HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 Resolution No. 085•
•
RESOLUTION NO. £3<:;
SERIES OF 2006 --
CONTRACT NO. 'n-~oa/o
E~i,',1,',-rlJo.'; .:a.-••
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ';HE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION
MASTER PLAN AS AN ADDENDUM TO ROADMAP ENGLEWOOD: 2003 ENGLEWOOD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WHEREAS, in 2003 Arapahoe County passed an Open Space Tax; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood City Council approved funding in the 2005 Open Space Fund
Budget for an Englewood Parks Master Plan ; and
WHEREAS. the Parks Master Plan will help guide the Englewood Parks and Recreation
Department in the future use of open space land acquisitions, infrastructure, maintenance and
capital improvements in the City of Englewood; and
WHEREAS , the Englewood Parks and Recreation Commission recommended approval of the
Englewood Parks And Recreation Master Plan at its meeting of June 8, 2006 ; and
WHEREAS , 1hr. EnglewO<' I Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the
Eng lewood Parks And Recreation Master Plan at its meeting of November 7, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Parks And Recreation M.-s ter Plan has incorporated prior a,
relevant plans into this plan, including the Bicycle Master Plan, 2003 Comprehensive Plan, South
Plalle River Open Space Plan and the Recreation Demand and Facilities Analysis ;
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
:::NGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT .
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood , Colorado hereby adopts the
Englewood Pa ,ks and Recreation Master Plan as an addendum to Roadmap Englewood: 2003
Englewood Comprehensive Plan., allached hereto as Exhibit A
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 4th of December, 2006.
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk for the City of Englewood, o
above is a true copy of Resolution No . 8'i_, Series of 2006.
•
•
•
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date: Agenda Item: Subject:
December 4, 2006 11 c I Adoption of the 2006 Parks & Recreation
Master Plan
Initiated By: Staff Source:
Depar!ment of Parks and Recreation Jerrell Black, Director of Parks and Recreation
Dave Lee, Manager of Open Space
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
Council approved funding in the 2005 Open Space Fund Budget for the Parks Master Plan . Council
approved a contract for EDAW, Inc . to develop the Parks Master Plan in August 2005.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that Cour,cil adopt by resolution the 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan as a
complementary document to Englewood's 2003 Comprehensive Plan , Roadmap Englewood .
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
Arapahoe County vo ters passed an open space tax in 2003. The Parks Master Pl an will help guide
the department in th e future use of open space land acquisitions, infra stru cture maintenan ~e and
capital improvements.
The Parks Master Plan was developed over the period of one year. Co mmunity input was received
thrcu gh community meetings , focus groups, specific user group interviews, community survey,
Malley Center Advisory groups and a public hearing through Planning and Zoning.
Input was also gathered from City Council , Parks & Recr ea tion Commission, Cultural Arts
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
In addition, prior and relevant plans were incorporated into this plan , including the Bicycle Master
Plan, 2003 Comprehensive Plan , South Platte River Open Spa ce Plan and the Recreation Demand
and Faciliti es Analysis .
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Implementation of the Master Plan will use various funding sources. These funding sources could
include but are not limited to, Arapahoe County Open Space funds, Conservation Tri,st Fund, Great
Outdoors Colorado, Scientific and Cultural Facilities Distric~ local, state, and federal grants,
partnerships, bc,ding, etc.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Community D'?velopment Staff Report
Planning and Zoning Findings of Fact
Proposed Resolution
•
•
•
•
•
•
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE :
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Zoning Commission
Robert Simpson, Community Development Director
Harold J. Stitt, Community Development Managet±:f'
Dave Lee, Manager of Open Space
November 7, 2006
Englewood Parks and Recreation Master Plan
PREVIOUS BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTION:
The Englewood Parks and Recreation Master Plan was re viewed and approved by the
Englewood Parks and Recreation Commission on June 8, 2006. The Englewood r ·1y
Council has also reviewed the draft Plan at two Study Sessions. Review and comments on
the Plan were received and incorporated into the Plan from the Englewood r .noe l Distri ct,
the Englewood Youth Sports Association, and the Englewood Soccer Association. Park and
Recrea·.011 Staff and the Parks Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee con ducted
multiple interviews with frequent park user groups, and held two pu blic open hous es to
solicit additional community input.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Englewood Parks
and Recreation Master Plan and fo r vard the Plan on to City Council with a
recommendation for adoption.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of the Plan
The Par ks and Recreation Master Plan for the City of Englewood wai developed to help
define the 15 to 20 year visi ,,n for the community in relation to Parks and Recreation.
Specifically, the plan also strives to accomplish the following objectives:
• Develop a detailed inventory of all parklands in the city and quantify the le ve l of
service for existing and future residents;
• Assess the current condition of the city's parks, trails, and recreation facilities;
• Identify, analyze and de!erm,ne community park and recreation needs;
• Identify existing underse :ved residential areas within the city that are in need of
additional parkland;
• Define level-of-service standards, a classification system, and general design criteria
for parks;
1000 Englew oo d Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 PHONE J0J-762-2342 FAX 303 -7 83-6895
www.d .englcwood.co.us
2
• Identify opportunities for synergies between parklands and redevelopment projects;
• Identify cost estimates for projects; and to
• Develop an action plan for Implementation.
As Englewood continues to transition and evolve as a premier suburb of the greater Denver
metropolitan area, so will the parks and recreation needs of the city. Easy and equitable
access to parks and recreation facilities is an expected and attractive element of any
community. A public and green in,'rastructure enhances community livability and
desirability. And parks, trails, natural areas, and open spaces improve environmental health
by providing cleaner air and water and preservation of a critical urban wildlife habitat.
Quality parks, recreation, and cultural opportunities also improve physical and mental
health, create opportunities to develop and enhance the community, add to civic pride, and
provide positive opportunities for 'JSe of leisure time. Parks serve all citizens, regardless of
demographics or diversity. Parki also provide for business, tourism , art, a·1d cultural
interests and needs. Additionally, parks reflect local culture, heritage, and values.
An Involved and Public Parks Planning Process
The Englewood Park and Recreation Master Planning Process, beo i n August, 2005, has
been an involved and opt,n public process each step along th The va rious steps of
the planning process that were followed includ ed an invento,, and needs assessment
analysis, development of a broad vis ion for the park system, and specific proj ect
identification with associated potential costs and implementation priorities . More specific
elements of tliis open public process consisted of:
• Regular work sessions witli the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), w hich was
composed of City Staff members from tlie Parks and Recreation Department,
Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and r:ity
Manager's office, and the plan consultants;
• Multiple interviews w ith frequent park user groups, athletic organizations, and other
community groups;
• Two public open houses to solicit community input about the process and fi •1al plan;
and
• A comprehensive community survey, conducted in October 2005, to gaug~
co mmunity-wide perceptions and needs for the parks and recreation sy stem within
Englewood.
Inventory of Parklands, Open Space, Trails, and Recreation Facilities
•
•
An important component of this plan is to identify, label, and map all parklands and
recreational facilities owned and managed by the city in order to update and refine
previous city park inventories. This inventory process included conducting site visits and the
collection of a detailed park and recreation facility and amenity inventory. All data collected
as part of this inventory was then analyzed and compared to peer cities along the Front
Range . An analysis of the Colorado SCORP (State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan), and other recreation related national trends and st.tistics was also conducted. In •
• addition, prior and relevant plans were incorporated into this plan, including the 2004 City
of Englewood Bicyc:0 Master Plan, Roadmap Englewood: 2003 Englewood Comprehensive
Plan, 2003 South Platte River Open Space Plan, and 1997 Englewood Recreation Demand
and Facilities Analysis. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Is intended to complement
and build upon the guidance and principles previously defined in these other plans.
ANALYSIS
Community Needs
The plan specifically identifies areas of the city in need of additional parklands, open space,
trails and trail connections, and recreation facilities, based on a standard level of service and
service radius. Level of Service (LOS) is defined as based on population and geography.
Ideally, each citizen should be within one-half mi le of a neighborhood park and 1.5 miles of
a community park. A critical component of this plan is the identification of potential
residential growth and development areas, and ensuring there are adequate neighborhood
parks to serve them in the future. Neighborhood parks are the backbone of the
community, while community parks are invaluable, citywide resources. The plan further
defines the need for access, sizes, and amenities important to achieving desirable results
from parks.
The extensive study, public involvement, and inventory process described above have
identified several needs w ithin the community. Some of these needs a, e listed below and
include:
• • Ac~uisition and development of parkland to:
•
o Meet standard levels of service;
o Provide parkland to underserv ed areas of the city;
• The upgrade and addition of certain facilities and amenities ir : various parks;
• New trails and trail connections;
• Additional natural areas and open space;
• Specialized recreation and leisure fa cilities .
Plan Recommendations
Recommendations of the plan were formulated to address specific needs that arose from
the planning process. These recommendations take shape in the following six essential
forms:
• New parkland and amenities;
• Major park redesigns;
• Facility additions and enhancements;
• Street crossing enhancements;
• New off-street trails; and
• Key new on-street trail connections.
A detailed Master Plan Map was then created depicting the location and extent of
proposed projects. Specific recommendations of the plan Include:
4
• The establishment of six new parklands throughout the city to meet current and •
future needs;
• Major redesigns of certain parks that Include Cushing Park, Miller Field, Hosanna
Athletic Complex, Centennial Park, and Belleview Park;
• Facility additions and enhancements for Baker Park, the Northwest Greenbelt,
Depot Park, Bates-Logan Park, Barde Park, Romans Park, Jason Park, Rotolo Park,
the Southwest Greenbelt, Duncan Park, and Sinclair Middle School;
• Numerous street crossing enhancements, additional off-street trails, and the
establishment of on -street trail connections throughoui the city;
• Phasing in a comprehensive irrigation system upgrade for all parks.
Action, Prioritization, and Implementation
As with any plan, the effectiveness and success will be measured by the community's ability
and willingness to implement the plan. This plan provides recommendations and directs
actions for the near and more distant future. However, this plan also offers specific
considerations to :-, Ip prioritize which projects should be implemented first. These priority
considerations are
• Health, Safety, Welfare, an d Code Compliance
• Ease of implementation
• Econom y of Scale
• Community Significan ce
• Community Balance
• Partn erships for Funding
• Satisfies Urgent Need
• Completes Phasing of Current Projects
The plan is intended to be flexible and fluid, so that as opportunities for land acquisition
and park deve lopment become available, the city can immediately capitalize on these
opportunities without being committed to a pre-determined project identified in a concrete
prioritization system.
While all projects described are important to the continued success of the parks and
recreation system, it is not possible to accomplish them all immediately. As such, it is
recommended that the city select a few small projects that can be easily implemented
across the communi:y in the short-term including:
• Upgrades to playground equipment, shelter additions, and signage replacements .
• Completion of key trail connections and crossing enhancements.
• Capitalize on any opportunities to acquire additional parkland.
• Immediately begin phasing of irrigation system replacement.
Rather than immediately focusing on one or two financially inte~sive projects, smaller
projects that may be easy to implement and funr through alternative sources could be
•
accomplished. While progress is being made on these projects, long-range planning can •
begin for other large projects. Large, high profile projectt that may generate significant
•
•
•
public support should be balanced with those that help to provide park functions and
amenities to currently underserved residents. Recommendations for this long-ra nge
planning in clude:
• Identification of large scale projects and associated actions to include:
o Prioritization
o Site selection
o Site specific master planning;
• identification of potential funding scenarios;
• Estdblishment of a perpetual fund or "land bank " to acquire strat eg ic parcels for
future use.
Project Costs
It is important to recognize the overall high costs associated with park and recreation
development, redesigns, enhancements and most impertantly, land acquisition. Even small,
see"lingly inexp ensive items cost a great deal. For examµle, it is estimated that a
nei ghborhood scale playground for a park will cost a minin•um of approximately $80,000
while a community scale playground will cost a minimum oi approximately $150,000.
Keepi ng this in mind, the overall estimated potential cost of ;,II recommended projects in
this plan totals between $23 .3 million to $30.35 million. The c•J rrent funding stream fo r
ne w park projects is approximately $900,000 per year. If this revenue were compounded
over 15 years (the anticipated life of the pl~n), the tot al would eq ual $13.5 million. This
would result in an overall budget shortfall of between $9.8 million and $16.85 million.
Therefore, it is recommended that the City of Englewood imm ed iately begin to pursue
a~Jitional funding mechanisms for future development of park and recreation projects.
Conformance with 2003 Comprehensive Plan
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is a complementary document to Englewood's 2003
Comprehensive Plan , Roadmap Englewood . In particular the Parks and Open Space
element of the Comprehen sive Plan states:
The City of Englewood recognizes the need to continually monitor and assess the
City's relative success in providing an optimum leve l of re creational park facilities
and services to its citizens. The demand for types of services changes over time
with ·: ,e tastes and interests of the general public. New parks and recreational
facilities should be designed with fiexibility in mind, in order to more easily adapt
th em to new uses that are in demand in the future. Additionally, the City should
pursue a wid~r variety of park classifications for the community's park and open
space system.
Parks, oi:,en space, and recreation planning must become more fully integrated with
all aspect.; of future city plans . The City of Englewood recognizes the opportunities
for both ~•roject and park system enhancement derived from the early consideration,
evaluatior:, and incorporation of parks and recreational facilities Into future
development plans. A conscious effort must be made to evaluate development
plans for housing, transportation, utilities, environmental remediation, economic
development, and cultural facilities in terms of enhancing the overall park system .
The goals of the Comprehensive Plan Parks and Open Space element a,e:
Goal 1 Provide sufficient parks and recreation facilities to serve the needs of
Englewood citizens.
Goal 2 Provide recreational opportunities that are consistent with Englewood's role
in regional park and open space preservation .
Goal 3 Develop a full range of programs for the preservation of open spa ce and
park development.
Goal 4 Preserve, utilize, and improve the South Platte River corridor.
Goal 5 Provide a balanced and connected system of open lands, natural areas ,
recreation facilities, parks, trails, and greenbelts.
Goal 6 Integ rate planning for parks and open space in the land use, housing,
transportation, environmental, economic and cultural plans for the city.
The proposed Parks and Recreation Master Plan is cons istent with the City's 2003
6
•
Comprehensive Plan and provides the specific actions necessary to accomplish the goals of •
the Parks and Open Space element of the Compre hensive Plan. When adopted by City
Council, the Englewood Parks and Recreation Master Plan becomes the implementation
document for future parks, trails, and recre1 • 1 development.
ATTACHMENTS
Compact Disk :
CompPlan_Sec 6.pdf
Parks Master Plan.pd(
•
•
•
•
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
I~! THE MATTER OF CASE #2006-06,
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING
TO THE ENGLEWOOD PARKS
AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
INITIATED BY:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
100/l ENGLEWOOD PARKWAY
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110
FINDINGS OF FACT ANO
CONCLUSIONS OF THE
CITY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
Commission Members Present: Hunt, Roth, Welker, Knoth, Brick
Commission Members Absent: Bleile, Diekmeier, Mosteller, Krieger
Th is matter was heard before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on November 7,
2006 in the City Council Chambers of th e Englewood Civic Center .
Testimony was received from staff and from Mr. Chad Schneckenburger, Recreation
Planner with EDAW. The Commission received notice of Public Hearing and th e Staff
Report , which were incorporated into and made a part of the record of the Public H ea ring.
After reviewing the pertinent documents, the members of th e City Planning and Zoni ng
Commission made th e following Findings and Conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THAT the Public Hearing on Englewood Parks and Recr ea tion Master Plan was
brought before the Planning Commission by the Department of Community
Development, a department of the City of Englewood.
