Loading...
Parks Commission Agenda Packet 11-20-1991AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTTCELLO PARKS COMMISSION Wednesday, November 20, 1991 - x:00 p.m. Members: Fran Fair, Bruce Thielen, Larry Nolan, Dick Frie, Roger Carlson 1. Call to order. 2. Adopt agenda. 3. Consideration of minutes of the regular meeting held October 16, 1991. 4. Consideration of minutes of the special meeting held October 8, 1991. 5. View video tape of the City of Winona Municipal Pool project and discuss pool design and cost issues with Tom Schaffer of Associated Pool Builders, Inc. I am expecting delivery of the Winona pool project video tape soon. In addition to reviewing this tape, I have contacted Tom Schaffer of Associated Pool Builders, Inc. Schaffer's company has developed numerous pool facilities throughout the upper midwest. Schaffer will be able to provide the Parks Commission with up-to-date information on pool design features, and he also has current cost information. It is hoped that the discussion with Schaffer could result in development of a preliminary pool development concept and associated cost. 6. Review pedestrian trail development policies of various communities; begin development of a local policy. Attached you will find the City of Plymouth's Comprehensive Plan for development of community trails. The document autlines how trails are classified in Plymouth, and it outlines the methods of financing trails. Please review the document in detail and pate those items contained within it that might apply to the City of Monticello. Also attached is an excerpt from the City of Plymouth's ordinance relating to park dedication. At the meeting I will present a table of information which outlines trail development policy in the City of Eden Prairie and the City of Plymouth. 7. Roger Mack report on availability of storage space for Women's Fast Pitch Softball Association. Parks Commission Agenda November 20, 1991 Page 2 8. East View plat park development update. Jeff O'Neill will report on this issue. 9. Report on park dedication fund. T have not been able to obtain the information regarding the total funds deposited with the City for the purpose of park development during the past 15 years. Twill attempt to have this information to you by meeting time on Wednesday. 10. Other matters. 11. Adjournment. ~~ L J r: MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -- MONTICELLO PARKS COMMISSION Wednesday, October 16, 1991 - 7:QQ p.m. Members Present: Fran Fair, Bruce Thielen, Dick Frie, Roger Carlson Members Absent: Larry Nolan 3. Consideration of minutes. After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Roger Carlson to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 13, 1991, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 3A. Comments Requests_,__Complaints. Jean Nelson and Mr. Crocker, representing the Girls Fast Pitch Softball Program, requested that the City consider providing space for storage of softball equipment. It was noted that the equipment is now stored in ten boxes and stored in various places throughout the city. The materials to be stored include uniforms, a pitching machine, bats, balls, etc. The storage area need not be heated. Dick Frie asked if the school. district had been approached regarding this problem. Nelson indicated that she had not asked the school for assistance in providing storage space. The Parks Commission discussed development of storage areas possibly at the Hillcrest Park. It was also Hated that the fire hall and Fourth Street Park might have space available where the equipment could be stored. It was the conclusion of the Forks Commission to take it under advisement and check with Roger Mack, Street Superintendent, regarding potential places to store this equipment on a year-- round basis. 4,w~1~ Ilolow ~ e lnt~-w.•~e ~ n •~ r6uQ. ~~ /1 4. Consideration of rovidin a recommendation re ardin Cit financial contribution toward develo ment of tennis court lights at Pinewood Elementar~School. Dick Frie reported that the cost to develop the lighting is higher than expected. He was informed that Shelly Johnson Page 1 D Parks Commission Minutes - 10/16/91 will be talking to other lighting companies in an attempt to obtain a lower cost. It was the consensus of the Parks Commission to take no action on this matter until additional cost information could be obtained by Shelly Johnson. 5. Review Cit of Winona Munici al Pool develo ment. Consider authorizing further research on the matter. The Parks Commission reviewed pool development information materials sent to the Commission by the Winona Park and Recreation Department. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Parks Commission to continue research potential development of a municipal pool. O'Neill was asked to obtain land acquisition cost information on the vacant property directly east of the fire hall. O'Neill noted that he would review the site to determine if it is large enough for a municipal pool, and he would attempt to determine the potential cast to acquire this property. 6. Fran Fair re ort on Fast Brid a Park Arboretum develo ment. Fran Fair noted that the Lions Club was instrumental in successfully completing the planting associated with the praject. She went on to note that a booklet will be made that describes who participated in the project, and the booklet will describe how the arboretum should be maintained. The title of the booklet will be "The Birthcare and Feeding of the Monticello Arboretum." Fair also noted that irrigation of the site is somewhat difficult because of the distance between the existing hydrant and the plantings. It was noted that at some point it might make sense to tap into the hydrant with a service line, which would eliminate the need to haul hoses. It was the consensus of the Farks Commission that development of the arboretum has been a success and that a letter of thanks from the City of Monticello to the arboretum group should be prepared one year after the arboretum has been in place. C~ Page 2 Parks Commission Minutes - 10/16/91 7. Review Cit sidewalk rid s stem and discuss otential bike trail system designation. General discussio_n_. No action requested. Pauline Carlson, co-owner of the Briar Oakes development area, was present to discuss her desire that the City take an active role in development of a bike and trail system serving outlying subdivisions. Planning Commission discussed the possibility of establishing a plan for providing an interconnecting network of pedestrian access to various park, school, and service resources in the community. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Parks Commission to set aside a portion of the agenda in November to review the various issues associated with development of a pedestrian trail and sidewalk system development. O'Neill was directed to research other cities regarding trail development policy. It was also suggested that the City invite developers and school district officials and other individuals or organizations that would have an interest in development of a pedestrian trail. system. As the meeting came to a conclusion, it was the consensus of the Forks Commission to request that the City Administrator review subdivision development over the past 15 years and attempt to determine how much money has been invested in the park dedication fund through the subdivision process. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator C~ Page 3 L% MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -- MONTICELLO PARKS COMMISSION October 8, 1991 - 5:00 p.m. Members Present: Fran Fa3.r, Bruce Thielen, Larry Nolan, ~• Ga~ssn Members Absent: Dick Fries Q,'~.I~ Larry Nolan called the meeting to order. Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed the Parks Commission that the Planning Commission requested that the Parks Commission review the park dedication requirement associated with development of the East View plat. O'Neill noted that the developers have requested that the City accept Outlot B as the park dedication area. O'Neill noted that although Outlot B possesses scenic beauty and is a well- known fishing site on the river, the area is difficult to develop as a park to use because of its low elevation and close proximity to County Road 39. Clint Herbst noted that Outlot B should not be accepted for park dedication, as Outlot B will not adequately serve park needs of the area. It was his view that a city park should be developed somewhere south and west of the East View plat. Tn this case, it would make sense to require cash in lieu of land. The cash could then be used to develop a park area better suited to serve the needs of the local neighborhood. It was the consensus of the Parks Commission that Outlot B is a valuable resource to the community because of .its scenic beauty and aesthetic quality; therefore, efforts should be made to preserve this land in its natural state far public use. However, the Parks Commission was not convinced that the property should remain under the City domain; rather, it should be sold to the Department of Natural Resources. After discussion, a motion was made by Bruce Thielen and seconded by Fran Fair to recognize that the subject property serves a valuable purpose to the community and to the state of Minnesota as a scenic river and fishing site; therefore, the City should accept the site as park dedication associated with the East View plat. Due to the river location and city park development limitations, the property should be under the domain and control of the Department of Natural Resources. Tt should be the goal of the City to sell the parcel to the DNR, with funds obtained from the sale to be used to fund future development of a neighborhood city park in the area. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator O TRI~IL P~~N C~iPTIIt 5 TX TRATLB Introduction All of the planning studies that were completed frrin the late 196os thro~h the mid-1970s, including the 1968 Ccmprehensive C~iide Plan, the various sector studies, the Major Center Area Task Force Report and the Housing Task Force Report cited the need fos a o~mplete pathway ~ activity nodes and population centers. In 1976, the city o~anpleted a Hi]cEway/Bikeway Task Force Report that studied the need for a bikeway/bikeway syst~n. As part of this study, a pedestrian survey was taken requesting public input to the develvpmexrt of a trail system plan. This survey indicated strong community support for a hikeFray/bikeway trail systen-. In 1978, 1984 and 1988, ornmmity surveys indicated that the residents supported the trail systcan above arty other individual segment of the park syst~n. • The Hikeway/Bik~es,Tay Task Force Report included many reoc~endations that were later adapted as policy for developing a tra_i1•systetn within the city. 'Those bons have been integrated into the goals and policies stated later in this chapter. Trail Classifications Because of the differext standards that apply to different types of trails, it is necessary to differentiate betw~.n them. The city presently has six different trail classifications: they are as follows: transportation trails, recreati.~ trail., nature trails, crass-try ski trails, sriawmobile _ trails, and equestrian trails. Transportation Trails Transportation trails provide as direct a link as possible between population areas and activity nodes such as: sr~LOOls, parks, mss, places of work and shopping places. ~ese tran.~portation pathways provide functional, safe pedestrian or bicycle aaess to activity nodes, instead of a walk or ride on a busy street. 'The tran~portatian trails generally occur adjacent to collector streets a~ minor arterials. Transportation trails are either 8'--0" wide asphalt pathways that are considered combination bicycle/pedestrian trails or 5'-~0" wide concrete sidewalks that are designated exclusively for pedestrian use. In locations where heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic would be expected, the city will ~il,~ 8'--0" wide asphalt pathways for bicycle traffic and a 5'-0" wide ooncrete sidewalk for pedestrian traffic on the opposite side of the street. U 176 Trar~spartatian trails alorx~ existing x federal, state ark. a~uYty grants whe all new collector streets and mirror during ~c~tion and/or revanstnact In 1984, the City Council agreed that fees for the develc~nt of transport with general operation funds or funds oonstxuctian. goads are fiuxkjd with the assistarx7e of never possible and are required aloerig arterials, or along existing streets :roan. it was inappropriate to use cash park ~tian t7a;1 s, but t4 fund trlose trails fran refex~ndim~s designated for trail 'Ihe Parks, Reczeatian and Natural Resources Arent has reaammerx~.ed requiring developers to constnYC.~t. 8' -0" wide a~tialt hikeways/bikEways along collector streets that will generate sufficient traffic to warrant arcern for either pedestrian or bicycle use within the road rig3~t-bf~ray. City staff has that developers be required to ooa:astxu~~t sidewalks along th~ase resi~~; ~~ streets that can aoca~mdate bicycle traffic but world be hazardous for pedestrian use, and along both sides of all streets within the MCA ormnercial area. In situations of heavy bike and pedestrian traffic, the city may rec~aire an 8'-0" wide bittm>irxxas bike trail on one side of the street and 5'--0" wide e^nc:rete pedestrian trail on the opposite side. Recreation Trails A recreation trail in men Prairie i.s generally natural rented. This means that the recreation trail system ooau..s in planes of interact such as natural areas, aro~nY3 lakes, or in areas which are especially suited to recreational use. Limited application may exist in creek valleys. A recreation bikeway is generally designed to a 10'-0" width with an 8'-0" asphalt surface. In addition, the reQeatian bikeways have maxim~,m- turning radii, ,,,~Y;,nm, visibility, minor grade charx~es, and a lexgth of one to five miles. Recreation trails are ~.ly found within co~nrninity parks or linear parks, and are funded thro~x~ cash park fees or park band refe*p ~. Nature Trails The city has designated three creek valley floodplain areas as future trail corridors. The majority of the trail system within the,.ae creek valleys will be considered "nature trails" with a soft surface lion material such as aglime or wooddzips, or will be mowed grass trails. (Hard surface trails may cuss these valleys as part of a transportatican trail system.) These trail systems will not be developed Lentil ccamplete sections of a creek corridor are aoqu.iz-ed ooru~ecting activity nodes or other trail systems at each erid of the corridor. T*?tprpretive signage and wildlife blinds will be incorporated where appropriate. S~iawa~o~aile Trails • Snowmobile trails are developed and ma; ~~; r~ on private property by the local Srx~rr.~bile Club, as well as a multi~ity snowmobile trail syst~n 177 orgarti,zatiar-. These snowmobile trails are limited to the part of the oarenmity and have been di mi r,i ~ i m on an aru7ua]. basis due to the develapmer~t of previously astral areas. the local snowmobile trails connect to the smwmr~ile tram. system in the Mint~sota River Valley, as well as to adjaoexYt community ~i1e trails to the west. Snowmobiling is not allowed on any public land other than the designated snowmobile trails. Cross-~Ganmta~y Ski Trails Cross-ccxurtry ski trails are marked, and grocxoe~d in Staring Lake Park. T,imited gmr~mi*?g has been dome at Round Lake Park for the Hl.