residents. For the paper survey, the highest ranking facility was trails for walking, jogging and bicycling with 93% of respondents indica ng it was either very important or important. Trails for walking, jogging and bicycling was also ranked as the number one facility for the online survey, again with 93% indica ng it was either very important or important. Other important facili es to add or provide included improved city-operated indoor recrea on centers (Wilson and Summit), more special events/fes vals, and unique parks such as Bend O’ the River or natural preserves. The top ten responses for both surveys are shown in the charts to the right.
Paper Survey Very Important
Very Unimportant
Trails for walking, jogging and bicycling Improve city-operated indoor recreation centers More special events/festivals Large pavilions for group activities/picnics Unique parks such as Bend O’ the River or natural preserves Additional public swimming pools More playgrounds A community/regional park in west Temple Community gardens More lighted practice fields 0%
20%
40%
Very Important
Important
60%
80%
Unimportant
100%
Very Unimportant
Online Survey Very Important
Very Unimportant
Trails for walking, jogging and bicycling Unique parks such as Bend O’ the River or natural preserves More special events/festivals Splash pads/spraygrounds Large pavilions for group activities/picnics Additional public swimming pools Improve city-operated indoor recreation centers A community/regional park in west Temple More preserved open space More playgrounds 0%
10%
20%
Very Important
30%
40%
Important
50%
60%
Unimportant
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very Unimportant
Chapter Three | Public Participation
Page 3-7
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Most Important FaciliƟes to Provide by Age The responses for both surveys were combined and cross-referenced against characteris cs of the survey par cipants. Based on the age of the respondent, there were some differences in terms of which facili es are the most important to provide. However, trails, more special events, and unique parks/nature preserves con nued to rank high among most of the age groups. The responses for each age group and the level of importance are shown in the boxes to the right and below.
By Age: Under 18
By Age: 18 to 24
1. More playgrounds (93%) 2. More special events (91%) 3. Addi onal public pools (89%) 4. Basketball courts (89%) 5. Soccer/football fields (86%)
1. More special events (90%) 2. Unique parks/nature parks (89%) 3. Trails for walking/bicycling (89%) 4. Large pavilions (84%) 5. Soccer/football fields (82%)
By Age: 25 to 35
By Age: 36 to 55
By Age: 56 to 65
By Age: Over 65
1. More special events (90%) 2. Trails for walking/bicycling (90%) 3. Addi onal public pools (89%) 4. Large pavilions (89%) 5. Splash pads/spraygrounds (89%)
1. Trails for walking/bicycling (93%) 2. More special events (87%) 3. Splash pads/spraygrounds (86%) 4. Unique parks/nature parks (85%) 5. Addi onal public pools (84%)
1. Trails for walking/bicycling (92%) 2. Unique parks/nature parks (89%) 3. Improve city rec centers (85%) 4. Large pavilions (83%) 5. Preserved open space (82%)
1. Trails for walking/bicycling (93%) 2. Community gardens (84%) 3. Unique parks/nature parks (80%) 4. Preserved open space (74%) 5. Improved city rec centers (74%)
Paper Survey
Online Survey
1. Trails for walking/bicycling (29%) 2. Splash pads/spraygrounds (25%) 3. Addi onal public pools (22%) 4. Addi onal dog park (22%) 5. Improved city rec centers (20%) 6. More playgrounds (16%) 7. More special events (16%) 8. Community gardens (15%) 9. Unique parks/nature parks (14%) 10. Large pavilions (11%)
1. Addi onal public pools (35%) 2. Trails for walking/bicycling (33%) 3. Splash pads (26%) 4. Unique parks/nature parks (22%) 5. More special events (20%) 6. Improved city rec centers (16%) 7. Community gardens (16%) 8. Addi onal dog park (15%) 9. Community park in West Temple (14%) 10. Large pavilions (9%)
FaciliƟes that are Most Needed The final ques on on the survey asked the respondents to select three items from the list in the previous ques on that they feel are the most needed in Temple. The top three needs for both the paper survey and online survey were similar, and included trails and aqua c facili es (swimming pools and splash pads). The top ten responses for each survey are listed to the right.
Page 3-8
Chapter Three | Public Participation
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
PUBLIC MEETINGS Two citywide public mee ngs/open houses were held on May 20, 2014. Approximately 30 residents a ended the mee ngs. The top ten favorite recrea on ac vi es that the mee ng a endees enjoy doing in Temple included: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
Walking/hiking on trails Going to fes vals Viewing nature/wildlife Playing on playgrounds Swimming Running/jogging Bicycling Baseball/so ball Picnicking Playing on a youth athle c league
Of those who a ended the public mee ng, their favorite parks in Temple included Lions, Miller, and Pepper Creek. When asked if they had sugges ons on how to improve those parks, the respondents for Lions Park men oned so ball parking and safety ne ng, an indoor recrea on center, trails, dog park, and restrooms. To improve Miller Park, the sugges ons were more picnic areas and shade. For Pepper Creek Park, the sugges on was wildflowers. When the mee ng a endees were asked what facility they would consider the most important for the city to provide, the responses varied slightly from the input received from the two surveys; however, trails and aqua c facili es s ll con nued to rank very high. The top answers from the public mee ng included: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
More preserved open space Trails for walking, jogging, bicycling Addi onal public swimming pools Community gardens Adult baseball/so ball fields More lighted prac ce fields Tennis courts
Child’s drawing of their favorite park in Temple done at the public meeƟng
44% 44% 33% 33% 22% 22% 22%
Chapter Three | Public Participation
Page 3-9
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE To help guide the park planning process, a ci zen based advisory commi ee was assembled with representa ves from key stakeholder groups throughout the city. Members of the commi ee represented a diverse cross sec on of the city, from members of sports leagues and the school district to developers within the community. The commi ee met a total of four mes during the park planning process, and provided feedback on everything from the vision and goals of the plan to a discussion of the recommenda ons. Mee ng 1 - Introductory mee ng and descrip on of the park planning process. Mee ng 2 - Vision for the Temple parks system and upcoming methods of public par cipa on. Mee ng 3 - Summary of the public input process and presenta on of the preliminary recommenda ons. Mee ng 4 - Review of master plan document. Mee ng 5 - Approval of the final recommenda ons.
Page 3-10
Chapter Three | Public Participation
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Page 4-1
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
PURPOSE
OF THE
EXISTING INVENTORY
Knowing what parks are in a park system is one of the traits of an excellent parks system. It is important to understand what park, recrea on and open space facili es are currently available and to assess the current condi on of those facili es. This will in turn help to determine whether or not those facili es are addressing the current park and open space needs of the city. Temple has an established network of neighborhood parks and larger community parks. O en, the parks are well placed within the neighborhoods they serve and are well maintained. This sec on begins to iden fy where park service is lacking, as well as park standards and the general condi on of parks in Temple.
PARK CATEGORIES This master plan uses na onal and state guidelines which iden fy three broad categories of parks. These include:
“Leave all a ernoon for exercise and recrea on, which are as necessary as reading. I will rather say more necessary because health is worth more than learning.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States
Page 4-2
▪ Local, Close to Home Parks - These parks are usually within the community served by the facility. They include pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, and HOA parks. Trail corridors, greenbelts, and in some cases, linear parks may also be considered Close to Home Parks. ▪ Regional Parks - This park type is usually located within a half hour to one hour driving distance for most of its visitors. Parks in this category serve a number of communi es and include city regional parks, park reserves, state parks and na onal parks. ▪ Unique Parks - These parks can be either local or regional. They are defined as areas that are unique in some way, whether because of the physical features of the park, or because of the types of facili es provided within them. Parks in this category may include linear parks, special use parks, land conservancies, nature preserves, sports complexes, or botanical gardens.
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
PARK TYPES
AND
STANDARDS
IN
TEMPLE
The primary focus of this plan is City of Temple owned and operated parks. HOA parks and private parks are considered when they may influence park needs in Temple.
Pocket Parks This type of park is usually less than three acres in size. Pocket parks are accessed by walking or bicycling. Vehicle access and parking is not typically needed because of their small size. Ameni es in pocket parks can include benches, landscaping, playgrounds, and other focal features. Size is not a key factor of the typical pocket park, but rather the quality of the landscaping and features that go into the park. These parks are generally found in a residen al or urban context, such as downtown. They are meant to serve as pockets of open space in the midst of mainly developed areas. Bentwood Park, Jefferson Park, and Ne les Park are examples of some pocket parks in Temple. A typical layout of a pocket park.
Neighborhood Parks Because neighborhood parks are within easy walking or bicycling distance, they form the founda on for recrea on in most ci es like Temple. Neighborhood parks provide ameni es for an en re family and typically serve one large or several small neighborhoods. Because of the physical topography, neighborhood parks can vary in size. Ideally, neighborhood parks in Temple should range from 3 to 15 acres in size. Accessible - Neighborhood parks should be accessible within a quarter mile to a half mile radius of residents. Neighborhood parks should be accessible without having to cross major arterial streets, and should provide easy access for the users that surround it. One cost effec ve alterna ve is to locate neighborhood parks next to elementary schools because the city and the school district can share acquisi on and development costs which results in more efficient use of tax dollars. LocaƟon - An ideal loca on for neighborhood parks is to be in the center of the neighborhoods it is meant to serve. Also, having local or minor collector streets on at least two sides of the park allows for easy pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. Parking - This will vary based on the size of the park, the availability of safe on-street parking, the facili es offered, and the number of users the park will a ract. In general, the use of trails should be encouraged to decrease dependency on automobiles. Depending on the carrying capacity of adjacent streets, parallel on-street parking may provide sufficient parking space. Opportuni es for shared parking may be possible with surrounding compa ble facili es such as libraries, schools, city buildings, etc.
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Page 4-3
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan FaciliƟes - Restrooms typically are not placed in neighborhood parks because they increase maintenance, and these parks are ideally within walking distance of a person’s home. Typical neighborhood park facili es can include: ▪ Playground equipment for ages 2-5 and ages 6-12, with adequate safety surfacing around the playground and shade structures over the playground ▪ Unlighted prac ce fields for baseball/so ball and soccer/football ▪ Unlighted mul -purpose courts for basketball, volleyball, or tennis ▪ Open space areas for unorganized play ▪ Picnic areas with benches, picnic tables, and grills ▪ Shade pavilions or gazebos ▪ Jogging/exercise trails ▪ Water fountains ▪ Parking, if space is available
Examples of neighborhood parks in Temple include Jaycee Park, Ferguson Park, and Jackson Park.
Design - The overall design and layout of a neighborhood park is important to its final quality and melessness. These parks should generally be designed with the programmed space, such as playgrounds, pavilions, basketball courts, etc., clustered into an “ac ve zone” within the park. These areas need ample sea ng and shade to be hospitable year round. Construc ng these areas near exis ng stands of trees is strongly recommended as this eliminates the years of wai ng for shade trees to mature. The open/unprogrammed space should be visible from this ac vity area, but should be clearly delineated through plan ngs and hardscape features such as paved trails and seat walls. Finally, a looped trail is today considered a preferred component of a neighborhood park. How the park integrates with the surrounding land uses (residences, a school, a wooded area, etc.) is crucial to the
Page 4-4
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
A typical layout of a neighborhood park.
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan quality of experience within the park. When a road borders the park, it should be ensured that the houses across the street face the park. When houses must back up to a park, ensure that fencing between the house and the park is transparent wrought iron fencing (or similar) rather than wooden, tall, privacy fencing. Transparent fencing allows a so er transi on between park and residence, and provides for informal surveillance of the park. In the future, preferably no more than 25% of any park’s boundary should be bordered by the backs of houses, otherwise it would create a sense of uncomfortable enclosure within the park. When a park is constructed adjacent to a school, ensure that the two sites interact: work with Temple ISD to have paved connec ons between the school and the park. Lastly, it is important to design neighborhood parks that are unique in character, respond to the surrounding environment, and provide unique experiences for the park’s users.
Community Parks These parks are larger and are meant to serve a group of neighborhoods or a por on of the city. Community parks are usually reached by automobiles on collector streets, as well as by pedestrians and bicyclists who live nearby. Community parks are more than 15 acres in size, and have a service radius up to two miles. The typical community park should be large enough so it can provide a variety of facili es while s ll leaving open space for unstructured recrea on and natural areas. The park should also have room for expansion so that new facili es can be added to con nue to a ract users. Type - There are essen ally two types of community parks: ac ve and passive. Each type has a different set of facili es provided and an overall different character. Ac ve community parks typically focus on high-intensity recrea on such as lighted compe ve athle c fields, recrea on centers, and manicured vegeta on. Passive community parks, on the other hand, typically have low-intensity uses such as hiking, picnicking, and free play. Passive community parks generally have a large amount of natural and unprogrammed space in the park. When a community park is large enough, it can some mes be both types by having areas that are ac ve and areas that are passive within the same park. LocaƟon - Because of the poten al for noise and bright lights at night, community parks should be buffered from adjacent residen al areas. Since community parks are usually reached by automobiles, it is best to locate them near a major thoroughfare which provides easy access from different parts of the city. Parking - This will vary based on the facili es provided and the size of the park. Addi onal parking is needed to accommodate facili es such as athle c fields or swimming pools that can be located in community parks. The Na onal Recrea on and Parks Associa on (NRPA) recommends a minimum of five spaces per acre with addi onal parking for added facili es. The specific amount of parking provided in each park should be determined by the facili es provided in that park.
