HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 Resolution No. 068•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. t:l[_
SERIES Of 2006
A R!::SOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTIVE BARGAI M 'lG CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE ENGLEWOOD FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL NO. 173G AND THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD FOR THE YEARS 2007 AND 2008.
WHEREAS. 1he Englewood City Council au1horized 1he Collec1 i,·c Bargaining Contracl
belween 1he Englewood Fire fighlers Looal No. 1736 and lhe Cil, or Englewood fo r 1he years
2005 lhrough 2006 , by 1he passage of Resolu1ion No. 34 , Series of :006 : and
WHEREAS, 1he Englewood City Council aulhorized 1he Collec1i ve Bargaining Contract
between the Englewood Firefig hters Loc•I No. 1736 and lhe City f Englewood for the years
2003 and 2004, by the passage ofResolu1ion 52 . Series of2000 ; and
WHEREAS , the Englewood City Coun ci l aulhorized lhe Collec1ivc Bargaining Contrac t
between the Englewood Firefighters Local No . 1736 and the City of Englewood for lhe years
I 999 and 2000, by the passage of Re sol ution I 07 , Series of 1998: and
WHEREAS , th e City of Englewood and 1he Englewood Firefighters Local No. 1736 enlered
into negotiations in May, 2006 in accordance with the Eng lewood Ci ty Home Rule Cha ne,: and
WHE REAS, lhe members of the Englewood Firefighters Local No . 1736 dul y ratified, by a
majori1y oflhe membe rs , lhe Co ll cc 1ive Barga in ing Co n1rac 1: and
WHEREAS , cha nges 10 1he Conlracl are as follow s:
(I) Employees cove red by lhe Conlracl will receive a 2.65% increase on 2006 base
wage rale effec 1ive Janua ry I. 2007 ;
(2) A markel adjustmenl. based on lhe salary survey 10 be conducled in lhe third
qu aner of 2006 , will be made on Janu ary I, 2007 in additio n to No. I. above :
(3) A mark el adjuslmenl, based on lhe salary survey lo be conducled in lhe third
quaner of 2007 will be made on January I, 2008:
(4) The employer contribulion 10 heahh/denlal premiums will no longer be 85% for all
levels of coverage. The City will comr ibu1e 90%, 85% or 80% depending on
coverage le ve l: and
(5) The City will add 8 hours of holiday pay /lime to 1he current 72 hours:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
~-The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby approves the
Collective Bargaining Contract between the Englewood Firefighters Looal No . 1736 and the City
uf Englewood for the Years 2007 and 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit A .
~-The Mayor and the City Clerk are hen,by authorized to sign and anest the •
Collective Barpinln11 Contract between the En11lcwood fln,fiahters Local No . 1736 and the City
of En11lewood. Colorado, for the Yean 2007 and 200R .
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 10th of Jul y. 2006 .
•
•
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT
BETWEEN
THE ENGLEWOOD FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1736 • AND
THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
FOR THE YEARS 2007 AND 2008
•
• INDEX
ARTICLE RECOGNITION Page 3
ARTICLE 2 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS Page4
ARTICLE BULLETIN BOARDS Page S
ARTICLE 4 DUES DEDUCTION Page6
ARTICLE s RULES AND REGULATIONS Page 7
ARTICLE 6 DURATION OF CONTRACT Page8
ARTICLE 7 HOURS OF WORK Page9
ARTICLE 8 COMPENSATION Page 10
ARTICLE 9 OVERTIME Page 12
ARTICLE 10 ACTING PAY Page 14
• ARTIC LE II ANNUAL LEA VE Page IS
ARTICLE 12 PERSONAL LEAVE Page 16
ARTICLE 13 SHORT TERM DISABILITY -STD Page 17
ARTICLE 14 WORKERS ' COMPENSATION Page 19
ARTICLE 15 MILITARY LEAVE Page 20
ARTICLE 16 FUNERAL LEA VE Page 21
ARTICLE 17 JURY DUTY AND WITNESS SERVICE Page22
ARTICLE 18 HOLIDAYS Page 23
ARTIC LE 19 VOTING LEA VE Page 24
ARTICLE 20 TRADING TIME Page 2S
ARTICLE 21 UNPAID LEA YES OF ABSENCE Page26
•
l.1i..l2..U • (C ONTINUED)
ARTICLE 22 UNIF ORMS
Page27
ARTICLE 23 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT Page 28
ARTICLE 24 INSURANCE
Page29
ARTICLE 25 LIFE INSURANCE
Page 30
ARTICLE 26 RETIREE HEAL TH INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT Page 31
ARTICLE 27 LAY OFF
Page 32
ARTICLE 28 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT/DEGREE ACHI EVEMENT
RECOGNITION
Page 33
ARTICLE 29 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Pagc34
ARTICLE 30 SUPPLIES
Page 37 •
ARTICLE 31 DRUG TESTING AND PHYSICAL FITNESS Pagc38
ARTICLE 32 DEA TH AN D DISABILITY ASSESSMENT Page 39
AllTICLE 33 EXCLUSIVENESS OF CONTRACT
Page 40
•
•
•
COLLECTNE BARGAINING
CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE ENGLEWOOD FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL #1736
AND THE
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
FOR THE YEARS 2007 AND 2008
This contract is entered into by and between the City ofEnglewood (hereinafter referred to as
the "City") and the Englewood Firefighters (hereinafter referred to as the "Union ").
It is the purpose of this contract to achieve and maintain harmonious relations between the
City and the Union; to provide for equitable and peaceful adjustment of differences which may arise,
and to establish proper standards of wages, hours and other conditions of employment.
Except where limited by express provisions elsewhere in this contract, nothing in this
contract shall be construed to restrict, limit, or impair, the rights , powers and authority of the City as
granted to it under the laws of the United States, the State of Colorado and the City's Charter and
Municipal Code . The rights, powers, and authority include , but are not limited to, the following :
A. The determination ofFire Division policy including the right to manage the affairs of
the Fire Division in all respects .
B. The right to assign working hours, including overtime .
C. The right to establish, modify or change work schedules , manning of apparatus,
amount of •pparatus in the main or reserve fleet, etc.
D. The right to direct the members of the Fire Division including the right to hire,
promote, transfer or discipline or discharge for cause, any firefighter within the Fire Division .
E. The table of organization of the Fire Division including the right to organize and
reorganize the Fire Division in any manner it chooses, including the size of the Fire Division and the
determination of job classification and ranks based upon duties assigned .
F. The determination of the safety, health and property protection measure for the Fire
Division .
0 .
H.
The allocation and assignment of work to all firefighters within the Fire Division .
The determination of policy affecting the selection or training of firefighters .
I. The scheduling of operations and the determination of the number and duration ofhoun
of assigned duty per week .
J. TI1e --1ablishment, discontinuance, modification and enforcement of Fire Division rules,
regulations and orders .
K. The transfer of work from one position to another within the Fire Division.
L. The introduction ofnew, improved or different methods and techniques ofoperation of
the Fire Division or a change in the existing methods and techniques .
M. The placing of service, maintenance or other work w,th outside contractors or other
agencies of the City.
N. The determination of the nwnberof ranks and the nwnberoffirefighters within each rank.
0. The determinatio n of the amount of supervision necessary.
•
•
•
•
•
•
ARTICLE I. RECOGNITION
The City recognized the Union u the organization certified punuant to the Charter of the City vf
Englewood, u the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent for all full-time classified Englewood
Fitt:fighten including Fitt:fighter, Driver-Operator-Engineer, Firernedic and Lieutenants . The City agrees
that it will not decertify or withdraw recognition of the Union as a result of any member of the
bargaining unit serving temporarily in an acting capacity in a position outside c,fthe bargaining unit.
ARTICLE 2. EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
See Article XV, "Englewood Employee Relations and Career Service System Act -I 981" of the Home
Rule Charter of the City of Englewood . Exhibit I.
See related City Of Englewood Policies :
• # 6 Equal Employment Opportunity/Harassment
• #47 Violence In The Workplace
Exhibit II
Exhibit Ill
•
•
•
•
•
•
ARTICLE 3. BULLETIN BOARDS/UNION ACTIVITY
A. The City agrees to provide space in the fire S·,
properly maintained by the Union. They are to be used for t.
I. Union meetings .
2. Union elections .
3. Reports of Union comm ittees.
• for Union bulletin boards that shall be
•-llowing notices :
4. Rulings of policies of the International Union .
5. Recreational or social affairs of the Union .
B. The Union agrees that there shall be no other general distribution or posting by the Union
or employees upon City property, provided, however, the Director of Safety Services may permit other
material not provided for above at his/her discretion to be posted or distributed . The material posted
shall not co lain anything reflecting derogatoril y upon th~ City, any of its employees, or any other
organization of City employees . The City agrees that during working hours on City prcmis1 s and
without loss of pay, Union members may be allowed to : attend Union and/or management meetings, post
Union notices, solicit Union membership during employee's non-work time, and one on-duty
representative will be allowed to assist an employee on grievances, or appeals , provided advance notice
is given to the Director and the work load permits . The City shall provide relief for Union negotiators
who are on duty during scheduled negotiating sessions .
ARTICLE 4. DUES DEDUCTION
A. The City agrees to deduct the Union dues from each bi-weekly paycheck of those
employees who individually request in writing that such deductions be made, subject to the garnishment
laws of the State of Colorado. The amounts to be deducted shall be certified to the City Director of
Human Resources by the Treasurer of the Union, and the aggregate deductions ofall employees shall be
remitted together with an itemized statement to the Treasurer by the I 5th of the succeeding month, after
such deductions are made. The authorization shall be revocable during the term of the Contract, upon a
thirty (30) day written notice by the employee to the City Director of Human Resources.
B. It is expressly understood that the City assumes no liability and sh all not be liable for the
collection or payment to the Union of any dues during any time that an employee is not actually working
for the City and actually on the payroll of the City . In Llie event of error on the checkoff list, the City will
not be responsible to make adjustments, until notified by the Treasurer of the Union .
C. The Union shall indemnify and hold the City harmless against any and all claims, suit ,
orders or judgment brought or issued against the Cit; as a result of any action taken or not taken by the
City under the provision of this Article.
D. Changes in the dues amount to be deducted shall be limited to two (2) changes each year
and provided a thirty (30) day written notice is provided to the City Director of Human Resources .
E. Should the change in the deduction cmount or method require a computer programming
change, the Union shall be responsible for the cost of such change or changes, at $30 .00 per hour with a
four (4) hour maximum. Payment from the Union shall be made to the City Director of Finance and
Administrati ve Services within ten (10) days of receipt of billing.
•
•
•
•
•
•
ARTICLES . RULES AND REGULA110NS
A. Except u limited by the express terms of this contract, the City retains the right to
promulgate reasonable rules, regulations , policies, procedures and directives . Said rules, regulations ,
policies, procedures and directives which are an alleged violation of this contract shall be subject to the
grievance procedure.
B. The City agrees to consult with the Union concern ing the fonnulat i,m of changes of
rules and regulations, policies, procedures and directives .
ARTICLE 6. DURATION OF CONTRACT
A. This contract shall take effect on January I, 2007 and shall continue in force to and
including December 31, 2008.
B. This contract, or any put of it, may be terminated or renegotiated at any time by mutual
consent of beth parties .
C. If any article or section of this contract should be held invalid by operation oflaw or the
District Court, or if compliance with or enforcement of any article or section should be restrained by
such District Court, the remainder of this contract shall remain in full force and effect, and the parties
shall promptly meet and confer for the purpose of attempting to arrive at a mutually satisfactory
replacement for such article or section .
D. The parties agree and understand that provisions rel ating to -.mi:,!oyees covered by this
cor,tract shall in no way displace or modify present or future statutory case law of the !i i ale of Colo ra do.
E. The parties acknowledge that during negotiations which resulted in this contract, each had
the unlim:ted tight and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any subject or matter
approptiat.~ for meetings and to confer and have discussions and that the understan<lings and a!lJ"ef'..-L'l11'1
artiv,d at by the parties after this exercise of that tight and opportunity are s~t t\,rtl] ·n this cr,11lra, t.
•
•
•
•
•
•
ARTICLE 7. HOURS OF WORK
A. For those employees wigned to shift work, the worlc schedule mall nonnally consist of
any average of seventy-two (72) hourJ of worlc in nine (9) consecutive days, reoccurring worlc cycles
based on a twenty-four (24) hour alt=ating basis of Berkley system .
8 . E.-nployces assigned to non-shift worlc shall nonnally be scheduled for an average of at
least forty (40) hours ofworlc in seven (7) consecutive day reoccurring worlc cycles.
C. It is specifically understood and agreed that nothing herein shall be construed as
guaranteeing employees a minimum or maximum number of hours per day or per week .
D. The schedule may be changed by the Director of Safety Services provided a minimum
nine (9) days advance notice is given . Worlc schedules may be changed without advance notice in the
case of emergencies as de termined by the Director of Safety Services .
ARTICLE 8. COMPENSATION
A. On Jamwy I, 2007 the rate schedule is as shown be'. 'Y.
Firefighter (probationary)
Firefighter Ill
Firefighter U
rircfighter I
Fircrnedic Ill
Firemedic 11
Fircrnedic I
Driver/Operator/Engineer
Lieutenant
Regular Straight
Time
Hourly Rate
$14 .83
$16.89
$18 .57
$20.44
$19 .41
$21.41
$23 .57
$22.46
$24 .72
B. The schedule in "A." above will be further adjusted on January 1, 2007 to reflect the
2007 "market median" as determined by the 2006 Salary Survey . The "market median" will be based
upo n the 2007 median wage of the top grade Firefightm at: Aurora, Boulder, Denver, Littleton, South
Metro, West Metro and Westminster. The survey will be conducted in the 4lh quarter of 2006 by the
Human Resources Department, with the concurrence of the EFFA. The Gtyand thr :lFFA will meet
by November I, 200(, to approve the survey and finaliu the revised salary table for 2007.
C The ,ouliz.id 2007 schedule mentioned in "B ." above will be adjwted on January 1, 2008
to reflect the 2008 "m~rko: ,::edian" as determin.d by the 2007 Salary Survey. The "market median "
will be based upon th.: 2008 median wage of the top grade Firefighters at: Aurora, Boulder, Denver,
Littleton, South Metro, West Metro and Westminster. The survey will be conducted in the 41h quarter of
2007 by the Human Resources Department, with the concurrence of the EFF A. The Gty and the
EFPA will meet by November 1, 2007 to approve th1 survey and finalize the revised calarytable for
2008.
•
•
•
•
•
•
D. The pay rates identifled In Section A. are calcullled to provide I 0% separation between
eac:h JM'lk fro111 Fireflahter Ill throuah the rank of Lieutenant. The benchmark for this calculation la
Fireflahter I.
FIREMEDICS
I . In addition to their regular hourly wage rate, qualifled employees holding a rank of
Fireflghter (FFI, FFII, FFII[) who are uaigned and authorized by the Director of Safr 1
Services to perfonn on a regular buis Firemedic duties shall receive a I 5% wage
incn:asc: over and above the affected employees' hourly rate, which shall be cc nsidered
pensionable wages .
2. In addition to their regular hourly wage rate , qualified employees holding the position of
Driver-Operator-Engineer (D-O-E) who maintain a current paramedic certification
(EMT-P) shall rcci:ive a 5% wage increase over and above the affected employees'
regular hourly rate, which shall be considered pensionable wages . Any D-O-E who is
EMT-P certified and is assigned as a Fircmedic shall receive an hourly rate for actual
hours worked commensurate with the position ofFiremedic I.
E. The methodology used in determining the hourly, premium/overtime and annual
compensation is contained In Appendix A.
F. In addition to their regular hourly wage rate, shift fire investigators assigned and
authorized by the Director of Safety Services will receive:
• $.41 per hour (which shall be considered p~ .. sionable wages) and
• shall be eligible for discretionary Meri t Pay ofup to $600 each year, payable as set forth in
Paragraph G (2).
G. (I) Each employee appointed by the Director of Safety Services to one of the following
assignments shall be eli gible for Merit Pay in an amount determined by the Director, up
to a total ofSl ,200.0C each year:
Hazardous Materials Team Leader/Instructor
Technical Rescue -ream Leader
Safety Education Team L-:ader
Child Passenge; ~ 1fety Team Leader
Fire Investigation Team Leader
Honor Guard Team Leader
SW AT Medic Team Leader
Wild Land Fire Team Leader
Characterization Team Leader
or other assignments as de:ermined by the Director of Safety Services after consultation
with the Union .
(2) Such Merit Pay shall be awarded in the exercise of the Director's disctetion, based
upon specific perfonnance criteria developed by the Director and made available to
employees . Merit Pay shall be determined and paid semi-annually, no later than June I
and December I each year .
II
.,.6 Englewood Pirkl Ind Rtcr11llon Mllltr Plan , .... ~-----------------------
Table U . lummary ol Community Compartaon1
CommunttyP■rtc
Developed
Deve loped Park/Populalion
Parkla nd Standard
Neighborhood Park
Developed
Developed Park/Population
Parkland Standard
Arel Malnlllnod
rounds and facllllies ma intained b the Park
Annual Park Oper,Uon & Malnt1n1nc1 Budget
(for parks . streetscapea, public grounds and
facilities ma inta ined by Park Department)
Maintenance 8 RHldenl
• Level ol NMee It I ·4.061 when school fa cilities are Included .
• lndudts 10 1cre1 Heh of Belle\19W, Centennial , and Cushing
Parks thll serve neighbomood park functions
1:3153
1:3134
1:4H7
1:3818
1:20 232
1:81457
1:32974
1:28 363
1:47145
166 acres
2.4 acres/1000
5.1 ar.res/1000
'188 acres
2.8 acres/1000
3.0 acres/1000
519 acres
$3,111 ,979
$45.58 .....
rnldenl
September 2008
1:9411
1:24H
1:4CHl1
1:1805
1:18 248
Nono
1:32124
1:16 248
':32124
115 acres
3.6 acres/1000
33 acres
1.9 acres/1000'
557 acres
$1 ,759,758
$54.18.,.,
rHldenl
Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•E•n•g--1 •.w .... •,.••d-P-••r•k••-••••d-Pl-••••••••••'•'••••-M-••••l••••-P•l•■-•--------1111:{,
There are also multi-purpose playfields without
goals at Duncan , Rotolo , Barde, and Belleview
Parks that are used for soccer pract ice .