[~1 School Cross- Country Team. ~,g rryt-or,t; al ~,~s-eo<.mtxy ski areas Within the crmu~_m~ ty Par]c system are 1T] rthe Edenbrook CaLS~YVdt1Q91 Area grid ]11 the 1]s]ear Park system Proposed for develc~ent between Ialce Riley, Rice Marsh I.akE and Mitchell Lake, and in sections of the Purgatory Creek Valley arxi Riley (meek Valley. The Minnesota Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area also has incltxied c~cnss- cauntry ski trails within its devel~t plan. ~ms~~ri an Tr~ai_1 s die city has adopted guidelines for development of equestrian trails within the city. An equestrian trail was developed in Staring Lake Park in 1982 but was remo<red in 1986 after conflicts betxa~aen equestrian trail users aril rec~ation trail users. It was datprn~ned that the trail corridor aranxl the lake was not wide erg to acc~¢-~odate both trails. 'The city should attest to aocomttr~date an equestrian trail conrkactinr- fr® the riding arena to the propo~.ed equestrian trail in the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Recreation area. E~stinq 'bails In 1974, the Hikeway/Bikeway Task Force su~itted to the City Cr~,~rycil a list of streets having the greatest importance for trails in the m;ty. Those major streets -County Road 4, Countzy Road 1, Valley View Road, Duck Lake Trail and Scenic Heic~ts Road -were referred to as the spine syst~n of the city trail system. Trails have been mr,~n~r-t~l along all of these streets, althougZt the entire letx~th of same of the streets will nrxt. be cai~aleted with sometime in the future due to the elimination of the state and a7unty grant programs far bicycle trails. Tn 1988, Eden Prairie wi11 have app~i~tely 29 sidewalks. F,~isting 8'-0" bikeways/bikeways amamt miles with another 6x-65 miles plamied. Proposed amrn~uYt to app~i~tely 10 males. Eden Prai_rie's traa.ls are shown in Figure 5.1. 178 miles of 5' --0" wade to appm~timately 43 nature walkways will ~~g arm P~ C~ Caa31s and Policies is 1. Should reflect citizen needs and be oonsist~.nt with the Cxmpr~ive Land-~Jse Plan ar~d the wive Park and Open Space Plan. 2. Should provide year-rand multiple use. 3 . Sha Lld be consistent. with cx~uzty, regice~l and federal./state objectives and should be ooordi.nated with thoee implemexttaticm efforts. 4 . Should be develq~ed and ma i r,ta i nac3 3.n a Cost~ffective ma~nnPr 5. Should reflect Eden Prairie ~ s quality of life and physical/wltural d~aracteristics. 6. Should serve existing ~~n+;ty needs and anticipate growth tx~nds of the city. 7. Develop a city-wide trail systea that min;rnize5 potPnti~l ootlfliCts between trail users and motor vehicles and p*-a~r~ the safety of the trail users. Fb ic'es A. Shall respond to ~ity~wide d~.sires and satisfy user group neer3s. B. Shall conform to the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan and the ~~npn~ive Park and Open Space Plan by: - 1]esignatirr~ Yuxtes for pedestrians and b; k~*t. - Separating trails from streets where possible. - c# i m park, open space an3 *~-~~ti cm nodes ar~d arms of cxarmiemial or cultural importance. C. Shall be efficient, and avoid duplication. D. Sha11 adate a broad range of year-ra:nd use by ex~uraging multiple modal use. E. Sha_11 ocnform to or ccerplemetrt ~and~r~G set by upper levels of gwermnerit. 7.80 0 • F. Shall ca~l~nent federal, state, oo~uzty grid abutting c~unity trail planning efforts. G. Comply with plans supported or recor~uzed by: - City Park, Recreation and Natural Resauroes nc~ni~sioa~ - City Planning ~mi~~siari - City Cuu~cil - Eden Prairie Sd~ovl District -- City residents and organized trail gr+cxips H. Shall support the city's hick quality of living and reinforce the unique natural d~aracteristics of FideYl Prairie. Y. Shall satisfy the existing ocmnwCaity's r~cis and cxmtirnae to g~ in scale and location of ocamamity developmenct treads. J. Lr~catian and design of trail corridors shall nunimize negative effects and m~?ze beneficial effects for adjaeeat land owners. Ftmctia~nal Caa~sideratiaa~s Goals 1. Hi.erar~iy of system elements should be established. 2. .Safety caQ~iderations should be applied to the separation of trail arx3 hic~ray facilities. 3. Should perform transportation functions and link neighborhood, educational., rect~ational and anther oc~nunity activity Hades and tie into existing or proposed public and private trail facilities. 4. Should aa~nserve or pre$ezve natural amenities and buffer incca~patible land use from the user. 5. Sheuld consider maY,mdnn potential use capacity and provide alternative facilities for special user groups. 181 Policies A. Levels of trail system devela~t shall be established as: - transportation trails - recre~aticrt trails - nature trails - crass-camt~y ski trails B. Trails shall be physically separated from highway facilities or lanes designated within roadway corridors. C. A pedestrian network shall be established cuss-casing the city and lin}cing the various neighborhoods. D. Parks, schools, libraries, commercial shopping areas, and other ocm~mity amenities shall be linked. E. City trails shall link up with Hennepin Park, Fish and Wildlife Sexvio~e, abutting aarec~uzity and private trail systems. F. Where passible, trail corridors shall utilize, make accessible arxi (• preserve natural amenities includirr~: creek valleys, drainage oourse~, wetlands, lake bodies, bluff lines, and major wooded areas. G. Nodal facilities may be considered for specialized groups, includisx~ trainux~ ~rpa~ for cross-country skiers and equestrian use. H. ~ Zhe use of twin, three- and fair~eel all--terrain motorized veh~.cles shall be prohibited on the city trail sy~tesn. I. In planning, design and construction of all streets aril hic~iways along designated bike and pedestrian trails, review the need for trails and sidewalks. J. On all collector roads leading to scdzools or major parks, provide an 8'-Q" wide bitum;~» bikeway on one side of the road and a ~'-4" Wide concrete sidewalk oun the opposite side of the road to aeoarmnodate pedestrian/bicycle traffic. K. Adjacent to other collector streets within the city where traffic is too heavy or too fast to safely aeccaratnadate bicycle traffic, provide an 8'-0" wide bicycle/pedestrian pathway separated from the roadway. L. 0n "thy streets" that pass ttu~x~ residential neighborhoods where traffic does not justify a separate bicycle trail, b~.-t where traffic i s too heavy to safely a~date pedestrians or young children on ~~ b~.cycles, ~~?re a 5'-0" wide aancrete pedestrian walkway. ~~z ~ . . Desiga Oaa~siderat3a~rs C Coals 1. Trail design should reflect specific use. 2. Design shazld utilize but r~nain sensitive to natural areas. 3. Trail patterns should be dictated by population density and developmexYt. ~. Roadway and utility easements should be oansidered. fas corridors. 5. Ample access an3 Ganfort/suppoYt facilities shaitd be provided. 6. 'Ilze trail system should integrate new residential and eatmnercial areas as they emerge. 7. Desicp~ oansistesxy should occur with other trail ~. 8. Pmven design standards should be applied with modifications considered for unique local caa~ditions. Policies • A. Trail elements shall be designed with the following user q~ in mind: - hiking and plea_~~~-e wa'Lking - bicycling - ski touring -- bird watrh.ing or nature trails 8. Trails shall utilize open space oaxarring due to natural features where appropriate, such as conservation areas and creek valleys. C. Trails shall be developed prrportionate to city develc~ment pattea~ns and pc~ulatian density. D. Highway arx3 utility rights~f-way sha].1 be used where appropriate and feasible. E. Trail support facilities shall be provided including access points, sicF-irxl and striping, parking, bridges and, where needed, sanitation and shelter items. F. 'III trail system shall be continually e~ctended into new housing or carnnex~cial areas as they are developed. 183 G. Trail elements must be integrated into existirx~ erxvi *~++p*-~~ with sensitivity to desicpz ar~d neighbortwod character. H. Trail type, design and sicpling c~nnSisterxy shall occur within the city and a smooth transition shall take place betw~aer- trails of differing jurisdictions. 