Examples of community parks in Temple include Miller Park and Wilson Park.
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Page 4-5
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan FaciliƟes - Typical community park facili es can include: ▪ Jogging/exercise trail (recommended at least one mile in length), connec ng to nearby des na ons ▪ Covered picnic shelters with tables and grills ▪ Playground equipment for ages 2-5 and ages 6-12, with adequate safety surfacing around the playground and shade structures over the playground ▪ Open space areas for unorganized play ▪ Lighted athle c fields (suitable for organized compe
ve events)
▪ Restrooms ▪ Sufficient off-street parking based on facili es provided and the size of the park ▪
Security ligh ng
▪
Splash pads/spraygrounds
▪
Covered basketball court
▪ Other facili es as needed which can take advantage of the unique characteris cs of the site such as nature trails, fishing ponds, swimming pool, dog parks, skate spots, amphitheaters, recrea on centers, sand volleyball courts, or tennis courts.
A typical layout of a community park.
Page 4-6
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Design - As with neighborhood parks, the overall design and layout of a community park is important to the park’s final quality and melessness. Similarly, ac vity zones of programmed space are also important within community parks. Playgrounds, pavilions and basketball courts make up one type of ac ve zone, while athle c fields, concession stands and storage buildings make up another type. Again, providing shade by means of construc ng the former of these two ac vity zone types near exis ng stands of trees is strongly recommended, as is the provision of benches and picnic tables. In community parks and other large parks, it is o en desirable to delineate between ac vity zones and unprogrammed areas by the use of
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan natural features such as stands of trees or creek corridors where available. 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 recrea onal use. The interac on between a community park and surrounding areas is crucial to the quality of experience within the park. Because community parks are o en located outside of neighborhoods, there are different considera ons than there are with a neighborhood park. As with neighborhood parks, it is important that the park is bordered by neighborhood roads and, if feasible, creeks or other natural areas. When development does border the park, how the edge is addressed depends on the type of development. If the development is residen al, ensure that the fencing between the houses and the park is transparent. However, if the development is industrial in nature or otherwise aesthe cally unpleasing or poten ally a nuisance, the border should be fenced and heavily planted with trees and shrubs to so en the edge. As a final considera on, it is important to understand that ac ve community parks themselves can some mes be a nuisance if near residen al neighborhoods. Bright ligh ng at night, excessive noise from cheering spectators, or the overflow of parking onto neighborhood streets can all become major issues. If an ac ve community park is to be developed in close proximity to a neighborhood, it should be designed with an adequate landscape buffer to provide visual screening and sound reduc on, and design parking areas away from housing.
Regional Parks Regional parks are intended to serve the en re city and very o en become the premier park in that area. It is land that is dedicated as parkland due to its regional importance or relevance. This may be due to its natural characteris cs including habitat, geological forma ons, and/or aesthe c beauty. Other reasons may be the role that the par cular site plays in issues of regional importance: e.g. historical memorial, habitat protec on, or ecological service including water conserva on and flood protec on. The size of a regional park can vary from less ten acres to several thousand acres, depending on the purpose and character of the site. Regional parks are o en under the ownership and control of county or state government.
“We must make every piece of space do double and triple duty, and we have the all the tools and precedents we need. With ingenuity, we can make the smaller spaces seem larger; we can find ways to link them and to emphasize their con nui es; we can make them far more accessible to people, and if not to the foot at least to the eye. It is the effect of open space we are seeking, not just the space, and with this approach a given acreage of open spaces can be knit into a pa ern more pleasing, more useful, and seemingly more expansive than a far greater acreage laid out in conven onal fashion.” ~William H. Whyte, The Last Landscape
Regional parks should be located near highways or major arterials to provide easy access from different parts of the city. Because of the poten al for traffic, noise and bright lights, regional parks should be buffered from adjacent residen al areas.
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Page 4-7
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Special Use Parks These types of parks are designed to accommodate specialized recrea onal ac vi es. Because the facility needs for each ac vity are different, each special use park usually provides one or only a few ac vi es. Examples of special use parks include: ▪ Athle c complexes ▪ Swimming pool/aqua c centers ▪ Tennis complexes ▪ Skate parks ▪ Dog parks ▪ Disc golf course ▪ Golf courses ▪ Open space preserves or natural area parks ▪ Linear parks ▪ Downtown plazas Exis ng so ball complex in Temple.
Bend O’ The River is an example of a nature park in Temple.
Page 4-8
AthleƟc complexes and golf courses are the most common type of special use parks. Athle c complexes seek to provide fields for organized play in a loca on that can accommodate the traffic and noise that a large number of users can generate. Athle c complexes should include sufficient fields so that leagues can congregate at one facility and not have to spread out in different loca ons across the city. Evening ac vi es at athle c complexes necessitate high-intensive ligh ng that can become a nuisance when the complex is located too close to residen al areas. To address this, wide buffers should be placed around such complexes and/or they should be located adjacent to commercial or industrial areas. Nature parks and preserves are a cri cal part of the land use system in any metropolitan area. They provide wildlife habitat, flood control, and places for passive recrea on. These parks can greatly vary in size depending on the resources available, but are meant to have a citywide service radius. The benefit and inclusion of places that are natural areas or unprogrammed open space has been largely overlooked in the context of typical park master plans. Conserva on and preserva on are especially valuable as, over me, natural resources disappear in our ci es and natural habitat is wiped out. The value of walking through historic and natural places that have been le untouched is immeasurable. Such
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan opportuni es are rapidly becoming rare, and the iden fica on and protec on of such areas is urgently needed in most ci es today. Ci es that marshal the will and act quickly to conserve natural resources demonstrate the foresight and resolve necessary to ensure that future genera ons may enjoy something of beauty and melessness. Natural areas and open space are part of a city’s resources and are its natural gems. The value of such land may have visual, historic, and cultural appeal that imprints upon the visitor, crea ng a sense of place and las ng memories. Wilderness, creeks, ponds, prairies and par cular geologic forma ons or topographic change may all be considered elements worthy of protec on, public access, and celebra on. As unprogrammed space, there is the added benefit of these areas as self-maintaining. There may be the occasional need to check for hazards, but maintenance is generally not a significant factor. Other than recrea onal and aesthe c opportuni es afforded by natural areas, they also have huge economic value to society in terms of ecological services provided, func ons such as water and air purifica on, carbon sequestra on, flood control, pollina on, air cooling, and posi vely effec ng human health and well being. Linear parks are open park areas that generally follow some natural or man-made feature that is linear in nature such as creeks, abandoned railroad right-of-ways, power line corridors, drainage corridors, or u lity easements. In Temple, most of the poten al linear parks could be along Leon River and the railroad corridors. Properly developed to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel, linear parks can serve to link or connect other parks in the local system, as well as schools, neighborhoods, the library, civic buildings, and other major des na ons. They should also serve to help preserve open space. No specific standards apply to linear parks other than the park should be large enough to adequately accommodate the resources they contain.
An example off a linear park in Temple.
Hike and bike trails, o en found in linear parks, serve to provide ac ve and passive recrea on as well as connec ons between parks and other des na ons within the city. A trails system should be established to serve both recrea on needs and as a means of alterna ve transporta on throughout Temple. Such a system should provide each resident with quick and easy access to parks, retail, and employment areas. An addi onal type of special use park is a “special interest” park which typically is developed as a skate park, dog park, or some other park designed to accommodate a special recrea onal need. Many ci es only accommodate one park of each special interest type (e.g. only one skate park per city). Although in the future, demand from residents might be able to sustain two or more of each type of special interest park. Another popular alterna ve is incorpora ng special interest park areas into larger community or regional parks.
Parkk iis an example TTemple l Skate Sk t P l off a special i l interest park.
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Page 4-9
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
SIZE OF THE PARKS SYSTEM IN TEMPLE The size of the parks system in Temple consists of a total of 71 city-owned parks and special use areas that contain approximately 831 acres. Also, there are five designated linear parks/trail corridors that contribute an addi onal 40+ acres of open space to the City of Temple. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the exis ng parks, and Tables 4-3 and 4-4 give an inventory of facili es within the exis ng parks. In addi on to city-owned parks, there are two Corps parks located near Belton Lake that total 141 acres, and eight HOA parks which add another 27 acres of parkland. Furthermore, there is one private golf course in Temple, the Wildflower Country Club, and seven private parks which together provide another 338 acres of recrea onal space within the city.
NW
NE SW
SE
Loca on of exis ng parks in Temple.
Page 4-10
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 4-1 Existing City of Temple Parks Park Name Baker Baseball Field Bend O’ The River Bird Creek Blackmon Community Center Camden Canyon Creek Canyon Creek Open Space Carver Park Casa Hispanica Clarence Mar n Gym Clarence R. Miller Colqui Park Community Market Conner Park Doctor’s Park DOE Friar’s Creek Draughon Park Echo Village Eddie Von Rosenberg Ferguson Park FM 2305 Fred Springer Park Freedom Park Freedom Village Park Friar’s Creek Gober Party House
Type Special Use Special Use Pocket Special Use Pocket Special Use Special Use Pocket Special Use Special Use Community Pocket Special Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Linear Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Linear Pocket Neighborhood Pocket Linear Special Use
Acres Dev. 3.00 30.00
Acres Und.
1.20 1.00 0.60 19.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.50 30.00 0.92 1.00 7.00 3.00 6.71 3.53 4.39 14.00 10.04 21.21 2.37 9.00 0.88 2.98 2.00
Address 420 East Barton Ave. South General Bruce Dr. Arrowhead Dr. 1807 Cur s B Ellio John Paul Jones Dr.
412 South 4th St. 801 South Main St. 102 West Elm Ave. 1919 North 1st St. 3501 Hickory Rd. 212 South Main St. 408 Old Waco Rd. 213 South 32nd St. 0.68 miles 701 South 34th St. 5030 Stonehaven Dr. 7918 Tarver Dr. 1203 East Adams Ave. 5.00 miles 315 West Ave. B 8456 Tarver Dr. 700 Freedom Dr. 1.11 miles 1516 West Ave. H
Quadrant NE SE SE SE NW SE SE SE SE NE NE SE SE SW SE SE SE SE SW SE NW SE SW SW SE SE
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Page 4-11
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 4-1 Existing City of Temple Parks Park Name Hickory Heights Hodge Park Jackson Park James B. Wilson Jaycee Park Jeff Hamilton Park Jefferson Park Jones Park King Circle Park Kiwanis Park Lions Park Li le Bluestem Park Marvin Fenn Recrea on Area Mayborn Civic & Conven on Midway Drive Ne les Park Northwest Hills Park Oak Creek Park Oaks at Westwood Park Op mist park Pepper Creek Prewi Ramblewood Sammons Community Center Sammons Park Golf Course Santa Fe Depot/Museum Page 4-12
Type Pocket Neighborhood Neighborhood Community Neighborhood Neighborhood Pocket Neighborhood Pocket Pocket Community Pocket Special Use Special Use Linear Pocket Pocket Neighborhood Pocket Neighborhood Linear Neighborhood Neighborhood Special Use Special Use Special Use
Acres Dev. 4.40 5.96 115.46 7.76 3.25 1.59 3.00
Acres Und. 1.50
7.00
0.40 2.45 96.00 0.85 2.00 5.00 1.42 0.75 1.60 4.10 0.42 4.22 8.03
4.00
8.00 9.90 2.00 153.61 2.63
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Address Robinhood Dr. 1902 South 61st St. 925 North 4th St. 2205 Cur s B Ellio Dr. 2302 West Ave. Z 501 South 14th St. 2310 Mon cello Rd. 1102 West Ave. H King Cir. 3102 Anacacho Dr. 4320 Lions Park Rd. 01 Troy St. 702 South 57th St. 3303 North 3rd St. 0.58 miles 1615 North 11th St. 813 Brandywine Dr. 2304 Forest Tr. 8423 Skyview 820 West Munroe Ave. 1.89 miles East French Ave. 3203 Aspen Trail 2220 West Ave. D 2727 West Adams Ave. 315 West Ave. B
Quadrant SE SE NE SE SE SE NE SE NE SE SE NW SW NE SE NE NW SE SW NE NW NE SE SW SW SE
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 4-1 Existing City of Temple Parks Park Name Saulsbury Community Garden Sco & White Park Silverstone Park South Temple Park Southern Oaks Spanish Southwest Park Summit Recrea on Center Tanglewood Park Temple Skate Park Temple South Rotary Park Terrace Gardens Park Trailwood Valley Ranch Park Visitor Center/Plaza Walker Park Waterford Park West Ridge Park West Temple Park West Temple Athle c Western Hills Park Whistle Stop Playground Wilson Park Rec Center Woodbridge Wyndam Hill Park
CITYWIDE TOTAL
Type Special Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Community Pocket Neighborhood Special Use Pocket Special Use Pocket Pocket Pocket Neighborhood Special Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Community Community Neighborhood Special Use Special Use Neighborhood Neighborhood
Acres Dev. 2.75 12.30 5.00 50.00
Acres Und.