The level of service for football fields is also
lower than other communities , as Englewood
does not have any fields ded icated solely to
football . Most programmed football within
Englewood utilizes existing soccer fields at
Hosanna Athletic Complex and Sincl ai r Middle
School . If these are treated as joint use fields
for football , the level of service is 1 field for
every 6,498 people , slightly above the average
for other communities . Englewood also does
not have an ice rink ; therefore , the leve l of
service for this facility Is 0 . There are ice rinks
in other nearby communities availab le for use
by Eng lewood residents . As such , consideration
for constructing an ice rink in the city should be
weighed carefully against other more press ing
needs within the community . Englewood 's lev el
of serv ice for baseball/softball fields , tenn is
courts , gymnasiums , pools , skate parks and in -
line hockey rinks is among the highest of all
commun iti es compared.
Iotal developed community and
a1ghborhood parkland , Englewood is
somewhat lower than the average of other
communities . This is due in large part to the fact
that Englewood is fully develuped and
surrounded on all sides by other developed
con,munities . Options for acquiring new
parkland to increase the level of service are
severely limited at th is time because of the lack
of undeveloped properties . However, th& level
of serv ice for both community and
neighborhood parkland is comparable to that of
other communities . The level of service for
community parks in Englewood is 3 .6 acres for
every 1.000 people compared to 2.4 acres for
every 1,000 people ·,, other communities . The
level of service for · eighborhood pa rkland in
Englewood is 1.9 acres for every 1,000 people
compared to 2 .B acres for every 1,000 people
on other communities . Ten acres each of
Belleview , Cushing , and Centennial Community
Parks are inr!:•ded in the neighborhood park
level of service analysis because these parks
serve neighborhood park functions to those
res idents within 1/,-mlle rad ius . Th is acreage is
not , however, added to the total neighborhood
park acreage In the Interest of not counting it
twice .
Englewood has a somewhat smaller overall
park maintenance budget than other
communities , which is due in large part to
Englewood's smaller population . When
compared another way , Englewood spends
more money per resident on parkland
maintenance than the average of the other
communities surveyed.
D. Natlonal Recreation
Participation Trends
The Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
(SGMA) has commissioned an annual mail
survey of ,\merican households to determine
what activities they participate in at least one
time per year. Approx imately 15,000 completed
mail surveys are received and responses are
balanced to reflect U.S. Census parameters for
age, gender, race , household income, and
geographic region . The responses reflect
people age 6 and above . The last few SGMA
surveys have been more comprehensive than
previous years ; therefore , benchm ark data is
not available for many of the categories .
As shown in Table 3 .3, the most popular activity
is recreational swimming, followed by walking ,
free weights , biking, fishing, hiking , and
running/jogging . Many activities have seen a
decline in total numbers over the past 12 years ,
including many of the organized team sports .
However , three relatively new activities have
made large gains in popularity -in-line roller
skating , free weight use, and mountain biking .
Data was not available by region , but it is likely
that mountain biking involves a larger
percentage of the population in this region than
nationally .
Issues and Naeds Analysis September 2006 3-5
f'~ E 9l1wood P1rk1 tnd Rtcr11llon f4'11t1r Plan ~'P.i~--------------------------
Table U . Total National Partlclpanta by Activity
-AIIAee9
Na 52 021
-18% 47,906
+48% 40,299
Na
0%
-4%
·2%
-38% 22,216
-13% 18,346
+ 270% 17,348
Na 16,436
-24% 16,324
♦3% 15,900
Na 14,695
Na 12,414
-3% 10,592
-36% 9 ,694
Na 7 ,659
Mountain bikin + 253% 5,334
Spor1s Participation Trends 2004 . Sports Research Partnersh ip,
Apnl 2005
According lo a 1997 SGMA report', the mos\
popular sports for youth based on "frequent"
participation are :
Table 3.4 . Total National "Frequent" Youth
Partlclpanta
S Spotting Goods Mlnufacturef"I A1aociltion , l ludy c:onductt.
annualy by American Sport, Data , Inc . 1997.
Seven of Iha 10 most popular actlvilies are
team orienled : 8 of the 10 require specialized
outdoor facllllles. More recent dala Is not
publicly available from lhls organlzalion , but
since 1997 when this study was conducted , it is
well known in lhe parks and recreallon Industry
thal interest in in-line skallng , skaleboarding ,
and rock climbing has increased dramalically ,
and lacrosse and bmx/hlll jump biking is
emerging in popularity .
E. State of Colorado Recreation
Trend• and IHu••
According to the Colorado SCORP 2003-2007,
94% of lhe population in CJlorado engages in
some form of outdoor recreation . Table 3.5
shows bolh lhe percentage and actual numbers
of parti ci panls for a variely of aclivily types
among Colorado residents .
Table 3.5. Partic ipation by Type of Outdoor
Activity among Colorado R11ldent1
Ou oor a venture
activities
Social activities
33.41
24 .52
75.06
87 .62
37.41
45.21
10.55
35 .2 1
32.67
41 .01
61 .79
87.34
1.11
0 .81
2.49
2.91
1.24
1.50
0 .35
117
1.08
1.36
2 .05
2.90
NSRE , 2000-2003. Versions 1-14 , N•1 ,001 . lnleNiewdetes: 7199
to 3/03. From Colorado SCORP 2003.
The SCORP also slates thal "Colorado's
proactive open space protection efforts provide
Iha venues where Iha full range of Colorado's
ouldoor recreallon attraclions are enabled lo
flourish for the enjoyment of residents and
September 2006 Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Englewood P1rll:1 and R1cr11tlon M1tltr Plan .,.6 ------------------------~~,
visitors alike . Yet today , Colorado faces a
substantial challenge in satisfying the outdoor
recreation demands of a rapidly expanding
population , while meeting the responsibility to
conserve the woMd class outdoor resources for
which Colorado is renowned . Millions of visitors
to Colorado continue to enjoy a wide diversity of
outdoor recnsation activities , yet recreation
management agencies across the community,
state , and federal spectrum report difficulty
keeping up with public expectatiors for quality
outdoors experiences ."
As such , there are several social, economic ,
and environmental trends and influences that
have shaped the strategic action elements of
the SCORP that should be considered , many of
which are relevant in Englewood. These include
trends in the way Coloradoans choose to
recreate , demographic trends of population
growth, strong statewide open space protection
efforts , recreation access , and unprecedented
environmental conditions and stresses, such as
drought. The SCORP has identified six issues
of statewide significance that Colorado must
address to most effectively meet the challenge
of satisfying the outdoor recreation demands of
a rapidly expanding population , while meeting
the responsibil ity to conserve the special
outdoors resources for which Colorado is
renowned . Many of these issues pertain
directly to Englewood and include :
1. Colorado 's citizens and visitors need more
effective ways to access the wide array of
information about recreation sites and their
host communities , and outdoor recreation
providers need to better integrate outdoor
recreation marketing and m~nagement to
sustain Colorado 's outstanding recreation
attractions , its economic vitality , and
resulting quality of life .
2. Communities must invest in outdoor
infrastructure through well planned , ongoing
commitment to meeting a growing
population 's expectations for a wide range
of safe, up -to-date sites at which to enjoy
the outdoors .
3. Public recreation agencies faced with tight
budgets yet increasing demand for
recreation services are considering
increased reliance on fees and creative
public/private partnerships to enhance
public services .
4. The sustainability of natural and cultural
landscapes and our capability to be
stewards of those resources must be
considered when agencies and
communities plan for and manage the
location and scope of outdoor recreation
activities .
5. Public access to outdoor sites and
management of travel on public lands is
challenged by the capacity of our statewide
transportation infrastructure and our natural
resources to accommodate the volume of
demand.
6. Recreation agencies can more effectively
engage Colorado's citizens and visitors in
resource stewardsliip responsibilities
through youth outreach and volunteer
programs .
F. City of Englewood Community
Survey
The City of Englewood commissioned a survey
of Englewood residents as part of the
formulation of the City 's Parks Master Plan .
The objective was to help the city better serve
residents by understanding the ir satisfaction
with Englewood 's parks , their pnsferences
concerning park and facility usage , and their
level of participation in various recreation and
athletic activities. Olten , parks departments
hear from user groups and politically active
citizens, but do no, have access to people who
do not participate in the public meeting process .
A random survey of residents provides
objective aata and is a way to Identify opinions
of a represer.\ative cross-section of the
community.
Issues and Needs Analysis September 2006
4'4t. Englewood P1rk1 1nd R1cr11tlon M11t1r Plan ~-,;,..---------------------------
Methodology
The survey was conducted via US Postal
Service in October 2005 . A total of 2,181
surveys were mailed to a random sample of
households in Englewood. A total of 277
surveys were completed for a response rate of
13%. The maximum margin of error for this
sample size at the 95% confidence level is
:!: 5.9%. The sw ~ey was conductecl by EDAW ,
Inc . in partnership with Luft Brain Concepts ,
Inc ., a Denver based rese .lrch and consult ing
firm .
Study Goals and Obje ctives
The objective of the survey was to learn the
opin ions of a representative cross-seclion of
Englev ood res idents . The survey focused on :
• The degree to which Englewood residents
participqte in a variety of athletic and leisure
activities :
• Whether p,.,ople participate in these
activities in i:nglewood or if they go
elsewhere :
• The degree to which residents use ex isting
parks , open space , trails , and recreational
fac ilities in Englewood ;
• Resident's level of satisfaction with the
parks , open space , trails, and recreational
facilities in Englewood :
• Determining wh y re s ents like some parks ,
trails , and recreatio nal facilities more than
others :
• If people feel additional , or alternative,
parks , open space , trails , and recreational
facilities are needed in Englewood.
Key Findings
• The parks that Englewood residents cited
as being closest to their homes were
Belleview , Jason, and Bates/Logan , More
than four In five (84%) of the respondents
visit these parks at least once annually and
four In five (81%) rated these par1<s as
excellent or good . People gave a number of
reasons for the ratings, but reasons cited
most often were maintenance , cleanliness ,
and the quality of playground equipment.
People who rated these parks as fair or
poor cited unsafe playground equipment,
poor maintenance , the small size of the
par1<s , lack of activities in the parks , and the
poor landscaping in the parks .
• By far , Bellev iew Park is Englewood
residents' favorite City of Englewood park .
Jason Par1< and Bates/Logan Park were
also mentioned as favorites .
• People cited a number of reasons for
preferring one park more than another ,
including par1<s that have a lot of activities
available to them, those that are large ,
those that are close lo their homes , and
those with playground equipment.
• When asked about which elements of
Englewood 's par1<s need improvement,
residents cited a need for better playground
equipment , better ma intenance , more police
presence , and belier landscaping .
• Englewood residents' favorite parks outside
of Englewood are Washington Par1< and
Harvard Gulch . Their reasons continued to
be the quality of the landscaping, the
activiUes available in the parks , and the size
of the parks .
• The principal reason reople do not use
Englewood's par1<s , o use them more
frequently, is because the parks lack the
facilities they would like to see . People also
indicated poor maintenance , small size ,
safety concerns , and landscape design as
deterrents as well.
• More people are satisfied than dissatisfied
with the quality of Englewood 's parks , the
number of parks , their distribution
throug hout the City, the level of
malnte ance , and Englewood 's recreation
progra ms and facilities . However, they are
less satisfi ed with the amount of protected
3-8 September 2006 Chapter Three
• • • • • • C, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
E n I I I W O O d P I r k I I n d ft I C r I I I I O n M I I I I r P I I n ,~ ------------------------~~·~
lands In the City and with Englewood 's trail
system .
• In rough order of participation , adults in
Englewood :
1. Attend concerts and festivals .
2. Engage in outdoor activit ies such as
wal ,ing or bik ing .
3. Enroll in classes or other program s.
4. Participate in self-directed sports su ch
as jogging .
5. Participate in team sports .
Children 's participation is highest for us e of
playground equipment , swimming , cycling ,
soccer , and outdoor basketball .
• The top six facilities that people feel are
lacking in Englewood are:
1. Bike and pedestrian trails .
2. Paved trails .
3. Centralized neighborhood parks .
4. Performance areas for activities such as
concerts .
5. Pi cnic facilities .
6. .Large multi -purpose community parks .
Conclusions
• B ••ed on other community surveys in
.ar communities , park usage by
Englewood residents and satisfaction with
parks is higher than that in similar
communities .
• Englewood residents ' satisfaction with the
city's parks can be increased by improving
maintenance , landscaping , and the
condition of playground equipment. An
increased police presence would also help
to increase satisfaction .
• Englewood residents' satisfaction could also
be Improved by adding the following , albeit
more capital-Intensive items: bicycle and
pedestrian trails , neighborhood parks,
performance areas, picnic facilities , and
community parks .
Survey Areas In Englewood
A total of 2,181 households were sampled
throughout Englewood . Figure 3.1 illustrates
the distribution of responses for the three areas
of Englewood that were sampled : 1) west of
Santa Fe , 2) east of Santa Fe and north of
Hampden and 3) east of Santa Fe and south of
Hampden . Figure 3.1 shows lhe actual
distribution of households in Englewood and the
distribution of responses to the survey by home
residence . For example , there are 6,282
households east of Santa Fe and north of
Hampden , which represents 43% of the total
households in Englewood . There were a total
of 108 responses from people in this
geographic area , which represents 39% of the
total responses to the survey .
Issues and Needs Analysis September 2006 3-9
4'~ E n g I t w o O d P I r k I I P d f'\ • c r I Iii t I o n M I I I I r P I I n ~,.&--------------------·-------
Figure 3.1 Sampling Area■ of Engl-ood
3-10
39%
108
RnponlN I
~ 1=.,"=,1 :.---...IIL,. _ __J_
r :,"'
19Rnpon1N ,.,_
~"~ 54%
150
RnponlN
i 7017-[-"~
Community Surwy Distribution ArNs --..................... M •
.................... 1, .. , 111111 ..... ,,,..........171
September 2006
A ,_
Chapler Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
!ngl1wood P ■rk1 1nd "•cr11tlon M11t1r Pl ■n .,~ -----------------·---------'1:~'~
Reapon11a by QuHtlon
Name/Location of N .. ,.., Parle
Residents were asked to Identify the name of
the park nearest to their home. This
Information was also used by respondents to
help answer follow-up questions regarding
frequency of usage and quality of parks .
The most frequently mentioned Englewood
parks are Belleview , Jason, and Bates/Logan .
People who live east of Santa Fe and south of
Hampden were more likely to mention
Belleview Peril and Jason Park . Those who
live east of Santa Fe and north of Hampden
were more likely than others to mention
Bates/Logan Park, Cushing Park , Romans Park
and Harvard Gulch .
Table 3,1 NMMI/Locatlon of N-' P1111
8% 15%
Romans 5% 13% Park
Harvard 4% 8% Gulch
Rotolo 4%
Centennlal 4% 53%
Duncan 4% Park
Miller 2% 1%
Barde Park 2% 4%
Don't Know 2% 3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
4%
2%
NOTE : The total sample does not equal 100% because a number
ol other par'Q: and loeltion1 were mentioned outside of
Englewood , however none by more than 1% .
Issues and Needs Analysis September 2006 3-11
.,,. Englewood Parks and "•cr11llon M11t1r Pl ■n ij~----------------------
Frequency of Parle Ung• Table 3.7 . F19quanq, of Englewood Parlt Uuga
Respondents were asked to Indicate how often
they uaa the park that they mentioned as
ctoaast to their home .
Almost all of the respondents (84%) visit the
Englewood park nearest their homes at least
once annually . Only 16% of the respondents
reported they never vistt the closest Englewood
park . People who live east of Santa Fe and
north of Hampden reported stronger park usage
than other Englewood residents . As would be
expected , people with two or more adults In
their households as well as those with children
in their homes reported greater park usage than
one-adult households and households with no
children .
3-12
Figura 3.2 . Englewood RHldenta Annual Park Usage
50%
40"/o
30%
20%
10%
0%
ANNUAL PARK USAGE
Never 1-10 time• 11-20 time• 21 tlmH
per yHr per yaar p(lr )19ar
September 2006 Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
!ngl1wood P1rll:1 and R.1cr11I1on M11I1r Plan tf'.6 -----------------------~~,
Qu1/lty of 11111 P1rll1
Overall quality of Enp,IIWOOd parka was
measured. Responc,■nll wens asked to rate
the quality of the pa•il that waa Indicated as
nearastthelr home . Four out of five (81 %)
respondanll rated 'die parks closest to their
homes as axcelle i t or good , People who live
east of Santa Fe .,nd south of Hampden ware
more likely than respondents In other parts of
Englewood to rate Iha park closest to their
homes as excellent.
As part of rating the quality of Iha Englewood
park nearest their home , respondents were
asked to give a reason why they rated that park
the way they did . As the following table
Illustrates , people value parks that are wall
maintained , those that are clean, and those that
have playground equipment. In contrast ,
people rate parks as fair or poor largely when
they f•el the parks have poor or unsafe
playg ruu nd equipment , are not well maintained,
and/or are too small .
Table U . Quality ol Englewood Parka
Table 3.1. Renona for Englewood Park Rating•
38%
2S%
13%
8%
7%
7%
7%
7%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
Flk/Poo,
21%
12%
12%
10%
10%
7%
5%
NOTE: Columns total more than 100% because of multiple
rHpoflHI,
Figure 3.3. Englewood Rnldenta l'ark Quality Rating,
IO'll
IO'll
'°"
20'll
1111,
111U81 and Need• Anllyail
lxoelllnt
QUALITY OF PARKS
Good
September 2006
.,_. En911wood Parks and R1cr11tlon M11t1r Plan , ... ~----------------------
Favorite Enr,INOOd Parlfa
Survey respondents were asked to Identify their
favorite park or recreation area within
Englewood and the reasons why they rated tt
a, such . People 's list of favorite Englewood
parka closely followed their responses about
Iha parks cloaaat to the ir homes , with Belleview ,
Jason, and Bales/Logan parks being listed as
favorites. Only 14% of respondents reported
they do not have a favorite Englewood Park.
People who live east of Santa Fe and south of
Hampden were more likely to mention
Belleview Park as their favorite , while those
who live east of Santa Fe and north of
Hampden were more likely to mention
Bates/Logan Park as their favorite .
