HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 4399-01-2015 i
A Resolution
NO. 4399-01-2015
ADOPTING THE 2015 PARK, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE MASTER
PLAN FOR THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS
i
WHEREAS, in 1909, the first Park Master Plan, authored by George Kessler, was
adopted by the City of Fort Worth Park Board, and successive Park Master Plans by Hare
and Hare were adopted in 1930 and 1957;
WHEREAS, these plans laid the foundation for the park system in Fort Worth and,
on November 10, 1992, the City Council adopted a Strategic Plan for the Fort Worth Park
and Recreation Department to guide the management of its resources;
WHEREAS, on June 30, 1998; the City Council adopted the 1998 Park, Recreation j
and Open Space Master Plan, which included the first locally determined needs-based I
standards in the history of the Parks and Community Services Department;
WHEREAS, in 2000, the City Council adopted the first City of Fort Worth
Comprehensive Plan, which serves as the umbrella plan for all City services, growth, and
development;
I
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 2004 Park, Recreation and Open Space
Master Plan on June 22, 2004, along with an update to that plan on February 9, 2010,
incorporating them both by reference into the City's Comprehensive Plan;
P
WHEREAS, the adoption of a new Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
every ten years is vital to the City's ability to remain competitive for outside funding for
capital improvements, renovations, and maintenance of the City's park system, including
funding from state grants administered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department;
WHEREAS, in preparation for the 2015 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master
Plan ("2015 Master Plan"), the Parks and Community Services Department commissioned
a Needs Assessment Study for use in setting local standards; prioritizing park, recreation
and open space needs both citywide and within each of the City's five Park Planning
Districts; and developing an action plan to comply with the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department's grant guidelines;
WHEREAS, the 2015 Master Plan builds upon the legacy of planning and
stewardship and provides for assessments, standards, objectives, priorities,
recommendations, strategies, and actions that will guide the development of the park,
recreation and open space system for the next five to ten years;
i
,
i
ORT WORT
i
i
WHEREAS, the 2015 Master Plan includes, among other things, an updated park
facility inventory, current demographics, population growth projections to 2025, current
trends, and revised park classifications, along with a geographically defined level of
service for dog parks, regional skate parks and universal playgrounds;
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2014, the Parks and Community Services Advisory
Board unanimously endorsed the 2015 Master Plan;
WHEREAS, December 19, 2014, the City Plan Commission endorsed the 2015
Master Plan;
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, the City Council received an informal report (IR j
No. 9697) and a briefing on the 2015 Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the official copy of the 2015 Master Plan, which is the subject of this
resolution, is on file with the Fort Worth City Secretary's Office.
4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE i
G
CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS, THAT:
i
1. The standards and classifications included in the 2015 Park, Recreation and Open
Space Master Plan, the official copy of which is on file with the Fort Worth City i
Secretary, are officially adopted as the standards and classifications for the City of
Fort Worth Park, Recreation, and Open Space System;
2. The 2015 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan for the City of Fort Worth
is hereby officially adopted as the guide for allocation of resources for the
improvement and continued development of Fort Worth's Park, Recreation, and f
Open Space System;
P
3. The 2015 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan for the City of Fort Worth
is hereby incorporated as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
4. The adoption of this 2015 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan supersedes ,
previous park, recreation and open space master plans.
Adopted this 27th day of January, 2015.
AV 000000
XY 00 -0000
8•0 -0
ATTEST: ---- ----- o p d
Mary J. Kayser, City Sec tary da 000 0.00
Ay
4a Nxo-O�y +I
ORT WORT
I
FORTWORTH
January 27, 2015
On behalf of the Parks and Community Services Advisory Board and the City of
Fort Worth Parks and Community Services Department we are pleased to
present the 2015 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. Adopted by
the Fort Worth City Council on January 27, 2015 (Resolution No. ), the 2015
Master Plan continues the legacy of previous park planning efforts which began
with the first park plan developed by George Kessler in 1909 and will serve as a
guide for the planning and development of the Fort Worth park system for the
next five to ten years.
Consistent with the 1930 and 1957 Hare and Hare Master Plans, the Park and
Recreation Department's 1992 Strategic Plan and the 1998 and 2004 Park,
Recreation and Open Space Master Plans, the 2015 Master Plan will provide
strategic direction to ensure that the existing park system is preserved and
protected and the future park system is effectively planned for and efficiently
developed. The 2015 Master Plan enables the Parks and Community Services
Department to assess priorities and formulate resource allocation
recommendations in a strategically holistic, proactive and prudent manner to
ensure the sustainability of the city's present and future park system.
We look forward to working together with the citizens of Fort Worth in building
upon the legacy of our park system into the next decade and beyond.
Sincerely,
Richard Zavala, Director Sheila Hill, Chair
Parks & Community Services Department Parks & Community Services Advisory Board
PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The City of Fort Worth,4200 South Freeway, Suite 2200,Fort Worth Texas,76115-1499
(817)392-PARK Fax(817)392-5724
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
Fort Worth City Council Resolution
Executive Summary
SectionI: Introduction...............................................................................................................1-1
Introduction.......................................................................................................................1-1
History of Park Master Planning......................................................................................I-1
Useof This Master Plan ...................................................................................................1-3
Section II: Goals and Objectives.............................................................................................II-1
Introduction......................................................................................................................II-1
City of Fort Worth Mission Statement............................................................................11-1
City of Fort Worth Vision Statement...............................................................................I1-1
City of Fort Worth Six Core Values................................................................................11-1
Departmental Mission Statement.....................................................................................I1-1
Departmental Goals and Objectives ................................................................................11-2
Section III: Plan Development Process..................................................................................III-1
Overview........................................................................................................................11I-1
Park Planning Districts..................................................................................................III-2
Inventory of Existing Facilities, Programs and Opportunities ......................................III-2
2015 City of Fort Worth Park Planning Districts Ma 111-3
2013 Needs Assessment................................................................................................111-4
2014 Bond Program.......................................................................................................I1I-5
2014 Public Survey........................................................................................................ III-5
SectionIV: Trends...................................................................................................................IV-1
Overview........................................................................................................................IV-1
Community Revitalization Trends.................................................................................IV-2
Green Infrastructure.......................................................................................................IV-2
Sustainable Development..............................................................................................IV-3
SocialTrends.................................................................................................................IV-4
TourismTrends..............................................................................................................IV-5
EconomicTrends...........................................................................................................IV-6
HealthTrends.................................................................................................................IV-7
DemographicTrends .....................................................................................................IV-9
Technological Trends ..................................................................................................IV-10
Urban Development Trends.........................................................................................IV-11
Parks and Recreation Administration Trends .............................................................IV-14
National Recreational Trends......................................................................................IV-15
Parks, Recreation Facilities and Programming Trends................................................IV-18
TrendImplications.......................................................................................................IV-22
Section V: Area and Facility Concepts and Standards......................................................... V-1
Introduction..................................................................................................................... V-1
City of Fort Worth Park Classifications and Services Standards................................... V-3
i
CitywideDemographics ................................................................................................. V-5
Geographic Planning Area.............................................................................................. V-9
ParkUnits ..................................................................................................................... V-12
Neighborhood Based Parks........................................................................................... V-13
Community Based Parks............................................................................................... V-21
Special Use &Nature Based Parks............................................................................... V-25
Trail Classifications and Standards .............................................................................. V-27
Section VI: Inventory of Areas and Facilities.......................................................................VI-1
Introduction....................................................................................................................VI-1
Existing Park, Recreation and Open Space Infrastructure.............................................VI-1
Park Planning District 1 (PPD 1).................................................................................VI-13
Park Planning District 2 (PPD 2).................................................................................VI-16
Park Planning District 3 (PPD 3).................................................................................VI-19
Park Planning District 4 (PPD 4).................................................................................VI-22
Park Planning District 5 (PPD 5).................................................................................VI-28
Relationships with Other Facilities and Public Lands.................................................VI-32
Providing Human Services..........................................................................................VI-35
General Recreation and Community Programs...........................................................VI-36
Departmental Programs...............................................................................................VI-37
Section VII: Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs ........................................ VII-1
Overview.......................................................................................................................VII-1
Park Planning District 1 (PPD 1)..................................................................................VII-2
PPD 1: Park Land Needs.........................................................................................VII-2
PPD 1: Park Facility Priorities.................................................................................VII-3
-Year Work Plan........................................................................................VII-3
PPD 1: 5
Park Planning District 2 (PPD 2)..................................................................................VII-4
PPD 2: Park Land Needs.........................................................................................VII-5
PPD 2: Park Facility Priorities.................................................................................VII-5
PPD 2: 5-Year Work Plan........................................................................................VII-6
Park Planning District 3 (PPD 3)..................................................................................VII-6
PPD 3: Park Land Needs.........................................................................................VII-7
PPD 3: Park Facility Priorities.................................................................................VII-7
PPD 3: 5-Year Work Plan........................................................................................VII-8
Park Planning District 4 (PPD 4)..................................................................................VII-9
PPD 4: Park Land Needs.........................................................................................VII-9
PPD 4: Park Facility Priorities...............................................................................VII-10
PPD 4: 5-Year Work Plan......................................................................................VII-I 1
Park Planning District 5 (PPD 5)................................................................................VII-13
PPD 5: Park Land Needs.......................................................................................VII-13
PPD 5: Park Facility Priorities...............................................................................VII-14
PPD 5: 5-Year Work Plan......................................................................................VII-14
SectionVIIL• Appendix........................................................................................................VIII-1
2013 Needs Assessment Study................................................................................... VIII-1
2014 Survey Questions VIII-29
2014 Public Survey Summary.................................................................................. VIII-31
2013-2014 Map Area Independent School Districts ................................................ VIII-37
City of Fort Worth Other Plans and Studies............................................................. VIII-38
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Fort Worth City Council Parks & Community Services Advisory Board
Mayor Betsy Price Chair Sheila Ann Hill
Mayor Pro Tern Sal Espino Place 2 Teresa Ayala
District 3 W.B.Zimmerman Place 3 Diane Criswell
District 4 Danny Scarth Place 4 Thomas Reddick
District 5 Gyna Bivens Place 5 William Mitchell
District 6 Jungus Jordan Place 6 James Doherty
District 7 Dennis Shingleton Place 7 Chase Dustin
District 8 Kelly Allen Gray Place 8 Lee Niata Johnson
District 9 Ann Zadeh Place 9 Dan Villegas
City Manager Director Parks & Community Services Dept.
David Cooke Richard Zavala
Assistant City Manager Assistant Director—Planning&Resource Mgmt.
Community Development Services David Creek
Susan Alanis
Asstistant Director—Park Operations
Sandra Youngblood
Assistant Director—Community Services Admin.
Sonia Singleton
Asstistant Director—Golf&Athletics Division
Nancy Bunton,PGA
City Forester
Melinda Adams
Capital Projects/Infrastructure Manager
Joel McElhany, PLA
Senior Landscape Architect
Thomas J. Alves,PLA,AICP
Senior Planner
Joseph W. Janucik
Germaine Joseph
iii
CITY OF FORT WORTH FORT WORTH..,
Council Districts I` ,�
2-Salvador Espino 6-Jungus Jordan
3-W.B.Zimmerman Betsy Price 7-Dennis Shingleton
Mayor of Fort Worth
4-Danny Scarth �_� 8-Kelly Allen Gray
5-Gyna Bivens �^ Ta7E t4 9-Ann Zadeh
GLE
AVON E Oy1l
Dennis Shingleton 1 F Salvador Espino
District District 2
e ww °i Hlcicsl RA NI7� Ma or Pro Tem
I_
7 °�+ R T
�r
` - I
L, ODD
'r•.� �qg _ r r
CLERO z t TE NC TER. - z
° 'I o
ONGHO w I > a
i ST TE MW 3&
M AM Danny Scarth E es PllTY
7E IN, District 4 g4 /
AKER -
Ann Zadeh o' H Yin i
District9 I � `oa~
/IF l� CfiEEN `@ S l r �
610
7 itE
t sETll Q£_ - t T E '
�
t
LAN
ST ROM E' °
N 90WIE --
I� r Rv 7 IK $ Gyna Bivens
District 5
U
M•
SEAS
C
W3 IPO,
^r
z AL7AM
Dl 9 -
. 5
SINGER r
DC
MDPHE ON
W.B.'Zim'Zimmerman i 4
District 3 O F m >
L II
RENDON ROYIIEV'
Q $ = Kelly Atlen-Gray
District 8
Jungus Jordan
Distriot6 basedata.CITY OF FORT WORTHGEOGRPPHIC INFOMATIONSYSTEM
iv
A Resolution
NO.
ADOPTING THE 2015 PARK, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE MASTER
PLAN FOR THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS
WHEREAS, in 1909, the first Park Master Plan, authored by George Kessler, was
adopted by the City of Fort Worth Park Board, and successive Park Master Plans by Hare
and Hare were adopted in 1930 and 1957;
WHEREAS, these plans laid the foundation for the park system in Fort Worth and,
on November 10, 1992, the City Council adopted a Strategic Plan for the Fort Worth Park
and Recreation Department to guide the management of its resources;
WHEREAS, on June 30, 1998, the City Council adopted the 1998 Park, Recreation
and Open Space Master Plan, which included the first locally determined needs-based
standards in the history of the Parks and Community Services Department;
WHEREAS, in 2000, the City Council adopted the first City of Fort Worth
Comprehensive Plan, which serves as the umbrella plan for all City services, growth, and
development;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 2004 Park, Recreation and Open Space
Master Plan on June 22, 2004, along with an update to that plan on February 9, 2010,
incorporating them both by reference into the City's Comprehensive Plan;
WHEREAS, the adoption of a new Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
every ten years is vital to the City's ability to remain competitive for outside funding for
capital improvements, renovations, and maintenance of the City's park system, including
funding from state grants administered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department;
WHEREAS, in preparation for the 2015 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master
Plan ("2015 Master Plan"), the Parks and Community Services Department commissioned
a Needs Assessment Study for use in setting local standards; prioritizing park, recreation
and open space needs both citywide and within each of the City's five (5) Park Planning
Districts; and developing an action plan to comply with the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department's grant guidelines;
WHEREAS, the 2015 Master Plan builds upon the legacy of planning and
stewardship and provides for assessments, standards, objectives, priorities,
recommendations, strategies and actions that will guide the development of the park,
recreation and open space system for the next five to ten years;
i
ORT WORT
WHEREAS, the 2015 Master Plan includes, among other things, an updated park
facility inventory, current demographics, population growth projections to 2025, current
trends and revised park classifications, along with a geographically defined level of
service for dog parks, regional skate parks and universal playgrounds;
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2014, the Parks and Community Services Advisory
Board unanimously endorsed the 2015 Master Plan;
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2014 the City Plan Commission unanimously
endorsed the 2015 Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, the City Council received an informal report (IR
No. 9697) and a briefing on the 2015 Master Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS, THAT:
1. The standards and classifications included in the 2015 Park, Recreation and Open
Space Master Plan are officially adopted as the standards and classifications for the
City of Fort Worth Park, Recreation, and Open Space System;
2. The 2015 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan for the City of Fort Worth
is hereby officially adopted as the guide for allocation of resources for the
improvement and continued development of Fort Worth's Park, Recreation, and
Open Space System;
3. The 2015 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan for the City of Fort Worth
is hereby incorporated as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
4. The adoption of this 2015 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan supersedes
previous park, recreation and open space master plans.
Adopted this day of January 2015.
ATTEST:
Mary J. Kayser, City Secretary
ORTWORT
PARK, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
January 2015
Parks, open space, and recreational opportunities are important, not only to enhance quality of life
and neighborhood vitality,but also to preserve natural resources and provide alternative
transportation links between our neighborhoods and growth centers. The City of Fort Worth
Parks and Community Services Department(PACS)has prepared this 2015 Park,Recreation and
Open Space Master Plan to provide guidance to the City in its management and development of
parkland and recreational facilities.
Since the last Master Plan report was adopted in 2004 and the updated plan was adopted in 2010
the city has continued to see environmental,economic and demographic conditions play an
important role in park development. According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data,
Fort Worth was the fastest growing large city of more than 500,000 population in the nation
between April 1,2000 and April 10, 2010. Since 2010, Fort Worth's growth rate has slowed
compared with the rapid growth of the 2000's and is more in line with growth experience in the
1990's.
Fort Worth continues to be recognized for its outstanding quality of life and is currently
ranked as one of the nation's top 10 most livable cities by Partners for Livable Communities.
In addition, Fort Worth has also topped several other list rankings and received many _
accolades, some of which include:
• Downtown Fort Worth is No. 1 on Top 10 Best Downtowns according to
Livability.com. (2014)
• Forbes Magazine ranked Fort Worth No. 3 on its list of"Best Cities for Job Seekers."
(2013)
• Fort Worth ranks No. 6 on the list of"Fastest Growing Cities since the Recession" by
Forbes Magazine. (2013)
• Fort Worth is the top Texas City for job growth and No. 4 in the U.S. according to
New Geography.com. (2013)
• Fort Worth is the No. I Big City for Home Ownership among the 25 most populous
cities in the U.S. according to nerdwallet.com. (2013)
In the fall of 2010,BestPlaces.net,rated Fort Worth No. 4 on its "Best Cities to Relocate to in
America" list. They noted Fort Worth's budding arts and culture scene, botanical garden,
amazing zoo, as well as its proximity to major league sports, including the Texas Rangers and
Dallas Cowboys. One of the inescapable variables in choosing a place to live and work is cost
of living. Fort Worth's cost of living is nearly 14 percent below the national average.
Fort Worth has experienced significant economic challenges since the 2008 nationwide
economic downturn. According to a November 2012 report by the Brookings Institution, a
vii
Washington, D.C. think tank, the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex has now fully recovered from
the nationwide economic downturn, primarily due to growth in the financial and energy
sectors. The unemployment rate in Fort Worth in 2014 was 5.3 percent which is below the
national average of 6.2 percent. In 2014,job growth in Fort Worth increased by 2.98 percent.
Fort Worth has maintained a thriving and diverse business environment helping it to become a
major center for industry,technology, distribution and transportation.
The City of Fort Worth continues to set processes in place to provide an excellent quality of
life for its citizens. Understanding our changing environment, economic opportunities and
evolving demographics gives us the ability to plan a park system for the future. This Park,
Recreation and Open Space Master Plan has been an effort guided by the Parks and
Community Services Advisory Board, public input, the Fort Worth City Council, City staff
and established national standards.
The development of this plan reflects on the past, measures the present and charts the
activities for the next five to ten years to continue to enhance one of the best park systems in
the State of Texas and the nation. The Parks and Community Services Department
continues to build on the direction established in previous plans: George Kessler's Plan -
1909, Hare and Hare's Master Plans - 1930 and 1957, the 1992 Park and Recreation
Department Strategic Plan,the 1998 and 2004 Park, Recreation& Open Space Master Plans
and the 2010 Park,Recreation and Open Space Master Plan update. This master plan continues
the rich legacy of the park system identifies areas of improvements and key opportunities and
develops strategies to address existing deficiencies.
The Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan uses a comprehensive approach to setting
goals and objectives that respond to the changing demands and values of our city. The following
six goals for the Department are as follows:
1. Restore and maintain the viability of the park,recreation and open space system by
investing and re-investing in existing facilities.
2. Provide new parkland and facilities to meet park,recreation and open space needs in
developing and re-developing areas of the City.
3. Improve the variety of park,recreation and open space opportunities available to the
community.
4. Expand recreational opportunities in the floodplains of the Trinity River and its
tributaries.
5. Build and enhance community partnerships to deliver quality services and facilities.
6. Preserve and enhance the City's natural, historical and cultural developed resources.
With goals and objectives set,the plan development process begins by employing a systems
approach to create a framework for park planning. This approach includes the use of citizen
input and needs assessment tools, adherence to the City's overall vision for community
enhancement, and an understanding of department goals, objectives, and strategies.
viii
One of the significant instruments used in the development of this Master Plan was the 2013
Needs Assessment Study. The City employed National Service Research(NSR) of Fort Worth,
a full service research firm,to carry out the 2013 Needs Assessment process. The research
process included a mailed survey instrument to 20,000 households randomly chosen within
each of the eight Council Districts in direct proportion to the population within each district.
Major findings of the 2013 Needs Assessment Study included the following:
• More than half of respondents rated the existing park system as good or excellent.
• City-wide, the most frequently used facilities were 1) parks, 2)hike/bike/walls
trails, 3)playgrounds, 4) Botanic Gardens and 5) fields for organized sports.
• More than 40%of respondents are willing to pay MORE for renovation of existing
parks, increased maintenance of parks and trails and land acquisition for trails and
trail connections.
• A majority of users feel very safe or safe when utilizing parks, community centers,
the Trinity Trail and various types of athletic facilities. Less than 10%reported
they feel unsafe.
• Almost equal numbers of respondents would prefer Fort Worth PACSD to develop
r,
more parks and increase tax levels OR develop fewer parks and maintain tax levels.
Standards were established on a local basis for various amenities and facilities. This
means that the service standard is a "needs based, facilities driven, and land measured"
means of identifying deficiencies and opportunities in the park system. This process
allowed for the development of specific criteria that could both generate explicit
recommendations and provide a statistical basis for determining the priorities of the plan
recommendations.
As Fort Worth is a large city and continues to grow in population and geographic area, it follows
that while some areas of the City are experiencing new development, other areas of the City are
redeveloping. Facility standards and levels of service provide a framework for park
development,but it is important to recognize that priorities in one area of the City may not
mirror another area. Therefore,the City has been divided into five Park Planning Districts
(PPDs). The PPDs were derived from the physical characteristics of the City based on: major
roadways, and topographic features that serve as the boundaries.
The comprehensive nature of this Master Plan addresses the planning and development
priorities of the Fort Worth park system for the next five to ten years. The priorities and
recommendations for each Park Planning District can be reviewed in Section VII -Plan
Implementation and Prioritization of Needs. The priorities listing is followed by the 5-year
work plan which includes projects that are currently funded, and are scheduled to be initiated and
completed within the next 5 years. While the work plan will address some of the current and
projected needs,the objective for the next 5 years—years 2020-2025—will be to address those
priorities that show a deficiency.
ix
This City of Fort Worth 2015 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan acts as a guide
for allocation of resources for the next five to ten years as identified by the citizens of Fort
Worth, the Parks and Community Services Advisory Board, the Fort Worth City Council and
City staff.
X
Section I: Introduction
Parks, open space, and recreational opportunities are essential,not only to enhance quality of life
and neighborhood vitality, but also to preserve natural resources and provide alternative
transportation links between neighborhoods,business districts and other destinations. The Fort
Worth Parks and Community Services Department(Department) has 268 parks to meet the needs
of a population of nearly 842,500 (according to North Central Texas Council of Government's
estimate for 2015). Additionally, millions of out of town visitors including tourists,workers and
athletic teams visit our parks annually.
As the Department seeks to obtain more outside funding for capital improvements,renovations,
operations and maintenance, it is imperative that a comprehensive Park, Recreation, and Open
Space Master Plan be in place which establishes the City's priorities for the distribution of
limited resources. In order to effectively plan our future system of parks and open spaces, it is
necessary to examine the planning and development history of the parks system. This brief
history and an examination of current local,regional,national and global trends will serve as the
basis for the continued evolution of a vision for Fort Worth parks, open spaces and recreation
areas.
This section includes a brief history of the master planning of park facilities in the City of Fort
Worth, and describes the process for developing the 2015 Park, Recreation and Open Space
Master Plan(Master Plan).
History of Park Master Planning
Cotton,cattle drives and the eventual arrival of the railway in 1876 served as the economic engines
that drove Fort Worth's early growth. During this time,the streetcar and railroad systems were
primary determinants in the acquisition and development of parks. Parks were used as anchors at the
ends of transit lines to ensure ridership of the transit system. This strategy is evident in the parkway
plans prepared by George E. Kessler(a prominent landscape architect credited with the early park
planning and design in many mid-western and western cities)and the park development that follows
his planning efforts.
"The general experience in American cities, all of which are actively engaged in
this work, make it superfluous to submit any argument to show the need for
establishing public recreation grounds. They have all found such improvements in
all its elements absolutely necessary to the life and growth of their communities, and
in no measure a luxury. "
George E.Kessler,September 15, 1909,in the description of Fort Worth's first Park Master Plan
The intent and spirit of Kessler's original Park Plan for the City of Fort Worth served as the basis
for the implementation of major park facilities that now serve as the core of Fort Worth's park,
recreation and open space system. Kessler's initial vision for Fort Worth parks was an integrated
system of parks based on the natural drainage ways of the City's rivers, and a system of parkways or
boulevards tying together the park system,the residential sections and the business district.
Section I:Introduction- Page 1
Kessler was closely associated with the firm of Hare and Hare, landscape architects of Kansas City,
Missouri who later assumed many of Kessler's city and park planning clients,providing advice to
the Parks Board and beginning a study of the Fort Worth park system in 1925. That study and
consultation resulted in the 1930 plan called A Comprehensive Parks System for Fort Worth, Texas.
The 1930 park system plan by Hare and Hare addressed continued population growth and the
completion of bond improvements. The plan was needed to address the growth which had occurred
up to the 1920s and guided the development of park facilities through the Great Depression,the
Second World War and the Baby Boom growth period of the early and mid-1950s. These parks
master plans created a vision for parks within the City of Fort Worth, and established the core of the
present day park system.
In 1992,the plan development process tools a systems approach. The process included public input
in various forms, adherence to the City's overall vision for community enhancement, and
identification of corresponding goals, objectives and strategies. This systems approach has been
used in all subsequent plans.
Since 1998,the City's population has undergone density shifts spurred by increased residential
development and redevelopment activities. Annexations of large tracts of land in the north and
northwest increased the land area of the corporate city limits and increased residential development
in those areas. These changes have been reflected in recent plans.
Throughout the history of the development of the park system in Fort Worth,the Department has
effectively anticipated and responded to the park,recreation and open space needs of the
community. The important historic legacy provided by planning initiatives of the first park board,
many City Councils, George Kessler,the firm of Hare and Hare, citizens, foundations, and public
service associations have not been lost. The community acting together anticipated or responded to
rapidly developing trends to ensure that the park system evolved to the award winning level that
exists today.
Many parks and facilities in the current system owe their existence to the generosity of individual
citizens, citizen groups and foundations. Foundations such as the Amon G. Carter Foundation,the
Anne Burnett and Charles Tandy Foundation,the Sid W. Richardson Foundation, and the
Communities Foundation of Texas have made significant contributions of time,land,and money to
the evolution of the city and the park system. Citizen groups such as Streams and Valleys, Inc.,the
Fort Worth Zoological Association,the Fort Worth Botanical Society,the Fort Worth Garden Club,
the Texas Garden Clubs Association,the Junior League of Fort Worth,the Friends of the Fort
Worth Nature Center&Refuge,the Rotary Club of Fort Worth and many neighborhood
associations and other non-profits associations have also made significant contributions. Without
the generosity of these groups,major destination facilities such as the Water Gardens,Burnett Park,
Heritage Park,the Botanic Garden,the Nature Center&Refuge, Gateway Park and the Fort Worth
Zoo would not exist. Private giving has been a tradition of the citizens of the City of Fort Worth
since the Jennings donation of Hyde Park circa 1873.
Section I:Introduction- Page 2
Use of This Master Plan
This document includes the following sections:
II) Goals and Objectives—All activities of the Parks and Community Services
Department are guided by the directives provided in the Department's Strategic Plan.
The initiatives recommended by this master plan are rooted in understanding the
issues identified by the Strategic Plan and by striving to achieve the goals and
objectives that address those issues.
III) Plan Development Process—This section describes the methods used by the Parks
and Community Services Department in the development of this master plan,
including a description of the public input process.
IV) Trends—This section includes a listing of trends that will impact the future
development and management of Fort Worth's parks,recreation and open spaces.
V) Area and Facility Concepts and Standards—This section describes the park and
open space standards developed for the Department based on the standards endorsed
by the National Recreation and Park Association and the American Academy for Park
and Recreation Administration. It also identifies classes of facilities required to meet
the demands of the citizens.
VI) Inventory of Areas and Facilities—This section provides an inventory of existing
parks, community centers, school and other agency facilities used through joint
agreements, and identifies potential opportunities for park, recreation and open space
facilities.
VII) Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs—This section identifies priorities
for plan implementation, listing these priorities by Park Planning Districts (PPD).
Additionally,this section includes the five (5) year work plan for each PPD.
Section I:Introduction- Page 3
Section II: Goals & Objectives
Introduction
The resources available to an agency are usually less than the need for services. Therefore, it is
important to plan strategically for the use of limited funds. It is here that the agency seeks to
realign its activities and redirect its efforts to ensure that they are the best fit for the current and
predicted future environment.
"Strategic planning looks objectively at where the organization is now, at where it has
been in the past, at where it is headed in the future, and how it is going to get there.
Strategic planning assumes that change is inevitable: change brings with it risk but
strategic planning can chart a course so that an organization minimizes risks while
maximizing opportunities." John Crompton and Charles Lamb 1986,Marketing Leisure
Service.
The residents of Fort Worth have expressed what they most value about Fort Worth, as well as
issues that should be addressed over the next five to ten years. The following Departmental
Mission Statement, goals and objectives have been drafted in response to citizen input,the City
of Fort Worth's mission and vision statements, and the City's Six Core Values.
CITY OF FORT WORTH MISSION STATEMENT
Working together to build a strong community.
CITY OF FORT WORTH VISION STATEMENT
Fort Worth will be the most livable and best managed city in the country.
CITY OF FORT WORTH SIX CORE VALUES
Exceptional Customer Experience
Accountability
Ethical Behavior
Diversity
Mutual Respect
Continuous Improvement
DEPARTMENTAL MISSION STATEMENT
To enrich the lives of our citizens through the stewardship of our resources and the responsive
provision of quality recreational opportunities and community service.
Section II: Goals and Objectives- Page 1
DEPARTMENTAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1. Restore and maintain the viability of the park, recreation and open space system by
investing and re-investing in existing facilities.
a. Utilizing a criteria-based ranking system, establish priorities to replace or renovate
existing playgrounds on a 20-year cycle.
b. Renovate or replace segments of existing trails which have exceeded their useful life
or deteriorated beyond repair to protect the safety of users and preserve the
investment in these facilities.
c. Determine the need for first-phase development of reserve parks acquired through the
Neighborhood and Community Park Dedication Policy when assessment concludes
that existing neighborhood units have reached the threshold of a 50 percent build-out
or a population of 2,000 or greater and when funds are appropriated to develop and
maintain the improvements.
d. Strategically reinvest in the current and developing park system, to preserve and
protect the existing infrastructure and to effectively plan for and efficiently develop
new parks and facilities. In all instances ensure that resources are allocated to
adequately maintain and appropriately sustain facilities.
2. Provide new parkland and facilities to meet park, recreation and open space needs in
developing and re-developing areas of the City.
a. Increase neighborhood and community park acreage from 5.9 acres per 1,000
persons to 6.25 acres per 1,000 persons by 2025, concentrating on under-served
z
areas throughout the city.
b. During 2015, review the effectiveness of and seek amendments to the Neighborhood
and Community Park Dedication Policy specifically addressing policies and
procedures related to the acquisition, development and management of parkland and
community facilities in both developing areas and the central city/urban core to
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Policy in the establishment of local-
close-to-home parks and facilities.
c. Conduct an assessment of the current trail system, and identify areas for connectivity
and expansion.
3. Improve the variety of park, recreation and open space opportunities available to
the community.
a. Provide new park facilities where service levels fall below standards consistent with
Section IL• Goals and Objectives-Page 2
the priorities established in the Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. Focus
should occur on priorities established on both a city-wide basis and individual park
planning district perspective to ensure that the highest rated facilities and amenities
are addressed in a prudent and proactive manner.
b. Integrate visions from projects outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, for
example: Lake Worth Vision, Lake Arlington Plan, Urban Villages, Transit Oriented
Development, Fort Worth Bike Plan and Trinity River Vision.
c. Monitor emerging trends in park and recreation facilities development both locally
and nationally.
4. Expand recreational opportunities in the floodplains of the Trinity River and its
tributaries.
a. Continue cooperative efforts with Streams and Valleys, Inc.,the Tarrant Regional
Water District, Tarrant County and the North Central Texas Council of Governments,
and partner municipalities.
b. Understand the boundaries of public open space managed by the Tarrant Regional Water
District and investigate the opportunities for inclusion in City-wide open space.
5. Build and enhance community partnerships to deliver quality services and facilities.
a. Seek partnerships for cooperative facility use and development with Independent
School Districts, other governmental entities and non-profit agencies serving the City of
Fort Worth to expand recreational programs and community services opportunities.
b. Reaffirm existing partnerships for cooperative facility use and development with
Independent School Districts, other governmental entities and non-profit agencies
serving the City of Fort Worth to expand recreational programs and community
services opportunities.
6. Preserve and enhance the City's natural,historical and cultural developed resources.
a. Implement current park master plans that address the preservation and restoration of
natural open spaces including the following parks: Northwest Community Park, Fort
Worth Nature Center and Refuge, Tandy Hills and Stratford Park Natural Areas, and
Overton and Foster Parks.
b. Implement current park master plans that address the preservation and restoration of
historic and cultural landscapes including the following park facilities: Log Cabin
Village, Fort Worth Botanic Gardens, Rockwood Golf Course, Heritage Plaza,the Fort
Worth Zoo and Lake Worth.