2.50 3.25 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.80 8.00 2.00 4.35 8.00 19.00 30.00 60.00 3.55 3.00 2.00 7.00 4.00
729.23
Address 2130 Saulsbury Dr. 1601 South 19th St. 404 Waters Dairy 5000 South 5th St. Cripple Creek Dr. 1414 Paseo Del Plata 620 Fryers Creek Rd. 206 1/2 Lakeview Lane 7th St. @ Ave. B 4306 Lone Star Trail 2015 Linwood Rd. Hemlock Blvd. 7211 Dubose Rd. 315 West Ave. B 2615 North 3rd St. 5001 Warwicke Dr. 309 East Ridge Blvd. 121 Montpark Rd. West Hillyard Rd. 4420 Gazelle Tr. 22 South 11th St. 2205 Cur s B Ellio Dr. 3620 Whispering Oaks 5000 South 5th St.
Quadrant NW SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE NE SE NW NW NW SW SE SE NW SE
144.90 Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Page 4-13
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 4-2 Other Existing Parks Park Name Home Owners AssociaƟon Parks Bentwood Heritage Place Lakewood Sage Meadows Village of Sage Meadows 1 Village of Sage Meadows 2 Wes ield Wyndam Hill HOA TOTAL Private Parks Carriage House D’Antoni’s Park Southern Draw Park Tarrant Park Temple College Golf Course Von Rosenberg Park Wildflower Country Club Windmill Farms Park PRIVATE TOTAL
Type
Acres Dev.
HOA HOA HOA HOA HOA HOA HOA HOA
Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private
Address
Quadrant
0.82 0.86 15.89 1.00 5.87 1.53 0.30 1.00 27.27
5867 High Meadow Dr. Allegiance Bend Adams Dr. @ Lakewood Dr. Sage Meadow Dr. Tarver Dr. Tarver Dr. Redbrush 703 Wyndam Hill Parkway
SE NW SW SW SW SW NW SE
1.28 1.84 0.53 52.16 66.98 1.22 212.78 1.83 338.62
2317 Carriage House Dr. 6719 Naples Dr. 1589 Southern Draw Dr. Veterans Administra on South 1st St. 7954 Tarver Dr. 4902 Wildflower Ln. 570 Sugar Brook Dr.
SW SE SW SE SE SW SW NW
FM 2271 FM 2271
SW SW
US Army Corps of Engineers Parks (adjacent to Belton Lake) Live Oak Ridge Park Corps 28.84 Miller Springs Park Corps 112.45 CORPS TOTAL 141.29
Page 4-14
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Acres Und.
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
1
1
Pond/Lake
Restrooms
Disc Golf
Dog Park
Trails (in miles)
Splash Pad
Swimming Pool
Volleyball Court
Tennis Court
Basketball Court
Soccer Fields
SoŌball Fields
Baseball Fields
Backstop
Open Play Fields
Picnic Pavilions
BBQ Grills
Picnic Tables
Park Name Baker Baseball Field Bend O’ The River Bird Creek Blackmon Community Center Camden Canyon Creek Canyon Creek Open Space Carver Park Casa Hispanica Clarence Mar n Gym Clarence R. Miller Colqui Park Community Market Conner Park Doctor’s Park Draughon Park Echo Village Eddie Von Rosenberg Ferguson Park Fred Springer Park Freedom Park Freedom Village Park Gober Party House Hickory Heights
Playground
Table 4-3 Existing Park Inventory
1
10
1
1 1
2 4
5
3
1 1
2
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
0.33
2 0.25
1 1 1 1 1
6 2 1
3
2
2
1
1 1
2 1
1
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Page 4-15
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Page 4-16
2 2 1 1
2 1
1
1
0.50 1.75
1 3 1 1
0.33
1
Pond/Lake
Restrooms
Disc Golf
Dog Park
Trails (in miles)
Splash Pad
Swimming Pool
Volleyball Court
Tennis Court
1 2
6
Basketball Court
1 1 1 1 1
1 2
4
Soccer Fields
1 2 2 1
4
SoŌball Fields
1 12 2 2
Baseball Fields
1 3 1 1
4 1
Backstop
Picnic Pavilions
2 3 1 1 1 1
1 3
Open Play Fields
BBQ Grills
4
1 2 2 1 2 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Picnic Tables
Park Name Hodge Park Jackson Park James B. Wilson Jaycee Park Jeff Hamilton Park Jefferson Park Jones Park King Circle Park Kiwanis Park Lions Park Li le Bluestem Park Marvin Fenn Recrea on Area Mayborn Conven on Center Ne les Park Northwest Hills Park Oak Creek Park Oaks at Westwood Park Op mist park Prewi Ramblewood Sammons Community Center Sammons Park Golf Course Santa Fe Depot/Museum Saulsbury Community Garden
Playground
Table 4-3 Existing Park Inventory
1 1 1 1
1
0.5 4
2.00
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
0.5 1
0.5 1 1
1
2
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
2
1
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
1
1 1
1
2
1 0.5
2 1
1 2
1 1 2
1 1
1 6
Pond/Lake
Restrooms
Disc Golf
Dog Park
Trails (in miles)
Splash Pad
1 0.50 0.75
1
2 2
5
Swimming Pool
Volleyball Court
Tennis Court
Basketball Court
Soccer Fields
SoĹŒball Fields
Baseball Fields
Backstop
1 1
Open Play Fields
Picnic Pavilions
1 2 4
1 1 1 1
41
BBQ Grills
1 1 1
Picnic Tables
Park Name Sco & White Park Silverstone Park South Temple Park Southern Oaks Spanish Southwest Park Summit Recrea on Center Tanglewood Park Temple Skate Park Temple South Rotary Park Terrace Gardens Park Trailwood Valley Ranch Park Visitor Center/Plaza Walker Park Waterford Park West Ridge Park West Temple Park West Temple Athle c Western Hills Park Whistle Stop Playground Wilson Park Rec Center Woodbridge Wyndam Hill Park CITYWIDE TOTAL
Playground
Table 4-3 Existing Park Inventory
1
0.5 8
1
0.25
1 1
1 1
6
2
2
5
2 1 1
90
47
27
2
1
2
1
1 1
1
1
1
1.00
1
1 1 0.50 9
6
9
8
6
14.5
16
2
5
3
8.91
1 1
2
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
21
6
Page 4-17
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Private Parks Carriage House D’Antoni’s Park Southern Draw Park Tarrant Park Temple College Golf Course Von Rosenberg Park Wildflower Country Club Windmill Farms Park Private Total
Page 4-18
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
0.5
3 0.20 0.20
3
1
0.5
0.40
1 1
1
1 1 3
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
1 4
Pond/Lake
Restrooms
Disc Golf
Dog Park
Trails (in miles)
Splash Pad
Swimming Pool
Volleyball Court
Tennis Court
Basketball Court
Soccer Fields
SoŌball Fields
Baseball Fields
Backstop
Open Play Fields
Picnic Pavilions
BBQ Grills
Picnic Tables
Park Name HOA Parks Bentwood Heritage Place Lakewood Sage Meadows Village of Sage Meadows 1 Village of Sage Meadows 2 Wes ield Wyndam Hill HOA TOTAL
Playground
Table 4-4 Additional Park Inventory
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 4-5 Summary of Existing Parks City of Temple Parks Pocket Parks Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Trails/Linear Parks Special Use Parks
19 parks totaling 27.33 acres 26 parks totaling 176.00 acres 6 parks totaling 392.46 acres 5 parks totaling 40.35 acres 20 parks totaling 239.49 acres
Other EnĆ&#x;ty Parks HOA Parks 8 parks totaling 27.27 acres Private Parks 8 parks totaling 338.62 acres Corps Parks 2 parks totaling 141.29 acres
Exis ng parks in quadrant 1 - Northeast
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Page 4-19
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Exis ng parks in quadrant 2 - Southeast
Page 4-20
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Exis ng parks in quadrant 3 - Southwest
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Page 4-21
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Exis ng parks in quadrant 4 - Northwest
Page 4-22
Chapter Four | Standards and Existing Inventory
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Page 5-1
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
INTRODUCTION
TO
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Residents of Temple have clearly established that parks and recrea on is important to them, and that they appreciate the recrea onal opportuni es that exist in the city today. They also recognize that the city is growing, and that new residents arriving in Temple will only increase the need for park and recrea on facili es and programming. More importantly, the way we recreate is changing, as shown by the recrea on trends discussed in Chapter 1. New technology, as well as an increasing amount of ac vi es, are constantly compe ng for our me and are challenging the way we play and relax. This needs assessment will help recognize both basic and new needs, and will help Temple embrace those changes. At a basic level, the needs assessment compares the state of Temple today with the parks and recrea on facili es that will be needed in the future. An understanding of the deficiencies that exist in the parks and recrea on system is vital so that ac ons can be developed to address these needs. This assessment also projects poten al future needs rela ve to recrea onal trends and the changing needs of the city so that an ac on plan can be developed to address these needs effec vely.
“Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul.” ~John Muir, Naturalist, Author and Early Advocate of PreservaƟon, 1838-1914
A needs assessment is an analy cal way of assessing what facili es, ac ons, and programs are most needed and desired by the residents of Temple. From the results of the needs assessment, recommenda ons and ac ons to address these needs will be created and priori zed. The assessment of these needs is both quan ta ve and qualita ve, as discussed in more detail below.
Assessment Methods A variety of different inputs and techniques are used in evalua ng Temple’s current and future park needs. Generally, three methodologies were included in the needs assessment analysis. These techniques follow general methodologies accepted by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for local park master plans. These three techniques are: ▪ Standard-Based Assessment - This technique uses locally developed level of service ra os of facili es to popula on so as to project where the city is today and where it might be in the future as the popula on grows. ▪ Demand-Based Assessment - This technique uses actual and/or an cipated usage growth data, as well as ci zen input on the types of ac vi es they would like to engage in, to determine which facili es and programs are most in demand.
Page 5-2
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan ▪ Resource-Based Assessment - This technique recognizes that Temple has many unique physical features, and explores how to convert these into recrea on or open space assets that help to meet the demand for recrea on in the city. Examples of poten al physical resources in Temple might include the many creek corridors such as Bird Creek, Pepper Creek, Friars Creek or Leon River. All three methods are important in their own regard, but individually do not represent the en re picture. This assessment and the recommenda ons resul ng from it, uses findings from all three methods to determine what types of recrea on facili es and park requirements are needed in Temple. Ul mately, these needs are ve ed by the ci zens of Temple, and are determined to best represent the key park and recrea onal needs of the city.
STANDARD-BASED ASSESSMENT The na onal guidelines and standards that were created decades ago were based on demographic trends rather than specific local desires, and are now intended to serve as a star ng point for park planning. Each city has its own unique geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic composi on, and as such, the arbitrary applica on of na onal standards would not necessarily meet the needs of a par cular community. Therefore, na onal standards are no longer used to project facility needs since they are based on a “one size fits all” type of evalua on. Instead, the standards are fine-tuned to meet local condi ons.
The Level of Service (LOS) based assessment uses target levels of service established by the local jurisdicƟon, in this case the City of Temple, to determine the quanƟty of park faciliƟes required to meet the city’s needs.
This master plan u lizes the exis ng level of service in the city as a star ng point and determines whether that level of service is adequate, or whether it needs to be increased or decreased. Extensive public input is used to determine how to adjust the current level of service, as well as the an cipated growth of the city, and what parts of Temple are well served verses what parts are not. Local needs and desires are used to mold these guidelines to meet the expecta ons of the ci zens of Temple in a realis c manner.
These target levels of service usually are expressed as a the quanƟty of park faciliƟes needed to adequately serve a given raƟo of residents.
Three types of level of service determina ons are made as shown below. ▪ Level of Service: SpaƟal - Defines the quan ty context of parkland needs, and is expressed as a ra o of acreage to popula on. More importantly, it also defines the distribu on of parks throughout Temple. ▪ Level of Service: Access to Parkland - Geographically determines how easy it is for Temple residents to access parkland, and determines where parkland is needed to meet the city’s target level of service. ▪ Level of Service: Facility - Defines the number of facili es recommended serving each par cular recrea on need. Facility standards are usually expressed as a ra o of units of one par cular facility per popula on size. For example, a facility standard for a recrea on center might be one square foot for every resident of the city.
These targets are established to provide the level of service that the parƟcular jurisdicƟon believes is the most responsive to the amount of use and the interest of its ciƟzens. This plan establishes individual city specific levels of service for Temple, and does not rely on naƟonal standards that may not be applicable to Temple.
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Page 5-3
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
93%
The Need for Park Acreage (Level of Service: Spatial)
61%
Developing and applying a target level of service for park acreage results in acreage standards for different types of parks. Neighborhood parks and community parks are the primary park types to focus on as they provide close-to-home park space. Addi onal acreage is required both in order to serve the exis ng and future popula on, but also to allow for the development of addi onal neighborhood and community parks evenly spaced throughout the city. The goal is to provide close-to-home parks within a 5 to 10 minute walking distance of each resident in Temple.
Percent of residences within the city limits that are currently within 1/2 mile of a park
Percent of residences within the city limits that are currently within 1/4 mile of a park
The purpose of spa al levels of service for parks and recrea onal areas is to ensure that sufficient area is allocated for all the outdoor recrea on needs of a community. They allow a city to plan ahead so that parkland can be targeted and acquired before it is developed and can no longer be used as parkland. To help determine an appropriate level of service, a “target” level is incorporated into this master plan. These spa al standards are expressed as a ra o of parkland to the number of residents in Temple.