2. THAT notice of th e Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Hera ld 011
Octuoer 20, 2006.
3. That the proposed Englewood Parks and Recreation Master Plan is consistent with
the City's 2003 Comprehensive Plan and provides the specific actions necessary to
accomplish the goals of the Parks and Open Space element of the Comprehensive
Plan .
4, THAT the Englewood Parks ~nd Recrea tion Master Plan was developed to help
define the 1 5 to 20 year vision for the community in relation to Parks and
Recreation .
5. THAT the Eng le wood Park s and Recrea tion Master Plan strives to accomplish th e
following objectives:
1.
a. Deve lop a detailed inventory of all parklands in the City and quantify th e level of
service for existing an d fu ture res idents;
b . Assess th e current co nditi o n of the City's parks, trai ls and recreation facilities;
c . ldencify, anal yze and determine co mmunity park and recreation needs ;
d. Identify ex isting underserved residen ti al areas w ithin th e Ci ty that are in nee d of
additional parkland;
e. Define level-o f-serv ice standards, a classification sys tem, and gen eral design
c rit eri a fo r pa rk s;
f. Identify opportuniti es for synergies be tween park lan ds and redev elopment
projects ;
g. Identify cost es timates for projects; and to
h. D eve lop an actio n plan for impl em entati on.
CONCLUSIONS
THAT the proposed Englewood Parks and Recreatio n Master Pla n was brought
before th e Planning and Zoning Co mmi ss ion by the City of Eng lewood Department
of Community D eve lopment.
THAT proper noti ce of th e Pu bli c Hearing was given by publi cation in the
Englewood Herald on October 20, 2006 .
3. THAT whe n adopted by Cit y Council, the Engl ewood Parks and Recr eation Master
t'1an be co m es the implementati o n do cum ent for future parks trails, and recrea ti on
deve lopment.
DECISION
THEREFORE, it is th e decis io n of the City Pl an ning an d Zo ning Commission that the
Engl ewood Park s and Recreation M as ter P!dn shou ld b e refe rr ed to the City Cou nci l with a
favorable recommendati on.
The decision was reached upon a vol~ ;)11 a motion mad e at the r,eeting of the City
Pl annin g ,md Zo ning Com mi ss ion on Novembt, 7 2006, by Mr. W elker, se co nded by Mr.
Hunt, whid1 motion states :
•
•
•
•
•
•
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT :
CASE #2006-06. ENGLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN, BE
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE
RECOMMENDA T/ON FOR ADOPTION.
Knoth , Roth , Brick, Welker, Hunt
None
None
Bleile , Diekmeier, Mosteller, Krieger
These Findings and Conclusions are effe cti ve as of the meeting on November 7, 2006 .
BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Do n Roth, Ch air
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
l!nglewood P1rk1 1nd "•cr11tlon M11t1r Plan • -----------------------~~,
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Chapter One -Introduction
A. Purpose of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
B. Planning Process and Document Organ ization .......... ............ .................... ... .......... ........... 1-3
C. City of Englewood History ...................... 1-3
D. Parks and Recreation History ............................... .................... 1-5
E. Rttlationship to Previous Plans ........................... . ................ .......... 1-6
1997 Englewood Recreation Demand and Facilities Analysis .. 1-6
2003 South Platte River Open Space Plan ......................... 1-6
2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan : Roadmap Englewood ................ 1-6
2004 City of Englewood Bicycle Master Plan .................................................................. 1-7
Chapter Two -Exlatlng Park and Recreation Resources , Standards and Level of
Services
A. Park and Open Space Inventory ............................ .
Parks ................................. .
Open Space .......... .
Neighborhood Parks
Neighborhood Pocket Parl<s ........ .
Neighborhood Par1< Standards .
Neighborhood Park Level of Service ........ .
Community Parl<s ..... .
Community Sports Complexes
Community Par1< Standards .....
Community Par1< Level of Servic.,
Expenditures for Parklands ......... .
Open Space Areas ...................... .
Visual Green Spaces ............................................................. .
B. ·ails .......................................... . ...................... .
Regional Trails ......................................................................................... .
Local Trails ....................................................................................................... .
C. Existing School District and Private/Non -Profit Recreation Facilities.
Chapter Three -IHUH and Naeda Analy1l1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-3
2-9
2-9
2-9
2-13
2-15
2-15
2-16
2-16
2-16
2-21
2-21
2-22
2-22
2-23
A. Population and Demographic Characteristics........... .......................................... 3-1
B. Development Patterns ............................. .................................. ... ................. ............ .... 3-2
Denver Seminary Site ................... ...... .................. ................... ........................................ 3-2
Masonic Temple Site............. .......................................................................................... 3-2
Englewood Parkway and Sou th Acoma Street Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 3-2
US 285 and South Pennsylvania Street Site ..................................................................... 3-2
Bat&s Station LRT Site ....................................................................................................... 3-2
C. Peer Community Comparisons .............................................................................................. 3-3
D. National Recreation Participation Trends .............................................................................. 3-5
E. State of Colorado Recreation Trends and Issues .................................................................. 3-6
F. City of Englewood Community Survey................................................................................... 3-7
Table of Contents September 2006 1-1
Englewood Parka 1nd R1c,11 t lon M11t1r Plan
Methodology ........................ ..
Study Goals and Objectives ... .
Key Find ings ................................... .
Conclus ions ......................... .
Survey Areas in Eng lewocd ..
Responses by Question ...... .
Children 's Activities ............. .
Adult Activit ies .....
G. Recreational Program Participation and Needs
Baseball/Softball Programs .....
Basketball Programs.
Volleyball Programs ........ .
Soccer Programs
Football Programs ...
In-Line Hoc~ey ....
H . Ex isting and Future Recrea tion Facil ities Need s ..
I. Ex isting and Future Parkland Needs ........ .
J . Trail Needs ....
Chapter Four -Recommen dations of the Master Plan
A. Park Projects .
New Parkland and /or Amen ities ....
Major Park Redesign ...... .
Fac ility Addit ions or Enhancements ...
B . Tra il Projects and Cross ing Enhancem ents .
C . System-Wide Projects
D. Future Recreational Fac ilities and Co mmunity Parkland
Chapter Five -Implementation
A. Proje ct Prioritization C?ns iderations
Project Prioritization Considerations ....... .
8 . Estimated Costs for Parks, Recreation Facilities and Tr.:.il s
C . Implementation Actions ...................... .
Planning Actions ......... .
Upgrades and Maintenance Act ions
Administrative and Management Act ions ..
Funding Actions ..... .
Appendix A-Comparative Level of Service Table
Appendix B -Park Concept Plana
List of Tables
3-8
3-8
3-8
................................ 3-9
3-9
3-11
3-24
3-25
3-25
3-25
3-27
. ..... 3-28
3-28
3-28
3-29
3-29
3-30
3-33
4-1
4-1
4-4
4-7
4-10
4-10
4-11
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-3
5-4
5-4
5-4
Table 2.1 Park and Open Space Inventory Summary 2-3
Table 2.2 Detailed Parks and Open Space Inventory . 2-5
Table 2.3 Ne ighborhood Park Standards .............. 2-10
Table 2 .4 Existing Ne ighborhood Park Leve l of Service. 2-11
Table 2 .5 Community Park Standards ....................................................... 2-17
Table 2 .6 Existing Ccmmunity Park Level of Service ............................................................ 2-16
Table 2 .7 Open Space Standards .............................................................................................. 2-20
Table 3 .1 Englewood Age Distribution ....................................................................................... 3-2
Table 3.2 Summary of Community Compa ri sons...................... .............................. 3-4
i-2 September 200', Table of Contents
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • •
•E•n•g•l•••w-••••d-P-• •' •k ••-••••d-11-• •'•'•'•'•'•'••••-M-•••••••••-P•l••••--------'1{.,
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Table 3.12
Table 3.13
Tab le 3.14
Table 3.15
Table 3.16
Table 5.1
T~ble 5.2
Total National Participants by Activity-All Ages ........
Total Natlon~I "Frequent" Youth Part lc :pJnts
Participation by Type of C'Jutdoor Activity Among Colorado Residents ...
Name/Location of Nearest Parle ..........
Frequency of Englewood Park Usage ..
Quality of Englewood Parks .............. ..
Reasons for Englewood Park Ratings ..
Favorite Englewood Park ........
Reasons the Englewood Park is a Favorite ..
Participation in Adult Activi ties ....
Summary of Recreat ion Program Act ivity
Recreational Facility Needs ..
Neighborhood Parklan~ Needs
Community Parkland Needs ....
Typ ical Park Project Item Co i ls ..
Proposed Project Summary and Budgetary Costs ...
I.1st of Figures
Figure 3.1 Community Sc ,rvey Distribution Area s ..
Figure 3.2 Englewood Rt ·sidents Annual Park Usage ..
Figure 3.3 Englewood Residents Park Qua li ty Rating s
Figure 3.4 Favorite Englewood Park ..
Figure 3.5 Reasons an Englewood Park is the Favorite
Figure 3.6 Favorite Park Outside of Engl ewood
Figure 3.7 Reason the Park Outs ide of Englewood is a Favorite
Figure 3.8 Englewood Park that Needs Improvement.. ..
Figure 3.9 Reasons the Eng le wood Par k Needs Improve ment
Figure 3.1 0 Reasons for Not Usi ng Engl ewood Parks ..
Figure 3.11 Satisfaction wi th Eng lewood Pa rks
Figure 3.12 Not Enough ofThese Fac,hti es in Englew ood -Of Th ose wi th an Opin ion
Figure 3.13 Participation in Children s Ac tiv itie s
List of Maps
Map 1. Regional Context .
Map 2. Existing Parks , Open Space , Tr ,Is and Recreation Resources
Map 3. Neighborhood/Pocket Park Servi ce Areas
Map 4. Community Park Service Areas ...
Map 5. Proposed Master Plan ..
Table of Contents September 2006
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-26
3-27
3-29
3-31
3-32
5-3
5-5
3-10
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-1 5
3-1 6
3-17
3-18
3-18
3-19
3-2 1
3-22
3-24
1-2
2-2
2-12
2-18
4-2
i-3
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Englewood P1rk1 and R1,cr11tlon M11t1r Plan -------~--..;.;....;.;..;.;.;.;..;.;;...;;;;.;.;.;.;.;..;..;..;.;;_ ____ --i,
Executive Summary
Why WH the Pia" Developed?
Thi' Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the
City of Englewood will become the guiding
document for the future of the city as ii relates
to parks , trails. and recreation within the city .
As Engl •,wood continues to transition and
evolve as a premier suburb of the greater
Denver metropolitan area, so will the parks and
recreation needs of the city . Easy and
equitable access to parks and recreat ion
facilities is an expected and attractive element
of any community . A public and green
infrastructure enhances community livability
and desirability . And parks . trails . natural
areas. and open spaces improve environmental
health by providing cleaner air and water and
preservation of a critical urban wildlife habitat.
Quality parks. recreation, and cullural
opportunities also improve physical and mental
heallh, create opportunities to devalop and
enhance the community , add to civic pride , and
provide positive opportunities for use of leisure
time . Parks serve all citizens , regardless of
demographics or diversity . Parks also provide
for business , tourism , art , and cultural interests
and needs . Additionally, ~arks reflect local
culture , heritage , and values .
An Involved and Public Process
The Englewood Park and Recreation Master
Planning Process, begun in August, 2005 ,
included regular work sessions with the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which is
a group of City Staff members from the Parks
and Recreation Department , Department of
Public Works , Community Develop,11ent
Department an~ City Manager's office, and the
plan consultants . Staff and the TAC conducted
multiple interviews with freque , ,t park user
groups, and held two public c~en houses to
solicit community input. A comprehensive
survey was also conducted in October, 2005 to
gauge community-wide perceptions and needs
for the parks and recreation system within
Englewood .
The plan also include. comparison studies with
peer cities along the Fron : Range , Colorado
SCORP (State Compre~enslve Outdoor
Recreation Plan), anrl na •ional trends and
st?,tistics. In addition . prior and relevant plans
were incorporated in to this plan, including the
2004 City of Englewood Bicycle Master Plan .
Roadmap Englewood : 2003 En~lewood
Comprehensive Plan , 2003 South Platte River
Open Space Plan . and 1997 Englewood
Recreation Demand ann Facilities Analysis .
The Parks and Recreat ,Jn Master Plan is
intended to complement and build upcn the
guidance and principles previously defined in
these other plans .
Inventory of Parklands, Open
Space, Tralls, and Recreation
Facilities
An important component of this plan is to
identify, label, and map all parklands and
recreational facilities owned and managed by
the city in order to update and refine previous
city park inventor ies . The plan also identifies
areas of the city in need of additional parklands ,
open space , trails and trail connections , and
recreation facilities , based on a standard level
of service and service radius .
Development of Methodology
The plan defines Level of Service (LOS) based
on population and geography . Ideally , each
citizen should be within one-half mile of a
neighborhood park and 1.5 miles of a
community park. A crit;caI component of this
plan is the identification of potential residential
growth and development areas, and ensuring
there are adequate neighborihood parl(s to
serve them in the future . Neighborhood parks
are the backbone of the community , while
community parks are invaluablP, citywide
resources . T~e plan !uni,~, defines the need
for access , slies , and amenities Important to
achieving desimble results from parl(s .
Executive Summary September 2006 ES -1
En~t1wood P1rk1 and R1cr1atlon M11t1r Plan
Community Need•
The extensive study , public lnvoh ement, and
inventory proce,,s identified SA•!a ral needs.
Some of those needs include continued
acquisition and development of parkland to
meet standard levels of service. the need for
upgrading certain fac il ities and amenities in
various parks , and the need for new trails and
trail connections. to name a few .
Recommendation• of the Plan
Recommendations of the plan were formulated
to address specific need s that arose from the
planning process . Recommendations take
shape in six essential forms : new parkland and
amenities, major park redes igns . facility
additions and enhancements , street crossing
en~ ancemer :ts . new off-street trails , and key
new 0n-stree·, trail connections . This plan
reco,;-,mends the establishment of six new
parklands throughout the city to meet current
a,,d future needs , and recommends major
redesigns for Cushing Park. Miller Field ,
Hosanna Athletic Complex , Centennial Park ,
and Belleview Park . It also recommends facility
additions and enhancements for Baker Park ,
the Northwest Greenbelt, Depot Park , Bates-
Logan Park . Barde Park . Romans Park , Jason
Park , Rotolo Park , the Southwest Greenbelt .
Duncan Park, and Sinclair Middle School.
Additi0nally , this plan recommends numerous
street crossing enhancements , off-street trails,
and on-street trail connections throughout the
city . Lastly , the plan recommends phasing in a
comprehensive irrigation system upgrade for all
parks .
Action, Prioritization, and
lmplementatlon
As with any plan, the effectiveness and sur ~ess
will be measured by the community 's ability and
willingness to Implement the plHn . This plan
provides recommendations and directs actions
for the near dnd more distant future . This plan
also offers specific considerations to help
prioritize which projects should be implemented
firs t. The plan is intended to be flexible and
fluid , so that as opportu1ities for land
acquisition and park development become
available , the city can immediately capitalize on
these opportunities without being committed to
a pre -determ ined project identified in a concret e
prioritization system .
While all projects described are important to the
contir.ued success of the parks and recreation
system , it is not possible to accomplish them all
immediately . Large , high profile projects that
may generate signifi cant public support should
be balanced with those that help to provide park
functions and amenities to currently
underserved residents . Rather than
immediately focusing on one or two financially
intensive projects , smaller proje cts that may be
easy to implement and fund through alternative
sources could be accomplished . While
progress is be ing made on these projects . long-
range planning can begin for other large
projects . 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 .