Figure 3.4 Favorite Engl1wood P•rk
Table 3.10. Favortt. Englewood Park
11%
3%
33% 4%
3% 5% 3%
Roman s 3% 8% Park
Cornerstone 2% 8% 1% 3% Park
Progress 2% 8% 1% 2% Park
Nofavoriles 14% 25% 15% 14%
NOTE . The colUIMI do no1 equal 100% bec:auH a few other
parka and locations were mentioned , however none by more than
1%.
45% ,--!l,ilii,--,-----------,
3-14
40%
I~;;;
20% ·
o 15%
~ 10%
5%.
0%
Park
September 2008
■ Romans Park
■ Cornerstone Park
c Progress Park
■Nofal.oriles
Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•!•"•'•'•••w-••••d-P-••••k••-••••d-11-•.•.,',.'•'•'•'••••-M-•••••••••-P•I••••--------~:,
Respondents ware alao asked to give a reaaon
why they favor certain parka In Englewood .
The reasons most often cited are that parka
have a lot of activities, are large, are cloae to
their homes , and have ufe playground
equipment.
Table 3.11. R-lhe Englewood ,erl( !, ~
Flvortl8
"' 27'11 50'11 22'11 -~.0111n, 21'11 17'11 20'11 1o11o1,-,,
Location-
111ytogetto, 20'11 17'11 29'11
dole
Lake. pond ,
wa:er, creek , 17'11 17'11 17'11
natural 1reu
14'11 15'11
12'11 12'11
12'11 33'11 6'11
11'11 33'11 7'11
areas, 5'11 3'11 ballllelds .
lennls couns
2911
23'11
14'11
16'11
14'11
13'11
13%
13'11
7'11
NOTE : The columns do nol equal 100% because a few other
reasons were mentioned , however none by more than 3% .
Figure 3.5 Rea■on ■ an Engl-ood Park 11 the Favorite
REASONS PARK IS A FAVORITE
Chlldren acttvttlH
Location
W.11 llndacaptd
WIii m1lntlln1d
Sportlna•••
0%
luue■ and Need• Analyll1
10% 11% 20% 25% SO%
Seplember 2006 3-15
..,_. Englewood P1rk1 1nd ft1cr11llon M1111r Plan
ij ... ~------------------------
Favorlle Parlf Ou,.lda of Englewood
In order to get an Idea of Iha park amenities
realdenta of Englewood enjoy Iha moat end are
willing to ll'avJI to uae, reapondanta W8l8 asked
to Identify their favorite park outalde of Iha City
of Englewood and the reasons why .
Englewood rea;denta' favorite parka outalde of
Englewood are primarily Washington Park and
Harvard Gulch . Paop!e like these parks for a
number of reasons, lncll:-:ting the paths for
running , walking and skaUng , the presence of
lakes and ponds, the large size , activities for
children , and becauso of the landscaping .
Figure 3.6 Favorite Park Oub' 1e of Englewood
Favorite Park Outside of Englewoot.l
3-16
3%,
3%
3%
5%
35%
■ W ashlnglon Park
■ Ha1\8rd Gulch
a Cl<•ment Perk In Littleton
a Chatfield State Park
■ Denwr City Park
■ Comer.ltone Perk
■ Various Mountain Parks
a Sterne Park In Llttielon
NOTE : The IOlll doH not equal 100% t>Kause other park1 were mentioned . however none by mort than 3%.
September 2008 Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
!ngltWDOd P ■rll:1 1nd lt1crt11tlon M11t1r Pl1n ,~ -------------------------~~,
Figure 3.7 . RHIOll lhe P1rlt Outelde of Englewood 11 e Fevorlte
j
0% 10% 20%
% of Respondents
G P1tl for Nnnlng, Wllking , lkallng
■ Tht ltke. pond
■ Clon IO hom11 , work, friends
Dlt l1larg1
D Good pity lrtH lof kids
D e .. ullf\JI , WIii l1nd1caped
ov.ne~,r-round 1cdtAtlt1
■ Flower g1rd1n1
■Thtwlldtlle
■ Can ltlmydog run loonfdog p1rtt
■ HH tennis coultl . llghled tennis courtl
■ '!'he blkH tr1ll 1
• HIS I bHutirul "4ew
D Open, grH1y11re11
■ The goll course
■ Has lllneu-mlnded ptople
D The picnic 1r111
■ Has acceu 10 trails
■ The 1ld1w1lk1 around lhe par1(
■ H11 a sense of com munity, loll ol people !here
C ltisufe
40% o Is naturallundewloped
■ Th e trees /s hade
■Il ls cl ean
NOTE : Does not equal 100% because a lew other reasons were mentioned , ltOWever none by more thon 3% .
luue1 and Need1 Analy1l1 September 2006 3-17
.,~ En o I1wood P1rk1 and "•cr11IIon M11I1r Plan ~,~-----·-------------------
Englewood Parlla lhn l NHd lmprov-,,t
Re.:pondenls were asked to Identify If there la a
park In Englewood that needs improwment ard
Ila! the re aeons why . Very few people feel that
Englewood's parka are In need of Improvement.
Me re t:,an half (51%) olthe reapondenia could
not name a park that they think needs
lmoro,11ment. Furthermore, the park that waa
mentioned the most, Jason Par11, was
m11ntioned by only 8% of t~e rsspondenta .
l"ll the reapondenta who felt that a partlcular
par11 In Englewood needs lmpnwement, 29%
listed poor maintenance, 29% cited that the
par11 la need of an upgrade, 28% felt that the
playground equipment la not sale, and 20%
cited a lack of police presence .
3-18
Flgu,.. 3.1. Englewood Parl< that NHd• lmpro-nt
50% a.Jaon PIii<
■Rotolo
I~%
oCushlng Part<
30% oCentonnlal
■ Bates/Logan
'g 20% ■ Belle~ew Parit
# ■Romans Part(
10% D No/Don't know
0%
Park
NOTE : A number of other pants and locations were mentioned . bot none by more than
1 % of the respondentl.
Figure 3.9. R1Hon1 the E'nglewood P1rl< NHd1 Improvement
Reason
29%
28%
■ Poof rrelnlenance
■ Needs upgrading (picnic ,
lighting , benchll, trail)
C Playground equipment not
11ft, poor condijlon
o Teen,. burr., graffiti, need
police pre1ence
■ Snwl. not rnJch to do
■ NHd1 better llndaceplng
■ Dog poop/ lealh low nol
enforced
ODuckpoop
NOTE : A IMl'lblf"of otherreaonawerw menlkned, bill none by mcnlhen 3%of tll ---·
September 2008 Chapter Th r■e
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
!ngl1w1od P1rk1 end fttc r 11tlon M111,r Pl ■n ..-. -------------------------~~,
Reuon1 for Nol Ulln, Englewood Perll1
Re1pondenta were uked to Indicate the
rea10n1 that might have prevented them from
us ing Engl8W00d parka 11nd trella. The primary
reaaon Indicated for not using Er,glewood parka
or using them more frequently Is because they
do not contain the features people are looking
for . Other deterrents are maintenance , the
distance between the parks and people 's
homes , safety concems, overcrowding , and
design Issues .
Other lnterutlng information gathered from this
question :
• Women were more likely than men to cite
safety concems as a reason for not using
an Englewood park ;
• People who have children In their
households were more likely than those
who do not have children to say that poor
design keeps them from using Englewood
parks more , and;
• People age 55 or older were more likely
than those under age 55 to ctte physical
disabilities as a reason for not making
greater use of Englewood parks .
Figure 3.10. Reuon ■ for Not U■lng Englewood Park■
NOTE : The columns do not equal 100% doe to repetition ol responses .
,.
111~• and Need■ Analyal1 September 2006
■Very much
■Some"'11al
□Notata l
3-19
.,, F.ngltwood Ptrka and R1cr11t1on M11t1r Plan (#.~-----·~.;... .......... ____________ _
Sal/1faclk>1! with .f:llfl/,JWOOd Parll1
In summary, more p.'IOµle are satisfied than
dl11atlsfied with each uf the Issues queried .
However, people ar, less satisfied with the
amount of protecte< I lands In the city and with
Englewood's trail system .
Other lnterest111g results from this question
divided by cat1,gory include the 'following :
• QuIllty/mIlntenIncl/m1mber of p1rk1
People In Englewood are :
✓ Satisfied with the overa ll quality of the
City's parks (71%)
✓ Satisfied with the level of maintenance
in the City's parks (67%)
✓ Satisfied with the number of the City 's
parks (64%)
• Recreation facllltles and programs
People in Englewood are :
✓ Satisfied with the lypes of recreation
facil ities (64%)
✓ Satisfied with th e types of recreation
facilities that are available in the area
(64%)
✓ Satisfied with the City's recreation
programs (63%)
• Park acc111ldl1trtbutlon of
park1ltrall1lopen 1pacelacce11
People in Englewood feel that:
✓ City parks and trails are easi ly
accessible from my home (60%)
✓ Parks are equitably distributed
throughout the City (52%)
✓ Satisfied with the amount of protected
open la nds in and around the City (44%)
✓ The City's trail :;ystem provides good
connections (43%)
• People who have llved In Englewood for
ten or more years are more Atlafled than
th011 who h ■ve llved there for 1111 than
ten years regarding :
✓ The overall quality of the City 's parks
✓ The number of City parks
✓ The City 's recreation programs
✓ The distribution of parks in the City
✓ The types of recreation facilities In
Englewood
✓ The types of recreation facilities in the
area
✓ The amount of protected open lands in
and around the City
✓ The accessibility of the City 's parks and
trails from their homes
• People aged 55 and older are more
satisfied than thoae aged under 55 with :
✓ The number of City parks
✓ The City's recreation programs
✓ The level of maintenance in the City 's
parks
✓ The distribution of parks in the City
✓ The types of recreatio 1, facilities in
Englewood
✓ The types of re~reation facilities in the
area
✓ The amount of protected open lands in
and around the City
✓ The connections to parks and other
destinations from the City's trail system
3-20 September 2006 Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
!n1t1wood 1"1rllr and 111cr11tlon M11ttr Plan
Flgu,. 3.11. lallefactlon with Englewood Parlca
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1.-1 and Needs l'.nalyaia September 2006
!■Agree
■Neutral
□Disagree
3-21
,~ EnaI1woocl P1rtc1 incl -.,cr11IIon M11I1r Plan ,~~------------------■------
Fec/1/t/N In Englewood
Survey respondents were given a list of
avallabla recraatlon facUttlel and park and open
apace features . They ware then aakad to
Indicate whether there are too many , enough,
not enough , or that they had no opinion of each
type of faciltty and/or feature In Englewood to
meet the neads of them and their family .
When the data was anai)'Zed to exclude those
who did not have an opinion , which focuses on
those people who are assumed to know enough
about the facilities to have an opinion , the
results show that the top six facillties that
people feel are lacking In Englewood are
1) bike and pedestrian trails , 2) paved trails,
3) centralizo!d neighborhood parks ,
4) performance areas for activities such as
concerts , 5) picnic facilities , and 6) large multi-
purposti community parks .
Other lntereating results from this question
Include the following :
• People who h1v1 children In their
houHholda Wll'I mor9 likely thin thOH
who do not h1v1 children to lndlc■ta
th■r1 are not enough :
✓ Natural surface bike/pedestrian trails
✓ Picnic facilities
✓ Indoor warm water recreational pools
✓ Outdoor recreational pools
✓ Publlcgyms
✓ Climbing walls
✓ Outdoor lap/competitive pools
✓ Tennis courts
✓ Indoor lap/competitive pools
✓ Playgrounds
Figure 3.12. Not Enough of The■e F1cllHle1 In Engl■wood -Of Tho11 With an Opinion
3-22
N1tura~:r~:I :rn 'J>:n :z,::
Ouldoof educ:ationln1ture c:enltr,
Natural surface blk1~de1'11n b'alll
P1'4dtra!l1
Large, multl -purpou communltyparb
Oogperu
Off~=~l!!~~n•:::
Climblngw1ll1
Perfonn 1n01 areas lor,.,.nm 1uch H concerti
OJldoor recr11tlonal pools
Neighborhood palQ
Indoor warm walar recre1llon1I pools
AAIH lorcommunttyewnll Outdoor lapko~,:~::J:::
THn reaHllon oen■r,
lcehockeyrtnQ
PubUcg)ffll
Sm ■l=t:iu:
BMXbikll1'911 ~~~e::1=:
~~J~~=~I
Skaleboln::.1.'°:,r::
In.Jina hoc:Mlyrtnkl
Elarcl1eldance room,
Soc:carll11d1
Gotfcour111
Senior rlCtHllon c:.nllFI
Softbl,Ufttlld1
LICJOHlfteldt
BaHball fleldl
Indoor community room,
Foolbllllftlldt
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
%of Respondents
September 2006 Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Englewood P1rk1 1nd ,.,cr11tlon M11t1r Plan .,. -----------------------------~~·,
• People under the •11• O'I 55 were more
likely than thoH 55 or older to report
there ■re not enough :
✓ Natural surface bike/pedestrian trails
✓ Large , multi-purpose community parks
✓ Dog parks
✓ Off-leash areas in parks
✓ Performance areas for events such as
concerts
✓ Indoor warm water recreational pools
✓ Areas for community events
✓ Public gyms
• People with ,wo or more adults In their
hou1eholds were more likely than those
with one adult In the household to say
there are not enough :
✓ Nearby fishing waters
✓ Skateboard/skate parks
✓ Softball fields
✓ Baseball fields
• Women were more likely than men to feel
there are not enough :
✓ Outdoor education/nature centers
✓ Areas for community events
✓ Indoor warm water recreational pools
✓ Outdoor recreational pools
✓ Outdoor lap/competitive pools
✓ Exerc ise/dance rooms
✓ Arts and crafts rooms
• People who have lived In Englewood for
fewer than ten years were more Ukely
than tho1e who have lived In Englewoc d
for ten years or more to feal there are not
enough :
✓ Natural surface bike/pedestrian trails
✓ Natural open space areas
✓ Natural areas with in urban parks
✓ Outdoor education/nature centers
✓ Large , multi-purpose community parks
✓ Dog pa rks
✓ Off-le ash areas in parks
✓ Performance areas for events such as
concerts
✓ Pic nic facilities
✓ Neighborhood parks
✓ Areas for community events
✓ Outdoor recreational pools
✓ Small poc ket parks
✓ Climbing walls
Issues and Needs Ana lysis September 2006 3-23
.,_. En9I1wood Pa r ks and R1cr11 t lon M1111r Plan ,~~-------------------------
Pattlclpatlon In Actlv/llN
Survey mpondenll were also asked to Indicate
from a 11st 1ny activities they or the ir children
actively participate In .
Figure 3.13. Participation In Children •• Actlvltl11
IJHP:,Ygr0!.l1dl
hdoor1wfflmg
<l.lldoor1wfflmg
0,,cling
CMdoorbukelbll
"""'' .Jogginwrunnlng
F"•IW'lg
hdoor exetc:ile progrtn'li
laeolac~wal
Sklltbolrding
Dl nceclHIN
w.lghtslcllrdOY11c:U.
hdoofbakalbll
Gof
T°""' .......
Gfm\Nlicl -v,.., ...
l::elll.lting ..,.,.,
U1111a,ts &cr1flllat-
"'-h1k.lting
BM<blcyc lng
1)1,e.,,
hdoOt handbal'rac.quelbll
t:ehoclay
Lacrone rudoor handbal'rac:quelbll
h •hhoekey
Chlktr.n'I Actlvlt111
The seven most common ch ildren 's activities In
Englewood are use of playground equipment ,
indoor swimm ing , outdoor swimming , cycl ing ,
soccer, outdoor basketball , and
jogg ing/runn ing . Fish ing and Indoo r exercise
programs are act ivities in wh ich one In four
children participate . Skateboard ing and
cli mbing are Increasing In popularity In many
cities and they appear to be qu ite popular in
Eng lewood , wtth more than one In five children
partic ipating . The responses range from 0% to
100% for respondents who live west of Santa
Fe can be att ri buted largely to the small sub -
sample for that group of peop le on this
question .
■ Total Sa"1)1e
tt>ranhoel ,__ ___ ..._ ___ ..._,,.__,__-+--~-'-'-4
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
% of Respondents
3-24 September 2006 Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
,;;E_;n~g:.l;,_;O;.,w;;.,;;o_;o;,_;d;..,;P;..;,•.;,•,;;,k_;l...,;;l_;n;_d;..,;ll.;..;,•.;•.•.;•.;•.,l•l.;o.n_M_••••l••••-P•I•••"--------~~,
Adult ActlvltlH
In rough order of Involvement , adults partake in
1) concerts/fest lvals , 2) outdoor activities,
3) classes , 4) other sports , and 5) team sports .
Furthenmore, people undar 55 were far more
likely than those 55 and older to report that they
participate in baseball , football , indoor and
outdoor basketball, softball , volleyball ,
skateboarding , disc golf, in-line skating, use of
a climbing wall , ice skating, tennis, cycling,
indoor and outdoor swimming , jogging/running ,
use of off-leash areas in parks, use of dog
parks , walking , biking or hiking on a trail
system, nature observation, use of open space,
general park activity , and attend community
fairs/festivals .
Men were more likely than women to report
they play softball , play outdoor basketball, fish ,
golf, cycle, and jog/run, while women were
more likely than men to report they participate
in swimming lessons and water aerobics .
Additionally , people with children were more
likely than those without children to report tha :
they swim both outdoors and indoors, take
swimming lessons , bike on trail systems, picnic
in parks, and attend community fairs/festivals .
G. Recreational Program
Participation and Need ■
Many of the large , intensively used facilities in a
parks and recreation system are used by
participants of organ ized re creation programs .
Understanding program participation rates and
trends allows the city to identify specific
activities that may be underserved by facilities .
Programs that have waiting lists may indicate a
need for either more facilities or program staff.
In add ition, different age groups, abilities , and
skills often require different types and sizes of
facilities . Understanding the differences in
tt,ese user groups will help the city more
specifically detenm ine what needs to be
provided in the system.