Section II: Goals and Objectives- Page 3
Section III: Plan Development Process
Overview
The Fort Worth Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan(Master Plan) is developed
following the processes recommended by the National Recreation and Park Association(NRPA),
and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. This Master Plan serves as an evolving document
that is reviewed and updated over time and provides a dynamic planning framework from which
the future needs of the citizens of Fort Worth can be anticipated and met.
The Parks and Community Services Department(the Department) employs a systems approach
to create the framework for park master planning. This approach includes the effective use of
citizen input and needs assessment tools, adherence to the City's overall vision for community
enhancement, and identification of corresponding goals, objectives, and strategies. The
comprehensive nature of this Master Plan addresses the planning and development priorities of
the Fort Worth park system for the next five to ten years as identified by the citizens of Fort
Worth,the Parks and Community Services Advisory Board,the Fort Worth City Council and
City staff.
Goals and objectives based on public input are ratified by the Parks and Community Services
Advisory Board and integrated as part of an update to the Departmental Business Plan. The
identified priorities serve as a guide for decisions made in producing and updating the park
master plan. For details concerning the current plan's goals, objectives and strategies, see Section
II - Goals and Objectives.
The various inputs that contribute to the Master Plan's recommendations and priorities are
represented in Figure III-1.
Demo
Public
- Input Mandate
Plan
Recommendations
and
Staff ` ational
Input Standards
'i
Figure III-1 Factors Affecting Plan Trends
�- — Recommendations,Priorities and Scheduling
Section III:Plan Development Process- Page 1
Park Planning Districts
Fort Worth is a large City, both in terms of population and geographic area. Further, Fort Worth
has a wide range of neighborhood age and density patterns. Some areas of the City are
developing, and other areas of the City are redeveloping. While facility standards and levels of
service provide a framework for park development, it is important to recognize that priorities in
one area of the City may not mirror another area.
In order to address unique conditions in each area, the City is divided into five Park Planning
Districts (PPDs). The PPDs were derived from the physical characteristics of the City based on:
major roadways, rivers, creeks, and topographic features that serve as the boundaries for the park
planning districts, as well as being based on population density considerations. The map on
page 3 of this section shows the PPD boundaries.
Inventory of Existing Facilities, Programs and Opportunities
The Parks and Community Services Department's resources are evaluated through a process of
inventory, analysis and assessment. Each park in the system is inventoried to determine acreage,
location and age of existing facilities. In addition, each park is analyzed to determine if
classification modifications are required according to park classification standards adopted by
the City. This information is used in conjunction with needs assessment instruments to evaluate
areas for future park facility needs.
The inventory contained in this master plan is a descriptive and mapped account of existing park,
recreation and open space facilities. This inventory is continually being updated as park land is
added to the system. When new park facilities are constructed the information is used in the
prioritization process for capital improvement expenditures for each Park Planning District. Park
inventory information can be used to assess:
• the current level of service of existing park, recreation and open space infrastructure
• connections to regional open spaces and facilities
• relationships to school sites and facilities
• relationships to other public land and facilities
• relationships to private,non-profit and commercial recreational facilities
For detailed information on the park facility inventory, see Section VI - Inventory of Areas and
Facilities.
r
Section III:Plan Development Process- Page 2
I
2015 City of Fort Worth
Park Planning Districts
- _ 1V15EfOUNTY i` UENTON COUNTY
--7 TARRANT COUNTY
a � N
_ 1LJ1 i W E
Mz —a
a
Legend H o
Fort Worth City Limit
�.O 17 -- _ '_- ,L, EJ County Boundary
Street
I 41 -
-'- Lake
— y River
r
VS)
—
,/ Park
Municipal Colf Course
Park Planning District
- ---' �,• �1 �� PPD1
1
---j J PPD 2
1—'— -- --
T PPD 3
t
PPD 4
PPD 5
TARRANTCOUNTY
JOHNSON COUNTY ELDS COUNTY
FoR�H_
Section III:Plan Development Process- Page 3
In developing this Master Plan, the Department relied on public input from three sources: the
2013 Needs Assessment,the 2014 Bond Program, and the 2014 Public Survey. These sources
are discussed below.
2013 Needs Assessment
The Needs Assessment is one of the most significant instruments in the development of the
Master Plan for the City of Fort Worth Parks and Community Services Department (PACSD).
The findings of the Needs Assessment provide a foundation for the direction of the Park,
Recreation and Open Space Master Plan and provide guidance for developing priorities for park
facilities and future park and open space development. The 2013 Needs Assessment process was
undertaken to meet the following objectives:
1. To identify priorities of Fort Worth citizens for facility needs.
2. To measure the extent of use for programs and facilities offered by the department.
3. To measure perceived maintenance and safety of parks and facilities.
4. To inform residents about parks, recreation facilities and programs.
5. To identify preferences and priorities for future spending on department provided
services and facilities.
The City employed National Service Research(NSR) of Fort Worth, a full service research firm,
to carry out the 2013 Needs Assessment process. The research process included a mailed survey
instrument to 20,000 households randomly chosen within each of the eight Council Districts in
direct proportion to the population within each district. The residential mail list was provided to
NSR by the PACSD.
The mailed survey introduction was provided in English and Spanish and gave residents the
option of completing the survey on paper or online. The online survey link(available in English
and Spanish) was posted on the City's website. The City also posted the link on its Facebook -
page and sent the survey link to Home Owners Association groups and to its database of e-
notifications throughout the survey period. Downtown Fort Worth, Inc. also posted the survey
link to its Facebook page one week after the initial survey mailing date.
The Spanish portion of the introduction also gave residents the option of completing the survey
via mail or online. If residents preferred a mailed survey in Spanish, a phone number was
provided so they could call and request a Spanish version of the survey be mailed to them.
The survey document was designed by NSR based upon goals and objectives of the PACSD.
PACSD staff provided significant input to the questionnaire. The final survey was tested by NSR
and approved by PACSD staff.
Section III:Plan Development Process-Page 4
The 20,000 surveys were mailed September 23, 2013. The online link (provided in English and
Spanish) was active September 23 through October 20, 2013. A total of 340 mailed surveys were
returned and 463 citizens completed the survey (in its entirety) online. All questions were
optional for residents to answer. The 803 surveys provide a margin of error of plus or minus
3.5% at a 95% confidence level.
2014 Bond Program
In order to gather public input for the 2014 Bond Program,the City launched the Bond Election
Public Engagement Plan in July 2013. As part of that plan, staff initiated an extensive public
engagement program to educate and solicit and receive input from Fort Worth residents
regarding a preliminary list of staff recommended bond projects. The public engagement
program offered many traditional and non-traditional citizen communication opportunities,
including public meetings, e-mail, social and print media, crowd sourcing software, a hotline and
the bond program web page.
The Public Input Phase included both scheduled and specially requested public meetings. A total
of 31 bond election-related public meetings were held between July 13 and November 2, 2013.
At these public meetings,the public had an opportunity to: (1) comment on projects proposed for
funding; (2) comment on projects that were considered, but not proposed for funding; and(3)
suggest new projects not included on either list. The comments received through this process
were used to verify the findings of the 2013 Needs Assessment Study.
The 2014 Bond Program was ratified by public vote on May 10, 2014. Proposition 2: Parks,
Recreation and Community Center Improvements includes $30,823,600 for athletic field
development, walks and trails, community centers, playgrounds, security lighting,park erosion
repair and park road and parking lot repair. Specific projects funded through this Bond Program
are listed in the 5-year work plan in Section VII—Plan Implementation and Prioritization of -
Needs.
2014 Public Survey
In conjunction with a November 1, 2014 City-wide public meeting for the Park, Recreation and
Open Space Master Plan, a public survey was posted on the City of Fort Worth website. Paper
copies of the survey were also available at the public meeting.
Almost 456 surveys were submitted, and all Park Planning Districts were represented. The
purpose of the survey was to verify the findings of the 2013 Needs Assessment described above.
A summary of the top priorities identified in each Park Planning District is included as an
Appendix to this Plan.
Section III:Plan Development Process- Page 5
Section IV: Trends
Overview
The City of Fort Worth Parks and Community Services Department is committed to improving
the community's health, stability, sustainability, beauty and quality of life for all citizens. The
planning for the needs of the citizens of Fort Worth is influenced not only by analyzing past
participation data and observing what leisure activities citizens currently participate in, but also
by anticipating their future needs. Recreation trends are influenced by continuous changes in our
society.
All areas of society are experiencing dramatic changes that will continue to demand
departmental responses that are sensitive and appropriate. In addition to providing responses it is
also imperative that the Parks and Community Services Department anticipates the future needs
of the community. Monitoring environmental, social, economic, demographic and urban trends
helps the Department predict the needs of the public.
This section addresses the following trends that will impact the future development and
management of Fort Worth's parks, recreation and open spaces.
• Community Revitalization Trends
• Green Infrastructure
• Sustainable Development
• Social Trends
• Tourism Trends
• Economic Trends
• Heath Trends
• Demographic Trends
• Technological Trends
• Urban Development Trends
• Parks and Recreation Administration Trends
• National Recreational Trends
• Parks,Recreation Facilities and Programming Trends
The American Planning Association(APA) documents Park Trends through a continuing series
of briefing papers on how cities can use parks to address urban challenges. To learn more about
the American Planning Association reports: "The City Parks Forum,"visit the following website:
www.planning.org/ciiyparks. The APA's City Parks Forum is dedicated to providing
information on how healthy parks are fundamental to many aspects of community prosperity.
These include improving economic health and vitality,reducing crime, improving public
physical and mental health, creating a strong sense of community and supporting overall quality
of life.
Section IV:Trends- Page 1
Community Revitalization Trends
In recent years,the use of parks for community revitalization has gained increasing attention
across the country. The American Planning Association(APA)has reported that more than 30
studies have shown that parks and green space positively affect real property values for adjacent
properties by as much as 25%. In cities across the country,parks define the character of a city
and its neighborhoods. Further,parks can function as the catalyst for urban redevelopment.
The following four points are lessons learned from these studies (APA `City Parks Forum'
Briefing Paper"How Cities Use Parks for Community Revitalization"by Peter Harnik):
1.) Parks that serve as central walking,resting, and meeting places can revive failing or
threatened commercial areas.
2.) Renewal takes leadership, vision, and time; with these three ingredients, revitalization
tends to attract ever more investment.
3.) Community residents and the city,working together on a neighborhood park project,
can turn around a distressed residential area.
4.) Parks don't automatically lead to neighborhood revival; before investing,the city
should make sure the relation of a park to its surrounding neighborhood will allow
revitalization.
The City of Fort Worth is committed to revitalizing the central city. The central city area is defined as all
the land within the boundary of Loop 820. A comprehensive and coordinated strategy is ongoing
involving multiple city departments,such as:economic development,housing,historic preservation,
infrastructure,parks, cultural programs,human services and safety initiatives. The City's main strategies
for central city revitalization are to develop pedestrian-oriented mixed-use growth centers, revitalize
distressed commercial corridors by developing mixed-use urban villages along those corridors,and
develop a light-rail transit system to connect the growth centers and urban villages along commercial
corridors.
Green Infrastructure
Much has been researched and written about cities and green infrastructure. For example,the
APA `City Parks Forum' Briefing Paper"How Cities Use Parks for Green Infrastructure" by
Peter Harnik stated:
"Just as growing communities need to upgrade and expand their built infrastructure of
roads, sewers, and utilities, they also need to upgrade and expand their green
infrastructure, the interconnected system of green spaces that conserves natural
ecosystem values and functions, sustains clear air and water, and provides a wide array
of benefits to people and wildlife. Green infrastructure is a community's natural life
support system, the ecological framework needed for environmental and economic
sustainability.
In their role as green infrastructure,parks and open space are a community necessity.
By planning and managing urban parks as parts of an interconnected green space
Section IV:Trends- Page 2
system, cities can reduce flood control and stormwater management costs. Parks can
also protect biological diversity and preserve essential ecological functions while serving
as a place for recreation and civic engagement. They can even help shape urban form
and reduce opposition to development, especially when planned in concert with other
open spaces.
The following four points are lessons learned from the study referenced above.
1.) Creating an interconnected system of parks and open space is manifestly more
beneficial than creating parks in isolation.
2.) Cities can use parks to help preserve essential ecological functions and to protect
biodiversity.
3.) When planned as part of a system of green infrastructure,parks can help shape urban
form and buffer incompatible uses.
4.) Cities can use parks to reduce public costs for stormwater management, flood control,
transportation, and other forms of built infrastructure.
The Trinity River corridor and its tributaries are important resources and provide a natural means
of linking the City's recreation sites and open space, as well as linking neighborhoods to centers
of activity. The river and its tributaries are also an important economic asset to Fort Worth.
Promoting sensitive and compatible development along the riverfront is essential to preserving
the Trinity River as Fort Worth's greatest natural asset. Preserving the floodplain as open space
allows for natural filtration of surface runoff before it reaches waterways, and also protects
structures from flooding.
xi
fh
�S
_ >: e,.'i' tea., -Psi •," -�
Trinity Uptown Urban Design Concept,Trinity River Vision Project,Fort Worth
Sustainable Development
Sustainable development(development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs)promotes development with smart environmental
impacts. As population increases and land availability and resources decrease,it becomes ever more
important to consider the long-term ramifications of growth,the needs of citizens, protecting and
enhancing environmental quality. Below are some issues and opportunities,specific to the City of Fort
Worth,which should be considered when developing our parks and open spaces.
Section IV:Trends- Page 3
• Protecting Diminishing Natural Watersheds- As the City grows it is important to be
aware that significant open spaces, wildlife habitat,original landscapes,wetlands,natural
drainage areas,urban forest and remnant landscapes may be in need of conservation and
protection.
• Providing Environmental Clean Up— Coordinate Watershed Management Projects with other
City departments,Tarrant Regional Water District,Streams and Valleys,Inc.and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to manage and conserve the floodplain and drainage corridors.
• Reducing Pollution and Waste—Review management plans and practices such as those
which reduce the number of vehicle trips each day to reduce ozone and pollution
emissions and encouraging recycling contribute to a cleaner,healthier city.
• Sound Environmental Management— Seek ways for implementation of practices to
reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides.
• Maintaining and Reclaiming Natural Areas—Expand management techniques such as
those employed at the Fort Worth Nature Center and Refuge that have unique natural
and aesthetic value to other areas.
• Maintaining Water Quality—Examine the natural drainage ways and wetlands that pose
challenges for the Parks and Community Services Department and other City departments
and agencies which may require increased vigilance in efforts to protect floodplains and
watersheds and maintain high water quality levels.
• Natural Disasters- Floods,storms,and fires are infrequent but regular events that strain the
resources of the City and the Department in our efforts to meet the immediate needs of our
citizens. The City's response to these events is coordinated through the Emergency Response
Team and an effective Emergency Action Plan. Many of the resources of the Parks and
Community Services Department contribute to the City's rapid response to emergency
situations.
• Green Space Benefits- Encourage the preservation of mature trees and plant additional
trees to help improve air quality,mitigate the urban heat island effect and improve
streetscape aesthetics.
Social Trends
City parks also produce important social and community development benefits. They make inner-city
neighborhoods more livable;they offer recreational opportunities for at-risk youth and low-income
residents;and they provide places in low-income neighborhoods where people can feel a sense of
community.Access to public parks and recreational facilities has been strongly linked to reductions in crime
and in particular to reduced juvenile delinquency. Providing vital human services is an important
component of the City's vision of a future with strong neighborhoods,a sound economy,and a safe
community.
Section IV:Trends- Page 4
Below is a list of issues that should be considered when planning for social trends.
• Safe Community- Consideration of concerns for personal and family safety is fundamental in our
efforts to provide a safe community.
• Wellness- Increasing importance of wellness activities for all citizens will increase demands for
facilities and programs offered by the Department.
• Diversity- Many Department activities play a valuable role in preserving and maintaining cultural
heritages.
• Volunteerism- In recent years there has been an increased awareness of giving back to one's
community. Many groups and programs exist and take advantage of these human resources.
Below is a list of programs the Department is currently administering to address social issues.
• Community Poverty-Programs such as Emergency Homeless Assistance,Comprehensive
Energy Assistance, Summer Food Program,and Rental Assistance are in place to address the
issue of community poverty.
• Youth at Risk- The Department implements youth-at-risk programs designed to help curb
increased levels of crime,violence and vandalism,especially juvenile violence. These programs
include the Comin'Up Gang Intervention Program as well as other gang deterrent efforts. The i
Department is instrumental in helping clean up the impacts of vandalism through the Graffiti
Abatement Program.
• Adopt-A-Park- The Department facilitates opportunities for building community empowerment
with programs like the Adopt a Park Program. This program provides a way for neighborhood
residents to adopt their local park and medians and contribute volunteer resources to improve
and maintain those facilities.
• Citizen Participation—The involvement of various stakeholders from neighborhood associations,
the Parks and Community Services Advisory Board,community service organizations and
interested citizens in the park planning process provides a vital connection in planning for the future
of the community.
• Social Service Networking—The Department is working with county and state agencies to
offer"one-stop"services in communities at locations served by public transportation to
maximize service delivery.
Tourism Trends t
How cities use parks/open space to
promote tourism can be seen with the recent r
impact of the newly redeveloped Sundance
Square. In 2014, livability.com named Fort
Worth's Sundance Square as the best
downtown in the nation. --
According to the APA City Parks Forum
briefing paper"How Cities Use Parks to
Promote Tourism"by John L. Crompton:
Sundance Square,Fort Worth
Section IV:Trends- Page 5
"Public parks or public open spaces are often the "engine"that drives tourism in many
communities. In a simplified tourism model, visitors use some mode of transportation to
leave their homes and travel to attractions, which are supported by various kinds of
services, such as hotels/motels, restaurants, and retailing. The attractions and support
services provide information and promote their offerings to target groups they have
identified as potential visitors.
Attractions activate this tourism system. Rarely do people leave their homes and travel
some distance because they want to stay in a particular hotel or dine at a particular
restaurant in a different locale. Most of the time, the desire to go to a destination on a
pleasure trip is stimulated by its attractions."
Several Fort Worth park facilities are tourism destinations including the Fort Worth Botanic
Garden,the Fort Worth Nature Center and Refuge,the Water Gardens, Tandy Hills Natural
Area,The Fort Worth Zoo and Log Cabin Village.
The following four points are lessons learned from the study referenced above.
1.) Parks provide sites for special events and festivals that attract tourists.
2.) Parks provide sites for sports tournaments,which can be major sources of tourism and
economic benefits, especially for smaller cities.
3.) Large urban parks with zoos,memorials, museums, cultural and heritage artifacts, and
a historical sites can attract tourists.
4.) Parks with landscape planting and design that are recognized as "living works of art" can
be tourist attractions.
I
Economic Trends
Fort Worth's economy is highly diversified in
many industry sectors such as services,trade, ,
manufacturing,transportation,communication 7
and construction.It has also become a
major area for natural gas exploration and
development. The changing economy ,
provides Fort Worth with several challenges,
many opportunities and a firm foundation for
growth in future years. According to the
North Texas Council of Governments'
employment forecast,employment in the City
of Fort Worth will continue to rise at a rate of
1.5 percent annually to approximately Main Street,Fort Worth
701,524 jobs within the city limits in 2030.
In this economic context,Fort Worth's parks can present both opportunities and challenges.According to
the APA City parks Forum briefing paper"How Cities Use Parks for Economic Development''by Megan
Section IV:Trends- Page 6
Lewis,AICP,parks are"a source of positive economic benefits. Parks enhance property values,
increase municipal revenue,bring in homebuyers and workers, and attract retirees. At the
bottom line parks are a good financial investment for a community."
Understanding the economic impacts of parks can help decision makers better evaluate the creation
and maintenance ofparks.
The following economic challenges and opportunities should be considered in the development of
parks and recreational facilities in Fort Worth:
• The increasing costs associated with providing a wide range of facilities,programs and
services to meet the needs of the public.
• The increasing labor and energy costs that will require the Department to examine more
efficient ways of management and operation.
• Tax Limitations—Measures that may cause a reduction or cap in tax revenue traditionally used
to support public programs and facilities will force the Department to become even more
efficient in the delivery of services.
• The need for leisure services to be provided by a partnership of both public and private sectors.
_ • Financial Collaborations- Partnerships should be continued to be formed with Non-Profit
Organizations(NPOs)to share costs and realize common goals and visions such as the previous
partnerships that have been forged with Streams and Valleys,Inc.,the YMCA, the Boys and
Girls Clubs,the Youth Sports Council and the Fort Worth Zoological Association.
• Eco-tourism- The growing importance
of eco-tourism or nature based tourism `
and travel to facilities of unique
environmental importance such as the
Fort Worth Nature Center are attracting
much higher use levels as this type of +
value added natural experience
becomes more popular. Higher use
levels means that additional pressures _
will be placed on these resources.
Fort Worth Nature Center&Refuge,Fort Worth
Health Trends
How cities use parks to improve public health has become an increasingly important issue. As
stated in the APA City Parks Forum briefing paper"How Cities use Parks to Improve Public
Health"by Howard Frumkin,M.D., and Mary E. Eysenbach:
Section IV:Trends-Page 7
"People value the time they spend in city parks, whether walking a dog,playing
basketball, or having a picnic. Along with these expected leisure amenities,parks can
also create measurable health benefits,from providing direct contact with nature and a
cleaner environment, to opportunities for physical activity and social interaction. A
telephone survey conducted for the American Public Health Association found that 75
percent of adults believe parks and recreation must play an important role in addressing
America's obesity crisis. Because of the different ways people experience parks, cities
need to provide all types of parks,from neighborhood facilities to large natural areas. In
fact, many of the health benefits described below can be best achieved through small-
scale, readily accessible sites. A full reckoning of the benefits ofparks will better inform
public policy about parks and provide a useful public health tool."
The following four points are lessons learned from the study referenced above.
1.) Parks provide people a contact with nature,known to confer certain health benefits and
enhance well-being.
2.) Physical activity opportunities in parks help to increase fitness and reduce obesity.
3.) Park trees and all vegetation can help mitigate climate, air, and water pollution impacts
on public health.
4.) Cities need to provide parks to provide their various citizen groups with a range of health
benefits.
In addition,the Trust for Public Land has published a report titled: "The Benefits of Parks: Why
America Needs More City Parks and Open Space" (2006). The report offers evidence that
physical activity increases with access to parks, and that contact with the natural world
improvements physical and physiological health.
Another trend that has a direct correlation
between parks and public health is the
children and nature movement. Natural
playgrounds and outdoor classrooms are
becoming increasing popular throughout
the country. As suggested in Richard
Louv's book Last Child in the Woods,
there is evidence that families desire to
reconnect with the outdoors. Louv coined t
the term"nature deficit disorder"and also
popularized the notion that as children
have become more sedentary there has
been an increased negative impact on
health and education. Nature Play
The need for a child-nature movement has created an increase in public ad campaigns and
gateway activities - outdoor activities that are popular and accessible-to encourage families to
reconnect with the outdoor environment. In an effort to motivate Hispanic families to reconnect
with nature,the Ad Council and the U.S. Forest Service partnered in 2012 to launch the
l
Section IV:Trends- Page 8
Descubre el Bosque public service advertising campaign-an extension of their popular English
language Discover the Forest campaign started in 2009. The ads reinforce the idea that forested
destinations are ideal sites for family enjoyment and are often much closer than people perceive.
Demographic Trends
According to the 2012 American Community Survey,Hispanics made up 33.7%of Fort Worth's total
population. This ethnic group is the fastest growing sector of the population in Fort Worth and Texas.
Races categorized as"other,"primarily Asian and Pacific Islander,are also gaining in percentages,
while White and African American races are declining in share. Currently,minorities collectively make
up the majority of the City's population.By the year 2030,Hispanics are likely to make up 39% of
Tarrant County's population if current trends continue.
• Aging Society- The 2012 American Community Survey reported a median age of 31.9 years in
Fort Worth,33.9 years for the State of Texas,and 37.4 years for the United States. In addition
to the population bulge in the 'Baby Boomer" generation,the boomers are expected to live longer
than any previous generation;thereby increasing the demand on social and senior services.
• Community Needs Assessment- The existence of fewer"traditional"family situations
requires a greater effort to understand the needs of the many different and diverse family
situations that will allow the department to provide an equal level of service to all citizen
families. The needs assessment process identifies these unique needs and allows the
Department to plan for them.
• Cultural Diversity- Increasing desires of the citizens for their community to express levels of
cultural diversity through the actions undertaken or supported by the City. Parks and
Community Services is ever cognizant of this desire and many events and functions such as
Mayfest,Concerts in the Garden,Cinco de Mayo,Juneteenth,and the Como Fourth of July
Parade are supported by the Department.In addition,the citizens want to see cultural diversity
represented in the people who serve them.The Parks and Community Services Department has
made significant strides and continues to make positive improvements in assembling a work force
that closely resembles the cultural diversity of the City.
• Successful Urban Design- Increased population density caused by changing housing patterns that
are the result of smaller household sizes and increased housing costs. This trend towards more
high-density multi-family residential areas in the City is recognized in theNeighborhood and
Community Park Dedication Policy(as revised,2009).
• Year-round School Initiatives—This shifts the traditional school year calendar days and
schedules intersession times at varying times in the year. This year-round school schedule will
present new challenges for staffing and programming activities for the city's youth that will need
to be reviewed and understood to meet the need.
The total population of Fort Worth will continue to grow each year. As of January 1,2013,the City's
estimated population was 767,560,and the population is projected to exceed one million by 2030.
Increased population will place additional demands on existing community facilities and infrastructure
Section IV:Trends- Page 9
and will result in the need for additional and expanded facilities. Shifting populations within the city will
result in changing land use patterns and will help determine the location of new facilities.
Technological Trends
Technological change will continue at an ever-increasing rate. Advances in information technology will
enable the Department to more effectively manage and equally distribute resources,facilities and
programs. Below is a list of considerations regarding technology that may have an impact on parks and
recreational facilities.
• Social Media—Communication of upcoming events or opportunities through social media
outlets such as Facebook and Twitter is becoming increasingly popular.
• Energy Efficient Transportation Technologies- Clean air initiatives and rising energy costs have
increased Departmental use of alternatively fueled fleet vehicles. The Department provides hike
and bike trails to encourage non-vehicular transportation in conjunction with the city's other multi-
modal transportation systems and infrastructure.
• Geographic Information System(GIS)Technology- The City provides a variety of map layers and
data for documenting existing park acreage and for use in planning future park sites. Further,with
GIS technology,we can now pinpoint the areas of fastest population growth,study land ownership
patterns,and acquire key parcels before development demand drives up property prices or destroys
( open space. GIS technology assists in documenting where contiguous park space exists,shows
how protecting natural habitats and connecting larger parks with linear greenways can create a
patchwork quilt of open space.
• Interactive Web Site- The Department is working with other City departments to create an
interactive website so that a variety of
City facilities,including park addresses,
facility inventory information,and
pictures of park sites can be made
available to the public.
• Global Positioning Systems(GPS)-
The Department uses GPS technology
to inventory a variety of park facility
information,including data on trees and "'-
other park facilities.
Hand held Technology
Section IV:Trends- Page 10
Urban Development Trends
The City of Fort Worth guides land use to ensure that the land resources of the City appropriately
encourage economic development,promote a variety of housing developments, preserve natural and
historic resources and accommodate transportation routes and public facilities in order to protect and
promote the quality of life. During the planning process of the City's Comprehensive Plan,
participants expressed a strong preference for a multiple growth center development pattern. Multiple
growth centers,or compact urban land use, enable the efficient operation of infrastructure,mass transit,
recreational facilities,and other City services with fewer environmental impacts,less land consumption,
less traffic and less pollution than a dispersed development pattern.
• Intermodal Transit- Opportunities,demonstrated by the City of Fort Worth Inteimodal Transit
Center,will continue to be developed along major transportation corridors on the edges of the city
such as the I-35 corridor in the north and south of the city placing demands on the Department to
add and improve services in those areas.The Alliance Corridor and the associated residential,
commercial,and industrial development have increased the need for a variety of transportation
options.
• Central Business District(CBD)- The CBD will increase the demands on Departmental
infrastructure. Lands once considered not viable in the downtown core have experienced
rejuvenation by the City providing incentive programs to visionary entrepreneurs. The strong
trends in downtown Fort Worth towards building high density residential mixed-use in conjunction
with improving the office market has continued to help build the vitality of downtown Fort Worth
in making it a major destination city across the county. The limited amount of space for parklands in
the CBD and increasing land costs and use levels will continue to strain Departmental resources.
• Historic Preservation-Facilities such as " f
Log Cabin Village are one way to
ensure that the historic legacy of the = '
Fort Worth parks system is valued as a
significant community resource. ,
• Diversifying the Economy- An
increasing importance on park and
community amenities in attracting
corporate citizens to Fort Worth has
continued. As the City strives to
diversify the economy it must compete
with other cities to attract corporate
citizens. Increasing focus on employee Log Cabin Village,Fort Worth
wellness has caused corporate entities to look at the parks and recreation services offered by
cities competing to attract new businesses and jobs.
• Historic Landscapes-Heritage Park Plaza in Fort Worth,Texas is a seminal work of
landscape architecture and Presidential Medal of Arts winner Lawrence Halprin. Heritage
Park Plaza was added to the National Register of Historic Places on May 10,2010. The
Section IV:Trends- Page 1 I
park, dedicated on July 4, 1976 and opened in 1980, is the only site officially developed by
Fort Worth in commemoration of the U.S.Bicentennial Celebration. The site was once the
location of the 19th century fort that preceded the city's founding. The Fort Worth Botanic
Garden was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on January 29, 2009 and is
another example of a Fort Worth historic landscape.
• Higher Density Residential Development- Promotion of higher density,mixed-use, neighborhood
development encourages walking,bicycling,the use of public plazas and the need for creating
attractive streetscapes that link urban neighborhoods.
r }•�
• Regional Attraction- Shared municipal
boundaries and the city's reputation as
one of the nations most popular , FORT WORTH
STOCK YARp$-, -
destinations has given rise to increased .
use of facilities,such as the Botanic
Garden,Fort Worth Nature Center and • '
Refuge,g Log Cabin Village,Fort Worth `�F
Zoo, and the Fort Worth Stockyards
by a much larger constituency than the
residents of Fort Worth proper. ,
Fort Worth Stock Yards,Fort Worth
The urban design goals and objectives are established to improve the function and aesthetic
fquality of Fort Worth's built environment and are based on public input obtained during the
planning process. Successful urban design should establish an attractive,well-planned city that
promotes pedestrian activity, encourages the full enjoyment of the city's public realm, enhances
the community image, and attracts the private investment.
I
I1
1
I
Section IV:Trends- Page 12
Community Vision for Urban Villages and
Surrounding Neighborhood Empowerment Zones
I.Six Points
f
16.Historic Marine f-.1 1 2.P0 lytechnl;Mesleyan
-4-
I S.West Seventh 3.Oakland Comers
b"k L-
"""�V,jjhqh,.,
I,,-,R-
4.Historic Handley
14.Rldcjlea
W.711h ApW,,j rY
6
3 Lancaster
C12,01, 1.0, .7, f\ 2,
C S.BerrylStalcup
,Mf•AY 14, <
"Y
81
13.Berry/University 12 \ \
,
74
Ire,ry et 1
_j
ICU
6.Near East Side
IV
--- ------- 7.Evans&Rosedale
12.Bluebonnet Circle
A,,
9.South Main
10.Magnolia
8,Be"/Riverside
CD." At
11.Hemphill/Berry T-r+r
th, O uqV;.q:c
W- v
-------------
Section IV:Trends- Page 13
Parks and Recreation Administration Trends
The Parks and Community Services Department is dedicated to providing a clean and attractive park
system that is safe for all users, ensuring orderly growth and development, revitalizing Central City
parks, accessibility to all users and enhancing mobility for our diverse community. Our commitment to
services and recreational programming will provide opportunities for access to all segments of the
population based on community service demands and national standards for park, recreation and open
space while preserving the city's natural resources,cultural diversity and neighborhoods.
• Revitalization- Recreation and open space contributing to the revitalization of the Central City.
• Maintenance Assessment- Although the Department has an outstanding historic legacy,the
drawback of this history is that Fort Worth,like many other cities,is faced with an aging and
deteriorating park and recreation infrastructure. As the infrastructure declines, it eventually
reaches a point where some facilities must be removed to ensure the safety of the citizens.
• Static and Declining Operating Budgets-Finances often limit the ability to prevent decline in
infrastructure through required and recommended preventative maintenance.
• Capital Needs Inventory- Increased needs for recreation facilities in a fast growing city will
present challenges throughout the Department. The City's Neighborhood and Community Park
Dedication Policy (as revised,2004)and the voter approved 2014 Capital Improvements
Program(CIP)projects provide a response to these population density changes that have
impacted park service delivery.
• Recreation- Trends in recreation will provide opportunities for new collaborations and additions
to recreation and leisure offerings in the community(i.e.dog parks and skate/inline parks). We
are working towards wellness programs for seniors and youth that may create new funding
sources to achieve these objectives.
Park and Recreation professionals face many administrative challenges and opportunities
including:
• Doing more with less,requiring partnership development.
• Partnering between non-profit and public agencies.
• Increasing the quality and diversity of services.
• Moving toward a more business-like model while not competing with the private sector.
• The ability to increase parks and open space lands.
• Providing support for the socially and economically disadvantaged through programs in
areas such as childcare,nutrition, etc.