ES-2 September 2006 Executive Summary
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Enpltwood Park• and fttcr11llon M11I1r Plan {t; ;.. __________________________ ·--"""'1,iiir'
Chapter One -Introduction
A. Purpose of the Plan
The City of Englewood is an established mixed-
use community that is centrally located within
the greater Denver metro area . US Highway
85 . also known as Santa Fe Avenue. runs
north-south through the city while US Highway
285, also known as Hampden Avenue, bisects
the city east-west. Englewood is wholly
surrounded by developed communities , with
Denver lo the north, the City of Sheridan lo lhe
west. the City of Ullleton to lhe south , and the
cities of Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood
Village lo the east and southeast. Map 1 .
Regional Context , shows Englewood 's location
relative lo neighboring communities. public
lands , and significant natural features .
While Englewood officially became a city in
1903 , lhe majority of the land area was
developed in the post-World War II era ,
between 1945and 1960 . Theheartoflhecily
includes a traditional downtown shopping
district , localed north of the Broadway and
US 285 in te rsection. and flanked on lhe west by
CilyCenler En glewood and on the east by
Swedish and Cra ig Medical Centers . The
Broadway Avenue . US 285, and Federal
Boulevard corridors are primarily commercial
uses , while the Santa Fe Drive/South Platte
River corridor provides an industrial
employment base . The city 's residential areas
include a mix of residential housing styles that
range from single family detached houses to
apartments , along with established schools,
parks , recreational facilities , and trail systems .
Although the City of Englewood does not have
significant vacant lands available for new
development, ils population is expected to grow
gradually over time , primarily through
redevelopment of fonmer industrial areas, as
well as through in-fill development of existing
residential neighborhoods . As the community
continues to grow, so too will the demand
placed on existing parks, trails, and recreation
facilities . With this in mind , the City of
CityCenter
Englewood retained EDAW , Inc . lo develop a
Parks Master Plan that defines the 15 to
20-year vision lor the city . The specific focus of
the plan was lo :
• Develop a detailed inventory of all parklands
and quantify the level of service for existing
and future residents .
• Assess the current condition of the City of
Englewood 's parks , trails, and recreation
facilities , including consideration of safely
conditions and ADA issue$ .
• Analyze and determine community needs
through discussions with user groups ,
trends in recreational programs in parks , a
community survey , and public meetings .
• Identify potential future redevelopment
areas and ch anges in population to
determine futi:,e parkland and facility
needs , as w~II as opportunities for
synergies between parklands and
redevelopment projects .
• Define level-of-service standards, a
classification system , and general des ign
criteria for parks .
• Outline improvement programs that will
update the features in existing parks .
• Identify existing , underserved residential
areas that are in need of additional
parkland .
Introduction September 2006 1-1
-c ....... arr,.,.....,.._ __ .... ,.,___, ___
,., __
Map 1. Reglonal Contaxt
1-2 September 2006
• I
lllpt:.....,.._ --===·-1-
Chepter One
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Englt#OOd P1rk1 and R1cr11tlon M11l1r Plan -
Chapt•r One -Introduction
A. PurpoH of the Plen
The City of Englewood is an established mixed-
use community that is centrally located within
the greater Denver metro area . US Highway
85 , also known as Santa Fe Avenue , runs
north-south through the city while US Highway
285 , also known as Hampden Avenue , bisects
the city east-west. Englewood is wholly
surrounded by developed communities , with
Denver to the north , '1e Ci!\' of Sheridan to the
west , the City of Littleton to the south, and the
cities of Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood
Villag,3 to the east and southeast. Map 1,
Regional Context , shows Englew~od's location
relat ive to neighboring communities , public
lands . and significant natural features .
While Englewood officially became a city in
1903, the majority of the land area was
developed in the post-World War II era,
between 1945 and 1960 . The heart of the city
includes a traditional downtown shopping
district , located north of the Broadway and
US 285 intersection , and flanked on the west by
CityCenter Englewood and on the east by
s~ edish and Craig Medical Centers . The
Broadway Avenue , US 285, and Federal
Boulevard corridors are primarily commercial
uses , while the Santa Fe Drive /South Platte
River corridor provides an industrial
employment base . The city's residential areas
include a mix of residential housing styles that
range from single family detached houses to
apartments, along with established schools,
parks , recreational fac ilities, and trail systems .
Although the City of Englewood does not have
significant vacant lands available for new
development , its population is expected to grow
gradually over time, primarily through
redevelopment of former industrial areas , as
well as through in-fill development of existing
residential neighborhoods. As the community
continues to grow, so too will the demand
placed on existing parks , trails, and recreation
facilities . With this in mind , the City of
CityCenter
Englewood retained EDAW , Inc . to develop a
Parks Master Plan that defines the 15 to
20-year vision for the city . The specific focus of
the plan was to :
• Develop a detailed inventory of all parklands
and quantify the level of service for existing
and future residents .
• Assess the current condition of the City of
Englewood 's parks , trails, and recreation
facilities , including considerat ion of safety
conditions and ADA issues .
• Analyze and determine communit) needs
through discussions with user groups ,
trends in recreational programs in parks, a
community surv ey, and public meetings .
• Identify potentia l future redevelopment
areas and changes in population to
determine future parkland and fac ility
needs , as well as opportunities for
synergies between parklands and
redevelopment projects .
• Define level-of-service standards , a
classification system , and gene ;al design
criteria for parks .
• Outline improvement programs that will
update the features in existing ~arks .
• Identify existing, underserved residential
areas that are in need of additional
parkland .
Introduction September 2006 1-1
1-2
-c ..... a...._~ ..... __ .... ,.,......, N-~--
Map 1. Regional Contex1
Seplember 2006
. I
.,, ........ ~
--=:;.• .. 1-
Chapter One
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •· • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Englewood P1rk1 and l'ttcr11tlon M11t1r Plan ............ """"""~~.;;.;..;.;;.;;..;.;.;.;.;.;..:.,;.;,,::,.::..:::.:.:.;..:.:.,,:.:,.:.::., _____ ~{,
• Develop an action plan for implementation .
The Parks Master Plan should be revisited and
updated periodical',, ideally every five years , to
ensure that It accJrately reflects current and
future needs an~ ~!langing conditions , and to
adjust priorities ,,iu•in the community as
appropriate .
B. Plannlng ProceH and
Document Organization
The plan was de veloped through a series of
meetings with several groups , which all
provided insight, advice , and guidance. The
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which
consisted of staff from the Parks and
Recreation Department, Public Works
Department, Community Development
Department , and the City Manager's office ,
served as the primary advisory group and met
7 limes during the process . In addition ,
meetings were held with parks and recreation
maintenance staff , 2 public open houses were
conducted, and periodic updates were given to
the Parks and Recreation Commission , Cultural
Arts Commission, and City Council.
The planning process was structured with a
series of tasks that built upon each other. The
tasks and chapters in which they are described
are as follows :
Chapter One -Introduction
Establish purpose of the plan and planning
process . Document historical background
and existing relevant policy plans .
Chapter Two -Existing Resources
Uevelop classifications for various types of
parks , and standards for their locations ,
sizes , and other characteristics. Conduct
an inventory and develop a detailed
da!abase and maps of existing parklands,
trails , and recreational facilities. Identify
the servica areas associated with various
types of parks .
Chapter Thrn -IHUH and Nnda
Identify Issues and determine needs based
on the results of the Inventory ; a
community-wide survey ; Interviews with
Interest groups , recreation providers, and
park and recreation staff; trends In
participation in organized and self-directed
recreational activities; population growth
and distribution projections ; and
comparisons with other communities .
Chapter Four -M■1ter Plan
Racommendatlons
Develop recommendations and actions for
the Parks Master Plan , and define the
standards for acreage of parkland to
provide based on the number of residents .
Identify specific park enhancement and
upgrade projects and potential locations
for additional parkland , facilities, and trails .
Chapter Five -Implementation
Identify existing and potential tools for
implementation (including regulations,
funding sources and partnerships), and
specific actions with identified
responsibilities and costs .
C. City of Englewood Hlatory
In order to develop a vision for the future , ii is
helpful lo have an understanding of the past.
The discovery of gold near the confluence of
Little Dry Creek and the South Platte River
triggered the beginning of the 'Pikes Peak or
Bust" gold rush of 1859 and brought settlers to
the area . In 1864, an Irish immigrant named
Thomas Skerritt laid claim to a 640-acre
homestead that encompassed most of present-
day Englewood , and he is now referred to as
the "Father of Englewood ." '
ttlstorical Information about the City of Englewood
referenced from the following webs ite :
~:p:/twww .ci .anglewood .eo .us/home/index .asp?page=
Introduction September 2006 1-3
Englewood P1rk1 and Rtcr11llon M11t1r Plan
Thomas Skerritt
Other homesteaders followed in Skerritt's
footsteps and settled in the area . The fertile
river valley provided an ideal setting for planting
fruit trees and other crops . The community
remained rural through the late 1800s and by
1880 , urban growth had begun with Denver
roads being extended south and street blocks
laid out. Legend has it that Thomas Skerritt got
tired of traveling the old Santa Fe Trail to
Denver to sell his produce , so he plowed two
furrows , one on each side of the road , from
Englewood to Cherry Creek . He then pulled a
heavy log behind a wagon down the center of
the furrows , creating a broad roadway . As the
road was the widest street in the area , it was
referred to as "Broadway ," and remains to this
day one of the main thoroughfares in the metro
area .
Although the area continued to grow with much
promise, it began to develop a rowdy reputation
in the late 1800s when gamblers built saloons
and roadhouses along South Broadway in the
area known as Orchard Place . In 1903, a
movement to clean up Orchard Place had
begun with a group of pioneer ladies who
atarted a campaign to make the community
safer and more des irable by forming a city and
a government. The plan consolidated the
settlements of Orchard Place , Cherrelyn, and
the atljoining territory south of Yale and east of
the railroads, covering a total area of six square
miles .
On May 13 , 1903 , citizens voted 169 to 40 in
favor of incorporation . The new town was
named Englewood , mean ing "wooded nook"
due to the abundance of trees in the area .
Soon after incorporation , the new mayor , Jacob
Jones , and the new town council began passing
laws , establishing city services , and appointed
a Marshal. The city then began to see great
growth and expansion with the addition of new
schools , more horse cars and trolleys, and the
establishment of the Swedish Consumptive
Sanatorium .
Englewood saw great progress in the 1920s ,
with Broadway becoming paved, a Chamber of
Commerce formed in 1921 , and General Iron
Works arriving in Englewood in 1924 . In the
mid-1920s , Englewood experienced an identity
crisis with two separate elections being held for
possible annexation to Denver . Loyal citizens
rejected the annexation by a narrow margin ,
and Englewood remained an indepgndent city .
During the Depression of t~e 1930s , Englewood
maintained a spirit of hometown friendliness
among tha people as the community looked
after its own unemployed and indigent. In the
1940s , Englewood joined the nation in
supporting the World War II effort with victory
gardens in each backyard , women collecting
fats and stockings, men salvagir,g scrap metal ,
a~d the community supporting war bond sales .
After World War 11 , Englewood underwent a
vast change with the construction ot ~ new high
school, and various industries choosing :he city
as .-good place to locate new manufacturing
p:ants .
Englewood continued to grow and prosper and
on March 7, 1968, the largest shopping mall in
the western United States opened for business
in Englewood . The city enticed the (iqvelopment
to locate in Englewood by offering ~3 .o acres of
existing parkland for ~ 3velopment of the
shopping mall. Cinderella City gained
nationwide attention and fame and enjoyed
tremendous success until the early 1980s . In
the 1990s , the mall suffered from the area's
economic downturn and nearby competition
and closed in 1997 .
1-4 September 2006 Chapter One
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Englewood P1rk1 and ft1cr11llon M11t1r Plan
Ae ri al view of Cinderella City
Today 's Englewood Is a disti11ct reflection of its
colorful history , maintain ing a focus on
transportation , education , healthcare . and the
arts . Developments are rising throuahout the
city to help boost the area 's economy . and
Englewood b•Jasts a vibrant employment base .
Transportati "n rema ins an important aspect of
planning for ..=nglewood 's future . CityCenter
Englewood , b11ilt on the old Cinderella City site ,
is a national •~odel for mixed-use transit-
or ientAti 11,,velopment, while Englewood Station
(RTD 's light rail and bus transit hub) is an
integral part of the development.
The Englewood area has als() become a hub
for healthcare providers. In 2002, Swedish
Med ical Center received a Level 1 Trauma
Center designation , and Craig Hospital has
been rated one of the Top Ten Rehabilitation
Hosp itals in the Un ited States .
To~ay , the City of Eng lewood 's population has
grown to approximately 32,000 people . Slow
and steady growth is expected to continue until
the city reaches an antic ipated capac ity of
50,000 people .
D. Parks and Recreation History
The Englewood Parks and Recreation
Department beginnings date to 1949 , when a
group of interested citizens organ ized a Citizen
Re creation Council and began providing some
basic recreation activities to the community .
This program was a joint effort between the City
of Englewood , the Englewood School District ,
and the United Way . Cooperation with the
school district for the use of school facilities was
a large part of the recreation program, and this
strong alliance has continued to th,, present
time . In 1960, the city assumed re~ponslbllity
for the Recreation Activity Program and created
a Parks and Recreation Commission to advise
City Council in matters pertaining to parks and
recreation .
Englewood's early park facilit ies consisted of
one 23 .5-acre city park . However, the park was
poorly located for the use of children with US
285 to the south, the Downtown District to the
east , railway lines to the south , an d Santa Fe
Drive on the west. As mentioned In the
previo•J: section , i~ 1965 th~ citizens voted to
sell the city park to a shopp ing mall developer
and Cinderella City was built on that location .
City officials took advantage of the money
received from the sale , along with other federal
funding , to purcha se 123 .8 acres of additional
parkland spread throughout the commun ity .
Today . recreational amenit ies abound in
Englewood . The community boasts of
11 parks, two sports complexes , an award -
winning recreation center, a first -class golf
course , one of the most successful senior
centers in the region , and the popular new
Pirate s Cove Aquatics Center , in addition to
mo re than 75 acres of greenbelts , urban green
space, and open space .
Pira tes Cove Aquat ics Center
lnlro<luction September 2006 1-5
Englewood P1rk1 and fttcr11tlon M1111r Plan ,~~----....:..::.:.:.:.::.;.;;.;;..;..;.;.;;,.;...;;~.;;.;. .......... ____ _
I!. llelatlonahlp to Previous Plana
Englewood City Council has adopted several
guiding documents over the years that include
principles and recommendations for the
provision of parks and recreation . This Parks
Master Plan will serve as the guiding document
for providing parks and recreation facilities
within the City of Englewood . II builds upon
previously adopted plans and, in the case of
potentially conflicting information , supersedes
information in the previous documents
regarding parks-related topics.
Recent ,eievant plans include :
199i' Englewood Recreation Demand
and F.1cllltles Analysis
The gr•I of this 1097 document was three-fold :
1) ch ,.racterize and quantify demand for
recreation facilities ; 2) complete an evaluation
of ex !sting facilities and assess the feasibility of
expanding , renovating, or developing new
facilities ; and 3) develop a facility renovation
and development strategy. II did not look at the
parks system as a whole , including trails, nor its
relationship with future development plans of
the city overall . While this analysis examined
the current and future recreational demand of
its residents, ii did not address whether the
residents of the community were being
adequately and equitably served by the park s
system . The focus of the plan was on
expansion and enhancement of the Englewood
Recreation Center , Malley Senior Center,
Belleview Park, and Centennial Park .