To detenmine program usage, Englewood Park
and Recreation personnel, as well as local
interest groups who provide recreational
activities , were interviewed to datenmine how
many partici pants they have enrolled In various
programs . The interest groups interviewed
were also asked for infonmation regarding the
quality of faclllties , need for additional facllities ,
percentage of participants who are city
residents, and facilities used for each program .
The Parks and Recreation Department offers a
variety of organized sports and activities to the
community . Additionally, a number of other
programmed sports are available from private
organizations in Englewood , including the
Englewood Youth Sports Association (EYSA),
the Englewood Soccer Association (ESA), and
the Englewood School District (ESD). Table
3.13 provides a summary of all recreation
program participation in the City of Englewood .
Baseball/Softball Programs
There has been steady demand for organized
youth baseball and softball as well as adult
softball within Englewood . The overall number
of individual baseball players from Englewood
participating in all programs was estimated at
approximately 492 for 2005 , and according to
the providers , is eit~er steady or growing . The
overall number of individual girl softball players
from Englewood participating in all programs
was estimated to be approxim~tely 128 for
2005 , and according to providers , ;s either
steady or growing as well.
The Englewood Parks and Recreation
Department operates the boys Young American
summer baseball league . It has four separate
age brackets with a total of 21 teams ,
representing approximately 252 individual
players. The teams utilize the !u.t1heast and
southwest fields ~t Millar , Centennial Park
Field #2, Brent Mayne field at Centennial Park ,
and 5 informal fields laid out at Jason Park for
the T-ball program . The Parks and Recreation
Department also hosts an adult softball league
in the summer and fail and a senior softball
team . in 2005 there were 97 adult softball
teams in ail leagues for a total of approximately
1 , 164 players . These teams utili ze the fields at
Belleview Park and Spencer Field at Centennial
Park.
Issues and Needs Analysis September 2006 3-25
.,~ E n Iii I t W O O d P I r k I I n d R I C r t I I I O n M I I I t r P I I n ~~~--------------------------
T1bl1 3.12. P1rtlclp1tlon In Adult ActlvlU11
'' , ' , .. I • I
1-5 1-20 21+ Niver
Ouldoor basketball 14% 4% 1% 81%
Vollevball 11% 1% 3% 85%
Softball 6% 4% 4'1, 86'1,
Indoor basketball 8% 3% 1% 88%
Football 6% 2% 2% 90%
Soccer 6o/. 3% 91%
Baseball 4% 2% 1% 93%
lr •line hockev 2% 1% 1% 96 %
lee hockev 2% 1% 97 %
Lacrosse 1% 99%
1-5 1·20 21+ N1v1r
•1.x1ainQ/runnino 14% 15% 18% 53%
Indoor swimmina 20% 19% 6% 55%
Ou tdoor swimminQ 24% 12% 6% 53%
Cvctino 12% 12% 17% 59%
Golf 13% 10% 6% 71%
Fish ina 13% 6% 4% 77%
Tenn is 10% 7% 3% 80%
Ice skatina 12¾ 2% 3% 83%
Use of a cllmblna wall 8% 4% 1% 87%
In-lino skalina 7% 5'/, 1% 87 %
Horseshoes 7% 3% 1% 89 %
DlscQolf 4% 2% 1% 93 %
Skate boardina :!% 2% 2% 94%
Indoor handball 3% 1% 1% 95 %
Outdoo r handball 1% 2% 1% 96%
BMX bicvchna 1% 1% 2% 96%
1-5 6-20 21+ N1v1r
Indoor exercise oroarams 15% 11% 19% 55%
We1ahtsfcardiovascular 12% 9% 21% 58%
Use of arts and crafts fa cilities 9% 4% 5% 82 %
Water aerobics 11% 3¾ 4% 82%
Dance classes 7% 3% 4% 86%
Swim lessons 7% 4% 3% 86%
Gvmnastics 1% 2% 1% 96%
1-5 6-20 21+ NtVlr
Walking or other general park acliv ilies 21% 26% 41% 12%
Nature observalion , walking/use open 25% 24% 30% 21%
soace
Walkina or hikino on tra il svstem 26% 19% 32% 23%
Picnic~ 48 % 21% 7% 24%
Bikina on a 19% 19% 19% 43 %
Takina doa f 10% 10% 25% 55%
Use of a doa park 9% 8% 16% 67%
Use of an off-leash area In oarks 7% 9% 17% 67%
Guided nature walk/educaUonal acllvlty 12% 4% 2% 82%
1-5 1-20 21+ Never
Attend outdoor concerts/oerfonnances 49% 18% 6% 27%
Attend commun lt fairs/fasti,,als 53% 15¾ 4% 28%
3-26 Seplember 2006 Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•E••-g•l•••w-••••d_P_, _, •k••-••••d-R-••••••••••t•l••••-M-•••••••••-P•I••••--------~~,
Table 3.13 Summary of Recraatlon Program
Activity
Englewood School District
B111ball
Englewood P&R Youth 1,250 Steady or
Basketball and Youth Sports growing
Association Basketball
Englewood P&R Youlh 450 Steady or
Volle ball deci inin
Englewood P&R Adull 2,680 Steady
Volle ball
Englewood Soccer 560 Steady
Assoc iation Youth Soccer
Englewood Youth Sports 132 Steady
Associati on Football
Englewood P&R Youth In -50 Declining
Line Hocke
The Englewood Youth Sports Association
(EYSA) hosts 6 boys baseball teams in a spring
league , in brackets ages 9 through 14 , for a
total of approximately 72 players . It also hosts
two girls softball teams in a summer league in
two age brackets -the under 14 group and the
under 16 group . These teams have a total of
approximately 24 players . The girls' softball
teams pract ice at the northwest Miller Field and
play games at Centennial Park Field #2. The
boys' baseball teams practice on the northwest
and northeast fields at Miller , and play games at
the northeast Miller Field and at Brent Mayne
Field at Centenn ial Park . EYSA reports that all
fields are in good condition .
The Englewood School District (ESD) also
hosts a freshman boy 's baseball and va rsi ty
boy's baseball team . The freshman team ,
which plays in the spring , has approximately
30 players and utilizes the northeast field at
Miller for both practice and games . The varsity
team , wh ich plays in the spring as well , has
approximately 30 players and utilizes Wise
Field at the Hosanna Athletic Complex for both
practice and games .
Other private schools within Englewood offer
boys baseball and girts softball programs . The
Saint Louis School , All Souls School , and Our
Lady of Lords all host boys baseball teams,
while All Souls School also offers a girts softball
team . When practical , these teams utili ze the
fields at Belleview and Centennial Park . No
numbers regarding participation levels in these
programs are available .
Providers report that all fields are in excellent
condition and, in general , there are few
schedul ing conflicts . EYSA does report that
occasionally there are conflicts for game space
with the high school freshman baseball team at
Miller Field . The addition of one more skinned
baseball diamond with a 300 ft outfield in the
parks system may help to alleviate this . They
also report that an additional dedicated storage
unit would be helpful as well.
Ba11ketball Programs
There is steady demand for organized
basketball in Englewood . The total numbe r of
individual basketball players for all programs
was estimated to be between 1,250 for 2005 .
The Englewood Parks and Recreation
Department offers a fall girts league, a winter
boys league, and a winter middle school league
with both boys and girts teams . The fall girl 's
league had 6 teams in 2005 , the winter middle
sch O<'! league had 8 teams and the winter
boy's league had 9 teams . Total participation in
these programs was approximately 253 plaiers
for 2005 and has been steady over the las \ five
years . Gymnasiums at the various aleme•Ilary
and middle schools in Englewood are us1 ,d for
both practice and games . The Park ar,~
Recreation D&partment also offers a fall, wi nter,
and summer adult basketball league. The
winter league had 43 teams in 2005 , the
summer league had 43 teams , and the fall
league had 30 teams . Tot11I participation for
these nrograms was approximately 928 players
for 2005 and has been steady over the last fi ve
years . Gymnasiums at various elementary and
middle schools, as well as the gymnasium at
the Englewood Recreation Center, are used for
both practice and games .
Issues and Needs Analys is s,ptember 2006 3-27
.,~ Englewood P1rtr:1 ■nd Rtcr11tlon M11ttr Pl ■n ijY..►------------------------
EYSA hosla one boys and one girl's team at
each of th • 6"', 1~. and e~ grade levels in a
winter leag\J8. Total participation for these
teams waB ar ~rox lmately 66 players for the
200 5 ear , a: ,d has rema ined steady over the
last .uveral yaars . The teams util ize the high
school gymnasium for both practice and games .
tYSA reports that it ,, not cost effective to
utilize the gyrr.1 at Malley Senior Center or lhe
Englewood Recreat ion Center .
Volleyball Programs
The Englewood Park and Recreat ion
Department offers an extensive volleyball
program for both youth and adults . There is a
spring coed league for elementary and middle
school age students that hosted 6 teams in
2005 , for a total of approximately 60 players .
Teams in th is league utilize gymnasiums at
various elementary and middle schools for both
practice and games . Overall participation in
this league has seen a substantial drop ove r the
last five years . There is also a summer high
school volleyua il league hosted by the Parks
Department. In 2005 there were 39 teams in
this league with approximately 390 total
players. This league utilizes the gymnasium at
the Englewood Recreation Center and overall
participation has remained steady ove : :~e last
five years .
The Parks and Recreation Department also
hosts a very large adult volleyball program.
The winter league had 142 teams in 2005 for a
total of approx imately 1.420 players . The fall
league had 126 teams for a total of
approximately 1,260 players. Both leagues
utilize gymnas iums at the middle schools and
high school as well as the gym at the
Englewood Recreation Center . Likewise , the
Parks and Recreation Department reports
steady participation in these leagues over the
last five years . No scheduling conflicts for gym
time have been reported .
Soccer Programs
Youth soccer in E:nglewood is operated by the
Englewoo:' Soccer Association in both the fall
and spring . There are separate age brackets in
both seaso ns, beginning with U6 and going u~
to U'4. Occasionally there is a 15-18 year old
brack&t and an open competitive bracket as
well . Tl1e number of t-,ms fluctuates based on
the total num~, of partl~i pants registered ;
however it u&w;;ll y averagt.~ around 25 teams
per season. Typically the fall season sees less
participation due to overlapping footbal i
programs . Total participation for the 2005
spring sea~~ waG approximately 300 players ,
and pr.,rticipation for the 2005 fall season was
260 players . Practices for these teams are he ld
thro :,ghou t Englewood at the following
locations : Bates-Logan Park , Centenn ial Park ,
Duncan Park , Jason Park, Rotolo Park , Barde
Park , Belleview Park , Sinclair Middle School ,
Clayton Elementary School , and Maddox
Elementary School. All games are held at
Bates-Logan Park , Centennial Park , Jason
Park , and Clayton Elementary School. ESA
reports that all fields are in good condition and
well maintained. They do report that there are
sometimes scheduling conflicts for practice
space at the r;,,h~~ »;th permanent goals , which
are all the !W .. '1 ; •'•J~ When practicing on
these fields . y,. ,. ,,,am~ usually share with each
team getting t1'< ,,se of one goal. ESA reports
that the addit ion of one more lull-size field with
permanent goals would be a great help .
Adult soccer in Englewood is r,lfered through
the Colorado Coed Adult Soccer League in both
the fall and spring . Practices are held where
practical , and some games are held at the
Hosanna Athletic Complex soccer fields on
Sundays. No numbers regarding participation
levels in this program are available .
Football Programs
Recreational football in Englewood is hosted by
the EYSA and interest appears to be steady .
The total number of individual football players
for Englewood teams was estill"ated to be
approximatdly 132 for 2005 . E\ 3A hosts six
teams in the fall : one each for 9 year olds
through 14 year olds . EYS,A uses facilities at
Flood and Sinclair Middle Schools for practice
and holds games at Hosanna Athletic Complex .
The 9, 10, and 11 year old teams utilize 60-yard
fields, while the 12, 13, and 14 year old teams
play ln 100-yard fields . All fields are reported
3-28 September 2006 Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
!nglewooCI P1rk1 and ,.,cr11tlon M11t1r Pl1n ,~
... ....,_,, ___ ...., __________________ ~~·,
to be In good condition and no scheduling
conflicts exist at the current time .
ln-llne Hockey
Organ ized In-line hockey is offered through the
Englewood Par1<s and Recreation Department
with three separate age brackets : 3" through 5th
grade, 6th through 8th grade , and 9"' through 12"'
grade. In 2005 there were five teams across all
age brackets , for a total participation of 50
players .
All In-line hockey practices and home games
are held at the Flood Middle School In-line
Hockey Rink . Teams compete aga inst other
organized in-line hockey programs from
Table 3.14 RtcrHtlon ■I Faclllty NHd1
0:32 ,100 1:10,300
1:4,000 1:3,200
1:2,500 1:3.1 00
Outdoor
Basketball
Courts n=8 1:4.000 1:5,000
Full Size
Gymnasi um
1:16,200 1:28 400
1:1800 1:3800
1:16200 1:20 200
0:32 100 1:61500
1:32100 1:33000
1:32 100 1:471r,Q .
•2005 E1timlted popullllon 32 ,124. DRCOG .
..Rounded average of au rveyed commun ities, EOAW 2005 .
10
10
throughout the Denver metropollten area .
Although Interest Is still strong, there has been
a steady decline In participation In In-li ne
hockey over the last five yeara .
H. l!xlatlng and Futu,. Rac,.atlon
Facllltlea Need•
Tabla 3 .14 llsts the current level of service for
various active recreational facilities that groups
and Individuals in Englewood use , as wall as
the average level of service for other
communities in the Rocky Mounta in West.
Basc,d on these levels of service , both current
and future needs and defic its are given . These
numbers also assume ongoing partnersh ips
with the Eng lewood School District , and that
use of the current facil ities by Englewood
residents continues .
<3> <5>
<2> 16 <8>
<O > 16 <3>
<O > 10 <2>
<O> <O>
<O> 13 <O>
<O> <O>
<1 > <1>
<O > <1 ,
<O> <O>
Issues and Needs Ana lysi s September 2006 3-29
.,_. E n g I t W O O d P I r k I I n d R I C r I I I I O n M I I I I f P I I n ~Y.,., ________________________ _
According to this analysis, wh ich usas a
standard basad on Iha average of other
communit ies , there Is a need for additional
recreational facilities (bo lh currently and In the
future) until the time Englewood reaches full
bulldout. As the growth In Englewood Is
comparatively slow , no date has been Identified
for full buildout ; however , offic ials with the
Englewood Public Works and Community
Development Departments have Indicated that
the city 's infrastructure can accommodate a
max imum of 50 ,000 residents . As such , us ing
a target level of serv ice that Is based on
averages in other communities , Englewood
currently needs 1 add itional soccer fie ld,
3 football fields , and 1 ice rink . By the time
Eng lewood re aches its full buildout pop ulation
of 50 ,000 residents , there may be a need for
6 additional soccer fields , 5 football fields ,
3 additional baseball/softball fields , 2 additional
outdoor basketball courts , 1 :ce rink ,
1 add itional skate park , and 1 add ition ul in-line
hockey rink .
These numbers closely correlate with the
recreation provider interviews and the
community survey . EYSA reports a need fo r at
least 1 add itional socce r fie ld at the current
time ; however , they did not express a need for
any add itional football fields . This may be due
to the fact that many of the fields used for youth
football are mult i-purpose in nature , be ing used
for both soccer and football , and no conflicts
exist for field space or with scheduling . As
there is no organ ized ice hockey program in
Englewood, there was no expressed need for
an ice rink within the city . Approximately 35 %
of survey respondents did, however , say that
there is not enough of that type of facility within
the city . The construction of an ice rink require s
a large capital investment and they are typically
a reg ional attraction in nature . A; such ,
construction of such a facility with in the next
10 years is not recommended , and resources
should be devoted to more pressing needs .
Other notable amenities and facilities that
respondents of the commun ity survey said
there were not enough of (that the City of
Englewood does not currently provide) Include
an indoor climbing wall , a teen recreation
center, and a BMX bicycle area . Although there
are no specific standards for thasa types of
facllltlas , the community clearly des ires them .
National trend data shows a drastic Increase in
Indoor wall climbing activities and there is no
indication this will slow . BMX act ivity has not
bean tracked long enough to show any
discemable national trends . Ded icated teen
recreation canters are provided in many
communities along the Front Range , as well as
reg iona ll y and nationally . Englewood has a
1,500-square foot youth facility called The
RecZone located in the Englewood Recreaticn
Center. This facility is open to youth ages 8 to
17 , and offers drop -i n activities as well as
special ev ents on selected Friday nights . Wh ile
th is fa cili ty does provide youth programm ing , it
is not dedicated solely to teens as it Is open to a
broad age group of youths . Add itionally , the
facility is not well publicized , whi ch may partly
exp lain the survey results ind ;cati ng that there
needs to be a teen recreation center in the City
of Englewood . The construction of one should
be considered as it offers a needed and well
respected resource for teens with in the
community , much like a senior center .
Additionally , amenities such as a cl imbing wall
or BMX area could be incorporated into such a
fac ility. The RecZone youth center could rema in
and be programmed for younger children and
pre-teens .
Lastly , there is strong support in the community
survey for additional performance areas in
parks for such events as concerts and plays .
This is also strong ly supported by the cultural
arts community in Englewood as members
expressed this desire at open houses and in
feedback sessions with City Counci l.
I. Existing and Future Parkland
Needs
The community survey indicated that people
are relatively content with the overall quantity of
parkland in Englewood . Currently , the level of
service for neighborhood parks In Englewood is
1.9 acres/1 ,000 population , when 10 acres
each of Bellevlaw Park, Centennial Park , and
Cushing Park (which sarve neighborhood
3-30 September 2006 Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
!r, t twood Perll:1 and ,.,cr11t1on M11t1r Pl ■n ... ~~
_,,,,.,. __________________________ ~·-~
function a to thoH residents within 0.5 mile) are
factore<l t.o the average. Thie le baaed on a
total of 33 acre, of developed neighborhood /
pocket parks and 32,124 people . Thie level of
service Is somewhat leas than that of many
communities along the Front Range, which
averages 2.8 acres/1,000 population . Table
3.15 Illustrates the current nelghbortiood
parkland need for the Ctty of Englewood bal8d
on the average provided by other Front Range
communities. Clearly, achieving a level of
service that is similar to many suburban
communities would be difficult in Englewood
given that it is land-locked . Instead, Englewood
may want to continue to monitor satisfaction
levels of residents and look for opportunities to
expand existing parklands when properties
become available , as well as be proactive with
developers of infill and redevelopment projects
to ensure that adequate resources are being
placed on the provision of parks and
recreational services .