Neighborhood Parks Level of Service Neighborhood Parks, Pocket Parks, HOA Parks Current Acres = 230.60 acres Current LOS = 3.3 acres for every 1,000 residents Target LOS = 3.3 acres for every 1,000 residents (maintain current ra o) Target Level of Access = 90% of residences in Temple will be within 1/2 mile of a park, trail or open space within 20 years; and 60% will be within 1/4 mile of park within 20 years (maintain near current levels) Year 2014 ▪ Current need with 70,190 popula on = 233 acres, no deficit ▪ Access in 2014 = 93% of residences within a 1/2 mile of a park; 61% within a 1/4 mile of a park Year 2020 ▪ Need with projected 79,253 popula on = 261 acres, deficit of 28 acres Year 2030 ▪ Need with projected 91,759 popula on = 303 acres, deficit of 70 acres
Page 5-4
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Neighborhood parks are typically centrally located in a neighborhood or central to the several smaller neighborhoods that it serves. A neighborhood park in Temple is 3 to 15 acres in size, and ideally would serve no more than 1,000 to 4,000 residents. They should be integrated into the community in a prominent manner during the design phase, and not layered in as an a erthought during construc on. A pocket park is a type of neighborhood park that serves a smaller number of residents and is therefore smaller in size. They are typically less than two acres in size and provide public gathering places for residents. For the purpose of this analysis, pocket parks are included with neighborhood parks. The prominence of neighborhood parks reflects the importance of having them as centerpieces of a neighborhood. The recommended target level of service goal is 3.3 acres of neighborhood parks for every 1,000 residents. This target reflects the goal of providing parks within walking distance of all residents in Temple. Temple currently has a combined total of 230.60 acres of city-owned neighborhood, city-owned pocket parks and privately owned HOA parks, yielding an exis ng level of service of 3.3 acres for every 1,000 residents of the city. Future needs of neighborhood parks to meet the target level of service are summarized to the le .
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Since neighborhood parks serve as a central gathering place for residents, accessibility is a cri cal component of these parks more so than any other park type. As discussed earlier, the preferred ideal service area for access to a park from any neighborhood in Temple is one-quarter (1/4) mile. The maximum service area for a neighborhood park is one-half (1/2) mile. In no case should access to close-in parks require that a child or young person cross a major collector or arterial road. The benchmark that 90% residents of Temple be within 1/2 mile walking distance of a park within 20 years will result in parks that are designed to be more centralized in their neighborhoods so as to improve access. Note that for the purposes of access, every neighborhood park, school play area, and parts of community parks in Temple can be considered the “neighborhood park� for the areas close to it. The map one the following page illustrates the distribu on and service areas for neighborhood parks in Temple. While the parkland dedica on ordinance will assist in acquiring most of the need for new parks as residen al areas are developed, a strong emphasis should be placed on the loca on of parks within neighborhoods to meet the target level of access. The map on Page 5-7 illustrates areas within the city limits that are key needs for future neighborhood parks. As these areas develop or are redeveloped, neighborhood parks need to be designated to serve the poten al residents in those areas.
Neighborhood park service areas
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Page 5-5
N
P
S
Temple Parks, Master Plan Recrea on and Open Space EIGHBORHOOD ARK ERVICE
Page 5-6
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
AREAS
KEY NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEEDS
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Page P age 5-7
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
“Rest is not idleness, and to lie someƟmes on the grass under trees on a summer’s day, listening to the murmur of the water, or watching the clouds float across the sky, is by no means a waste of Ɵme.” ~ Sir John Lubbock, BriƟsh banker and philanthropist, 1834-1913
Community Parks Community parks are large parks that serve several neighborhoods or a por on of a city. They serve as loca ons for larger community events, sports and ac vi es. Therefore, they contain many popular recrea on and support facili es. Because of the larger service area and addi onal programs, community parks are more heavily used, increasing the poten al for facility deteriora on. The addi onal facili es associated with a community park increase the spa al requirements necessary for this type of park. Also, community parks o en require parking for users who drive from surrounding areas, which increases the amount of space needed. The recommended standard for community parks is 6.0 acres for every 1,000 residents. Temple currently has six community parks that total 392.46 acres, yielding an exis ng level of service of 5.6 acres for every 1,000 residents. Future needs for community parkland is listed below. Community parks serve a larger por on of a city. Since they are typically accessed by car, the preferred service area for a community park is approximately two miles. The west side of Temple is the fastest growing part of the city and is currently underserved in terms of community parkland. Development of the West Temple Athle c Park will be a key need within the next ten years. Community Parks Current Acres = 392.46 acres Current LOS = 5.6 acres for every 1,000 residents Target LOS = 6.0 acres for every 1,000 residents Year 2014 ▪ Current need with 70,190 popula on = 421 acres, deficit of 28.68 acres Year 2020 ▪ Need with projected 79,253 popula on = 476 acres, deficit of 83.01 acres Year 2030 ▪ Need with projected 91,759 popula on = 550.55 acres, deficit of 158.09 acres
Page 5-8
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
COMMUNITY
PARK SERVICE AREAS
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
P Page 5-9
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Special Use Parks Because special purpose parks vary by size, type and from city to city, there are no specific recommended levels of service.
Special Use Parks Special use parks are areas designated for a special purpose and can include park types such as golf courses, sports complexes, aqua c centers, linear parks, plazas or downtown courtyards. The Temple Parks and Recrea on Department currently has 20 sites that are designated as special use. These include sites such as Clarence Mar n Gym, Gober Party House, Sammons Golf Course, Santa Fe Depot/Museum, and Temple Skate Park. These 20 sites total 239 acres of recrea onal space for the City of Temple. Furthermore, there are five designated linear parks and trails within Temple, which total an addi onal 40 acres. These include DOE Friar’s Creek, FM 2305, Friar’s Creek, Midway Drive, and Pepper Creek.
Regional Parks Regional parks are intended to serve the en re city and surrounding region. Like community parks, they act as loca ons for larger community events, tournaments, or ac vi es. Regional parks near Temple could include the Corps park property around Belton Lake and Mother Neff State Park which is approximately 22 miles northwest of Temple. The City of Temple currently does not have any parks that are designated as regional. Similar to special purpose parks, there is no specific spa al level of service for regional parks. Open Space Current Acres = 1,370.92 acres (within city limits and ETJ, including both public and private parks and preserved open spaces) Current LOS = 19.5 acres for every 1,000 residents Target LOS = 10 acres for every 1,000 residents Year 2014 ▪ Current need with 70,190 popula on = 702 acres; no deficit Year 2020 ▪ Need with projected 79,253 popula on = 793 acres; no deficit Year 2030 ▪ Need with projected 91,759 popula on = 918 acres; no deficit
Page 5-10
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Open Space Open space comes in many forms. It can be the expanses of water and green along the creeks, or simply the designated parks within the city. Open spaces are the green ribbons that break up the developed areas of a city. Simply because they are different, these open spaces stand out and can make Temple a more memorable city. Undeveloped open space will become an increasingly important need in Temple as the city con nues to mature. The vastness of the prairies and open lands that surround the city may make the need for preserver open space seem unimportant, but in reality the preserva on of high quality open space in Temple will be one of the most significant challenges facing the city over the next several decades. High quality open space is defined as areas with significant vegeta on, low areas that frequently flood such as wetlands, and areas with interes ng physical features whether man-made or natural. Exis ng open space in Temple includes all designated parks and linear trail corridors, totaling approximately 882 acres. When adding the private parks and the two Corps parks near Belton Lake, open space in Temple totals approximately 1,370 acres, yielding an exis ng level of service of 19.5 acres for every 1,000 residents. The floodplain corridors within the city limits and ETJ can contribute an addi onal 6,043 acres of poten al open space.
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Future open space should be preserved if it has some unique value, and not simply to meet a specific acreage target. Therefore, the suggested target level of service for open space shown should be treated as a benchmark no ng where the city is today, and to provide a target to strive to meet. Preserved open space serves a significant func on in terms of wildlife habitat, flood control, and improved air and water quality; however, without being publicly accessible it cannot provide any recrea onal benefits to the community. While not all open space preserves should be accessed, this master plan recommends that significant preserva on eorts be sought along the creek corridors and Leon River, with key public access points for the added benefit of recrea on.
Key areas for open space preservaĆ&#x;on in Temple include the creek corridors and floodplain areas
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Page 5-11
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Facility Assessment Level of Service Facility standards and target levels of service define the number of facili es recommended to serve each par cular type of recrea on. They are expressed as the usage capacity served by each recrea onal unit, as well as the level of access to each type of facility from all parts of the city. The target levels of service shown on the following pages are based on comparisons with recognized standards, comparisons to other similar ci es in Texas, the actual number of facili es in Temple, and the amount of use each facility receives. The following pages have a descrip on of the 2012 target level of service for each recrea onal facility. Facility needs are based both on ra os related to exis ng popula on, as well as the amount of demand for each type which is based on public input and user informa on where available. As with the acreage standards discussed earlier, the facility target levels of service are adjusted based on Temple’s unique recrea onal goals. The target level of service for each type of facility is determined as a guide to provide the most basic recrea on facili es to the community. The Na onal Recrea on and Parks Associa on (NRPA), in their publica on Recrea on, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, edited by R.A. Lancaster, defines recrea on and park standards in this manner: “Community recrea on and park standards are the means by which an agency can express recrea on and park goals and objec ves in quan ta ve terms, which in turn, can be translated into spa al requirements for land and water resources. Through the budget, municipal ordinances, coopera ve or joint public-private efforts, these standards are translated into a system for acquisi on, development and management of recrea on and park resources.” The publica on further describes the role standards have in establishing a base for the amount of land required for various types of park and recrea on facili es, in developing the community’s acceptable minimum correla ng needs to spa al requirements, and for providing jus fica on for recrea onal expecta ons and needs. The na onal and state standards are a useful guide in determining minimum requirements; however, the City of Temple must establish its own standards in considera on of expressed needs of the residents and the city’s economic, opera onal, and maintenance capabili es.
Page 5-12
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 5-1 Existing and Future Park and Recreation Facility Needs Current Number
Current LOS (1 facility per capita)
48
2020 Need (Based on potenƟal 2020 Surplus 79,000+) / Deficit
NRPA Standard1
Temple’s Target LOS2
1,462
1 per 1,000
1 per 1,500 residents
53
Deficit of 5
Medium - The availability of close proximity to neighborhoods is key for playgrounds. Newer, more challenging units should be introduced when play areas in community parks are renovated.
Varies
Varies
NA
Varies
In every park
Add to every park
High - This is a key facility need in all parks. Replace dated and damaged picnic facili es on a regular basis.
Pavilions
27
2,600
1 per 2,000
1 per 2,000 residents
39
Deficit of 12
High - Pavilions provide shaded, central gathering areas for events and reunions or for daily picnicking. These facili es are among the most popular park ameni es in most ci es.
Open Play Fields
9
7,799
NA
1 per 5,000 residents
16
Deficit of 7
High - Open play fields that can be used as prac ce areas for leagues are essen al to a community to ensure the quality of athle c game fields are maintained at a higher level.
Backstops
6
11,698
NA
1 per 5,000 residents
16
Deficit of 10
High - Backstops provide prac ce field space for baseball/ so ball, which again is necessary to ensure that game quality athle c fields are maintained at a higher level.
Baseball Fields
9
7,799
1 per 5,000
1 per 8,000 residents
10
Deficit of 1
Low - Con nue to ensure that the exis ng fields are maintained at a high level, and upgrade fields as needed.
So ball Fields
8
8,774
1 per 5,000
1 per 8,000 residents
10
Deficit of 2
Medium - Provide more fields designated for both girls and adult so ball. Ensure that exis ng fields are highly maintained.
Soccer Fields
6
11,698
1 per 10,000
1 per 8,000 residents
10
Deficit of 4
High - Construct addi onal soccer fields and mul purpose flat fields that can be used by several sports including soccer, football, lacrosse, and field hockey.
Football Fields
1
70,190
1 per 10,000
1 per 10,000 residents
8
Deficit of 7
High - This is a key athle c need. This sport is highly popular within the area, and the city lacks sufficient fields for leagues.
Basketball Courts
15
4,679
1 per 2,500
1 per 4,000 residents
20
Deficit of 5
Medium - These are o en one of the more popular ameni es in a park because they allow for spontaneous games among people of all ages.
Facility Playgrounds
Picnic Facili es Tables, Benches, BBQ Grills, Fountains
Level of Need
(1) NaƟonal RecreaƟon and Parks AssociaƟon standards developed in the 1980s. (2) Developed based on analyzing previous master plan standards, current level of service, and ciƟzen demand determined during the public input process.
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Page 5-13
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 5-1 Existing and Future Park and Recreation Facility Needs Current Number
Current LOS (1 facility per capita)
Tennis Courts
14
Volleyball Courts
2020 Need (Based on potenƟal 2020 Surplus 79,000+) / Deficit
NRPA Standard1
Temple’s Target LOS2
5,014
1 per 2,000
1 per 5,000 residents
16
Deficit of 2
Low - There is currently a good supply of tennis courts within the city.
2
35,095
1 per 5,000
1 per 10,000 residents
8
Deficit of 6
High - Sand volleyball is a rela vely easy addi on to an exis ng park.