2003 South Platte River Open Space
Plan
This plan was a joint effort by the cities of
Sheridan and Englewood and Arapahoe County
to help promote redevelopment of the South
Platte River corridor . Specifically, t~e plan set
out to accomplish three broad gor,is :
1) increase the recreational value of the
corridor; 2) preserve natural areas and protect
water quality ; and 3) encourage land uses that
are compatible with recreational goals and that
contribute to the economic well being of both
Englewood and Sh.:r!rtan The pian helps to
pro~ide for a long-range vision of the comdor
through recommendations In three primary
componentr: trails and connections, open
space, ant' redevelopment. These
recommendations Include developing a "River
Parkway" to create development opportunities,
expanding open space through development of
new community parks, and improving access
and connections to the trail network . It also
recommends improving direct access to the
river itself , as well as to enhance and protect
habitat along the corridor. Overall , the plan
suggests immediately forming partnerships and
establishing dedicated funding sources to
ensure recommendations of the plan are
carried forth .
2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan:
Roadmap Englewood
The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Pl an lays
out a three-part strategy for the growth and
development of the city : revitalization ,
redevelopment, and reinvention . Revitalization
is the idea that revitalizing existing
infrastructure , roads , neighborhoods , and
downtown will help to strengthen predominately
stable residential and commercial er~as.
Redevelopment involves replacing deteriorated ,
single-use developments with high quality,
mixed-use, er.onomically diversified
developments that will hold economic value fo_r
the city over time . Reinvention involves the City
of Englewood reinventing itself to become a
premier suburb of the Denver metropolitan area
ar,d attracting new residents on many levels .
This document is intended to serve as a
visioning anc' decision-making guide for the
city 's future planning efforts . ii presents four
policy themes that are then supported by
specific goals for housing, parks and open
space , busines~ and employment ,
transportation , environmental quality, cu/lJral
arts , and regi,,nal cooperation .
1-6 September 2006 Chapter One
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
lngl1woocl P1rk1 and ,.,crt ■llon M11t1r Plan *• -----------------------~~,
:...;.1!4 City of Englewood Blcycl1 M11ttr
Plan
This plan Is supported by the goals and
objectives found In the 2003 Englewood
Comprehensive Plan , calling for the promotion
and enhancement of bicycling throughout the
community as an alternative means of
transportation. It presents a more refined vision
of a community-wide bicycling system to be
achieved over the following 20 years . It is
designed as a flexible document , recognizing
that slight modifications may be made to
elements of the plan through the course of
individual project design .
Introduction September 2006 1-7
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
.e.n_g_l -· .. w.•-•-d_P_._, -k·•-·-•-d_11_,_, _, _._._1_1_._. __ M_,_. _1 -·-•-P·I·•-·--------~{,
ChapllrTwo-Emtlng Park and
RaaNllan RaaurcN, -•• ........ ~ ....
This chapter documents the parks , open space ,
trails and outdoor recreational facilities currently
owned and maintained by the Englewood Parks
and Recrea,.Jn Department. It also includes
information on facilities not owned by the city,
but used regularly for recreational programming
by the recreation department. Definitions of
each park type are included, as well as
standards for the desired level of service (acres
per 1,000 population) and types of facilities that
should be included within the parks .
Neighborhoods in Englewood that are served
by local parks are identified, as well as the
amount of parkland that is available to them .
During this process, areas were identified that
currently do not have adequate access to
parks . The inventory of parkland is followed by
a brief description of the existing trails in the
community and non-profit recreational providers
and facilities .
A. Park ... Open Space "-tllllly
The City of Englewood has several types of
existing parklands and open space . The
classifications and a brief description of each
are listed below . Detailed definitions follow this
section .
Parks
• Neighborhood Parks -neighborhood-scale
parks that are intended to serve residents in
the neighborhoods surrounding the park .
• Pocket Parks -smaller versions of
neighborhood parks with fewer amenities ,
serving a smaller radius of homes .
• Community Parks -larger mJlti-purpose
parks that serve the entire community .
• Sports Complexes -parks dedicated to
specialized sports that serve the entire
community , often associated with
community parks .
Open Space
• Natural Area -lands that place emphasis
on protection of natural values .
• Greenbelt -lands along drainage ways that
provide opportunities for linear natural
habitats and trails .
• Visual Green Space -lands that are
strategically-located visual amenities or
buffers not associated with drainage ways .
Parks are classified based on their existing
amenities , location within the community, size ,
and proximity to residential areas . Each
classification of parkland is accompanied by
standards that describe their characteristics and
desired level of service . These classifications
and standards provide guidance in the
development of a parkland system that offers
consistent service to city residents . Map 2
shows the locations of various parklands ,
recreational facilities . and trails within the City
of Englewood. Table 2.1 is a summary of the
types of parks and open space , while Table 2.2
is a detailed inventory of those lands and the
facilities and amenities they contain .
South Platte River
Existing Parks & Recreation Resources , Standards , Level of Service September 2006 2-1
2-2
!n9l1wood P1rk1 end ,t1cr11llon M1111, P l an
.,,.... ., ...........
C-UIII ---I.Ill ■._....,.. ....... ,.,_,_ .a.a.If ......... •.• c.a ... -..... • ... ,..,... __ ......... ,.. u m.,_-..,......,
.. ..... __ .......
;==-1:lallllnllWlll,o,.ns,a, a--'hll,11141.......,..__ .... ,_
Map 2. Exlatlng Parka, Open Space, Tralla and Racraatlon R11om•cff
September 2006 Chapter Two
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
_;;!_;•;_8:.;,I ,;,' ,;;w.,•;.,;,•,;;d...,;P••;..,' ,;;_k,;;•...,;•.,n...;,d..;,R.,1;.._c .. ' •••••l•l••••-•M•••••t••-r -P•I••••--------~~,
Tablt 2.1 Ptrk tnd Open Space Inventory
Summary
',, I " I /1 ,'\ I /h,,l,1•• I
l'1r"-',1/,
Neighborhood 3.05 3
Pocket Park
Neighborhood 31 .22 7
Park
Commun ity Park 91 .44 ~
Soorts Comolexes 23 .91 2
Natural Areas 16 .26 2
Visual Green 17 .70 2
Space
Recrnation Center 7.59 6
Prooerties
Total Parkland 191.17 25
Within the City of Englewood there are a total of
25 sites that are parks or open space . tolaling
approximately 191 acres . Of this . 7 sites are
neighborhood parks (31 .22 acres) and 3 sites
are neighborhood pocket parks (3 .05 acres).
Three park sites in lhe city are community parks
(91.44 acres). These 3 community parks also
serve as neighborhood parks for residents living
nearby , which is generally considered within a
½-mile radius. There are also 2 dedicated
sports complexes in the city (23 .91 acres),
2 open space areas (16 .26 acres). and 2 areas
of visual green space (17 .70 acres). There are
also 6 other sites that provide recreation
resources for the city, including various schools.
which serve as neighborhood parks or sports
complexes. and the city's indoor recreational
facilities : the Englewood Recrealion Center and
Malley Senior Center . Additionally , there are
numerous other small pieces of land that the
Cily of Englewood Parks and Recrea:,,,n
Department n,aintains . such as roadwa1·
medians that do not serve typical park
functions . As such, these lands were not
included in the inventory analysis of this plan .
Neighborhood Park•
Neighborhood Parks are parks that serve a
residential neighborhood . They are the
backbone of the Englewood parks system ,
critical elements of healthy neighborhoods . and
places that provide relief from the built
environment. They are located primarily in
developed residential areas . and typically have
landscaping and walking surfaces that can
withstand high levels of use . They are spaces
where neighbors can gather . children can play ,
and pecole can watch other people as well as
engage i11 recreational activities .
Baker Park
Baker Park
Baker Park is located in the northwest corner of
the city on Wesley Avenue , between Zuni
Slreel and Tejon Slreel , and is adjacent to
Colorado's Finest Alternative High School.
Baker Park is slightly less than 1 acre in size
and contains a playground , picnic shell~:. and
restrooms . The adjacent school cu .. :w,,s a
multi-purpose playfield and basketball court .
The playground equipment is ralhtir old and is
nol safely compliant. Likewise , lh~ restrooms
and picnic area are nol ADA compliant.
Currently, there is no internal paved walk within
the park . Overall , the park is poorly laid oul and
receives a high occurrence of vandalism .
Additionally, Iha park is not very attractive from
an aesthetic standpoint as there is very little
planting, and most of the lar,dscaping needs
upgraded . An unsightly curb wall also runs
along Wesley Avenue that could also be
Existing Parks & Recreation Resources , Standards . Level of Service September 2006 2-3
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
-~......,
Baker
Barde {school oron.utvl
Bales-Logan
Belleview
Centennial (incl. Rockies Fields)
Clarkson
Cushing
Deoot
Duncan (school property)
Emerson
Hosanna .~j,1a1ic r :,mplex
(school property)
JSSOl i
MIiier Fields
Romans
Rotolo
,.
-·
0 .93
3.67
6 .64
36.14
44 .15
0 .77
11 .15
0 .94
3.81
1.34
18.21
8 .11
5.70
4 .61
3.25
7
I! I
~
X Neighborhood
X Nelahborhood
X Neiahborhood 1
X Community 1C1l
X Community SC1)
Pockel
X Community 1
Pocket
X Neighborhood
Pocket
X Sports Complex 1
X 1
Ne ighborhood
X Sports Complex 4
X
Neighborhood "
'' X ...-!.t. Nolahborhood
. ~~
! J
! I I I I I l ~ I II I 1 I !' I f u ..
X 1
1 X X X 1
1 X X 2 X X 4
1 X X • X 2
1 X X 2 X X 2
X
1 X
X X X
1 X X 1
X
..,
1 • • •
I • , .. •. ..
' i ! I I I J I I i l j t J J l l ~ ..
.i: I., f -..,
I, 'I-
1 1 1 Dated play equip ; high vandalism ; poor park layout; fence separates park from
school pro°"rtv .
1 X 2 Tennis courts not used .
1 1 1 1 Full -size soccer field/athletic field in detention pond; concrete drainage runs
adiacent to oark .
Adjacent ta Pirate'• Cove ; Chenango lot under used -poo~y lighted; poor layout
1 2 X s 4 arol•nd playgrounds and basketball courts ; heavily used tennis courts: new dog
park on west-side ; multiple native areas : west -side is passive -poor access to
shelters : farm area needs re-designed .
Rockies rougned in and Spencer lighted; kayak chutes : greenway trail : fishing
1 X 2 1 reservoir (no on water access): ball fields heavily used ; good parking ; vacant
parking lot could be utilized ; bu ll on old landfill .
Small oark : contains a few benches and a oicnlc table
Heavily used skaterark ; only access from Eastman; Bates lite rail will be near
1 1 1 1 here ; dated playground equip ; heavy use as neighborhood park by local
business , neighborhoods , Etc .: parking lot shared with RTO ; high vandalism ;
multiole historic features
Vacant : could be develooed in conluncUon with Cushlna
1 1 Only park In this area or city, lackinA basic park amenities (i.e ., shelter , BB court,
upgraded playground).
Small oark ; contains a few benches and a oicnic table
Nice facility In detention area : two nice soccer/ multi-use fields ; nice ballfield that .. 1 2 ICI) city does not use ; poor access to passive areas : Adjacent to bike trail ; need top
remove fencing near oar1dna lot
Alhlellc/Soccer field ; good street access and parking ; 2 playgrounds , dated
1 1 1 1 playground equi~; Need ADA circular path around park and to shelters ; good
visual green space ; ott-leash dog park .
4 ballfields ; small grass area m front many use for picnicking: no restrooms ; good
street access ; no neighborhood park amenities; safety services building; historic
entry : no lights on fields ; northeast side is passive area ; private parking structure
across street ; drinking fountain does not work .
' ' Tennis courts in good condition -lights not operational ; park heavily uS8d ; good
X 1 • street acceas ; dated play equip.; small unique concrete mushroom shelters ;
C fence along apartments In disrepair, dated fountain
1 i " Athletic field under programmed; datentlon pond ; dated playground equip .;
1 If k'~; nNd ADA path from street to playground and picnic area ; connec11 to Southwest ,.. Greenbelt .
' = 1,,.,, .
Clayton Elementary School
(school property)
Flood Middle School
(school property)
Slnclelr Middle School
school prooortvl
City Center Plaza
little Dry Creek
NW Greenbelt
SW Greenbelt -Mallev Senior Center
Recreation Center
0 .92 X
0.34 X
0 .67 X
3 .50 X
14 .20 X
10.75
5 .51 --.., ~ 1• .,
2 .13 X
3 .53 X
School
School
School
Visual Green
Soece
Visual Green
Space
Open Space
Open Space
Rec . Center
Rec . Center
1
1
2
t
"
...
•
g
< " ..
•
1• , '1~· ·~
"
1 •
2
• •
•
J
1
/,
J
J . -
,...J:
1 2 4
]
l .. .. ~--<
Youth IIOCC8r field ; playfield for lootbalUsoccer practice ; Informal backstop ; only
olavfield maintained bv EPR
One open space rectanguiar area : may be used for youth soccer, youth
boseba!Usottball , youth football ; Only the roller hockey rink maintained by EPR
New in-line hockey rink in 2006 ; under utilized handball courts ;
•.•
Adjacent to city center ; passive use ; rou11taln : some turf.
Plaza ; water feature : deteriorating in some places : su""rta_c_e_s_an-d"'t-an-d'"s_ca_p'"in_g_--1
need renovation ; In the center of the citv .
Steep turf embankments banks : nice lounging and picnic i?reas ; irrigated ; paved
trall runs the le11gth -does not connect to S. Platte River Trail .
Steep turf embankments ; nice lounglng and picn ic areas; irrigated ; asphalt trail ;
scattered benches; public art on bridge abutments .
.. . •• "' ,L ,:a u .. ,.. (, ·,p, •. ,-~,
Heavilv used facilitv: nicer facilitv in Metro area .
2 Full recreation center w/ leisure pool end competit ive lap pool ; lull fitness facility .
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
:E.:•~~!_;l~•:.w:.:0.:0.:d:..:P;.:_1 ,:.r :.k .:.•.:.•.::•:.:d~R;.;,• ,;_'.;,'_;'_;•;,;1_;,l_;•_;•~M;;_;,I ,;;,•_;,t ,;;,•_;,'-P•I,;;,•.;,•-------~''
removed . There is a fence that separates the
school property from the park property ,
preventing full use of the turf area . As such,
there is ample opportunity to upgrade the park
facilities and potentially increase the functional
park area through utilization of the adjacent
school property .
Barde Park
Barde Park is locate d between Downing Street
and Lafayette Street , anj acent to Hay
Elementar · Sr ool. Ba rd e Park is slightly less
than 4 acrns i· .e and contains a multi-
purpose playfie li. that is osed for youth soccer
practices and , ta nr,i, co urts that are rarely
used . There is also ~•1 informal backstop
located in the multi -p urpose playfield . A
concrete drainage ditch bisects the north side
of the park , and there is only one short , paved
walk connecting Ma rion AvenuP with the
elementary school. There is a playground an,i
off-street parking lot associated with th,,
elementary school ; however, it is not rn ~• ~ge J
or maintained by the Parks and Recraatie,;
Department. There are 3 high -densify
residential developmenl projects proposed for
this area of the city . With the fru ition of these
projects , there will likely be added use at
Romans Park . As such it may be necessary to
upgrade and enhance Barde Park to relieve
some of the pressure on Romans Park .