Table 3.15. Neighborhood Parkland NNda
92.0 acres
HacrH
81029
2005 Estimated Pop,,totlon 32,124
Based on the average of other Front Range
communities, the Ctty of Englewood currently
needs an additional 59 acre, of neighborhood
parkland , and will need an additional 107 acres
by the time It reaches bulldout . This translates
Into a current need of a minimum of 8 new
neighborhood parks and bulldout need of a
minimum of 11 new neighborhood parks .
Comparing the Ctty of Englewood to other Front
Range communities is only one method of
determining parkland need . A comparison such
as this acts as a benchmark exercise to
determine how one community compares to
another in total parkland provided . There are
many factors that may lnnuence why a
particular community may have drastically more
or less developed parkland than another
community . In the case of Englewood , ii Is a
fully established, well developed community
that is surrounded on all sides by other
developed communities . A determination of
specific parkland needs and opportunities for a
particular community can only be made after
examining other relevant issues such as
available land for parkland development , vicinity
of other parks outside of the munir.ipality , and
specific park needs within sub-areas of the city .
95.0 acres 140.0 acres
12 ICl'N 107KtH
Ito 31 111os.t
1.-1 and Need• Analysis Septemt>er 2006 3-31
.,.~ Englewood P1rk1 1nd R1cr11llon M11t1r Plan ~~~-------------------------
Map 3, Neighborhood Park Service Areas
(Chapter Two) shows the areas within
Englewood that are underserved by
neighborhood parks . In areas where a service
radius doeo not exist , It is either because there
is no available neighborhood park or access to
a park is prohibited by a barrier , such as a
major roadway . Examination of this map shows
that there are four primary locations within
Englewood that are underserved by
neighborhood parks : 1) south of Yale Avenue,
north of Dartmouth Avenue , and west of
Broadway Avenue; 2) south cf Oxford Avenue ,
north of Tufts Avenue , west of Clarkson Street ,
and east of Broadway Avenue; 3) the downtown
area north of Hampden Avenue , south of Floyd
Avenue , east of Broadway Avenue , and west of
Clarkson Street; 4) and the southwest "fingers "
of the city, west of Federal Boulevard .
Since there is little land available for acquisition
to further develop neighborhood parks within
Englewood , cueful consideration should be
given to specific areas within the city that are
currently in critical need of neighborho od parks.
These needs should be balanced with overall
city goals rel ~tive to trail connectivity between
parks and recreation facilities . Alternative
methods other than land acquisition should be
Table 3.16 Community Parkland Need•
AddlUon■ ommunlty
P1rlcl1nd Needed
Number of
New Commun P1rk1
• 2005 Ea rfm,fN Popul,tJon 32, 12,
77 .0 acres
0 ,c,..
explored for future park development. Methods
to consider might Include the conversion of
portions of existing sports complexes or
greenbelts to more traditional park uses , or
pursuing joint use partnerships with entitles
such as the Englewood School District.
Attention should also be given to those areas of
the city where simple access to parks may be
improved, such as through street crossing
enhancements .
Currently , the level of service for community
parks in Englewood is 3.5 acres/1 ,000
population . This is based on a total of
115 acres of developed community parks/sports
complexes and 32.124 people . This level of
service is somewhat greater than that of many
communities along the Front Range, which
averages 2.4 acres/1,000 population . The
average community parkland standard is
5.1 acres/1 ,000 population , however, most
communities have adopted a standard that they
have not yet achieved . Table 3.16 illustrates
the current community parkland need for the
City of Englewood based on continuing to serve
the community al existing levels , and the
average provided by other Front Range
communities .
180 acres 120 .0 acres
65.0 ■crH 5.01cre1
1-3
3-32 September 2006 Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
E n 8 I I W O O d P I r k I I n d .. t C r I I I I O n M I I t I r P I I n .,~ --------------------------~~·~
The community survey Indicated strong support
within the community for additional open space
and natural areas. Only 44% of respondents
felt there was an adequate amount of open
lands In the city . Furthenmore , roughly 60% of
respondents felt there were not enough natural
areas within urban parks and natural open
space areas in Englewood . Although no
standards exist for the amount ,f open lands
that should be provided , many communities
along the Front Range are aggressively
pursuing open land acquisitions where possible
to provide residents this desired commodity . In
general, opportunities to acquire open space in
Englewood are severely limited . The South
Platte River Open Space Plan has identified
several key parcels along the South Platte
River within Englewood that would contribute to
a future interconnected system. Any
opportunities that might arise allowing for
acquisition of land along this corridor for use as
open space should be strongly considered .
J. Tran Need•
Time and again when Colorado residents are
surveyed, the most frequent activities in city
parks , trails , and open space systems are
walking, nature· 6:Js ervation, bicycling,
picnicking and jogging.' For example , in
Arvada, 80% of residents surveyed
walked/hiked on a trail system , 79% observed
nature or walked in an open space area, and
66% bicycled on a trail system. Comparatively,
20 to 25% of residents played soccer , golf,
softball , outdoor basketball , or tennis . Colorado
Springs ' and Fort Collins ' survey results show
similar trends . Similarly , more than 57% of
Englewood residents feel there are not enough
natural surface bike/pedestrian trails and paved
trails . Additionally , only 43% are satisfied that
the city's trail system provides good
connections to pa•ks and other important
destinations .
1 EOAW, lnr ..
Based on community survey results as well as
a comparison with other communities along the
Front Range, there is a strong need for
additional primary-level trails and trail
connections within the city . Currently , there is
somewhat limited opportunity for residents to
easily and safely travel or commute throughout
Englewood via alternative transportation, such
as biking , skating , or walking . The South Platte
River Trail offers an excellent north-south travel
route , however, it lies well to the west of the
major population center in Englewood and
connections to it are poor . There are also
adequate tra ils in the Northwest Greenbelt ,
Southwest Greenbelt , and Little Dry Creek . Yet
these trails do not connect a larger overall trail
networt.. There is little ability to travel between
park &nd r"croation destinations within
Englewcod via eit her an elf-road system or an
on-road rout>l ni :work . Additionally , there is a
strong need 101 "'" ,n nced street crossings to
improve both safety and connectivity . The
Englewood Bicycle Master Plan has identified
multiple priorities to improve the overall
transportation network with respect to bikes .
These should be carefully considered in relation
to park and recreation connectivity, and any
opportunities to improve the system should be
pursued .
Issues and N88<ls Analysis September 2006 3.33
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
E n g I I W O O d p I f k I I n d R I C r !I I I I O n M a I f I r p I I n .,.~ ------------------------~~r-
Chapter Four -
Recommendations of the
Master Plan
This chapter includes a master plan map and
specific project recommendations that are
needed to meet existing and future urban
recreational, park, and trail neods in the City of
Englewood . These recommendations include
ways to address existing deficiencies , projected
needs based on future anticipated growth , and
changes in recreational habits and other issues
identified in Chapters Two and Three .
A. Park Projects
Additional parks will need to be developed to
meet existing and f, •lure needs of the
approximately 32,000 existing residents , and
potentially 18 ,000 new residents by the ultimate
cit · :;uildout of 50,000 total residents .
Continuing to serve residents at existing levels
of service as growth occurs means that
additional parklands will need to be acquired
and developed . As Englewood has virtually no
land available for additional park development ,
it is not realistic today to expect that 6 to 12
parks could be constructed like more suburban
communities are doing. Englewood could
choose to invest in expand ing its parklands to
be more like communities that are attracting
families, but this type of strategy must be
meshed with an overall city vision that identities
this as a priority . Currently the 2003
Comprehensive Plan states that Englewood will
provide for the park and recreational needs of
its residents, and focuses on redevelopment
projects that will provide higher density
residential units along with commercial
development. Traditionally , these have not
been preferred by families , perhaps partly
because of the lack of parks for outdoor
recreational activities . If families are to be living
in higher density housing, the city should
seriousl y consider an aggressive approach to
obtaining adequate parkland very near or within
redevelopment projects , as the average
household size would be higher than the
2.1 people per un it that Englewood currently
has .
In the near term, Englewood should look for
ways to strateg ically provide additional parks in
areas of the city that are currently underserved .
The city should also enhance existing parks ,
expand them If possible , and improve access to
them to better serve residents in deficient or
growing areas . The deficient areas may lack
easy access (within ½ mile without major
bamers) and/or have lower levels of service
based en population in the immediate
ne ighborhood . The areas without adequate
access were Identified in Chapt.Jr Two and are
shown on Map 3. In areas where high dens ity
residential development is likely to occur
(primarily in the downtown area and the Bates
Station RTD area), the addition of
neighborhood parkland is highly encouraged .
New Parkland and/or Amenities *
Map 5, Proposed Master Plan , shows
conceptual locations for new parkland and/or
major parkland amenities , wh ich will help to
enhance service to current and future
residential areas that are underserved .
Following is a description of each location and
sugrs ,led park developments .
1. Bates Station RTD Light Rail
A neighborhood park should be constructed
in conjunction with the proposed
development of the RTD Light Rail Eates
Station . City of Englewoo•' , Jnners
a 1ticipate that a high density residential
development ~.1d retail and office space will
be constructed in assoc:ation with the RTD
light rail station . Efforts should be pursued
by city officials to require that any future
development in this area have suitable land
reserved for park purposes . As such, a new
park will provide neighborhood parkland and
recreation amenities to neighborhoods of
the city that are currently underserved, as
well as future residents In the potential high
Recommendations of the Master Plan September 2006 4-1
,~ Inglewood P1rk1 and P11cre1llon M11t1r Plan , ... r,,--------------------------
4•2 September 2006 Chapter Four
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
E R g I I W O O d P I r k I I n d R I C r I I l I O n M I I I I r P I I n .,.,. ------------------------~~~
density residential developments . This park
should Include neighborhood park
amen ities , including playgrounds, picnic
shelters , restrooms , shade structures ,
landscaping , and a multi-purpose playf1eld .
The park should connect to a future off-
street tra il system that will eventually link up
with the South Platte Ri ver Trail.
Consideration should also be given to
incorporating the historic train depot at
Depot Park into the park design , as it would
provide a unique amenity re levant to the
character of the area .
2. Little Dry Creek Plaza Vicinity
The City of Eng lewood should pursue any
available opportun ities to provide
neighborhood parkland in the vicin ity of
Little Dry Creek in the downtown Englewood
area . Since there is currently very little land
available for park development , these
efforts should cons ider the conversion of
portions of Little Dry Creek Greenway to
neighborhood park functions . These efforts
should include discuss ions Nith area
landowners for potential park provisions .
Additional parkland (or neighborhood park
amenities) in this area will help those
residents in the downtown area who are
currently underserved , as well as potential
future high density residential developments
that may occur in the area
Lillie Dry Creek Plaze
Portions of Little Dry Creek are deteriorated ,
and much of the surfaces , walls, and
landscaping are in need of renovation .
Acce ss to port ions of Little Dry Creek is also
prohibitive , and options to improve this
should be explored through working with
neighboring landowners . As the Little Dry
Creek Plaza is in a centralized and high
traffic location, efforts should be made to
improve bicycle and pedestrian connections
from the plaza to the Little Dry Creek
Greenway, Malley Senior Center, and
through the downtown commercial corridor .
Th is should be done in conjunction with any
future downtown redevelopment initiative $.
There are a few critical links of the Little Dry
Creek Trail that have not been constructed .
Either an off-street or on-street link is
needed to connect the two separate parcels
of Little Dry Creek . A connection is also
needed between Little Dry Creek and
Englewood CityCenter . A bike and
pe destrian bridge is also needed to connect
Little Dry Creek to an existing !railhead at
Dartmouth Avenue and West South Platte
River Drive , along the South Platte River
Tra il.
3. Oxford Parcel
The approx imate 2-acre plot of land
adjacent to the Englewood Muni ci pal Golf
Course , known as the Oxford Parcel ,
presents an excellent opportunity to take
advantage c,f a rare piece of unused city
property . Park and recreation staff has
expressed 1I:e need for an addilional
outdoor gathering area geared toward larger
groups . This site provides the needed
space to construct a large picnic pavi lion
capable of accommodating a minimum of
150 people . As the site is located adjacer,t
to the golf course, ample parking is alre~dy
provided as well as a scenic location next to
the South Platte River and South Platte
River Trail. Development of this site should
consider the construction of a restroom and
playground to complement the picnic
,Javilion . The site should also be re-
:1abilitated and enhanced with native
landscaping and provide direct access to
the South Platte River.
Rucommendetlons of the Master Plan September 2006 4-3
tr. Englewood P1rk1 1nd R1c r 11tlon M1111r Plan ~'#.~-----....;.;;.:.~..;,.;;.;.....;..""""" _____ , ______ _
4. Sherman Street and Nassau Avenue
Vic inity
Residents near Sherman Street and Nassau
Avenue currently do not have adequate
access to a ne ighborhood park . With no
vacant land currently ava ilable for park
development , the city should be vigi lant in
acqu iring strategic parcels that might
become available in the future . Any park
constructed in th is area would ideally
prov ide full neighborhood park functions ;
however, even the construct ion of a pocket
park with li mited functions would be
beneficial. This may include a playground ,
ben c•,es, picnic shelter, and if possib le,
restrooms and a multi -purpose playfield .
This park should also be access ible via the
proposed off-street trail system .
5. Sherman Street and Prince ton Avenue
Vicinity
Residents near the area of Sherman Street
and Princeton Avenue currently do not ha ve
adequate access to a ne ighborhood park .
With no existing vacant land for park
development , the city should be vigilant in
acqu iring st rateg ic parcels that might
become available in the future . Any park
constructed in this area would ideally
provide full ne ighborhood park functions .
However , even the construction of a pocket
park with limited functions would ile
beneficial. This may include a playground ,
benches , picnic shelter , and if possible ,
restrooms and a multi -purpose playfield .
Th is park 3hould also be accessible via the
proposed off-street trail system .
6. Sherman Street and Stanford Avenue
Vicinity
Resident s near She , man Street and
Stan fo rd Avenue currently are underserved
and do no t have adequate access to a
neighborhood park . With no ex ist.mg vacant
land for park development. the ci:y should
explore potential solutions that may include
working with the Englewood School District
on a joint use arrangement for Cherrelyn
Elementary School. A park constructed in
association with the school should provide
basic amenities , including a playground ,
picnic shelter, restroom , and shade . This
park should also be accessible via the
proposed off-street tra il system .
Major Park Redesign ◊
Map 5, Proposed Master Plan, identifies
parklands that are proposed for major redes ign ,
which will help them function more efficiently
and better serve residents in provid ing parkland
and n creat ional amenities . Following is a
des cription of each location and suggested park
development ,;.
1. Cushing Park
Cush ing Park is one of the crown jewels of
the Englewood parks system . It is centrally
located , easily accessible , and highly
identifiable . However , lime and lack of
cons istency in facil ity additions have left
Cushing very "da ted " and inefficient.
Several changes and enhancements could
be made to make the pa r'.. function more
effective ly and promote its hist orical
qualities .
Cu shing Park
The entire core area should be redesigned
to improve its function, aesthetics , and feel.
The playground, restroom, and shelters are
currently a maintenance burden with
exposed walls , and present safety concerns
because they lack a clear line of sight from
tne parking lot and adjacent roads . These
should be replaced and an additional rental
4-4 September 2006 Chapte r Four
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
"' Englewood Ptr k a and R1cr11llon M11ler Pltn ~'#.~--------------------------
4. Sherman Street and Nassau Avenue
Vicinity
Residents near Sherman Street and Nassau
Avenue currently do not have adequate
access to a ne ighborhood park . With no
vacant land currently available for park
developmenl, the city should be vigila nt in
acqu iring strategic parcels that might
become available in the ful, ·e. ,ny park
constructed in this area would k 1y
provide full ne ighborhood park f11n~t;or.n:
however , even the construction f a 10.:l:et
park with limited functions wou ld be
beneficial. This may include a playground ,
benches , picn ic shelter, and if possible ,
restrooms and a multi-purpose playfi eld .
This park should also be accessible via the
proposed off-street trail system .
5. Sherman Street and Princeton Avenue
Vicinity
Residents near lhe area of Sherman Street
and Princeton Avenue currently do not have
adequate access to a neighborhood park .
With no exi sting vacant land for park
development , the city shou ld be vigilant in
acqu iring slrategic parcels that might
become available In the future. Any park
constructed in lhis area ~·ould ideally
provide full neighborhood park functions .
However , even lhe construct ion of a pocket
park with limiled functions would be
beneficial. This may include a playground ,
benches , picnic shelter, and if poss ible ,
restrooms and a multi-purpose playfield .
This park should also be accessible via the
proposed off-street tra il system .
6 . Sherman Street and Stanford Avenue
Vicinily
Residents near Sherman Street and
Slanford Avenue currently are underserved
and do not have adequate access to a
neighborhood park . Wilh no existing vacant
land for parK development. the city should
explore potential solutions that may include
working wilh the EnglewO(,d School Dislrict
on a joint use ~'"'"~•~~nt for Cherrelyn
Elementary School. A park constructed in
association with the school should provirle
bas ic amenities, inclJding a playground ,
picnic she lter , reslroom , and shade . This
park should also be accessible via lhe
proposed off-slreet tr~•il system .
Major Park Redesign ◊
Map 5, Proposed Master Plan , identifies
parklands that are proposed for major redesign ,
which will help them funclion more efficiently
and better serve residents in providing parkland
and recreational amenities . Following is a
doscription of each locat ion and sugge sted park
developmenls .
1. Cushing Park
Cu shin g Park is one of the crown jewels of
ttr• f:•·~le,,.•, ,J parks system . It is centrally
loc,.·•)d, ,:,:, iii~ accessible , and highly
idenVficrble . t h.>wever, time and lack of
co1 .·,;ste:i c1 in facility add iti ons ,.ave left
Cush ing very "dated " and ineffi cient.
Several changes and enhancements could
be made to make the park fun ction more
effectively and promote its historical
qualities .
