Parks Commission Agenda Packet 11-18-1992
.
.
.
.~JD
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PARKS COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 18, 1992 M 7 p.m.
Members: Fran Fair, Bruce Thielen, Larry Nolan, Dick Frie, Hoger Carlson
1. Call to order.
2. Accept the agenda.
3. Consideration of approval of minutes of the regular meeting held October 19,
1992.
4. Review preliminary draft of comprehensive plan introduction!
park inventory.
5. Discuss needs and possible additions to each park.
6. Discuss goals and policies relating to trail planning.
*
Path and trail development
- Review policies of various communities
- Delineate trail classification system
and discuss specific policies relating
to each classification
- transportation trails
- recreation trails
- nature trails
- Begin identification of trails on city map
7. Discuss agenda for upcoming work on the comprehensive plan.
A. Discuss parks and recreation goals/capital improvements.
B. Shade tree program development.
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING. MONTICELLO PARKS COMMISSION
Monday, October 19, 1992 .7 p.m.
Members Present: Bruce Thielen, Fran Fair, Larry Nolan, Roger Carlson, Dick Frie
Members Absent: None
1. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the special meeting- conducted
.July 22. 1992.
After discussion, a motion was made by Bruce Thielen and seconded by Fran
Fair to approve the meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Consideration of approval of minutes of the reg-ular meeting- conducted on
Wednesday. September 16. 1992.
Hoger Carlson requested that the minutes be amended to show that he was
present at the meeting.
After discw;sion, a motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Roger
Carlson to approve the September 16 meeting minutes with the amendment
as suggested. Motion carried unanimously.
3.
Review the results of the ioint meeting conducted on October 6. 1992.
Parks Commission reviewed the discussion conducted at the previous joint
meeting of the School, City, and Township. It was the consensus of the group
that the community has come full circle and that the Parks Commission is now
on its own to conduct its activities. It was also the consensus of the Parks
Commission that regular participation by the school district or township on
park issues would not be expected or promoted in the near future.
4.
Consider proceeding- with development of a comprehensive park plan.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that the Parks Commission consider
preparing a comprehensive park, trail, and recreation plan for the city of
Monticello. The plan would include a) an inventory of city park characteristics,
existing facilities, and proposed facilities; b) a summary of community goals
and needs leading to park and trail development (this section guided by survey
results); c) an outline of general City policies regarding park and trail
development; and d) a program of implementing the plan, including a capital
improvement plan.
Page 1
@
.
.
.
Parks Commission Minutes - 10/19/92
It was the consensus of the Parks Commission that the group should move
forward by preparing the comprehensive plan as proposed. The timing is right
for development of the plan on the heels of completion of the survey. There is
a significant amount of data that can be used in preparing the plan and
outlining a course for future park development and financing.
It was determincd that the first draft of the plan should be completed in
January or February with the introduction, inventory, classification and
guidelines, and community goals and needs to be completed by the regular
meeting in November. It was also determined that the plan should include a
shade trcc and reforestation component.
Finally, the group requested that O'Neill invite a member of the Council to sit
on the Parks Commission to assist with the development of the comprehensive
park plan.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjoumed.
~()~
Jeff eill
Assistant Administrator
Page 2
(1)
CITY OF MONTICELLO
I.. ,'ole."
~~LL~
.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FOR PARK AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT
Plan Obiectives
.
Following are the major objectives of this pIa 1) provide an inventory of city
characteristics, existing recreation facilities, a proposed facilities; 2) outline a
summary of goals and needs with regard to p rk and recreation development;
3) outline general City policies regarding park an trail development; 4) provide a
program for implementing the plan, including a pital improvement plan; and 5)
provide a plan for shade tree development. Th general goal of the plan is to
establish a strategy for maximizing development of ecreation facilities that will meet
the needs of residents and visitors to the city of Monticello. r
rb(oI 4+ f /J
"..' .. -. ..> f" ' f-~ 'to V""- ~ 1"
Authority and Identity of Planning' Group ~j r"o. 6 (.., 0;-1.- [
'--; ()-ff ~c.o r."......... L-'
Recreation planning within the city of Monticello is conducted by t e City staff and )
the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Assistant City Admini rator and the (
Parks Superintendent provide staff support to the Parks Commission, which makes . J...-~
its recommendations to the City Council for final approval. The City, in conjunction ,.... ~ "I;J
with the School District and Township, conducted an extensive park and recreation GAL 4.tA
needs survey, the results of which will become integral to the planning process. The fAQ/I!" .Jt".l
ongoing task of reviewing and revising this plan and implementation of the plan shall {){..{p
fall primarily with the Parks Commission, City staff, and City Council.
City Description - v,_t~
The city of Monticello is located on the northem boundary of Wright County 12 miles
from the northeastern corner of the county. The city is located on the Mississippi
River adjacent to Sherbume County. Monticello is 40 miles northwest of Minneapolis
and 27 miles southeast of St. Cloud on Interstate 94. In addition to the interstate
and Mississippi River, State Highway 25 passes through the central business district
within the city, and the Great River Road passes east and west through the city. The
Burlington Northern Railroad provides rail service to the city of Monticello and is
located between the interstate and Mississippi River.
.
Presently, Monticello serves primarily as an agricultural service center and
commercial center for the surrounding areas of Wright and Sherburne Counties. The
general area is experiencing growth pressures from the urbanization spillover of the
Twin Cities metropolitan area. At an increasing rate, more and more people are
establishing their residence in the counties and townships surrounding the Twin
Cities and commuting to their workplaces in the Twin Cities. Wright and Sherburne
Counties are two of the fastest growing counties in the state of Minnesota.
PARKCOMP.PLN: 11/13/92
Page 1
(j)
.
.
.
The city of Monticello, as it stretches out along the Mississippi, contains
approximately 3,500 acres of land, or 5.5 square miles. Nearly 50% of the city's
current land area is devoted to existing or future residential land use. There are an
additional 9 square miles lying within the Orderly Annexation Area, which as
urbanized shall be annexed. .
The city population shows steady and methodical growth since 1970. The 1990
census lists the population of Monticello at 5,045. This represents a 77% increase
over the population of2,830 in 1980. The current estimate as of the end of 1992 puts
the population of Monticello at 5,200. Current trends in population growth project
a population for the city of Monticello of 6,300 in the year 2000.
'>ll../ In addition, adjacent townships have grown appreciably as well. In fact, the
.If''" population of the areas within 5 miles of Monticello have grown from
in 1980 to in 1990. This growth has implication for the Monticello
park system, as the residents living in adjoining townships use Monticello's regional
parks as their own. Parks are not provided in township areas.
With a larger and more compact population base comes a strong need for open space
in the form of parks and recreational areas. Although the disappearance of natural
open space and recreation areas may seem to be in the distant future, urbanization
is quickly changing the natural setting. h......- 't
,( u~ '~")""
The city currently has.vi parks with a total of abproximately 51 acres. Ten of these
parks are semi- to fully developed. This is ~park more than what the City had in
1980. Three of the parks are currently undeveloped. There is quite a variety in the
themes and development of the parks within the city of Monticello. Parks range from
quiet, serene parks located along the river such as Ellison Park, to more active
community parks such as Bridge Park along Highway 25 and the Mississippi River.
Five of the city parks are operated in the wintertime as skating facilities. Two of
these parks have warming houses. Wright County operates one park within the city
limits on the west end of town.
Following is a brief description of some of the major parks within the city of \
Monticello. '6\ \
v3\'~ '5\\8-1)
Montissippi Park \....4-0 \L tprJ-t...E'
0-
A county park, 170 acres, located at the northwest co~ of the city on the river, and
operated by the Wright County Park System. This. ark features picnic facilities,
restroom facilities, hiking trails, and a boat launch.
Ellison Park
q .\'\
A city park, approximately ~ acres, located on the easterly end of the city along
the Mississippi River. Facilities include a shel,ter with restroom facilities, a creative
play area, tot recreational equipment, and swings for the handicapped. The park has
a very relaxing, passive atmosphere with several park benches, barbeques, parking,
PARKCOMP.PLN: 11/13/92
(j)
Page 2
.