Bates-Logan Park
Bates-Logan Park is located on Bates Avenue
near the intersection with Logan Avenue .
Elates-Logan is approx imately 7 Rcres in size
and contains a basketball court , soccer field ,
playground, backstop for baseball/softball
games , multi-purpose playfield , restrooms ,
picnic shelter, paved walking path, and off-
street parking . The playground equipment and
picnic sheller are old and need to be upgraded .
The east portion of the park is primarily
passive in natu re Although the park is
generally in good condition , improvements
could be made in the design to improve its
function, appearance and safoty, such as
providing a better relationship between the
core picn ic/play area and the multi-purpose
field , and turning the east side into a native
area . Landscap ing throughout the park ,
especially in relation to the parking lot , needs
improvement as well.
D11ncan Park
Duncan Park is located in the southeast
portion of the city on Layton Avenue , between
Pennsylvania Street and Pearl Street and
adjacent to the All SOL Is Catholic School
(leased by the All Souls Catholic Church from
the Englewood School District). Duncan Park
is approximately 4 acres in size and contains a
basketball court, multi-purpose playfiel1 , and
playground . It is also a designated off-leash
dog area . The park lacks an internal paved
walk and is in need of landscaping upgrades
throughout. As Duncan Park is the only park
located in this area of the city , ii needs lo be
upgraded to include more park-like feat •Jres ,
including an upgraded playground and some
type of picnic facility . Due to the limited size of
the park and placement of the school in the
center of the park , possible park
enhancements may be limited .
Jason Park
Jason Park
Jason Park is located on Jason Street at the
corner of Quincy Avenue . Jason is
approximately 8 acres in size and contains a
basketball court , soccer field , multi-purpose
playfield , baseball/softball field with backstop ,
playgrou 1,d, picnic shelter , re~lrooms, and off-
street r Jr1<ing . It is also a designated off-leash
dog area and receives a high amount of use
from dog owners . Visitors to the park often
walk its perimeter, having worn an informal
Existing Parks & Recreation Resources , Standards , Level of Service September 2006 2-7
Engltwood P1rk1 1nd Rtcr11tlon M11ltr Pl1n («'-_____ ;;.;;.::.;.;....;..;.....;. ... _________ _
social path Into the turf . This path could be
upgraded to a pravel path and another , more
formal paved path could be added to the
Interior of the park to enhance circulation . A
path connection is also need between the
western park gate and Lipan Street. In
general , the park has nice landscaping and
ample passive green space , along with good
street access : however, certain park features
need to be upgraded . Th,., ,,:ayground
equipment is old and not sJ foty compliant.
Likewise, the restrooms ai,'1 pir.nic area are
not ADA compliant. T!1•, picnic s;ieltor also
needs to be replaced ,;ith a stru cture that is
more vandal resistant.
Romans Park
Romans Park is located in n. >11heast
Englewood along Floyd Avenue . Romans
Park is approximately 4 ½ acres in size and
contains a basketball court . 4 tennis courts ,
2 playgrounds , a walking path , restrooms , and
a small sitting area with a water feature . The
park also conta ins 8 unique concrete shelters
designed like mushrooms with benches
underneat'1. From a practical standpoint, the
mushroom shelters provide little cover from the
elements, but they provide a character that is
unique to Englewood parks . They are e ,joyed
by the general public , who sometimes refer to
Romans Park as "Mushroom Park ." Overall,
Romans Park is heavily used and has
exce llent street access due to Its linear nature .
However, the playgrounds ,:,e not currently
safety compliant and the restrooms are not
ADA compliant. The 4 tennis courts in the
center are in good condition and heav ily-used
by people throughout Englewood, but they
divide the park into 2 parts and take up critical
space in an already small park . In the future , if
an opportunity arose to relocate these tennis
courts , it would greatly improve the overall
quality of the park as a ne ighborhood facility .
The park also 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 as
the entry ramps are too steep . There is also
poor visual separation between the park and
adjacent apartment complex . As
2-8 September 2006
redevelopment projer.t~ occur In the area and
the residential population Increases , there will
be addition,, demands placed on this park aa
no other op;<ons for park space currently exist.
Romans Park
Rotolo Park
Rotolo Parl ( is located along Huron Street near
the intersection of Stanford Avenue . Rotolo is
approximately 3¼ acres in size and conta ins a
playgroun~. multi-purpose playfield, backstop
for baseball/softball , and small picnic shelter.
There is ample on-street parking and street
access , however, ADA access is poor. An
ADA compliant ~ath is needed from both
Huron Street and Stanford Avenue to the
playground and µicnic shelter . Much of the
lower portion of the park (where the backs!, •p
is located ) is in a detention pond . The
playground equipment is rather old and not
safety compliant. Likewise , the picnic area is
not currently ADA compliant. There is a
general lack of benches near tha playground
and sidewalks. In the past, the park has seen
a high occurrence of vandalism in the form of
cars driving in the detention pond in circular
motions . Currently there are concrete pylons
in place to deter this activity , but they are
unsightly . These could be removed and
replaced with something more visually
appealing . Overall, the park featu res are
poo~y organized , but there is ample
opportunity to upgrade the park facilities and
make it more user-friendly . In addition ,
landscaping throughout the park needs
upgraded as well.
Chepter Two
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • 9 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • •
E n 8 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 ,~ -------------------------~~·,
Neighborhood Pocket Park,
Depot Par/I
Depot Park is located along Dartmouth
Avenue , Just across Dartmouth Avenue from
Cushing Community Park , and is
approximately 1 sere in size . Depot Park gets
its name from a historic train depot located on
site . Currently the park ,s vacant and provides
no functions of a typical city park . Other than a
dirt parking lot , there are no facilities or
amenities . Due to its strategic location on
Dartmouth Avenue and near Santa Fe Drive , ii
is a valuable parcel of land owned and
managed by the Parks and Recreation
Department. At such a small size , only limited
park functions are possible . Any future plans
for this site should consider the relocation of
the historic train depot to an alternate location ,
and the transfer of this property to other , more
economically productive uses .
Emerson Park
Emerson Park is located at the intersection of
B;;tes Avenue and Emerson Street in noo \heast
Englewood . Emerson is approximately 11/3
acres in size . Other than a few p~rk oenches,
Emerson contains no park facilities or
amenities . Currently E-merson Pa tk has
substantial shaded , passive turf area in
relatively good condition . Although this par~
does not offer typical park amenities , it does
provide nearby residents with needed passive
park space in which to relax .
Clar.~son-.4mherst Park
Clarkson-Amherst Park is located at the corner
of Amherst Avenue and Clarkson Street in a
residential neighborhood . The park is
approximately ¼ acre in size and contains no
park facilities or amenities . Currently
Clarkson-Amherst Park has substantial
shaded, passive turf area in relatively good
condition . Although this park does not offer
typical park amenities, it does provida nearby
residents with needed passive park space .
Neighborhood Park Standard•
Neighborhood parks should be adequately
sized to provide space for a variety of
activities , and are ideally a minimum of
2 acres. They should be centrally located
within the re,ldentlal area they serve, and are
often located adjacent to an elementary or
middle school. Programmed sports activities in
neighborhood parks should normally be limited
to practices , as the need to be compatible with
surrounding residential land uses limits the
intensity of use . Exceptions may be necessary
if no other facilities exist , or if the use is not
detrimental to the neighborhood.
While pocket parks supplement the
neighborhood park system and provide visual
relief within the urban landscape , they are not
substi h •tes for adequately sized neighborhood
parks . In Englewood, these parks ~re typically
1 acre in size , which often makes them more of
an amenity to the immediate neighbors rather
than the larger neighborhood . They are similar
to neighborhood parks, except they offe r only a
few neighborhood park amenities due to their
limited size . Since the parcels are small, they
have limited use for larger neighborhood
gatherings, youth sports practices, self-
directed activities such as kite-flying , and other
activities that require larger open areas . Table
2.3 lists the specific standards for
neighborhood parks .
Neighborhood Park Level of Service
Englewood has a total of 10 neighborhood
parks , 3 of which are small pocket parks .
Combined , these parks total approximately
34 acre~ and provide a lev ',I of service of
1.0 acre per 1,000 population based on a
populat !on of 32,124 . Belleview , Centennial ,
and Cushing Parks also serve neighborhood
park functions for neighborhoods within a one-
half mile radius . When 10 acres of each of
these parks is included in the average , the
effective level of service rises to 2.0 acres per
1,000 population (See Table 2.4) .
Ex isting Parks & Recreat ion Resources , Standards , Level of Service September 2006 2-9
(«!i---------!-•-• .. '-•.w-•.•-d--P·•-•-k-•-·-•-d-"-·-·-·-·-•-t _, ·-•-M-•-•-t·•-•-P-1 ·-·
2-IO ■crn : Pnwtdlo no1rby recreotion1nd leloure
ollghlly opportun111N within wolklng dlotanco
■mlller 1111 (on■•h■tt mile) ol rnk11nt11i 1re11.
maybe Should MNe 11 1 common aru for
1cceptabte If nelghboro of ell -to gelhf ·. oociellze
ld)■cef111o snd ploy . Centra lly locate within area
olhtr served .
parkilnd/ Typically would Include a pavld , multi-
natural purpose area for court games/in-line Accesai !>le vi a walkway or
areas or 1k1tlng or two tennis courts , a multi-urban lrail.
greenway purpooa ploy field with becblop, play
parks while equipment , ADA accessible trans, and Portion:; of the site should be
accommo-shaded areas for picnics and sitti ng within relatively flat to accommodate
doting lorgar a land ■c:aped aattlng that 11 a bland of full flalds and facility davelopment.
neighbor-irrigation for active uses an d xerlscape .
hood park Features such as interpretive signs , water At least half of the parll:, two
purposall bodies, and areas of natural vegetation sides , shall be bordered by a
funcUons . may also be included where appropriate . street in order to provide easy
In most caaes , programmed sports publ1c access , visual
activities should be llmlted to practices . surveillance and parking .
On-street parking is typically adequate, Surrounding the slle with the
and separate park ing lots are back property lines of houses
discouraged . is strongly discouraged .
:0.:hool/park facilities Include many of the
aame ne'9hborhood standards, except
that schooVparks should include : game
fields (preferably two), off-streel parking
that is situated for school and park
purposes, and a playground designed for
age groups not served by school
plaiground1 .
Pockel Perk 2 acres or Serves a neighborhood where Same as those required for Not app lica ble .
lell opportunities for a larger park site are neighborhood park . Part of
unavailable . Typically cons idered to Nrve ne ighborhood
residents with in one-quarter mlle of the park standards .
park . Due to Umlted size, may only
contain a few of the elements typical of a
atanderd neighborhood park .
2-10 Septembet' 2006 Chapter Two
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Englewood P1rk1 and ,.,,r11tlon M11I1r Plan
T1bl1 2.4. Exl1llng N1lghborhood Park Laval of
Service
'J I I I I ~ I II I I !
I '
Population·
Exisling Developed
Neighborhood /Po ck et
Parkland (acres)
Level or Service
Effective Level of Service--·
"" 111
32 ,124
34.27
1.0 ac/1,000 pop .
2.0a c/1,000 pop .
• Den ver Reg ional Council of Governments (DRCOG)
Metro Vision Resource Center, 2005 .
.. In cludes 10 acres each of Be lleview . Centenn ial , and
Cush ing Parks that serve neighborhood park funct ion
to res idents wi th in 1/rmile radius .
All of the neighborhood parks meet tha 2-acre
uesirable minimum standard with the exception
or Baker Park . This park is classified as a
neighborhood park rather than a pocket park
because it contains amenities and features that
are significant to the larger neighborhood
surrounding it. While more acreage and a
larger park area would be ideal, Baker still
provides the northwest area of Englewood with
some form of a neighborhood park .
Map 3 shows the 1 /2-mile and 1 /4-mile service
areas and level of service (acres of parkland
per 1,000 population) associated with each
developed neighborhood and pocket park .
Service areas around community parks that
can be considered to function as the adjacent
residences · neighborhood park are also
shown . Ten acres of each community park
were considered as "neighborhood park " for
the purposes of determining the I· vel of
service for the surrounding neighborhoods .
The service areas on Map 3 represent the
immediate neighborhood that has arcess to
that park without crossing an arterial roadway,
active rail line , river or other barrier , which
prevents easy access via walking or by bicycle .
The extent of existing residential development
is generally shown. The population within
each of the service areas ws•s ba ,,.,d on the
2000 U.S. Census. The population of census
tracts that were split into tw, or more service
areas was proportioned be ;.,d on their
approximate areas . Then <ho acroage of
neighborhood parkland within that service area
was divided by the population . Some areas
are served by more than one park and have a
higher level of service than homes in other
locations within the same neighborhood that
are not served by more than one park .
Although the City or Englewood is relatively
well covered by the distribution of
neighborhood pa rk s and ~as a moderate to
high level of servhsq ov a, .. ii , there are several
residential man ~ 1•• ai ;•· ~ current!~ not served
by neighborh cc.J or :-~ci-oi parks, or that have
relatively low parkland IGvel of service
compared to other neighborhoods . These are
particularly notable in the following
neighborhoods: north of Depot Park and south
of Yale Avenue ; south of Hampden Avenue ,
north of Quincy Avenue , west of Clarkson
Avenue , and east of Broadway Avenue ; and
the two "fingers " west of Federal Boulevard .
Although Baker and Duncan Park serve the
surrounding neighborhoods within 1/2-mile
radius , the level of service for these parks is
relatively low . Map 3 shows 5 categories of
levels of service that range from 0.3 acre per
1,000 population lo 5.3 acres or greater per
1,000 population .
Several existing developed areas of
Englewood are undergoing redevelopment and
infill, with new residential units being
constructed in key strategic locations
throughout the city. This future increase in
population pres ents challenges for providing
adequate parkland because the City of
Englewood is wholly surrounded by developed
communities in each direction, few
developable properties exist within the city,
and no mechanism is in place to fund the
purchase and development of parks to serve
these new residents . Retrofitting and
redesigning existing neighborhood parkland
has the potential, in some instances, to
Existing Parks & Recreetion Resources , Standards. Level or Service September 2006 2-11
,. ! n 8 I t W O O d P I r k I I n d " I C r t I I I O n M I I f I f P I I n ijY<~-------------------------
2-12
r
.............. ...... ............. --
___j
Denver
\
... .. ·.
~reenwood Vil la ge . . . . . ..
. . .
. .
CClllf~ • .........,,_. ........ _..,.
--■---1u1o 1.e_,.__ ..,,,~
~ ==~ : =-=-..:--• ~::::=: :T .... f!'.:'.=:.... MllrvtraAIIII ,., ..... •_,_a..., ..... ;:;:.-:-:, M H l -
Map 3. Neighborhood/Pocket Perk Service AN•
September 2006 Chapter Two
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
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 M ""• ------------------------~I\,
enhance the level of service to existing
neighborhoods , such as the areas served by
Baker and Duncan Park . The development
and redesign of key school lands might
increase level of service in these areas as well .
Access to existing neighborhood par ks in
underserved areas could also be improved by
enhancing pedestrian and bicyclist connections
across existing barriers . This may be
accomplished through constructing arteri al
roadway and railroad grade underpasses ,
enhancing crosswalks, and installing trai l
bridges at strategic locations across arterial
roadways and rivers .