Cush ing Pa rk
The entire core area should !le redes igned
to Improve its function, a(,thetics , and feel.
The playground , restroom , and shelters are
currently a maintenance burden wllh
exposed walls, and present safety concerns
because they lack a clear line of sight from
lhe parking lot and adjacent roads . These
should be replaced and an additional rental
4-4 September 2006 Chapter Four
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ti • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
' . I ;• tor • i.
i,Y~, >'•
~-11,
E n g I I W O O d P ■ r k I I n d R I C r I I I I O n M I I I I f P I I M ,~ ------------------------~~ shelter added , bringing the total to
3 shelters . The skate park should be
replaced with permanent, poured concrete
to provide better amenities end act as a
regional attraction . All existing concrete
walks should be upgraded and new 8-fool
concrete walks added to ensure
accessibility to all shelters , the playground ,
and restrooms . Lighting throughout t~=
park should be improved and the
landscaping enhanced throughout. including
natural ization of the current drainage
channel. A 48-yard x 70-yard soccer field
with movable goals should be added lo
relieve some of the scheduling pressure for
youth soccer programs . To help promote
the unique historical qualities of the park , all
historical amenities and marke•s should be
enhan ce d. Add itionally , the unique
historical amphitheater should be retained
and transferred lo an alternative use , such
as a flo wer garden . New signs are also
netded al the northwest , southwest , and
southeast corners lo identify the park and its
entrances . La stl y, the small parcel of land
on the south side of the parking lot should
be enhanced through landscaping , and a
pedestrian crossing of Inca Street should be
added to increase safely for RTD
commuters who park in this lot and walk lo
CilyCenler .
2. Miller Field
MIiier Fieid
Mill er Field is one the most well-used park
facilities in the City of Englewood, with
2 ballfields used by both the high school
girl 's softball and freshman boy's baseball
!eams . The fields help the area function
more like a sports complex than a traditional
noi ghborhood park . As Miiler Field is
loca!ed in a centralized area where no other
ne ig ·1borhood parks exist to serve the
surr ounding residents, redesigning 1t would
\1elp provide the residents with a funC'.,onal
p~rl: as well as improve the athletic
rnc 1hties .
The existing Safety Services building should
be demolished and the ballfields redesigned
so lhal the backstops and bleachers are
separated from ne ighborhood park uses .
One option is to locate home r,lates along
Jefferson Avenue . Th is woul d proviae
needed neighborhood park space along
lthica Avenue where a new playground ,
picnic sheltgr , and restroom s could be
added. The .. aids couid then be enhanced
to provide bl~achers , storage , and upgraded
irrigation. Parking could be designated on-
street to offset the loss of parking
associated with the Safety Serv,ces
huilding . Landscap ing throughout the park
s,;ould be enhanced and the historic Miller
Field sign should be relocated to the new
ballfields entrance . New concrete walks
should be added to provide access to the
ballfields, playground , restrooms, and
shelters .
3. Hosanna Athletic Complex
Hosanna Athletic Complex is centrally
located adjacent to Englewood High School,
just south of Hampden Avenue , and
adjacent to Little Dry Creek Greenway .
While operated and mainta ined by the
Parks Department. neither of these
properties provid as adequate neighborhood
park functions or amenities to residents in
this area . Additionally, access to the
complex is very limited , with fencing around
its entirety and only one entrance from the
west parking lot. which Is not clearty
marked . Hosanna is bounded on the east
Recommendations of the Mastor Plan September 2006 4-5
E n g I I W O O Cl P I r k I I n d ,. ,. ' f • I I I O n M I I I I r P I I n
and vest by scattere,; '.esidential
development, on th • r orth by commorcial
development , and or, tne south by the high
school , which prevents easy visibility fror ·
adjacent streels . &:nee Hosanna is lor;?\,rl
in a residential area that is not served bv ,
r,,:,ighborhood park , options for upgradin ;;
the park in conjunction with Little Dry Creek
Greenway should be fully explored to
provide these needed amenities.
Enhancements may include creating park
entries and walks , removing unnecassary
fencing , and adding traditional
neigh borhood park amenities, such as a
playground , picnic shelter , and restrooms .
As the Englewood School District is
current ly in the process of creating s master
plan for the high school , any modifications
to H~sanna and Little Dry Creek should be
done ,:, coordination with this process lo
maximize park developm ,1 ,I opportunities .
. .
contact. Likewise , the shorel ine needs to
he enhanced with landscaping, designated
acr.ess points, and overlooks, as it has
deteriorated throughout the years from foot
use by fisherman . The island in the lake
could also be enhanced as waterfowl
habitat for ducks , herons, and cormorants .
Options for improving the oxbow area in the
northeast portion of the park could include
adding naturalized planting and a soft-
surface path or a miniature remote
, •nlrolled vehicle course . New signs are
•> eded at vurious entry points as well.
5. Bellev iew Park
Belleview Park is considered by many lo be
\r.e showpiece park within Englewood .
4. Centennial Park
While no large scale additioo:. or
modificali0ns are needed , se ra l ,mailer
additions and enhancem en ts could be made
lo improve lhe func tionality of th is park . The
west side of the park is primarily passive,
with one picnic shelter ; however , access is
poor . Access lo this area should be
irrproved through the addition of either a
parking lot or turn-around drop-off area .
Additionally , the existing amphitheater and
associated building on the west side should
be removed and replaced with a rental
picnic shelter . In conjunction with this , a
porta-a-potty with permanent enclosure
should be added to serve the west side of
the park . If water service becomes
available in this area , a restroom with flush
fixtures should replace the temporary toilets .
The paths and stairs in the native areas,
while quite popular , are in a deteriorated
condition and should be upgraded .
Consideration should also be given lo
providing an educational habitat park in this
area . A permanent maintenance building is
needed in Belleview and should be
constructed in the Chenango parking lot ,
which is currently underutilized .
4-6
Cen•ennial Park is the largest of the
communily parks wilhin Englewood and
offers gre~t polential for a redesign lo
provide add ilional, non-lraditional
recrealional activities . The wesl side of lhe
park should be redesigned to improve lhe
overall layoul and b'3tter serve park users .
Suggesled improvements include
reconfiguring lhe playground and baskelball
court, and constructing a new building lo
house picnic shelters, restrooms, and
slorage . The currenl gazebo should be
upgraded , and landscaping should be
added in the northwesl parking lol and
along lhe north fence line lo screen
negative views of adjacent lands from park
users. Othe r im provements might include
adding bench es and shade structures to the
fishing piers , as well as construction of a
new footbridge .
The Parks and Recreation Department
should explore the feasibility of offering
concession-operated water access on the
lake, such as paddle boats, kayak les.ons,
or other activities that do not require water
The east side of the park should also be
addressed by redesigning the play and
picnic area . New shelters , restrooms,
playgrounds, and a basketball court are
needed, as well as new wncrete walks to
September 2006 Chapter Four
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _,
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • •
;;E_;n;_g:..;,;I •;_w;;.,;;•_;•;,_;d;_P~• ,;,' ,;;_k_;•.,.;•_;,n;,_;d;_R_,• _;,'•'•••••t•l•••n-M-• •••' •'•'-P•I•••"--------~~ ... ,
these areas . The farm and train area needs
to be redesigned and enlarged lo include a
permanent ticket booth area with
concessions and an enhanced sitting area .
Landscaping throughout this area should
also be improved . Lastly, the land
immediately adjacent to Pirate 's Cove
should be held in reserve for any future
expansion of the aquatic facility .
Facility Additions or Enhancements
Map 5, Proposed Master Plan, identifies parks
and park areas proposed for minor
enhancements and facility additions to help
them function more effectively and serve
nearby residents more efficiently . Following is
a description of each location and suggested
park developments .
1. Baker Park
Baker Park is localed adjacent to the
Alternative High School in northwest
Englewood . Although Baker Park currently
functions as a neighborhood park , it could
be enhanced lo better serve area residents .
The playground eqL•ipmenl is outdated and
not safely compliant. Likewise , the
restrooms and picnic area are not ADA
compliant. Currently , there is no internal
paved walk within the park , the park Is
poo~y laid out , and the occurrence of
vandalism is high. There is also a fence
that separates the schoo: property from the
park , preventing full use of ihe turf area .
The park is not very attractive trom an
aesthetic standpoint as there is very little
planting , and most of the landscaping needs
upgraded . An unsightly curb wall also runs
along Wes ley Avenue lhal could be
removed .
The Parks and Recreation Department
should explore the feasibility of working with
the Englewood School District lo improve
the overall function of the park/school area .
This would include removing the fence
separating the park from the school ,
upgrading the restroom, and constructing a
new picnic sheller and playground . New
concrete walks are needed , as well as
enhanced landscaping lo improve the
aesthetic appeal of the park . The curb wall
along Wesley Avenue should be removed
and new signage added .
2. Northwest Greenbelt
The banks along this greenbelt have been
designed as bluegrass turf areas . Because
many areas are sleep and not used by the
public, they present an undue irrigation
water use and maintenance burden for the
Parks Department. Discontinuing the
irrigation and mowing of those sections that
do not provide active uses and relurn i.,g
them to native vegetation would reduce the
maintenance burden , be more cost efficient ,
and provide a more natural landscape for
the area . This would he lp to provide the
addilio .. al natural areas desired by the
community , as reflected in the October 2005
survey .
3. Depot Park
Currently Depot Park , localed directly
across Dartmouth from Cushing Park ,
contains the historic depot structure, but ii
does not offer any park amenities . Due lo
its strategic location on !1artmouth Avenue
and near Santa Fe Drive , ii is a valuable
parcei of land owned by the city and
managed by the Parks and Recreation
Department. With a total size of just less
than 1 acre, only limited park functions and
amenities are possible for this space . As
such, strong consideration should be given
Recommondations of the Master Plan September 2006 4.7
tr. Englewood Parka and llt1cr1atlon Ma1t1r Pltn ~'«~-------------------------
to transitioning this property to other. more
economically productive uses and re-
locating the historic train depot to an
alternative park location , preferably one
associated with the Bates Station RTD Light
Rall development.
Depot Park
4 . Bates-Logan Park
Minor improvements could be made to
Bates -Logan Park to improve its overall
appearance and allow ii to function more
effectively . The playground equipment and
picnic shelter are old and not up to current
safety standards . The east portion of the
park is primarily passive in nature and
underutilized . Although the park is
generally in good condition . improvements
could be made in the design to improve its
function , appearance, and safety .
Suggested improvements include relocating
the restroom to a less conspicuous area in
the park, and constructing a new picnic
shelter and playground further west with an
8-foot concrete path connecting each . This
would provide a better relationship between
the core picnic/play area and the multi-
purpose field. The east side of the park
should be naturalized to offer a passive
area with native landscaping and a soft-
surface path . Landscaping in the parking lot
should also be improved and new signage
added .
5. Barde Park
A few minor improvements to Barde Park
w~~ld help it function more effectively and
improve 11• .:,verall appearance .
Improvements :~elude constructing a new
picnic shelter and playground . and adding
con crete walks to connect these areas . A
pass ive area along the underutil ized
northern edge -:ould be prr ·vided with native
landscapin g and sofl-Sl ! .ace paths .
ikewise . the feasibility-,( redesigning ar,d
naturalizing the current concrete dr-ai:," g~
ways should be explored . Othe1
recommended Improvements in ck,de
removing the existi ng l enn is court.s . adding
new signage , providin ,s ~ ~"~' w,, water
crossing . and enham . "9 the !o~dscaping
throughout the park . As there are three
high-density resident ial development
projects proposed for this area of the city ,
discussions should be held (in conjunction
with Englewood School District) on ways to
enlarge the functional park area . With the
fruition of these projects, there will likely be
added use at Romans Parle As such, it
may be neces'30 ry for Barde Park to relieve
some of the p,•n.11su1,i ,,n Romans Park .
6. Romans Park
Romans Park 1s one of the most memorable
parks in the Englewood system because of
the mushroom shelter structures . These
provide a unique park exrt •ience found no
where else in the Denve · ,ll"llro area . From
a practical standpoint . th i • .. ushroom
shelters provide little cover from the
elements . However , they are enjoyed by
the general public, who sometimes refer to
Romans Park as "Mushroom Park ." As
such , these should be retained and
enhanced by removing the benches
underneath and featuring them as park
sculpture . The park lacks a functional ,
rental picnic shelter with ADA access from
the street. Generally , there is a lack of
benches and trash receptacles along the
path system. and path accass from the
street is not ADA compl iant because the
entry ramps are too steep. Improvements
to Romans Park include the construction of
4-ll September 2006 Chapter Four
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
.,~ ( n g I t W O O d P I r k I I n d fl I C r I I I I O n M I I t I r P I I n ~Y<lff-______ ..... ________________ _
to transitioning this property to other, more
economically product; ,e uses and re-
locating the historic tra in depot to an
alternative park location, preferably one
assoclat11d wit ", the Bales Station RTD Light
Rail deve iopmer.l.
Minor improvements could be made to
Bates-Logan Park lo improve its overall
appearance and allow ii lo function more
effectively . The playground equipment and
picnic shelter are old and not up to current
safety standards . The east portion of the
park is primarily passive in nature and
underutilized . Although the park is
generally in good condition , improvements
could be made in the design lo improve its
function . appearance , and safety .
Suggested improvements include relocating
the restroom to a less conspicuous area in
the park . and constructing a new picnic
shelter and playground further west with an
8-fool concrete path connecting each . This
would provide a better relationship be';ween
the core picnic/play area and the mul '.i •
purpose field . The east side of the park
should be naturalized to offer a passive
area with native landscaping and a soft-
surface path . Landscaping in the parking lot
should also be improved and new signage
added .
5. Barde Park
A few minor improvements to Barde Park
would help it function more effectively and
improve its overall appearance .
Improvements include constructing a new
picnic shelter and playground, and adding
concrete walks to connect these areas . A
pa11sive area along the underutilized
northern edge co uld be provided with native
landscaping and soft-surface paths .
Likewise , the fe · sibility of redesigning and
naturalizing the current concrete drainage
ways shou ld be explored . Other
recommended improvements include
removing the existing tennis courts , adding
new sig nage , providing a new low water
crossing , an d enhancing the landscaping
throughout the park . As there are three
high-density residential development
projects proposed for this area of the city ,
discussions should be held (in conjunction
with Englewood Sch ool District) on ways to
enlarge the functi on al park area . With the
fruition of these projects , there will likely be
added use at Romans Park . As such . it
may be necessary for Barde Park to relieve
some of the pressure on Romans Park .
6. Romans Park
Rom ans Park is one of th e most memorable
parks l n the Englewood system because of
the mu shroom shelter structures . These
provide a unique park experience found no
where else in the Denver metro area . From
a practical standpoint, the mushroom
shelters provide little cover from the
elements . However, they are enjoyed by
the general public , who som3times refer to
Romans Park as "Mushroom Park .· As
such, these should be retained and
enhanced by removing the benches
underneath and featuring them as park
sculpture . The park lacks a functional,
rental picnic shelter with ADA access from
the street. Generally , there is a lack of
benches and trash receptacles along the
path system . and path access from the
street is not ADA compliant because the
entry ramps are too steep . Improvements
to Romans Park include the construction of
4-13 September 2006 Chapter Four
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
E n II I I W O O d P I r k I I n d R I C r I I I I O n M I I I I r P I I n "• ------------------------~~·~
2 new picn ic shelters , 2 playgrounds to
Include a ·tot lot ," and upgraded restrooms .
Landscaping along the south side should be
improved to provide screening between the
apartment buildings , and the water feature
on the south side should be improved .
Overall , the walks should be improved l o
allow for better ADA access from the rn~et
and to the new playgrounds , restroom s, and
shelters . Additional benches and tra ah
receptacles should also be added alon g the
walks . Lastly , new signage should be
added to the park .
7. Jason Park
Select minor improvements <n ade to Jason
Park would help it function more effectively
and improve its overall appearance . This
park contains a designate~ d f -leash dog
area . so it receives a high . , ·own t of use
from dog owners . A new pi e, ;i c shelter
should be constructed and the existing
restrooms and playground upgraded . An
8-foot concrete walk to all amenities should
be provided to enhance circulation and
provide access. Visitors to the par~ often
walk its perimeter and have worn an
informal social path into the turf; this path
should be upgraded into a gravel path . A
path connection is also needed between the
western park gate and Lipan Street. Other
improvements include new signage and an
upgraded irrigation system .
8. Rotolo Park
A few minor improvements at Rotolo Park
would improve its appearance and
functional ity. Although there is ample on-
street pa rki ng and street access, ADA
access to an d throughout the park is poor .
The playground equipment and picnic
shelter are old and not safety compliant,
and should be replaced . A new ADA
accessible concrete walk will be needed
from both Huron Street and Stanford
Avenue to the playground and picnic
shelter . Benches should also be added
near the playground . The landscaping in
the park should be enhanced and new
signage added as well. Additionally ,
vehicular control measures along Stanford
Avenue should be enhanced by replacing
existing bollards with low rail fencing .
Rotolo Park
9. Southwest Greenbelt
This greenbelt is primaril y landscaped with
irrigated turf . The banks along the
greenbelt are steep and underu sed by the
public , and there fore present an unoue
maintenance burden . Strong consideration
sh ould be given to returning portions (or all)
of this area to native landscaping where
practicable .
10 . Duncan Park
A few minor improvements could be made
to Duncan Park to help improve its
functionality and overall appearance . As
Duncan Park is the only park located in th is
area of the city , it needs to be upgraded to
function more effectively as a neighborhood
park . These upgrades include the
construction of a new playground and picnic
shelter . Additionally, an accessible and
concrete walk is needed to the new
playground and shelter, and a gravel path to
the basketball court . The landscaping in the
park should also be enhanced and new
signage added .
Recommendations of the Master Plan September 2006 4-9
(«,. _______ ..;!.;;".:'~'.;•~w;.;;,•.;;•.;d~P;,;•:.:.· :_k .:.·..:.•.::n.:d:,_;ft:.:,•:,•~·.:·.:•:.;•~1.:0:,;n:_;M:.:•.:•~1.:•:.;r:..:P~I ·:.:·
11 . Sinclair Mlddla School
Since Sinclair Middle School ls In a strategic
location and current joint use arrangements
exlijl for other parks associated with
schools, strong consideration should be
given to adding other park amenities here ·
this should be done in consultation with th~
Englewood School District master planning
process . As is already planned, the new in-
line hockey rink should be constructed here .