.
.
and a boat launch. This park also features a small band shelter and is a popular
place for summer concerts and get-togethers. Currently, the park shelter is available
on a first come/first serve basis for private parties. It is typical to have the shelter
reserved each day of each weekend during the summer.
4th Street Park
A city park, one block in area, located at the southeastern portion of the city. The
park includes one small ball diamond, a tot lot, ice skating facilities, including
recreational skating and a hockey rink, a shelter with restrooms, and off-street
parking. The skating rink includes lighting.
Bridg-e Parks ~~\,~ - t4.((!we,>f
A city park, approximately 4 acres, located along the Mississippi River near the
center of the town along both sides of Highway 25 at the bridge crossing.
Highway 25 splits this park in half. The parks, however, are joined by a walkway
which extends under the bridge. Facilities include a community building, pathways,
off-street parking, a restroom, a play lot, horseshoes, a picnic area, skating facilities,
a sliding hill, and a warming house. A landscape arboretum is also featured at this
park.
Balboul Park
This is a city park located along the westerly portion of the community and is
bordered on the south by 1-94. This park serves a relatively small neighborhood. It
currently has play facilities as well as picnic facilities.
Hillcrest Park
This park is located in the westerly portion of the community serving the Hillcrest
development area. The park consists of skating facilities and a n ~ ,e. Also
included is a play lot, picnic facilities, and a ball diamond. . !
l vo1\. \N\l\\. ~
Northern States Power Ballfields 'Sl..~ ")oc. ~\~-6
ruction of a 14-acre par hich features 3 softball
fields and 1 base lamond. In 1992, the City installe lighting which now lights
the basebal eld and 1 softball field. This park feat es a concession stand and
plcmc . The ballfields are irrigated and well ma' tained, making it a popular
spot fo egional baseball and softball tournaments.
School/City Recreational Facilities
The Monticello School District makes its recreational facilities at the several schools
available for public use. These facilities include a gymnasium, football, limited
baseball and softball fields, a swimming pool, and various indoor recreational
PARKCOMP.PLN: 11/13/92
@
Page 3
.~
\.;v
~
~-1
activities and equipment. The School District provides all summer recreation
programming through the community education office. The City contributes $17,000
to the community education office for this service. /)(./~LJ-
The Pinewood School playground features five softball fields, a basketball cJ~~, four
tennis courts, and the popular Magic Kingdom Playground and picnic areJ.~ ~
Monticello Middle School, constructed in 1986, includes three softball fields and one
M baseball field.
1>,,-:;;"'" Monticello Senior High has a baseball field, four tennis courts, two indoor racQuetball/'1lY'Y
'{ __ courts, and an indoor pool. Again, these facilities are open to the public during off-
~ ~-~school hours and serve to supplement the recreation facilities provided by the City.
Private Recreation Facilities
Therei~ ft~ole golf course~the Monticello Country Club, located within the city
limits. Another 18-hole golf course, Silver Springs, lies just beyond the corporate
limits of the Orderly Annexation Area.
.
A go-cart track, along with a miniature golf course, is located in the west-central
portion of the community just north of 1-94. A privately-owned trailer park lying
along the Mississippi River by the name of Riverview Terrace makes riverbank sites
available for camping.
Monticello Athletic Club is a private club that features an indoor pool and a wide
array of exercise equipment and programming.
~ol\L.<l.. ~"^ \L. / 1>ow"\~ ~\\O ~
~~
.
~x
,II}' .~.;)-
~ -........\.
O"j~ ~'
"," \.\
~sO "'\.J
GvA
~ fV\ " f\- (. <> """ ~
- 'S w'\lV' ^^ D
,.,. Bov.,..\- L~k
- L:o."'i\'~
f~S
. \/ L~ (0-\.
- ~,..........
Future headings:
Classifications & guidelines 'I'-
Community goals and needs
- summary of survey
- needs analysis/statement
General policies
- trail development
- park development
Plans
- trail development
- park development
Capital improvement plan
Shade tree program
/" .\
I to-.'
~
PARKCOMP.PLN: 11/13/92
Page 4
@
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
. \
..",/ "/1/€rIIiO'/'-;a-C 10./"( (Ct;u-.r.. 2:J
NAME /l'a17 lar~sr\ SIZE
EXISTING FACILITIES
X - CC;t.LJ/I -1-,.. L/ S /1. ~;.-a r I
/i--r/?7l"'f-t:.cffe Kf' ~ i'CO~.J
FUTURE ADDITIONS
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
NAME Y'lil Co-
EXISTING FACILITIES
SIZE
FUTURE ADDITIONS
;g :; IJ .,. ~a cL,'Y' !' l-
i? .;Ja. ('\
)( ~ {' DH ,-,' --<:" v" u 5l....- -frc-T-/"
/
,
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
/ /. /J/l} L J I ~ PQr,,-
NAME L ~,~ e:: ft' CLr"!~J' a..~
SIZE
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
x- cOLl_..~fr./ $ /(-:: -1/"... i"
;r(...........;
/I.' /. +ro....J; I"
. 0 ;r 5 e .:;'4 n<..
Ih:l.,. rT' C I}o.~-::! ~
5/< Af""p/?:/, ~ FYI J..
. (7'"; r e. \ "'(?;' (/ Wa y. /1113--1v lIo(J..sE\
-r" ..,L<r ..) -~.,-,) f . .\
/*5"//' tJi'YI" ~ 7T ~
S/-ri.b::-"?v .A"r / /
( 0"- A1 ./ (
'a,,'11 (')f' .f!" 'Q....
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
..i r .thIr C O'p-<-\...l..;,. r,,-- i- K
NAME 7/7p~n' ::=:;;5 ,r-
SIZE
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
,3 0'// -L c: a. u.. ,'},l (' .J...
x - CO{L.Tt-f", '--/ 5-(~ f-rtA:.~1 .
~/".5:N'~ If iI e A'esl ". 0 (J~s
<;...--1, /h,//(v h-:...!{ ?
I
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
NAME L:z.-#'i~ ?.I!o:A~)1la r." ~ Ie/PI~'71f~7
EXISTING FACILITIES
/ Cv..."...,....".,cs,--:rv.~
/
FUTURE ADDITIONS
SIZE
.
.
.
NAM E ?/I~:;:d) /~ 5'c -; () J !
EXISTING FACILITIES
;2 c,V-"""',,,rl($S- U__N'S
</ 6G // --G:-e 1;1 r
PARK INVENTORY
FUTURE ADDITIONS
SIZE
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
,... . /'
NAM E -;,);//",/l---'::: C Ie / / ~
11;7 /1 ~- -:/(~ 1.1 (
t/
SIZE
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
-7/ 7e.-?'_I,,:=:5 (' Co '-<-_ c' 1-' :;
3 ca_/,--,,-_ T/'C>. c /<...
L --r~ "'f"":J ,.- i/ ,- ;j
-roo ...,bo ;-c.e
L.Z::rAf;~~ 6':;_5 t! ! / /' -ref
~c; i-,re I
,
.;2.. G 0;7'/_II as -r- '-<--H! ~
;;< ~_r.l::_f"-,Lbq // (" 0 U,," ---r':.-
/ i.u€="'"ijt~ ~{f","'1o'""""l
..-/:, <- S' c..-..r:: ,_., ~I _';;h" """;",, r-. 117/),,/
~_/o""i'"" 4..J r<5..(~d"" .-f'o t;l...-?-,. -'. 0'
(/
., ,-
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
NAM E ri/"I e' c.V U Q 1)
I /
C !e/JlielLiJ..7
SIZE
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
'//hl .. - ,~ ./:( -:: ./ '.;.-~.: (Or) l""..... "'/::1...' , (I' r" i ,Ni
(. ".' ,....." / ~' .vI' ~ _ !.,.L~.
.y ::... ~ "C ,I ,.I
, .:.......~, .,"'~, ,:~~ ~.:L r~'"
....e"a 1/-Ge..f:I s (S]
d G V>71'1.,--n a (-f: i,{ ,:;~\ <;
/
., ".""