Swimming Pool
5
14,038
1 per 20,000
1 per 15,000 residents
5
Deficit of 1
Low - Temple currently has one water park, one indoor swimming pool, and three leisure pools. Con nued maintenance and upkeep of the exis ng pools is needed over me. One addi onal pool will be need on the west side as the popula on con nues to grow
Splash Pads
3
23,397
NA
1 per 20,000 residents
4
Deficit of 1
Medium - Splash pads offer a lower cost aqua c facility for ci es, and are most popular in parks when located adjacent to family gathering areas.
18.57 miles
3,915
1 per 10,000
1 per 4,000 residents
19.8 miles
Deficit of 1.24 miles
High - Con nued implementa on of the city’s Trails Master Plan is needed over the next ten years. Trails are one of the most sought a er ameni es in the city and were consistently ranked as a high priority during the public input process.
Dog Park
1
1 per city
NA
1 to 2 per city
1 to 2
Deficit of 1
Medium - Dog parks are the fastest growing facility among city parks across the na on. If demand warrants it, a second dog park may be needed on the west side.
Skate Park
1
1 per city
NA
1 to 2 per city
1 to 2
Deficit of 1
Medium - This can be a full scale skate park or smaller skate spots within exis ng parks. These facili es are very popular among teens and young adults.
Disc Golf Course
2
35,095
NA
1 to 2 per city
1 to 2
No Deficit
Low - Disc golf has become a very popular ac vity and is rela vely inexpensive to install and play within exis ng parks.
Varies
Varies
NA
Varies
As needed
As needed
Medium - These facili es should be included in all community parks and larger neighborhood parks.
Facility
Trails
Support Facili es Restrooms, Sidewalks, Parking
Level of Need
(1) NaƟonal RecreaƟon and Parks AssociaƟon standards developed in the 1980s. (2) Developed based on analyzing previous master plan standards, current level of service, and ciƟzen demand determined during the public input process.
Page 5-14
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
DEMAND-BASED ASSESSMENT Demand was also used to determine what addi onal facili es are needed in Temple. Demand is based on actual level of use of the parks and the preferences expressed by ci zens through the citywide paper survey, the online survey and the public input mee ng. Determining demand through ci zen input is a cri cal part of any park planning process. Public en es work for their ci zens by managing and providing the types of facili es that the residents and taxpayers of that community want to have. In the park planning process, ci zen input helps iden fy what types of exis ng facili es are being used, where key deficiencies may occur, and where the ci zens of Temple would like to see their funding targeted. This input can also be compared to input received from other similar ci es and from previous surveys so that long term trends can be iden fied. In essence, the residents of a community determine what they want to have in their city through their current use of those facili es and through their input. Most Important FaciliƟes to Provide The respondents who completed the paper and online surveys were given a list of different park ameni es and facili es, and were asked to rank how important or unimportant each facility was to their family. For the paper survey, the highest ranking facility was trails for walking, jogging and bicycling with 93% of respondents indica ng it was either very important or important. Trails for walking, jogging and bicycling was also ranked as the number one facility for the online survey, again with 93% indica ng it was either very important or important.
Most Important Facilities to Provide
Paper Survey Very Important
Very Unimportant
Trails for walking, jogging and bicycling Improve city-operated indoor recreation centers More special events/festivals Large pavilions for group activities/picnics Unique parks such as Bend O’ the River or natural preserves Additional public swimming pools More playgrounds A community/regional park in west Temple Community gardens More lighted practice fields 0%
20%
40%
Very Important
Important
60%
80%
Unimportant
100%
Very Unimportant
Online Survey Very Important
Very Unimportant
Trails for walking, jogging and bicycling Unique parks such as Bend O’ the River or natural preserves More special events/festivals Splash pads/spraygrounds Large pavilions for group activities/picnics Additional public swimming pools Improve city-operated indoor recreation centers A community/regional park in west Temple More preserved open space More playgrounds 0%
10%
20%
Very Important
30%
40%
Important
50%
60%
Unimportant
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very Unimportant
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Page 5-15
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Paper Survey - Top Needs 1. Trails for walking/bicycling (29%) 2. Splash pads/spraygrounds (25%) 3. Addi onal public pools (22%) 4. Addi onal dog park (22%) 5. Improved city rec centers (20%) 6. More playgrounds (16%) 7. More special events (16%) 8. Community gardens (15%) 9. Unique parks/nature parks (14%) 10. Large pavilions (11%) Online Survey - Top Needs 1. Addi onal public pools (35%) 2. Trails for walking/bicycling (33%) 3. Splash pads (26%) 4. Unique parks/nature parks (22%) 5. More special events (20%) 6. Improved city rec centers (16%) 7. Community gardens (16%) 8. Addi onal dog park (15%) 9. Community park in West Temple (14%) 10. Large pavilions (9%)
Other important facili es to add or provide included improved city-operated indoor recrea on centers (Wilson and Summit), more special events/fes vals, and unique parks such as Bend O’ the River or natural preserves. The top ten responses for both surveys are shown in the charts on the previous page. FaciliƟes that are Most Needed A follow up ques on on the survey asked the respondents to select three items from the list in the previous ques on that they feel are the most needed in Temple. The top three needs for both the paper survey and online survey were similar, and included trails and aqua c facili es (swimming pools and splash pads). The top ten responses for each survey are listed to the right. At the public mee ng, a endees were also asked what facility they would consider the most important for the city to provide. The responses varied slightly from the input received from the two surveys; however, trails and aqua c facili es s ll con nued to rank very high. The top answers from the public mee ng are also listed to the right.
Summary of Demand-Based Needs Through the public input process, data collec on, and input from the Parks and Recrea on Master Plan Advisory Commi ee, the planning team has determined the most needed and desired recrea onal opportuni es for the future of Temple. The most popular recrea on ac vity was walking, jogging or bicycling, indica ng a need and desire for a connected, citywide trails network. There is interest among residents in addi onal aqua c facili es including both public swimming pools and splash pads. Developing unique parks such as Bend O’ the River and providing more open space and natural areas are viewed as very important and necessary among residents. Finally, there is strong interest among residents for the city offer more special events and fes vals throughout the year.
Public MeeƟng - Top Needs 1. More preserved open space (44%) 2. Trails for walking, jogging, bicycling (44%) 3. Addi onal public swimming pools (33%) 4. Community gardens (33%) 5. Adult baseball/so ball fields (22%) 6. More lighted prac ce fields (22%) 7. Tennis courts (22%)
Page 5-16
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
RESOURCE-BASED ASSESSMENT The resource-based assessment addresses key physical features of the city that may be incorporated as poten al recrea onal opportuni es. Both man-made and natural features can be considered. The City of Temple has numerous landscape features that should be preserved and/or adapted for recrea on use and open space preserva on where feasible. These include the many creek corridors throughout the city, Leon River at the southern end of the city, the rural landscapes in the ETJ area, u lity right of ways, and the railroad right of way. The use or development of each resource should be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the unique characteris cs of each loca on and the opportuni es that can be afforded without damaging environmentally sensi ve features. It is important to approach the use and development of these various resources in a unified, coordinated manner in order to realize the best results from each.
Creek System Temple has a very extensive creek system flowing throughout the city. This master plan strongly recommends the preserva on of greenbelts throughout Temple by making serious efforts to secure func onal corridors along Pepper Creek, Bird Creek, Friars Creeks, Hog Pen Creek and Leon River. The key criteria should be: ▪ Preserve the larger of the 100 year floodplain or a 300 foot wide corridor along undeveloped or underdeveloped creek areas. Ensure flood control and recrea on opportuni es by preven ng unrestricted encroachment and destruc on of the vegeta ve areas along the creeks and their tributaries. ▪ Acquire and preserve, where feasible, drainage streams that can create linkage to adjacent neighborhoods. Preserve more than just the bare minimum for drainage purposes. ▪ Work with landowners and homeowners to create linear vehicular and pedestrian parkways along the edges of the floodplain, rather than backing lots up to it. Such design will open the creek areas up to the benefit of enjoyment for all residents. Where feasible, this concept should be retrofi ed to exis ng condi ons. ▪ Create linear trail segments in phases. Iden fy key trail linkages to develop first based on the recommenda ons of the city’s Trails Master Plan. With proper city support, funding and marke ng, these trails will become the momentum for the development of similar trail connec ons. ▪ Acquire land that is regularly subjected to flooding, remove all improvements, and restore the flood area to a healthy and func onal ecosystem. This means returning the floodplain to the creeks with the benefit of flood control and recrea on access. Preserving creeks and drainage corridors will assist in addressing the need for linear parks and open space in the city.
ExisƟng creek and drainage corridors in Temple.
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Page 5-17
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan This will also provide the opportunity for the development of hike and bike trails which ranks consistently as one of the most important recrea on facili es to provide.
Right of Ways U lity right of ways are linear in nature which makes them ideal for hike and bike trails. Developing trails along u lity right of ways and other easements should be a priority over the next ten years. Railroad right of ways have two characteris cs that also make them ideal for trails: their linear nature and gentle topography change. An added aesthe c value of railroad right of way is that trees along its length o en provide special character and natural interest. Where there is adequate right of way, the city should ac vely pursue developing trails along railroad corridors.
Railroad corridors, such as the one in downtown Temple, can provide an opportunity for linear parks and trails.
Page 5-18
Chapter Five | Needs Assessment
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Page 6-1
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
INTRODUCTION
TO
RECOMMENDATIONS
Great ci es are built one step at a me. Great ci es are built by ci zens and residents who believe in their community and who share a common desire to make it a be er place to live. They are inspired by responding to the needs of their ci zens, both for basic everyday needs as well as by dreams and visions for how things can be. Above all else, a great city needs to be an interes ng and appealing place to live. This livability is defined in many different ways, but a simple measure by The Economist Magazine uses five criteria to develop its rankings. These quali es are stability (25%), healthcare (20%), culture and environment (25%), educa on (10%), and infrastructure (20%). A great park, recrea on, trails and open space system contributes to all of these. A great parks system is indeed important. In fact, Temple’s parks and open spaces may be one of the most visible components of that high level of quality of life that all ci es seek. Significant pieces are already in place, and these recommenda ons seek to build on what already exists, make those pieces even be er, and to build a strong framework for the newly developing parts of the city.
“If future generaƟon are to remember us with graƟtude rather than contempt, we must leave them something more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just aŌer we got through with it.” ~Lyndon B. Johnson, 36th President
Page 6-2
Philosophical Background for this Plan’s Recommendations The recommenda ons in this sec on follow key principles that should guide park related choices. In essence, they become part of the “rules” that Temple staff and elected officials should follow when implemen ng park related ac ons. They expand upon the goals established in early sec ons of this master plan. Well located parks that ac vely invite use - They are readily visible and accessible from neighborhoods around them as well as from a citywide basis. All parks should be readily accessible via walking and bicycling as well as via car. Sidewalks from surrounding areas will provide easy walking access into each park. Facili es within Temple’s parks will be varied and geared towards both ac ve and passive uses. Consistent citywide theme among parks - Temple parks celebrate living in Temple. Fundamental elements in each park, such as signs, pavilions, vegeta on and trees, and even certain key layout choices should con nue to be consistently repeated so as to create a strong design language for parks in Temple.
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Each park is an “oasis” and a key element of the part of the city that surrounds it - Each park is important, and should be a prominent part of the city around it. Temple’s parks have not been an “a erthought” in the past and will not be in the future. Ci zens of Temple recognize them as an incredibly valuable and important part of the city. Each park is centered in the area around it. All parks will be considered important - Each and every park serves a purpose. As such, each park will be well maintained and the features that are important to that park will be updated periodically. Temple parks are designed to be easy and cost effec ve to maintain - State of the art maintenance techniques will be built into each park to help reduce day to day opera onal and maintenance costs.
Recommendations by category The recommenda ons contained in this chapter summarize the findings of the needs assessment and proposes a series of ac ons to improve and expand Temple’s parks, recrea on, trails and open space system. These recommenda ons address the need for indoor recrea on facili es, trails, renova ons to exis ng parks, and addi onal parkland in the growing areas of the city. The guiding principles discussed in Chapter 1 have been used as a basis for many of the recommenda ons in this chapter. Those principles are specifically adopted as part of this plan, and form the founda on for future decisions. Recommenda ons are divided into the meframe of immediate, short term, medium term or long term. Immediate is intended to be completed within the first year. Short term is year 2 to 5, medium term is year 5 to 10, and long term is beyond 10 years. Costs that are shown are at an order of magnitude level of detail, and will vary as more detailed programming and design occurs. Escala on should be accounted for whenever those cost projec ons are refined or updated. The recommended improvements fall into five general categories: ▪ Land acquisi on ▪ New park development ▪ Exis ng park improvements ▪ Indoor facility recommenda ons ▪ Recrea onal trail development The following Ac on Plans summarize each of the major recommenda on categories.
Five categories of recommenda ons include acquisi on, new park development, exis ng park improvements, indoor recrea on, and recrea onal trail development.
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Page 6-3
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 6-1 Land Acquisition Ac on ID
Priority
Ac on
City Quadrant Impacted
Poten al Low Cost Range
Poten al High Cost Range Need for this Ac on
1
Immediate West Temple Athle cs Park/Community Park Acquisi on or trade for alterna ve site (to be determined)
Northwest
$0
$250,000
2
Immediate Downtown Linear Park - Per Downtown Master Plan
Downtown, citywide
TBD
TBD
Per Downtown Master Plan, addi onal tracts for connec vity.