2. Creativity shall be exercised when oanformirr~ design and ~ictimn standards to specific sites especially those with sensitive natural characteristics or signi.ficaxrt physical constraints. J. Provide camped curbs to facilitate aar~s by handicapped ~ +-~ and bicycles. Maintet~soe Consideratica~s Cowls ].. 'The trail systeun should generate minimal maintenarx5e; that which does -occur should be within the capabilities of the City of Eden Prairie. 2. Zhe trail syst~n shwld ex~rage user tzpk~ee~ and minimize vandalism. 3. User grain generating high maintexk-~nce or negative impacts, should be restricted or avoided. A. 'Ile trail systeun shall be located, designed and acted to minimize mairit~ cost. S. Trail mai*r+-enanoe procedures shall be feasible by the City of Fden Urairie both now and in the future. mere passible, e pra~edutes shall conform to existing city activities for efficiency. C. Trail ?++a?*~-p*+~*+~ should reinforce user comfort and safety. D. Trail system implementation through its organization, design and construction Should encavage ?~Y7~m+ user a and trpk~ae}a. Potential for varr3alism should be ]cept to a m,r„~,-~r,,, E. Users which cause high maintenance or are potentially destructive tv trails facilities such as eg~trians should be limited or alternate facilities provided which can bear the user impact. we].fare, Safety and Security Caansiaeratiaa~.s Goals ].. 'Ihe trail system should have a positive impact an Fden Prairie's quality of life both culturally and env; rornn?r~ta17 y. 184 2 . 'Il'ls trail system should be oc~patible with ad j aeent land owners aryl larr3 use wheanever possible. 3. Safety oce~sideratiwzs should be integrated into the systean thx~z design and ragu].atiaan. 4. Adjacent property should be protected. policies A. ~ trail syst-te~ shall pnr,~*~ the city~s attics where possible and shall not produce tie raise, physical erosion or degradation. B. the trail system shall be an asset to the oc~wnity's social and health w~e1.l-being by offering variety and educatiaa~al experiences C. Physical barriers such as beams ar~d plant materials may be ma?~;n?~ or developed where possible along portions of the trail system which are incompatible with adjacent land use such as single family - residential. D. Safety cx~nsiderations includitx~ sight di.~tances, trail dimensions and other items of persaa~al well-~eirag shall be• integrated into trail a"'~i..~'i"a~ us. E. kblicing resp~msibilities shall be designated utilizing city, eaintxm.ity and user group resaunes. cad F3 *+~i ~ Ccnsideratians Goals 1. Design, cc~struction and maintenance cosh associated with the trail system should be within existing or anticipated city fiscal capabilities. 2. All available financial ass~~~*~ should be used to implemexrt the trail system. 3. The trail system should be based on a long-term implementation strategy. 4. Trail corridors should be secured as soon as possible and financially pnxiexYt. 5. Whenever possible, trail system elements should be p~rr~vided by private interests by easement or dedication. ls5 ~~ '~ Policies A. Trail costs shall not place ur~asorsable d~nds c~ Eden -Prairie's fiscal resa~roes. B. Federal, state, metropolitan arx3 a~mty financial assistance shall be actively requested, to develop the trail system. Assistance efforts shall focus an: - State of Minnesota - a. office of Iooal and Urban Affairs - IAW~i and II~t grants. b. r]~rt~twrrt of Natural Resau7aea -- snowmobile and cross- carntry ski tril assistarrae grants. - Mi nr~e~ryta ~t Of TrdrLSpolt2lt~CH~ a. Bi]ceways Grants Progr~au b. MnirJI', I~SA, or CSAH Funds ~~, a. Hennepin DO-r - Private a. user ~ b. land holdings c. developers . C. Innovative methods to fi~~? or eaq~and the trail system shall be explored. D. Trail system development shall be based an a logically sequenced progzazn grid shall be included in the city's capital improvements p activities and coordinated with major utility and road motion ptrojects. E. Assist city clubs or organizations in establishing public trails for snowmobile or equestrian use. F. Iarxi for trails shall be obtained as soar as passible. Corridor acquisition should generally have a higher priority than trail construction. G. Upon the selection Of trail corridors, all major subdivisions shall provide apQrapriate trail corridors as a part of required open space dedications to maintain the trail network. 186 ~..~~ I • • • H. F~enever development occurs adjacent to floodplains or trail corridors, the city will require dedication or easeztrps-ts to enure caa~tirnlation of the trail corridor and futut~e develognent of the trail. SORTED DffiIG~1 8'II~iBIDARn6 1~CIIt TRAIL The following design standards are i~~*~ tv guide the future lion of trails in Eden prairie. Zhese standards should be t~aed to review private-sector trail ~tica~ and to direct t~a.i1 for muinicipal trail .ion and imprav®ments. Difficult trail design issues frequently escist, and they may require special design acrosideratiar~. Individuals using the design standards must review aa~ a case-by-ca.~e basis whether the design coaaflicts requu~e deviataaaz from the ~~*~~. In arriving at such exceptiaons, attention should be given to issues pertaining to user safety, liability, o®mfort, motion ousts and cons~-y with abutting trail segaw.nts. Bicycle Dimeasicros and operating 'cs 'fie ~re for safe and oanfortable bicycle operatiar~ are dictated by the follaFriryg three factors: . 1, Dimensions of the bicycle and rider 2. operating characteristic 3. Bicycle cleararxaes Dimensions of the Bicycle and Rider The actual dimensions of the bicycle an3 rider serve as the starting point for developing minimm, bicycle facility design standar~~. bicycle dimensions may vary slightly with mode]. and size, the standard dimensions of the average adult rider and his or her bicycle are shown in Table 5.1 and Figure 5.2. TARP F': 5.1 BICYCLE AND RIL7ER DIlKII~ISIONS Characteristics 'Average Dmervion (Feet),__.._ __ Width 2.0 Measured by handlebar width Height Vertical Pedal Clearance fi.0 7.4 Minimrun 0.5 18'1 ~ _, i FIf~JFtE 5.2 BICXGLE AND RIDER DIl~I3SIQ~5 Bicycle Operatirxx Ct~araet~sistics ~~ The speed at which a bicyclist travels may vary aeaardirx~ to several factors including; 1. Route c~ametrics 2. S'urfac~ ccr~d_itian 3. Type and ~*~~-~ristics of the bicycle 4. Physical fitr~ss aril proficiency of the rider 5. Weather and related conditions 6. Trip nrrrrr~~ ~tiouc~ it is passible to attain speeds approaching 30 mph on a bicycle, normal cycling speeds range from 7 to 20 mph and average 15 mph. ~rjrd i mly, 15 mph slx~ald be co~t]sidexed the abuDlute m i r~ Y m~ nn ~i~ for bicycle facilities with 25 mph as a desirable working design spend- i~exe rollix~g~ t~,~-~;,, at~d significant ~s greater than 5 percer-t are prevalent, a higher design speed should be oansidered. Due to the s}a~ds which can be readied on sicpv;.fiearrt ~, airves cep are ~t rernrmeTM.,~ed. 188 2' 5.75' . Bicycle clearances C , Perhaps the most critical factor in developing safe and comfortable bicycle facilities is the provisiaan of adequate clearance to a wide variety of potential obstructions that may be found along a prospective route. StaridaYds for lateral and vextir.2L1 clearanae are particularly important in view of the wide range of riding proficiency that is found among riders. clearance consideration must include: 1. Normal bicycle maneuvering allowaxx~es 2. Yat~ral clearances to static obstn~ctions 3. Lateral clearar~aes to dynataic obstructions 4. Vertical clearances to wes3~ead obstnactions N~jnitrn7m and desirable clearance standa~~ for safe and vcmfortable bicycle operation are indicated in Table 5.2. It should be noted, however, that these starxj~rrLs ,are minirni-n ~t1cnS. Mere passible, additiona_1 space should be provided to permit passing within the bikeway aril to allow more adeq<~ate hazard avoidance. For example, the char of a parked car could extend over faun feet into a bike lane (normal e~ctensiaan 1S abUxt three feet). A three--foot lateral clearance plus one foot maneuvering space will not provide adequate space for comfortable and safe passage arv~u~d this • ~tiaa~. Width Trails shall be 8' -0" wide bit~mLina<~s to aaa~date tw~o~-way bicycle and pedestrian traffic. A 2'-0" wide grass shoulder on each side will be provided for maneuvering allowances. Sikeuray Glades The grades over which bicyclists can be expected to safely and ccanfortably travel depend on a manber of factors, includ.iu~g: 1. General t~apvgraphy 2. Length of the grade 3. Proficiency of the bicyclist 4. Characteristics of the bicycle 5. Route surface oonciitions 6. Weather arxi related factors • 189 ~.