.
.
.
I .
fJ -'jL. ~.I!s
NAME CQ/ D1;/ra.-t Ie:.
EXISTING FACILITIES
tlr/le ue I dD.f'..D
I
PARK INVENTORY
FUTURE ADDITIONS
SIZE 3~ () //C :/' ( .;
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
NAME Ou-i-101 A ~J;/e .l':>(;'~ JII/<5
EXISTING FACILITIES
U.?I..-Ie UE I Co;:;€!)
I
FUTURE ADDITIONS
SIZE .s -; j- a..:: i'E:.
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
NAME ?!/ 2?t2;[;~ ()/i;' ';
SIZE &" '15 /lcr.O
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
;//0..'; a r- :) .'( " ,~l
-sk r"C:~.f 'r KPh I<.
Wp-f. II" ,\....'~1 <;'
-r;..~ ~/':;
.
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
NAM E r/b :/-:5S tl f'-::
'" ' ,.
1../1' =- ..)"
SIZE .f q ~t C. /'';: .
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
kUO- a..cc.J:S~- {"a. "Jf' i/t: /6J~j
i J
.
. '.
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
NAME hl/;'/7' Ii/'<
EXISTING FACILITIES
,r?/o....v r:; r '1~
/ v
FUTURE ADDITIONS
SIZE , & d (. /' ~ ~
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
~(
NAME Z' //z:5 Dr7' I iJi..r
SIZE 7</'1 Cl(.I'~S
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
;'/>(.1., ,'~t _1 ,... t) /_1. >LJ
r:~q_ 7' -~"'.0 ()
<::6~ h<':"-rI ::-r ...- f? ore::! ;~
.'. /~ i
v~ ' /; <'" .p G, -;; ,:).,7' / J
p~ r!) <J,.......... ".; q.'
g\~ -' '-
/ .:..7.. l,....("".~" C. /;
/:;:'/C]' ,~_ ''''---OJ r"t "..", c'::: ,,/ i " ....,1..
I rY
.
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
NAM E 'i h <; -. If.. ~ <--
_ . _' / .^' - of ,.
SIZE ~,~.:..' -1. '- r -, .
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
"1 I / e. ...../ 1--.' -:--, ,...." '-. i' .-
,..., ;:><:!( ( ~ _.....~j '-'
S,(' - ;.(~( ...
~- !
I Q _f)-'..
-') (fV ( (' S_n" G_ I I)
I~a. ! -...-e'c'
jJ /a '-i q ro f...,(,.",~,\d
, "l. " A ,. f'
j.,.t.j(l ~.". ',",""~ -=-,. '1"\.., I " I..t.
~d, r ((/RLJr. ;.t.I'O'vl".J\
. .' ~ i /-0 t)/r""\ 1
2..11", -'t",..':. :,,)/........' -; ,<=/1'....." 10+ .-/
~../'
-,
, '-'
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
,'} .--
NAME E. J5 ;,..-::~).:.,,- r.~.'"
SIZE J. J ~ ~.CJ': j
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
/ly--ho .:,.. ~~~' ,;y.},~
';:' /;r;c;, r c; ,7-/:- ,
1?.~:..< ./ /".1.-/' - ,'rr:' 0~
'-.', ;J --
/ "
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
J. I r;7 /) c; Pa.. (' '--
NAME VV I Dt"'i.:v,/JL
SIZE ""1 ? ~ .:l. ~ i' ~ ;
gI. . J '-
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
;/./ ,(
/'Ct !/ {> j -' .-
.J.'"'l~,). .~',.. J{\',/;';' ,.. fSP:J, ~ .,. J: I )
0. ;}; ,/\ ~,I
5,..,'(. '-J:e/' --
~.. ,_."
_~_", ,'. ....... I
0a./',-yy\. 1:'')''4 /1)",--$ e
5k c -'.o';-P " ~,.".
. ..__-7, ,.......
C c; ~,.l ~J aCCe~ ~
:;;".
. --
.
.
.
NAME C:J ur,j,^-)/ '---
,
, j"
.'-- "
EXISTING FACILITIES
,/,'
'-
/~ /" ", r
'..F/C .;\
:8a/('./'.-e~ ,':.;:/}." a, )
5' a. ,,,J: :) :) /; t. '/ -:> 0.. !. I C (, l,L r-
5 /( A -::, "-" 't<...'"",/<..
v
PARK INVENTORY
FUTURE ADDITIONS
SIZE
/s;;.
ac rc":;'
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
NAM EAr ~ co) e.:.;-
SIZE j~O acreS
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
/1,) :;,..".(~ --,,;,;,1. -- (6 ~ /' )< 0.:' '" "'-T"""\ .!i'l
(,l,.... , ....._~....\
~6 ;~ ..~~ , j ,~.~-... d<"
f :r:-+',~\ e.:; ,- c.c ( ,\,.. ~.... < 0
..
~ ".
I A c...;r: is
5/S - ,J I::_-'~,-,- ( 0+
-- '- -- -, /' .:{ .--- '-..,
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
.> , (lJ.u',-
NAME ~>~ 't)O IL- /
SIZE ~. 7;) Ac.,' es
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
//A,,, r;
"'r <) (_~.. J' ~. C'(
~jr'~ /',.t.. ~<;1, f /iJ <;.<. t'J Q, ~. '.;.( ::i
" .. ~~ "r I i ;.-<}....,.. /~. "
~ j
, "
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
NAME ///{;C; 0 :.-u). ;J.:c;- (.
SIZE 5.7] /ll?-ires
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
/( ! Ope.0 / /-??' .X \
n .i ,:(/e. I~ /r(:;,...:-;..../\ .:..~, "..L 1
"- " "
.'.'
.
.
.
NAM E' J& /Ie r ,,~ ,;+ ~ (' ,I(
EXISTING FACILITIES
~/i,' -'.... )... _ " c/
;E"1 / //'7:!" /,j /'5, "'c /1)
-'
SA-" ;'/~'.) D
'.'
/;:: l.t
PARK INVENTORY
FUTURE ADDITIONS
SIZE I q I A'c.re:;
.
.
.
PARK INVENTORY
NAME N. 5 ,t? 15", i/ ,C:; :.'>C
SIZE /'-1' a C "eJ
EXISTING FACILITIES
FUTURE ADDITIONS
:.I- 5J?+ <J~ If ;Cr e /-/,.
I LT< 1"-16 5'a.{I-_;~ " rzt"l./
/ 17/'",," Ba.s e bC 1/ " ,: -r~ Icf
>"'...;
hS~PJ,~/r>" 'I
/~/J"l1 ,P"'-:;::'yY', *..:...,..d
.- g/P.A..::"'~I f..... 5C'~.)
:;,
.
.,....
TRAIL SYSTEM ISSUES/POLICIES - 11/20/91
. POLICIES/ISSUES
GENEAAL POLICY STATEMENT - CI1~edS'ia.'e......&....i J {';'''''~INt-l .,.I.t~"-re
Should reflect Quality of life values of the community
According to surveys, residents support trail development
Trails are popular and well used by the pUblic
PLANNING PHILOSOPHY
.
Comply with plans recognized by the CC. PC. PC
Identify need for trail development in planning process
Should reflect citizens needs, consistent with Park and Open space plan
Comply with plans recognized by the Monticello School District
Responsive to community-wide desires and user group needs
All street planning shall include review of trails and sdwlks
Comply with plans recognized by other interest groups
Trail system should integrate new residential and comm areas as they emerge
Trial patterns should be dictated by population density and dev
Collector roads to schools need sdwlk and bike path
The plan shall designate routes for pedestrians and bikers
Should serve existing community needs and anticipate growth trends
Satisfy existing needs and grow with community dev. trends
City-wide trail system to minimize pedestrianlvehicle conflicts
TRAIL DESIGN GOALS - ALL TRAILS
Trail design should reflect specific use
Efficient and avoid duplication
Design should utilize, but remain sensitive natural areas
Never puts trails between homes unless it makes total sense
Trails through residential areas taken as outlots
Trails through commercial areas taken as easements
Class II trail is striped portion of collector road
Trails Shall be constructed to proper standards
Roadway and utility easement should be considered for corridors
Develop in a cost effective manner
Trails are outlots, 40' wide with room to screen,
8' paved ashphalt surface
Provide year round multiple use
Motorized vehicles shall be prohibited on City trail system
Shall complement abutting community trail planning efforts
Where possible trail corridors shall utilize natural amenities
Location and design to minimize neg. effects on adjoining land
Should be consistent with other govt. agency objectives, coordinate
.,,_ DESIGN GOALS - TAANSPORATJON TRAILS
A pedestrian network shall be established linking neighborhoods
Require both asphalt (bike) + concrte sdwlk - high use trails
Parks, schools, libraries, shopping ares shall be linked.