3
Immediate Future neighborhood parks - Acquire through dona ons lands for addi onal parks in fast growing areas of the city
Citywide
$0
TBD
Dona on through development process, trade for preferred loca ons, or could be acquired.
4
Short Term Prairie Park - Land acquisi on (cost to be determined)
Citywide
TBD
TBD
New unique nature park, opportunity for prairie preserva on.
5
Short Term New Southwest Temple community park Acquire through trade or purchase land to expand city owned lands in the area (20 to 50 acres)
Southwest
$0
$500,000
Cost of acquisi on to be determined, area land may be donated. Iden fy and preserves loca on for long term park for the area.
6
Short Term Bend O’ the River Park - Evaluate acquisi on to enlarge (via poten al dona on)
Citywide
Dona on
Dona on
Expands size of the park, allows for greater flexibility and range of facili es.
$0
$750,000
Es mated Total Cost - New Park Development/Acquisi on (note that partner par cipa on, dona ons and grants may fund por ons of the amounts shown)
Addi onal lands provide extra room for development of high quality facility and allow for future expansion. Connect trails to this park.
1. Note: Costs shown are order of magnitude es mates prior to any detailed concept or design, and will vary as site selec on and more detailed design occurs. List is for guidance in planning, and not all items may be implemented. Grants and dona ons may reduce the cost of each item. 2. Land costs, if shown, are general es mates intended to establish allowances and will vary. 3. All costs shown are in 2014 dollars, and are rounded to nearest $50,000. Costs should be updated frequently as addi onal cost informa on becomes available. 4. Immediate is within the first year; short term is year 2 to 5; medium term is year 5 to 10; and long term is beyond 10 years.
Page 6-4
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Expand land for future West Temple Athle c Park New southwest community park
*
Expand Downtown Linear Park per Downtown Master Plan
* *
Expand Bend O’ the River Park
Acquire land for Prairie Park
* Recommended land acquisi on and park expansions
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Page 6-5
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 6-2 New Park Development Ac on ID
Priority Ac on
1
Short Term
Downtown Linear Park - Per Downtown Master Plan, enhances linear park, adds key trail, interpre ve features, public art, pavilions, event area, play features
2
Short Term
West Temple Athle cs Park/Community Park Development
City Quadrant Impacted
Poten al Low Cost Range
Downtown, citywide
$5,000,000
Poten al High Cost Range Need for this Ac on $8,000,000
Citywide
a) U lize 60 acre city owned property b) Master Plan c) Development of Ini al Phase
-
-
$75,000
$100,000
$5,000,000
$7,500,000
Per Downtown Master Plan, enhances key focal area of the city. Creates strong visitor a rac on and loca on for citywide events. Promotes growth of the downtown area (acquisi on needs to be completed). Creates new athle c complex to serve the needs of all of west Temple at build out. Also responds to league growth in the area.
3
Short Term
Develop new football fields (add two football fields to Wilson South Park)
Citywide
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
Provides loca on and facili es for football leagues.
4
Short Term
Develop 5+ miles of linkage trails
Citywide
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
Addresses gaps in the exis ng system. Adds trails that connect to new areas in the city.
Bend O’ the River Park
Citywide $75,000
$100,000
Guides development of the park, establishes key uses and program of facili es for the park.
$3,000,000
$5,000,000
Begins development of the park, intended to begin within 2 to 4 years.
$400,000
$500,000
5 Short Term Medium Term 6
Short Term
7
Short Term Medium Term
a) Develop program and master plan b) Development of ini al phase (pending environmental clearance and recommenda ons of detailed master plan) Develop Prewi Park (new park, currently undeveloped)
Northeast
Prairie Park (includes outdoor educa on classroom, interpre ve features, learning pavilion, natural surface trails, landscape restora on)
Citywide
New unique nature park, opportunity for prairie preserva on.
a) Master Plan
$40,000
$50,000
b) Development of ini al phase (cost to be determined by master plan)
$250,000
$500,000
$18,840,000
$29,750,000
Es mated Total Cost - New Park Development/Acquisi on (note that partner par cipa on, dona ons and grants may fund por ons of the amounts shown)
New natural area and neighborhood park for area with poten al future growth.
1. Note: Costs shown are order of magnitude es mates prior to any detailed concept or design, and will vary as site selec on and more detailed design occurs. List is for guidance in planning, and not all items may be implemented. Grants and dona ons may reduce the cost of each item. 2. Page Land costs,Chapter if shown, areSix general es mates Plan intended to establish allowances and will vary. | Master Recommendations 6-6costs shown are in 2014 dollars, and are rounded to nearest $50,000. Costs should be updated frequently as addi onal cost informa on becomes available. 3. All 4. Immediate is within the first year; short term is year 2 to 5; medium term is year 5 to 10; and long term is beyond 10 years.
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Graphic source: Downtown Master Plan, City of Temple
1. Downtown Linear Park Need for this ac on - Follow the recommenda ons of the Downtown Master Plan. This linear park enhances a key focal area of the city, and creates a strong visitor a rac on and loca on for citywide events. Promotes growth of the downtown area (acquisi on needs to be completed). The current Fred Springer Linear Park and Farmers Market in downtown extends to Main Street. The Downtown Master Plan recommends it con nue east to 8th Street. The park is recommended to have a plaza and entertainment zone as well as trails.
Es mated cost range - $5,000,000 to $8,000,000 Poten al meframe - 2 to 5 years (short term)
Examples of downtown linear parks and plazas
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Page 6-7
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
2. West Temple Athletic Complex and Community Park Need for this ac on - Creates new athle cs complex to address both current and future athle c needs for the en re city. Areas west of IH-35 are projected to add another 50,000 residents, and the new athle c complex will address the ac ve sports needs of these new residents. The facili es will also provide addi onal playing capacity for current residents, and will provide tournament quality facili es to a ract regional and statewide events to the area. The site will also provide a loca on for community park type facili es such as prac ce facili es, a second family aqua cs center, and indoor recrea on facili es for the western area of the city. Es mated cost range - Master Plan: $75,000 to $100,000; Development of ini al phase: $5,000,000 to $7,500,000 Poten al meframe - 2 to 5 years (short term)
Typical ameni es that can be found in a sports complex/community park
Page 6-8
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
3. New Football Fields Need for this ac on - City currently only has one true football field, and lacks addi onal dedicated football fields for league and tournament play. Addi onal fields can be added at parks throughout the city to supplement fields that can be built in the proposed athle c complex. Es mated cost range - $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 Poten al meframe - 2 to 5 years (short term) Image source: City of Temple Parks and RecreaĆ&#x;on Department
Examples of football fields
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Page 6-9
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
4. Develop 5+ Miles of Linkage Trails Need for this ac on - Based on the recommenda ons of the city’s Trails Master Plan, linkage trails are intended to create a citywide system connec ng key des na ons.
Es mated cost range - $4,000,000 to $6,000,000 Poten al meframe - 2 to 5 years (short term)
Exis ng trails in Temple. Images source: City of Temple Parks and Recrea on Department
Page 6-10
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
5. Bend O’ The River Park Need for this ac on - This highly visible and unique park site should be developed to serve a variety of uses. These include development as an arboretum, special events facility, picnic facility, nature and river environment educa onal facility, and equestrian center. A master plan for the site should be developed to determine a more specific program and design for the site, and should also develop development and projected opera onal costs. Phasing and funding alterna ves should also be developed by the detailed master plan. In the interim, develop strategies to allow near term use by city residents for special events and picnicking. Es mated cost range - Master Plan: $75,000 to $100,000; Ini al Phase Development: $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 Poten al meframe - 2 to 5 years (short term) for master plan; 5 to 10 years (medium term) for development
Exis ng Bend O’ the River Park
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Page 6-11
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
6. Develop Prewitt Park Need for this ac on - New natural area and neighborhood park for area with poten al future growth. Natural areas such as this could include nature trails, picnic areas, outdoor classrooms, interpre ve signs, and nature play elements such as boulders or logs for children to climb on.
Es mated cost range - $400,000 to $500,000 Poten al meframe - 2 to 5 years (short term)
Examples of nature park areas and ameni es.
Page 6-12
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
7. Prairie Park Need for this ac on - This park provides a rare opportunity for prairie preserva on within the City of Temple. Features of this park could include outdoor educa on classroom, interpre ve features, learning pavilion, natural surface trails, and landscape restora on.
Es mated cost range - Master Plan: $40,000 to $50,000; Development: $250,000 to $500,000 Poten al meframe - 2 to 5 years (short term) for master plan; 5 to 10 years (medium term) for development
Examples of nature park areas and prairies.
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Page 6-13
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 6-3 Existing Park Improvements Ac on ID 1
Priority Ac on Short Term
Improve Athle c Facili es throughout Temple
City Quadrant Impacted
Poten al Low Cost Range
Poten al High Cost Range Need for this Ac on
Citywide
Create first class athle c facili es throughout the city, and prepare for growth in fast growing west Temple.
a) Wilson South - Create area for football fields, improve restrooms and pavilions, add landscape features
Southeast
$600,000
$800,000
b) Northam
Southeast
$500,000
$600,000
c) AJ Mercer
Southeast
$500,000
$600,000
d) Baker Field
Northeast
$50,000
$75,000
e) Sco and White Park Fields - Bleachers, restrooms, improve parking
Southeast
$300,000
$500,000
f) Ferguson - Minor improvements to athle c facili es
Southeast
$150,000
$300,000
g) Korompai - Improve soccer and football fields
Southeast
$250,000
$500,000
h) West Temple Park - Addi onal soccer fields and ligh ng, second restroom
Northwest
$500,000
$1,000,000
Only major athle c facility in far West Temple, significant growth in the area.
2
Short Term
Jeerson Park - Add trail, benches, pavilion, fitness sta ons, upgrade and cover playground, add irriga on and landscaping
Northeast
$200,000
$300,000
Key neighborhood park for north Temple neighborhoods.
3
Short Term
Lions Park - Improve roadway and drainage, add flat fields, shade shelters, cover basketball court, update playgrounds, improve parking, add overlook feature, add wildflower areas and addi onal trails.
Southeast
$1,500,000
$2,500,000
Temple’s premier park, heavily used, will con nue to serve as very popular and well used park.
4
Short Term
Oak Creek Park - Add trail, parking, exercise sta ons, upgrade playground and cover, add restrooms, add splash pad (in high cost range)
Southeast
$200,000
$500,000
Key neighborhood park for south Temple neighborhoods.
5
Short Term
Lions Junc on Expansion - Add teen features to the facility
Southeast/ Citywide
$200,000
$350,000
Page 6-14
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 6-3 Existing Park Improvements Ac on ID
Priority Ac on
City Quadrant Impacted
Poten al Low Cost Range
Poten al High Cost Range Need for this Ac on
6
Short Term
Conner Park - Add large pavilion, exercise sta ons, cover play area, add basketball court (full size), add restroom building, extend trail, add landscape, add small splash pad
Southwest
$500,000
$800,000
Improves key park for large sector of West Temple.
7
Short Term
Op mist Park - Add trail and benches, restroom, upgrade and cover playground, parking area, pavilion, field lights
Northeast
$250,000
$350,000
Improves for everyday use.
8
Short Term
Carver Park - Upgrade playground, add 1/2 basketball court, add picnic shelters, improve irriga on and landscaping
Southeast
$150,000
$200,000
Smaller but key park in south central por on of the city.
9
Short Term
Jaycee Park - Add exercise sta ons, pavilions, trail, upgrade playground with shade, add splash pad
Southeast
$200,000
$600,000
Improves older exis ng neighborhood park.
10
Short Term
Wilson Park - Extend trail, cover basketball court, add landscape features
Southeast
$200,000
$300,000
Adds everyday features to key city park.
11
Medium Von Rosenberg Park - Trail with benches, 1/2 Term basketball court, picnic shelters
Southwest
$150,000
$200,000
Adds to large park with rela vely few facili es.
12
Medium Freedom Park - Add trail, benches, exercise Term sta ons, expand parking, pavilion, add small splash pad
Southwest
$200,000
$500,000
Adds to key neighborhood park for southwest Temple.
13
Medium West Ridge Park - Add trail with benches, Term restroom, parking, field with lights, wildflower area, pavilion
Northwest
$500,000
$750,000
Key community park, few exis ng facili es.
14
Medium Western Hills Park - Add trail, benches, upgrade Term and cover play area, add pavilion, add play features, upgrade landscape, wildflower area, irriga on, add parking
Southwest
$300,000
$600,000
Key park serving large neighborhood area.
15
Medium Walker Park - Add pavilion, covered playground, Term trail and restroom building
Northeast
$250,000
$350,000
Key park in northern area of the City.
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Page 6-15
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 6-3 Existing Park Improvements Ac on ID 16
Priority Ac on Medium Waterford Park - Upgrade and cover Term playground, add trail and benches
City Quadrant Impacted
Poten al Low Cost Range
Southeast
$150,000
$200,000
$7,800,000
$12,875,000
Es mated Total Cost - Exis ng Park Improvements (note that partner par cipa on, dona ons and grants may fund por ons of the amounts shown)
Poten al High Cost Range Need for this Ac on
Park serves far south Temple.