• Increasing responsibility for measurement and evaluation of programs and services.
"A current trend in park and recreation management is towards benefit—or outcome-based
management that reflects an overall effect on the quality of lives of all who participate and
benefit from park and recreation opportunities". National Recreation and Park Association
Section IV:Trends- Page 14
(NRPA), Commission on Accreditation for Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA).
Management of Park and Recreation Agencies. 3"d ed. Ashburn: Virginia, 2010. Print.
The level of subsidy for programs is declining and more"enterprise"activities are being
developed, thereby allowing the subsidy to be used where deemed appropriate. Agencies across
the United States are increasing revenue production and cost recovery. Pricing is often done by
peak, off-peak, and off-season rates.
Municipal parks and recreation structures and delivery systems have changed and alternative
methods of delivering services are emerging. There is more contracting out of certain services,
and cooperative agreements with nonprofit groups and other public institutions. Newer partners
include the health care providers, social services,justice, education,the corporate sector, and
community service agencies. These partnerships reflect a broader interpretation of the mandate
of parks and recreation agencies and the increased willingness of other sectors to work together
to address community issues. The relationship with the health system will be vital in promoting
wellness. The traditional relationship with education,the sharing of facilities through joint use
agreements, is evolving into cooperative planning and programming aimed at addressing youth
inactivity levels and community needs.
National Recreational Trends
The following are additional national recreational trends that the City of Fort Worth Parks and
Community Services Department are following and evaluating their impact on our community.
Some of these trends are elements of our existing system and will continue to be evaluated and
expanded as necessary.
Partnerships
In the Parks and Recreation industry it is common to form partnerships with other organizations
either to increase funding potential or to improve programming options. According to the June
2007 State of the Industry Report published in Recreation Management Magazine, 96.3%of
survey respondents in the Parks and Recreation industry have found one way or another to
partner with other organizations to accomplish their missions.
• 78.3%of parks and recreation departments reported forming partnerships with local
schools.
• Local government was the second most common partnership. More than 67%of parks
and recreation departments in the survey listed local government as a partner.
• Other partners listed in the survey include: the Professional Golf Association(PGA),
Rotary International, Lions and Elks Clubs, faith-based organizations,the Boys and Girls
Clubs,Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts,the Special Olympics, and local and state tourism
boards.
Section IV:Trends- Page 15
• Facilities least likely to form partnerships with external organizations included: resorts,
hotels, water parks, amusement parks, campgrounds, youth camps,private camps and RV
parks.
The City of Fort Worth has stated the importance of working with the Independent School
Districts (ISD)within the city limits. Currently there are eighteen (18) different school districts
whose boundaries overlap with the Fort Worth city limits. See Appendix for map of Independent
School Districts inside the city limits of Fort Worth. The eighteen (18) Independent School
District are as follows:
Aledo ISD Arlington ISD Birdville ISD Burleson ISD
Castleberry ISD Crowley ISD Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD Everman ISD
Fort Worth ISD Grand Prairie ISD Grapevine-Colleyville ISD Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD
Irving ISD Keller ISD Kennedale ISD Lake Worth ISD
Mansfield ISD Northwest ISD
As the City of Fort Worth responds to the challenges of a growing population,the need to
explore a new social contract with the Independent School Districts may prove beneficial for all.
Across the country, school districts are increasing the utilization of their buildings and grounds
by extending access to non-school users,particularly during non-school hours. Consequently,
both public and private parties are increasingly exploring the possibility of joint development of
school buildings and grounds. With new policies and practices,public school facilities and
grounds can become a more vibrant public space where public education is the primary but not
the only user.
The National Recreation and Park Association reports that while many communities lack spaces
for physical activity,there is a growing interest in joint use of public school buildings and
grounds to fill this void. The Parks and Community Services Department will continue to work
with the Independent School Districts to expand the conversation about joint use as a way to
provide services to children and families in convenient locations,to improve opportunities for
physical activity by increasing use of school recreational and outdoor spaces and leverage capital
investments for the overall benefit for its citizens.
Policy and Management
Municipal parks and recreation departments are guided by ordinances and policies that influence
management decisions and subsequent procedures for how work is conducted. These policies
may impact how parks are designed or lead to park renovations. For example, if it was decided
that the new baseball fields are for games or tournament play only and not open for practices,
perimeter fencing or other means to control or restrict access would have to be included in the
design or renovation plans. Often these additions or changes to policies are driven by new
mandates imposed by federal or state legislative regulations, consumer demand, or industry best
practices. Federal mandates are not often accompanied by funds for implementation, resulting in
a trickle down financial burden to states and local municipalities. The impetus for including the
following policy and management trends is based on a need to plan for potential implementation,
as well as keep up with industry trends.
Section IV:Trends- Page 16
Power-Driven Mobility Devices and Trail Accessibility
On September 15,2010 the United States Department of Justice revised rules to the Americans
with Disabilities Act(ADA) in regards to Other Power Driven Mobility Devices or OPDMDs.
The new rule became effective March 15, 2011 recognizing OPDMDs and also allowing persons
with mobility disabilities to operate a"mobility device of choice" in any indoor or outdoor areas
open to pedestrian use. The new rule states that"other power-driven mobility device means any
mobility device powered by batteries,fuel, or other engines—whether or not designed primarily
for use by individuals with mobility disabilities that is used by individuals with mobility
disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf cars, electronic personal assistance
mobility devices, such as the Segway®PT, or any mobility device designed to operate in areas
without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair."
This two-tiered approach has public agencies scrambling to make"reasonable modifications" in
policies,practices and procedures. Identified issues to be specified in established policies
include type of motor vehicle to allow or not allow(e.g., internal combustion engines), use of
electric vehicles (e.g., SegwaysO or electric assisted bicycles), size and weight limits, and speed
limit and trail limitations (e.g., grade or trail surface). Agencies are recognizing the need to
modify policies as they gain experience with visitor needs and new uses on trails. Interim
policies-many requiring an operating permit- are being utilized to ensure both safety and
legality of vehicle use.
In 2013,the Fort Worth Transportation ._ ON
d Authority launched a bike-sharing //
program,titled Fort Worth Bike Sharing.
Currently there are 300 bikes at 35 bike
sharing stations located in Downtown,the
Cultural District and Near Southside and ;•� N
at the TCU campus. The mission of the
bike share program is to "To enhance our
community by providing an affordable, �' >
efficient, environmentally-friendly bike
share program that complements our `
existing public transportation system and
provides both residents and visitors a
healthy,convenient way to move around Mayor Betsy Price—Bike share program kick-off,Fort Worth
our city."
Legislative
Legislative decisions on the national and local level can have an effect on future program and
facility needs. For example, in 2010,the Department of Justice made substantial revisions to the
original 1991 Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). The most recent revisions left facility
managers facing a host of challenges in interpretation and implementation. The impact on this
decision is that park planners are embracing universal design concepts in their plans for future
playground design.
t
Section IV:Trends- Page 17
Parks,Recreation Facilities and Programming Trends
The following are leisure service trends, which in many cases would be included in an existing
facility. Some of these activities are currently being integrated into the existing park system.
While the Department acknowledges that other trends exist,the following are to be considered
and evaluated in future park planning efforts.
Dog Parks
Off-leash dog parks continue to be a popular facility.The Fort Worth Parks and Community
Services Department has responded with development of one facility built at Gateway Park(Fort
Woof Dog Park) and another under design(North Z. Boaz Park). Dog parks are the fastest-
growing segment of city parks according to a 2005 study by the non-profit Trust for Public Land.
USA Today reported that in 2010 there were almost 600 off-leash dog parks in the 100 largest
cities (Portland, Oregon has the highest per capita: 5.7 dog parks for every 100,000 residents), a
34%jump in five years. The increase in demand for dog parks reflects nationwide household
demographics indicating that more households have dogs (43 million)than children(38 million).
Dog park design is evolving to meet growing demand.
A draft dog park policy is currently being
considered and states a dog park minimum
size is five acres with some being as large
as 15 acres. Park planners are now
considering both small dogs and large _
dogs when planning facilities. Often the
two sizes share a location with a fence
separating the facility or in some cases .,
designated hours based on canine size and
weight. In addition to drinking water and
waste disposal bags, dog park amenities
such as washing stations, concrete wading Fort Woof Dog Park,Fort Worth
pools and playground-like obstacle courses are commonly found. With the second off-leash dog
park under construction the Fort Worth Parks and Community Services Department has
developed a draft policy for off-leash dog parks. The policy covers many aspects from design
criteria to maintenance and is currently under review and consideration.
Skate Parks
Skateparks are a relatively new facility type for the Fort Worth Parks and Community Services
Department and with the demand increasing the Department has repurposed a tennis court at
Marine Park to include a neighborhood skate park facility. Currently, a community skate park
facility is under design at Chisholm Trail Community Park and this type of skate park facility is
included in the master plan for North Z.Boaz Park,Northwest Community Park and Gateway
Park.
Section IV:Trends- Page 18
Much has changed with regard to overall demand; obstacle size limitation and skate park
construction techniques. Due to an increase in demand, fueled by a growing number of
participants in the sport,municipalities are finding a need to both expand existing parks and
provide smaller venues known in the industry as "skate dots"or"skate spots." Low maintenance
skate spots are designed as single skate features (ramps, benches,rails or fun boxes) and "blend"
with the surrounding environment. Skate spots are clearly labeled as a skate facility and are
often located in an area that otherwise might not allow for such an amenity. These sites are often
designed to allow for spectator viewing and serve as a lunchtime gathering spot for the business
community in urban areas. A skate spot is a"spot"that just happens to be an ideal place for
skaters and bikers to hang out and do some tricks. Usually they are less than 10,000 square feet
with no transition or bowls.The community size skatepark facility should have bowls,
transitions, and a street area and include a beginner area. The size of the skatepark facility can
range from 4,500 to 30,000 square feet.
Nature Playgrounds/Nature Explorer Classrooms
In response to the epidemic of"nature deficit disorder,"park planners are taking part in a robust
movement to design play areas with more natural elements in order to encourage traditional
outdoor play, as opposed to "structure play." "Undeveloped" sites with minimal alterations use
the natural landscape and natural textures as a model to incorporate interactive structures, such as
hollowed-out logs,tree forts, large boulders, climbing walls and natural water features.
Developed or hybridized sites utilize a healthy mix of manufactured structures while still
maintaining the natural integrity of the site. Commonalities include access to trees for climbing
on or through,moving water, rocks,native plants and a place for quiet play. Learning tools for
programming include natural amphitheaters, wood blocks, sundials,rain gauges and lots of other
"loose"parts for creative play. Studies indicate that sustainable park design; and the use of more
natural elements not only helps the environment and is less expensive,they also improve a
child's sense of well-being.
Mountain Bike Facilities
According to the Outdoor Foundation's
2010 Outdoor Recreation Participation
Report,road biking,mountain biking and
BMX biking are fourth in most popular
outdoor activities by participation rate for
Americans, ages 6 and older. Interest in
bicycling of all types has led to an increase
in development of bike parks. Bike parks
are typically family-oriented facilities with
a variety of amenities such as BMX tracks, ='
bike skills courses,pump tracks (short
loop course) and flow tracks (roller coaster K`
for bikes). Cyclocross courses and
mountain bike trails are also frequently
utilized in bike park design, as well as
Marion Sansom Park,Fort Worth
Section IV:Trends- Page 19
amenities for spectators and non-cyclists. Bike parks range in size from 3 to 50 acres and
typically service day-to-day recreation use,programming and serve as a venue for races. The
Boulder Parks and Recreation Department recently developed Valmont Bike Park, a 42-acre
natural-surface cycling facility with a"skill progression"design that services all ages, abilities
and riding styles. This design allows riders to improve their skills as they work their way up to
advanced-level single track, hard-packed dirt jumps and cyclocross elements throughout the
park. Additionally,the National Interscholastic Cycling Association was recently created as a
non-profit organization dedicated to establishing mountain biking as a high school sport.
Since 2006,the Fort Worth Mountain Bikers' Association(FWMBA), an all-volunteer, 501c3
non-profit organization has promoted responsible mountain biking through trail construction and
maintenance, education and organized events throughout the year. As an affiliate member of the
International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA),FWMBA has memorandums of agreement
with the City of Fort Worth for trails at Marion Sansom Park and Gateway Park. Today,
FWMBA has logged over 14,500 of volunteer work in these two city parks.
Outdoor Adult Gyms
The outdoor adult gym or multigenerational playground concept originated in China where it
was promoted as a national fitness campaign prior to the 2008 Summer Olympics. This concept
is a progressive evolution of fitness trail par courses,which gained popularity in the early 70's.
Outdoor gyms incorporate low impact exercise-equipment(e.g. chin-up bars, cross trainers,
stationary exercise bikes) designed to be used without the need to adjust weights,pins or cords
E and instead rely on balance or low resistance. Each apparatus is designed to be outside 24/7 with
the initial purchase costs and in-house installation and maintenance being significantly less than
similar fitness center machines. Outdoor adult gyms are increasing in number and are often
found as clusters along trailheads, abandoned lots or adjacent to children's playgrounds—
encouraging healthy multigenerational interaction between caregivers and children. Outdoor
gyms located at trailheads have a wide appeal to walking or running groups serving as a social
gathering location. Research indicates that cost and accessibility are the two main barriers for
people wanting to exercise. The adult playground concept allows for a free, convenient workout
location.
Shade Structures
According to a 2009 Recreation
Management report, shade structures are
one of the most commonly planned r
additions in park facility planning. This
increase stems from medical research
indicating a growing risk and increased
rates (currently estimated at one million
cases of skin cancer per year)of
melanoma-the most serious form of skin
cancer. Outdoor areas become user-
friendlier by incorporating man-made
Marine Park,Fort Worth
Section IV:Trends- Page 20
shade structures(e.g. canopies, shelters,table umbrellas, etc.) or natural shade options like trees
or design techniques utilizing shade from existing buildings. Shade structures and park shelters
can do more than protect citizen's skin. A growing number of advocates emphasize that
providing shade encourages park patrons to be more active by increasing the amount of time
spent outdoors as opposed to indoors watching television or playing video games.
Artificial Turf Fields and Surfaces
There is a growing movement in parks and recreation to utilize synthetic turf at select sports
facilities. There is a wide variation in field costs depending on type of use,regional climate and
terrain and product options. A typical multi-use field can easily cost upwards of$750,000.
Departments choose to make the investment for a variety of reasons, including decreased
maintenance needs,maximization of field use, injury prevention and water conservation. The
Southern Nevada Water Authority
estimates that every square foot of natural
grass replaced saves 55 gallons of water
per year. Synthetic Playground Surface '
rubber tile or poured-in-place playground C
surfaces are becoming increasingly _ .
popular as a shock absorbing, safety
surface (falls to the surface account for
nearly 70 percent of all playground
injuries), as well as a material chosen to
meet ADA standards. Artificial Fields at Gateway Park,Fort Worth
Rubber tiles are pre-made and shipped to the site while poured-in place is constructed from
rubber granules which are mixed on-site with a binding agent and then installed by hand and i
toweled smooth. The thickness of the rubber can be adjusted to match the fall height of
playground equipment. For ADA purposes, synthetic surfaces are developed with the goal of
creating a space where children or caregivers with disabilities can easily interact with others.
The cost for rubber tile or poured-in-place surfaces, on average, is more than double the cost of
standard, loose-fill material such as engineered wood fiber. Maintenance costs are also higher
than loose-fill material surfaces. Consideration of these costs must be taken into account when
designing this type of surfacing.
Sports Tourism Facilities
Development of an indoor and/or outdoor sport complex is a concept many cities are considering
for their long-term strategic plans in combination with promoting their community as a traveling
sports market destination. Creating a sports tourism lure involves collaboration of multiple
organizations to build tournament-quality facilities capable of hosting regional and national
events while also servicing local recreational needs. Sports tourism is being evaluated in large
cities, as well as communities with populations as low as 70,000 where it can become an
economic driver. Early reports indicate that sports tourism can more than double its estimated
impact on the local economy. Scheduled activities include sport tournaments (soccer, football,
lacrosse, T-ball and ultimate Frisbee),as well as sport camps and special events. Small
Section IV:Trends- Page 21
communities that are excelling in their sport tourism endeavors appear to be those with expanded
reach into surrounding counties or those with significant natural or man-made tourist attractions
(e.g. shopping,premier aquatic facilities,professional sporting events, etc.) already serving as a
regional draw.
Trend Implications
The implications of these trends on the City's park,recreation,and open space system have been and
continue to be profound,affecting every aspect of our strategic planning process and our delivery of
services. In order to anticipate and plan for the many trends identified in this section and to build on the
strong historic legacy of the Fort Worth Park and open space system it was necessary for the Parks and
Community Services Department to undertake this master planning process. The purpose of this plan is
to provide a framework for future renovations, development and expansions or reductions in the Fort
Worth Park,recreation and open space system. This plan is based on the historic legacy ofthe natural
and developed resources of the system and the needs and desires of the citizens of Fort Worth. The
plan establishes priorities, standards and statements of direction for the future based on a detailed needs
assessment and potential resources.The results of the plan provide guidance and recommendations for
the Parks and Community Services Department for the next five to ten years.
s
T
M.
Photo by Amy Moore:Mark Twain bench sculpture along the Trinity Riverbank in historic Trinity Park,Fort Worth
4
Section IV:Trends- Page 22
Section V: Area and Facility Concepts and Standards Introduction
Introduction
The Parks and Community Services ;
Department development of the 2015
Park, Recreation and Open Space Master `-
Plan has assessed and evaluated several
years of data. The beginning groundwork �.
dates back to 1909 with the first park
Master Plan authored by George Kessler
and adopted by the City of Fort Worth
Park Board. Successive Park Master Plans
by Hare and Hare were adopted in 1930
and 1957. These plans laid the foundation '
for the park system in Fort Worth and on
November 10, 1992 the City Council Postcard from May 28, 1908—Fort Worth City Park
adopted a Strategic Plan for the Fort
Worth Park and Recreation Department to -
guide the management of Department
resources.
On June 30, 1998,the City Council
adopted the 1998 Park,Recreation and : t
Open Space Master Plan that built upon
the planning and stewardship legacy and
provided assessments, standards, `" '-
objectives,priorities,recommendations
and actions which recognized Casino Park(also known as Lake Worth Amusement Park)
opportunities and addressed existing Opened in 1917
deficiencies.
The standards incorporated in the 1998 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan was the
first locally determined needs based standards study in the history of the Parks and Community
Services Department.
For a number of years afterwards,the Department conducted periodic Needs Assessment
Studies for use in setting local standards;prioritizing park,recreation and open space needs
both City-wide and by Park Planning District; and developing an action plan to comply with
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's grant guidelines. Needs Assessment Studies were
done in 2001,2004, 2008 and the latest completed in 2013.
The Parks and Community Services Advisory Board on May 18,2004 unanimously endorsed
the Park,Recreation and Open Space Master Plan of 2004; and the City Plan Commission
endorsed the Park,Recreation and Open Space Master Plan on May 26, 2004.
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 1
On June 22, 2004, the Fort Worth City Council adopted a new Park,Recreation and Open
Space Master Plan to advance the development of a cleaner,more attractive city;promote
safety; aid in the revitalization of the Central City; and provide objectives and strategies that
were intended to guide the development of the park,recreation and open space system of the
City for the next five to ten years.
Revisions to update the 2004 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan were prepared in
2010 to address growth within the park system, incorporate data from the 2008 Needs
Assessment and to maintain the City's eligibility for state park grants. On January 27, 2010,
the Parks and Community Services Advisory Board unanimously endorsed the update to the
Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. The City Plan Commission endorsed the
update to the Park,Recreation and Open Space Master Plan on January 27, 2010.
The review of past plans has shown that basic park classifications have been in place dating back
to the Kessler Plan. The City of Fort Worth Parks and Community Services Needs Assessment
Study in 2013 conducted by National Service Research of Fort Worth provided a current analysis
of the park classifications. A review of current NRPA classifications with a benchmarking of
similar comparable cities has provided for additional input to the adjustment of park
classifications that more accurately reflect the existing types of parkland and capture the more
current and future recreational uses and needs of the community.
Reviewing and updating the park classifications and service standards are a necessary part of the
planning process because they provide a set of general benchmarks against which to evaluate
areas of the City for parkland and park facility deficiencies. Identifying these deficiencies and
finding ways in which to remedy them effectively lay at the foundation of the City's overall
mission.
Deficiencies in parkland acreage and facilities are determined by analyzing specific geographic
areas, which are defined as Park Planning Districts. There are five Park Planning Districts across
the City. The information collected consists of existing and projected population density,the
amount of existing parkland and the available park facility inventory. The data is then reviewed
to prepare an adopted standard level of service for each park facility type.
As a result of research and comparison of parkland and recreation facilities a set of service level
standards was determined. The standard is applied to the City as a whole as well as each Park
Planning District to identify the required parkland and recreational needs.
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 2
City of Fort Worth Park Classifications and Service Standards
The City of Fort Worth's past park classification system and service level guidelines adopted in
the 2004 Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan reflected a blend of National Recreation
and Park Association(NRPA) guidelines, Regional Service Levels, recommendations of City
staff and the consensus of the Parks and Community Services Advisory Board. The process for
developing the park classifications and service level standards for the 2015 Master Plan was
similar to that in 2004.
The 2014 Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA) standards
and benchmarking comparable cities with similar characteristics provided additional analysis
information. Understanding current trends,population growth and demographic shifts with the
review of multiple city plans brought the opportunity to revisit the structure of the park
classifications. The park classifications have been slightly adjusted to respond to current goals
and objectives and provide a better definition for the uses. In 2004 the classifications were
divided into two tiers, local close to home parks and regional parks. For the 2015 Master Plan
the parks are divided into three tiers, as seen below.
Neighborhood Based Parks
Urban
Pocket
Neighborhood
Community Based Parks
Community
Metropolitan
Special Use &Nature Based Parks
Special Use
Greenbelts
Conservancy
Urban is a new classification added to the Neighborhood Based Parks category. The Large
Recreation Park grouped into Community and Metropolitan classification was added. Special
Use parks were moved from previous Regional Parks tier to the category now called, Special Use
&Nature Based Parks. Two new classification types were added to this category: Greenbelts and
Conservancy.
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 3
Table V-1 City of Fort Worth Parkland Service Level Ranges
Parkland Classification Types Goal-Per 1,000 Persons Current Level of Service*
Sub-Total Neighborhood 2.5-4.25 Acres/1,000 Persons 5.9 Acres/1,000 Persons
Based Parks
Sub-Total Community Based 3.75-6.25 Acres/1,000 Persons 7.8 Acres/1,000 Persons
Parks
Sub-Total Other Parks NA Acres/1,000 Persons
Total City Parkland NA Acres/1,000 Persons
*Based on the Projected 2015 Population of 852,486
Table V-2 City of Fort Worth Recreational Facility Service Standards
Recreation Facilities Per 1,000 Persons
Practice Fields 1:5,000
Competition Softball/Baseball Fields 1:12,500
Competition Soccer Fields 1:10,000
Basketball Courts 1:5,000
Hike and Bike Trails 1 Mile 1:10,000
Picnic Shelters 1:10,000
Tennis Courts 1:5,000
Playgrounds 1:4,000
Picnic Units 1:1,100
Swimming Pools See Aquatic Master Plan
Golf Courses 18 Holes Market Driven
Community Centers f
The Department has adopted a standard of 1:30,000 for the provision of community centers.
Community centers are capital-intensive undertakings and have high operating and maintenance
costs. The Department recognizes the need for the programs and facilities that are housed in
City community centers and continues to work with partner agencies to provide community
center programs and facilities in a way that best utilizes public resources. Since the 2004 Master
Plan the City has built two new Community Centers with one Community Center currently under
design with another funded in the 2014 Bond Program to be built in the next five years.
The construction of future community centers will be evaluated with the following criteria:
(1) No community center or comparable facility exists in the area.
(2) The area to be served must have a population of 30,000 within the 1.5-mile service
area radius of the proposed community center location.
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards-Page 4
(3) If two or more areas of the City are deficient in community centers, and then priority
is given to the area with the highest population. If the areas to be served are
comparable in population then priority is given to the areas located in the Central
City.
Citywide Demographics
The population of the City of Fort Worth continues to grow. Population growth continues to be
due to birth rate, immigration, longer average life expectancy and domestic migration. In 2003,
the City's population was projected to be 772,000 by 2024. That projected population forecast for
2024 was exceeded in 2014,thus population numbers were reached ten years earlier than
forecasted. If population increases at the same rate we have seen over the last ten years,then by
2025 the city's population could exceed one million as stated by the Fort Worth Chamber of
Commerce and Census bureau projections.
Population Projection
2000 Census Population 534,694
2010 Census Population 741,206
2015 Population projection 852,486
2020 Population projection 929,741
2025 Population projection 1,047,940
Chart V-1
Population 110001000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1960 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014 2020 2025
Data:U.S.Ccaws Bureau,North Central Ttsas COG
Population and economic trends help to predict future needs for various land uses.As reported in
the latest City of Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan, an understanding of the City's land use and
zoning helps to put into perspective the City's development history and how Fort Worth may
continue to develop. Land use data for Fort Worth became available in 1960 when the City's size
was 145 square miles, less than half its current size.At that time, 37 percent of Fort Worth's land
was vacant. Today,Fort Worth encompasses 350 square miles,27 percent of which is vacant.
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards-Page 5
One-third of the City's undeveloped land contains floodplains, steep slopes, or other
development constraints limiting its development potential. Included in the City's over 350
square miles are 14 square miles of limited purpose annexation areas, where City zoning and
development regulations apply but City taxes are not assessed. The approximate land area
located outside the city limits but within its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is 310 square miles.
Most of the land within Fort Worth's ETJ is residential or undeveloped.
The general profile of the Fort Worth population, based on 2010 Census data, indicates a
population that is of unpretentious means with 33.4%of the families with median family
incomes of$50,000 to $94,999.
Table V-3 Family Income Distribution
CENSUS LESS $20,000 $25,000 $35,000 $50,000 $100,000
DATA THAN TO TO TO TO AND
$20,000 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $94,999 OVER
2000 14.95% 4.99% 12.35% 17.59% 35.61% 14.51%
2010 9% 9.9% 10.1% 13.6% 33.4% 24%
Table V-4 Family Households 2000 Census 2010 Census
Total Households 196,183 262,652
Average Persons per Household 2.63 2.77
Households with Persons Under 18 28.64% 54.2%
A comparison from the 2000 Census and the 2010 Census indicate a significant increase in the
total number of households from 196,183 to 262,652 persons. The 2010 Census also indicates a
slight shift upward in average household size from 2.63 in 2000 to 2.77 in 2010. The 2010
Census also shows an increase of households with persons under the age of 18 from 18.93% in
2000 to 25% in 2010.
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 6
Chart V-2
Census 2010 Age Distribution
30%
25%
0
25%
20%
P 15% °
0 ° ° 11%
0 10% 7% 7% 7% 5%
5%
a
0%
Under 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 years
&over
Age Groups
The 2010 Census data and projections predict Fort Worth will continue to see its age distribution
grow younger as compared to national and state demographics. The 2012 American Community
Survey reported a median age of 31.9 in Fort Worth, 33.9 for the State of Texas, and 37.4 for the
I
United States. There were 69,612 persons over 65 in the city in 2012.According to City of Fort
Worth projections,this figure will increase between 2010 and 2020 as the first members of the
i
baby boom generation reached the age of 65 in 2011.
There were 181,379 children between 5 and 19 years old in 2012, making up 23.2 percent of the
population, a slightly higher percentage of children than the U.S. as a whole,which was 20
percent, and Texas, which are 22.2. The adult population between the ages of 20 and 64 was
463,898, making up 59.3 percent of the population.Fort Worth's population percentage in the
20-64 age categories mirrored that of the State of Texas, and was slightly less than the U.S.with
60 percent. Between now and 2030,the greatest growth will occur in the general working-age
adult population,which will help to offset the increases in young and elderly populations. If
current trends continue,there will be more working adults per dependent population in 2030 than
in 2010.
1
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 7
Fort Worth is an ethnically diverse city. The minority population since 2000 has decreased from
42%to 39%and the white population from 2000 to 2010 has increased slightly from 58%to
61%. The B1acldAfrican American population from 2000 to 2010 has slightly increased from
16.75%to 19%. The Asian ethnicity from 2000 to 2010 has seen the greatest shift in percent
from 3.15%to 37%.Also as reported two or more races has increased from 2000 (1.66%)to
2010 (31%).
Chart V-3
Census 2010 Distribution of Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino 34%
Two or More Races 31%
Other 12%
C
W Native Hawaiian&Other 1
f
Asian Y%
American Indian&Alaska Native 6%
Black/African American 19%
White 61
Percent of Population
l
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards-Page 8
Geographic Planning Areas
Park Planning Districts
The Department identifies and uses Park Planning Districts (PPDs) as a basis for determining a
broad overview of park acreage and park facility deficiencies. A detailed description of these
units is available in Section VI: Inventory of Areas and Facilities of this plan. In 2004,the
Department restructured the PPDs from eight districts to five and in doing so created a Central
City Park Planning District(PPD 4). This Central City district was created in order to address
special open space and facility considerations in redeveloping areas of the Central City. In 2009
PPD 4 was realigned to encompass the City of Fort Worth areas within Loop 820. The following
map shows the old and new Park Planning District boundaries in relation to the defined Central
City area.
Map V-1 Comparison of 2004 and 2015 Park Planning District boundaries
-.;_
... legend i]
2004 Park Planning Districts 2015 Park Planning Districts
The Park Planning District boundary has changed slightly since 2004 with PPD 4 consisting of everything
inside 820 Loop and other PPD changes were made as additional land being included in the City limits.
Note: Loop 820- Interstate Highway.
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 9
Table V-5 Summary of Parkland Service Levels Per Park Planning District
Park 2010
Total Park Existing CFW Standard Service
Planning Census
PPD Acreage by Acres per Level of Using
District Population Parkland Type 1,000 Service per Minimum
Acreage Population 1,000 Standard
Population
1 132,688 1,367.26 Neighborhood 2.26 2.50 acres Underserved
Community 4.05 3.75 acres Served
Total PPD 1 6.31 6.25 acres
2 56,555 4,507.25 Neighborhood 3.96 2.50 acres Served
Community 10.49 3.75 acres Served
Total PPD 2 14.45 6.25 acres
3 55,801 213.65 Neighborhood 1.69 2.50 acres Underserved
Community 2.14 3.75 acres Underserved
Total PPD 3 3.83 6.25 acres
4 352,904 4,480.40 Neighborhood 1.31 2.50 acres Underserved
Community 8.59 3.75 acres Served
Total PPD 4 9.90 6.25 acres
5 143,865 1,198.85 Neighborhood 2.98 2.50 acres Served
Community 4.56 3.75 acres Served
Total PPD 5 7.54 6.25 acres
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 10
Table V-6 Example of Generalized Park Facility Service Levels
Park Example Facility Need Number Level
Planning Facility Based on Existing of
District Types CFW Service Facilities Service
Standard
1 Playgrounds 33 25 Served For a prioritized
breakdown of
Hike/Bike Trails(1 mile) 13 14 Served park facility needs
Athletic Fields 13 4 Underserved by category and
Community Centers 4 3 Underserved proposed capital
improvement
2 Playgrounds 14 11 Underserved projects refer to
Hike/Bike Trails(1 mile) 6 28 Served Section VII-Plan
Implementation
Athletic Fields 6 4 Underserved
and Prioritization
Community Centers 2 0 Underserved of Needs
3 Playgrounds 14 10 Underserved
Hike/Bike Trails(1 mile) 6 2 Underserved
Athletic Fields 6 2 Underserved
Community Centers 2 1 Underserved
4 Playgrounds 88 103 Served
Hike/Bike Trails(1 mile) 35 56 Served
Athletic Fields 35 62 Served
Community Centers 12 16 Served
5 Playgrounds 36 38 Served
Hike/Bike Trails(1 mile) 14 20 Served
Athletic Fields 14 5 Underserved
Community Centers 5 0 Underserved
* Although sufficient parkland acreage and recreational facilities may be available in a broad Park
Planning District area, the City looks more closely at acreage deficiencies at the Neighborhood Park
Unit level of service. Spatial distribution and service areas for land and facilities, as well as
neighborhood needs assessment data and population projections play a pivotal role in decision-
making and provides a more useful measure of close-to-home parkland and facility deficiencies. Refer to
Sections VI and VII.
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 11
Park Units
Park Planning Districts (PPDs) are subdivided into smaller geographic regions that reflect park
service areas at a community and neighborhood level (close-to-home parks). These smaller
subdivisions are referred to as Park Units and are classified as Neighborhood Park Units (NPUs)
and Community Park Units (CPUs). It is at this geographic level that parkland deficiency has its
most fundamental impact. Increased residential development increases area populations and
subsequently increases the demand for recreational and community services. To address this
increased need for parkland and facilities for new subdivisions, a park dedication policy exists in
the City's Subdivision Ordinance and is implemented in such a way that as new residential
communities are developed in the City,parkland and facility needs are met for the new residents.
Implementation of the Neighborhood and Community Park Dedication Policy insures that the
City stays ahead of residential development in provision of parkland and recreational services.
Park Units found to underserve the existing population in the availability of neighborhood and/or
community parkland requires that any developer seeking to add a new residential population
must either dedicate parkland to serve the new residents, as well as provide fees for park facility
development, or pay fees-in-lieu of land to the City for future land acquisition and facility
development within the Park Unit.