Transportation trails identified based on usefulness or functionality
PL YM EP MONT
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Where traffic is heavy or fast. separate trail from roadway x
. Class II trail noted by signs, no striping x
Class I trail separate from roadway x
Established streets that should have a trail in time
Separate trails from streets where possible x
Installed with all new collector streets
Trails are part of the trans. syst. - n get em here to theren x
Connect park, open space, recreation, schOol, population centers x
Adjacent to collector streets, Transportation spine of City
TRAIL DESIGN GOALS - PRIVATE TRAILS
Homeowner assoc. governs trails not on the plan. x x
TRAIL DESIGN GOALS - RECREATION TRAILS
Generally found within community parks or linear parks x
Recreation trail is nat. resource oriented-place of interest x
Trails around lakes areas suited to recreation use x
TRAIL FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS
Financial assistance focused on MNDOT Bikeways Grants Program x
Financial assistance focused on MSA and CSAH funds x
. All available finance assistance should be used to implement trail system x
Financial assistance focused on LAWCON and DNR grants x
Funded by General fund, referendum, grants,etc
Trail corridors should be secured ASAP and financially prudent x
Fed, state, county financial assistance shall be requested x
When possible, trail land should be provided by private by easement or dedication x
Funded through cash park fees or park bond referendums x
Financial assistnce focused on Developers x
Trail system included in CIP and coordinated with RD const projects x
The City should be able to afford to build and maintain the trails x
Financial assistance focused on Wright County Parks/Highways x
Developers responsible for providing trailway finished grade x
PARK DEDICATION ISSUES
Do not take trail land in lieu of park dedication x
Park dedication credit if trail is identified in plan & installed x x
Trail construction not funded with cash park fees x x
Park dedication credit not given for trail easements in commerical areas x
Construction of trails in lieu of Park done by developers x
Grading of future trail beds is required x
No park dedication credit for trail development not on plan x
Trail amenities could be accepted in lieu of park dedication x
. Corridor acquisition higher priority than trail construction x
M..... fENANCE ISSUES
Trail system should encourage ussr upkeep x
The City should be able to maintain system - financially x
City Clears trails in the wintertime x
-..--.--...---.
.
.
.
~J~
- TRlt-IL
t-fI--
PLAN
CBAPl'ER 5
a:MMDNITY TRAILS
IntJ:oduct.ion
All of the pl~ stmies that ~ CClI;?leted iran the late 1960s t.hrcugh.
the mid-1970s, inc1udi.rxJ the 1968 CC:ltprehensive Guide Plan, the varicus
sector sb.xlies, the Major center Area Task Force Report an:i the HoJsin] Task
Force Report cite:i the need for a cc:axplete p:lthway systau cannec:t.in;'
activity nodes ani pc::p.ll.atial centers.
In 1976, the city CClIq?leted a HikewayjBikewa.y Task Force Report that sb..xlied
the need for a hikewayjbikeway system. As p:!rt of this study, a pedestrian
smvey was taken requestin] pJblic inpIt to the deve1cpnerrt of a trail
system plan. This survey indicated strong community support for a
hikewayjbikeway trail system. In 1978, 1984 ani 1988, cammm.ity smveys
in.::ticated that the residents SlIfPOrted the trail system above a:rry other
iIxli vidual segrrent of the park system.
'!he Hikeway/Bikeway Task Force Report in:1u1ed many reo::mnenJations that
were later adcpted as policy for developin:;J a trail. system within the city.
'!hose recamnen:1ations have been integrated into the goals arx:l policies
stated later in this chapter.
Trail Classifications
Because of the different stan::lards that apply to different types of trails,
it is ~sary to differentiate between them.. 'Ihe city presently has six
different trail classifications; they are as follows: transportation trails,
recreation trails, natm:e trails, cross-co.mtry ski trails, SI1C.1N11rl:>ile
trails, ani equestrian trails.
Transportation 'l'rai.1s
Transportation trails provide as direct a link as possible between
population areas ani activity ncx:1es such as: schools, parks, churches,
places of work ani shewing places. 'Ihese transportation pathways provide
functional, safe pedestrian or bicycle aa::ess to activity ncx:les, instead of
a walk or ride on a busy street. '!he t.rans};x:>rtation trails generally cx::cur
adjacent to CXlllector streets arrl minor arterials.. Transportation trails
are either 8'-0" wide ast;i1alt pathways that are CXlnsidered canbination
bicycle/pedestrian trails or 5'-0" wide concrete sidewalks that are
designated exclusively for pedestrian use. --
In locations where heavy pedestrian an:i bicycle traffic lI.'OUld be expected,
the city will require 8'-0" wide aspw.t pathways for bicycle traffic arrl a
5'-0" wide CXlncrete sidewalk for pedestrian traffic on the qJfX)Site side of
the street.
176
;:-
if.c
\ - /
.
.
.
Transportation trails alorg exi.st:irq roads are :fun:.1a1 with the assistance of
federal, state ani ca.mty grants 'Nhenever p:ssible ani are :required alorg
all new CXlllector ::ikeets arrl minor arterials, or alCD1 exi.st:irq streets
duril'g construction an:3Ior reconstruction.
In 1984, the City COtJrx::il agreed that it was i.nat;:prq;Jriate to use cash park
fees for the deve1op;rent of t.rans};x:>rtatial trails, but to furd thcse trails
with general operation furds or furrls fran referenlums designated for trail
const:ruction.
'!he Parks, Recreation and NatuJ:al ResaJrces D:!partment has ~
requiri.n;' developers to construct 8'-0" wide astbalt hikewaysjbikeways alorq
collector streets that will generate sufficient traffic to warrant concem
for either pedestrian or bicycle use within the road right-of""'\<iaY. City
staff has ~ that developers be required to construct sidewalks
alon;r thcse residential ::.~eets that can ace, "0" date bicycle traffic bIt
would l::le hazardC\JS for pedestrian use, arrl alorq both sides of all streets
within the MCA commercial area. In situatialS of heavy bike ani J;'.Edestrian
traffic, the city may require an 8'-0" wide biturnincus bike trail on one
side of the street and 5'-0" wide Cuu..a..t:te pedestrian trail on the q::posite
side.
Recreation 'r%ai.J.s
A recreation trail in Eden Prairie is generally natural resoorce-oriented.
'Ibis means that the recreatial trail syste:n 0C0JrS in places of interest
such as na:b.mu areas, aroun::l lakes, or in areas which are especially suited
to recreational use.. LiInited applicatial may exist in creek valleys. A
recreation bikeway is generally designed to a 10'-0" width with an 8'-0"
aspwt surface. In aalition, the recreaticn bikeways have maxilmJm tuI:nirg
radii, max:iJmJm visibility, min:Jr grade chan:;Jes, ani a len;th of one to five
miles .
Recreation trails are generally fourrl within ccmmmity parks or linear
parks, am are furrled thrcugh cash park fees or' park bon:1 refererrlums..
Nature Trails
'!he city has designated three creek valley flcx:rlplain areas as :future trail
corridors. '!he majority of the trail system within these creek valleys will
l::le CXlnsidered "nature trails" with a soft surface const:ruction material such.
as agli1ne or TNOOdchips, or will l::le m:::JWed grass trails. (Hard surface trails
may cross these valleys as p:!rt of a transportation trail system.)