~ 5.2 sr~,Y ~,~rrc~ Z~rpe of Clearanoe Maneuvering Allowancesl M? r+i~n++ Desirable $'~,~~ ~tarrlarr3 (feet) (feet) - ear31 outside edge 0.75 - between bicycles, regardless of direction 1.50 Lateral Clearance to Static Obstructions2, 3 - utility poles, trees, hydrants, etc. 0.80 - raised garb 0.50 - curb dx'op-bff 1.50 - sloped drop-off 0.80 - soft shoulder Lateral Clear~anaes to Dynamic Ob6trLiCtlonS - parked cars 2.00 Vertical C1eararx~ to Overhead Obstructions 8.50 1.00 2.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 3.00 9.00 1Maneuvering allowances should be provided for by additional bikeway pavement width, as specified. 2Lateral Clearazxaes can be provided for by either additional bikeway pavameant width or separation. It is that these clearance`s be provided for by simple distarx:e separations, where passible. 3In cases where lateral hazards or obstructions are of ~ severity, such as steep drr~r-offs or heavy vegetation, clearances should be p~rvvid~ed as liberally as possible beyond the m;n;,rnm, st~~ cited. Sane type of additional barrier may also be appropriate depending on the degree of danger. Includes motor vehicles but desirable clearance will vary dependent upon vehicular speeds. Clearance between bicycles and mavirig vehicles should be as liberal as possible. 190 ~~ Because of the variability of these factors, it is difficult to establish detailed ar~d absolute design staridatds for bicycle facility grades. Existizrg reaarmnerydatiar~s cn aeoeptable grades generally suggest that grade greater than five percent should be awi:ded wherever possible. The relationship between grades and their length should be viewed as a major consideration in bikeway development. Table 5.3 indicates both the TMw ~mn++ and desirable 1~ to whidx bicycle facility grades should be limited. As a general rule, the max im~mi gradient for a long uphill slope should not ~ two percent (for short sectiams, five percent might be allc~rable) . TABLE 5.3 BICYCLE UPfIIIL~ GRADE AND GRADE LENGTH CRITERIA Bikeway Desirable Normal Max3~m+ GYadient Lengtri Length Length (Percent) (feet) (feet) (feet) . 10.0 Not 33 66 5.0 Not 131 262 4.5 82 167 334 4.0 102 203 410 3.5 148 295 590 3.3 148 295 590 2.9 200 400 800 2.5 262 525 1,050 1.7 590 1,180 --- 1.5 - 2,100 ----- Recam~nended Curves the design of bikeway curvature is dependent upon the average rate of travel of the cyclist. An increased rate of travel due to downhill slope requires a longer radius of curvature. For design purposes,a speed of 10 mph is good to use in setting criteria for the c~vature of bikeways . ~ ~ 191 ~) Zhe California Division of Highways' l Criteria C~a.id roes provides Phis formula for the radius of auvature: R is radius of curvature in feet. R ~ 1.25V + 1.5 V is velocity in miles per hour. Simper-elevation should also be irx~orporated into the surface of the curve to stabilize the bicycle as it takes the anve. Curve data from Y~ie_ Bicycle Trails Manual, Minnesota Department of Natural R~esourt~s, 1975. An added approach to making bikeway curves more safe and comfortable may include providing some degree of super-elevation or banking on all horizontal curve. (S~per-elevation relates to the slope of the banked segment in terms of the an~vumt of vertical rise at the outside edge versus the width of the surface.) Some super elevation is advisable on such c~irves, but in the absence of available data for determining these rates, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials recomtner~ds that a cross scope of 0.02 feet per foot be established as an absolute m? *+; ~ m+ (the m? n; m- m± rate required for drainage) and that 0.05 feet per fact be used as a m~~~ desic~- value. Finally, it is suggested that wideniix3 the pavemear~t width on curves be considered to provide ix~araased safety and canfort. By doing so, the tendencies of the bicyclist to "lean into" ttrtr~s and stray from the centerline can be acoc~IInrx]ated without jeopaxdizing either hi.s actual or psychological safety or ocmfort. Prior tv undertaking a curve-widening project, however, the added casts of such a pmject should be evaluated to firmly justify the need for such special treatment. Figure 5.3 and Table 5.4 indicate the rec~ed mPanc by which curve-widening desi should be devel ~ oped. In extreme cases, where curve radii are greater than 100 feet, no wa_deriilx~ i.s required. On curves of less than 100 feet radius, widening is re~mw~ried up to a m~Y?tirn~m of four feet deperxiirig on the radius of the curve and the design speed being used. ~e~°~ n ~F F ~ et'ti ~ r~Plr e • \ ¢ *e 2 P .e ~ q r ~ ~ 1 P Y ~ c I = 3 Y ~v-~ FTGZ7RE 5.3 d BIKE4~,Y QJRVE~DII~NG TF~IQ[JFS 192 ~° ~e~° cF,c 'c~~~4 ,~ ~ ~ ~) TAffi~ 5.4 - a~,Y anzv~ wrt~rn~rc ~ vAR~o~s RADII AND r~szc~r sus ed W'd f Abs~oYute Minimun of Radii of: R ~acrmmexxied s tandard Radii of: Desic~ Seed 20 27 33 39 35 70 90 125 15 mph 4.0 3.6 2.4 2.0 2.3 1.1 0.9 -~--•- 2D mph 4.0 3.2 2.8 1.5 1.2 --- 25 mph 4.0 3.4 1.9 1.5 --- 30 mph 4.0 2.2 1.7 --- Si t D' 'Ihe degree of safety whidz a bikeway offers relates in gait to haw easily conflicting cznss~nremerxts are pexoeived, whett,~r they be pedestrians, other bicyclists, autcrmbiles or animals. However, the ability of a bicyclist to react to specified cross movem~ts is dependaxYt . on the stopping sight distance that is provided. Safe stopping sight di,~nces are a function of bicycle speed and grade profile of the facility. I`able 5.5 suoa¢narizes reec~metr.~d stopping sight ~ i ~„e*+~ for' various design speeds and grad-; erns as developed by the American 1~Y=--? ~tioai of State Hic~way and Transportation Officials. • C 193 ! ~~ t~ i' n TA]3IE 5.5 UE5IC3~i STUFFING SIGHT DT~~'~ Fit BICYQ~S 'Design Stopping sight d; yc-hanrpc for dr+canti» gradients of: Seed 0$ 5$ 10$ 15~ (~) ~ (f~) (f~) (f~) (f~) 10 50 50 60 70 15 85 90 100 130 20 130 140 160 200 25 175 200 230 300 30 230 260 310 400 NC7T'E: Design values for stopping sight di ct'anc~s on bikeways .can be developed in the same ~*n'+pr as on highways. The Values shaven were based on the following factors and developed by AASHIU: coefficient of skid resi ~+~*~ = 0.25 C~ Pex'ce~ticarreactian time = 2.5 seooax~.s eye height = 3.75 feet object height ~ 6 irx~ At-GYade Railroad Crossing Whei~ver it is ~y to crass rai].mad, tracks with a bikeway, special care YrnrnLSt be takes to a~~~rp that the safety of bicyclists is pied. The bikeFray dossing should be at least as wide as the approad~es of the bikeway. Whenever possible, the crossing should be straight, and at right angles to the rails. For on-road bikeways, where a skew is unavoidable, the shoulder should be widened, if possible, to mr,,,; t bicyclists to ctvss at right angles . Special m.,~,-, ~; on and materials should be cr~nsider~ to keaep the flarigeway depth and width to a mininun,,, Pavement old be ma? *~~ i nom, so ridge build-up does not occur nP~ct to the rails. In wane cases, timber plank crossings can be justified, and can