Neighborhood Park Units
A Neighborhood Park Unit(NPU) is an area of approximately 1/4 to 1/2 mile service radius and
designed to serve approximately 3,000 - 6,000 people. Areas of smaller population density will
have larger neighborhood park units. There are 198 NPUs currently designated. According to
2010 Census population data and the current inventory of parkland, fifty-five (55)NPUs are
served by existing neighborhood parkland, fifty-four(54) are underserved, and nine (9) are not
served by any neighborhood parkland.
Community Park Units
A Community Park Unit(CPU) is an area of approximately 1 to 1 %2 mile service radius to serve
approximately 18,000 - 36,000 people. Areas of smaller population density will have larger
Community Park Units. In general,there are typically six Neighborhood Park Units within each
Community Park Unit. There are thirty-six (36) CPUs currently designated. According to 2010
Census population data and the current inventory of parkland, fifteen(15) CPUs are served by
existing community parkland,twenty-one (2 1) are underserved, and nine(9) are not served by
community parkland.
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 12
Table V-7 Summary Park Unit Service Levels Per Park Planning District
Park Neighborhood Park Units Community Park Units
Planning Under Not Under Not
District Served Served* Served* Served Served* Served*
1 11 6 2 2 4 2
2 6 3 1 2 2 1
3 4 6 0 1 3 0
4 20 37 5 9 7 5
5 1 14 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1
Totals 1 55 1 54 1 9 1 15 1 21 1 9
* Many Park Units that are not served or are underserved are areas of the City that have predominately
commercial or industrial land uses, extensive floodplain regions, or have been residentially built-out prior
to ability to acquire parkland. In addition, many Park Units are comprised of undeveloped property that
will be developed residentially and subject to Neighborhood and Community Park Dedication Policy
requirements as development occurs.
For more detailed information concerning how parkland acreage and park facility deficiencies
are being addressed and remedied in Park Planning Districts, see Section VII: Plan
Implementation and Prioritization of Needs - Land Needs and Facility Priorities.
Neighborhood Based Parks
Urban Park `
The Urban park classification is a new
classification that encompasses a variety
of conditions that may also be referred to
as compact parks,plazas and public open •— -
spaces. These urban parks are typically
less than one acre and used by the public
for recreational or social purposes. The -
design and function of these spaces varies _ _ Fort Worth Urban Village Concept Sketches
depending on the site's context and
surrounding conditions. Urban parks are
typically located in highly urbanized areas
,f 0
and primarily used by residents and .
workers within easy walking distance.
These spaces may be located on public
land or on private land dedicated for use
by the general public. Urban parks may ~�
be created out of underused or vacant ' . ' -
'�r+-�...,,�
parcels, or they may be integral
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 13
components within master plans for larger
development and redevelopment projects. %rr
These urban parks are often less than one --
(1) acre and act as scaled-down }
neighborhood parks, but serve a specific
set of functions. Features may include -
but are not limited to:
• relaxing spaces for enjoying lunch
or meeting friends
• play activities for children
• interactive art works
• pet-friendly areas —�: _ ••
• small event space and gardens
Urban Park—General Worth Square,Fort Worth
Creating a smaller park within an urbanized area provides an opportunity to introduce a natural
refuge and social gathering space within an environment of bustling streets and taller buildings.
Because the parks may serve a variety of active and passive functions, attention to
design and the balancing of priorities are critical to their success.
These urban parks will also advance important strategic goals for the City of Fort Worth. The
City's Comprehensive Plan promotes the development of mixed-use growth centers and urban
( villages within the central city and certain outer areas targeted for future growth. These are
envisioned as high intensity,mixed use,highly walkable environments that attract new residents i
and businesses seeking an exciting urban environment.
Within these growth centers and urban villages,residents and workers expect convenient access
to urban parks. Many residents live in apartments and condominiums, and a network of public
gathering places serves as the social and recreational infrastructure that makes these areas
desirable. Without access to these spaces,many residents and businesses will choose to locate in
other cities that offer such amenities. The urban park also helps advance public health goals by
promoting outdoor activity and creating walking destinations. Environmental benefits from
natural features include mitigation of storm water runoff and reductions in the urban heat island
effect.
Urban Park—Watts Park,Fort Worth
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards-Page 14
Because these urban parks are generally smaller and more specialized than conventional
neighborhood parks,their location,function, and design will determine their success. The right
location and design makes it critically important to collaborate with community partners.
The City of Fort Worth will work with
a variety of partners to pursue
implementation of urban parks and -
whether it is a compact park, a plaza or
just public open space. The City will
plan and design these spaces in _
collaboration with developers,
redevelopment organizations,
neighborhood residents and business
owners. Those same partnerships
should continue after the space is
completed. Public-private agreements
and shared responsibility on maintenance Sundance Square,Fort worth
and programming is essential to creating vibrant spaces that continue to serve as urban amenities.
Potential funding sources include park dedication fees, Capital Improvement Program bond
funding, Tax Increment Financing District revenues, gas well revenues,private development
contributions, and State and Federal grants.
f' 1�
Sundance Square,Fort Worth
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards-Page 15
The map below shows the City's designated mixed-use growth centers and urban villages.
These are the areas targeted for the type of redevelopment within which the urban park is
appropriate and desirable. The City will work with partnering organizations in these areas -
including but not limited to Downtown Fort Worth, Inc., Fort Worth South, Inc., Trinity River
Vision Authority, Cultural District Alliance, Southeast Fort Worth, Inc., and Camp Bowie
District, Inc. -to pursue the development and maintenance of these spaces. Where applicable,
plans for these facilities should conform to the goals and strategies of redevelopment plans
prepared for those areas and adopted by reference in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
fi
ISO _
-j _ Rosedale
erry
t t`X ( _
Urban Villages • Urban Village
1. Historic Handley 9. South Main
2. Berry/Stalcup 10. Magnolia F7 Central City
3. Oakland Corners 11. Hemphill/Berry
4. PolytechnicPvVesleyan 12. Historic Marine
5. Six Points 13. West Seventh
6. Near East Side 14. Berry/University
7. Evans & Rosedale 15. Bluebonnet Circle
8. Berry/Riverside 16. Ridglea
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 16
Neighborhood Based Parks
Pocket Park
The Pocket Park is generally 1 to 5 acres and found predominately in established more urbanized
areas of the City,particularly within the Central City. They function as a traditional
neighborhood park on a reduced scale. The purpose of the Pocket Park is to provide green space
designed to meet the unique needs of residential neighborhoods in the urban environment.
Usually it is a combination of a few house lots in size, most often located in an urban area
surrounded by commercial buildings or
houses on small lots with few places for
people to gather,relax, or to enjoy the
outdoors. The NRPA has documented that
they are also called vest pocket parks,a
term first used in the 1960's. Generally
Pocket Parks are urban open spaces on a
small-scale and provide a safe and inviting
environment for surrounding community
members. They also meet a variety of
needs and functions, including: small
event space,play areas for children, spaces
for relaxing,places to meet friends and
taking lunch breaks.
r
Pocket Park—Capps Park,Fort Worth
Magnolia Green Park,Fort Worth
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards-Page 17
A. Service Area
1. 1/4 to 1/2 mile service radius to serve approximately 500 - 1,000 people
B. Size
1. 1 to 5 acres, contiguous site
C. Parking Facilities - On street parking
Acquisition
Many pocket parks have been created as a result of community groups organizing and rallying
for more open space within the urban environment. Leftover spaces and other urban
developments present opportunities for conversion to pocket parks, offering important and
desirable amenities to communities. These are often purchased and owned by cities, with the
agreement that they will be run and maintained by a foundation or other organization if the city
is unable to maintain the park itself. The benefits of these unique urban spaces often include one
or several of the following:
• Support the overall ecology of the surrounding environment
• Help protect and conserve local wildlife, landscape, and heritage
• Reduce pollution,traffic, and consumption of resources, such as oil
• Empower local residents to make decisions that affect their community
• Make communities safer and more sociable
• Improve fitness and health
• Regenerate run-down areas
• Reinforce relationships between local authorities and communities
Though pocket parks vary according to specific purposes and locations,there are numerous
characteristics that the majority has in common. For example:
• Pocket park users should not have to walk more than 5 to 10 minutes to reach their
destination.
• Since parking may or may not be provided,the parks should be accessible by both
foot and bike, and should not require the use of a car.
• Parks should serve a resident population of approximately 500-1,000 persons.
• Parks should strive to accommodate as many different users as possible,prioritizing
the needs of surrounding neighborhoods.
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 18
Neighborhood Based Parks
P
Neighborhood Park ;
The Neighborhood Park is generally 5-30i
acres in size,but may be larger depending
on factors such as multiple primary use
and function. It is easily accessible by = _
park users and is typically within walking
distance of homes in the adjacent
neighborhoods. The purpose of the
Neighborhood Park is to meet the daily
park, recreation and open space needs of
the citizens living in close proximity to the Neighborhood Park—Overton Park,Fort Worth
park.
For new neighborhood park development,
public meetings are held to determine the
specific needs of local neighborhoods.
The Departmental standard for practice
fields is 1:5,000. This indicates that one
practice field should be located in a
neighborhood park. Other facilities that
have this same standard are tennis courts
and multi-purpose courts, shelters and
trails. A Department standard for
playgrounds has been set at 1:4,000. This
also indicates that a playground should be
located in a neighborhood park. Neighborhood Park—Foster Park,Fort Worth
r
Neighborhood Park—Silver Sage Park,Fort Worth
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 19
A. Set-vice Area
1. 1/4 to 1/2 mile service radius to serve approximately 3,000 - 6,000 people
B. Size
1. Generally 5 to 30 acres in size.
2. The department has established a policy and precedent where it will accept a less than 5
acre Neighborhood Park minimum when one of the following conditions are meet:
a) When a neighborhood is not currently served by a Neighborhood Park
b) When there is strong neighborhood support for a smaller park facility, such as
within Park Planning District#4, such as a Pocket Park or Urban Park may be
considered.
c) Neighborhood Based Parks should be contiguous to school sites when the
opportunity is present.
C. Land Suitability Standards
1. 1/3 of site open,relatively flat topography of 2% slope for play fields/general
open field activity
2. 2/3 of site may include topographic diversity/forested area for picnicking, nature
study, play area, relaxing
3. Full rectangular, rounded or square shapes rather than elongated
4. Access from the neighborhood is to be relatively direct both by auto and
pedestrian transportation routes
D. Parking Facilities
1. On street parking
Acquisition
Neighborhood parks are typically acquired through the City's Subdivision Ordinance, which
includes provisions for the dedication of parkland. The Neighborhood and Community Park
Dedication Policy requires that 2.5 acres of neighborhood parkland be dedicated per 1,000
residents in the new development, or payment of fees-in-lieu of land dedication if the population
increase does not generate a need for the 5-acre minimum land dedication requirement.
Numerous neighborhood parks have also been acquired through citizen and foundation
donations.
Table V- 8 Standard Phase I Neighborhood Park Recreational Uses and Facilities
• Playground • Picnic tables w/cookers
• Picnic shelter • Picnic tables w/out cookers
• Multi-use court • Park security lights
• Practice Backstop w/slab • Passive non-structured open space
• Soccer goals • Fishing(where applicable)
• Hike and Bike Trails (where applicable) • Park benches
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 20
Community Based Parks
Community Park
A Community Park is generally 30 to 500 acres in size and plays an important role in providing
similar recreational facilities as a"close-to-home"park, but with additional acreage to
accommodate larger athletic fields for league play. With the potential to include adequate space
for a future community center as the neighborhood grows. Community parks should serve an
average of six neighborhood park units. The community park will function as a neighborhood
park if it has a(%4 to 'h mile radius)proximity to a neighborhood park unit.
Community parks are constructed for more structured athletic activities such as league soccer
and baseball/softball,volleyball and flag football. Special site characteristics may allow for
community park development with more intense recreational use such as lighted athletic fields,
tennis center,swimming pools, skate parks, and other unique recreation facilities. Athletic fields
are built to competition standards with seating and parking available.Areas of natural quality are
set aside to preserve the natural site
features within the urban environment.
Typical allocation for the development of
a community park is $50,000 per acre,
excluding land acquisition. The amount
allocated for first phase development
f depends on park size, community needs
and available funding.
Fort Worth Parks&Community Services Department Recreational Programs
i
r
Chisholm Trail Community Center,Fort Worth
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards-Page 21
A. Service Area
1. 1 to 1-1/2 mile service radius to serve approximately 18,000 - 36,000 people
2. One community park per six neighborhood park units—average
B. Size—Generally 30 to 500 acres
C. Land Characteristics
1. 1/3 of site open,relatively flat topography for play fields or general open field activity
2. 2/3 of site with topographic diversity/forested area for picnicking, nature study,play
area,passive recreational use
3. Full rectangular, rounded or square shapes rather than elongated
4. Access to be relatively direct both by auto and pedestrian transportation routes
5. Community Based Parks should be contiguous to school sites when the opportunity is
present.
D. Parking Facilities
1. 20 - 30 off street parking spaces.
2. Additional spaces are developed depending on the park activity, facilities and need.
Acquisition
Community Parks are typically acquired through fee simple purchase of appropriate park sites.
Funding for acquisition and development is derived from a mix of sources. The voters in Capital
Improvement Programs approve funds for acquisition and development and those funds are
usually matched with grant funding administered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
or local foundations and Federal grant programs. The Department reviews the City's Subdivision
Ordinance periodically to include provisions for community parkland. The Neighborhood and
Community Park Dedication Policy requires that 3.75 acres of community parkland be dedicated
per 1,000 residents in the new development, or payment of a fee-in-lieu of land if the population
increase does not generate the need for the 30-acre minimum land dedication.
Table V- 9 Standard Phase I Community Park Recreational Uses and Facilities
• Playground Picnic tables Wout cookers
• Multi-use court Park security lights
Practice backstop w/slab Competition Level Athletic Fields
• (with lights,irrigation, slab and bleachers/fencing)
• Soccer goals Parking(20-30 spaces)
• Hike and Bike concrete trail Water Fountains
• Park benches Passive non-structured use
• Picnic tables w/cookers Fishing(where applicable)
• Picnic shelter
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 22
Community Based Parks
T
} 3
Metropolitan Park
Metropolitan parks are generally 500 acres
in size and provide unique recreation and
tourist opportunities. Metropolitan parks
are very large multi-use parks that may
also serve surrounding communities
within a particular region. They can be .--
larger than 500 acres and serve those areas
within a one-hour driving distance. The Metropolitan Park—Gateway Park,Fort Worth
metropolitan park provides both active and
passive recreation opportunities,with a
wide selection of facilities for all age
groups. They may also include areas of -
nature preservation for activities such as
sightseeing, nature study area,wildlife
habitat, and conservation. National
Recreation and Park Association(NRPA)
standards for metropolitan parks vary due
to the specific site characteristics and
natural resources.
Metropolitan Park—Gateway Park,Fort Worth
Areas of natural quality are set aside to
preserve the natural site features within the
urban environment. Metropolitan parks
are also the location for compatible high
use recreational facility development
provided to meet the recreation needs of
the community. Special site y
characteristics may allow for the
metropolitan park development with more
intense recreational uses such as lighted
athletic fields,tennis courts, swimming
pools, and community centers.
The typical allocation for the development
of a metropolitan park is $50,000 an acre,
excluding land acquisition. The amount
allocated for first phase development
depends on park size, community needs
and available funding. Matching funds are
sometimes available for metropolitan park
development from the Texas Parks and _
Wildlife Department and other funding ,e
sources to supplement City funding. Metropolitan Park—Gateway Park,Fort Worth
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 23
A. Size—Generally 500 acres in size and larger
B. Land Characteristics
1. 1/3 of site open, relatively flat topography of 2%+ slope for play fields and general
open field activity
2. 2/3 of site with topographic diversity/forested area for picnicking, nature study,play
area, and passive recreational use
3. Full rectangular, rounded or square shapes rather than elongated
4. Direct access by both auto and pedestrian use
C. Parking Facilities
1. 60 - 100 off street parking spaces. (spaces are developed depending on the park
facilities and need.)
Acquisition
Metropolitan Parks are typically acquired through fee simple purchase of appropriate park sites
or through donations. Funding for acquisition and development is derived from a mix of
sources. The voters in capital improvement programs approve funds for acquisition and
development and those funds are usually matched with grant funding administered by the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department, local foundations and Federal grant programs.
Table V- 10 Typical Metropolitan Park Uses and Facilities
• Playgrounds (may have multiple) • Picnic tables Wout cookers
• Multi-use court • Park security lights
• Practice backstop w/slab • Competition Level Athletic Fields
(with lights, irrigation, slab and bleachers/fencing)
• Soccer goals • Parking(60-100 spaces)
• Hike and Bike concrete trail(miles) • Water Fountains
• Park benches • Restrooms
• Picnic tables w/cookers • Passive non-structured use
• Picnic shelter • Concessions(as applicable)
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 24
l Special Use & Nature Based Parks
Special Use
The Special Use classification covers a broad range of Fort Worth parks and community
services facilities that are oriented towards single purpose uses such as: conservancy areas and
botanic gardens,zoo and golf courses. Facility and acreage requirements vary substantially
depending on the specific special use.
Greenbelt
Greenbelt linkages are connections or
natural corridors that link parks together.
The Greenbelt may be developed for one bon,"
or more modes of recreational travel such ry r
as walking,jogging, biking, in-line
skating, hiking, Greenbelts may also offer '
the opportunity for fishing or canoeing.
Greenbelts may or may not include active
play areas depending on if the land is
appropriate for construction of such
active play features. There are not
specific standards for greenbelts other
than they should be sufficient to protect
the natural resources.
Trinity River,Fort Worth
Conservancy - -
Conservancies include areas for
protection and management of the 4 r►
natural/cultural environment with
recreational use as a secondary objective. '
Recreational use might include passive
recreation such as viewin g Y and studying
g -
nature and wildlife habitat. The NRPA
does not indicate specific acreage or size ; .
standards for the conservancy other than
they should be sufficient to protect the
resource and provide appropriate usage.
Fort Worth Nature Center&Refuge,Fort Worth
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards-Page 25
t
Acquisition of Special Use or Nature
Based Parks
,
Special Use and Nature Based Park
facilities are acquired and developed when
a special community interest evolves and
citizen groups become actively involved in
the development of facilities to service
specific needs of those groups and the
needs of the community.
For example,the Fort Worth Zoo,Botanic
Garden and the Fort Worth Nature Center
and Refuge each represent types of Special
Use or Nature Base Parks. The Zoo,
Botanic Garden and Nature Center and
Refuge have a combined total of annual
visitors that exceeds 1.5 million. These
three facilities have active support groups
that ensure that funding and volunteers are
provided to service the needs of the users
of these facilities.
Fort Worth Botanic Gardens,Fort Worth
I .
Fort Worth Zoo,Fort Worth Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 26
Trail Classifications and Standards
For all future trails and walks in the Fort Worth Park system,where feasible and applicable
will comply with the following:
1.) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Standards
2.) North Central Texas Council of Governments Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Guidelines
3.) Trinity Trail System Guidelines
Urban Multi-Use Trails
Major parks in the City
should be linked by Urban Trag Curidor50'
Multi-Use Trails. An ie I- Traa'L Msm}�r
example of existing and rzi
Urban Multi- QE a Or River
proposed Caxridvr
Use Trails is the Trinity ` s
Trail system. These high
volume, high use trails are
typically built to
8'to 12 ,
AASHTO Standards.
t They are typically eight Urban Multi-Use Trail
(8)to twelve (12) feet
wide and made of concrete so that they may simultaneously accommodate bicycle and pedestrian
traffic. Fort Worth trails comply with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Design Guidelines
and the Trinity Trail Management Guidelines which are locally developed trail standards.
Multi-Use Park Trails
Multi-Use Park Trails are TranMar}rr
hard surfaced trails that t kY fw9+r�r
provide access to park
Feature r t.
facilities or natural areas. inthe
Depending on volume of Park
use,these trails range in
width from six(6)to -
twelve (12)feet wide and s'�12.5'
may be constructed of
concrete, asphalt or
another suitable hard Multi-Use Park Trail
surfaced material.
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 27
Park Walks and Trails
Park Walks and Trails have a lower traffic use and speed. This type of trail should be six(6)
feet wide and are typically paved with concrete or asphalt. They provide the opportunity for
exercise and access to destination within the park.
Nature Trails/Paths Tran1 Mar}ver
These are soft surface trails that provide access toy
sensitive natural areas. They are surfaced with
materials such as fibar,wood chips or crushed ,; T
stone and have a low environmental impact.
4'to 6'
Park Walks and Trails
IxsexWetiveAler}mr r �.
-`t'��•�� UxigueEcologual
or Aesthetic Feahae •t', 's �� � 4r�• •'"
Varies
Nature Trail
Local area/facility standards have been determined and will be applied in subsequent
chapters. The Inventory section of this Master Plan will document what parks,recreation
and open space areas and facilities are currently within our system.
Section V:Area and Facility Concepts and Standards- Page 28
Section VI: Inventory of Areas and Facilities
Introduction
The Parks and Community Services Department's facilities were evaluated through a process of
inventory, analysis and assessment. Each park in the system was inventoried to determine the
number and location of facilities that exist in the park system. Each park was also examined to
determine if it was appropriately classified according to park classification standards as noted in
Section V-Area Facility Concepts and Standards. These typical park classifications and their
associated facilities were tested in the 2013 Needs Assessment to determine if the Recreation
Activity Menu for each park classification met the needs of the citizens. A Recreation Activity
Menu (RAM) is a listing of typical facilities that may be found in each park classification (see
Section V-Area and Facility Concepts and Standards for park classification information and
associated recreational facility service standards).
The following inventory is a descriptive and mapped inventory of existing park,recreation and
open space facilities City-wide and by Park Planning District. This section documents the
City's:
• Existing park, recreation and open space infrastructure
• Natural and urban resource base
• Relationships to other city infrastructure
• Connections to regional open space and facilities
• Relationships to school sites and facilities
• Relationships to other public lands and facilities
• Relationships to private, non-profit, and commercial recreation facilities
Existing Park,Recreation and Open Space Infrastructure
The City of Fort Worth park system consists of 268 park, recreation, and open space sites and
numerous agreements with other agencies. The park system consists of 245 active park sites
with the remainder either on reserve for future use or leased to other government or non-profit
agencies. Each park and facility in the current park system is classified by type.
In this plan,the parks are categorized according to three categories:Neighborhood Based,
Community Based and Special Use &Nature Based Parks. Neighborhood Based parks consist
o£ Urban,Pocket and Neighborhood parks. Community Based parks consist o£ Community and
Metropolitan parks. Parks classified as Special Use &Nature Based Parks consist of: Special
Use, Greenbelts, and Conservancy parks. The inventory of the park system has been
documented and analyzed based on these park classifications and standards. An inventory of
facilities is presented later in this section where facilities are grouped according to locations in
Park Planning Districts.
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 1
Natural Resources,Human Resources and Existing Parks
The Hare and Hare plan's "main theme of the park system" was "the acquisition of both banks of
all the principal water courses..." (Hare and Hare, 1930). This theme and vision expressed by
Hare and Hare continues to be a theme and policy of the Fort Worth Parks and Community
Services Department.
Connections to Regional Open Space and Facilities
The Trinity River Vision Master Plan provides the framework of trails linking internal open
space to the open space resources of the region. The Fort Worth park system uses the rivers and
creek systems as the basis for alternate transportation to adjacent cities. There are over forty
miles of trails along the Trinity River and its tributaries for walking, running, cycling or on
horseback. The trail network connects with twenty-one parks with the Fort Worth Botanic
Garden,Log Cabin Village, Fort Worth Zoo,the historic Stockyards and downtown Fort Worth.
The Department has had a long-standing agreement with the Tarrant Regional Water District for
the provision of open space and trails in the Trinity River Corridor. The Water District and the
Department share maintenance responsibilities and work together to expand the trail network that
serves the City.
The Trinity River and Tributaries
The single most significant natural resource in the City of Fort Worth is the Trinity River. A
twenty-year comprehensive master plan developed under the leadership of Fort Worth Streams
and Valleys, Inc. is currently in place. The majority of the Trinity River system in the City of
Fort Worth is protected and preserved through City ownership or agreements with the Tarrant
Regional Water District or the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District.
The Trinity River Vision Master Plan represents the community's vision for the future of the
Trinity River Corridor in Fort Worth. The
Plan identifies opportunities for recreation, '� 1
conservation, linkages and open space. The ' t
primary objective of the Plan includes
identifying and improving adjoining land � -
uses, enhancing environmental quality and
flood control. The master plan presents a
series of universal guidelines for all land
uses associated with the River Corridor.
Plan recommendations include a 200- foot
wide overlay zone from the proposed
greenbelt edge and key urban design
guidelines relating to the orientation of Trinity River Vision Concept Sketch,Fort Worth
buildings and outdoor use areas and greenbelt access.
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 2
The West Fork of the Trinity River provides the opportunity for connection between Lake Worth
and the Central Business District(CBD). Rockwood Park and Golf Course is located on the
West Fork. The West Fork provides trail and open space linkages to the western and northwest
neighborhoods of the City. The Clear Fork of the Trinity River connects the south and
southwestern neighborhoods of the City to the CBD and provides connection between major
parks such as Pecan Valley Park and Golf Course, Oakmont, River,Forest, Trinity and Heritage
Parks. Throughout the park system's history,the bluff overlooking the confluence of the West
Fork and Clear Fork of the Trinity River has been considered the center of the City's park
system. Since Heritage Park was developed on the bluff overlooking the confluence,this park
has served to connect the Trinity Trail System to the CBD. The Trinity River provides
opportunities for trail and open space connection to the east between the CBD,Riverside,
Greenway, Gateway and Quanah Parker Parks.
Major tributaries of the Trinity River such as Sycamore Creek,Marine Creek, and White's
Branch Creek provide significant opportunities for open space and alternative transportation
linkages in the City of Fort Worth and Tarrant County.
i'
unu ni qli• n,.0••.nl wii:�:811 ��..� ✓ .��. `� � 1y.:� � �[• 1N�,,
Rockin the River,Fort Worth
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities-Page 3
C Existing Park System
Fort Worth's diverse population is served by a variety of park, recreational, and open spaces:
• approximately 11,773 acres of parkland
• 20 city-operated Community Centers
• I Athletic Center
• 1 Botanic Garden
• 1 Nature Center and Refuge
• 1 Zoo
• 4 Golf Courses(87 holes)
• 181 Neighborhood Based Parks
• 61 Community Based Parks
• 8 Conservancy Parks
• 7 Greenbelts
• 11 Special Use Parks
See Table VI-1 Neighborhood Based Parks in the Fort Worth Park System, Table VI-2
Community Based Parks in the Fort Worth Park System, and Table VI-3 Special Use Parks in
the Fort Worth Park System.
Table VI-1 Neighborhood Based Parks in the Fort Worth Park System
Park Park City
Park Acres Planning Council
Classification District District
Alexandra Meadows 7.53 Neighborhood 5 2
Anderson-Campbell 24.22 Neighborhood 4 2
Arcadia Trail Park South 40.17 Neighborhood 5 4
Barksdale 20.80 Neighborhood 5 4
C.P.Hadley 28.22 Neighborhood 1 6
Camelot 5.25 Neighborhood 1 8
Camp Joy 8.23 Neighborhood 2 7
Chamberlin 6.94 Neighborhood 4 3
Chisholm Ridge 31.29 Neighborhood 5 2
Chuck Silcox 20.81 Neighborhood 2 3
Cobblestone Trail 24.27 Neighborhood 3 5
Crawford Farms 7.00 Neighborhood 5 7
Creekside 16.23 Neighborhood 1 6
Deer Creek 11.99 Neighborhood 1 6
Deer Meadow 8.50 Neighborhood 1 6
Dorado 14.27 Neighborhood 5 7
Eastover 13.50 Neighborhood 4 5
Ed K.Collett 7.69 Neighborhood 4 3 &9
Ellis 10.51 Neighborhood 4 8
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 4
Table VI-1 Neighborhood Based Parks in the Fort Worth Park System.....continued
Park Park City
Park Acres Classification Planning Council
District District
Eugene McCray Park at Lake Arlington 6.07 Neighborhood 3 5
Falcon Ridge 6.47 Neighborhood 2 3
Foster 11.92 Neighborhood 4 3
Fox Run 9.79 Neighborhood 1 6
Freemons 17.39 Neighborhood 2 7
George Markos 29.69 Neighborhood 2 3
Greenway 15.98 Neighborhood 4 8
Harvest Ridge 6.38 Neighborhood 5 7
Heritage Glen 28.84 Neighborhood 5 4
i
Hulen Meadows 23.04 Neighborhood 1 6
Island View 14.00 Neighborhood 2 7
Jefferson Davis 6.50 Neighborhood 4 9
Junction 6.20 Neighborhood 5 7
Kellis 16.30 Neighborhood 4 9
Kingsridge 19.98 Neighborhood 5 7
Kingswood 16.77 Neighborhood 1 6
Krauss Baker 18.60 Neighborhood 1 6
Kristi Jean Burbach 14.71 Neighborhood 5 4
Lincoln 7.00 Neighborhood 4 2
Lincolnshire 15.38 Neighborhood 1 8
Live Oak 7.85 Neighborhood 2 7
Lost Spurs 9.96 Neighborhood 5 7
Love Circle 50.00 Neighborhood 2 7
Marie F.Pate 5.00 Neighborhood 4 5
Marina 5.00 Neighborhood 2 7
Marine Creek Linear 48.16 Neighborhood 4 2
Marine Creek Linear North 7.83 Neighborhood 4 2
Mary and Marvin Leonard 6.53 Neighborhood 4 3
McPherson Ranch 7.43 Neighborhood 5 7
Meadows West 17.24 Neighborhood 1 3
Ninnie Baird 15.55 Neighborhood 5 4
Park Place 5.80 Neighborhood 5 4
Parks of Deer Creek 8.22 Neighborhood 1 6
Parkwood Hills 8.64 Neighborhood 5 4
Patricia Leblanc 15.00 Neighborhood 1 6
Post Oak Village 6.00 Neighborhood 3 5
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 5
Table VI-1 Neighborhood Based Parks in the Fort Worth Park System.....continued
Park Park City
Park Acres Planning Council
Classification District District
Quail Ridge 7.33 Neighborhood 1 6
Ranches East 18.52 Neighborhood 5 7
Reata 8.12 Neighborhood 5 7
Remington Pointe 10.56 Neighborhood 2 2
Ridgeview Farms 7.32 Neighborhood 5 2
Ridglea Hills 6.10 Neighborhood 4 3
River Park 11.63 Neighborhood 4 3
Rodeo 5.30 Neighborhood 4 2
Rosedale Plaza 6.25 Neighborhood 4 5
Rosemary Ridge 6.25 Neighborhood 1 6
Rosen 8.80 Neighborhood 4 2
Sandy Lane 28.70 Neighborhood 3 5
Saratoga 21.12 Neighborhood 5 7
Seminary Hills 6.18 Neighborhood 4 9
Settlement Plaza 10.40 Neighborhood 2 3
Shackleford 11.97 Neighborhood 4 8
Silver Sage 10.46 Neighborhood 5 4
Sinclair 16.48 Neighborhood 5 7
Southcreek 6.30 Neighborhood 1 6
Stephens 4.00 Neighborhood 4 9
Stonecreek 10.21 Neighborhood 3 5
Stratford 15.00 Neighborhood 4 8
Summer Creek Ranch 6.23 Neighborhood 1 6
Summerbrook 27.27 Neighborhood 5 4
Summerfields 9.40 Neighborhood 5 4
Sundance Springs 5.39 Neighborhood 1 8
Sunset 10.00 Neighborhood 2 7
Sunset Hills 7.54 Neighborhood 3 4
Sunset Hills North 6.73 Neighborhood 5 4
Tandy Hills 15.00 Neighborhood 4 8
Titus Paulsel 10.00 Neighborhood 4 5
Trails of Fossil Creek 10.26 Neighborhood 5 7
Twin Mills 10.93 Neighborhood 2 7
Village Creek 24.31 Neighborhood 4 5
Vinca Circle 5.19 Neighborhood 2 7
Vista West 5.03 Neighborhood 2 3
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities-Page 6
�. Table VI-1 Neighborhood Based Parks in the Fort Worth Park System.....continued
Park Park City
Park Acres Planning Council
Classification District District
Walnut Creek 5.59 Neighborhood 1 3
Wedgwood 6.66 Neighborhood 1 6
Westcreek 17.00 Neighborhood 1 6
Western Hills 17.89 Neighborhood 4 3
Wildwood 6.00 Neighborhood 2 7
----------
William McDonald 13.85 Neighborhood 4 5
Willow Ridge 5.31 Neighborhood 5 7
Willowcreek 8.68 Neighborhood 1 8
Woodland Springs 17.08 Neighborhood 5 7
Woodmont 15.00 Neighborhood 1 6
Arnold 3.02 Pocket 4 9
Bonnie Brae 3.70 Pocket 4 4 M
Bunche 2.30 Pocket 4 5
Capps 4.41 Pocket 4 9
Crestwood 2.00 Pocket 4 7
Crossing at Fossil Creek 4.02 Pocket 5 8
( Dabney 3.45 Pocket 1 6
Daggett 3.40 Pocket 4 9
Delga 4.06 Pocket 4 8
Eagle Mountain Ranch 4.32 Pocket 2 7
Eastbrook 3.20 Pocket 3 5
Eastern Hills 3.00 Pocket 4 4
Englewood 1.06 Pocket 4 5
Fairfax 4.00 Pocket 4 8
Gid Hooper 2.58 Pocket 4 8
Harrold 2.30 Pocket 4 9
Linwood-Jesse D.Sandoval 4.00 Pocket 4 9
Little People 2.90 Pocket 1 6
Lost Creek Ranch 4.20 Pocket 5 7
Malaga 2.00 Pocket 2 7
Meadow Creek 4.52 Pocket 1 8
Meadowood 1.75 Pocket 4 8
Monticello 4.24 Pocket 4 7
Morningside Middle School 2.41 Pocket 4 8
Morris Berney 4.50 Pocket 4 3
Newby 2.75 Pocket 4 9
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 7
Table VI-1 Neighborhood Based Parks in the Fort Worth Park System.....continued
Park Park City
Park Acres Planning Council
Classification District District
Normandy Place 1.50 Pocket 4 8
Plover Circle 4.00 Pocket 4 7
River Trails III 4.46 Pocket 3 5
Rosenthal 1.53 Pocket 1 6
Sagamore Hills 4.15 Pocket 4 5
Sandybrook 2.92 Pocket 3 5
Smith-Wilemon 3.23 Pocket 4 4
South Meadows 3.59 Pocket 1 8
Springdale 4.00 Pocket 4 4
Summerfields Chisholm 4.54 Pocket 5 4
Summerfields Northwest 4.99 Pocket 5 4
Tadlock 4.50 Pocket 4 8
Tehama Ridge 3.18 Pocket 5 7
Thorny Ridge 3.76 Pocket 4 3
Traders Oak 3.28 Pocket 4 9
Trail Lake Estates 4.58 Pocket 1 6
Van Zandt-Guinn 3.40 Pocket 4 8
West Fork Ranch 4.77 Pocket 5 2
Westwind 2.10 Pocket 4 3
Windswept Circle 3.00 Pocket 4 7
Worth Hills 1.50 Pocket 4 9
Arneson 0.44 Urban Park 4 2
Blue Bonnet Circle 1.25 Urban Park 4 9
Burk Burnett 3.03 Urban Park 4 9
Camp Worth 0.39 Urban Park 5 4
Circle 3.06 Urban Park 4 2
City Hall Plaza 2.50 Urban Park 4 9
Diamond Hill H.S. 0.10 Urban Park 4 2
Ederville 0.91 Urban Park 3 5
Elm Street 0.28 Urban Park 4 9
Fairmount 0.68 Urban Park 4 9
Federal Plaza 0.60 Urban Park 4 9
First Flight 0.61 Urban Park 4 9
General Worth Square 1.53 Urban Park 4 9
Goodman 0.14 Urban Park 4 3
Hall-Tandy Triangle 0.32 Urban Park 1 4 1 8
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities-Page 8
�. Table VI-1 Neighborhood Based Parks in the Fort Worth Park System.....continued
Park Park City
Park Acres Planning Council
Classification District District
Harvey Street 0.94 Urban Park 4 8
Haynes Memorial Triangle 0.10 Urban Park 4 9
High Crest 0.74 Urban Park 4 2
Hyde 0.01 Urban Park 4 9
Jennings-May-St.Louis 0.85 Urban Park 4 9
Littlejohn 0.83 Urban Park 4 5
Louella Bales Baker 0.96 Urban Park 4 8
Maddox 0.96 Urban Park 4 2
Mesa Verde 0.30 Urban Park 5 4
Oakhurst 0.75 Urban Park 4 9
Paddock 0.80 Urban Park 4 9
Parkwood East 0.18 Urban Park 1 6
Paz Hernandez 0.41 Urban Park 4 2
Peter Smith 0.10 Urban Park 4 9
Ryan Place Triangle 0.27 Urban Park 4 9
Terry 0.43 Urban Park 4 2
Watts 0.91 Urban Park 4 9
Wright Tarlton 0.70 Urban Park 4 7
Total Acreage= 1,509.12
F.