Additionally , strong consideration should be
given to removing the existing handball
courts . As indicated in the community
survey , 96% of adults report na ver using the
ha~:lball courts , while 93% of children do
not use them . Furthermore, school cfficials
have concems regarding the safety of the
courts . The courts are poorly lighted and
have dark , hidden comers . There are
numerous ongoing problems with
vandalism , loitering , and unsanitary debris
on the handball courts. As such, the sr.hool
strongly supports their removal Jnd
transitioning the space to a saf,3r , mer ,
~mmunity _friendly use . A sugg estion for
this area might be a 1,aved , multi -purpose
court for a variety of uses , or retuming the
area to turf.
B. Trell Projects and Crossing
Enhancements • 1111111 -Trails and pedestrian and bicvr.list r,,n:,f cticns
are another important component of th& parks
system . Englewood should focus on
completing gaps in and extending off-street
urban trails . Very little space Is available to
acquire corridors to add to the existing off-street
trail system in Englewood; however, key
connections that are missing should be
vigorously pursued. Once these connections
are completed , a core commuter , primarily off-
street system will be In place that forms the
backbone of altemative transportation
opportunities within the city and helps the park
and recreation facilltlas . Five primary
connections are identified on Map 5 and
include :
• Connection of the Northwest Gr"8nbelt to
the South Platte River Trail;
• Creation of an off-street trail from Yale
Avenue south to the trail In Cushing Park;
• Extension of the trail in the Southwest
Greenbelt through Rotolo Park to the
proposed on-street network at Jason Street:
• Extens ion of the Big Ory Creek Trail in
Belleview Park to the proposed on-street
ne twork at Layton Avenue and Navajo
Street; and
• Extension of the Big Dry Creek Trail
southeast from Lehow Avenue to the city
limits .
Simultaneously, Englewood should work to
develop secondary-level , on-street connections
to neighborhood destinations, such as schools,
neighborhood parks , recreation centers, and
the core commuter trail system . Part of this
process will include enhancement of multiple
street crossings at high traffic , high profile
locations . Where oossible , connections should
also be made to popular destinations , such as
shopping districts, downtown , employment
districts, community parks, performing arts
areas , the South Platte River Trail, and
CityCenter. Proposed on-street routes and key
crossing enhancements are shown on Map 5.
C. Sys1em-Wld• Project•
In addition to the specific park and recreation
projects described above, system-wide
irrigation improvements will need to be
completed over time . Parks Department staff
indicates that the current irrigation system is
more than 40 years old and is becoming a
major maintenance burden with continuous
repairs neerled . Additionally, the system is
highly inefficient in its water use compared to
the technology available today . Replacing
Irrigation throughout the entire park system Is a
highly expensive undertaking. At the current
time, the Parks Department Is In the process of
replacing controllars for Irrigation In all parks .
September 2006 Chapter Four
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
I!: n n I I w o o d P I r k I I n d ft I C r I I I I O n M I I I t r P I I n *~ ;..;,,;,•.;.;;..;.;..;...;..;....;. ..... ....;. .......... ....;. ..... ____________ ~~·,
Further upgrades should be phased In over a
period of years to help off-set the cost. Parks
Department stall should immediately begin a
comprehensive inventory of irrigation in all
parks to determ ine which systems are in critical
need of replacement. A master list determin ing
the schedule for upgrades should be
developed , w~h tho se in greatest need of
replacement receiving atten tio r-first.
D. Future Racreatlonal Facllltlas
and Community Parkland
As descri bed in Sectio n A, new neighborhood
parks are proposed for the south central portion
of the city, which will be a challenge to
implement since there are not significant vacant
lands available for park development.
However , this should not prevent the city from
actively pursuing any available option fo r
providing parks in these areas .
An even larger challenge will be providing
community parkland and land for recreational
facilities that require large land areas, such as
socce r, footbal l, softball and baseball fields , and
an outdoor performance venue . The needs
analysis illustrated that as the city 's population
increases , add itional facilities and community
parkland will be required if Englewood desires
to provide a similar level of service to what is
provided today . Certainly no significant pie ces
of land are available today for development of a
new community park . It is poss ible that in an
underutilized industrial area , 5 to 10 acres or
more may be found , but these lands are quickly
becoming scarce and expensive as developers
become attracted to the Santa Fe corridor area .
It may be advisable for the city to look for land
today that could be developed in th~ future as a
commun ity amenity , and which builds upon the
existing open space, trails, and parks
infrastructure by its proximity . Designating a
significant amount (30 or more acres) of
developable parkland adjacent to the South
Platte River would be ideal. This may require a
partnership with an adjacent community, since
Englewood has little land in th is area .
Other opportun ities the city may want to
consider pursuing , should they become
available, is the acquisition of the Western
Roofing and Meadow Gold properties that lie
adjacent to tb · > Englewood Recreation Center .
Acqu ir ng the se pro perties wou ld provide
ad ditio nal area for a playgrou nd, green space ,
and nverflow 9a rk lng near the Recreation
,.,r,,e• :,, c..')rnpleme nt existing recreati on
pr-og,aIT .:, •i''Q .
In a,.rJ;:, :',l, ii i• adv isabl e to work with South
Sub urban Par s and Recreation o ;stric! to
crbale an overall vision plan for th~ Belleview .
Cornerstone and Progress Park area . These
3 parks and Pirates Cove , which is located in
the center of them , collectively represent a very
large amount of public parkland . The
importance of this resource will only grow over
time , and a joint planning process should be
undertaken that identifies key connections and
improvem e ,ts to Belleview Avenue to reduce
its impact.
Lastly , as there has been strong support within
the community for an additional outdoor
performance venue , the city should consider
inclusion of this feature in design plans for
future parks . Not all future parklands will be
suitable for th is amenity; the refore , great care
should be taken in the public review process
that considers such concerns as parking , noise ,
and traffic .
Recommendations of Iha Master Plan September 2006 4-11
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Englewood P::rk1 and R1cr1allo n M11l1r Plan ~ --------------------------~~,
Chapter Five -
lmplementatlon
This cl,apter lists prioritization considerations ,
costs, and implementation actions that will help
to achieve the vision of the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan .
A. Project Prioritization
Considerations
While all future park, recreation , and trail
projects will compete for funding , it is helpfu l to
establish priorities for determining which ones
to focus resources on first. According to
residents and compared to other communities ,
Englewood is slightly deficient in parkland and
certain recreational facili ties . More importantly,
there are areas wi thin the City of Englewood
that are underserved by neighborhood parks .
Two other indicators related to park needs
uncovered in the community survey relate to
facilities within the parks and trail connections
to them . According to the survey , the primary
reason people in Englewood do not use parks,
or use them more frequently , is because they
lack facilities they are looking for and they feel
that the parks generally need upgrading .
Additionally , only 43 % of respondents feel that
the city's trail system provides good
connections .
All of these elements , taken together, help to
provide guidance as to which future park ,
recreation , and trail projects should have the
greatest priority . Large, high profile projects
that may generate great public support should
be balanced with those that help to provide park
function~ and amenities to currently
underserved residents . Rather than placing the
majority of funding and energy into one or two
large scale projects , smaller projects that may
be easy to implement and fund through
alternative sources should be given attention as
well.
Additionally , the plan is intended to be flex ible
and fluid, so that as opportunities for land
acquisition and park development become
avail able, the city can Immediately capitalize on
lhese opportunities without being committed to
a pre-determined project identified In a concrete
prioritization system .
The following list presents criteria that should
be carefull y considered when attempting to
prioritize projects . There should not be a
numeric weighting of these criteria , as the
importance of each varies with each situation,
available funding , need and opportunities .
Projects that address immediate issues of
public health and safety should ce rtainly take
precedence over other choices .
Project Prioritization Considerations
Health, Safety, Welfare, and Code
Comp/lance
• Does the project involve upgrades that will
bring a park into compliance-with codes ,
and ensure the health , safet y, and welfare
of pa~, users?
E•~G of Implementation
• Does tne project capitalize on opportunities
that are easily implemented (i.e ., low cost
project with large gains , ready
implementers , available property , etc.)?
Economy of Scale
• Does implementing several projects or
portions of projects simultaneously save
money or time (e .g., bulk purchase of
materials, more efficient project
management , etc.)?
Corimunlty Significance
• Does the project provide benefits to a large
number of people within the community?
• Does the project contribute to a larger city
vision and community goals?
Community Balance
• Does the project contribute to the balance of
needs across the community (i .e.,
neighborhoor'. p3rks, community parks,
trails , open space , underserved
neighborhoods)?
Implementation September 2006 5-1
(#. Englewood P1rk1 and R1cr11tlon ~••ttr Plan
Partnerahlp• for Fundlnfl
• Does the project leverage available
partnership opportunities for funding (i.e .,
urban drainages , GOCO, CDOW, private,
Englewood School District , adjacent cities ,
etc .)?
Sal/sf/es Ur(lflnt Need
• Doe s the project satisfy urgent park and
recreation needs within the community?
• Does the project serve underser,ed
neighborhoods?
• Does the project help to fill a recreation
facility/amenity shortage?
Completes Phaslnfl of Current Projects
• Does the project help to complete ongoing
phases of current projects that have yet to
be finished?
In the nea r term, it is recommended that the city
select a few small projects that can be easily
implemented across the community, rather than
attempting to accomplish a large scale project
irr.mediately . While progress is being made on
these projects , long-range plann ing can begin
on select larger projects that will requ ire a
grgater investment of capital and take ~ longe'.,
often multi-year, timeframe to accomplish . This
long-range planning may involve the
establishment of a perpetual fund or "land bank "
to strategically acquire parcels for park
development that may become available in the
future .
Likewise , certain projects, such as an Irrigation
system replacement , are a long-term initiative
and should be addressed immediately . The
costs assoc iated with irrigation replacement ,
however, are very high. As such , the Parks
Department should immediately begin a
comprehensive inventory of irrigati on in all
parks to determine which systems are in critical
need of replacement. A master list determining
the schedule for upgrades should be
developed , with those in greatest need of
replacement receiving attention first. In order to
help off-set the high costs associated with
irrigation upgrade and replacement, these
projects should be phased In over a period of
15 to 20 years, beginning immediately .
a. E ■tlmatecl Co ■t ■ for Park ■,
Rec:r■atlon Facllltle ■, and Trall ■
The cost for trail and park construction varies
widely , depending on the specific elements to
be included in each park , the terrain, necessary
road crossings , and other physical features that
require more extensive des ign solution s. For
the purposes of assigning an order of
magnitude of cost to the master plan
recommendations, general cost estimates have
been assigned to each project. Costs have
been assumed that are in order with the costs
EDAW has experienced In designing and
overseeing the construction of similar facilities
along the Front Range and throughout the
Rocky Mountain region .
Cost estimates were generated based on
conceptual plans that were created for select
proposed projects , therefore allowing a
budgetary range to be assigned to each project.
These conceptual plans can be found in the
appendix . Specific elements of these projects
were chosen in consultation with Englewood
Parks and Recrea tion staff and are based on
the most current park design standards
available . The cost estimates are approximate
and intended to illustrate order of magnitude,
not detail. Actual costs for land acquisition , if
needed , and development should be developed
more specifically . Costs for some olthe typical
park amenities included in the conceptual plans
are listed below to provide an understanding of
the basis for the estimates . These costs are in
2005 dollars and re ,t be escalated yearly to
compensate for inflation .
5-2 September 2006 Chapter Five
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .,,
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Englewood P1rk1 and "•cr11llon M11t1r Plan
__________ ;....; ____ .;.;.;;.;;...;;.;.~.;..;..;.;,.;;... _____ ~{,
Deciduous
act Item Coats
50 ,000 each
$250 ,000 each
$80,000 each
$150 ,000 each
$35 ,000 each
$180 ,000 each
$80 ,000 each
Other items specific to certain projects were not
listed above but include : demolition , utility
relocation , entry plazas, signs, historical
restorations , drainage channel naturalizations ,
crossing enhancements , ballfield construction
and design , engineering, and contingency fees .
It should also be noted that additional staff •
resources, and maintenance will be needed as
more parks and facilities are added to lhP
system within l:nglewood. These costs 1uld
be accounted for and included into oven, ..
budgets for any new projects .
Table 5.2. summarizes initial projects proposed
in this plan for inclusion in the City 's Park and
Recre~tion system and provides estimated
costs ~.1sociated with each project . Costs are
estimated in 2005 dollars and will need lo be
adjusted relative lo infl ation as lime progresses .
They are listed in the order they appear on the
Master Plan Map and as described in Chapter
Four.
If implemented in its entirely . all recommended
projects within this plan would cost a minimum
of $23 .30 million and up to a maximum of
S30 .35 million. Currently, for park and
recreation projects the City of Englewood
receives approximately $300,000 per year from
the Conservation Trust Fund and approximately
an additional $600,000 per year fre;rn the
Arapahoe County Open Space Fund . If these
funding streams were to continue al the same
rate over the ne~1 15 years (the anticipated life
of this plan), total ava ii able revenue for future
projects would be approximately $13 .5 million .
This amount would only be capable of funding
roughly one-third to one-half of all proposed
projects , and would leave a potential budget
shortfall of between $9 .80 million and $16.85
million . Therefore, ii is recommended that the
City of Englewood immediately begin to pursue
additional funding mechanisms for development
of future park and recreation projects .
C. lmplamantatlon Actions
The following are specific actions lhal should be
considered by the Englewood Parks and
Recreation staff that may assist in the
implementation of the proposed projects . The
actions are organized into planning, upgrades
and maintenance, administrative and
management. and funding categories . and are
not listed in order of priority .
Planning Actions
• Work with the Community Development
Department and developers in the
acquisition of parkland associated,..,;::, any
new residential development. Identify
specific parcels that are key to
neighborhood park development in
underserved areas .
• Develop master plans and construction
documents for Belleview . Cushing , and
Centennial Parks and Miller Field . Include
management plans as part of master plans .
• Conduct planning processes and prepare
design documents fvr neighborhood park
upgrades. Include management plans as
part of master plans .
• Work with the Public Works Department to
upgrade pedestrian and bicycle connectivity
in neighborhoods .
lmplemenlalion September 2006 5-3
*• Englewood P1rk1 1nd R1cr11tlon M11t1r Pl1n ~~~-------------------------
UpgradH and Maintenance Actions
• Rehabilitate or replace existing
playgrounds, restrooms and other park
facilities , including bringing existing facilities
up to ADA standards .
• Begin phased replacement of irrigation
systems in all parks .
• Implement an aggressive invasive species
control program .
• Establish maintenance standards for the
various types of parks , open spa ce , and
conservation lands .
• Evaluate existing parks for additic ,.~I
needed upgrades .
Administrative and Management Ac[,>ns
• Prepare an annual report card on progress
toward achieving the Parks and Recreation
Plan and 2004 Master Bicycle Plan .
• Coordinate with Department of Public
Works and Community Development
Department to ensure critical connections
and elements of the 2004 Mastf,r Bicycle
Plan are implemented .
• Regularly update the parklands inventory
and maps to reflect existing conditions.
• Establish clear mechanisms for
interdepartmental and interagency
coordination on planning and design issues
and to ensure consistency with the Parks
and Recreation Master Pl3n .
Funding Actions
• Actively pursue granting and funding
opportunities to serve underserved
neighbcrhoods with parks .
• Explore the level of community support for
additional funding sources such as property
or sales taxes , and deve!Joment impact
fees .
• Continue to pursue agreem ,ts with the
EnglewoGd School District tv share use of
public lands and recreational resources .
September 2006 Chapter Five
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Englewood P1rk1 ind "•cr11tlon M1111r Plan
Tablo 5.2 Propoaed Project Summary and Budgetary Coats
Bates Station
Park
Little Dry
Creek Plaza
Vicinity
Oxford Parcel
Parle in
Sherman &
NasssuA,ea
Park in
Sharman &
Princeton
Area
Parl<ln
Sharman and
Stanford Ams
Cushing Parle
M/1/erF/old
Hosanna
Afh/otlc
Center
Comple,
Confonn/of
Perle
8ellelli&w
Parle
llalcwPJrle
Implementation
Bates
Station
RTD Light
Rail area
Little Dry
Creek
Englewood
Mun icipal
Golf
Course
Sherman
St.11nd
Nassau
Ave .
Sherman
St. and
Princeton
Ave .
Sherman
St. and
Stanford
Ave .
Cush ing
Park
Miller Field
Hosanna
Athletic
Center
Centennial
Park
Nelghborllood
Nelghborllood
Pocket
Ne lghborllood
Ne lgoborllood
N•lghborllood
Commun ity
Nelghborllood
Ne lghborllood
Community
Community
Baker Pork Neighborllood
Sto
10
acres
3 lo 5
acres
acres
1 toS
acres
1 lo 5
acres
1105
acres
11
acres
acres
3 to 5
acres
37
Betel
36
acres
1 acre
SOio
$2,000 .000 .
depend ing
upon
devoloper
res nsibllitles
$750 ,000
S5"':1 ,:~to
$650 ,000
$1 ,500 ,000 to
$2 ,000 ,000
$1 ,500 ,000 to
$2 ,000 ,000
S1 ,500 .00Q to
$2,000 ,000
$1,500 ,000 lo
$2 ,000 ,000
$1 ,400 ,000 lo
$1,800 ,000
$100,000 to
$250,000
$2 ,000,000 lo
$3 ,000,000
S2,000,000 to
$3,000,000
S300 ,000 to
$400,000
September 2006
Construct nelghborllood park In
conjunction with Bates Station
development . Connect to future off•
street trail system .
Work with area landowners to
provide neighborhood paridand in
conjunction wtth Little Ory Creek
Plaza for future high clens lty
residential developments . Improve
street frontage and bike and
pedestrian connections throughout
:srea .
Develop a pocket park In
conjunction with golf course .
Should include playground and
150+ rson rental lcnlc shelter .
Acqu'.re strateg ic parcels thel may
come available and develop
neighborhood park amenities .
Acquire strateg ic parcels that may
come available and develop
ne ighborhood park amen ities .