'!hese trail systems will not l::le developed until carplete sections of a creek
corridor are acquired connectin;J activity rxxies or other trail systems at
each en:i of the CXlrridor. Interpretive signage arrl wildlife bliros will be
incorporated where awrcpriate.
~ile Trails
Snowm:ibile trails are develcp:rl arx:l maintained on private prq:erty by the
local ~ile Club, as well as a llI.11.ti-city Sl1C1ttlJl"d:lile trail system
177
(
(
e
r
,'/" ,
\ \,,:/ .
.
organization. 'nlese ~ile trails are lill1i.ta:l to the scut:hwestern part
of the o::mmm.ity an:} have been cllinini.shirq on an anrnJa1. basis due to the
develop;rent of previcusly r.ural areas.
'!he local SIX1N'1'IXi:>ile trails a:ll1neCt to the ~ile trail system in the
Minnesota River Valley, as well as to adjacent C'nmImity Sl'XlW1D:::bile trails
to the west.
Snowmobiling is not allowed on any public land other than the
designated Sl'lC1NndJile trails.
cross-oxmtry Ski Trails
Cross-camb:y ski trails are marked ani y.L~ in starirq Lake Par.k.
Limited grocmin:J has been done at Ram::i lake Park for the High SChool CI:'oss-
Country Team.
Future potential cross-camb:y ski areas within the caxmmi.ty park system
are in the Edenbrook Conservation Area an:i in the linear park system
proposed for develop;rent between lake Riley, Rice Marsh lake an:i Mitchell
:take, ani in sections of the Purgatory Creek Valley an::!. Riley creek Valley.
'!he Minnesota Wildlife Refuge ani Recreation Area also has included cross-
country ski trails within its develcpnent plan.
. Equestrian Trails
'!he city has adopted guidelines for develcpnent of equestrian trails within
the city. An equestrian trail was develcpsd in stari.rq lake Park in 1982'
but was renoved in 1986 after conflicts between equestrian trail users ani
recreation trail users. It was detez:mined that the trail corridor arcund
the lake was not wide enough to a~IlLUJate both trails.
'!he city shoo1d atterrq:Jt to a'-'U...AUuuJate an equestrian trail connection frCm
the ridirg arena to the proposed equestrian trail in the Minnesota Valley
wildlife Recreation area.
Existilx:r Trails
In 1974, the Hikeway/Bikeway Task Force sul:mitted to the City co.xncil a list
of streets havirq the greatest iJrport.an:e for trails in the community.
'nlose najor streets - Count:y Read 4, Country Road 1, Valley VifiM Read, I:uck
lake Trail am Scenic Heights Read - were referred to as the spine system of
the city trail system. Trails have been const:ructed alorq all of these
streets, although the entire len:;th of sane of the streets will not be
carrpleta:l until scanetine in the future due to the elimination of the state
an:1 county grant p:t"O;JnlmS for bicycle trails.
.
In 1988, Eden Prairie will have approximately 29 miles of 5 '-0" wide
sidewalks. Exi.sti.n;J 8'-0" hikewaysjbikeways am:.mrt to aa,:>rcxllnate1y 43
miles with another 60-65 miles planned. Prcp::sed nature waJ..kways will
arrount. to approximately 10 miles. Eden Prairie's exi.stin3' ani proposed
trails are sham in Figure 5.1.
178
,.
/ I
-;--'
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
. 7.
.
Goals and Policies
General
~
ShcW.d reflect _citizen needs am. be consistent with the CClJ;;lrehensive
Ian:1-Use Plan an:1 the CaIp:ehensive Park ani q:.en. Space Plan.
Should provide year-rourd 1IIJ1.tiple use.
Should be exnsistent with c:x:unty, regional and federal/state dJjectives
curl shcW.d be coordinated with these i.DpIE!Delltation efforts.
Should be deve1q;e:i an:1 maintained in a o:st-effective manner.
ShcW.d reflect men Prairie's quality of life ani };hysical/cultural
characteristics .
Should serve e.xisti.rq carmmi.ty needs and anticipate grcM:h tren:ls of
the city.
Deve1c:p a city-wide trail system that minimizes potential o:m:Elicts
between trail users ani ltDtor vehicles ani ensures the safety of the
trail users.
Policies
A. Shall respon:i to ccm.mmi.ty-wide desiIes and satisfy user group needs.
B. Shall confonn to the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan and the
Catlprehensive Par.k ani q:.en. Space Plan by:
Oesi9Ila:tirg :rcutes for pedestrians ani bikers.
Separatirg trails fran streets where possjble.
Ccnnectin;J park, q:en space ani recreation nc:des ani areas of
ccmnercial or cultural iJrp:>rt:arx:e.
C. Shall be efficient, an:1 avoid duplication.
D. Shall a~lIlLUJate a broad rarqe of year-rcurrl use by enc.aJragin3'
lrD.1ltiple nr.rlal use.
E. Shall confonn to or CC1rq?lement st.anJards set by l.1H'& levels of
gcvennnent.
180
/~-
';
, I.<"i
l, ."~'
"--....--"
.
.
F. Shall a::raplement federal, state, c:x:unty ani al::ut:t.i.n; cc.mm.mi. ty trail
pl~ efforts.
G. O::JIply with plans SUR,JOrted or reo:gni.zed by:
city Park, Recreatial and Natural Resam::es Chml;~c:ion
city Plal1l1in3' r'nmI; ~ic:n
City eam::il
Eden Prairie Sd100l District
city residents an1 organize:i trail grc\1pS
H. Shall support the city's high quality of livin; ani reinforce the
unique na'b.Jra1 characteristics of F!1en Prairie.
I. Shall satisfy the e.xisti.rq o::nmmity's needs and continue to grow in
scale and loc:ation of o:mmmi.ty devel~1't tre.njs..
J. Location ani design of trail CDrridors shall minimize negative effects
an:1 maxilnize beneficial effects for adjacent laixl CMl'lerS.
Functional Considerations
Goals
1. Hierarchy of system. elements should be established.
2. Safety exnsiderations shculd be ~lie:i to the separation of trail and
highway facilities.
3. Should perform transportation functions and link neighborhood,
e:iucational, recreational and other ccmmmity activity ncdes and tie
into exi.stin;J or 1:J.Lq..u:;ed plblic ani private trail facilities.
4. Should conserve or pre.save natural amenities an1 bJffer i.ncanpatible
lam use frcm the user.
5. Should consider maximJm potential use capacity an:! provide alternative
facilities for special user groups.
(
(
. e
181
~
./
, /
.~ .L;
, ~
"'""-----"
"
Policies
A. Levels of trail system develcpnent shall be established as:
ttansportatian trails
recreation trails
nature trails
cross-count.J:y ski trails
B. Trails shall be IilYsically separated frcm highway facilities or lanes
designated within roadway CDrridors.
A pedestrian network shall be establi.she1 criss-crossin] the city
an:1 linkin;J the various neighb:lrtloc::ds.
Parks, schools, libraries, commercial shopping areas, and other
camm.mity amenities shall be linked.
City trails shall link up with Hennepin Park, Fish ani Wildlife
service, al::ut:t.i.n; cat1'IlUrli. ty ani private trail systems.
Where p::ssible, trail CDrridors shall utilize, make acc:essible arrl
preserve natural amenities in::1u:li.rg: creek valleys, drainage courses,
TNet.lands, lake lxxties, bluff lines, ani major wooded areas.
No:1al facilities may be considered for specialiZed grcups, in::1u:1i.n;'
traini.n; areas for cross-countJ:y skiers ani equestrian use.
'!he use of two-, three- an:! foor-wheel all-terrain notorize:i vehicles
shall be prohibited on the city trail syStem.
In planni.n;J, design ani consb:uction of all streets an:l highways alonJ
designated bike ard pedestrian trails, review the need for trails an:l
sidewalks .
.
J. On all collector roads lead.irq to schools or major parks, provide an
8'-0" wide bitumincus bikeway on one side of the road ani a 5'-0" wide
concrete sidewalk on the opposite side of the road to aco ..u..rrl:l:te
pedestrianjbicycle traffic.