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 9
(. Table VI-2 Community Based Parks in the Fort Worth Park System
Park Park City
Park Acres Classification Planning Council
District District
Anderson 34.59 Community 2 2
Arcadia Trail 69.08 Community 5 4
Arcadia Trail Park North 177.24 Community 5 2&4
Arrow S 37.80 Community 2&4 7
Buck Sansom 131.60 Community 4 2
Candleridge 88.03 Community 1 6
Carter 163.48 Community 4 8&9_
Casino Beach 44.00 Community 2 7
Chadwick Farms 39.19 Community 5 7
Chisholm Trail 76.70 Community 1 6
Cobb 224.47 Community 4 8
Como Community Center Park 1.20 Community 4 3
Diamond Hill 9.88 Community 4 2
Eugene McCray Community Center Park 3.00 Community 4 5
Far Northside 3.22 Community 4 2
Fire Station Community Center 1.70 Community 4 9
Forest 120.88 Community 4 9
Glenwood 36.92 Community 4 8
Greenbriar 49.12 Community 4 9
Hallmark 25.35 Community 1 8
Handley 15.45 Community 3 5
Harmon Field 97.50 Community 4 8
Harriet Creek Ranch 32.17 Community 5 7
Heritage 112.81 Community 4 9&2
Heritage Addition 36.79 Community 5 4
Highland Hills 28.66 Community 1 8
Hillside 24.14 Community 4 8
Lake Como 59.14 Community 4 3&9
Mallard Cove 103.92 Community 3 5
Marine 12.00 Community 4 2
Marine Creek Lake 69.97 Community 2 2
Marine Creek Ranch 42.96 Community 2 2
Marion Sansom 264.00 Community 4 7
Martin Luther King 5.78 Community 4 5
Mosque Point 80.00 Community 2 7
North Park 61.52 Community 5 4
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 10
Table VI-2 Community Based Parks in the Fort Worth Park System.....continued
Park Park City
Park Acres Planning Council
Classification District District
North Z-Boaz 138.30 Community 4 3
Northside 15.00 Community 4 2
Northwest Community 245.77 Community 5 7
Oakland Lake 69.00 Community 4 8
Oakmont 127.17 Community 1 3
Overton 48.68 Community 4 3
Pecan Valley 190.14 Community 1 3
Prairie Dog 39.56 Community 4 5
Quanah Parker 68.00 Community 4 4
Riverside 30.80 Community 4 9
Rockwood 50.46 Community 4 2&7
Rosemont 30.40 Community 4 9
Southside Community Center Park 2.00 Community 4 8
Southwest 1.80 Community 1 6
Sycamore 88.02 Community 4 8
Sylvania 29.22 Community 4 4
Thomas Place 2.76 Community 4 7
Trail Drivers 39.61 Community 4 2
Trinity 252.00 Community 4 9
Victory Forest 11.15 Community 4 9
West Park 212.20 Community 2 7
Wildwood North 124.35 Community 2 7
Worth Heights 0.58 Community 4 9
Z-Boaz South 134.38 Community 4 3
Gateway Park 635.11 Metropolitan 4 4
Total Acreage= 4,970.71
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities-Page 11
Table VI-3 Special Use&Nature Based Parks in the Fort Worth Park System
Park Park City
Park Acres Planning Council
Classification District District
City View 31.31 Conservancy 1 3
Fort Worth Nature Center and Refuge 3,632.53 Conservancy 2 7
Goat Island 6.00 Conservancy 2 7
Greer Island 20.00 Conservancy 2 7
Southridge 2.05 Conservancy 1 6
Stratford Nature Area 35.00 Conservancy 4 8
Tandy Hills Nature Center 90.25 Conservancy 4 8
Trinity Bluff 1.84 Conservancy 4 9
Coventry Hills Addition 21.55 Greenbelt 5 4
J.T.Hinkle 5.99 Greenbelt 2 7
Lasater 25.13 Greenbelt 5 2
Oakmont Linear 34.88 Greenbelt 1 3&6
Saunders 0.48 Greenbelt 4 2
Tehama Trails 22.84 Greenbelt 5 7
Vinyards at Heritage 44.15 Greenbelt 5 4
Botanic Garden 116.56 Special Use 4 7
Fort Worth Zoo 58.53 Special Use 4 9
Log Cabin Village 2.50 Special Use 4 9
Meadowbrook Golf Course 138.90 Special Use 4 4
Pecan Valley Golf Course 461.77 Special Use 1 3
Rockwood Golf Course 229.49 Special Use 4 2&7
Rolling Hills 207.29 Special Use 4 8
Sycamore Creek Golf Course 66.22 Special Use 4 8
Veterans Memorial 0.51 Special Use 4 7
Water Gardens 5.40 Special Use 4 9
Will Rogers Memorial Center Complex 32.00 Special Use 4 7
Total Acreage= 5,293.16
For park locations refer to the park inventory maps included as part the Park Planning District
inventories later in this section.
Q
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 12
--7------------------ --- - ---------------------
2015 City of Fort Worth
Park Planning District 1
i
\.SE COUNTY DENTON 19PUNTY ----7— -._
TARRANT COUNTY
F {i NN�j
wk
W �E
1
II �
Legend
Fort North City Limit
County Boundary
Street
Lake
i
River
Municipal Golf Course
Park
PPD1
TARRANTCOU.YTY
Y__
LT.LIS CUU\'TY
FORT WORTH. JOHNSON COUNT
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 13
Table VI4 Park Planning District 1 Park Inventoryy Lis tin
Park Park City Zi
Park Acres Planning Council Address P
Classification District District Code
C.P.Hadley 28.22 Neighborhood 1 6 5301 Wildflower Way 76123v
Camelot 5.25 Neighborhood 1 8 1517 Andante Dr 76134
Candleridge 88.03 Community 1 6 4301 French Lake Dr 76133
Chisholm Trail 76.70 Community 1 6 4680 McPherson Blvd 76123
City View 31.31 Conservancy 1 3 7900 Oakmont Blvd 76132
Creekside 16.23 Neighborhood 1 6 3100 Roddy Dr 76123
Dabney 3.45 Pocket 1 6 7501 Whirlwind Dr 76133
Deer Creek 11.99 Neighborhood 1 6 11800 Hemphill St 76036
Deer Meadow 8.50 Neighborhood 1 6 11600 Oak Grove Rd South 76028
Fox Run 9.79 Neighborhood 1 6 8777 Fox Meadow Way 76123
Hallmark 25.35 Community 1 8 820 Sycamore School Rd 76134
Highland Hills 28.66 Community 1 8 1600 Glasgow Rd 76134
Hulen Meadows 23.04 Neighborhood 1 6 3600 Blue Springs Dr 76123
Kingswood 16.77 Neighborhood 1 6 7505 Trail Lake Dr 76133
Krauss Baker 18.60 Neighborhood 1 6 3517 Park Lake Dr 76133
Lincolnshire 15.38 Neighborhood 1 8 1425 Horncastle St 76134
Little People 2.90 Pocket 1 6 3431 Walton Ave 76133
Meadow Creek 4.52 Pocket 1 8 2436 Carolina Dr 76123
Meadows West 17.24 Neighborhood 1 3 6400 Bellaire Dr South 76132
Oakmont 127.17 Community 1 3 7000 Bellaire Dr South 76132
Oakmont Linear 34.88 Greenbelt 1 3&6 7785 Bellaire Dr South 76132
Parks of Deer Creek 8.22 Neighborhood 1 6 10200 Deer Trl 76140
Parkwood East 0.18 Urban Park 1 6 7704 Xavier Dr 76133
Patricia Leblanc 15.00 Neighborhood 1 6 6300 Granbury Cut-Off 76132
Pecan Valley 190.14 Community 1 3 6400 Pecan Valley Dr 76126
Pecan Valley Golf Course 461.77 Special Use 1 3 6400 Pecan Valley Dr 76126
Quail Ridge 7.33 Neighborhood 1 6 7451 Dutch Branch Rd 76132
Rosemary Ridge 6.25 Neighborhood 1 6 4350 Red Clover Ln 76036
Rosenthal 1.53 Pocket 1 6 5200 Hastings Dr 76133
South Meadows 3.59 Pocket 1 8 2300 Kelton St 76134
Southcreek 6.30 Neighborhood 1 6 6746 Westcreek Dr 76133
Southridge 2.05 Conservancy 1 6 3601 Biloxi Dr 76133
Southwest 1.80 Community 1 6 4320 Altamesa Blvd 76133
Summer Creek Ranch 6.23 Neighborhood 1 6 8501 Bentwater Ln 76123
Sundance Springs 5.39 Neighborhood 1 8 7791 Hawkwood Tr 76123
Trail Lake Estates 4.58 Pocket 1 6 7160 Trail Lake Dr 76133
Walnut Creek 5.59 Neighborhood 1 3 9847 Mullins Crossing Dr/ 76126
----------
5244 Concho Valley Tr
Wedgwood 6.66 Neighborhood 1 6 5309 Winifred Dr 76133
Westcreek 17.00 Neighborhood 1 6 6008 Jennie Dr 76133
Willowcreek 8.68 Neighborhood 1 8 1285 Sycamore School Rd 76134
Woodmont 15.00 Neighborhood 1 6 2300 Woodmont Trl 76133
Total Acreage= 1,367.26
l
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 14
Park Planning District 1 (PPD 1)
Boundary Description
PPD 1 is bounded on the north by IH-20, on the south and east by the City of Fort Worth city limits
and on the west by Farm to Market Road 287; however,there are areas that extend further westward.
Demographic Information
Significant growth is expected in PPD 1 over the next 10 years. There is currently an abundant
acreage of undeveloped land in this southwestern area of the City.
PPD 1 Percent Population
Increase Projection
2000 Population - 125,279
2010 Population 5.91% 132,688
2015 Population 8.33% 143,749
2025 Population 29.78% 186,571
General Description of the Park System
PPD 1 is a collection of relatively new neighborhoods. The majority of the existing
neighborhoods have been built since the seventies. Neighborhood and Community Based Parks
are evenly distributed throughout the district and offer the opportunity to build connections
between parks. Significant growth is expected in this PPD over the next five to ten years. There
is currently an abundant acreage of undeveloped land in the eastern portion of this PPD.
Summary of Facilities in PPD 1
There are currently thirty (30)Neighborhood Based Parks, seven (7) Community Based Parks,
two (2) Conservancy, one(1) Greenbelt, and one (1) Special Use Park in PPD 1. The average
park size in this PPD is approximately 33 acres.
Community Centers
PPD 1 is served by three community centers,the Southwest Community Center, located in
Southwest Park,Highland Hills Community Center, located in Highland Hills Park and
Chisholm Trail Community Center, located in Chisholm Trail Park. Some typical neighborhood
and City-wide programs and activities offered at these facilities include sports tournaments,
senior activities and cultural programs. Based on a projected growth rate of 8.33%for this PPD
over the next five years, additional community center facilities and programs will be needed.
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 15
2015 City of Fort Worth
Park Planning District 2
WIEECOUNTY
TARRANT COUNTY
i
AS
- I �
r� \ I-i♦
Legend
F Fort WoHh City Llmit
nCounty Oounduy
L `-�- Street
Lake
River
Municipal Col(Course
Park
_ TARRANT COUNTY
JOHNSON COUNTY
FORT WORTH ELLIE COUNTY
t
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 16
Table VI-5 Park Planning District 2 Park Inventory Listing
Park City
Park Acres Classification Park Planning Council Address Zip
Code
District District
Anderson 34.59 Community 2 2 5052 Cromwell- 76179
Marine Creek Rd
Arrow S 10.80 Community 2 &4 7 7951 Cahoba Dr 76135
Camp Joy 8.23 Neighborhood 2 7 9621 Watercress Dr 76108
Casino Beach 44.00 Community 2 7 7451 Watercress Dr 76135
Chuck Silcox 20.81 Neighborhood 2 3 2809 Wakecrest Dr 76108
Eagle Mountain 4.32 Pocket 2 7 7200 Bunk House 76179
Ranch
Falcon Ridge 6.47 Neighborhood 2 3 498 Broadleaf Dr 76108
Fort Worth Nature 3,632.53 Conservancy 2 7 9601 Fossil Ridge 76135
Center&Refuge Rd
Freemons 17.39 Neighborhood 2 7 9850 Heron Dr 76108
George Markos 29.69 Neighborhood 2 3 400 Academy Blvd 76108
Goat Island 6.00 Conservancy 2 7 8298 Malaga Dr 76135
Greer Island 20.00 Conservancy 2 7 7700 Shoreline Rd 76108
Island View 14.00 Neighborhood 2 7 8401 Watercress Dr 76135
J.T.Hinkle 5.99 Greenbelt 2 7 6521 Shadeydell Dr 76135
Live Oak 7.85 Neighborhood 2 7 2300 Silver Creek Rd 76108
Love Circle 50.00 Neighborhood 2 7 7400Hcksboro 76135
Malaga 2.00 Pocket 2 7 7500 Malaga Dr 76135
Marina 5.00 Neighborhood 2 7 4033 Marina Dr 76135
Marine Creek Lake 6997 Community 2 2 4700 Huffines Blvd 76135
Marine Creek 5101 Cromwell
Ranch 42.96 Community 2 2 Marine Creek Rd 76135
Mosque Point 80.00 Community 2 7 8375 Cahoba Dr 76135
Remington Pointe 10.56 Neighborhood 2 2 6050 Western Pass 76179
Settlement Plaza 10.40 Neighborhood 2 3 9745 Francesca Dr 76108
Sunset 10.00 Neighborhood 2 7 8855 Watercress Dr 76135
Twin Mills 10.93 Neighborhood 2 7 5100-5101 Wild 76179
Oats Dr
Vinca Circle 5.19 Neighborhood 2 7 7800 Malaga Dr 76135
Vista West 5.03 Neighborhood 2 3 10510 vista 76108
Heights Blvd
West Park 212.20 Community 2 7 8787 Heron Dr 76108
Wildwood 6.00 Neighborhood 2 7 9849 Watercress Dr 76108
Wildwood North 124.35 Community 2 7 9900 Watercress Dr 76108
Total Acreage= 4,507.25
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities-Page 17
Park Planning District 2 (PPD 2)
Boundary Description
PPD 2 is bounded on the north by Bonds Ranch Road, on the south by Aledo Road, on the east
by West Loop 820 and on the west by the City of Fort Worth city limits.
Demographic Information
This PPD has seen exponential growth since the 2010 Census count due to relatively new
subdivision development in the northern portion of the PPD. This is the fastest growing PPD
population in the City.
PPD 2 Percent Population
Increase Projection
2000 Population - 74,630
2010 Population -24% 56,555
2015 Population 53.30% 86,703
2025 Population 57.15% 136,262—d
General Description of the Park System
Lake Worth is part of the City's water supply system and affords the citizens numerous
opportunities for water based recreation activities such as boating, swimming and fishing. The
concentration of park acreage around this body of water is a critical asset to the park system and
the City. These parks are isolated from the population of the City by distance and the physical
barrier of Loop 820. The average park size in PPD 2 is 150 acres due to the fact that the 3,633
acre Fort Worth Nature Center and Refuge is located in this PPD.
Summary of Facilities in PPD 2
PPD 2 has eighteen(18)Neighborhood Based Parks, eight(8) Community Based Parks, one (1)
Greenbelt and three (3) Conservancy parks.
Community Centers
There are no community centers currently located in PPD 2. As growth continues in this PPD
there will be a need to identify potential locations for community centers. Suitable locations
have access to major road and nearby neighborhoods and schools. Potential sites should also
have adequate space and topography for supporting infrastructure such as park roads and
parking.
r,
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 18
2015 City of Fort Worth
I
Park Planning District 3_ WISECOUNTV _OF NCOUN7Y
TARRANi CpUNTY
�l I
a N
IN
j�
.
m 3
Le end
g
_ t
L_-'Port Worth City Limit
County Boundary
Sheet
Lake
River
-
--j Municipal Gulf Course
�A I
Park
tr PPD3
TARRANTCOUMY
IOIINSON COUMY -'- --
FORT WORTH, Q.uscourrrr
s
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 19
t Table VI-6 Park Planning District 3 Park Inventory Listing
Park Park City Zi
Park Acres Planning Council Address P
Classification Code
District District
Cobblestone Trail 24.27 Neighborhood 3 5 7601 John T.White 76120
Eastbrook 3.20 Pocket 3 5 2728 Escalante Ave 76112
Ederville 0.91 Urban Park 3 5 1455 Nottingham Blvd 76112
Eugene McCray Park 6.07 Neighborhood 3 5 3449 Quail Rd 76119
at Lake Arlington
Handley 15.45 Community 3 5 6201 Beaty St 76112
Mallard Cove 103.92 Community 3 5 375 Shadow Grass Ave 76120
Post Oak Village 6.00 Neighborhood 3 5 3830 Post Oak Blvd 76040
River Trails III 4.46 Pocket 3 5 8570 San Joaquin Trl 76118
Sandy Lane 28.70 Neighborhood 3 5 2001 Sandy Ln 76112
Sandybrook 2.92 Pocket 3 5 7049 Greenview Cir N 76120
Stonecreek 10.21 Neighborhood 3 5 12801 Sweet Bay Dr 76040
Sunset Hills 7.54 Neighborhood 3 4 7017 Ellis Rd 76112
Total Acreage= 213.65
PARK PLANNING DISTRICT 3 (PPD 3)
Boundary Description
PPD 3 is bounded on the north by SH-12 1/Airport Freeway, on the south by IH-20, on the east
by the City of Fort Worth city limits and on the west by East Loop 820.
Demographic Information
PPD 3 has experienced a slight decrease in population from 2000 to 2010 due to the restructuring
of PPD 4; however,projections show a moderate increase from 2015 onward. This district is a
combination of older neighborhoods and newly developing areas on the far east side of the
district. It is likely that this moderate growth trend will continue over the next five years as the
eastern portion of the City,which has a large quantity of vacant land available for development,
begins to develop.
PPD 3 Percent Population
Increase Projection
2000 Population - 58,048
2010 Population -4.02% 55,801
2015 Population 12.40% 62,722
2025 Population 1 17.12% 1 73,463
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 20
General Description of the Park System
The dominant natural feature of PPD 3 is the West Fork of the Trinity River. The river corridor
in this district provides the opportunity to link the Central City with the open space system of
North Central Texas. Efforts are currently underway to continue the trail connection from the
Fort Worth portion of the Trinity Trail System to the larger trail system that is currently planned
to extend for 250 miles and traverse four counties and eighteen municipalities.
GATEWAY 'I-ANNINK;
1 u,
b -t
.hS
CR
Artist rendering of proposed waterfront development,Trinity Lakes Development,Fort Worth
Summary of Facilities in PPD 3
PPD 3 has a reasonable distribution of park facilities and an average park size of approximately
eighteen(18) acres. PPD 3 contains has ten(10)Neighborhood Based Parks and two (2)
Community Based parks.
Community Centers
PPD 3 has one(1) community center,the Handley-Meadowbrook Community Center. Handley-
Meadowbrook provides service to the southeastern section of the PPD. Typical services and
neighborhood events held at this center include cultural, senior citizen and children's programs.
As the population continues to grow to the east, additional community center facilities may be
needed.
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 21
H
i
j 2015 City of Fort Worth
Park Planning District 4
WISECOUNTY ' DEMON A
TARRANTCOUNTY
= IL a
Ll p' 1_ _
7�
Legend
Fort Worth City Limit
lCounly Boundary
` ♦rJT 7�.-.- _ —k Street
Lake
River
i4 1 Municipal Gulf Course
Park
PPD4
TARRANT COUNTY _ _ -_-.___ ___-�_
JOHNSON COUNTY F.LIl4 COMP
FORT WORTH
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 22
6
Table VI-7 Park Planning District 4 Park Inventory Listing
Park Park City Zi
Park Acres Classification Planning Council Address P
Code
District District
Anderson-Campbell 24.22 Neighborhood 4 2 4141 Ohio Garden Rd 76114
Arneson 0.44 Urban Park 4 2 1311 Homan Ave 76106
Arnold 3.02 Pocket 4 9 700 Samuels Ave 76102
Arrow S 27.00 Community 2&4 7 7951 Cahoba Dr 76135
Blue Bonnet Circle 1.25 Urban Park 4 9 3489 Bluebonnet Cir 76109
Bonnie Brae 3.70 Pocket 4 4 3213 Wesley St 76111
Botanic Garden 116.56 Special Use 4 7 2000 University Dr 76107
Buck Sansom 131.60 Community 4 2 3600 Sansom Park Dr 76106
Bunche 2.30 Pocket 4 5 5488 Ramey Ave 76119
Burk Burnett 3.03 Urban Park 4 9 501 W 7th St 76102
Capps 4.41 Pocket 4 9 907 West Berry 76110
Carter 163.48 Community 4 8&9 4351 Carter Park Dr 76119
Chamberlin 6.94 Neighborhood 4 3 4689 Halloran St 76107
Circle 3.06 Urban Park 4 2 600 Park St 76106
City Hall Plaza. 2.50 Urban Park 4 9 1000 Throckmorton St 76102
Cobb 224.47 Community 4 8 1600-3000 Cobb Dr 76105
Como Community 1.20 Community 4 3 4900 Horne St 76107
Center Park
Crestwood 2.00 Pocket 4 7 3701 Rockwood Park Dr 76114
Daggett 3.40 Pocket 4 9 2312 College Ave 76110
Delga 4.06 Pocket 4 8 1001 Nixon St 76102
Diamond Hill 9.88 Community 4 2 3709 Weber St 76106
Diamond Hill H.S. 0.10 Urban Park 4 2 1411 Maydell St 76106
Eastern Hills 3.00 Pocket 4 4 5900 Yosemite Dr 76112
Eastover 13.50 Neighborhood 4 5 4300 Ramey Ave 76105
Ed K.Collett 7.69 Neighborhood 4 3&9 4800 West Vickery 76107
Ellis 10.51 Neighborhood 4 8 3400 S.Riverside Dr 76119
Elm Street 0.28 Urban Park 4 9 400 Elm St 76102
Englewood 1.06 Pocket 4 5 3200 Hanger Ave 76105
Eugene McCray 3.00 Community 4 5 4932 Wilbarger St 76119
Community Center Park
Fairfax 4.00 Pocket 4 8 4000 East Fairfax Ave 76119
Fairmount 0.68 Urban Park 4 9 1501 5th Ave 76104
Far Northside 3.22 Community 4 2 2950 Roosevelt Ave 76106
Federal Plaza 0.60 Urban Park 4 9 1000 Throckmorton St 76102
Fire Station Community 1.70 Community 4 9 1601 Lipscomb St 76110
Center
First Flight 0.61 Urban Park 4 9 2700 Mercedes Ave 76107
Forest 120.88 Community 4 9 1500-2000 Colonial Pkwy 76110
Fort Worth Zoo 58.53 Special Use 1 4 1 9 1 1500-2000 Colonial Pkwy 76110
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 23
Table VI-7 Park Planning District 4 Park Inventory Listing.....continued
Park City
Park Acres
Park Park
Council Address Zip
Classification Code
District District
Foster 11.92 Neighborhood 4 3 3725 South Dr 76109
Gateway Park 635.11 Metropolitan 4 4 751 Beach St 76111
General Worth Square 1.53 Urban Park 4 9 916 Main St 76102
Gid Hooper 2.58 Pocket 4 8 814 Retta St 76111
Glenwood 36.92 Community 4 8 900 S.Riverside Dr 76104
Goodman 0.14 Urban Park 4 3 5413 Goodman Ave 76107
Greenbriar 49.12 Community 4 9 5200 Hemphill St 76119
Greenway 15.98 Neighborhood 4 8 2013 East Belknap St 76102
Hall-Tandy Triangle 0.32 Urban Park 4 8 2901 East Rorsedale St 76105
Harmon Field 97.50 Community 4 8 1501 Martin Luther King Frwy 76102
Harrold 2.30 Pocket 4 9 1502 Summit 76102
Harvey Street 0.94 Urban Park 4 8 1413 Harvey St 76104
Haynes Memorial Triangle 0.10 Urban Park 4 9 1701 Main St 76102
Heritage 112.81 Community 4 9&2 300 North Main/ 76102
600 Con ress St _
High Crest 0.74 Urban Park 4 2 2515 Bruce St 76111
Hillside 24.14 Community 4 8 1201 East Maddox Ave 76104
Hyde 0.01 Urban Park 4 9 201 West 9th St 76102
` Jefferson Davis 6.50 Neighborhood 4 9 4001 Townsend/2000 W Bolt St 76110
Jennings-May-St.Louis 0.85 Urban Park 1 4 9 3041 South Jennings Ave 76110
Kellis 16.30 Neighborhood 4 9 4651 Southridge Ter 76133
Lake Como _ 59.14 Community 4 3&9 3401 Lake Como Dr 76107
Lincoln 7.00 Neighborhood 4 2 2922 Lincoln Ave 76106
Linwood-Jesse D. 4.00 Pocket 4 9 301 Wimberly St 76107
Sandoval
Littlejohn 0.83 Urban Park 4 5 4125 Littlejohn Ave 76105
Log Cabin Village 2.50 Special Use 4 9 1500-2000 Colonial Pkwy 76110
Louella Bales Baker 0.96 Urban Park 4 8 3101 East 1st St 76111
Maddox 0.96 Urban Park 4 2 2414 Gould Ave 76106
Marie F.Pate 5.00 Neighborhood 4 5 3751 South Edgewood Ter 76119
Marine 12.00 Community 4 2 303 NW 20th St 76106
Marine Creek Linear 48.16 Neighborhood 4 2 3106 Angle Ave 76106
Marine Creek Linear 7.83 Neighborhood 4 2 3317 Chestnut Ave 76106
North
Marion Sansom 264.00 Community 4 7 2501 Roberts Cut-Off Rd 76106
Martin Luther King 5.78 Community 4 5 5565 Truman Dr 76112
Mary and Marvin 6.53 Neighborhood 4 3 6478 Genoa Rd 76127
Leonard
Meadowbrook Golf 138.90 Special Use 4 4 1815 Jensen Rd 76112
Course
Meadowood 1.75 Pocket 4 8 2800 Meadowbrook Dr 76103
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities-Page 24
Table VI-7 Park Planning District 4 Park Inventory Listing.....continued
Park Park City Zi
Park Acres Planning Council Address P
Classification Code
District District
Monticello 4.24 Pocket 4 7 3505 Dorothy Ln North 76107
Morningside Middle 2.41 Pocket 4 8 2751 Mississippi Ave 76104
School
Morris Berney 4.50 Pocket 4 3 6312 Rosemont Ave 76116
Newby 2.75 Pocket 4 9 1105 Jerome St 76104
Normandy Place 1.50 Pocket 4 8 3421 Panola Ave 76103
North Z-Boaz 138.30 Community 4 3 3200 Lackland Rd 76116
Northside 15.00 Community 4 2 1100 NW 18th St 76106
Oakhurst 0.75 Urban Park 4 9 2400 Daisy Lane 76111
Oakland Lake 69.00 Community 4 8 1645 Lake Shore Dr 76103
Overton 48.68 Community 4 3 3500 Overton Park Dr East 76109
Paddock 0.80 Urban Park 4 9 100 West Belknap St 76102
Paz Hernandez 0.41 Urban Park 4 2 3515 Ellis Ave 76106
Peter Smith 0.10 Urban Park 4 9 901 Jennings Ave 76102
Plover Circle 4.00 Pocket 4 7 7251 Cahoba Dr 76135
Prairie Dog 39.56 Community 4 5 5060 Parker Henderson Rd 76119
Quanah Parker 68.00 Community 4 4 5401 Randol Mill Rd 76103
Ridglea Hills 6.10 Neighborhood 4 3 4589 Stonedale Rd 76116
River Park 11.63 Neighborhood 4 3 3100 Bryant Irvin Rd 76116
Riverside 30.80 Community 4 9 501 Oakhurst Scenic Dr 76111
Rockwood 50.46 Community 4 2&7 701 North University Dr 76114
Rockwood Golf Course 229.49 Special Use 4 2&7 1851 Jacksboro Hwy 76114
Rodeo 5.30 Neighborhood 4 2 2605 North Houston St 76106
Rolling Hills 207.29 Special Use 4 8 2525 Joe B.Rushing Rd 76119
Rosedale Plaza 6.25 Neighborhood 4 5 5200 East Rosedale St 76105
Rosemont 30.40 Community 4 9 1400 West Seminary Dr 76119
Rosen 8.80 Neighborhood 4 2 2200 McCandless St 76106
Ryan Place Triangle 0.27 Urban Park 4 9 3001 Fifth Ave 76110
Sagamore Hills 4.15 Pocket 4 5 4719 Hampshire Blvd 76103
Saunders 0.48 Greenbelt 4 2 2401 Mule Alley 76106
Seminary Hills 6.18 Neighborhood 4 9 5101 Townsend Dr 76119
Shackleford 11.97 Neighborhood 4 8 4615 Shackleford St 76119
Smith-Wilemon 3.23 Pocket 4 4 925 Willow Ridge Rd 76112
Southside Community 2.00 Community 4 8 959 East Rosedale St 76115
Center Park
Springdale 4.00 Pocket 4 4 2301 David Dr 76111
Stephens 4.00 Neighborhood 4 9 2701 West Gambrel]St 76119
Stratford 15.00 Neighborhood 4 8 4057 Meadowbrook Dr 76103
Stratford Nature Area 35.00 Conservancy 4 8 3520 East Freeway 76103
Sycamore 88.02 Community 4 8 2525 East Rosedale St 76105
Sycamore Creek Golf Course 66.22 Special Use 4 8 401 Martin Luther King Frwy 76105
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 25
l
Table VI-7 Park Planning District 4 Park Inventory Listing......continued
Park City
Park Acres
Park Park
Council Address Zip
Classification Code
District District
Sylvania 29.22 Community 4 4 3700 East Belknap St 76111
Tadlock 4.50 Pocket 4 8 4665 EastlineDr 76119
Tandy Hills 15.00 Neighborhood 4 8 3325 View St 76103
Tandy Hills Nature 90.25 Conservancy 4 8 3325 View St 76103
Center
Terry 0.43 Urban Park 4 2 3104 North Terry St 76106
Thomas Place 2.76 Community 4 7 4201 Lafayette Ave 76107
Thorny Ridge 3.76 Pocket 4 3 9036 North Normandale St 76116
Titus Paulsel 10.00 Neighborhood 4 5 2000 Binkley St 76105
Traders Oak 3.28 Pocket 4 9 1206 Samuels Ave 76102
Trail Drivers 39.61 Community 4 2 1700 NE 28th St 76106
Trinity 252.00 Community 4 9 2401 University Dr 76107
Trinity Bluff 1.84 Conservancy 4 9 557 Samuels Ave 76102
Van Zandt-Guinn 3.40 Pocket 4 8 501 Missouri Ave 76104
Veterans Memorial 0.51 Special Use 4 7 4120 Camp Bowie Blvd 76107
Victory Forest 11.15 Community 4 9 1000 W Biddison St 76110
Village Creek 24.31 Neighborhood 4 5 4750 Wilbarger St 76119
Water Gardens 5.40 Special Use 4 9 1502 Commerce St 76102
Watts 0.91 Urban Park 4 9 700 May St 76104
Western Hills 17.89 Neighborhood 4 3 8850 Chapin Rd 76116
Westwind 2.10 Pocket 4 3 2833 Laredo Dr 76116
Will Rogers Memorial 32.00 Special Use 4 7 3301 West Lancaster Ave 76107
Center
William McDonald 13.85 Neighborhood 4 5 5400 Eastland St 76119
Windswept Circle 3.00 Pocket 4 7 6925 Cahoba Dr 76135
Worth Heights 0.58 Community 4 9 3812 South Jones St 76110
Worth Hills 1.50 Pocket 4 9 3301 Benbrook Blvd 76109
Wright Tarlton 0.70 Urban Park 4 7 4725 Byers Ave 76107
Z-Boaz South 134.38 Community 4 3 5250 Old Benbrook Rd 76126
Total Acreage= 4,480.40
Section VI:Inventory ofAreas and Facilities-Page 26
PARK PLANNING DISTRICT 4 (PPD 4)
Boundary Description
Based on the creation of a Central City PPD to encompass the Central City boundary as defined
in the City's Comprehensive Plan by the City of Fort Worth Planning and Development
Department,this PPD encompasses the area within Loop 820.