Community Pi.rks
Community park s are larger park s that serve
the entire community . They should be
equ,lably dis tributed throughout the ci ty and
easily accesGible by all residents . Ideally , they
should also be connected via the core
commuter off-street trail system to reduce the
need to drive lo the park . Sports complexes
are also often associated with community
parks . These are typically parks or areas of
community parks th at have dedicated sport
facilities available for use lo the entire
community . While many community parks
contain sports complexes, not all sports
complexes are a part of a community park or
contain park-like facilities . In Englewood , each
existing community park has a different
character. For example, Belleview Park is the
showpiece of the Englewood park system with
a variety of facilities, amenities , and terrain .
Centennial Park is more sports oriented with
several athletic amenities , and Cushing Park
possesses numerous historical qualities in
addition to traditional park amenities .
Belleview Pa rk
Bellevie w Park is localed in south Englewood
along Bellev ,cv Avenue . Belleview is
approximately 36 acres in size and contains a
lighted baseball/softball field , basketball court ,
horseshoe pits , multi-purpose playfield,
2 playgrounds , 4 tenn is courts , 4 picnic
shelters, 3 restrooms, and four off-street
parking lots . The park also contains a
children's train maintained and ope rated by the
Lions Club , and a children's farm maintained
aod o~arated by the Parks and Recreation
Department. The area of the park in which
these facilities are located is somewhat small
and rundown and should be expanded and
refurbished . The western portion of the park is
passive in nature and contains a small
gathering aroa with benches formerly used for
interpretation activities . The western portion of
the park also contains numerous undeveloped
native areas with footpaths that are very
popular with nearby res idents . Belleview is
bisected by Big Dry Creek, wh ich has stepping
stones to cross , making it a very popular
attraction for children lo play in during summer
months . Running adjacent lo Big Dry Creek ,
through the &nlire length of Belleview Par k, is
the paved multi -use Big Dry Creek Trai l.
Englewood's first dog park is planned at 11 ,. ·
western edge of the park along Windermere
Street, and is anticipatad to open in 2006 .
Additionally , ~djacent to Bel 1eview r>ark along
Belleview Avenue is Englewood 's , ,~west
recreation facility , Pirates Co,e Pirates Cove
is a multi-use waler park that has become one
of the most popular summer destinations for
people of all ages in the Denver metropo:itan
area .
While Belleview Park is Englewood's most
popular park and the crown jewel within the
park system , it is in need of u~grading . Two of
the 3 restrooms are oulaatf.G antl not ADA
compliant ; likewise, 3 of the 4 rental Bhaltef9
are outdated and very prone to vandalism .
Other amenities , such as the playground and
basketball areas, are in need of upgrading and
redesigning in order to make them more user•
friendly and safe as well as ADA compliant and
accessible. Although the west side of the park
is popular due to its passive nature and native
areas , it is somewhat inacceaslble . The only
parking lot on the west side is adjacent lo the
Big Dry Creek Trail, near Windermere Street ,
where the proposed dog park will be localed.
Visitors must climb a steep embankment whh
numerous deteriorating wooden stalrca11s and
railings adjoining the natural tralla In order to
access this portion of the park . The only other
access lo this side of the park la along the
Belleview Park Trail , a somewhat long walk
Ex isting Parks & Recreation Resources , Standards , Level of Service September 2006 2-13
Englewood P1rk1 1nd Rtcr11tlon M11t1r P l an
Bellevi ew Creek
fro m the east side of the park . Park patrons
who rent the west side picnic shelter can
obtain temporary access via a gate located
along a dirt rood off Windermere Street ,
although only for set-up and take-down of the ir
functions . Visitors to the shelter must still
access it via the Belleview Park Trail or from
the lower parking lot along the Big Dry Creek
Trail.
Centennial Park
Centennial Park is located in southwest
Englewood along Union Avenue and Decatur
Street in a mixed-use industrial and hi gh
density residential area . The park is bordered
-,n the north by a scrap yard, on the west by
apartment buildings, on the south by industrial
properties , and on the east by the South Platte
River and Santa Fe Drive . Centennial is
approximately 44 acres in size and contains
3 baseball/so~Jall fields (1 with lights), a
basketball court, soccer field, playground,
2 picnic shelters, 2 restrooms , 4 parking lots , a
fishing lake with two piers , and a paved path
around the perimeter of the lake . The South
Platte River is adjacent Iv the park , and there
is a series of kayak chutes along this section
with access from the park . The South Platte
River Trail runs adjacent to the park along the
east side , and the Centennial Park Trail winds
through the park around the lake . There is also
an undeveloped natural area in the northeast
portion of the park near an ·oxbow" that once
connected to the South Platte River , however
there are no formalized trails located here .
2-14 September 2006
While the area of the park near the Rockies
Fields complex Is new , the west side of the
park Is In need of upgrading . The restrooms
are outdated and not ADA compliant , and the
picn ic shelters are outdated and prone to
vandalism , The playground is also not curre n· •V
11fety compliant. Portions of the embankmen i
along the no i1 h ;Ide of the lake are erod'1 "
from heavy fishing ust and will neeo ·,) ns'
stabilized . In general , the entire wests,:''•,:
the park could be redesigned to be more
functional and attractive, includ ing upgraded
landscaping throughout , paving and
landscaping the dirt parking lot in the north.vest
corner, and adding benches and shade
structures to the fishing piers . Additionally ,
vegetat ive screening along the north fence line
is needed to provide visual enhancements
from the adjacent scrap yard .
Cushing Park
Cushing Park is centrally located along
Dartmouth Avenue , near the RTD light rail line
and Santa Fe Drive , and in close prox imity to
CityCenter Englewood . Residential
development borders Cushing to the east and
the south . Cushing is approximately 11 acres
in size and contains a backstop for
baseball/softball games , basketbal l court , ·
horseshoe pits, shuffleboard courts , 2 picnic
shelters , multi-purpose playfleld , playground ,
skate park , restrooms , ard an off-street
parking lot shared with RTD light rail users .
There is one formal road crossing and one
informal road crossing over Inca Street for
RTD riders to access the light rail station .
Cushing also contains a small pond , small
outdoor amphitheater , and a limited paved
walk . A small portion of Little Dry Creek lies
across Inca Street to the west. The Little Dry
Creek Trail runs through th is piece of property,
underneath Santa Fe Drive where it intersects
with West South Platte River Drive .
Chapter Two
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Englewood P ■rk1 ■nd R1cr ,;•llon M1st1r Pl1r, ~« -----------------------.. ,.----~~~-
Cush ing Lake
Cushing Park is unique in that it is contains
several historical features , including plaques ,
signs , and an amphitheater alluding to the
history of the City of Englswood . Overall ,
Cushing needs to be redesigned and
upgraded. The restrooms , shelters and
playground are outdated and not ADA
compliant. The current landscaping needs to
be upgraded and enhanced , as well as a more
effective paved walk established throughout
the park .
Community Sports Complexes
Hosanna Athletic Complex
The Hosanna Athletic Complex is located
adjacent lo the Englewood High School
between Clarkson Street and Logan Street ,
just soutt-. lf US 285 . Hosanna is adjacent to
and associated with Englewood High School,
and lies in a large detention pond below the
level of the school. Hosanna is approximately
18 acres in size and contains a
baseball/softball field, 2 soccer/football game
fields , 8 tennis courts with lights, restrooms ,
off-street parking, and a concession stand .
The baseball field at Hosanna is t~e home field
of the high school boy's baseball team ,
allhough the Parks and Recreation Department
mai!'l3ins and schedules it for all activities
outside of baseball season . The Englewood
School District maintains the tennis courts .
The Little Dry Creek greenbell borders the
complex to the north and contains Little Dry
Creek, the Little Dry Creek Trail, and scattered
picnic tables. While overall Hosanna Is in
good condition , access to the complex is very
llmlled, with fencing aro und Ila enllrety and
only ona entrance frn m the west parkin:i lot
that is not clearly mark ed . Hosanna la
bounded on the east and west by scattered
residential development, on the north by
commercial development , and on the aoulh by
the high school, which prevents easy visibility
from adjacent stree tc. The complex does not
provide any typical par • amenities In an area of
the city that is deficient of adequate
neighborhood parkland . As Hosanna sits in a
residential area that is not served by a
neighborhood park, op llons for upgrading the
park in conjunc ·•on .... ,:h Li llie Dry Creek
Greenway to provide these needed amenities
should be fully explored .
MIiier Fieid
Miller Field is located in central Englewood ,
encompassing one city block between Elali
Street and Cherokee Street on the west and
east , and lthica Avenue and Jefferson Avenue
on the north and south . It is bounded on all
sides by mixed development of both residential
and commercial uses . Miller Field is
approximately 6 acres in size and contains
2 skinned baseball/softball fields , 2 turf
baseball/softball fields , and an off-street
parking lot. On the northern edge of the park
along lthica Avenue , there is a small passive,
shaded turf area . Additionally , there is a
building on •~e park site formerly used by
Eng lewoo~ Safely Services, which is closed lo
the public . Vl hile Miller Field is functional in its
current role as a baseball/softball complex,
improvements to the area could be made to
provide a neighborhood park in an area of the
city that is deficient of neighborhood parkland .
As this is the only park area serving l~e entire
residential area lo the south until Ja · ,on Park,
upgrades are necessary .
Community Park Standards
Community parks should be adequately sized
lo accommodate a variety of diverse activities,
including passive uses . The)' are ideally 25 to
100 acres in sizo, and often combine
developed parkland for self-directed or
programmed activities (festivals,
performances, fitness trails, sports fields and
Existing Parks & Recreation Resources , Standards , Level of Service September 2006 2-15
f'~ E n g I I w o o d P I r k I I n d pt I c r I I I I O n M I I I t r , I I n ~~~-------------------------
courts , picn ic shelters , etc .) with natural areas
or other interesting elements (water features ,
lo .eats or garder,s). They should be centrally
located and acc,issible to everyone in the
community . An off-street trail system should
also be connected to community parks ,
allow ing for access not reliant on automobiles .
Table 2.5 lists the specific standards for
community parks .
Community Park Level of Service
Eri glewood ha s a total of 3 commun ity parks
and 2 sports complexes . Comb ined, th ese
parks total approxi mately 115 acres and
prov ide a level of serv ice of 3.6 acres per
1,000 populat ion based on a population of
32 ,124 (See Tab le 2.6).
Table 2.6 . Existing Community Park Level of
Service
I ll!l11 111,t, lft1,1., !+ .,1 f
PH~ St r • (,
Popula ti on·
Exi sti ng Dev eloped
Commun ity Park land
(a cres)'"
,1111'
32 ,124
115.35
Leve l or Service 3.6 ac/1 ,000 pop .
• Denver ReglOfl al Council of Governmen t!. (DRCOG ) Metro
Vi11on Resoorce Cen ter , 2005
·•1 nC1ud es atteage for Hosa nna Ath letic Comple x and MIiie,
Field
All three of the community parks meet the
25-acre desirable minimum standard with the
exception of Cushing Park . This park is
class ified as a commun ity park rather tha n s
neighborhood park because it contains
amenities and features that are significant to
the larger commun ity . Wh il e more acreage
and a larger pa rk area wou ld be Ider.I , Cuah lng
does provide the City of Englewood with
unique attr ibutes , including Ill unique hlatory, 1
skate park , and a central location don to the
Little Dry Creek Trail , the South Platte River
T r,,il, ~nd the RTD light rail sy■tem .
2-1 6 September 2008
Map 4 shows a 1 ¼-milt urvlct 1re1 for 11ch
developed community park , which llluItr1tH
their relatively even dlttributlon throughout the
city . Planned rtlidtntl1I devtlopment In the
norihea■t portion of Iha city would likely pllCI
added pre11ure on Cuahlng Park, which 11
already 10mewhIt undtralzed . However, tht
redes ign and retrofit of CuIhlng Park , H011nnI
Athletic Complex , and MIiier Field would
address 1h 11 l11u1 . Becauu community parka
are considered cltywldl d11tln1tlon1 , tht
service ~rea ■ IpIn 1rttri1l l'Oldwly■ and other
barriers : however , provid ing 111y ptda1trl1n
and bicycle acce11 lI Itrongly encouraged .
·1 ne City 11 currently work ing to provide better
tra il links to commun ity pIrkI.
ExpendlturH for P1rkl1nda
The City currently 1pend1 appro•lmIt1ly
$3 ,160 per ■ere Innu1lly to m■l nllln
developed parklIndI , wh ich lncludn pocket.
neighbo rhood and community parka . Other
commun ltlea In the Rocky Mountain reg ion
t,ave reported typic■I mIlntan1nce coat■ of
between S3 ,000 Ind $4 ,000 per ■ere without
con ■iderlng the coat for lrrig■tlon water '.
Developed parka that have large turf grHa
area ■ and tree, ■re Ian e•penIlv,1 per acre
tha n pocket parka and vlIl1al grHn IpaceI,
wh ich require m■lntan■nce 1q<1lpment to be
moved from IH1 to IH1, hand weeding, and
mowing by hind or with Im1ller rid ing mowers
that are 1111 afllclent. It la 1Itlm1ted that
pocket parka coat 1ppro•lm1t1ly 30% more
than larger parka to mainta in.
Open lpece Areaa
Open ap■ca 1r111 and comdo rs protect
n ■turel v1luaI on am■ller pi. ;~i, of land and
provide opportunltln for trail and ~ablllt
connactlonI . The degrH to wh ich each area
11 ·n■tur■I " depend, upon It■ I IZI,
conflgur■tlon , location , and level of u ■e, all of
'l:DAW l lMl l.
Chapter Two
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ct • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
.-~ ! n I I I w o O d P I I k I I n d fl I c r I I I I O n M I I I I r P I I n ~ ... ~------------------------
courts, picnic shelteni , etc.) with natural araas
or other lnterastlng elements (water features,
forests or gardens). They should be centrally
located and acce11lble to everyone In the
community . An off-street trail system should
also be connected to community parks ,
allowing for access not reliant on automobile.,.
Table 2.5 lists the specific standards for
community perks .
Community Park Level of Service
Englewood has a total of 3 community parks
and 2 sports complexes . Combined, th ese
parks total approximately 115 acres end
provide a level of service of 3.6 acres per
1,000 population based on a population of
32 ,124 (See Table 2.6).
Table 2.8. Exl1tlng Community Pork L1vel of
Service
,,, ', ff' 1 I , f
I ~ " 1 , ,
, (HI,
Population•
Existing Developed
Community Par1dand
(acres)""
Level of Service
32 ,124
115.35
3.6 ac/1 ,000 pop .
• Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCO tolro
Vision Resourco Center. 2005.
·•1ndudes acreage lot Hosanna Athlellc Complex and Miller
Field.
All three of the community parks meet the
25 e,cre desirable minimum standard with the
exr.eption of Cushing Park . This park is
classified as a community park rather than a
neighborhood park because it contains
amenities and features that are significant to
the larg er community . While more acreage
and a larger park area would be Ideal, Cushing
does provide the City of Englewood with
unique attributes, including Its unique history, a
skate park, and a central location close to the
Little Dry Creek Trail, the South Piette River
Trail, and the RTD light rail system .
2-16 September 2006
Map 4 ahows a 11/rmlle service area for each
developed community park, which Illustrates
their relatively even distribution throughout the
city . Planned resldentlal development In the
northeast portion of the city would likely piece
added pressure on Cushing Park , which Is
already somewhat undeniized . However, the
redesign and retrofit ol Cushing Park, Hosanna
Athletic Complex , and MIiier Field would
address this issue . Because community perks
are considered citywide dustlnations , the
service areas span arterial roadways and other
barriers; however, providing :.esy pedestrian
and bicycle access is strongly b~couraged .