K. Adjacent to other CDllector streets within the city where traffic is
too heavy or too fast to safely aO-ullllLAJate bicycle traffic, provide an
S' -0" wide bicycle/pedestrian pathway separated frcm the roadway.
L. On "through streets" tbat pass through residential neighbor:hocds where
traffic dc:es not justify a separate bicycle trail, bL."t where traffic is
too heavy to safely a~IUlL).]ate pedestrians or yaJl'X3' children on
bicycles, require as' -0" wide corx:rete pedestrian walkway.
182
/
~...
.
.
.
Design O:msiderations
Goals
1. Trail design should reflect specific use.
2. Design shculd utilize J:ut remain sensitive to natural areas.
3. Trail patterns should be dictated by population density and
develcpnent.
4. Rcadway arrl utility ~~TJl:s should be considered for corridors.
5. Ample access arxl canfort;SUJ;pOrt facilities shcW.d be provided.
6. '!he trail system shcW.d integrate new residential ani c::c:mrercial areas
as they emerge.
7. Design consistency shcu1d occur with other trail systems.
8. Proven design starnards should be awlied with m::difications considered
for unique local cxnii.tions.
Policies
A. Trail elements shall be designed with the follc:Min; user groops in
min:1:
hiJcin; ani pleasure walkin;J
bicyclirg
ski tourirg
bird watchin;J or nature t:rai.1s
B. Trails shall utilize open space occurri.n; due to natm:al. features where
appropriate, such. as conservation areas ani creek valleys.
c. Trails shall be developed proportionate to city develq:mmt patterns
ani papulation density.
D. Highway an:l utility rights-of-way shall be used where awrcpriate ani
feasible.
E. Trail support facilities shall be provided including access
points, signirg ani stripin;, parJd..n;, brictges and, where needed,
sanitation an:l shelter items.
F. '!he trail system shall be cant.imJally exten:1ed into rat housirg or
ccmmercial areas as they are developed.
183
()
(
e
/7
. \ ,./1
\., ::-.'
-
.
,
G. Trail elements mJSt be integrated into existiIq env:irornents with
sensitivity to design and neighlxlrtIDcxl character.
H. Trail type, design and signi.n; consistency shall occur within the city
and a sm:ot:h transition shall take place between trails of differing
jurisdictions.
I. creativity shall be exercised when cx::nfonn:in;J design and construction
starnards to specific sites especially these with sensitive natural
characteristics or significant iilysical canstraints.
J. Provide ~. cm'bs to facilitate aCC?;s by haniicapped persons and
bicycles.
MaintANl~ considerations
Goals
1. 'Ihe trail system sha.1ld generate min:iJnaJ. mai.ntenarr.e; that which dces
. occ::ur should be within the capabilities of the city of Eden Prairie.
2. '!he trail system shculd errourage user upkeep ani mi.n:i1nize varrlalism.
3. User groups generatin;J high mai.ntenarx:e or negative impacts shcW.d be
restricted or avoided.
Polices
A. '!he trail system shall be located, designed and constructed to minimize
mai.ntenarr.e cost.
B. Trail maintenance proce1ures shall be feasible by the City of Eden
Prairie both row and in the f'ut:ure. Where p:ssible, mai.ntenarr.e
proce1ures shall confo:cn to existiIq city activities for efficien::y.
c. Trail mai.ntenarr.e should reinforce user canfort and safety.
D. Trail system implementation through its organization, design and
construction should encc::urage maximum user maintenance and upkeep.
Potential for vattialism shculd be kept to a mi.nbm.nn.
E. Users which cause high mai.ntenarx:e or are potentially destroctive to
trails facilities sud1 as equestrians should be limited or alternate
facilities provided which can bear the user iJITpact.
Welfare, safety and Security o:msi~tions
Goals
1. '!he trail system shc:uld have a positive inpict on Eden Prairie's
quality of life both a..1lturally am environmentally.
184
r'
/1
. '.,?
i. 'y...
'-.-....J-....
.
.
2. 'I11e trail system shcW.d be c::axpa'tilile with adjacent lam c:M1erS ani
lard use whenever possible.
3. safety ccnsiderations sha.1l.d be integrated into the system th.rcugh
design an::l regulation.
4. Mjacent property should be prot:ect:a1.
(
Policies
A. '!he trail system shall enhaIre the city's aesthetics -where possible ani
shall not pro:luce urDue noise, physical erc:sion or degradation.
B. 'Ihe trail system shall be an asset to the t'YTI'ITlInU.ty's scx::ial ani health
well-being by offering variety ani educational experien=es
c. Blysical barriers such as berms arrl plant materials may be maintained
or developed where possible along portions of the trail system which
are incompatible with adjacent land use such as single family
residential.
D. safety ccnsiderations inc1udin;- sight distances, trail diltensions an:l
other items of personal loiell-beirq shall be- integrated into trail
stan::1ards .
E. Policing responsibilities shall be designated utilizing city, N'nlmlnU.ty
an::l user group resources.
(
Pl:~.......".; nIJ an4 J"i Nl1'\("i n:r CCmsiderations
Goals
1. I:esign, construction ani maintenan::e costs associated with the trail
system should be within existing or anticipated city fiscal
capabilities .
2. All available financial assistance should be used to implement the
trail system.
3. The trail system should be based on a long-term implementation
strategy .
4. Trail corridors shculd l:e secured as soon as possible am financially
prudent.
5. Whenever p:ssible, tJ:ai1 system elements should l:e provided by private
interests by ~~'1t or dedication. .
. e
185
,'1"'~.
./1
I ,
.../
......................-..'.
~ Policies
.
.
A. Trail costs shall not place unrea.5alable dem:ux3s a1 Fden' Prairie's
fiscal :resc:uras.
B. Federal, state,Ja:::w..~litan ani Ct:lJI1ty financial assi.st:arx::e shall be
actively requested to deve1cp the trail system. Assistance efforts
shall focus on:
state of Minnesota -
a. Office of ILxal an::l Urtlan Affairs - IAin:N an::l tNR grants.
b. Department:. of Na'bJral :Reso.n:ces - snowm:i:lile ani cross-
countJ:y ski. trail assistance grants.
Minnesota Department:. of Transp:lrtation
a. Bikeways Grants PLV:lLa.uJ.
b. MnOOl', MSA, or CSAH Fun:is
camty
a. Hennepin tor
Private
a. user group;
b. lam holdi.nJs
c. developers
C. Innovative methods to finance or expani the trail system shall be
explored.
D. Trail system deve1Uf:.&II::...ut shall be based. on a logically sequenced
pu~:taw ani shall be in::11Xied in the city's capital iJuprovements
pLv.jl.d.1uwin;r activities ani coordinated with major utility and. road
construction projects. \
E. Assist o:mnunity clubs or organizations in establi.shin;' pmlic trails
for ~ile or equestrian use.
F. Ian:l for trails shall be c:btained as soon as possible. Corridor
acquisition should generally have a higher priority than q-ail
construction.
G. Upon the selection of trail corridors, all major sulxlivisions shall
provide awropriate trail corridors as a part of required open space
datications to maintain the trail network.
186
/'
of'
:....;::
\~-
. ()
H. Whenever develq:ment occurs adjacent to flcx:dplains or trail corridors,
the city will require dedication or p;t~rrt:s to ensure conti.nuation of
the trail corridor arrl future develcpnent of the trail.
SUGGES'I!ED IESIGN STANO.\R[S PCR '1'Rl\IL ~
'Ihe follC1.t1in.J design stan:lards are interrle::l to guide the future o:nstructi.on
of trails in Eden Prairie. 'Ihese stan:lards shcW.d be used to review-
pri vate-sector trail o:nstructi.on ani to direct detail for mmicipal trail
construction ard improvements.