Demographic Information
The population in PPD 4 is projected to increase at a moderate rate of growth over the next
five to ten years.
Percent Population
PPD 4 Increase Projection
2000 Population - 239,202
2010 Population 47.53% 352,904
2015 Population 6.80% 376,908
2025 Population —8.81% 410,129
General Description of the Park System
This PPD consists of the Central Business District that continues to experience a renaissance of
renewal and growth. Parks in this system provide a linkage to the open space and trail corridor
of the Trinity River. This PPD also has an adequate supply of special use and urban parks that
enhance small pockets of open space in the urban core. The average park size is approximately
32 acres due to the considerable acreage of the Community Based parks.
Summary of Facilities in PPD 4
PPD 4 has eighty-seven (87)Neighborhood Based Parks,thirty-eight(38) Community Based
Parks, three (3) Conservancy, one (1) Greenbelt, and ten(10) Special Use parks.
Community Centers
PPD 4 has sixteen(16) community centers that provide excellent service area coverage. These
community centers provide a plethora of services as well as neighborhood and City-wide events
including: structured recreational, cultural programs, and fun-filled educational and sporting
activities for children and adults alike. The following is a list of the sixteen community centers
found in this PPD:
• Andrew"Doc" Session • Como Diamond Hill •Eugene McCray
• Fire Station • Greenbriar Hillside •Martin Luther King Jr.
• Northside •North Tri-Ethnic R. D. Evans •Riverside
• Southside • Sycamore Thomas Place •Worth Heights
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 27
2015 City of Fort North
Park Planning District 5
Fil
C
--ph -p
LVISE COUNTY OENTON COUNT'
TARRANTCQUNTY
- n 0 N
t !
0
Pa
f �z Legend
Port Worth City Limit
i r
County Boundary
Street
Like
River
Municipal Golf Course
Park
PPD5
T.1ftRANT COU.VIY
JOHNSON COUNTY -_._.____-- -____ __..__-.__--
FOORT�WORTTH ETUSCOUNTY
{ wwa„u.co1 nu,nrr,
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 28
PARK PLANNING DISTRICT 5 (PPD 5)
Table VI-8 Park Planning District 5 Park Inventory Listing
Park Park City Zi
Park Acres Planning Council Address n
Classification Code
District District
Alexandra 7.53 Neighborhood 5 2 6521 Mark IV Pky 76131
Meadows
Arcadia Trail 69.08 Community 5 4 77613 Arcadia Trl 76137
Arcadia Trail Park 171.67 Community 5 2 and 4 8744 Arcadia Park Dr 76248
North
Arcadia Trail Park 40.17 Neighborhood 5 4 4950 Basswood Blvd 76137
South
Barksdale 20.80 Neighborhood 5 4 9611 Barksdale Dr 76244
Camp Worth 0.39 Urban Park 5 4 4896 Bob Wills Drive 76244
Chadwick Farms 39.19 Community 5 7 15700 Cleveland-Gibbs Rd 76262
Chisholm Ridge 31.29 Neighborhood 5 2 8425 Ladina PI 76131
Coventry Hills 21.55 Greenbelt 5 4 8500 Western Meadows Dr 76137
Addition
Crawford Farms 7.00 Neighborhood 5 7 4224 Wexford Dr 76248
Crossing at Fossil 4.02 Pocket 5 8 6000 Mark IV Pky 76131
Creek
Dorado 14.27 Neighborhood 5 7 415 Baverton Ln 76131
Harriet Creels 32.17 Community 5 7 16215 Cowboy Trl 76247
Ranch
Harvest Ridge 6.38 Neighborhood 5 7 13025 Harvest Ridge Rd 76248
Heritage Addition 36.79 Community 5 4 3600 Blk Heritage Trace Pkwy 76248
Heritage Glen 28.84 Neighborhood 5 4 4400 Heritage Glen Dr 76248
Junction 6.20 Neighborhood 5 7 2250 Presidio Vista Dr 76177
Kingsridge 19.98 Neighborhood 5 7 5373 Camrose St 76244
Kristi Jean 14.71 Neighborhood 5 4 3529 Fossil Park Dr 76137
Burbach
Lasater 25.13 Greenbelt 5 2 1500 East Harmon Rd 76131
Lost Creek Ranch 4.20 Pocket 5 7 13861 Lost Spurs Rd 76262
Lost Spurs 9.96 Neighborhood 5 7 3520 Alta Vista Rd 76262
McPherson Ranch 7.43 Neighborhood 5 7 3950 Martinsburg Dr 76248
Mesa Verde 0.30 Urban Park 5 4 7220 Mesa Verde Trl 76137
Ninnie Baird 15.55 Neighborhood 5 4 8900 Hawley Dr 76244
North Park 61.52 Community 5 4 9000 North Beach St 76248
Northwest 245.77 Community 5 7 8575 Blue Mound Rd 76131
Community Park
Park Place 5.80 Neighborhood 5 4 7812 Park Trails Dr 76137
Parkwood Hills 8.64 Neighborhood 5 1 4 1 7800 Parkwood Hill Blvd 76137
Ranches East 18.52 Neighborhood 5 7 3801 Lazy River Ranch Rd 76262
Reata 8.12 Neighborhood 5 7 9489 Sills Way 76177
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 29
0 Table VI-8 Park Planning District 5 Park Inventory Listing ...continued
Park City
Park Acres
Park Park
Council Address Zip
Classification Code
District District
Ridgeview Farms 7.32 Neighborhood 5 2 8628 Prairie Dawn Dr 76131
Saratoga 21.12 Neighborhood 5 7 12633 Saratoga Springs Cir 76244
Silver Sage 10.46 Neighborhood 5 4 7017 Silver Sage Dr 76137
Sinclair 16.48 Neighborhood 5 7 9899 Sinclair St 76244
Summerbrook 27.27 Neighborhood 5 4 4315 Huckleberry Dr 76137
Summerfields 9.40 Neighborhood 5 4 6720 Spoonwood Ln 76137
Summerfields 4.54 Pocket 5 4 3970 Malibu Sun Dr 76137
Chisholm
Summerfields 4.99 Pocket 5 4 7755 Buttonwood Dr 76137
Northwest
Sunset Hills North 6.73 Neighborhood 5 4 3600 Sunset Hills Dr 76248
Tehama Ridge 3.18 Pocket 5 7 2137 Ravens Nest Dr 76177
Tehama Trails 22.84 Greenbelt 5 7 9906 Butte Meadows Dr 76177
Trails of Fossil 10.26 Neighborhood 5 7 10451 Fossil Hollow Dr 76131
Creek
Vinyards at 44.15 Greenbelt 5 4 5280 Alta Loma Dr 76248
Heritage
West Fork Ranch 4.77 Pocket 5 2 23550 Angoni Way 76177
Willow Ridge 5.31 Neighborhood 5 7 11590 Mesa Crossing Dr 76052
Woodland Springs 1 17.08 Neighborhood 5 7 11801 Copper Creek Dr 76248
Total Acreage= 1,198.85
Boundary Description
PPD 5 is bounded on the north and east by the City of Fort Worth city limits, on the south by
North Loop 820, on the west by Business 287/81.
Demographic Information
PPD 5 is sparsely populated but is experiencing the second fastest growth rate among the PPDs
based on population projections for the next five to ten years. Recent subdivision platting
activity indicates that this area of the City will continue to grow at an even faster rate.
PPD 5 Percent Population
Increase Projection
2000 Population - 50,134
2010 Population 86.96% 143,865
2015 Population 26.78% 182,404
2025 Population 1 31.09% 1 239,123
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities-Page 30
General Description of the Park System
Public and private partnerships that have evolved as a result of the Neighborhood and
Community Park Dedication Policy have contributed to the establishment of the Arcadia Trail
parks and an even distribution of neighborhood parks that service this rapidly developing area.
The Arcadia Trail parks line the banks of Whites Branch Creek, a tributary of Big Fossil Creek,
which in turn flows into the West Fork of the Trinity River. Whites Branch Creek offers the
opportunity to continue to expand the open space and trail system along its banks to the north as
this area continues to develop. The average park size in this PPD is approximately 26 acres.
Summary of Facilities in PPD 5
PPD 5 has seven(7) Community Based
Parks,thirty-six(36)Neighborhood Based
Parks and four(4) Greenbelts. Although
there are no city-owned community , ,.
centers located in this PPD,there is an
agreement in place with the YMCA of
Metropolitan Fort Worth, located at North '`
Park,whereby both entities participated in
the cost for design, construction and
necessary furnishings for the facility. The
agreement also stipulates that meeting _
space is reserved for City-sponsored
public meetings/events of recognized not- }.
for-profit civic and neighborhood
associations as approved by the City. As Northwest Community Park,Fort Worth
growth continues in this PPD there will be
a need for additional community center
facilities.
�I
Northwest Community Park,Fort Worth
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 31
Relationships with Other Facilities and Public Lands
Urban Forestry
City Ordinance No. 11541 gives the Parks and Community Services Department Forestry
Division authority over the trees, shrubs and plants growing in the parks, street parkway as well
as other City properties. City right-of-way or parkway is the land between the private property
line and the curb edge. The Forestry Division uses available funds, human resources and
equipment to accomplish essential tree work or to issue planting and tree work permits to citizens
who wish to accomplish the work. The services conducted by the Forestry Division include:
Tree Trimming and Removal - Pruning or removal of trees on parkways or City-owned property
to remove hazardous deadwood, decayed and diseased limbs and low limbs that interfere with
traffic.
Tree Permits-If the Forestry Division cannot trim or remove a tree on a parkway as soon as a
request is received,the citizen may obtain a permit to have the work completed. A forester will
inspect the tree and write a permit that allows the citizen to have the tree work done by a
qualified company at the citizen's expense.
Tree Planting- Support and encourage tree
planting in the parkways by citizens. A
City Forester will assist the citizen in the - .
( selection of an appropriate species of tree
and issue a permit for tree planting in the
parkway. The Forestry Division is
actively involved in assisting groups such
as neighborhood associations to conduct
tree planting programs. The Forestry
Division will help citizen groups "
coordinate, select, obtain, and mark
planting sites for large numbers of trees to
be planted in neighborhoods.
Photo: Citizen Foresters and Melinda Adams,City of
Fort Worth,measure to determine the proper depth of the
planting hole.Citizen Foresters planted 21 trees in Fort
Worth's Kingswood Park which was previously treeless.
Based on the efforts of the Forestry Division and numerous volunteers,Fort Worth has been
recognized as a Tree City USA City for the last thirty-five years. The urban forest contributes to
the quality of life in the City of Fort Worth and the impact of the urban forest is not limited to
City parks. In essence,the definition of parkway means that every street in the City should be
park like through the planting efforts of the Department and citizens.
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities-Page 32
Agreements with Area Independent School Districts
The Department has maintained a long and fruitful relationship with area Independent School
Districts (ISDs). Agreements between the department and several FWISD schools exist for a
number of City park sites, facilities and amenities. The Department continues to work closely
with FWISD and has also initiated agreements for park use with the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD,
Northwest ISD and the Keller ISD for provision of park facilities. Examples of partnerships with
ISDs are listed below:
• In 2003,the City entered into a joint use agreement with the Northwest Independent
School District for use of the district's state of the art practice and competition recreational
facilities including amenities not normally associated with typical recreational facilities such as
competition gymnasiums,weight rooms, tennis courts, auditorium and office space.
• Daggett Park includes a play field that the City leases and a parking lot that was built by
the Department.
• At Eastern Hills High School there were four tennis courts and a play area constructed by
the Department. The four tennis courts are maintained by the Department while the play
area is maintained by FWISD.
• In conjunction with the continued development of Rolling Hills Park,the Department
entered into an agreement with the FWISD to build eight tennis courts for O.D. Wyatt
High School that is maintained by the school district. In addition, on leased land from the
FWISD,the Department constructed two combination ball fields and a 50 car parking lot.
• At Leonard Middle School and the adjoining Western Hills Park there are a total of four
tennis courts. Two courts were built by the FWISD and two courts were constructed by
the Department.
• Dunbar High School and Bunche Park agreement includes two tennis courts, ball field
and lighting. FWISD renovated four existing tennis courts. FWISD also built two
additional courts on land leased by the City. The Department renovated an existing
baseball field by providing lights, backstop, dugouts, concrete player sitting area,
concrete bleacher pad and bleachers; FWISD provides a lease and use agreement.
• At Bruce Shulkey Elementary and adjoining Wedgewood Park the Department
constructed, on park property, a joint use playground, exercise track and two concrete
tennis courts. FWISD provided assistance in the design of the playground and exercise
track.
• At Western Hills Elementary—Westwind Park the Department constructed a multi-
purpose concrete play slab on land leased by the FWISD. In addition,the Department
upgraded existing backstops and provided ground improvements.
f;
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 33
11-ORT WORTH
Park PlanninLy Districts
A representative sampling was received from all give geographic areas.
2013 PARK PLANNING DTSTRTCTS
I
PPa 2013 Est. %of %Response* a
Population Pop.
1 132,323 183 18"/
2 55,377 7 7
3 55,879 .7 6
4'
.•i�,Y '
4 352,380 48 51 "Y
5 147,800 20 18 - —
TOTAL 743,759 100°. 100°! : '< 2° 4 -
'y
*All Respondents N=803 � .
7 -
Source:National Service Research-MaiUCmline Stuvey of Fort RbrtU Resident.October 2011
FORT WORTH
Summaly-of Findi
4ource:National Service Rescarclt-maii+online Siuvey of Fort Worth Residents October 2013
FORT WORTH
Overall Rating of Parks and R.erreationas
opportunities in the City of Fort Worth
Q1-Overall,how Would ynou iate the parks arid recreational opportunities in the City of Fort Wor-OV
More than half(68% compared to 64% in 2003) of respondents rated the parks
and recreational opportunities in Fort Worth as excellent or good.
`�
Excellent 9.6%
Good 58.3%
Somewhat 18.5%
unsatisfactory
°x6
Poor 4.0
■2013-All Respondents-N=963
Source:National Service Researc4-Maillonline Survey of Fort 1Vorth Residents October 201;
i
FORT WORTH
Overall Rating of Parks and Recreational
Opportunities in the City of Fort Worth by PPD
Q1-Ove gill,how would,you Late the patics and mcreatimi l opputtintities in the City otFoil Worth?
More than half of respondents in all PPD`s rated the parks and recreational opportunities as
excellent or good, except Area 3, where 45% rated the opportunities as excellent or good.
All Respondents N=963 Park Planning District (PPD)*
RATING Total Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5
xcellent 9.6% 9.5% 14.0% 8.5% 10.6% 8.3%
Good 58.3 58.5 56.1 36.2 60.2 54.5
Somewhat unsatisfactory 18.5 18.4 15.8 27.7 16.2 18.6
Poor 4.0 2.7 3.5 17.0 2.7 4.8
No opinion 9.7 10.9 10.5 10.6 10.3 13.8
*Refer to Park Planning District Map on Page 3
Source:National Service Research-MaiVonline Survey of Fort 1ktorth Residents October 2013
Rating of Maintenance and Upkeep of Fort Worth
Parks and Recreation Facilities
Q2-Hoiv 1Aroti1d yoi 1 i site tie ntainteiiance and tiplceep of Fo0 wordi iA' rks and rea-e ttion tat9lifies7
• The primary maintenance issues mentioned were;
• More mowing/landscope upkeep/tree trimming
• Improve trash/litter pick up, graffiti removal
• Update community centers and equipment
Improve restroom upkeep
Maintenance More Less
Facility is Adequate Maintenance is maintenance
Needed is needed
Parks (N=787) 60% 38% 2%
Athletic Facilities (N=368) ! 56% 41% 3%
Community Centers (N=346) 55% 42% 3%
Municipal Golf Courses (N=289) 66% 26% 8%
Ratings above exclude Don't Use/ Not Aware Responses
Source:National service Research-Mail/online Survey of Fort Worth Residents October 2013
FORT WORTH
Information Preferences
Q3a-How do you PREFER to find out about parks,tw--reation facilities and progt-mnis hi Fort Wortli?
A majority of respondents prefer to find out about parks, recreation facilities and
programs through their water bill news and information insert, the City of Fort Worth
website, email notifications from the City of Fort Worth and Fort Worth's Facebook.
Wate1 hill
City of Fart Worth wl:lmile
1.111dils W1111 City of 1 011 Worth I 36.4%
Farebnnk !� 19.ti°.b
I
Casale television � 6.3%
I
Twitter i� 3.2%
t7thel I 8.5%
I
Don't use parks;{programs or r GS5
facilities
Don't know �� 3.4`X,
s 2013 All Respondents N=873
Source:National Service Research-Mail/online Suivey of Fort Worth Residents October 2013
FORT WORTH
FaceboekAwareness
Q31)-Did you know tbat Port Woi-tli P.irks slid(-oiiiiiiiliilty Sei' Vies Citi Ile found on Face book?
A higher percentage of online (28%) versus mailed respondents (20%)
know about Fort Worth's Facebook presence.
• No
• Yes
2013 All Respondents - N=873
Source'National Seivice Research-MaiUvnline Stuvey of Fort Worlb Residents October 2013
1
FORT NORTH
Safety
Q4-Overall,stow safe do you feel whets visiting a ch ofthe followilrg I»rk5 or ilc..ilitles ill Fort Wortft?
A majority of users feel very safe or safe when utilizing parks, community centers, the
Trinity Trail and various types of athletic facilities. Less than 10% reported they feel
unsafe.
Responses exclude Very Safe Somewhat Not Very
Don't UsejNot Aware Safe safe safe
Parks (N=777) 16.610 51.1% 26.4% 5.9%
Community Centers (N=376) 21.3 47.4 24.7 6.6
Trinity Trail (N=627) 14,8 42,4 33.7 9.1
Athletic Facilities (Fall fields, courts, etc.) (N=393) 16.5 52.2 25.7 5.5
Source:National Service Research-Mail/Online Stuvey of Dort Worth Residents October 2013 1
FORT WORTI-I
Freq uency of Use `11 �
(IS-Flow of ett do you ot-cAtcw I iutisc4 told trtembem use ot-visit the pati(Fac ilities listed below iti dw
CityofFoll Wolilt:r
All Respondents in all PPD's At least once At least once Several times Once a year Don't Use
N-855 a week a month per year or less
Botanic Garden 1.8 6.7 36,5 43.7 11.3
Cornntunity/Athlete Centers 2.8 4.2 11.3 19.5 62.1
Disc golf courses 1.1 2.0 4.4 9.2 83.3
Clog park 2,3 5.4 9.6 123 7014
Fields for organized sports 4.3 3.9 13.5 15.E 62.6
Golf courses 1.4 4,2 9,0 10.2 75.7
Hike/bike/jog trails 2.4.0 18.7 25.0 9.0 23.3
_og Cabin Village 0.4 1.1 6.2 34.7 57.7
Nature Center 0.9 2.6 14.6 31.1 50.8
Organized programs/classes 1.4 2.3 5.8 14.2 76.3
Outdoor basketball courts 1.9 1.8 5.1 9.2 82.0
Parks 25.7 25.5 27.5 8.0 13.3
Playgrounds 13.3 16-1 16.5 11-3 42.7
Practice fields 4,2 2.6 9.4 11.1 72.7
Swimming pools 2.1 1..5 11.7 9.4 75.3
Tennis Courts 1.5 2.1 7,E iLl 77.4
Water Gardens 1,7 4,7 1 21.3 1 38.0 34.9
Zoo 1.4 6,.2 30.6 4 2.S, 1 .9
Source:N,tiaual S�tti ice tte5«srch-�1ait'Uriliu4 Survey i�t 1=Ur711'Urilr h'2�ltiertic C1ctc7hEr?O1;
Frequency of Use FORTWC)RTFI
QS.F(affl(ed I,ry Usage--Moi it iky3 or More
All Respondents in all PPD's At least once a At least once a MONTHLY OR
N-855 week month MORE
1-Parks 25.7% 25.5% 51.2%
2 -Nike/bike/walk/jog trails 24,0 18.7 42.7
3-Playgrounds 133 16.1 29.4
4-Botanic Garden 1.8 6.7 8,5 -- - -^'
5-l=ields for organized sports 4.3 3.9 8.2
6- Cog park 2.3 5.4 7.7
7-Zoo 1.4 6.2 7.6
8-Water Gardens 1.2 43 5.9
9-Community/Athletic Centers 2.8 4.2 7.0
10- Practice fields 4.2 2.6 6.8
11-Gulf Courses 1.4 4.2 5.6
12- Outdoor basketball courts 1.9 1,8 3.7
13- Organized program/classes 1.4 2.3 3.7
14-Swimming pools 2.1 1.5 3,6
15 -Tennis courts 1.5 2.1 3.6
16- Nature tenter 0,9 2,6 3.5
17 - Disc golf courses I.1 2.0 3.1
18-Lag Cabin Village 4.4 1,1 1.5
Source:National Service Research-Maill)liline Sitivey of l=ott Woilli Residetitc October 201:
Spending Priorities FORTWORTH
Q6a-Currently;approximately seven cents of every dollar is dtAicated to pr viding Paths and Coll mutlity
Setvices in the City's genertl field opelating budget. Would voti be willing to pay more,the same or less for
each itetll listed below?
Q6b-Indicate which`(THREE shategies alt'the MOST inlpoltant to yoti fol'the PCS I?to tocils on lvilitill the
I Text five years.
More than 40% of respondents are willing to pay MORE for renovation of existing parks,
increased maintenance of parks and trails and land acquisition for trails and trail
connections.
Q6b. All Respondents(N=847) Pay Pay Pay Don't
Importance More Same Less Know
Rank'
1 Renovate existing parks and facilities 45.3% 37.1% 5.5% 12.0%
2 Acquire more land for trails and trail 41.4 34.5 9.4 14.6
connections
3 Acquire more land for parks 35.8 36.7 12.3 15.2
4 Increase maintenance of parks and trails 44.3 38.5 5.1 12.2
5 Increase maintenance and operations of aquatic 24-3 38.1 10.5 27.0
centers
6 Increase maintenance and operations of 20.5 41.6 11.0 26.9
community centers
7 Increase supervised recreational activities and 22.4 39.2 115 26.9
programs
*Importance [tank- the sung of the first,second and third most important ranked facilities by respondents.
Source,National Service Researcli-MaiVonline Survey of Fort Worth Residents October 2013
FORT NORTH
Should FWPACSD Develop More or Fewer 'arks?
Q7-Do yron think the Foit Wortli Parks and Conimtinih,Sen.,tC-es Depattiiient sliotlld develop more
pat•ks/Facilities by ineve-asing tax teveals OR develop inaintain cun-ent tax levels.
Almost equal numbers of respondents would prefer Fort Worth PACED to
develop more parks and increase tax levels OR develop fewer parks and
maintain tax levels.
231
37%
2013 All Respondents - N=873
• No opinion
• Develop more - increase tax levels
Develop fewer - maintain tax levels
Source:National Service Research-Aiail/On ine Siuvey of Dort words Residents October 2013
Most Needed Facilities FORTWORTH
QW-Which facilities do you feel air MOST needed in Fart Wolth:?
(Hate each as definitely,somewhat or not needed)
QBh-Indic.-ite which TFIREE str ategies are the MOST important to you for the PCS D to focus on%vithin die nett
five years.
Q8b. FACILITY(Ali Responses N=817) % Definitely Mean
Importance Needed Score**
Rank*
1 Hike/bike/walk/jog trails 59.1% 2.63
2 Open spaces/natural areas 51.4 2.54
3 Playgrounds 47.0 2.49
4 Aquatic Center (play features, swim lanes, etc.) 29.0 2.23
5 Benches/seating areas 38.6 2.39
6 Picnic shelters/ picnic tables 41.1 2.41
7 Dog Parks 24:6 2.11
8 Off road bike trails 24.7 2.08
9 Spray grounds 17.5 1.99
10 Athletic fields (lighted) 21.5% 2.11
ylmpoltlncc�ran)sing-rile ium of Nu:lust,ucc)ntt:lnd ttltlit tEl()St un1xN Ci111t r�lrtltcxl fl(iliti�'ti tryrxwpon(trElh
'�'rt.i114illilti(1n(){i�'il�E►I!*L"t)[i'ti:1_)('liElft!`�V I1C'IYICYI\L'cL'4 b4C:l�;I11LYl iLS.�,�(lnl('N�11ilt Ell'tYICYt wl:l�ltlYl i1S�i1n(I N1)t t1lYYl/Yl�4�lf�Etl't 1
:Li 1.1701E'ttalow llldE lot 11)lililial-IVNI)OVIANT Well!t1-XdLl&'dhri111111Cti11 PIA III-Galt-16ti(Ill)
Source:Natioual Service Research-mail!Unline Survey of Fort Worth Residents October 201;
FORTWORTH
Most Needed Facilities (continued)
Q-Which facilities do you feel air.MOST needed in roi t'Wot-tli?
(Rate each as definitely,somewhat or not needed)
Q8b. FACILITY(All Responses N=817) % Definitely Mean
Importance Needed Scare**
Rank*
11 Amphitheater 13.2 1.84
1Z Multi-use courts (tennis, basketball, etc.) 213 2.15
13 Ball fields (football, soccer) 20.8 2.18
14 Bali fields (baseball, softball) 20.4 2.12
15 Equestrian center 8.0 1.61
16 Tennis Courts 14.0 1.93
17 Athletic practice fields (not lighted) 14.3 1.92
18 Skateboard parks 13.7 1.80
19 Outdoor covered gym 13.1 1.73
20 Disc golf courses 6.5 1.62
21 volleyball courts 12.0 1.87
22 Basketball courts 16.9 2.02
"Iml►otta►ice ranking-themin)ofdte fliNt-wcond and titild tuostfillpolt~utt ranked t iulities hylv.-..pollderiK
" atl adatlon of Mean Scums.De tinitelY nt"Iml was%wAg wd ats.7,+SCH7 ewhatt iwtxIM%w-ij$ned its Z amid Not n(.'(Yl1_YI% ii4 ted
w;1.Do t la}ow wtd not fannilUr ix-,pot were t-:duded from inean som-cWLtdation)
Source-Natiowil Service Research-Mail/Wine SiuveY of fort North Residents October 201;
Willingness to Pay a Shari' to Open to wild FORT WORTH
Maintain Facilities
Q9-Nationally people who visit or use parks and recreation facilities and/or programs often pay a share of
the cost to operate and maintain those facilities. Do you feel the USER in Fort Worth should pay ALL,SOME
or NONE of die cost for die operation ofeach of these facilities?
A significant number of respondents are willing to pay all or some of the costs to operate and mointain
these facilities
FACILITY (All Respondents N=803) Pay Pay pay No
All Some None Opinion
Adult recreation programs 20.4% 55.0% 8.2% 16.3%
Aquatic centers (pools with recreation features and swim lanes) 16,7 60.4 7.2 15.7
Athletic fields (soccer/baseball/softball) 1.3.2 49.4 20.2 17.2
Botanic Garden 11.5 47.9 2.9.9 10.7
Day camps 28.0 48.3 8.1 15.G
Golf courses 45.5 33.9 5.5 15.2
Picnic shelters 5.9 32.9 48.8 12.5
Senior programs, 8.1 39.2 37.4 153
Tennis courts 15,7 42.1 23.3 18.9
Youth recreation programs 11.0 51.2 23.7 14.2
Zoo 24.9 57.4 7.2 10.5
Source,National Se vice Research-NhiMjiline Survey of Fort%Vomit Residents 0ct,+her 200 3
FORT WORTH
Demograuhic har c eri tics
tiouree:Nltioiitbl 5eivice Rese1CClt-illa online Snivev of 1=oa\ onh Resideiuv Ociobec -01;
FORT WORTH
Map of Park Planning Districts
2013 PARK PLANNING DISTRICTS
e
' n
la7 'let7`
� ..6';Y..;.. .a:Y. +:,•:per...
E
FQRTWURTH
Demographics
Area of Residence by Park Planning District
In which geographic area of Fort woa-th do you reside?(Refer-to neap on previous page)
i The mailed and online survey provided a prop ortiono te representation
of the five Park Planning Districts.
60%
50%
40%
30% ..
20°%
10%
0%
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5
2013 PPD Population Distribution 0 Mailed Survey N=340 i Online Survey N=463
Source:National Service Research-Mail/Online Stuvey of Fort Worth Residents october 201•
FORT WORTH
Demographics
Q13-Yews•Age?(Repmsents held of household.age)
As expected, more younger respondents completed the online survey
• Mean age of online respondents was 40.9 compared to 48.5 for the mall respondents.
30%
25%
20% - 1
15% - '
10%
5%
0% - -- ----------- -- - -----, - -- -- - -— --
30 or under 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 70 71 or older
All Respondents N=787 ■Mailed Survey N=337 a Online Survey N=455
Source:Natiomil Service Research-MaiVonline Stuwey of Fort Worth Residents October 201;
FORT WORTH
Demographics
Q-How long ltaveyoil lived in tile City ofroit Woilfi?
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20°%
15%
10%
5%
Less Than 5 5 to 10 years 11 to 20 years 21 to 30 years Over 30 years
yeats
All Respondents N=799 a Mailed Survey N=337 E Online Survey N=462
Source:National Service Research-Mail/onihie Stuvey of Fort Worth Residents October 2013
FORT WORTH
Demographics
Q-Holy 11 ally Persons,includingyetuself,Cul-rent'ly reside%vidlin your Itausehold'
Larger household sizes are represented in the online survey data, which is consistent with the
younger mean aye in this respondent group.
45% ..
40%
y--
35%
30% �.
- - - --
25%
20% �
15% f
f
10%
5%
D% -- —- -- - - — - — -- -- - --- -- —
One Two Three FOUr Five or more
All Respondents N=795 w Mailed Survey N=335 0 Online Survey N=466
Source:National Service Research-MaiVonline Survey of Dort Worth Residents October 2013
FORT WORTH
Demographics
Q-Which youth age ginttps me repmeuted in your housPhold?
More children are represented in the online survey data, which is consistent with the younger
mean age in this respondent group.
70%
60%
50% '
40%
30%
20%
10% -'
0% - - �
Under 5 5 to 14 11 to 14 15 to 18 19 to 24 No youth in
household
All Respondents N=799 ■ Mailed Survey N=336 ■ Online Survey N=463
Source:National Service Research-Mail Online Stuvey of fort Worth Residents October 2013
FORT WORTH
Demographics
Q-Yout ei~lt�tic itV?