The City is currently working to provide better
trail links to community parks.
Expenditures for Parkland•
The City currently spends approximately
$3,160 per acre annually to maintain
developed parklands , which includes pocket ,
neighborhood and community parks . Other
communities in the Rocky Mountain region
have reported typical maintenance costs of
between $3,000 and $4 ,000 per acre without
considering the cost for irrigation water'.
Developed parks that have large turf grass
areas and trees are less expensi11e per acre
than pocket parks and visual grenn spaces,
which require maintena r,~ e~u ipment to bJ
moved from site to site, hand weeding, anj
mowing by hand or with smaller riding r-.owers
that are less efficient. It is estimatetl !t,at
pocket parks cost approximately 30% more
than larger parks to maintain .
Open Space Ara11
Open space areas and corridors protect
natural values on smaller parcels of land and
provide opportunities for trail and habitat
connections . The degree to which each area
is ·natural" depends upon its size ,
configuration. locet 'on, and le\el of use , all of
1 EDAW200J .
Chapter Two
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
E n II I t W O O d P I r k I I fl d ft fl C f I I t I O fl M I I I I r P I I n ,~ ----------·---------------~~.,
Tabla 2.5 Community Partt Slandard1
8Cf81
Sports Complex Varies
Provides opportun ities for community-
wide activities and facilities . Should
mainta in a balance between
, programmed sports facilities and other
commun ity activity areas , such as
urban forests , gardens, histori c
features , water features . performance
areas , fostival spaces , plazas , etc ., and
have fe ctures that appeal to the
broader commun ity .
Portion, of lhe 1118 1hould be
relatlvaly nat to accommodate
fields and facili ty development If
the park site allows . Special site
features , such as streams , lakes ,
forests, rock outcrops , historic or
archaeolog ical sites and other
interesting elemen ts ma y add to
the un lq1.:e character of the park .
Ideally, will have good access
Sports complexes are not complete from a collector or arterial street.
commun ity parks as they are very
special-purpose . However , they Direct access to primary
contribute to the overall level of service commun ity tra il system des irable .
fo; commun ity parks . See defin ition
below .
Community parks should generally be
located to prO\ Ide all res idents access
to a commun ity park within 1-2 miles
ol their home . Community parks may
also serve as the local neighborhood
park for residential areas within ½ mile .
Provides opportunities for commun ity-
wide programmed and self-directed
sports , such as baseball, softball ,
soccc.r. tenn is, in -line hockey. and
skateboarding in higher intensity use
fa cilities . Lim ited areas for passive
recreation uses and other features that
appeal to the broader community .
Strategically locate to fill service gaps
for specialized spon s faci litie s .
Majority of site should be
relatively flat to accommodPle
sports fields .
Locate away from residential
areas to avoid traffic , tight and
noise conflicts .
Existing Parl<s & R&crea li,:i Resour<>,'9, Standards . Level of Service September 2006
Part of
community
park level of
service
Sldndard .
2-17
.,~ E n g \ f W O O d P I r k I I n d R I C r I I I I O M M I I I t r P I I n ~y.;~--------------------------
2-18
•
r1,-1 ,.,.,
... . . ·.
lii •l•i!t l'o''lhUl ,111••1•• . .
r
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
"""'-end RKtNlion .....,. ,,,_,,
i....,., ..... ,.__,. ---D C,,~ -~,.._• .......,..,...c:_,,,.,""1s,a,tac....
•.. n. ....... ~a,..,s,..
,,l4'111ta.LN fll t,o,al ........ P-"9
_..,_,.. a.., .. 110...<11~
Map 4: Community Park Service Areas
September 2006
Mop 4: Community Park s«vtco ArHs
. "' •,t..i.-
Lhapter Two
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
l!ngltwood Perk, 1nd ,t1cr11tlon M11t1r Plan ,~ -----------------------~~~
which influence Its ability to function In a native
state . Open apace araas and corridors are
frequently located along stream corridors and
provide opportunities for nature-oriented
outdoor rocreatlon , which often contain a multi-
purpoaa trail or segment of a trail system .
Natural areas are one type of open space with
management emphasis placed on habitat and
natural resource protection , with some public
access. These properties may be in a narrow
corridor configuration or exist as larger pieces
of land . The city currently is targeting
preservation of open space natural areas along
the South Platte River to create a contiguous
oper space corridor that links through the
Denver metro area . There are no set site
characteristics of natural areas and corridors .
however limited areas of the site can be
dedicated to park-like uses and contain park-
like amenities , such as trails, benches , picnic
sites , and environmental inta ,·pretation and
education areas. As natural areas and
corridors are •Jsually f.u ovided for when
available and do no( specifically serve park
functions , there is no set level of service .
Table 2.7 lists standards and ch aracteristics of
open space .
Greenbelts arc~ second type of open space .
Greenbelts currentr~-ftxist in two locations in
Englewood : along Hal\ ard Gulch in the
northwest and along a ,Jrainage p~th in a
southeast alignment between Rotolo Park and
Delaware Street.
Northwe1t GrHnbelt
The Northwest Greenbelt is located in
northwest Englewood between Zuni Street and
the South Platte River . It Is approximately
10. 75 acres in size and contains a parking
area, playground, and backstop for Informal
baseball/softball games. It Is also bise,;ted by
an Intermittent stream and has the Northwest
Greenbelt/Harvard Gulch Trail running Its
lenglh . There are steep embankments along
both sides of the majority of the greenbelt
leadinp down to the stream . Currently the turf
along the greenbelt is Irrigated and mowed .
W,'lile thg mowed turf offers an orderly, clean
lo•Jk, it also presents an undue maintenance
burden in light of the fact that much of the
greenbelt is not frequently used. Discontinuing
the irrigation and mowing of those sections that
do not provide active uses, such as the
backstop or playground , and returning them to
native vegetation would reduce the
maintenance burden and provide a more
r,atural landsca~e for the area .
Southwest GrHnbelt
The Southwest Greenbelt is located in south-
central Englewood between the southeast
corner of Rotolo Park at Hu ron Street and
Delawarr Street. It is approximately
5.51 acres in size and contains picnic tables
and the 5outhwest Greenbelt Trail. An
intermittent stream also bisects the greenbelt.
There are steep embankments along both
sides of the majority of the greenbelt leading
down to the stream. Currently the turf along the
g, .Jenbelt is irrigated and mowed. While the
mo·Ned turf presents an orderly, clean look , it
al so oresents an undue maintAnance burden in
light of the fact that much of tha greenbelt is
not frequently used. Discontinuing the
irrl~ation and mowing of those sections that do
not provide active uses (such as picnic tables)
and r<'tuming them to native vegetation would
r8111cll the maintenance burden and provide a
more natural landscape for the area .
Existing Parks & Recreation Resources , Standards, Level of Service September 2006 2-19
,~ ln9l1wood P1rll:1 and R.1cr11llon M11t1r Plan ij""~--------------------------
T1blt 2.7. Opan Space ltlncllrdl
Natural Areal Varies
Natural Corridor
Greenbelt
Visual Green
Spaces
2-20
NA
Varies
Protects natural va1u11 on
smaller parcels . Often
located along atre■m
corridors . Provides
opportunit ies for nature •
oriented , outdoor recreation .
wh ich may lnciude multi-
purpose trails .
Provides linear corridors for
trail connections through the
city.
Strategically located and
highly visible natural Of
manicured lands that
contribute signlficanlly to the
visual quality of the overall
commun ity, not just a specific
neighborhood. May have little
or no pub li c access or
rec,eational activitl1:ts . May
conta in sculpiure or other
forms of art.
September 2006
Emph11 l1 on re10Urce
protection or preservation with
some public access provided .
Limited site area can be
ded icated to park-li ke uses ,
such as roads , parking areas ,
trans. env ironmental
education /i nterpretive areas .
picn ic sites, and visitor sup p".>rt
racmtlas .
Typically along urban drainage
ways . Minimum corridor width
des ired Is 150' to prov:da
adequate wtdth for tra il , native
landscaping and buffers from
adjacent development. May
include some developed park-
like landscaping in high use
areas.
May be part of a larger public
project (e .g. arterial streetscape
or public building landscape).
No LOS standard .
No LOS standard
No LOS standard .
Chapter Two
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .!
t/ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
;;E_;•;_&:.;,I ;;_• ,;;w_;•;.;;,• _;d_,;P_;,• ,;,' ,;;,k,;•_,;•_;',;,' ;;,d...;11_;•;,.;;.c •' •••••'•'••••-"'M"'••• •' ••••-P•I••••--------~''
Vl1u1I Gl'ffn Sp1c11
Visual Green Spaces (VGS) are park areas
that form vegetative Islands that break up the
atmosphere of cong~stion in densely urban
areas and provide a space for compatible
forms of quiet recreation . Their primary
purpose is lo enhanca community aesthetics
and , as such , shcJld be located in visually
accessible ar,as. No level of service for VGS
area has been calculated nor is ii desired ,
because these types of areas are dependent
upon the neighborhood character and do not
often prov ide for typical park functions .
There are currently two propertie s that tota l
approximately 18 acres , which are classified as
Visual Green Spaces .
Little Dry Creek
Little Dry :reek is located in two areas of
central Englewood and the Little Dry Creek
alignmert. The first parcel is located between
East South Platte River Drive and South Inca
Street , just across from Cushing Park . The
second parcel is located between West
Hampden Avenue and South Clarkson Street.
Little Dry Creek is approximately 14 .20 acres
and contains picnic tables , benches , a plaza ,
water features , and the Little Dry Creek Trail.
Currently the turf along Little Dry Creek is
irrigated and mowed . Portions of Little Dry
Creek are deteriorated, and much of the
surfaces, walls, and landscaping are in need of
renovation . Access lo portions of Little Dry
Creek is also proh ibitive ; options lo improve
this should be explored through working with
neighboring landowners .
While the Little Dry Creek Trail offers a needed
o'f-streel bi ke and pedestrian route through the
center of tha city , there are a few critical links
that have not yet been constructed . A link ;~
needed lo connect the two parcels of Little Dry
Creek , ao •, a connection is needed between
Little Dry <.:,eek and Englewood CityCenler. A
bike and pedestrian bridge is also needed lo
connect Little O Creek to an existing
trailhead al Dartmouth Avenue and West
South Platte River Drive , along the South
Platte River Trail.
CltyC•nter Plaza
CityCenter Plaza is located adjacent to the
Englewood Civic Center ~nd is part of the
larger Englewood CityCenw project.
CitvCenter Plaza is one of th~ focal points of
the Englewood CityCenter proi acl and provides
a small , pleasant, park-like setti ng in the
middle of the development. CityC~nter Plaza
has a small turf area along with a central
fountain and the CilyCenler AmphilheAler ,
which hosts events throughout the summer
including Englewood's own Sounds of Su mmer
Concert series , KidSlage performances , and
many other musical and dramatic
performances . CityCenter Plaza is
approximately 3.5 acres in size .
a. Trall
Although the City of Englewood has not
adopted specific standards for trai ls, ii has
identified specific goals and objectives in the
2003 Englewood Comprehensive Master Plan ,
emphasizing the need for a system of
"continuous connections between parks,
recreational fac ilities , natural open spaces , as
well as urban centers , schools , and
transportation links through pedestr;an and
bicycle trails , easements , and greenbelts ".
The city has also developed a Master Bicycle
Plan that serves as an addendum lo the 2003
Englewood Comprehensive Plan . In addition
lo on-street bike lanes and routes , part of the
Bicycle Master Plan illustrates the existing and
proposed future trails that are easily available
for use by Englewood residents . Regional
trails are those that cross several municipal
boundaries , serve the greater Denver
metropolitan area including Englewood , and
a'.e maintained by several jurisdictional
authorities . Local trails are those that exist
primarily within the City of Englewood and are
intended primarily for use by Englewood
resid9nls . Local trails may , however , extend
outside of the city limits and maintenance for
these trails might be shared with other
municipalities . Both regional and local trails
Axisl within the City of Englewood and have
b"en primarily developed alc.np waler and
Existing Pa rks & Recreation Resources , Standards, Level of Service September 2006 2-21
,~ E n Iii I e 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 ~~~-------------------------
drainage ways . The city has also identifi<'d
numerous on-street bicycle routes . These
•tes will be evaluated as part of this plan in
, of their ability to provide connections to
i and recreation amenities throughout the
city .
Regional Trails
South Pl•tt• River Trail
The South Platte River Trail consists of a large
part of the Colorado trail system and
essentially bisects the ent:,e Den ve r
metropolitan area . The trail follows the river's
alignmerit and originates at Waterton Canyon ,
where the river leaves the foothills . It then
flows onto the plains and continues north
through the metropolitan region to the City of
Brighton . The trail, also known as the Mary
Carter Greenway , passes through the two
western fingers of Englewood , the Englewood
Municipal Golf Cour,;e , and flanks the
remainder of Ec.g1ewood 's western boundary .
The portions of the trail within the vicinity of the
City of Englewood total approximately
6.5 miles .
South Plane River Trait
H/1111 Line Cana l
The High Line Canal Trail follows a
meandering path to the south and east of the
City of Englewood , originating in Highlands
Ranch and ending near Buckley Air Force
Base in the City of Aurora . Although no
portions of the trail exist within the City of
Englewood , it is in close proximity and
available for recreational use by Englewood
residents . The portions of the trail within the
2-22 September 2006
vicinity of the City of Englewood total
approximately 15 miles .
Bear C,eelr Trail
The Bear Creek Trail connects to the South
Platte River Trail just north of the Englewood
Municipal Golf Course , and extends west to
the Town of Morrison . The portions of the trail
within the vicinity of the City of Englewood total
approximately 2.5 miles .
Local Trails
Little Dry C,eelc Trail
The Little Dry Creek Trail begins at
approximately the 3700 block of Clarkson
Street and follows the Little Dry Creek
al ignment to the City Market Place where that
portion of the trail ends . The trail then picks up
again on the west side of Elati Street just north
of Floyd Avenue , and extends to East South
Platte River Drive . There is a trailhead on
West Platte River Drive and Dartmouth
Avenu e. A critical mi~sing link along the trail is
a pedestrian crossing over the South Platte
River from East South Platte River Drive to the
trailhead al Dartmouth Avenue and West
South Platte River Drive . The Little Dry Creek
Trail does not currently have an off-street
connection with Englewood CityCenter and the
Little Dry Creek Trail segment in Cushing Park .
The trail within the City of En3lewood totals
approx imatel y 1.5 miles .
Big Dry Creek Trail
The Big Dry Creek Trail begins at Lehew
Avenue near Progress Park and follows the
Oir nry Creek alignment und er Belleview
Av en ue and through Belleview Parf . It then
passes under Santa Fe Drive to a pedestrian
bridge that spans the South Platte River and
connects to the South Platte River Trail. There
are long -term plans for the Big Dry Creek Trail
lo eventually connect with the Highline Canal
Trail south oft"-city . The Big Dry Creek Trail
within the City of Englewood totals
approximately 1.5 miles .
Southwest G,eenbe/1 Trail
The Southwest Greenbelt Trail originates at
Rotolo Parlr at Huron Street north of Stanford
Chapter Two
• • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
E n 9 I I \"' 0 0 d p I r k I I n d R I C r I I t I O n M I I I I r P I I n
______________ ;...;;.;...,;,.;..;..;;. ______ ~{,
Avenue , and follows a drainage in a
southwestern alignment ending at Delaware
Street south of Stanford Avenue . The
Southwest Greenbelt Trail totals approximately
1 /3 of a mile .