Difficult trail design i.ssues frequently exist, arx:1 they may require special
design consideration. In:Ii.viduals using the design stan:lards lIIJS't review- on
a case-by-case basis whether the design CXll'1flicts require deviation frail the
stan:lards. In arriving at such exceptions, attention should be given to
issues perta.i.nin; to user safety, liability, a:mfort, o:nstructi.on costs ani
consistency with al:utt:i.rq trail se;merrt:s.
Bicycle Dimensions and ~tiDq Characteristics
'!he space requirements for safe ani canfortable bicycle c:peration are
dictated by the follC1.t1in.J three factol:s:
.
1. Dimensions of the bicycle and rider
(
2. c:peratin:J dlaracteristics
3 . Bicycle cleararx::es
Dimensions of the Bievcle am Rider
'!he actual ciiJxensions of the bicycle an:i rider serve as the startirq IXJint
for developil'q m.i.nilnrJm bicycle facility design stan:lards. 'Ibalgh bicycle
di1nensions may vary slightly with nxx1el ani size, the st:arx1ard diJIensions of
the average adult rider ani his or her bicycle are shavn in Table 5.1 ard
Figure 5.2.
TABlE 5.1
BIC'icrE AND RIDER DD1ENSIONS
O1aracteristic:s
'Average DiJnension (Feet)
2.0 Measured by harxllebar width
6.0
Width
I.en;th
.
Height
Vertical PeJal Clearance
7.4 Mini.num
0.5
~
187
/--
.//
i. 1--'
"
.
~
...
po..
2'
5.75'
FIGURE 5.2
BIC'lctE AND RIIER DIMEXSICNS
Bicvcle Ckeratin::r Olaracteristics
'lhe speed at which a bicyclist travels may vary ao::ording to several factors
in=11.Xlin;:
1. ~ gearaetrics
2. surface o::nii.ticn
3. Type arrl d1aracteri.stics of the bi.cycle
4. BIysica1 fitness arrl proficien:y of the rider
5. Weather arrl related cc:n::liticns
6. Trip pnp::se
''!hough it is possible to attain ~ awroadlin; 30 DP1 en a bicycle,
normal cycling speeds range from 7 to 20 mph and average 15 mph.
Accord:in;ly, 15 Jr{i1 shcW.d be c::alSi.dered the absolute minimJm design speed
,for bicycle facilities with 25 n;;:h rP.. ~ ...,-rxied as a desirable W'Orkin; design
speed. ~ rolliIg terrain an::l significant ~ greater than 5
percent are prevalent, a higher design speed shcW.d be considered. I:Ue to
the ~ which can be reached on significant ~, 0JJ:VeS on
~ are Il2t reccmnen:1ed.
188
!f---
I ,/,,:,
\~' -
--------/
.
.
BiCYCle Clearances
Pe.r:haps the m:st critical factor in develcpin:;J safe ani canfortable bicycle
facilities is the provisicn of adequate clearan:e to a wide variety of
potential obstructions that may be found along a prospective route.
starrlards for lateral an::l vertical clearan::e are partiOJ1arly iJrp.:Jrtant in
view of the wide rarqe of ric1i.n; proficiency that is fam:i aIIX:>I'g riders.
Cleararx::e consideration 1D.J.St include:
1. No:cnal bicycle maneuverin] allowances
2. lateral clearan:::es to static otst:ructians
3. lateral clearan:::es to dynamic otst:ructians
4. Vertical clearances to overllead otst:ructions
Minimum an::l desirable clearan:e stan:1ards for safe ani canfortable bicycle
operation are inllcated in Table 5.2. It shcW.d be ooted., hcwever, that
these st:an:1ards are minimum reccmnendations. Where possible, additional
space should be provided to peDnit passing within the bikeway ani to allCM
more adequate hazard avoidance. For ~le, the door of a parked car could
exten:i over foor feet into a bike lane (oormal extension is a.boo:t three
feet). A three-foot lateral clearan::e plus one foot maneuvering space will
oot provide adequate space for canfortable ani safe passage aram:i this
obstruction.
Width
Trails shall be 8' -0" wide bituminous to a~ltJdate two-.vay bicycle ani
pedestrian traffic. A 2'-0" wide grass shoulder on each side will be
provided for maneuvering allCMaIX::eS.
Bikewav Grades
'!he grades over which bicyclists can be expected to safely an:l canfortably
travel deperrl on a nt.m1ber of factors, inc1ulin;:
1. General topo;raIily
2. I.en;th of the grade
3. Proficiency of the bicyclist
4. C1aracteristics of the bicycle
5. Route surface corrlitions
6. Weather ani related factors
(,
(
. ~
189
/-
I I
I I,~
'--.:/
- TAmE 5.2
~ CIFARANCE STANI:lARl:E
Type of Clearance MinimJm Desirable
stamard stamard
(feet) (feet)
Maneuverin; Allowances1
each outside ed:]e 0.75 1.00
between bicycles,
regardless of di.rectim 1.50 2.50
lateral Cleararx:e to static
Obstructions2, 3
utility poles, trees ,
hydrants, etc. 0.80 2.00
raised curt:> 0.50 1.00
curt:> drop-off 1.50 2.00
sloped drcp-off 0.80 1.00
soft sha.1lder 1.50
. lateral Cl~ to Dynamic
Obstru.ctions
parked cars 2.00 3.00
vertical Clea.rarx=es to
Overhead Obstructions 8.50 9.00
-
1Maneuvering allowances should be provided for by additional bikeway
revement width, as specified.
2Iateral clearances can be provided for by either additional bikeway
pavement width or separation. It is recanmen:ied that these clearances be
provided for by s:i1rq,:lle distance separations, where possible.
3In cases where lateral hazards or otst:ructions are of extJ:eI~ severity,
such as steep drop-offs or heavy vegetation, clearances should be provided
as liberally as possible beyon:i the :minimJm stan:1ards cited. Sane type of
additional barrier may also be awropriate depen1i.rg on the degree of
dan;er .
4Includes ncl.or vehicles Cut desirable clearance will vary depen:ient upon
vehia.llar speeds. Cleararx:e between bicycles ani ll'OVin; vehicles should be
as liberal as r;x:ssible.
190
//
[' 'J
""----..,....--...
. Because of the variability of these factors, it is diffio.1lt to establish ()
detailed ard absolute design starrlards for deteDninin:;J bicycle facility
grades. Exi.stin:;J rec:cmnen::3atiCllS (Xl acceptable grades generally su:J1eSt
that grade greater than five percent shoold be avoided wherever possible.
'!he relatiC!1Ship between grades and their lergt:h shc:W.d be viewed as a major
consideration in bikeway development. Table 5.3 indicates both the
recamnen:1ed maxiJtaJm and desirable len;t:hs to whid'1 bicycle facility grades
should be limited. As a general rule, the maximJm gradient for a Ion;
uphill slope shculd not exceed two percent (for short sections, five percent
might be allowable).
TABLE 5.3
BICYCIE UHmL GRADE AND GRADE UNGIH CRI'IERIA
Bikeway Desirable NoD12l Maxi.m..Im
Gradient I.en;th I.erqth I.er:gt:h
(percent) (feet) (feet) (feet)
10.0 Not Reccmnen:1e1 33 66
5.0 Not Reccmnen:1e1 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
Recommerrled 0Jrves
.
!he design of bikeway cm.vature is depen:]ent upon the average rate of travel
of the cyclist. An increasa:l. rate of travel due to da.mhi.11 slope requires
a lon;er radius of o.mra:bJre.
For design p.n:r:oses,a sr:eed of 10 n;i1 is goc:d to use in settin;J criteria for
the c.rrvature of bikeways.
e-
191
.r'"
,,- /
.~~:/
',--,
.
.
.
'!he California oi vision of Highways' Plann.i.rq" Criteria arrl Guidelines
provides this fonrula for detenni.nirq the radius of onvature:
R is radius of o.n:vature in feet.
R = 1.25V + 1.5
v is velocity in miles per hour.
Super-elevation shculd also be :i.rx::orporated into the surface of the curve to
stabilize the bicycle as it takes the curve. 0Jr.Ie data fran '!he Bicvcle
Trails MarnJal, Minnesota ~ of Natural Resources, 1975.