provide for a smoother crossing. Where hazards to bicyclists cannot be avoided, appropriate signs should be inat-alled to warn bicyclists of the danger. For off-road bikeways, it is also desirable to cross at 90 degrees. When it is not possible tca cross at 90 degrees, the bikeway should be widened to allow the cyclist to Gt~oss at as close to 90 degrees as possible, L~ 194 0 1 Darainage should be provided for all new hi.keway/bikeways. ZYails=should be Qoss-sloped ar ~rvwne~ 0.02' t~ 0.03' per foot. In addition to drainage ditches, wlverts may be needed for crass drair~aye. ~~?;il-s Hikeway/bikearay trail ~~tion stxuld aanform with the typical trail truss section detail shown in Figure 5.4. Class V aggregate base should be used with a bitxmmiriaus pavanent in ac7oordarx~e with I~nDdr 2341. Adjacent trail shoulders may have optional sod shoulders 1'-6" to 3'-0 wide for erosioaz oonctarvl. Sod should be lager than the abutting bituminous surface to encourage positive drainage. ' 8'-0' 2' ASPHALT MnDOT 2341 MIX T-fi" TO 3'-0' SOD OPTIONAL 4" COMPACTED MnDOT CLASS V ' °Q~ ~re Q-°~ 6ACKFILL ~ III ~q ~ p~ BLACK DIRT rr~ COMPACTED SUBGRADE ~~ 10' -0' 1'-fi' TO 3'-0' SOD OPTIONAL I~ 11113 ` MAXIMUM SLOPE 3:1 NOTE SOD LAID 0.5' TO 1'-q' BELOW TOP OF PAVEMENT ELEVATION FOR DRAINAGE F'SQJFtE 5.4 H~r~,Y/SZ~1Y SAIL JC'IZC~ CE~4SS SDCT"ION 195 ~~ dgesl T.Trr1 arid, ,Pedestra}~ Crvssinas Before any type of major pedestrian c:rossir~g is considered, a traffic study including a oost/benefit analysis should be ocxxiucted for the pr+opoe~ed facility. ~e three primary types of pedestrian cre~ssings are: 1. At-Gr~~de A. No delineation or sicp~s B. With sic~lelineation - flashi,rig lic~ts 2. Overpass A. This would be a bridge structure aver the roadray, usually mid- black. 3. Lkrletipass A. This would be a culvert-type ~ vender the roadway, usually mid-dock. (Use is vexy limited due to se~rity problems). Thresholds which call for fi~t~_r evaluation of a pedestrian crossing • facility are: 1. Traffic Volumes (Vehicles) A. A Pea]c Ho~xr Traffic of 800 Vehicles/Ho«r B. A Daily Traffic of 5, 000 Vehicles/Hwr 2. Pedestrian Volumes A. 150 Pedestrians Per Hour for ~ Haixs art a Typical Day u Once a passible pedestrian crassityg need is indicated, a more inch traffic study should be underta}ceri. At a m~n~~~+, the study should iryclude the following: 1. A capacity analysis of the adjacent r+aadways and dons. 2. Zhe average nu~ning speed and posted speed limit on the adjacent roadways. 3. An analysis of the type and amcxutt of traffic which would use the facility (i.e., bikes, pedestrians). 4. The average pedestrian delays, i.f a cxvssing already exists. 196 1 . 5. The time of day and day of the week when the heaviest pe~strian traffic would occur. .] LJ 6. An analysis of gap ~ (gap study of existing traffic). 7. A sic~t distance analysis for the x~adway traffic aryl pedestrian traffic. 8. The spacing of controlled intersections. 9. The existing and protected ],.and uses in the area to det~ern~ine future pedestrian traffic. 10. The accident hi._story in the area. 11. The peak~vour and average daily traffic in the area, both existing ar~d prntec~• If the detailed traffic study indicates a pedestrian crossing facility is nom, the next step should be to ~t a aost/benefit alternative analysis to detesmi~~e the best pedestrian facility opinion (i.e., at-grade signal, w~, ~)• - Altha,x;~ each facility location design should be evaluated separately, mi tzinnmm design standard~~ should be ma i r~t~ 1 r,~ . They are as follows 1. 8'-0" wide - twv-wdy pedestrian cn].y trail 2, 12'-0" wide -two-way Pedestrian bike trail 3. ~ 12'-0" wide - twv-way P~~'~ ~Y w~-s/~~ 4. 12'-0" wade -two-way Pedestrian/bike overpass/'~cl~rpass 5. 5 percent maximum grades 6. 30 mph design for bike trails 7. Handicap acxaes,~ible The analysis and design of any pedestrian facility should use standa~~ found in the Federal Highway Administratia¢z' S (FHWA's) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and. The American Association of State Highway and Tr~uzsportation Officials (AASHIU) "Green Book" A Fblicy on Gecametric Design of Highways. and Str_. ts. The evaluation of pedestrian dings 3s very subjective and each case should be analyzed on its awn. The pxsoeding criteria stated are not star~darrLs, but guidelines to facilitate a seund engineeri~ judgment of the situation. 197 D ," --- - _ _ _~- - ~ ~_ :. y L _ ~.--- • ~~ COMMUNITY FACILITIES Particular attention should be given to the relationship betvveen these uses and other land uses throughout the Ciry. Although a detailed proposal for each facility i5 not included in this brochure, the plan does propose general locations. The following criteria are used in conjunction with more detailed planning efforts: • Determine the location and type of individual facilities by #heir role in the "Community Structure Concept'. • Encourge the development of public and semi-public uses in. or near neigh,borheoci centers. These ~rouEd include churches, parks. recreation facilities. and publsc sen~ice facilities [pest offices. fire siatians. libraries. utility structures. etc.1. • Protect natural resources, such as flood plains, severe slopes. shoreland man- agement areas and panding areas for development. • Provide a centrally !o~ community civic center at the hub of Plymouth. • Relate the level of service provided the various governmental bodies serving Plymouth to the residents' needs and in keeping with their image of the community. Although major met- ropolitan facilities are not planned for Plymouth at this time. maintain a degree of flexibility to take advan#age of the opportunities as they arise. Recreation facilities plans are guides designed to: • Provide a greater diversity of park types. to r~;eet the ir:creasing population demand for recreation_ s Develop a multi-purpose trail system. that is carefi~lly related to natural IanC features. as Weil as the anticipated develcpment pattern. • Prctecf throuch pubic ownership or easement. cer?ain Icwland areas. sf:ore'.ands. and wetland areas that are sensitive ecclogicalh,~: arid. utslize `cr controlled exposure. • Use this policy of requir~ne park and open space dedication :~~hen develop- ment occurs as a base far the land acquisition and development program. • Encourace the Planner Unit Gevelcp- ment (PUD1 approac^~ in development. wr.ere neighborhoods and the City can fully benefit from private open space that will enhance and supplement the public open space and parks. Education facilities planning re- flects the guidance to: • Achieve a close working relations"~ip between the City and School Boards to allow for the goals of each and to provide for tre best return for the aublic dollars used. As ail four of the schacl districts that service Plymouth also serve abutting communities, coordina- tion with those public bodies is vital. • Use combination ~'sc^oo!-park" concept wherever possible to necessitate the least overlap in public administered programs. Develop education facilities in accordance ~,vith the "Commur~ity Structure Concept". PLYM©[.lTl-i a .- i i iI __.~-.. I~~ ~. --~ 1 ~s+ ~ ~~~ I .. ~, 1 'i ~~~ : ~ ~~ ~; ~~i, i _~ '/~ ~;,,7. ~o ~ ~' ~ ~~ ~ Y Y ~ N ~ M. C F ~ n aNi a _~ `' ~' - O ~ ~° J a Y j ~ a E ~ N ~ r v~ ~ ~ ~ r1i~ ~ f/1 o a, a Q> .~ o c t3 ~ (n ~ ~~ ~ c., .'n u~ -p Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v Y ~ ~; rn- c o rn c rn c a. c ai c a~i o ai 0 a+ o J _ . ~ N . r~ a ~ _Y n ni Y n v n `r_ n n~ N N ~ d i ~= fA . N ~ ,~ 7 n c~ n o F Q ao -' m Q ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ T d ~ m aXi m a c c n I-' V y c r Y n N s J r n L~ d ~. .