Southwest C.,reenbell Trail
Northwest Greenbelt/West Harvard Gulch
Trait
The Northwest Greenbelt/West Harvard Gulch
Trail originates in the City of Denver at Federal
Boulevard, and follows the Harvard Gulch
alignment where it enters the City of
Englewood at Zuni Street. It then continues on
to Raritan Street where it ends . The City of
Denver and the City of Englewood are
currently working together to extend the trail
from Raritan Street to the east to conner.I with
the South Platte River Tr1il. The Northwest
Greenbelt/West Harvard Gulch Trail within the
City of Englewood totals ,,pproximatel l' ½ mile .
The portion of the trail wit~' 1 the City of Denver
also totals approximately½ mile .
Centennlal Park Trait
The Centennial Park Trail circumnavigates the
lake in Centennial Park and connects with the
South Platte River Trail in two locations . The
total length of the trail is approximately 1 mile .
Sel/evlew Park Trait
The Belleview Park Trail meanders though
Bellaview Par1< and pro ·Jides access to the
H~htly used west side passive area. The total
length of the trail within the park is
approximately ½ mile .
C. Eldllln8 lchoal DIMltct and
Pllvalattcw.P,ult lllcrNllDn
FaclltlN
The city has an informal joint use agreement
with the Englewood School District to share
use of each others facilities for programm ing of
certain sports and activities . Priority for use of
school facilities is given to school needs first ,
then to the Parks and Recreation Department.
Likewise , priority for use of Parks Department
facilities is first given to Parks and Recreation
Department programming , then to school
needs . The school gyms are used by the city
and non-profit recreation providers for
basketball , volleyball, and other indoor court
games .
The following schools have specific facil ities
that are maintained by the Parks and
RecreJtion Department.
Clayton Elementary School
Clayton Elementary School is located in sl)i,th-
central Englewood on "i ufts Avenue betw oen
Fox Street and Delaware Street. The Parks
and Recreation Department maintains the
youth soccer field and mu lti -purpose playfield
with backstop , which covers approximately
0.92 acre . Other facilities at the site
maintained by the school district include
2 basketball co1Jrts , a multi-purpose play court,
and playgrounds .
Flood Middle School
Flood Middle School is located in north-central
Englewood on Kenyon Avenue, just south of
US Highway 285 . The Parks and Recreation
Department maintains the in-line hockey rink ,
which covers approx !mately 0.34 acre . Other
facilities at the site maintained by the school
district include a large multi -purpose playfield
with backstop available for youth soccer, youth
baseball/softball, or youth football .
Sine/air Middle School
Sinclair Middle School is located in south
Englewood along Chenango Avenue and
Acoma Street, Just west of Broadway Avenue .
The Parks and Recreation Department
Existing Parks & Recreation Resources , Standards, Level of Service September 2006 2-23
#~ I! n g I t w O O d P I r t I I n d "-t c r I I I I O n M I I I I r P I I n ~ ... ~------------------------
maintains the tennis courts , handball courts,
and ln41ne hockey rink, which all cover
approximately 0.67 acre . Other facilltles at the
site malntalnoo by the school district lnclud•1
2 youth soccer f,elds end e multi-purpose
playfleld.
Other Englewood schools where facilities are
used but not maintained by the city include
Bishop Elementary School , Charies Hay
Elementary School, Cherrelyn Elementary
School, Maddox Elementary School , and
Englewood High School.
Additionally , a few parks within th e sys 1arn are
adjacent \o and share school property . These
include the Hosanna Athletic Complex, Barde
Park, Duncan F .~rk . and Baker Park located
next to Colorado 's Finest Alterna•i1-s ~io h
School. Of these, the city only main tains the
actual parkland and selected recreation
facilities associated with these parks , and not
any school facilities or property .
September 2006
The City of Englewood cooperates with and, In
some Instances, facilitates the use of public
lands and facilities by non-profit organizations,
Including the Englewood Youth Sports
Association (EYSA) and the Englewood
Soccer Association (ESA). These non-profit
orga~lzalions provide recreational and athletic
programs that supplement the programs
provided by the city . The recreational and
athletic programs offered by these
organizations are summarized In Chapter
Three .
l.~apterTwo
• • • • • • • • • • • $ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • ft • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Englewood P1rk1 and R1cr11tlon M11t1r Pltn ....;;,.._...;...;..;....;..;;...;.;;.;...,;,;.;.;.;.:,.;;.;.;.:.;;.~:.:.:.:.:...;..:.:.::.... ____ ~t,
Chai,ter Three -IHues and
Ne1,ds Analysls
Th ;s chapter documents the issues and needs
that influence the type and number of parks and
recreational facilities that are needed in the
community . Areas of the community that do not
have convenient, safe access lo neighborhood
and community parks were identified in Chapter
Two . This chapter includes population and
growth projections, demographic
characteristics , and locations of planned
residential growth, which will directly affect the
locations and quantities of additional parklands ,
amenities , and sports facilities . Peer
communities were also surveyed to determine
the levels of service they provide for parkland
and common recreational facilities . This
database serves as a benchmark when
determining lhe levels of service that are
appropriate for Englewood .
Recreational preferences and lhA level of
demand for additional parks and recreational
opportunities are also addressed in this
chapter. Pertinent information from national
databases on recreation participation levels and
data from the Colorado SCORP 2003-2007
have been considered. In October 2005 , a
formal community-wide mail back survey was
conducted by Left Brain Concepts , Inc ., a
Denver based research and consulting firm , lo
measure satisfaction levels, identify what
people rlo in parks, and determine what
facilities or amenities they believe there should
be more of in parks . Additionally , interviews
were conducted with representative, of other
public and non-profit recre ation providers in
Englewood and included the Englewood School
District (ESD), lhe Englewood Youth Sports
~ssocialion (EYSA), and the Englewood Soccer
Association (ESA).
The results of this analysis are summarizeL at
the end of the chapter .
A. Populatlon and Demographic
Char■cterl ■tlc•
In 2005 , the City of Englewood had a
population of 32.124 ' with a very modest
growth rate of 0.2% annually . By comparison ,
A, apahoe County , in which Englewood lies , has
a growth rate of 1.7% annually. The average
household size for the City of Englewood was
2.14 peop le , which is somewhat lower than the
Arapahoe County average of 2.53 .
Approximately 20%2 of the population is under
the age of 18 , with 11% age 5 to 14 -the
predominant age of children who are most
active in programmed recreational sports
leagues . Twenty-six pe rcent (26%) of
households have children under the age of 1 ~
Fourteen percent (14%) of the total population
in Englewood is age 65 or older. Twenty-six
percent (26%) are age 20 lo 34, and 38% are
age 35 lo 64 Table 3.1 illustrates these
numbers ia celail.
The population of Englewood is also aging . By
the year 2030 there will be more Americans
over age 65 (20% of the total population) than
under age 183. Programs and tacilities in parks
will need to adjust to meet the needs of an
active , yet less mobile and athletic clienlele .
Being physically active is key in maintaining
independence and a high quality of life . In
general , people become less physically active
as they get older; nearly 40% of people over the
age of 55 repo~ no leisure-time physical
activity . Chalidnging exercises and physical
activities, done regularly, can help many older
adults improve their health , even when done at
a moderate level'.
The ethnic makeup of Englewood is somewhat
less diverse than state and regional averages ,
with whites comprising 87 .8% of the population .
Approximately 13 .1 % of the population report
1 Denver Reg ional Council of Governments (DRCOG),
January 17, 2006 .
: US Census Bureau , Census 2000 ,
US Administration on Aging , website accessed January
2006 .
' National Institute on Aging -Exercis e: A Gu lde from the
Nallonat lnslil ule on Aging , 2001 .
Issues and Needs Analysis September 2006 3-1
Englewood P1rk1 and R1cr11tlon M111~
Table 3.1 Englawood Age Dl1trtbutlo n
some level 'lf Latino descent, while only 2.1 %
report American Indian descent and 2.4%
report Asian descent : 1.8% of the total
population in Englewood is African American .
Changes in diversity should be monitored over
time to determine if changes in cullurally-related
programs or facility design based on ethnic
preferences and cultur~ should be made .
a. Development Patterns
Since Eng lewood is surrounded on all sides lJy
fully developed communities, most of the city 's
growth is occurring as infill or redevelopment in
existing areas . Potential new developments
that are currently in the planning stages are
described below with information provided by
the City of Englewood Community Development
Department.
Denver Seminary Site
The former Denver Se minary site will be a
mixed-use development located in the
northeast area of the city , with up to 350 for -
sale resident ial units and approximately 65 ,000
square feel of commercial space . The
approximate cost per unit has yet to be
determined ; however, ii is likely to be a higher-
end residential development targeted toward
buyers 45 years of age and older . When fully
occ .:µi lld, this project will provide housing for an
addi""nal 700 people who will need parks and
recrea tron services . Ground breaking is
expec ieti :~ occur in the spring of 2006 .
Masonic Temple Site
This development is likely to be a mixed-usa
developn;ent as sociated with Swedish Medical
Center . The site is located near the area of Old
Hampden Ave. ,ue and Logan Street in north-
central Englewood . The development is slated
to replace an existing former school building,
and will contain a few floors of office space and
two floors of residential housing. Th · target
markfJI for the residential units will most likely
be staff and employees of Swe<!ish Medical
Center ; however, the exact num ber and cost of
the units is not yet known .
Engll!wood Parkway and South .A.co,na
StrPet Site
There ar• two potential mixed-use dovelopment
projects planned for this site, locaterJ in north-
central Englewood just west of ::;outh Broadway
Street. One deve lopment will have up ,
89 units of residential housing with 30,000
square fee\ of commercial space . The second
development will have up lo 69 units of
residential housing with 27 ,000 feet of
commercial space . Together , these
developments will provide housing for an
additional 300 people . The likely target market
will be young professionals looki:ig for easy
access lo downtown Denver. The specifi c cost
of the units is nol yet known , but ii is anticipated
to be a higher-end project. II is hoped th3t this
project will serve as an impetus for
redevel0pmenl in the area between downtown
Englewood and Englewood CityCenter .
US 285 and South Pennsylvania Street
Site
There is a development in the ea~y stages of
planning slated for the area of US 285 and
South Pennsylvan ia Street in north-central
Englewood . It is anticipated that !his project will
be a senior housing development with up to
60 residential units . Although no costs have
been d.itermined for the units at this time . ii is
anticipated they will be listed for-sale al fair
market value .
Bate, Station LRT Site
Future projections anticipate that there will be a
large mixed-use development bull! near the
planned Light Rall Transit Bates Station located
3-2 September 2006 Chapter Three
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • •
;.!!.!.!wood P1r11C1 1nd ft1cr11llon M11t1r Pl1n
i~ north-central Englewood, along the existing
light rail lme . Although no specific develtl pment
plans have been submitted to the city at this
time , community planners anticipate there will
be as many as 400 for-sale residential units
associated with this project over a 1 O to 15-year
buildout ho ri zon . he project will most likely be
targeted towards young professiona ls and
e".'pty nesters looking for ready access to light
rail. Voters approved funding for the Fas Tracks
initi ative in 2004 and construction on the Bates
Station is slated to begin sometime in 2007 .
All the potential developments described above
are genera lly located in ~orth Englewood along
the US Highway 285/Old Hampden Avenue
corridor -east of Santa Fe Drive and west of
University Boulevard . Existing residential areas
with no access to parks were iden tified in
Chapter Two on Map 3. As is shown , the US
285 and Old Hampden Avenue corridor already
lacks adequate parklands for residents . With
an average household size of 2.14 , the 968
known potential housing units in this area
tr~nslates into an additional 2,072 people who
w,11 need access to parks in the future . Already
lacki ng adequate park access , the addition of
more than 2,072 people along this corridor w,11
create pressure for additinnal parkland .
Obtaining adequately sized parks to meet the
needs of both current and additic,nal residents
has _ been and will continue to be a cha!lenge ,
as httle vacant land exi sts that is large enough
for a neighborhood park . Land in the existing
developed areas of the city is also becom ing
,ery expensive as the demand !or developable
res idential land increases .
Based on estimates provided by the City of
Englewood Department of Public Works, the
ut1hty system within the city can accommodate
a buildout of approximately 50 ,000 total
residents , which is approximately 18 ,000 more
people than today . Although r.c timeframe has
been identified for this ultimate buildout ,
locations and sizes of parks to serve the
existing and future needs of the community
should be considered . Englewood should also
determine whether or not it is economically
viable to acqu ire parkland now and maintain it
for future development for these potential
residents .
C. PHr Community Comparison•
Communities that were considered "pee r"
communities were Identified and contacted to
solicit information regarding the acres of parks
and numbers of recreational sports lac ilit :es
they provide to their residents . This database
serves as a benchmark when determining
levels of service that are appropriate for
Englewood . Commun ities along the Colorado
Front Range that were compared include Fort
Collins (pep . 126 ,903), Westminster (pop .
105,177), Arvada (pop. 103 ,004), Longmont
(80 ,612), Fort Lupton (7 ,111), Windsor
(12 ,711), Loveland (57,485). Wheat Ridge
(31,869), Lakewood (143 ,611), Broomfield
(47 ,500), Golden (17 ,731), and Greeley
(85 ,887). All of these communities reported
only their city residents in the data and not the
larger surrounding population they may also
serve .
Table 3.2 lists the ~verage number of facilities
provided by the 12 other communities and
indicates the amount of de velo ped parkland
they provide, as well as the parkland standard
they have adopted when available (refer to the
appendix for th~ complete table).
The City of Englewood has a lower level of
service than average for soccer fields with
perm_anent goals . The cities that are keeping
up with demands in their own communities are
providing a level of servi ce of approximately
1 field per 3,500 to 4000 residents . Engle'Nood
has a level of service of approximately 1 field
per 6,498 residents . However , there ara
2 fields with permanent goals at Sinc1 a1r Middle
School that are programmed and utilized by the
Englewood Soccer Association (ESA), yet they
are not maintained by the Department of Park s
and Recreation . When these fields are factor ed
into the average, the level of service for soccer
fields in E_nglewood rises to 1 field for every
4,061 residents , which is very closf! to average .
Issues end Needs Analysis Septamber 2006 3-3
.,.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
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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
•
•
.
~
-
•
-
• •
il
l
1,
;•
..
~
!
•
•
!
.
~
..
.. ~
c,
:"
!!
!
.
.
'
!
·
-
~
.
.
;
;
• •
,s
~
'
g
··
•
~
1 •
•
I
sf
.',
.
,
:
-
-
ii
:
:
5
,.
,
,.
,
.,
,
.;
.
-
• • • •
I
• •
]
•
l
•
j
•
!
•
JI
•
~ 1
..
'f
a
lt
.,:
-
:
3
.
-·'
t
•
a
,,
~
•
•
!
..
.
~
;:
I
•
"I'
!
·
•
I
.
.
-
,B
;
'J
f
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
,i
i
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
'l
a
I
I
!
0.
.
I
•
!
,f
l
!
••
-.
"
!
.
.
i
~s
BJ
!
••
.
-.
!
•
•
I
lJ
a
i
.•
.
..
I
•
•
i
u
!
·
I
" -.
!
""
!
rl
i
·
I
-
-
!
••
i
u
!
• I
-
-•
!
--
;
h
•
-11
.
-
-
!
-
-
!
,)
l
-
-.
.
l
•
•
!
u
I
-1
1
..
.
l
"
"
!
•I
l
-1
1
.
.
.
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·
!I
t
11
1
1
11
1
1
11
u-
1
1
1
1
+
• • •
• • •
• • • •
• • •
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
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 -