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Caucasian African Hispanic/ Asian Mixed Other
American Latina
All Respondents N=795 ■ Mailed Survey N=338 ■ Online Survey N=457
Source:National Service itewarch-Maii?Unline Stuvey of Fort Worth Residcuts October 2013
NATIONAL FORT WORTH
SERVICE National Service Research
RESEARCH
e
1%11%Rili7RESlARC-lI Backgrou I�ontact Information
Contact: Andrea Thomas, Owner
2601 Ridgmar Plaza, Suite 2
Fort Worth, Texas 76116
817-312-3606
817-326-6109-fax
e-mail: andrea@nationalsei-vicereseai-ch.com
web site: wwwnitionalsetviceresearch.com
National Service Research (NSR), founded in 1989, is a full-service
quantitative and qualitative market research consulting firm and
conducts market studies for the public and private sector. NSR conducts
various types of consumer and business research including focus groups
and surveys nationwide. NSR's owner and founder, Andrea Thomas, has
over thirty years of professional market research experience.
Source:National Setviee Research-MaiUOnline.Stuvey of Fort Worth Residents October 2013
CITY OF FORT WORTH
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Survey 2014
PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The City of Fort Worth 4200 South Freeway, Suite 2200 Fort Worth,Texas 76115-1499
Are you a Fort Worth resident? ❑ Yes ❑ No
What is your ZIP Code?
What is your gender? ❑Female Male
What is your age range?
❑ Under 17 E118-25 ❑ 26-40 ❑ 41-55 ❑ 56 and older
How long have you lived in Fort Worth?
❑ 5 years or less ❑6-10 years 0 11- 20 years ❑ 21-30 years ❑ 31 and over
How would you rate the parks and recreation opportunities in Fort Worth?
❑ Excellent ❑Good ❑Somewhat Unsatisfactory❑Poor
How often do you visit a park, recreation facility or an open space in Fort Worth?
❑ On a regular basis ❑Not very often ❑ Did previously, but not anymore ❑Do not use any facilities
Is there a park near your home and do you use it?
❑Yes, and my household members use it
FlYes, and my household members do not use it
[--]No, there is not a park in my neighborhood
If a park were located within walking distance, you would:
❑Be likely to use it ❑Consider it a plus, but not use it
Do you walk or drive to a park near your home? ❑ Drive F--]Walk
What is your favorite park, recreation facility or open space?
Why is it your favorite?
For community centers, would you support a pay-as-you-play system or tax rate increase?
❑Pay as you play ❑Tax increase
Do you feel safe when using a City of Fort Worth park facility? ❑Yes ❑ No
CITY OF FORT WORTH
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Survey 2014
PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The City of Fort Worth*4200 South Freeway, Suite 2200 *Fort Worth,Texas 76115-1499
What do you feel is the most needed park component?
Rank each component sequentially from 1 to 19, with 1 being the most important and 19 being the least. Fill in
box with number.
Hike/bike/walk/jog trails Open spaces/natural areas
Playgrounds Aquatic Centers
Benches/seating areas Picnic shelters/picnic tables
Ball fields—football/soccer Ball fields—baseball/softball
Recreational community centers Golf courses
Public plazas Dog parks
Off-road bike trails Multi-use courts, tennis and basketball
Skateboard parks Disc golf parks
Spray park/splash pads Volleyball courts
Equestrian center
Currently, approximately seven and half cents of every General Fund dollar budgeted in the operating funds is
allocated for Parks and Community Services. Would you be willing to pay more, the same or less for the
following?
More Same Less
Renovate existing facilities ❑ ❑ ❑
Acquire more land for parks ❑ ❑ ❑
Acquire more land for trails and trail connections ❑ ❑ ❑
Acquire more land for community centers ❑ ❑ ❑
Increase maintenance of parks ❑ ❑ ❑
Increase maintenance of trails El E:1 ❑
Increase maintenance of community centers ❑ ❑ ❑
Increase supervised activities/programs ❑ ❑ ❑
Do you have any additional comments?
FORTWORTH.
""4�
THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS
Parks and Community Services Department
Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
2014 Public Survey Summary
Introduction
The 2014 Public Survey was conducted by the City of Fort Worth Parks and Community Services
(PACS) Department in October and November 2014. The survey questions were based upon
the 2013 Needs Assessment Study to provide the ability to analyze current results and compare
to results from the 2013 Needs Assessment Study.
The information provided documents the results of the survey and provides a comparative
analyze to the 2013 Needs Assessment Study.
Parks,Recreation and Open Space Master Plan 2014 Public Survey Section VIII: Appendix-Page 32
Overall Rating of Parks and Recreational
Opportunities in the City of Fort Worth
Question. Overall, how would you rate the parks and recreational opportunities in the City of
Fort Worth?
In 2003 (64%) of survey respondents rated the parks and recreational opportunities in Fort
Worth as excellent or good. In 2013 the percentage went to 68% and the survey in 2014
showed as total of 65.3%.
Excellent Excellent 8.2%
Good 58.3% Good 57.1%
'00'M"
Somewhat 18.5% Somewhat 24.0%
unsatisfactory unsatisfactory
Poor 4.0" Poor 10.31%
•2013-All Respondents-N=963 ■ 2014-All Respondents-N=354
When the park planning districts 1, 2, 3 and 4 were totaled the percentage reached 80.88%.
The park planning district 5 results showed a lower rating than the other districts.
Excellent 11.16% Excellent J94031
Good 69.72% Good 26.21°
Somewhat Somewhat
unsatisfactory 17.92% unsatisfactory 38.84%
Poor ' 1.2% Poor 33.98%
■ 2014-Park Planning Districts 1-4-N=251 ■ 2014-Park Planning District 5-N=103
Parks,Recreation and Open Space Master Plan 2014 Public Survey Section VIII: Appendix-Page 33
Frequency of Use
Question: How often do you visit a Park, a Recreation Facility or an Open Space in Fort Worth?
a. On a regular basis
b. Not very often
c. Did previously, but not anymore
d. Do not use any facilities
On a regular basis 62.15%
Not very often 26.27%
Did previously, 8.47%
but not anymore
Do not use 3.11%
any facilities
2014-Frequency of Use- N=354
The 2014 results confirm that the majority of respondents visit a park, a recreational facility or an open space
in Fort Worth on a regular basis and only 3.11% of respondent do not use any facility.
Parks,Recreation and Open Space Master Plan 2014 Public Survey Section VIII: Appendix-Page 34
Proximity and Use
Question: Is there a park near your home and do you use it?
a. Yes, and my household members use it
b. Yes, and my household members do not use it
c. No, there is not a park in my neighborhood
I
41.53%
b 10.45%
48.02
C
N 2014-Proximity and Use- N=354
Question:If a park were located within walking distance, you would?
a. Be likely to use it
b. Consider it a plus, but not use it
a
93.79%
b 6.21%
Question:Do you walk or drive to a park near your home?
imlilml
a. Drive
b. Walk
a
64.41%
b 35.59%
1
Parks,Recreation and Open Space Master Plan 2014 Public Survey Section VIII: Appendix-Page 35
Tax Rate Increase
Question: For community centers, would you support a pay as you play system or tax rate
increase?
a. Pay as you play
b. Tax Increase
a 62.15%
b 37.85%
2014-Pay or Tax Increase-N=354
The 2014 Survey results show a higher percentage of respondents would support a pay as you play
system rather than a tax increase. The 2013 Needs Assessment Study also showed that more than 40%
of respondents are willing to pay MORE for existing parks, increased maintenance of parks and trails
and land acquisition for trails and trail connections.
Safety
Question: Do you feel safe when using a City of Fort Worth Park facility?
a. Yes
b. No
a 88.42%
The 2014 Survey results show a high percentage b S11.58%
of respondents feel safe when using a City of
Fort Worth Park facility, which is consistent with 2014-Safety-N=354
the 2013 Needs Assessment Study.
Parks,Recreation and Open Space Master Plan 2014 Public Survey Section VIII: Appendix-Page 36
2013 Area Independent School Districts
Inside the City Limits of Fort Worth
- 71
WISECOUNTY „,- DENT.NCOUNTY
TARRANT COUNTY I"
i
--�� . W
5 V
a
a
�o Legend
JB • County Boundary
Fort Worth City Limit
Roads
I
Lake
- � � • '� sa River
e — Independent School District
Aledo ISD
t , �W Arlington ISD
J Birdville ISD
a Burleson ISD
Castleberry ISD
p, Crowley ISD
1 � J l Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD
Everman ISD
„j w o Fort Worth ISD
TAR24N1'COUNN - ..�� Grand Prairie ISD
JOHNSONCOUNTY '—' — Grapevine-Colleyville ISD ELLIS COUNTY
Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD
Irving ISD
Keller ISD
Kennedale ISD
N
Lake Worth ISD
w E Mansfield ISD
s Northwest ISD
City of Fort Worth Other Plans and Studies
The plans listed alphabetically below include recommendations in the management or provision
of parks, recreation and open space.
Aquatic Master Plan,2008,2012
A comprehensive facilities master plan was completed by the Parks and Community Services
Department to provide a quality aquatic facility experience for the citizens of Fort Worth.
Current trends in municipal aquatic facility development indicate that traditional pools are being
replaced with a combination of interactive water features with a swimming component.
The 2012 update to the Aquatic Master Plan includes recommendations for development of
enhanced neighborhood family aquatics centers,partnerships, size and scope of facilities, site
selection criteria, order of development, capital funding, sustainability and subsidy guidelines.
Bike Fort Worth Plan,2010
Bike Fort Worth is the City's comprehensive bicycle transportation plan for developing a
friendlier bicycle environment. Recommendations for supportive policies,programs and
facilities are included to increase bicycle transportation within the City of Fort Worth.
Implementation of this plan will provide a safe and attractive alternative mode of transportation.
The Bike Fort Worth plan identifies existing and proposed on- and off-street facilities, and
describes policies and programs to improve bicycling conditions for people who use their bicycle
instead of a vehicle to get to destinations as well as for recreation. The bikeway network
identified in this plan primarily describes on-street facilities, but off-street multi-purpose trails
can provide connections as well. Existing and future off-street trails are included as well,with
special focus on those that provide connectivity to the on-street system and the regional bicycle
transportation network.
Botanic Garden Master Plan, 2010
To plan for the future of the Fort Worth Botanic Garden,the City Council adopted the Botanic
Garden Master Plan in 2010. The Master Plan identifies a long-range vision, determines future
uses and activities, and projects grounds and facilities improvements for the Botanic Garden. The
master planning process and the resulting Master Plan are designed to attain several key goals in
the next ten years, and will set a framework for many future decades.A Master Plan is
imperative at this time because of the many great opportunities that will arise for the Garden in
the next few years.Along with these opportunities will come some challenges to assure the
Garden can continue its mission of"environmental stewardship"and remain a green sanctuary in
the middle of one of the fastest-growing cities in the United States.
Section VIII: Appendix-Page 38
Central City Commercial Corridors Revitalization Strategy,2002
The Commercial Corridors Revitalization Strategy is the result of a two-year study undertaken
by the City of Fort Worth under the direction of the mayor-appointed Commercial Corridors
Task Force. The mission of the Task Force was to create economic development opportunities in
high-priority central city commercial corridors that can be measured by increases in
employment,tax base, business growth and quality-of-life improvements,particularly in low and
moderate income areas. The study includes detailed plans for the revitalization of 10 mixed-use
areas, or urban villages, along these five corridors, as well as revitalization strategies that can be
applied to other urban villages and commercial districts.
Citywide Historic Preservation Plan,2003
In July 2003,the City adopted the Citywide Historic Preservation Plan. The plan identifies a
series of goals and strategies for future action relating to five major topics:
• Historic resources survey
• Historic preservation ordinance
• Historic preservation incentives
• Historic preservation in City policies and decisions
• Public education j
i
Cultural District Master Plan, 1990
Fifty years of growth resulted in a need for a Master Plan for the Cultural District to provide
unity and definition in this area of unique cultural resources.In 1987,the boundaries of the
Cultural District were defined and the Cultural District Committee was formally established by
the Fort Worth City Council, spearheading an effort to create a visionary document that would
guide growth within the Cultural District.
The Master Plan, created by a team of consultants led by EDAW,Inc., addressed issues
regarding facilities, land use,parking,traffic circulation, open space, lighting, landscaping and
signage. Current and proposed projects within and around the district may warrant an update to
the Cultural District Master Plan.
Cultural Plan,2014 (Draft November 2014)
In February 2001,the leadership of Greater Fort Worth undertook a strategic planning process
focused exclusively on the areas of arts and culture in our city. Working through the Arts
Council, city leadership contracted Wolf, Keens & Co. of Cambridge,Massachusetts to assist
with all aspects of planning and research during the process.This tactical"roadmap"was
carefully crafted with the aid of voices throughout our community to address the unique needs
among Fort Worth citizens and their relationship with the arts.
In the twelve years since completion of the 2002 Cultural Plan,the City of Fort Worth has
continued to develop at a rapid pace. With such changes recognized,Mayor Betsy Price's Arts
Funding Task Force made the fitting recommendation to update the plan in a manner that reflects
Section VIII: Appendix-Page 39
the current needs existing among Fort Worth's art establishments and residents at large.
Answering that call,the Arts Council and the City of Fort Worth have invited architects of the
original cultural plan, Wolf Brown, back to Fort Worth to embark on creating an updated
Cultural Plan in 2014.
Throughout 2014, Thomas Wolf and Marc Goldring will be working closely with leadership in
Greater Fort Worth to reexamine the needs of the community as related to the cultural sector.
The overarching theme of the updated Plan is to retain preserve, and enhance the best of Fort
Worth's cultural past and present while building the quality of life for the new century.
Evans & Rosedale Urban Village Master Plan,2004
In 2004,the City of Fort Worth hired a consultant team led by the Stanley Love Stanley
architectural firm in Atlanta to develop a master plan for the Evans &Rosedale Urban Village.
The master plan includes a conceptual redevelopment plan and design guidelines to create a
mixed-use,pedestrian-oriented urban village. In addition, recommendations to redevelop the
broader Near Southeast neighborhood are presented along with strategies to capitalize on the rich
culture and heritage of the Near Southeast community as a tool for revitalization. The City
Council adopted the master plan in 2004.
Gateway Park Master Plan, 1998,2002
Gateway Park, a 504-acre recreation park intended to serve 80,000 to 100,000 people, is located
in east Fort Worth on the west fork of the Trinity River. The master plan for this park, originally
adopted in 1988,was updated in 2002. The update was developed and evolved at the same time
as the Trinity River Vision Master Plan, and it was coordinated with the joint efforts of the
Tarrant Regional Water District,the
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Streams and Valleys,Inc. and the community. The update
includes plans for entry road realignment and observation towers; ecosystem restoration at the
oxbow; development of an amphitheater complex, a skate park,playgrounds, athletic fields,
additional trails and pavilions; a junior golf teaching facility; and an equestrian facility. With the
2008 expansion of the Trinity Uptown flood control project to include the Gateway Park area, an
additional refinement of the 2002 Gateway Park Master Plan is expected.
Lake Arlington Master Plan,2011
The City of Arlington, in partnership with the cities of Fort Worth and Kennedale,developed a
master plan for Lake Arlington in 2010-2011. The master plan is intended to protect Lake
Arlington's water quality to ensure a safe drinking water supply for over 500,000 people, while
creating new recreation opportunities and guiding future development around the lake. The plan
describes a vision for Lake Arlington; a set of guidelines and standards for protection of water
quality; beautification, recreation and opens space opportunities; and conceptual development
scenarios for the west side of the lake. The City Council adopted a resolution endorsing the Lake
Arlington Master Plan in May 2011.
Section VIII: Appendix-Page 40
Lake Worth Vision Plan,2011
The Lake Worth Vision Plan describes and depicts the most appropriate future land use,
development patterns and forms,recreational use, and facilities on and around Lake Worth. The
Plan is based on the following four principles to guide future decision-making for Lake Worth:
1)Protect and enhance Lake Worth's water quality,natural beauty, and recreational character; 2)
Develop Model Sustainable Communities in the Lake Worth area that create desirable places to
live and work while enhancing livability of existing communities; 3) Create Lake Worth
Regional Park, a linear park that encompasses the lake and provides high-quality recreational
amenities and cultural hubs; 4) Connect communities, resources, and amenities with parkways,
greenways, and trails.
Long Range Public Art Plan for the 2004 CIP,2005
The Long Range Public Art Plan,which was developed by the Fort Worth Art Commission,
identifies capital improvement projects that provide the best opportunities for artist involvement
and allow for the greatest public visibility and geographic distribution throughout Fort Worth.
The City Council adopted the Long Range Plan in May 2005.
Model Block Plans
Since 1993, model block plans have been prepared for neighborhoods to identify needed housing
improvements and revitalization initiatives. They include the following:
• Eastwood, 1993
• Near Southeast, 1994
• Jennings, May, St. Louis, 1995
• Near Northside, 1995
• Lake Como, 1995
• Fairmount, 1996
• Mitchell Boulevard, 1997
• Poly, 1997
• Riverside, 1998
• Far Greater Northside, 1999
• Greenway, 2000
• Worth Heights, 2001
• Handley, 2002
• Carver Heights,2003
• North Greenbriar, 2004
• Stop Six Sunrise Edition, 2005
• South Hemphill Heights, 2005
• Historic Carver Heights,2006
f
Section VIII: Appendix-Page 41
NAS JRB Joint Land Use Study,2007,2013
The Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) is an initiative of Benbrook,Fort Worth, Lake Worth, River
Oaks, Westworth Village, White Settlement and Tarrant County. The U.S. Department of
Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment is the project manager and the North Central Council
of Governments is the study sponsor. The purpose of this Joint Land Use Study is to evaluate the
current status of the implementation of recommendations issued in the 2002 Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone Study and to make recommendations for additional actions by local
governments designed to improve land use decisions that may affect the mission of the base. The
City Council adopted a resolution supporting the JLUS in October 2007.
Nature Center and Refuge Master Plan,2003
The City completed a master plan to improve and enhance facilities at the Fort Worth Nature
Center and Refuge. The mission of the plan is to promote a signature heritage that reflects not
only the regional character of Fort Worth and North Central Texas, but communicates Fort
Worth's community values of preserving natural open space for future generations. The Master
Plan includes recommendations for new facilities,the update of existing facilities, interpretive
exhibits, and needed supporting infrastructure. The Master Plan identifies opportunities for
capital improvements in the amount of$64.6 million over a 40-year period with a majority of
this funding to be raised from private and community sources.
Neighborhood Empowerment Zone Plans
A Neighborhood Empowerment Zone(NEZ) is an area created to promote 1)the development
and rehabilitation of affordable housing within the zone; 2) an increase in economic development
within the zone; and 3) an increase in the quality of social services, education, or public safety
provided to residents of the zone. Seventeen NEZs have been designated by the City Council.
The primary purpose of NEZ plans is to provide guidance to neighborhoods and development
project proponents seeking NEZ incentives. The plans describe neighborhood conditions and
aspirations, and typically include design guidelines for residential and commercial projects. The
following NEZ Plans are complete: Berryhill-Mason Heights, 2007; Oakland Corners,2009;
Stop Six Updated NEZ.
• Berryhill-Mason Heights, 2007
• Oakland Corners,2009
Public Art Master Plan,2003
In October 2001,the City of Fort Worth adopted an ordinance to set aside two per- cent of
capital construction costs for the creation of public art. The ordinance also established the Fort
Worth Art Commission to advise the City Council on matters of public art and on the
development of the Fort Worth Public Art Program. The pro- gram is managed by the Arts
Council of Fort Worth and Tarrant County. In September 2003,the City Council adopted the
f.
Section VIII: Appendix-Page 42
F Fort Worth Public Art Master Plan, which was the result of an inclusive, community-based
process.
Southside Medical District Strategic Plan, 1995,2003
The Strategic Plan for the Southside Medical District was completed by a team of consultants led
by Sasaki Associates, Inc., in order to present overall guiding development principles on which
to base decision-making within the District. The Plan addressed issues such as land use,
redevelopment opportunities, housing, urban design and open space,transportation, and parking.
In October 2003, an interdisciplinary panel of experts conducted a public planning workshop to
update the 1995 plan for Fort Worth South,Inc. The consultants issued a final report that serves
as a supplement to the 1995 plan. This report,Assessment of Opportunities and
Recommendations for Future Direction,recommends certain policy and urban design strategies
to encourage continued revitalization throughout Fort Worth South. 2003 Assessment of
Opportunities report serves as an addendum to the 1995 plan.
Sustainability Action Plan,2010
The City of Fort Worth established a Sustainability Task Force to create and implement a
comprehensive Sustainability Action Plan for the City. This plan improves coordination of
energy related policies interdepartmentally within the City and at the community level with other
local jurisdictions. Involved stakeholders include the Fort Worth Transportation Authority,
area universities, school districts, neighborhood leaders, and public utility partners. The
Sustainability Action Plan provides a road map for improving sustainable development practices,
City operations, and includes an education and outreach component for residents, employees,
and businesses.
Tandy Hills/Stratford Park Strategic Master Plan,2008
Tandy Hills Park and Stratford Parks (TH/SP) are located only five miles from downtown Fort
Worth, in one of the largest metropolitan areas in Texas. It has been well established that this
park has significant ecological, historical, and educational value, due to the fact that it is a
remnant of the Fort Worth(Grand)Prairie.
The purpose of this Strategic Master Plan is to develop a natural resource/operational
management and public use program for TH/SP that balances the need for preservation with the
intention to make the park accessible to the public. All recommendations are based on the
intrinsic importance of responsible stewardship and the many opportunities for the City of Fort
Worth to make this park a prized natural area.
Section VIII: Appendix-Page 43
Texas Motor Speedway Area Master Plan,2009
The Texas Motor Speedway(TMS)Area Master Plan is a sub-regional public planning effort
which provides recommendations concerning economic development, land use, transportation,
water and sewer infrastructure, environmental impacts, and regional cooperation for the
multijurisdictional study area. The plan acknowledges that due to rapid growth, development
pressure in the TMS area will increase and the ability to properly accommodate that growth
needs to be balanced with maintaining the considerable economic impact of the race track. To
achieve this balance, key stakeholders were engaged throughout the study area, including major
employers,property owners, neighborhood leaders, adjacent communities' planning staff, and
elected officials.
The plan reviews development opportunities and plans, identifies potential compatibility
concerns, and describes transportation facility needs and plans to serve the area. The plan
acknowledges the multiplicity of planning efforts by the many jurisdictions within the TMS plan
study area, and melds elements of these plans into a more understandable long-range view of the
TMS study area. Based on stakeholders' desires to more sustainably accommodate the strong
growth projected for the area,the plan introduces alternative and potentially more sustainable
development patterns for the sub-region within which TMS is located.
Trinity River Vision Master Plan,2003
The Trinity River Master Plan, completed in 1990, was initiated by Streams and Valleys, Inc.
and was funded by a grant from the Amon G. Carter Foundation. This master plan was
developed for the improvement of 43 miles of the Trinity River Corridor over 20 years. The
planning corridor consists of the Trinity River Main Branch and the West Fork,which are
divided into nine distinct zones. The Plan provides recommendations based on the distinct
character of each zone.An update of the Trinity River Plan from Trinity Park to Gateway Park
was completed in 1999. The updated plan is known as the Tilley Plan. The Tilley Plan was
formally accepted by Streams and Valleys, Inc. and the Parks and Community Services Advisory
Board.
A far-sighted update of this plan,the Trinity River Vision Master Plan, was completed in 2003.
It has an enlarged scope that encompasses approximately 88 miles of river and creels corridor.
Along with expanding on the existing Master Plan
recommendations, it contains recommendations to improve the river's accessibility to the public,
attract more people to its banks, develop an urbanized downtown waterfront while maintaining
the natural qualities of more remote areas, and increase awareness of its presence and beauty by
citizens and visitors. The Plan identifies opportunities for conservation, linkages, and open space.
The primary objectives of the Plan include identifying and improving adjoining land uses,
enhancing environmental quality, and flood control.
Section VIII: Appendix-Page 44
Trinity Uptown Plan,2004
The Trinity Uptown Plan is a bold vision for urban waterfront development. The plan represents
a partnership between the Tarrant Regional Water District, the City of Fort Worth, and Tarrant
County, with support from Streams and Valleys, Inc. and Tarrant County College. The plan aims
to redevelop an 800-acre area north of Downtown Fort Worth with a combination of public
improvements and private development. Its goal is to provide a vibrant environment in which
residents can live,work, shop,play, and learn. Trinity Uptown promises to become a richly
diverse urban neighborhood linking Downtown to the Historic Stockyards and the Cultural
District. The area is bounded on the north by Northside Drive and the Oakwood Cemetery to the
west by the Fort Worth&Western Railroad and Henderson Street corridors,to the east by
Samuels Avenue, and to the south by Belknap Street. The primary benefits of the Trinity
Uptown project include flood protection, urban revitalization,environmental restoration, and
recreation.
Trinity River Vision Neighborhood Recreational Enhancement Plan (NREP),2009
The purpose of the Trinity River Vision (TRV)Neighborhood and Recreational Enhancement
Plan(NREP) is to identify and prioritize recreational and environmental enhancements to the
Trinity River greenbelt within a 10 year timeframe. It is a joint effort by Trinity River Vision
partners Tarrant Regional Water District, Streams&Valleys, Trinity River Vision Authority and
the City of Fort Worth.
The Neighborhood and Recreational Enhancement Program is an update to the 2003 Trinity
River Vision Master Plan. Recommendations from the Plan include, but are not limited to the
following: neighborhood trail links, increasing open space,wildflower plantings,new trailheads,
improved trailhead amenities, directional and safety signage, better equestrian facilities,portage
facilities at low water dams, and trail extensions along the river and its tributaries. Funding
availability for the proposed projects will be reviewed each year by the partner agencies.
Urban Village Master Plans,2007
In January 2006,the City Council authorized funding for planning in twelve urban villages, with
additional funding for design and construction in five of those villages. In accordance with this
authorization,the City Manager appointed a Citywide Screening Panel and Cluster Interview
Panels to assist the Planning and Development Department in selecting qualified planning and
design consultants for the twelve urban villages that are divided into the following three
geographic clusters: central, southeast, and southwest. Each of these panels reflected a balance of
interests, including neighborhood groups, economic development organizations, and historic
preservation groups, appointed boards and commissions, and City departments.
The 12 urban village master plans were the result of a 10-month effort designed to seek input and
ideas from all stakeholders who may have an interest in the urban village's future. The planning
process included three public work sessions and input from various City departments,
stakeholders, neighborhood residents, and potential developers. While each of the master plans
reflects the unique identity of the urban village, all of the master plans contain common elements
Section VIII: Appendix-Page 45
including a conceptual redevelopment plan and recommendations for implementation. The
following urban village master plans were adopted in December 2007:
Central Cluster
• Historic Handley
• Six Points
• South Main
Southeast Cluster
• Berry/Stalcup
• Berry/Riverside
• Near East Side
• Oakland Corners
• Polytechnic/Wesleyan
Southwest Cluster
• Berry/Hemphill
• Berry/University
• Bluebonnet Circle
• Ridglea
Walk Fort Worth Pedestrian Transportation Plan,2014
Walk Fort Worth is the City's comprehensive pedestrian transportation plan for developing a
more pedestrian friendly environment for those who travel by foot,wheelchair, motorized
scooter, or other mobility aid. Investing transportation funds in sidewalks,traffic-calming
devices, greenways,trails and public transit makes it easier for people to walk to destinations.
The most successful business districts in Fort Worth rely on high levels of foot traffic. Cities
with vibrant walkable places attract tourists as well as visitors from nearby communities.
The Walk Fort Worth plan was created to accomplish the following:
• Recommend appropriate pedestrian infrastructure and improve design standards
• Identify highest priority needs to direct limited funding
• Recommend targeted policies
Woodhaven Redevelopment Plan,2006
In 2004,the City of Fort Worth hired the Gideon Toal, Inc. consultant firm to develop a master
plan for Woodhaven. The master plan addresses the challenges and opportunities currently
present in Woodhaven along with background data and market information related to the area's
potential for development and redevelopment. The recommendations provide the outline of an
action plan that encourages the private and public sectors to partner in order to make the plan a
reality. The City Council endorsed the master plan in 2006 and directed City staff to negotiate a
public-private partnership to implement the plan's goals and objectives.
Section VIII: Appendix-Page 46
• On land leased from the FWISD the Department constructed a neighborhood playground
and park at Meadowood Park which is maintained by the Department.
• At Thomas Place, on leased land from the FWISD,the Department constructed a park on
the land south and east of the building. The Department provides maintenance for all of
the grounds.
• The conversion of Seminary Hills Park Site to an Elementary School/Park Site was
possible through the use agreement of 6.18 acres of land.
• Improvement of three soccer fields at the Wilkerson-Greines Athletic Complex Is
operated as part of the City's Park and Recreation Program.
• The Department has partnered with Imagination Celebration of Fort Worth to provide
school field trips for various FWISD schools to experience the city's Log Cabin Village.
• Eastern Hills Storm Water Management Facility operates under the shared responsibility
and cost between the FWISD and the City.
• Daggett Middle School is utilized for the operation of the 20 Century Community
Learning Center Program.
Athletics
Step up to home plate at any of the ball fields in the City. In fact,whatever your sport- soccer,
racquetball, rugby, flag football-you can reserve an athletic facility. Cool off on a hot Texas
day in one of two Parks and Community Services Department pools or our spray ground. And
keep your kids happy and busy in one of
the City's affordable Youth Athletics
Programs.
The Parks and Community Services ��
Department has access to Farrington Field,- _
at no cost, for the Summer Track Program.The FWISD, at no cost, utilizes the City's
synthetic turf fields on a limited basis from
February to June and their tennis teams
schedule scholastic tournament
competitions at the City's McLeland
Tennis Center. The Department also
provides weekday access for high school
golf teams to use the City's golf courses McLeland Tennis Center,Fort Worth
for after school practice.
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities-Page 34
Golf Courses
The City of Fort Worth offers the golfer a quality, enjoyable, safe and comprehensive golf
program through four municipally owned golf courses,promoting golf as a lifetime sport. Each
course has a unique layout and is designed
to challenge every level of skill. The City
facilities feature individual and group
lessons,tournament planning,
handicapping services, and City-wide
tournament opportunities for adults and
juniors. Great pride is taken in providing
an accessible, affordable, quality golf
experience to the public and residents of
Fort Worth. A junior golf program is
offered by the City's partner, The First Tee
of Fort Worth, located at Rockwood Golf
Course. The First Tee program consists of
nine core values incorporated along with
learning the game of golf. The City also Foot Golf-Rockwood GC,Fort Worth
offers FootGolf at two locations.
Providing Human Services
Human services are vital to the health of every community. Timely delivery of an array of human
services is an important component of the City of Fort Worth's vision of a future with strong
neighborhoods, a sound economy, and a safe community. The City, Tarrant County,the State of
Texas, secular non-profits, faith-based non-profits and for-profit providers have a strong history
of community initiative and collaboration in the delivery of human services in Fort Worth.
Umbrella organizations such as United Way,Area Agency on Aging, Catholic Charities, Tarrant
County Youth Collaboration and Mental Health and Mental Retardation of Tarrant County are
especially important to ensure efficient delivery of services through program and project funding,
providing information and referral, and soliciting and leveraging funds.
Family Support
Family support can include child care,programs on parenting skills, self-support training,
personal and family counseling, adoption, support for neighborhood associations and initiatives
to help build communities, immigration assistance and job training and placement. Some
agencies providing these services are the American Red Cross, Catholic Charities, Jewish
Federation,Lena Pope Home,Northside Inter-Church Agency,the Parenting Center,the Pastoral
Care Center, Tarrant County Department of Human Services and many area churches.
Youth Services
Youth services are targeted toward youth at risk through circumstance or behavior. Tutoring,
pregnancy prevention, sport and recreation, and self-esteem programs are a sample of the range
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 35
L of youth services available. Some agencies providing these services are Fort Worth SPARC,
Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention,Inc.,Big Brothers Big Sisters,Boys and Girls Club,Boy and
Girl Scouts, Camp Fire USA, Child Care Associates, Communities in Schools, United
Community Centers, YMCA and YWCA, and Fort Worth Housing Authority.
Senior Services
Senior services are designed to serve those over sixty years of age and can include delivery of
daily meals,transportation, social programs, guardianship services, advocacy for nursing home
residents and respite care for Alzheimer's care-givers. Agencies providing these services include
the American Red Cross,Area Agency on Aging, Guardianship Services,Mental Health and
Mental Retardation of Tarrant County, Senior Citizen Services of Greater Tarrant County, Meals
on Wheels, and Visiting Nurse Association of Tarrant County.
General Recreation and Community Programs
Cams _
The Mobile Recreation Summer Day
Camp Program is offered at four Fort •' ""tea' "
Worth ISD Schools. The schools provide -
the following at no charge: use of the 14
schools,use of Wilkerson Greines
S+!
Athletic Center for swimming, and bus
transportation for all field trips. `~
Wilkerson-Greines Activity Center Pool,Fort Worth
Educational Facilities and Services
School children receive discounted admission or tours to the Log Cabin Village,the Fort Worth
Zoo,the Botanic Garden and the Nature Center and Refuge. The Department gives over sixty
Arbor Day presentations each year and provides trees for planting on a limited basis throughout
the year.