~ ., ~. ~ r r ^ • ~~ of N EXCE'~ PT` FR~rvI ORD11J~}IJGE~ ~QEL~}TI ~ C~ 'fU P14R.K 'DED I G14TI0-~l Resolution No. 91-83 January 28, 1991. (Supersedes Res. 72-42, Jan. 17, 1972; Res. 73-145, April 6, 1973; Res. 73-243, July 2, 1973; Res. 74-51, Jan. 21, 1974; Res. 78-292, May 15, 1978; Res. No. 78--308, May 22, 1978; Res. No. 79-419, July 23, 1979; Res. No. 79-738, Nov. 5, 1979; Res. No. 80-344, May 19, 1980; Res. 81-198, March 16, 1981; Res. 82-44, Jan. 15, 1982; Res. 83-84, Feb. 7, 1983; Res. 84-85, Feb. 6, 19$4, Res. 85--148, Feb. 25, 1985; Res. 86-89, Feb. 3, 1986; Res. 86-275, May 5, 1986; Res. 87-92, Feb. 2, 1987; Res. 88-69, Jan. 25, 1988; Res. 89-65, Jan. 23, 1989, Res. 89-129, Feb. 27, 1989; Res. 90-115, Feb. 8, 1990. 1. Purpose: The City Council recognizes it is essential to the • health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Plymouth that the character and quality of the environment be considered to be of major importance in the planning and development of the City. In this regard, the manner in which land is developed and used is of high priority. The preservation of land for park, playground, and public open space purposes as it relates to the use and development of land for residential, commercial and industrial purposes is essential to the maintaining of a healthful and desirable environment for all citizens of the City. We must not only provide these amenities for our citizens today, we must also be mindful of our future citizens. It is recognized by the City Council that the demand for park, playground and public open space within a municipality is directly related to the density and intensity of development permitted and allowed within any given area. Urban type developments mean greater numbers of people and higher demands for park, playground and public open space. To disregard this principle is to inevitably over-tax existing facilities and thus diminish the quality of the environment for all. It is the policy of Plymouth that the following standards and guidelines for the dedication of land for park, playground, . and public open space purposes (or cash contributions in lieu ~,, ~~ -2- PARK DEDICATION POLICY of such dedication) in the subdividing and developing of land within the City shall be directly related to the density and intensity of each subdivision and development. 2- n ~posga.: In the consideration of accepting the dedication of land for public purposes the following special provisions shall apply: A. Land proposed to be dedicated for public purposes shall meet identified needs contained in the City's Comprehensive Park and Trail Corridor Plans. B. To be eligible for park dedication credit, land dedicated to be located outside of drainways, flood plains or ponding areas after the site has been developed. C. zn those cases where subdividers and developers of land ~~ provide significant amenities, such as, but not limited to, swimming pools, tennis courts, handball courts, ~, L~~ ballfields, etc., within the development far the benefit ~ ~ of those residing or working therein, and where, in the ~~ a ~: ~~ ~,,~'~ judgement of the City Manager, such amenities a ,~ ~ significantly reduce the demands far public recreational ~~' facilities to serve the development, he may recommend to the City Council that the amount of land to be dedicated for park, playground, and public open space (or cash contributions in lieu of such dedication) be reduced by an amount not to exceed seventeen percent (17~) of the amount calculated above. D. Exceptions to these provisions shall be reviewed and recommended by the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. ~- i 'r To satisfy park dedication requirements, subdividers and developers of residential land shall be required to dedicate land to the City for park, playground, and public open apace, in accordance with one of the following three criteria, at the option of the City. The required land dedication and/or payment of fees-in-lieu of land dedication shall be made at the time of final subdivision approval, except in the case of multiple residential developments where required site plan approval occurs other than at the time of final subdivision approval; in that case the required land dedication and/or payment of fees-in-lieu of land dedication shall be made at the time the site plan is approved and building permits are issued. r 1 LJ -2 a- PARK DEDICATION POLICY . A vacant or developed parcel shall be subject to this requirement when it is verified that park dedication requirements have not been applied to the parcel. A. The dedication of that amount of land required by the City for park, playground, and public open space based upon the approved density of the development in accordance with the graph an attached Exhibit A. The percentage derived from Exhibit A shall be applied to the area of the site for which density is calculated. B. A cash contribution in lieu of land dedication based upon the sum of $860 per dwelling unit and not less than two dwelling units per acre. This sum represents the City Assessors periodic estimate of the average value of undeveloped residential land in the City of Plymouth ~~ based on the assumption that (1) such land develops at two dwelling units per acre and that (2) the developer is required todedicate ten percent of the land for park, playground, and public open space. The City Manager `' ~,~J shall provide the Council, at its first meeting in X _ ~ February each year, or such other times as the Council \ ~ may direct, with a report from the City Assessor indicating his estimate of the average value of undeveloped residential land in the community and a . survey of residential fees in effect in other comparable communities . C. When determined by the City, the developer shall be required to dedicate a portion of the area in land with the balance to be made in fees in lieu of such dedication. In such cases the following procedures will be used: (1) The City shall calculate the total amount of land for park area which could be required in accordance with this policy. (Item 3.A.) (2) From the total amount of land calculated in (1.) above, the City shall subtract the actual amount of land the City needs for park, playground or public open space in the proposed development. (3) The balance of the park area otherwise required shall be calculated as a percentage of the total park dedication obligation. This percentage shall be multiplied by the approved project density, net area for which density is calculated and current per dwelling unit park dedication fee to yield the total cash park dedication requirement. .7 -2b- PARK DEDICATION POLICY • 4, n i 1 mm r i l D i i Subdividers and developers of commercial and industrial land, including commercial and industrial portions of Mixed Planned Unit Developments (MPUD's), shall be required at the time the Site Plan is approved and Building Permits are issued, to dedicate to the City for park, playground, and public open space purposes that amount of land equal to ten percent of the land area within the development upon which the maximum building coverage was calculated in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. A vacant or developed parcel shall be subject to this requirement when it is verified that park dedication requirements have not been applied to the parcel. Yn those cases whew the City shall require payment of fees in lieu of such land dedication, the fees shall be in an amount equal to ten percent of the Assessor's estimated undeveloped land value for such property zoned in the classification requested by the developer; the land used for this calculation shall be that upon which the maximum building coverage was calculated in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. These values shall be determined based upon the City Assessor's estimate of the average value of undeveloped commercial and industrial land in the City. The City Manager shall provide the Council, at its first meeting in February each year, or such other times as the Council may direct, with a report from the City Assessor indicating his estimate of the average value of undeveloped cammercialand industrial land in the community and a survey of industrial/commercial fees in effect in comparable communities. In any event, the park dedication fees required ahall not exceed $3,500 per acre. If the City determines that a developer shall be required to dedicate a portion of the land proposed for development for park or public open space purposes and such dedication does not satisfy the requirements of this policy, the balance due the City in cash shall be based upon the Assessor's estimated value of the undeveloped land proposed for development. The City may permit easements to be dedicated by developers for trail corridors identified in the City's Trail Corridor Plan thereby allowing the developer to include the land area in the determination of setbacks and building density on the ~ site. In such cases, park dedication credit will not be given. 