Acqu ire strateg ic parcels that may
come available and develop
neighborhood park amenities .
Redes ign and upd2 te core area of
park , includ ing new tr.ate park ,
shelters and restro .>m~ .
Redesign park to provide
neighborhood park amenities and
Im rove athletic functions .
Expansion and modification of
existing facility to provide
ne ighborhood amenities and
Improved access by community.
Coordinated with ESD Master
Planning process and Integrate
with Little D Creek .
Red111£n west side of park encl
enhance lake shoreline and
amen ities .
Upgrade and enhance various
alamenla of park, Including new
west acceM, maintenance facility ,
1nd u a of farm 1nd train aru.
Work with ESD to Improve function
of pork/lChool ftetd IIN Ind
upgrade nelghborllood park
amenltiea .
5-5
.,_. E n 8 I I W O O d P I f k I I n d Pl I C r I I I I O n M I I I I f P I I n ~ ... ~-------------------------
Dopol Parle Pocket
Bates -Logan Nelghbomood Upgrade and enha nce va ri ou s
Parle acres eleme nts of park .
Ba rde Parle Ne ighborhood $300 ,000 lo
acres $400 000
Romans Parle Romans Nelghbomood 4.5 $500 ,000 lo
Park acres $700 000
Jason Parle Jason Ne ighborhood 8 $150,000 lo Upgrade and enhance vari ous
Park acres $200 000 elements of rk .
Rotolo Parle Rotolo Neighborhood 3 $27 5,000 lo Upgrade and enhance various
Park acres $350 000 elements of ark .
Southwest Southwest Nat ura l Area 5.5 $150,00lllo Return portions to native
Groonboll Greenbelt i1Cf8S S200 000 landsca In .
Duncan Part< Duncan Neighbomood 4 $225 ,000 to Upgrade and enhance various
Park acres $300 ,000 elements of ark .
Sincla ir E,cplore feasibility of adding
Sfnclslr Middle School 1 acre $2 00,000 lo ne ighborhood park amen ities . Work
Middle School School $250,000 with ESD during Distri ct Master
Plann ln rocess .
NW
Greenbelt ,
Bates Allow Complete key connect ions to
Off-Stree t Sta ti on , S1 ,000.000 -current off-street and proposed on-
Trail Rotol o Off-street tra il s coord inate with street tra il network to provide for an
Connectors· Pa rk , mlles ongoing street Integrated system througho ut the
Belleview and crosswalk city. En hance crosswalks , on-
Park , repa irs . street lane markers , etc.
Progress
Park
Irrigation Upgrade irrigation syste ms in ~•lit
System All Perks System -wide 146 $6,400,000 ~arks over a pe riod ot 15 to 20
ac res years . Controllers will not need to Upgreclos be u ra ded .
5-6 September 2006 Chapter Five
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Appendix A
Comparative Level of Service Table
• • • • • • • • • • ii I !--i .. . ! ' I • i : .. , ! ...... ! .., ~: -' ! uu • • = • e . ~ ' I • g . r . . ; • • .,s II ! • f . ~ • ! = . ! I 5 I • • . ~ -• -
• • ill 1, ;• .. ~ ! •• ! . ~ .. .. ~ c,:"!! ! .. ' ! · -~ . . ; ; • • ,s ~ ' g ··• ~ 1 •• I sf .',.,: --ii : : 5 ,.,,.,.,,
.; . -
• • • • I • • ]
• l • j • ! • JI • ~
1
..
'fa lt .,:-: 3 . -·' t • a ,, ~ •• ! ...~;: I • "I' ! · • I . . -,B ;
'Jf I I
f .. ;;; ! l ; ii • I •· . ' ll , • , L ~ ,,, : E •• 5
i . ., ~ j !
HI II ! I . ~ I • ! ' ii " • ! •. r ... ~ ---= I ' ~ l ! , • I < s • .... ! !· -·1 " ... . , .. ' E . ;; . .. g . .
:1 fl ' ' , ...... g ~ ' ii -~ . . ~ "" . ! ... • •-r , ,. . i . 6 ! l • §
E • E
8 • z ! • di • ·~
JI • • • • 5 • ~ ~
~ ! • 1 • • I • • r u •
,1 1; ' § "".,: 5 !? ii ' ! . , .. ~ , • ' I •·· 9· . ~ , ..
1 l
' H ? ;:, i ! . • ' ! • ! ' ,. ! ••• ! ., .. , .. • I ...
i •
!
Bl ~ ~ ; I ! ! ~ •. ' ! --·t Ii .,,r ~ ' C . ' ~ •·: .
j "
f !1 '!'!';; ! ,: ~ . ~ • , .• ! • ,. ! i"'' i • . i . .
• 6 .
I ,ii J I! : I
! ti
I! j Ii Ii l Ii I ~ i1l J 1~ J J I ~ ~i HI I 11 ,1H l f I 1 11~1 fl I 1~1 1!11 II j 1~li ' i · ·11 h ! Hl1 w ; '--l~! i L WI " • • •
11 I • --. ! . . I UH l . I . I 'la I I ! 0. . I • !
,fl ! •• -. " ! .. i
~s
BJ ! •• . -. ! •• I
lJa i .• . .. I •• i
u ! · I " -. ! "" !
rl i · I --! •• i
u ! • I --• ! --;
h • -11 . --! --!
,) l --.. l • • !
u I -11 ... l "" !
•I l -11 . . . l • • j ,.
(1 ' i . :·,· .. I . ·I ;:
i:• '! I! 11!
~ t I 1,1'
I.,
. I I .___ 1
-" ~ • = ~ I i !II I ~ I ! ~ : I = " ! ~; l -• = > = ·~ h I ~ = . ! ~ . iF r.
• •
; l l l l , ' i HI
! : ~ • ~ ~ ' li ~; I • ! I ...
; ~ ~ ~ I ii § I I .. j ! I '
! :: ~ ; ~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ ; •
• " , • = : ll • f " ; ••
< " . • ~ : i=j ; ~a I . -
'-
• . . ! ~ ~ • ;1i l •
C §1: i ; : = • § -. . • ! :
•
i i ~ i i i = H j( ~ I ~ : • ;;
' " . ~ ~ ~ t; ! ;11 • •
I E h I 'd 11 11 I l ! t· !It
1111 1111 11 u-1111 +
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Appendix a
Park Concept Plans
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
GENERAL NOTES
• Ur9,r1rit' Dla~g1011nd nnd r, s1ronn1 iac,/11 1
' NP,\ ri-/ll #rel/f.'f
• Enh.wrt ·,1nd1J cap,
• lmp,o,f' ,fl•SftiJ~/ 1,, •11rections
• E,11,i1 ,1t ,. :omrec r1011 to Lman St
• NP,\• -~tl',
LEGEND 0 Existing Tree
0 Proposed Tree
~ ConCt9te Walk
Graw,tl'mtk
Proposed Picnic Shetter
Proposed Restmom
Existing Restroom
"" Proposed Sign
M,1111 1,,m fi o.1 st1ny ~ric t ''
fi eld and T h,1,"/
I~ ' ,,--7 I I -• "'!.'!!~ ~
1\ __ q,,,11 Hrom1e te1v,11k t
~----4
QUINCY AW,
I
I
City of Englewood ~~ JHon Park
Colorado ~ ~1----C-o_n_c-ep_t_u_a_l _P_la-n
Uµgrnde ex1st111g restroom
New s1g11
~ i1...r"L......J
0 50' fOO' 200'
Aprl/2006 -
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
GENERAL NOTES
• Upgrad r stroom fac1/1t}
• Ne,v p,cmc s/Jelte, and platgrou11d
• Enl1ance 1,111dscapmg
• Natural arna m passive s,cle of parf,
• lmorove 011-s1ree 1 t1ml ron11ec1tons
• Ne,·. s1911s
LEGEND
0 Existing T""•
0 Proposed Tree
~ ConC18le Welk -.... \ Gravel Welk
I
I Proposed Picnic Shelter
Qil Proposed Restroom
Q Existing Restroom ... Proposed Sign
l (
IIATl!IAVI!,
Ex,stm g socce gonls ~
New 8 co11cre te LV
Ex 1s tmg basketbal
Ne~\ 8 cnnr:,e te
New trees and median
City of Englewood
Co!orado
New s,gn
Gravel pa /1 1 wi th
s1 /t 1ng areas
Nat,ve plan tmg,,:;
adJIIS I ,mgat,011
Bates-Logan Park
Conceptual Plan
Apri/2006 -
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Baker and Duncan
City of Englewood ~~ Parks
------------------------------------------C-o-lo_r_a_d--to ~~----C-o_n_c_ep_t_u_a_l_P_la-n
GENERAL NOTES
,e,s:m -.-,nee
• ..,ogra(-.. ~,,oo~ fac11·e•
· ·.e.~r sne e•a11d11-.orou nd
• E,,na,· -111dstaomg
• ,.,.,pr(I,-,-st,e~· 1ra· .q,c,11s
C JVCA
• ',e,1 r sne te,r and f' 1,.:j'OUl!(I
• =11ha1: -.111dscJo,ng
"'Dft . • •1-s rree : :ra,1 •· • or1s
LEGEND
0 Existing 7189
0 Propo,ed 7189
_..-..,..Cooct918Wslk -,
\ Gravel Ws/k
I
II Propoad Picnic Shelter
a Propoad ReslrJ0/11
Q Exi!llng Re,//OOfll
.... Propoad Sign
rh•,01a,1r.n:;c:
f,, 1·,, ee.'1,--i-,i----t:➔°"
Ni::,\ i, 1mcre1e 1~a/
------
]
ColorBdo 's Finest
Altemetive High School
IIAKl!R AVI!.
Baker :P ark
Screen p1,,ntu:as
Rf'mo,·e ffl!J(:I> bt:l,h:'t'I"
properties
lmg 11 ed 111rl .. ..
'''\
I 00 b 1stm9 bas~en ,111
I CO!'II • '
I
I
"
/ :J iJttPd
New p,cmc shone,
Duncan Park
Apri/2006 -
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • •
LEGEND 0 Existing Tree
Q ProposedTree
----. Cana.le W&fk -.....
} Gra'91W8/k
II l',opooed Pic11io Shelter
a P,opooedReslroom
Q f JistJng Restroom
P,opooedSign
Remove e,1s 1mg hm111s
co11rts creme pmk a,ea
Barda Park
Elemen/ary Schoof
City of Englewood
Colorado
Rotolo Park
~r-■-a_r_d"""'.a:-a_n_d_R!o'._!t~o.!!l~o ~~ Parks
Conceptual Plan
Ne\\ 8. CO/IC( t wa lk
ADA accessible
-Low1a1/fe11ce for ·o•
velucula1 comrol
aloog str, e, +
frontagf' · .
Ex,srmg dram atJe ~
ch,1m1el -\
Ei,s111;; backstop
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
City of Englewood ~~ Cuahlng Park -------------------------------------------=c=-071o_r_a-;d7o ~ ~1----C-o_n_c_e_p_tu_a_l _P_la-n
GENERAL NOTES
, Re es1g,1 el'1,re cortt ,1rt1a ,•e 1•, p,cmc st1e/leu,
la11dsca p111g p/a)gro1mcl pedestnan /1gt11mg rt:s /,ooms
and basketball COW'f
, P,omoti=i and euhanc,ei /J•e h1stonc cflara c/er of /hp park
,, t' :,/one p0nd edfJt' and amph,theate, steµsl
, E111,,11 cP parcel to thf' iiOut/1 of the pa•/mlg /01 w1/h
l,1t1rhr(lt)11tg
• lmpro,,,J off.:-uef<f l'li1 O"·sr1t1H trail connec11011s
LEGEND
0 Eristing riff
0 Proposed Tiff
~ Concn,le Walk -,
\ Gra'81Walk
I
II Proposed Picnic Sheller
a Proposed Restroom
Q Eristing Restroom
.... Proposed Sign
v1s1b1/Jty and
la11m,capmg ar la~e
Marked cross walk
for RTD access
Mar~':"d cross 1•,a l~
fc r RTO .,m~~s
Landscape parce l r---;~-t--
wl shmb beds -..... -. ........ .__.~
DARTMOUTH AVE.
(
Aprl/2006 -
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
________________________________ ..:C:...:.i..:.t!...y_:o:.f:.....:E:..:..n:...:g~l:.:e::..:w:.:..:o..:o:..:d:_a~~t--c-•_n_t_•_n_n_1_a_1_P_•_r_k
Colorado ~ r Conceptual Plan
N w IJW:,kt.•tba /1
~ IL/{/
N~11 i;trPe l /lee's
iJll(/!,/(IVL'J.ilk
LEGEND 0 Existing Troe
0 Propose<!Troe
----. Cona9te Walk -,
' Gra,o/Wa/k
I
New ,slamls :111cl fl ees 111
~XIS(/llg pa,kmg lo t
New p,cmc shelter
News1gn
fl Propos td Picnic Shelter
a Proposed Restroom
Q Existing Restroom ... Proposed Sign
Re co,1s tn1c t pa,kmg to t Ser n pl;111 tmq
···-v-"•
-Nr>\1 t,,orn,,rtge
.
E11!1m1 ce 1s/,111d frH cluck
COI/IJ0/,1/l(S ,11!(/ /Ji,.,,on
f1r1h1 trlf
Adel be nches to e:,,os tmg pier . ADA
access,~le
nn
GENERAL NOTES
• Recles1gn park area ad1acent to ,•(!f'h t, 111£,rr:1
• Ne~~ picnic slleNr~ restrooma,u pl~~um1111 I
• Pro11de accQs!i fll lil~t> edge
• lmprc,, off.:;t1tii)! aPcl 011-stret't rr.1· ·o,mtt, · ~, :,
• Entumce landsuo,na am1 add ~r,r--t1t / t•e:;
~ ri...ri____J
o· 100 · 200 · 400'
Aprl/2006 -
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Belleview Park
c it y of E n 9 I e w
O O
d ~ ~l----:C::-::
0
-:n:-,e::p::t-;:u:ia IIIP'llaa n n ---------,c:::::;;::==-:---------------------_::_:.:_;c_:c.c._~(c~o;;lo~r;addoo~ r
E:t1\(lflg l)ilfklff'J IC /
Po,1-tl·l)C'tl}' -
,111(/llf'I\ 1)1(:l!IC
:.-,llt1ll1 11
Ne1, arcess cfr,ve and --r-""'"-..,-/
pt11k1119 IO I V. po rta-a
f \Jtty enclos11re near
wm around
50 11111 M 1IJ111ba11
parking lot
LEGEND 0 Existing Tree
0 Proposed Tree
-._.,. Concrete Walk
Gre'8/m.Jk
Proposed Prcnic She/ter
Proposed Restroom
Existing Reatroom
Proposed Sign
I z
i
~ -....
Dog Pa,,
5<;/Vf. ,ec1PdflO
',
,st,ng l)ICfl/C
//p/fi'I
Corner ltone Park
',
' ' I
I
N w ma111/euaflce lJ111ldmg 111
..----~ e x,stmg p arking lot
Replac~ ~\1s1mg 11,11k c:;he/fe,
L ow W t1/(1r Cf()SSlflfJ
Pirate's c-
Ne w p,crn c sllel
Mamtam tra m ancl e11/arg e
ticke t booth for vendmg and
fa rm train ve1111es E11l,a11ce
whole area
Exist,ng parking to t
NLUVIIW
GENERAL NOTES
I the \\eSI side of the par ... , /mpro-ve acces O rea/e a lmbit.11 garrlP•'
, Enl1,1nce the na/1/fal areas ,:a~" tl1 east side ,11:1\
, Redesign 1t1e ac11 11e oark R d pgrade ,est,oom ntm
p1c111c stie// rs and pla ygrorm II
Ms~e/ball coim a,,d new l;mdsc~~,.:~d \t:t1cl1ng fai:J,111;'i
. Rt.1,iovme the r,,1m depot plaza a, I d "9 J i ... atc:r q1,.1l;t:,
, bt\!lnd and ,mpru1·e the fc1rm me u '
pond d 011 'I/fl?/ Ira COl!f't"(IIOl!S • tmp•cwe off-stree/ ar1 . .,
Upgrade ex,s r,ng ,es r,oo rn
~~-•• O' 100' 200
Aprl/2006 -
·-,ti • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
_____________________________ __:C:_:i..:.t~y_:o:.:f_:_E.:.:.n~g:.:.l .:.e.:.:w..:o:.:o:.:d::...a~~-----M-11_1•.-'-F_l•_l_d
Colorado ~ r Concep t ual Plan
GENERAL NOTES
• 'lt:dtt.s ign the e,mre p.1fk mclod nQ d m01,1101· of /hu
i:'t/S/lllg b1111(1it1g
• Dt1,1g11 billrfelds 10 c1,,ram smndard~
• : (plOtt:' sna•~d par~mg opport1111,r1es 1\ 1th ad1acen1
r:roperl-u 5
· rmpro1 -on-stre P/ rm·/ corm r11a ,1 s
• To/,1/ 011.5/rP .. / p,1r~111g caoac,ty 15 HO s11ares
LEGEND 0 E,istingTIB& o~r ...
---.._. ConclBte WIik -,
\ GIBWIIWBlk
I
I) Propo,e<I Picnic Slle!ler
a Propo,e<I RNtroom
Q fmt/ng ROJlrnom
Propo,ed Sign
ITHACAAVE,
+
Nm\ turf amt ,r,r9,11,011
Relocate and r store l11s1onc s,go
Aprl/2006 -
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
_______________________________ C_i t..:.y_o_f_E_n_g~I e_w_o_o_d--1~ ~1----R_o_m_•_n_•_P_•_r_k
Colorado ~ r Conceptual Plan
LEGEND 0 Existing r,..
0 Pmposed Tl86
Gral'lli Walk
Proposed Picnic Sheller
Proposed Rt,t,oom
ExiatingRo!lroom
Proposed Sign
Qr,srmg benclles
GENERAL NOTES
• New p1cmc SMJl/ers ,111rt playgrounds
· Upgrade re5/foo m
· Enhance landscapmg to prov,cle screernng alone, rtie sour/!
side
• Promote the urnq11e ar1nbu1es of the: µark m pamclifar 1/le
mushrooms
• Improve on•s /lee , trail connec,,ons
Apr/12006 -