Relationships with Private and Non-Profit Organizations
The Department has maintained a long relationship with the philanthropic groups in the City and
has added valuable resources as a direct result of these relationships. Fort Worth foundations
have donated parks such as the Water Gardens,Burnett Park, Trinity East, and Carter Park.
The Botanic Garden,Log Cabin Village and the Fort Worth Nature Center and Refuge have
support groups that provide funding for special projects, capital improvements, on-going
maintenance needs, education programs and professional development.
i
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities-Page 36
I
The Department also works closely with groups such as the YMCA,Boys and Girls Club, and
the Fort Worth Zoological Association in the management of facilities and administration of
programs. The YMCA manages some of the
pools in the system and the Zoological '!
Association manages and maintains the Zoo.
The Boys and Girls Club provides the
Comin' Up Gang Intervention Program
which targets at risk youth. Greenbriar
Community Center has partnered with
H.I.K.I.Ds (Helping Inner-city Kids in
Danger) since 1995. Their mission is to
provide a positive and safe place for kids to
meet and learn about how to live honorable
lives, receive encouragement and help with
school and gain positive life skills. Boys&Girls Clubs for Greater Fort Worth
Departmental Programs
The Department operates a variety of age specific recreation and community service programs
that range from fitness and wellness to life skills. A brief listing of core programs are divided
into two categories:Fitness and Wellness Programs and Unique Programs. The Community
Action Partners Program Centers operated by the Community Services Division provide direct
services to persons with incomes at or below 125 percent of the poverty level for utilities and
energy crisis needs. City staff also provides referrals to local agencies for additional services.
The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs funds these centers.
Fitness and Wellness Programs include life skills programs; recreation programs; community
outreach/partnership programs;personal development programs including substance abuse
prevention, self-esteem enhancement and counseling; cultural and social programs; and athletic
leagues.
• Fitness/Wellness Programs -
gymnastics, aquatics, aerobics,
weight training, dance and health
fairs
• Life Skills-cooking, computer l <_
software,photography, nutrition,
income tax preparation classes,
NJTL(National Junior Tennis and — -
Learning), etiquette classes,USTA
Tennis,Junior Golf and Wood
Carvers Dance Program,City of Fort Worth Parks
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 37
• Community Outreach/Partnerships -Como After School Program,Neighborhood
Advisory Councils,Police Storefront, youth sports and YMCA/YWCA
• Personal Development- substance abuse prevention, self-esteem enhancement, smoking
cessation programs and counseling
• Cultural Programs -Ballet Folklorico, Black History Month, Cinco de Mayo, dance,
drama and music
• Social Programs - senior lunches, special events, dominoes and dancing
• Athletic Leagues - softball, soccer,volleyball and basketball
Unique Programs include the After School/Late Night Program, Comin' Up Gang Intervention
Program, HIKIDS Program, Youth Athletics Program, Community Alternative Program,
Standard Based Schools, social services programs, Homework Assistance Center, health and
child care services and neighborhood services. Many of the City's community centers also serve
as emergency shelters and safe havens for the children of the community. Although the
Department offers many unique programs,the examples presented serve to demonstrate the
breadth and diversity of services provided.
Facility Meeting Space- The Department provides meeting space for Homeowners Associations
(HOA),Neighborhood Advisory Councils (MACS), elections, birthday parties, and Capital
Improvement Program meetings.
Section VI:Inventory of Areas and Facilities- Page 38
Section VII: Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs
Overview
The priorities and recommendations identified in this section are derived from public input,the
facility inventory and level of service standards established in this Master Plan. Further,
recognizing that priorities in one area of the City may not completely align with that of another,
the Park Facility Priorities are listed by Park Planning District(PPD). This section identifies the
land based park needs,park facility priorities and a listing of funded projects in the 5-year work
plan for each PPD. Additionally, as there appears to be consensus throughout the City that hike
and bike trails are a high priority,preparation of a city-wide trails master plan should be given
consideration.
Regarding land based park needs,historically,Park Planning District 4,the Central City area has
the oldest and greatest number of community parks. They include:Forest,Trinity, Sycamore,
Harmon Field,Z.Boaz and Rockwood which have all been established in the first part of the 20th
Century.A lag in the acquisition and development of community parks occurred in the areas of
the City outside of loop 820 (PPDs 1,2, 3 and 5). Similar instances of shortfalls in community
park land acquisitions existed in the south and southwest areas of the city in the 1970's, 1980's
and 1990's. However,during these periods community parks such as Rolling Hills,Hallmark,
Greenbriar and Southwest were acquired and developed. Recently the newest community center
was built on Southwest community park land now renamed Chisholm Trail Community Center
which opened in March 2014.
1
- r
Chisholm Trail Community Center,Fort Worth
For each of the PPD's the top ten priority rankings are noted and in each PPD section the top five
priorities are listed in a table format. The tables list the current and future needs identified per
population projections. The priorities listing is followed by the 5-year work plan which includes
projects that are currently funded, and are scheduled to be initiated and completed within the next
5 years. While the work plan will address some of the current and projected needs,the objective
for the next 5 years—years 2020-2025—will be to address those priorities that show a deficiency.
Section VII:Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs-Page 1
This Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the future of the City of Fort Worth park
system. However, like most plans,there will be unforeseen changes in conditions that will cause
the Parks and Community Services Advisory Board and the Parks and Community Services
Department to change or adjust recommendations with a potential reevaluation of priorities and
scheduling.
Park Planning District 1 (PPD 1)
PPD 1 is bounded on the north by IH-20, on the south and east by the City of Fort Worth city
limits and on the west by Farm to Market Road 287; however,there are areas that extend further
westward. According to population projections supplied by the North Central Texas Council of
Governments, it is expected that PPD 1 will have a population of 143,749 in 2015 and 186,571 in
2025 (for a population increase of 30%over this period).
As noted above,significant growth is expected in this PPD over the next five to ten years.
Further, commercial and residential growth will be accelerated with the completion of the
Chisholm Trail Parkway which opened within this area in May 2014.
Major park destinations include the Chisholm Trail Community Center(opened in 2014),Pecan
Valley Golf Course, and Pecan Valley Community Park. Other recreational facilities include
Lake Benbrook which is managed by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, and the Trinity Trails
which are managed by the Parks and Community Services Department and the Tarrant Regional
Water District.
PPD 1: Park Land Needs
The standard for Neighborhood Based Parks as defined in Section V is 2.50 acres per 1,000
persons,whereas the standard for Community Based Parks is 3.75 acres per 1,000 persons. The
table below lists the current acreage inventory of Neighborhood Based Parks and Community
Based Parks, and the acreage needed per population projections of 2015 and 2025.
Table VII-1 PPD 1: Neighborhood and Community Based Park Land Needs
Current 2015 Need 2025 Need
Invento 143,749 0 186,571 pop.)
Neighborhood Based Parks 299.40 acres 359 acres 466 acres
Community Based Parks 537.85 acres 539 acres 700 acres
TOTAL 837.26 acres 898 acres 1,166 acres
Per the established level of service for park land,PPD 1 is currently underserved for
Neighborhood Based Parks and served for Community Based Parks. However, despite being
served within the PPD as a whole,there may be deficiencies in Community Based Parks within
certain areas of the PPD. Further, an additional 329 acres of parkland will be required by 2025 to
keep pace with estimated population growth. The Parks and Community Services Department
continues to look for property acquisition opportunities as population in this PPD increases.
Section VII:Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs- Page 2
PPD 1: Park Facility Priorities
The findings of the public input gathered through the 2013 Needs Assessment, the 2014 Public
Survey and the 2014 Bond Program are used to measure the interests of the general population
in each Park Planning District. This information combined with our current inventory of
facilities and level of service standards defined in Section V determined the ranking of the top
five priorities for this PPD as identified in the table below. Other priorities for this district
include open space and natural areas, skateboard parks,tennis courts, basketball courts and
picnic shelters.
Table VII-2 PPD 1: Top Five Priority Listing
Park Facility Current 2015 Need 2025 Need
Inventory
1 Hike/Bike/Walking Trails miles 14 14 19
2 Playgrounds 25 36 47
3 Athletic Fields(Soccer,Baseball, Softball) 4 14 19
4 Dog Parks 0 1 1
5 Multi-use Courts 16 29 37
PPD 1: 5-Year Work Plan
The following projects located in Park Planning District 1 are in the Department's 5-year work
plan, and include projects that are funded through the 2014 Bond Program and other funding
sources. As indicated in the table above there is currently a deficiency in playgrounds and that
will increase by the 2025. The current work plan includes the replacement of four playgrounds,
but does not address the deficiency.
Park improvements at Oakmont Linear Park and Hallmark Park will address the top priority of
hike and bike trails with internal walking trails, and may include multi-use courts pending
neighborhood input.
Chisholm Trail Community Park Phase I development includes several of the facilities included
in the top five listing. Specifically,these include the development of soccer fields, a regional
skate park, and a large internal loop walking trail which will connect to the existing
neighborhood to the north of the park.
Table VII-3 PPD 1: 5-Year Work Plan
Playgrounds
Creekside Park Playground Replacement
Lincolnshire Park Playground Replacement
Patricia LeBlanc Park Playground Replacement Universal Playground)
Southcreek Park Playground Replacement
Section VII:Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs- Page 3
Table VII-3 PPD 1: 5-Year Work Plan...Continued
Park Improvements
Oakmont Linear Park Improvements
Hallmark Park Improvements
Chisholm Trail Community Park-Phase I Development
Pecan Valley Golf Course Pump Station Replacement
Deer Creek Reserve Park Development
Park Security Lighting
Hulen Meadows Park
Kingswood Park
Southcreek Park
Park Planning District 2 (PPD 2)
PPD 2 is bounded on the north by Bonds Ranch Road, on the south by Aledo Road, on the east by
West Loop 820 and on the west by the City of Fort Worth city limits. According to population
projections supplied by the North Central Texas Council of Governments,it is expected that PPD
2 will have a population of 86,703 in 2015 and 136,262 in 2025 (for a population increase of 57%
( over this period).
Major park destinations in this PPD include the Fort Worth Nature Center and Refuge and the
Marine Creek Lake Park system and trail (in partnership with Tarrant Regional Water District).
Additionally, several neighborhood parks and community parks surround Lake Worth giving
public access to the lake for water based recreation.
Walsh Ranch is a large scale planned development in this PPD. According the Fort Worth
Chamber of Commerce newsletter(Chamber letter, January 24,2013)this development will
include 50,000 homes, several schools and trails. Further, it is expected that development of
Walsh Ranch will spur additional development in this area of the City and contribute to
significant growth. Other planning efforts in PPD 5 include the Lake Worth Vision Plan(2011)
which identifies recreational opportunities, open space opportunities and water quality protection
strategies.
Section VII:Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs-Page 4
PPD 2: Park Land Needs
The standard for Neighborhood Based Parks as defined in Section V is 2.50 acres per 1,000
persons,whereas the standard for Community Based Parks is 3.75 acres per 1,000 persons. The
table below lists the current acreage inventory of Neighborhood Based Parks and Community
Based Parks, and the acreage needed per population projections of 2015 and 2025.
Table VII-4 PPD 2: Neighborhood and Community Based Park Land Needs
Current 2015 Need 2025 Need
Invento 86,703 0 136,262 pop.)
Neighborhood Based Parks 223.87 acres 217 acres 341 acres
Community Based Parlcs 618.86 acres 325 acres 511 acres
TOTAL 842.73 acres 542 acres 852 acres
Per the established level of service for park land, PPD 2 is currently served for both
Neighborhood Based and Community Based Parks. However, despite being served within the
PPD as a whole,there may be deficiencies in Neighborhood Based and Community Based Parks
within certain areas of the PPD. Further, an additional 117 acres of Neighborhood Based
parkland will be required by 2025 to keep pace with estimated population growth. The Parks and
Community Services Department continues to look for property acquisition opportunities for
Neighborhood Based Parks as population in this PPD increases.
PPD 2: Park Facility Priorities
The findings of the public input gathered through the 2013 Needs Assessment,the 2014 Public
Survey and the 2014 Bond Program are used to measure the interests of the general population
in each Park Planning District. This information combined with our current inventory of
facilities and level of service standards defined in Section V determined the ranking of the top
five priorities for PPD 2 as identified in the table below. Other priorities for this district include
open space and natural areas, skateboard parks,tennis courts, basketball courts and picnic
shelters.
Table VII-5 PPD 2: Top Five Priority Listing
Park Facility Current 2015 Need 2025 Need
Inventory
1 Hike/Bike/Walking Trails miles 28 9 14
2 Playgrounds 11 22 34
3 Dog Parks 0 1 1
[25Athletic Multi-use Courts 3 17 27
Fields(Soccer,Baseball, Softball) 4 9 14
Section VII:Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs- Page 5
PPD 2: 5-Year Work Plan
The following projects located in Park Planning District 2 are included in the Department's 5-
year work plan, and include projects are funded through the 2014 Bond Program, and other
funding sources. As indicated in the table above there is currently a deficiency in playgrounds
and that will increase by the 2025. The current work plan includes the replacement of two
playgrounds (Camp Joy and Arrow S. Parks),but does not address the deficiency. Other park
improvements in the 5-year work plan include security lighting and renovation of the boardwalk
and levee at the Fort Worth Nature Center and Refuge.
Additionally,the Department has funding to extend the Trinity Trails system where it currently
terminates at Meandering Road to Arrow S. Park at Lake Worth(which spans PPD 4 and 2). As
funding for design and construction becomes available this trail will extend around the perimeter
of Lake Worth.
Table VII-6 PPD 2: 5-Year Work Plan
Playgrounds
Camp Joy Park Playground Replacement
Arrow S. Park Playground Replacement
Park Improvements
Nature Center Boardwalk Renovation
Nature Center Levee Reconstruction
Park Security Lighting
Anderson Park
Chuck Silcox Park
Eagle Mountain Ranch Park
Falcon Ridge Park
Twin Mills Park
Park Planning District 3 (PPD 3)
PPD 3 is bounded on the north by SH-12 1/Airport Freeway, on the south by IH-20,on the east
by the City of Fort Worth city limits and on the west by East Loop 820. According to population
projections supplied by the North Central Texas Council of Governments, it is expected that PPD
3 will have a population of 62,722 in 2015 and 73,463 in 2025 (for a population increase of 17%
over this period).
This PPD includes Lake Arlington which could become a major recreational destination. Parks
in this area include Eugene McCray at Lake Arlington Park which has a boat launch,playground
and picnic shelters. The Lake Arlington Plan (2011) identifies recreational and open space
opportunities around the lake.
Section VII:Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs- Page 6
Future development in PPD 3 includes the Trinity Lakes Development which east of 820 and
south of Trinity Boulevard, and the Centreport Development east of Hwy 360 and south of
Trinity Boulevard. Plans for the Trinity Lakes Development include mixed use and transit
oriented development. The proposed development plans include trail connections between
neighborhoods,parks and schools. In order to meet the need of future growth in these areas,
additional parkland will be dedicated in accordance with the Neighborhood and Community Park
Dedication Policy as this development occurs.
PPD 3: Park Land Needs
The standard for Neighborhood Based Parks as defined in Section V is 2.50 acres per 1,000
persons,whereas the standard for Community Based Parks is 3.75 acres per 1,000 persons. The
table below lists the current acreage inventory of Neighborhood Based Parks and Community
Based Parks, and the acreage needed per population projections of 2015 and 2025.
Table VII-7 PPD 3: Neighborhood and Community Based Park Land Needs
Current 2015 Need 2025 Need
Invento 62,722 0 73,463 pop.)
Neighborhood Based Parks 94.28 acres 157 acres 184 acres
Community Based Parks 119.37 acres 235 acres 275 acres
TOTAL 213.65 acres 392 acres 459 acres
Per the established level of service for park land,PPD 3 is currently underserved for both
Neighborhood Based and Community Based Parks. Further, an additional 245 acres of parkland
will be required by 2025 to keep pace with estimated population growth. The Parks and
Community Services Department continues to look for property acquisition opportunities as
population in this PPD increases.
PPD 3: Park Facility Priorities
The findings of the public input gathered through the 2013 Needs Assessment,the 2014 Public
Survey and the 2014 Bond Program are used to measure the interests of the general population
in each Park Planning District. This information combined with our current inventory of
facilities and level of service standards defined in Section V determined the ranking of the top
five priorities for PPD 3 as identified in the table below. Other priorities for this district include
open space and natural areas, basketball courts,volleyball courts, skateboard parks and picnic
shelters.
Section VII:Plan Implementation and Prioritization ofNeeds-Page 7
Table VII-8 PPD 3: Top Five Priority Listing
Park Facility Current 2015 Need 2025 Need
Inventory
1 Hike/Bike/Walking Trails miles 2 6 7
2 Playgrounds 10 16 18
3 Dog Parks 0 1 1
4 Multi-use Courts 5 13 15
5 Athletic Fields(Soccer,Baseball, Softball) 2 6 7
PPD 3: 5-Year Work Plan
The following projects located in Park Planning District 3 are included in the Department's 5-
year work plan, and include projects that are funded through the 2014 Bond Program and other
funding sources. As indicated in the table above there is currently a deficiency in all of the top
five priorities. Further, the need for these facilities will increase by the 2025 with the projected
population growth.
The current work plan includes installation of a new playground at Mallard Cove Park, and the
replacement of the playground at Sandy Lane Park. Other projects include the expansion of the
Handley Meadowbrook Community Center, and the development of Mosier Valley Park which
is recently acquired park land at the site of a historic African American school.
A major trail project in this PPD is an extension of the Trinity Trails from Quanah Parker Park to
River Legacy Park in Arlington through the use of bond funds, grants and private partnerships.
As funding for design and construction becomes available this trail will be extended to River
Legacy Park in Arlington, and ultimately to the far eastern boundaries of the City including the
Centreport Development area.
Table VII-9 PPD 3: 5-Year Work Plan
Park Erosion Repair and Control
Sandy Lane Park
Park Roads and Parking Lots
Handley Park
Section VII:Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs- Page 8
Table VII-9 PPD 3: 5-Year Work Plan...Continued
Community Centers
Handley-Meadowbrook Community Center Expansion
Playgrounds
Mallard Cove Park-New Playground Installation
Park Improvements
Eugene McCray Park Improvements
Mosier Valley Reserve Park-Master Plan/Phase I Development
Sandy Lane Park Redevelopment
Walks and Trails
Trinity Trails -East Fort Worth Extension
Park Planning District 4 (PPD 4)
Park Planning District 4 encompasses the area within Loop 820. This includes the greatest
percentage of the overall population of Fort Worth. This PPD includes the Central Business
District which has experienced substantial growth and redevelopment. More recently,this
renaissance of urban renewal has extended to the near south and near west areas of the central
City. According to population projections supplied by the North Central Texas Council of
Governments, it is expected that PPD 4 will have a population of 376,908 in 2015 and 410,129 in
2025 (for a population increase of 9%over this period).
PPD 4 benefits from a long established park system. Parks in the central city such as Forest
Park,Trinity Park,Rock Springs Park(later renamed the Fort Worth Botanic Gardens) and Cobb
Park were identified in early Park Master Plans of George Kessler(1909) and Hare and Hare
(1930 and 1957).
Several plans are included in the City Comprehensive Plan by reference which addresses
strategies for providing open space and recreational opportunities in this PPD. These include the
Downtown Fort Worth Ten Year Strategic Action Plan(2013),the Trinity Uptown Plan(2004),
the Southside Medical District Strategic Plan (2003), and several urban village plans. A listing
of these plans and other studies is included in an appendix to this Master Plan. The Parks and
Community Services Department will work with the organizations that administer these plans to
identify possible areas for open space and recreational opportunities.
PPD 4: Park Land Needs
The standard for Neighborhood Based Parks as defined in Section V is 2.50 acres per 1,000
persons,whereas the standard for Community Based Parks is 3.75 acres per 1,000 persons. The
table below lists the current acreage inventory of Neighborhood Based Parks and Community
Based Parks, and the acreage needed per population projections of 2015 and 2025.
4
Section VIL•Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs- Page 9
Table VII-10 PPD 4: Neighborhood and Community Based Park Land Needs
Current 2015 Need 2025 Need
Invento 376,908 0 410,129 pop.)
Neighborhood Based Parks 462.57 acres 942 acres 1,025 acres
Community Based Parks 3,032.86 acres 1,413 acres 1,538 acres
TOTAL 3,495.43 acres 2,356 acres 2,563 acres
Per the established level of service for park land, PPD 4 is currently underserved for
Neighborhood Based Parks and served for Community Based Parks. However, despite being
served within the PPD as a whole, there may be deficiencies in Community Based Parks within
certain areas of the PPD. Further, an additional 562 acres of Neighborhood Based parkland will
be required by 2025 to keep pace with estimated population growth. The Parks and Community
Services Department continues to look for property acquisition opportunities as population in this
PPD increases.
Urban Growth Centers as described in Section V promote higher density and mixed use
development. Providing close to home parks and open space in these higher density areas is
challenging given the higher cost of land as compared to less dense, outer areas of the City. For
this reason the Urban Park classification was included in the Neighborhood Based Parks
category. Section V describes this new park classification and possible methods for developing
this type of park.
PPD 4: Park Facility Priorities
The findings of the public input gathered through the 2013 Needs Assessment, the 2014 Public
Survey and the 2014 Bond Program are used to measure the interests of the general population
in each Park Planning District. This information combined with our current inventory of
facilities and level of service standards defined in Section V determined the ranking of the top
five priorities for PPD 4 as identified in the table below. Other priorities for this district include
open space and natural areas, dog parks, basketball courts,tennis courts and picnic shelters.
Table VII-11 PPD 4: Top Five Priority Listing
Park Facility Current 2015 Need 2025 Need
Inventory
1 Hike/Bike/Walking Trails miles 56 38 41
2 Playgrounds 103 94 103
3 Multi-use Courts 93 75 82
4 Regional Skateboard Parks 0 1 1 1
5 Athletic Fields(Soccer,Baseball, Softball) 62 1 38 1 41
Section VII:Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs- Page 10
PPD 4: 5-Year Work Plan
The following projects located in Park Planning District 4 are included in the Department's 5-
year work plan, and include projects are funded through the 2014 Bond Program, and other
funding sources. Projects that will be initiated and completed within the next five years include
erosion control and repair, replacement of park facilities including playgrounds,park road and
parking lots.
Other notable projects include the replacement of the Como Community Center with a new
25,000 facility. Secondly,the Quanah Parker Park to Richland Hills THE Station, and Trinity
Trail -East Fort Worth Extension are both trail projects funded through the Transportation
Enhancement funding administered by TxDOT.
Table VII-12 PPD 4: 5-Year Work Plan
Park Erosion Repair and Control
Fort Worth Zoo Creek Drainage improvements
Foster Park(South)
Rockwood Athletic Complex Drainage Assessment
Park Roads and Parking Lots
Andrew "Doc" Sessions Community Center
Forest Park(North/Colonial Parkway)
Forest Park(South)
Gateway Park
Hillside Park
Marion Sansom Park
Martin Luther King Park
Oakland Lake Park
R.D. Evans Community Center
Sylvania Park/Riverside Community Center
Thomas Place Park/Community Center
Cobb Park -Drainage &Roadway Improvements
Carter Park Road Replacement
Athletic Field Development
Trail Drivers Park-Ballfield Lighting Replacement
Martin Luther King Park-Ballfield Lighting Replacement
Harmon Athletic Complex Expansion
Community Centers
Como Community Center
Eugene McCray Community Center Expansion
Section VII:Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs- Page 11
Table VII-12 PPD 4: 5-Year Work Plan...Continued
Playgrounds
Arrow S. Park Playground Replacement
Sagamore Hills Playground Replacement
Anderson Campbell Playground
Carter Park Playground Replacement
Harvey Street Park Playground Replacement
Monticello Park Playground Replacement
Northside Park Playground Replacement
Quail Ridge Park Playground Replacement
Shackleford Park-New Playground Installation
Terry Park Playground Replacement
Titus Paulsel Park Playground Replacement
Park Improvements
Jefferson Davis Park Improvements
Diamond Hill Neighborhood Skate Park-
Gateway Park Improvements
Heritage Park Redevelopment
McLeland Tennis Center Renovation
Rockwood Golf Course Renovation
Rosemont Park
Trail Drivers Park
Victory Forest Park
North Z Boaz Park
Walks and Trails
Quanah Parker Park to Richland Hills THE Station
Trinity Trails -East Fort Worth Extension
Chisholm Trail Parkway/Vickery Streetscape/Sidewalk Improvements
Del a Park Trail Connection
Lake Worth Trail -Preliminary Design Phase
Oakland Boulevard Bike Lanes and Sidewalk Infill
River Park Trailhead Improvements
West Creek Drive Trail and Bike Lane Improvements
Trinity River Trails - Clear Fork East Bank Trail Extension
Section VIL•Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs- Page 12
Park Planning District 5 (PPD 5)
PPD 5 is bounded on the north and east by the City of Fort Worth city limits,on the south by
North Loop 820, on the west by Business 287/81. According to population projections supplied
by the North Central Texas Council of Governments, it is expected that PPD 5 will have a
population of 182,404 in 2015 and 239,123 in 2025 (for a population increase of 31%over this
period).
Major park facilities in this PPD include the Arcadia chain of parks. This park land was acquired
through the Neighborhood and Community Park Dedication Policy and was developed with
Texas Parks and Wildlife grant funding and local funding. In 2011,the City of Fort acquired 245
acres for Northwest Community Park in this PPD. The first phase of development will begin
construction in early 2015, and will be funded by a Texas Parks and Wildlife grant.
PPD 5: Park Land Needs
The standard for Neighborhood Based Parks as defined in Section V is 2.50 acres per 1,000
persons,whereas the standard for Community Based Parks is 3.75 acres per 1,000 persons. The
table below lists the current acreage inventory of Neighborhood Based Parks and Community
Based Parks, and the acreage needed per population projections of 2015 and 2025.
Table VII-13 PPD 5: Neighborhood and Community Based Park Land Needs
Current 2015 Need 2025 Need
Invento 182,404 0 239,123 pop.)
Neighborhood Based Parks 429.00 acres 456 acres 598 acres
Community Based Parks 656.18 acres 684 acres 897 acres
TOTAL 1,085.18 acres 1,140 acres 1,495 acres
Per the established level of service for park land,PPD 5 is currently underserved for both
Neighborhood Based and Community Based Parks. Further, an additional 409 acres of parkland
will be required by 2025 to keep pace with estimated population growth.
PPD 5 experienced the greatest growth in population since the 2010 Update. While most of the
area is sufficiently served by Neighborhood Parks acquired through the Park Dedication Policy,
the PPD as a whole is slightly underserved in Neighborhood Based Parks. Further,there is a
shortfall in Community Park land and the facilities which are included in these larger tracts of
open space such as athletic facilities. The lag in the acquisition and development of community
parks is a consistent pattern experienced in other new developing areas. Similar instances of
shortfalls in community park land acquisitions existed in the south and southwest areas of the city
in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. However, during these periods community parks such as
Rolling Hills,Hallmark, Greenbriar and Chisholm Trail were acquired and developed.
In 2009,the Park Dedication Policy was amended to enable the pooling of community park
acquisition fees and as a result in 2011 the city acquired the 245 acre Northwest Community Park.
The Parks and Community Services Department continues to look for property acquisition
opportunities in PPD 5 as population in this area increases.
r
Section VII:Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs- Page 13
PPD 5: Park Facility Priorities
The findings of the public input gathered through the 2013 Needs Assessment, the 2014 Public
Survey and the 2014 Bond Program are used to measure the interests of the general population
in each Park Planning District. This information combined with our current inventory of
facilities and level of service standards defined in Section V determined the ranking of the top
five priorities for PPD 5 as identified in the table below. Other priorities for this district include
open space and natural areas, basketball courts,tennis courts, skateboard parks and picnic
shelters.
Table VII-14 PPD 5: Top Five Priority Listing
Park Facility Current 2015 Need 2025 Need
Inventory
1 Hike/Bike/Walking Trails miles 20 18 24
2 Playgrounds 38 46 60
3 Athletic Fields(Soccer,Baseball, Softball) 5 18 24
4 Dog Parks 0 1 1
5 1 Multi-use Courts 11 36 48
PPD 5: 5-Year Work Plan
The 2014 Bond Program placed a priority in the development of athletic facilities in PPD 5
allocating resources for the development of athletic fields in the recently acquired Northwest
Community Park. In addition, funds were allocated for the pursuit of athletic facility partnerships
in the northern sector of the city. Specifically,the projects will include a partnership with
Northwest Independent School District for an athletic complex development at the Northwest
High School campus, and a partnership with Hillwood Alliance Services in developing an athletic
complex east of I-35.
Table VII-15 PPD 5: 5-Year Work Plan
Athletic Field Development
Northwest Community Park-Athletic Complex Development
Hillwood Alliance Services -Athletic Complex Development
Northwest High School -Athletic Complex Development
Reserve Park Development
Remington Pointe Reserve Park Development
Playgrounds
Summerbrook Park Playground Replacement
Summerfrelds Park Playground Replacement
Section VII:Plan lmplementation and Prioritization of Needs- Page 14
Table VII-15 PPD 5: 5-Year Work Plan...Continued
Park Improvements
Coventry Hills Park Improvements
Northwest Community Park Development-Phase I
Park Security Lighting
Chadwick Farms Park
Chisholm Ridge Park
Crossing at Fossil Creek Park
Dorado Park
Junction Park
McPherson Ranch Park
Reata Park
Ridgeview Farms Park
Tehama Ridge Park
Trails of Fossil Creek Park
Willow Ridge Parlc
Section VII:Plan Implementation and Prioritization of Needs- Page 15
FORT WORTH
City of Worth Parks and Community
Services Deeds Assessment Study
Conducted by:
National Service Research
:F
October 31, 2013 DRAFT t
Y; 4
NATIONAL _-
SERVICE
RESEA RQ I
MARKET RENE,M11
.f
FORT WORTH
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Study Objectives 1
Research Methodology L
Park Planning Districts 3
Summary of Findings h
Overall haling of barks and Recreational Opportunities in the City of Dort Worth
Overall Rating of Parks and Recreational Opportunities in the City of Tort Worth by PPD 6
Rating of Maintenance and Upkeep of Parks.and Recreational Facilities 7
Infra-oration Preferences 8
Faceho'ok Awareness 9
Safety 10
l=reyt.ieney of Ilse 1 I
Spending Priorities 13
Should f WPACDS Develop More or Fewer Parks? 14
Most Needed Facilities 15
Willingness to Pay a Share to Maintain and Operate Facilities 17
Demographics 18
National Ser-Ace Rcscarch - Background/Contact Information ZG
Source'Natiortal Service Keseirch-Niailtwllllc Survey of 1ort N'onh 1kesideruH October-"1013
TORT WORT14
introduction and Study Objectives
Introduction and Study Objectives
'I'he Needs Assessment is one of the most significant instrunic-nts in the development of a
Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan for the city of Fort Werth Parks and
Community Services Department (PACSD). The findings of the Needs Assessment provide a
foundation for the direction ofthe Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plait and provide
guidance for developing priorities for park facilities and future park and open space
development.. National Service. Research (NSH),a full service research firm, employed a two-
step approach in garnering opinions of the citizens of Fort.Worth_ The Needs Assessment
process was undertaken to meet the following objectives:
1-To Identify priorities of Fort Worth citizens for facility needs
( 2-To measurer the extent of use for programs and facilities offered by the department
3-To measure perceived maintenance and :safety of parks and facilities
4-Preferences to inform► residents about parks, recreation facilities and programs
5-Preferences and priorities for future spending on department provided services and
facilities
6-11rofiles of survey respondents by key demographic variables.
tiourcr:National 4etviee Rcs�aech-Nlttii c�nliite 5utve� of 1=ot1��ottli h�5idewf,October 201,
FORT WORTH
Research Metbodology
Research Methodology
The research process included a mailed survey instrument to 20,000 households randomly
chosen within each of the eight Council Districts in direct proportion to the population within
each district. The residential mail list was provided to NSR by Fort Worth PALS Department.
The mailed survey introduction was provided in English anti Spanish and gave residents with
the option of completing the survey on paper or online_ The online survey link (available in
English and Spanish) was posted on the City's website. The City also posted the link on its
Facebook page and sent the survey link to Home Owners Association groups and to its data
base of e-notifications throughout the survey period. Downtown Fort Worth Inc.also posted
the survey link to its Facebook page one week after the initial survey mailing date.
The Spanish portion of the introduction also gave residents the option of completing the
survey via mail or online. If residents preferred a mailed survey in Spanish, a phone number
was provided so they could call anti request a Spanish version of the survey to he mailed to
them.
The survey document was designed by NSR based upon goals and objectives of the PACSD.
PACSD staff provided significant input to the questionnaire. The final survey was tested by
NSIZ and approved by PACSI) staff..
The 20,000 surveys were mailed September 23, 2013. The online link (provided in English
and Spanish) was active September 23 through October 20, 2013. A total of 340 mailed
surveys were returned and 463 citizens completed survey (in its entirety) online. All
questions were optional for residents to answer. The 1303 surveys provide a margin of error
of plus or minus 3.5%� at a 95%) confidence level.
Citizen surveys for FWIIACSD have been conducted in 191)1, 1997, 2001 and '2003,
Source:National 5enrice Research-Nbil.rUnli►►e Survely d t=ort\Votlh rtesidenrs October 201,