1. Note: Costs shown are order of magnitude es mates prior to any detailed concept or design, and will vary as site selec on and more detailed design occurs. List is for guidance in planning, and not all items may be implemented. Grants and dona ons may reduce the cost of each item. 2. Land costs, if shown, are general es mates intended to establish allowances and will vary. 3. All costs shown are in 2014 dollars, and are rounded to nearest $50,000. Costs should be updated frequently as addi onal cost informa on becomes available. 4. Immediate is within the first year; short term is year 2 to 5; medium term is year 5 to 10; and long term is beyond 10 years.
Page 6-16
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
NW
NE SW
SE
Park loca ons recommended for key improvements
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Page 6-17
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 6-4 Indoor Facility Recommendations Ac on ID
Priority Ac on
City Sector Impacted
Poten al Low Cost Range
Poten al High Cost Range Need for this Ac on
1
Short Term
Enhance Wilson Recrea on Center (per master plan recommenda ons)
Southeast
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
2
Short Term
Sammons Community Center
Southwest
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$75,000
$100,000
3
Medium Develop West Temple Recrea on Center Term (include gymnasium, walking track, weight/
4
Long Term
5
Long Term
Northwest / citywide
fitness room, mul purpose classrooms, etc.) a) Feasibility study (for both center and pool) to confirm loca on b) Design and development of center Enhance Summit Recrea on Center (tennis Southeast courts renova on and ligh ng, addi onal interior enhancements, consider covering pool) Develop family aqua c center in West Temple Northwest (associated with proposed recrea on center)
Es mated Total Cost - Indoor Facility Recommenda ons (note that partner par cipa on, dona ons and grants may fund por ons of the amounts shown)
Enhancements will provide more eďŹƒcient classroom space for ac vi es and extend the life of the building. Key indoor facility for the senior popula on in Temple. Does not include aqua cs facility (see Item 5). Poten al for funding from Reinvestment Zone. Key indoor facility need for the growth that is occurring the western part of the city.
$7,000,000 $750,000
$12,000,000 $1,500,000 Major citywide fitness center and tennis center.
$3,000,000
$5,000,000
$12,825,000
$21,100,000
Poten al for funding from Reinvestment Zone. Key aqua c facility need for the growth that is occurring on the west side of Temple.
1. Note: Costs shown are order of magnitude es mates prior to any detailed concept or design, and will vary as site selec on and more detailed design occurs. List is for guidance in planning, and not all items may be implemented. Grants and dona ons may reduce the cost of each item. 2. Land costs, if shown, are general es mates intended to establish allowances and will vary. 3. All costs shown are in 2014 dollars, and are rounded to nearest $50,000. Costs should be updated frequently as addi onal cost informa on becomes available. 4. Immediate is within the first year; short term is year 2 to 5; medium term is year 5 to 10; and long term is beyond 10 years.
Page 6-18
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
1. Enhance Wilson Recreation Center Need for this ac on - The Wilson Recrea on Center provides indoor basketball and ac vi es for both young and older residents of east Temple. The master plan for the Wilson Recrea on Center calls for reconfiguring and upda ng the interior of the center to provide more efficient and effec ve rooms for ac vi es. The center’s interior will also be modernized so that it can con nue to serve for the next 15 to 20 years. Es mated cost range - $2,000,000 to $2,500,000 Poten al meframe - 2 to 5 years (short term)
Schema c concept of the Wilson Recrea on Center. Source: Wilson Recrea on Center Master Plan - City of Temple and Brown Reynolds Wa ord Architects, Inc.
Exis ng Wilson Recrea on Center
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Page 6-19
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
2. Sammons Community Center Need for this ac on - The Sammons Center primarily serves the senior popula on of Temple, and provides a variety of social and fitness ac vi es. Centrally located, the center’s lakeside loca on also serves as a loca on for special events and rentals, and enhancements to the adjacent outdoor areas of the facility should be made to further promote this use. Es mated cost range - up to $1,500,000 Poten al meframe - 2 to 5 years (short term)
Exis ng Sammons Community Center
Page 6-20
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
3. Develop West Temple Recreation Center Need for this ac on - A new state of the art recrea on center is proposed for West Temple. This facility would provide for the future recrea on needs of the more than 50,000 future residents of this area of the City, and would relieve future overuse of exis ng recrea on centers such as Wilson and the Summit. Programming and opera onal master planning should be conducted to determine the size and special configura on of the proposed center, and should be done in concert with development of the master plan for the adjacent athle c complex. Development could be funded by future bond and reinvestment zone funds. Es mated cost range - Feasibility Study: $75,000 to $100,000; Development: $7,000,000 to $12,000,000 Poten al meframe - 5 to 10 years (medium term)
Typical ameni es that can be oered in a modern recrea on center
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Page 6-21
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
4. Enhance Summit Recreation Center Need for this ac on - Recently renovated, the Summit Center serves as the major citywide fitness center. Addi onal improvements to the tennis courts are needed to maintain the quality of play at the center. The master plan for the facility should con nue to serve as a guide for implementa on of improvements. Es mated cost range - $750,000 to $1,500,000 Poten al meframe - Beyond 10 years (long term)
Exis ng Summit Recrea on Center
Page 6-22
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
5. Develop Swimming Pool in West Temple Need for this ac on - As the western area of the city grows, a swimming pool that serves both the western sectors of the city as well as all residents of Temple should be developed. The new facility could be pa erned a er the very successful Lion’s Junc on, but could also include lanes for fitness swimming and a poten al indoor fitness component. This pool should be associated with the proposed indoor recrea on center (item #3). Es mated cost range - $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 Poten al meframe - Beyond 10 years (long term)
Exis ng Lions Junc on Family Water Park in Temple. Images source: City of Temple Parks and Recrea on Department Typical examples of indoor and outdoor lap pools
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Page 6-23
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Table 6-5 Recreational Trail Development Ac on ID
Priority Ac on
City Sector Impacted
Poten al Low Cost Range
Poten al High Cost Range Need for this Ac on
1
Short Term
Jaycee park Trail Loop
Southeast
$120,000
$180,000
Area demand, loca on
2
Short Term
Prewi Park Trail
Northeast
$150,000
$180,000
Overdue need in loca on
3
Medium West Ridge Park Trail Term
Northwest
$200,000
$280,000
Connec vity, loca on and demand
4
Medium Waterford Park Trail Term
Southeast
$150,000
$200,000
Demand, connec vity
5
Medium Von Rosenberg Trail Term
Southwest
$100,000
$130,000
Connec vity, demand
6
Medium Oak Creek Park Trail Term
Southeast
$130,000
$200,000
Loca on, connec vity, demand
7
Short Term
Canyon Creek Trail
Southeast
$500,000
$800,000
Nature preserve trail, demand
8
Short Term
Bird Creek Interceptor Trail
Southeast
$200,000
$350,000
Nature walk, connec vity
9
Long Term
Walker Park Trail
Northeast
$100,000
$150,000
Loca on
$1,650,000
$2,470,000
Es mated Total Cost - Linkage Trail Development (note that partner par cipa on, dona ons and grants may fund por ons of the amounts shown)
1. Note: Costs shown are order of magnitude es mates prior to any detailed concept or design, and will vary as site selec on and more detailed design occurs. List is for guidance in planning, and not all items may be implemented. Grants and dona ons may reduce the cost of each item. 2. Land costs, if shown, are general es mates intended to establish allowances and will vary. 3. All costs shown are in 2014 dollars, and are rounded to nearest $50,000. Costs should be updated frequently as addi onal cost informa on becomes available. 4. Immediate is within the first year; short term is year 2 to 5; medium term is year 5 to 10; and long term is beyond 10 years.
Page 6-24
Chapter Six | Master Plan Recommendations
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
Chapter Seven | Implementation Strategy
Page 7-1
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan
FUNDING STRATEGIES RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
Funding strategies will differ for each type of facility. However, the majority of the funding required to address the city’s park needs must come from local sources, primarily bond funding and sales tax revenue. While improvements to exis ng parks can be built with local funds, other park, open space and trail projects may be able to contend for federal and state funds. This sec on provides brief descrip ons of these funding implementa on assistance opportuni es.
Key City-Generated Funding Sources ▪ General Fund Expenditures - These are primarily used for minor improvements to exis ng parks and opera ons. Some funding should be set aside annually to cover upgrades above what is currently allocated within the general fund for day-to-day maintenance. This plan recommends that an amount of at least $250,000 should be budgeted annually for general improvements and replacement costs in addi on to the current general fund expenditures.
“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” ~Greek Proverb
▪ Sales Tax Revenue - Sales tax revenue through the city’s 4B fund can be used for community facili es such as parks, trails and recrea on buildings. This op on should be considered for projects with significant community-wide benefit. Recrea onal features with significant impact on quality of life will make Temple a much more a rac ve and economically viable loca on to live, work and play. ▪ Voter Approved Bond Funds - Recent bond issues in other Texas ci es for park and open space preserva on needs have been successful, and point to a con nued desire for increased spending on quality of life items in the fast growing ci es of the area. A bond referendum to fund many of the larger development items recommended by this master plan should be considered over the next five years. ▪ Park Facility Funding through the Parkland Dedica on Ordinance - This type of ordinance can provide a vehicle for development of parks, open space and trails through private developers as land is developed in Temple. Specific considera ons for the ordinance are discussed in a subsequent sec on of this chapter. However, the building of neighborhood based park facili es by developers and Home Owner Associa ons should be encouraged.
Page 7-2
Chapter Seven | Implementation Strategy
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan ▪ Tax Increment Finance (TIF) and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) Districts - A TIF District is a zone where certain property tax revenues generated in the district are reinvested back into the district through development of infrastructure. TIFs operate on the idea that public investment helps s mulate and grow property values, jus fying the reinvestment of property taxes back into the district genera ng the revenue. If feasible, explore the use of TIF/ TIRZ funds to address needs iden fied in this plan.
Key Grant Funding Sources Grants can provide a significant source of addi onal funding for parks, but should not be considered as the primary source for park construc on. ▪ Texas Parks and Wildlife Department - Texas Recrea on and Parks Account (TRPA) is the primary source for parks grants in Texas, and in addi on, provides funding for recrea onal trails. Up to a 50 percent match can be obtained, up to $400,000 for new parks and trail facili es. Grant applica ons that stress joint funding, and support from two or more local en es may have a greater chance of contending for the TRPA grants. These grants are highly compe ve, and in recent years there have been far fewer grants available or awarded due to state budget restric ons. ▪ Transporta on Alterna ves Program - Under the new Federal policy, MAP-21, the previous Transporta on Enhancements, Safe Routes to School and Recrea onal Trails programs are combined into one. Under this new program, 2% of federal highway funds are reserved for projects defined as transporta on alterna ves such as trails. ▪ Indoor Recrea on Grants from TPWD - These grants are available to local governments for the construc on or renova on of indoor recrea on facili es. This assistance is in the form of 50% matching grant funds up to $750,000. Local governments must apply, permanently dedicate the building for public recrea onal use and assume responsibility for opera on and maintenance. This grant program is currently suspended. ▪ Environmental Protec on Agency - The EPA can provide funding for projects with money collected in pollu on se lements, or with funding targeted at wetland and habitat preserva on or reclama on. ▪ Founda on and Company Grants - These can assist in direct funding for projects, while others exist to help ci zen efforts get established with small seed funds or technical and publicity assistance. ▪ Grants for Greenways – This is a na onal lis ng that provides descrip ons of a broad spectrum of both general and specific groups who provide technical and financial support for greenway interests.
Partnerships ▪ Partnerships with Volunteer Groups – Partnerships with volunteer groups can be helpful when construc ng trails or playground equipment. Their effort can be used as part of the required match for many grants such as the
Chapter Seven | Implementation Strategy
Page 7-3
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Transporta on Alterna ves Program. There are a variety of sources for volunteers including: user groups, local residents, corporate community service ini a ves, and business and civic support groups. ▪ Parks Founda on - Parks founda ons are non-profit organiza ons and another source for volunteers. People can make tax deduc ble dona ons to a founda on, which in turn provides financial support and volunteer me to a city’s parks system. Parks founda ons o en assist with physical improvements to a park or support recrea onal programming. They essen ally help fill the gap between what needs to be done and what a parks department can afford to do. ▪ Joint Planning with Temple ISD - Establish joint planning review sessions with the Temple Independent School District to allow for coordina on of facili es and possible pooling of resources for a partnership in acquiring land for future schools and parks. Establish a formal process and agreements for working directly and con nuously with Temple ISD, so as to acquire lands for neighborhood and family parks in conjunc on with school district property acquisi ons. ▪ Joint Planning with Bell County - Establish joint planning review sessions with Bell County to allow for coordina on of facili es and possible pooling of resources for a partnership to jointly develop park and trail facili es.