5. ~q~airQd Imnrovement~: Developers shall be responsible for making certain improvements to their developments for park, playground, and public open space purposes: -~C~- PARK DEDICATION POLICY A. To provide finished grading and ground cover far all. park, playground, trail. and public apen spaces within their developments as part of their development contract or site plan approval responsibilities. No park dedication credit will be given for this work, B. To complete construct and pave all trails not identified in the City's Trail Corridor Plan concurrently with the roads in their developments (i.e., grading with site grading and paving with street or parking lot paving). No park dedication credit will be given for connecting ~ these trails to existing or proposed trails identified in the City's Trail Corridor Plan, C. ,To construct and pave all trails through and abutting their developments identified in the City's Trail Corridor Plan. Such trail improvements shall be undertaken at the same time as other public improvements are installed within the development, (i.e., grading with site grading and paving with street ar parking lot paging). The City staff may recommend deviation from this policy in the case of individual hardship in terms of the timing of installation of such trail facilities. The City will credit the cost of paving trails identified in the City's Trail Corridor Plan against the ~ d®velopment's total Bark dedication requirements. The amount to be credited will be established at the time the final plat or site glare is approved based upon prevailing engineering cast estimates for such work as determined by the City. This work will be built according to engineering standards as provided by the City's engineering department. D. If sidewalks are constructed in the street right-o£-way in lieu of trails within the development, no park dedication credit will be given. A sidewalk is defined as a public walkway constructed within the street right-of-way. 6, This policy is to be construed as part of and administered in conjunction with Section 500.25 of the City Code. I~ -2d- .ice"' ~ ..~- ~ i :~^""` ~.-+ may. r + ~ t ~ \ ~ ~T '. i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~• i i ~ .~-~ , , ~~ Per Acre ~e11 i n ~ni is ,~ ~ or 1 E~,s Z through ~2 lore that 12 • 1 ~ ~~ ~~ ~~^ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~f .~dta1~ a '~ sand to be Ded'cate 10 nsitY • 2`! ~Q + ~Act~a1 de itY . 61 0 ~' ~~ /Z actual dens 2 ~r EXhIgI~ A • TYPES OF PARK DEDICATION RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL a) all cash b) land and cash c) trail, land and cash 1. at Building Permit issuance 2. Filing of Final Plat CALCULATING DEDICATION nrrTnr-~~rrn~ Information needed: approved density = a total number of residential units of land to be dedicated (based on chart in Policy b acreage of phase being developed = c total amount of land being dedicated = d land to be dedicated as part of plat = e remaining area to be dedicated = f of total park dedication remaining = g current park fee = h remaining cash to pay = i credit for cost of paving = j actual cash fees due = k a -2+ 10=b 5.7-2+10 =13.7 (5.3-2+10=13) c x b % = d 8.3 x 13.7 = 1.13 (8.3 x 13 = 1.07) d - e = f 1.13 - 1.07 = .06 f = ~ = ~ g .06 = 1.07 = .0560 (g) (a) (c) (h) = i (.0560) (5.7) ($.3) (390) = 1033.25 i - j = k 1033.15 - 23520 = -22486.75 /~ ~~~ ~~ • Page two TYPES OF PARK DEDICATION COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL Total Site Acreage x 2200 = = a Total land required for dedication = b Total amount of land being dedicated = c Remaining area to be dedicated = d of total park dedication remaining = e Remaining cash to pay = f Credit for cost of paving = g Actual cash fees due = h STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR RESOLUTIONS LOT DIVISION: Payment of park dedication fees-in-lieu of dedication prior to issuance of Building Permit in accordance with City Policy in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. SITE PLAN: (Commercial & Industrial) Payment of park dedication fees-in-lieu of dedication in accordance with City Policy in effect at the time of filing the Final Plat or at issuance of Building Permit. Provisions for a 30-ft. wide trail easement/outlot per Comprehensive Park Plan, as verified by the Parks and Engineering Departments, with submittal of detailed plans as to construction of the trail per City standards Payment of park dedication fees-in-lieu of dedication with appropriate credits in an amount determined according to verified acreage and paving costs and according to theLLDedication Policy in effect at the time of filing the Final Plat or at issuance of Building Permit. PLATTING: (Residential/Commercial & Industrial) Payment of park dedication fees-in-lieu of dedication in accordance with Dedication Policy in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. Payment of park dedication fees-in-lieu of dedication with appropriate credits in an amount determined accarding to verified acreage and paving costs and according to the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. I Provisions fora 30-ft. wide trail easement/outlot per Comprehensive _ Park Plan, as verified by the Parks and Engineering Departments, with submittal of detailed plans as to construction of the trail per -~ City standards. ~ '~ Class !Trail SO' Ntinimum Class 2 Trar! V Permitted Uses - hiking -biking _ fogging -sluing width 8 feet Trai[ Traffic two-way [keep to the rightf 1~, I it Painted Stripe >, 6' ~~24' Minimum } 6' ~ 60'-66' Flight of Way (Typical} ~-- T Standard Height Signage ,u Permited uses ', -hiking -biking -1o99in9 wath 6 feet Trail Traffic one•way (stay within safety zcx,e) Plymouth Trails The City of Plymouth began building a system of trans in the 1970's and has continued to add more miles of traiks with every passing year. The trails in the City are primarily intended for pedestrians and f oggers, bicyclists and cross- countryskiers, although a few selected trails are designated for horseback riding and snowmobilino There are three basic fypes of trails found throughout the City. These are illustrated at right PLEASE NOTE THAT R tS PROHIBITED TO OPERATE ANY MOTORIZED VEHICLE ON THESE TRAILS. Snow- mobiles are permitted only on designated bails. Similarly, horseback riding is permitted only where designated {primarily In the norih and west portion of the Ci1yj. YOU MUST OBEY ALL RULES OF THE ROAD iNCLUa kNG STOP SIGNS AND TRAFIC SIGNALS. ALWAYS BE AWARE OFAUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC. AT IM'ERSEG TIONS LOOK FOR TURNING TRAFFIC. BICYCLISTS MUST HELD TO PEDESTRIANS. May . t 985 Class 3 Trar! ~~ Signage Oniy I-- T Standard ~ Height 32' (Typical} 44' filght of Way (Typicaq Permitted uses - hdang - brl9ng -1o99in9 wdtfi ~ Nt I I ~d M1GJ Trail Traffic -bicycles travel same direction as ~ - pedesfians trauei o~ppos~e r~recbon S `•.,