POLICIES
AND
ORDINANCES
Parkland Dedica on Ordinance - This type of ordinance is used by many ci es, and is now generally not considered onerous by the development community, but rather is welcomed as a method to help fund smaller parks in a mely manner. A city’s parkland dedica on ordinance provides an important mechanism to ensure that adequate parkland is available when new development occurs by requiring land or cash in lieu of land for new residen al developments in the city. The current ordinance requires one acre of parkland to be dedicated for every 133 dwelling units in a plat. This is on the lower end of the range when comparing the peer ci es that also have a parkland dedica on ordinance (note that not all peer ci es have the ordinance). The number of acres to be dedicated ranges from one acre per 50 dwelling units to one acre per 150 dwelling units among peer ci es. One city, Waco, calculates the acreage based on a percentage of the total land area to be developed at up to 5% of the total pla ed area. For Temple, the dedica on must be at least three acres in size, or else the developer will be required to pay the fee in lieu of dedica ng parkland. Furthermore, if the dedica on is less than five acres in size, the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission may require payment of cash if sufficient parkland is already available within the area of the proposed development, or if expanding and improving exis ng parks is determined to be er serve the area. The fee in lieu of parkland is calculated at $225 per dwelling unit in Temple. The current ordinance states that the Page 7-4
Chapter Seven | Implementation Strategy
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Director of Park and Recrea on has 30 days to iden fy where the funds will be spent. If the funds are used for development of an exis ng park, then the city has two years to spend it. If the funds are used for acquisi on or development of a new park, then the city has five years to spend it. This amount is above average when compared to the other peer ci es; however this fee should be recalculated every three to five years to adjust for infla on and the true cost of land acquisi on. The cash in lieu of land fee ranges from $100 per dwelling unit up to $274 per dwelling unit, with the average being close to $202 per dwelling unit. Furthermore, some ci es also require a park development fee. This fee is in addi on to the parkland dedica on or the fee in lieu of land. The inten on of the park development fee is to oset the development costs the city would incur to develop the parkland that is dedicated. Of the peer ci es that have this addi onal fee, the fee ranges from $358 per dwelling unit to $500 per dwelling unit.
Table 7.1 Parkland Dedication Ordinance Comparisons City Temple
Parkland to be Dedicated 1 acre per 133 dwelling units
Fee in Lieu of Land $225 per dwelling unit
Bryan
1 acre per 74 dwelling units (single family) or 1 acre per 90 dwelling units (mul -family)
$162 per dwelling unit (single family); $133 per dwelling unit (mul -family)
College Sta on
Georgetown
1 acre per 117 dwelling units for neighborhood parks AND 1 acre per 128 dwelling units for community parks 1 acre per 50 dwelling units
New Braunfels
1 acre per 150 dwelling units
$274 per dwelling unit for neighborhood parks AND $250 per dwelling unit for community parks $250 per dwelling unit (single family); $200 per dwelling unit (mul -family) $100 per dwelling unit
Waco
Up to 5% of area if accepted by council.
No fee in lieu of land is oered/calculated
Other Requirements Dedica on must be at least 3 acres or pay fee; if less than 5 acres P&Z may require fee in lieu of land. Park Development Fee required in addi on to land/fee in lieu of land - set at $358 per dwelling unit (single family) or $292 per dwelling unit (mul -family); if dedica on is less than 6 acres city may accept or require payment of fees in lieu. Park Development Fee required in addi on to land/fee in lieu of land - set at $362 per dwelling unit for neighborhood parks AND $375 per dwelling unit for community parks; floodplain lands set at 3 to 1 (3 acres of floodplain will be equal to 1 acre of parkland). If less than 3 acres then fee in lieu of land may be required by council. Park Development Fee required in addi on to land/fee in lieu of land - set at $500 per dwelling unit; if dedica on is less than 5 acres then park director can accept land, require fee in lieu of land, or grant credit for private park; credit can be given for up to 50% of required land for private parks. No other requirements are stated.
Chapter Seven | Implementation Strategy
Page 7-5
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan Trail Development Ordinance - A trail development ordinance is usually a component of a Parkland Dedica on Ordinance. Similar ordinances have been enacted in other ci es in Texas, and have proven successful in helping to get trails constructed. O en the city will fund regional trails and trailhead development, and then require complete developer construc on of key trail segments that fall within their property limits. Credits for landscaping, pavement, or other infrastructure elements could be given in return for trail construc on outside of Temple’s Trails Master Plan. A key point to consider is that many developments will add trails automa cally; therefore, such a mandatory trail development ordinance only serves to create a level playing field between the developments that include trails and those that will build them only if required to do so.
Other Policy Recommendations ▪ Establish a city ordinance that requires single loaded streets along future neighborhood parks. Single loaded roads allow for accessible parks that are safe and invi ng. Safety is generally achieved by the informal surveillance provided by the residents overlooking the park. ▪ Establish a city ordinance that mandates the dona on of floodplain lands along creek corridors. Such land is not developable yet provides habitat and corridors of movement for fauna and the opportunity for use as open space, greenways and trails. ▪ Establish a formal process and agreements for working directly and con nuously with the other city departments that can assist in acquiring parkland or in jointly developing facili es. ▪ Pro-ac vely search for parkland to target for acquisi on over the next five years. Include Temple’s ETJ in this search. ▪ Endorse the park to popula on ra os established by this plan to guide the acquisi on and development of parks in all sectors of the city. These are 3.2 acres per 1,000 popula on for neighborhood parks and 6.0 acres per 1,000 popula on for community parks. ▪ Endorse the crea on of linear park corridors that bisect and link parts of the city. Use the corridors iden fied in the city’s Trails Master Plan. Establish standards for developing land adjacent to linear park corridors. These can include helping to fund linear parks, providing pedestrian connec ons to the parks, minimum amounts of landscaping along those corridors, and signage regula ons adjacent to or within the linear park corridors. ▪ Ensure that adequate maintenance personnel is provided to take care of parkland in the city. Expect and provide an excep onal level of care for high visibility park corridors. ▪ Endorse the need for the acquisi on and preserva on of open space throughout the city. Consider acquiring these lands in conjunc on with needed park areas.
Page 7-6
Chapter Seven | Implementation Strategy
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan ▪ Direct city staff to pursue alterna ve methods of funding park system and programming improvement such as partnerships with non-governmental en es, grant funding sources, establishing “Friends of...” organiza ons, and contrac ng out programs or opera ons. Consider these and other methods only where feasible and financially sound.
OPERATIONS
AND
MAINTENANCE
Current Staffing Levels - The Parks and Recrea on Department is responsible for the maintenance of approximately 790 acres out of the total 831 acres of parkland throughout the city, as well as almost 220 miles of roadside right of way. The present maintenance staff includes two foremen, three crew leaders, 8.5 full- me equivalent (FTE) equipment operators, and 16.95 FTE maintenance workers. On average, each staff member is responsible for maintaining 25 +/- acres. As a comparison, NRPA projects a preferred maintenance range of 15 to 20 acres per FTE. The city also uses contract personnel for some maintenance tasks. The contracted maintenance covers mowing for three parks (Conner, Bend O’ the River, and Airport Park), two trails (Pepper Creek and Friar’s Creek trails) and several rights of way (outer loop, por ons of IH-35, and Old Howard Road). The annual cost ranges from $60,000 to $80,000. A separate contract funds downtown planter maintenance. At currently funding levels, park maintenance is basic and generally only adequate to fund mowing, trash pickup, and other day to day needs. Budgets for basic equipment and general repairs are frequently expended by early summer, requiring budget supplements or significant reduc ons in repairs at the end busiest me of the year. To keep all parks at an expected level of repair, increasing the general repairs budget should be provided for. With the recommenda ons of addi onal parks, recrea on facili es and trails, it should be recognized that addi onal manpower is needed for the required maintenance of these various projects. The number of addi onal staff needed to a end to these proposed facili es will vary depending on the use of these facili es. The provision of adequate staffing must be included as each facility is planned and developed. The approximate staffing impact for each major park facility improvement should be es mated and included in annual budget reviews. Poten al efficiencies, whether through addi onal outside contrac ng or through economics of scale, should be considered and pursued. As the park system grows, addi onal maintenance resources should be provided to the Parks and Recrea on Department. This includes new mowing and transpor ng equipment, as well as park maintenance staff. Over the next ten years, as new facili es are added, park maintenance staff should grow at the same rate.
A Sustainability Approach to Maintenance O en parks and recrea on agencies are the single largest landowner in a city or community. As such, stewardship of the community’s natural resources and recrea on ameni es is a key parks department responsibility, all the while managing
Chapter Seven | Implementation Strategy
Page 7-7
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan the conscien ous expenditure of tax dollars. According to the Na onal Recrea on and Park Associa on (NRPA), “Good stewardship requires management prac ces that protect and enhance the recrea onal, environmental, social and cultural values of public lands and natural and cultural resources in a manner that is cost-effec ve and sustainable for future genera ons.” The role of the Temple’s Parks and Recrea on Department in the conserva on of natural and recrea on resources, while implemen ng “sustainability” in its approach to resource management, not only contributes to the health and welfare of its residents, it also reduces opera ons and maintenance costs, par cularly for mowing and irriga on. The “sustainability” approach to natural resource management is not only an environmentally sensi ve management strategy, it is “good business” for the city and its residents. Sustainability is defined as the ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future genera ons to meet their own needs. Basically, sustainability embraces a stewardship approach that conserves our natural resources for use by future genera ons. These natural resources include: ▪ Clean water ▪ Clean air ▪ Nutrient rich topsoil ▪ Wildlife habitat ▪ Trees and vegeta on ▪ Harnessing of wind and solar energy to reduce the use of fossil fuels ▪ Development of parks with water conserva on in mind, e.g. smart irriga on and treated effluent reuse water where feasible The Temple Parks and Recrea on Department is responsible for the care and maintenance of approximately 831 acres throughout the city in 71 park loca ons and recrea onal sites. To provide the highest level of park and recrea on facili es and ameni es, while maintaining these facili es in the most cost-effec ve manner, the Parks and Recrea on Department should implement a “sustainability” based approach to park development and maintenance. This approach includes: ▪ Plan ng na ve tree and grass species that are water conserving and hardy to the central Texas climate. This approach will encourage the “greening” of parks, while limi ng the amount of long-term maintenance required to achieve a rac ve facili es. ▪ Developing ac ve areas in parks and greenways that will be maintained to levels dictated by the intended use. For example, high intensity use areas such as athle c facili es or playgrounds will have a higher degree of maintenance and cul va on. On the other hand, areas that are less used or do not require a high level of care, such as disc golf courses or open play areas, can receive Page 7-8
Chapter Seven | Implementation Strategy
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan less frequent or less intensive maintenance. ▪ Plan ng more trees in parks in mass plan ngs rather than lines or rows creates more shade, bird habitat, rainfall absorp on and summer cooling effect. ▪ Plan ng na ve grasses and wild flowers in peripheral areas of parks and in park sites that are planned as natural or habitat areas. These areas will only need to be mowed once or twice per year and rarely fer lized, reducing maintenance costs. ▪ Provide beds of na ve and drought tolerant ornamental shrubs and perennial plants for color in “high-impact” areas, such as park entrances. These beds can be mulched with recycled green waste such as Christmas trees, chipped branches and dead trees, and lawn clippings to help the soil retain moisture and reduce irriga on demand. ▪ Changing irriga on prac ces to water only those areas that are designated as “high intensity use” areas, such as playground and adjacent picnic areas, designated sports prac ce fields, and athle c facili es that host league play. This approach will conserve water and reduce costs by discouraging turf growth except in priority loca ons. ▪ Implemen ng drip irriga on for ornamental plan ng beds. ▪ Implemen ng temporary drip irriga on systems for new tree plan ngs which will then be decommissioned a er a three year establishment period. ▪ Use treated effluent reuse water in areas where direct human contact can be managed and where connec ons are feasible.
PLAN UPDATES The 2014 Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan is a guide to be used to develop the exis ng system for future needs over the next five to ten years, with the ul mate life of this plan being beyond ten years. However, during that meframe changes will occur that impact the recommenda ons. For example, the community may indicate a special need for a facility not listed in the recommenda ons, or development of some of the recommenda ons listed in this plan will occur. A review and update of this plan by city staff should be conducted every year or when a significant change does occur. These updates can be published in short report format and a ached to this plan for easy use. Four key areas for focus of these periodic reviews are as follows: 1. Facility Inventory - New facili es should be added to the parks inventory, as well as any significant improvements to Temple ISD and private parks or facili es. Improvements by other major en es that could influence recrea on in Temple should also be noted. 2. Public Involvement - As men oned previously, this plan reflects current popula on and a tudes as expressed by the ci zens of Temple. However, over me those a tudes and interests may change as the city changes. Periodic opinion surveys are Chapter Seven | Implementation Strategy
Page 7-9
Temple Parks, Recrea on and Open Space Master Plan recommended to provide a current account of the a tudes of the ci zens and to provide addi onal direc on from the public on issues that may arise. A surveying interval of every four to five years is recommended, and may be combined with other citywide ci zen sa sfac on surveys. 3. Facility Use - Facility use is a key factor in determining the need for renova on of addi onal facili es. Updates on league par cipa on of sports facili es should be gathered each season with data from each associa on. Key eorts should be made to con nuously compile data on usage at all facili es, both exis ng and new. Changes in par cipa on by ci zens of Temple as well as residents outside the city limits should also be recorded. 4. Ac on Plan - As items from the ac on plan discussed earlier are implemented, updates should be made to this priori zed list to provide a current schedule and priority list for city sta.
Page 7-10
Chapter Seven | Implementation Strategy
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Appendix
Page a
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Page b
Appendix
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Appendix
Page c
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Page d
Appendix
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Appendix
Page e
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Page f
Appendix
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Appendix
Page g
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Page h
Appendix
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Appendix
Page i
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Page j
Appendix
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Appendix
Page k
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Page l
Appendix
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Appendix
Page m
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Page n
Appendix
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Appendix
Page o
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Page p
Appendix
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Appendix
Page q
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Page r
Appendix
Temple Parks, RecreaĆ&#x;on and Open Space Master Plan
Appendix
Page s