An added awroach to naki.rg bi..keway OJrVes mre safe an.:l canfortable may
include providing some degree of super-elevation or banking on all
horizontal curve. (Super-elevation relates to the slope of the banked
se:;ment in terms of the ano.mt of vertical rise at the cut:side edge versus
the width of the surface.) ScIre sup=r-elevation is advisable on such
OJrVes, but in the al::sence of available data for detenni.nirq these rates,
the Americ::an Association of state Highway and 'l'J:'arqxJrtation Officials
reccrmnerrls that a cross ~ of 0.02 feet per foot be established as an
absolute mi.ni1num (the miniIm.Jm rate required for drainage) an.:l that 0.05 feet
per foot be used as a maxiJm..nn design value.
Finally, it is 5Ug'g'ested. that widenin; the paverrent width on OJrVes be
ronsidered to provide increasa:l. safety arrl canfort. By do.irq so, the
terrlencies of the bicyclist to "lean into" 'bJms an.:l stray fran the
centerline c::an l:e aC:Co.AlllLuJated without jeopardi.zi.n:;J either his act:ual or
psycholcqical safety or canfort. Prior to urrlert..akinq a curve-wideni.ng
project, havever, the added costs of such a project should be evaluate:1 to
finnly justify the need for such special treabrent. Figure 5.3 arrl Table
5.4 in:licate the recxmnerrled means by which curve-widen:irq designs shculd be
develcped. In extrerre cases, where a.n:ve radii are greater than 100 feet,
no wid~ is required. on CUI:Ves of less than 100 feet radius, wideni.ng
is reo::trll1e'rled up to a maxi.nuJm of four feet deperxlj.tx; on the radius of the
OJrVe arrl the design speerl bei.n:;J used.
U
Q.
. I
It I
I
I
..
..
..
FIGURE 5.3 ;: I
BIKEWAY aJRVE-wIDEmNG 'I'EOillICPES
192
~~-
/" I
" / -
~*.
.....--..,..
.
.
.
TAmE 5.4
BI:I<EWAY aJRVE ~ FOR VARICUS RADII AND DESIGll SM:J::U:i
()
:R.:::u.....III.Lerrled Cn:ve Widen.irn (feet}
Absolute Mi.niJrum of Radii of: Reo "0 I~rde::i st:.arDard Radii of:
I23ign
Speaj. 20 27 33 39 35 70 90 125
15 :uPt 4.0 3.6 2.4 2.0 2.3 1.1 0.9
20 :uPt 4.0 3.2 2.8 1.5 1.2
25 :uPt 4.0 3.4 1.9 1.5
30 IIP1 4.0 2.2 1.7
st:o!xl:in::r Siaht Distances
'Ihe degree of safety which a bi..keway offers relates in part to how easily
CDnflict.in:J crcss-DrNement:s are perceived, whether they be pedestrians,
other bicyclists, autcm:lbiles or animals. 1b1ever, the ability of a
bicyclist to react to specified cross m::wements is depen:lent" an the ~i.n:;J.
sight distarx:e that is provided. Safe sto{:pi.n:;J sight distances are a
function of bicycle speed arrl grade profile of the facility. Table 5.5
sununarizes reccmnerxled stq::pirq sight 'distances for. varioos design ~c::
and gradients as developed by the American As5cx:'iation of state Highway ani
Transportation Officials.
(';
~
193
~-
" /
:..i.~
~
te
.
TABIE 5.5
DESIGN sroPPmG SIGH!' DISTANCES FCR BIC'lCUS
~ign
Speed
(11P:l)
S't:q:pirq sight distances for da..mh.ill gradients of:
0% 5% 10% 15%
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
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
NOI'E: I:esign values for stq:pirq sight distances on bikeways can be
developed in the same manner as an highways. 'Ihe values sham
\Vere based on the followin; factors and developed by AASHIO:
coefficient of skid resi..staroa
perception-reaction time
eye height
abject height
= 0.25
= 2.5 seconds
= 3.75 feet
== 6 inc:hes
At-Grade Railroad crossw
Whenever it is necessal.'Y to cross rai..1road tracks with a bikeway, special
care must be taken to assure that the safety of bicyclists is protect:a:i.
'!he bikeway crossin; should be at least as wide as the awroaches of the
bikeway. Whenever possible, the crossin; shaJld be straight, and at right
an:]les to the rails. For on-road bikeways, where a skew' is unavoidable, the
shoulder should l:e widened, if p::ssible, to pemit bicyclists to cross at
right anqles. Special const:ructi.on and materials should be considered to
keep the flan:;eway depth and width to a minimum. Pavenent should be
maintained, so ridge l:uild-up does not 0C0Jr next to the rails. In sane
cases, +:i1Tl~..r plank crossin:;s can be justified, and can provide for a
smoother crossing. Where hazards to. bicyclists cannot be avoided,
appropriate signs should be installed to warn bicyclists of the dan:jer. For
off-road bikeways, it is also desirable to cross at 90 degrees. When it is
not possible to cross at 90 degrees, the bikeway shou1d be widene:i to allow
the cyclist to cross at as close to 90 d.ey.L~ as possible.
194
,r-~'
/ r.
, ,0
....._----_._-_..,~'-
.
.
.
Drai.naae
Drainage sb:W.d be provided for all I1e\lI7 hikewaY/bikeways. Trails ,should be
cross-sloped or crowned 0.02' to 0.03' per fClOt. In acklitia'l to drainage
ditches, Ollverts may be rY*'ded for cross drainage.
Materials
Hikewayjbikeway trail const:ructi.a'l sho.1ld exnfcmn with the typical trail
cross sectioo detail sham in Figure 5.4. Class V ~egate base shalld be
USEd with a bi'b.Jmi.naJs pwement in accordance with MnlX7I' 2341. Adjacent
trail shculders may have optiooal sod shoulders l' -6" to 3' -0 wide for
erosiat u.&llL.01. 5crl shculd be lower than the ~ bi'bJm.i.raJs surface
to encourage p::sitive drainage. .
S'-O.
1-6. TO 3'-0.
SOD OPTIONAL)
\!i11
2. ASPHALT MnDOT 2341 MIX
4. COMPACTED MnDOT CLASS V
()
1\ (
/I
;;;. MAXIMUM SLOPE 3:1
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
10'-0.
NOTE; SOD LAID 0.5. TO 1.-0. BELOW TOP OF PAVEMENT ELEVATION FOR DRAINAGE
FIGURE 5.4
HIKEW\YjBIKEWAY TRAIL ~CN CR:SS SECrI~
195
~
/
I
i (/:
\, --:/
"--
"
.
~
Bridoes. tJrrlert'\"'l~~ arrl Pedestrian crossi..ros
Before any type of major pedestrian crossin:J is c:::onsidered, a traffic stu:1y
in::lu:iin; a costjbenefit analysis shculd be c:c:niuc:ted for the prqxsed
facility.
'n1e three primary types of pedestrian crossin;s ate:
1. At-Grade:
A. No delineation or signs
B. With sign-delineatim - flashin:J lights
2. 0Vel:pass:
A. 'Ihis would be a bridge structure over the roadway, usually mid-
block.
3 . urxlerpass:
A. 'Ibis TNOUld be a aJ1.vert-type structure un:ler the roadway, usually
mid-block. (Use is very limited due to security prdJlems).
'Ihresholds 1Nhi.c:h call for further evaluation of a pedestrian crossin'J
facility are:
1. Traffic Volumes (Vehicles)
A. A Peak-Hour Traffic of 800 VehiclesjHalr
. B. A raily Traffic of 5,000 VehiclesjHour
2. Pedestrian Volumes
A. 150 Pedestrians Per Hour for 'I\o1o Hours on a Typical ray
Once a pcssible pedestrian crossi.n; need is irxlicated, a ncre in-depth
traffic study shculd be urrlert:aken. At a mini.nuJm, the sbJdy sha.1ld in::11Xle
the folla.vin:]:
1. A capacity analysis of the adjacent roadways arxi intersections.
2. '!he average runnir:q speed arxi posted speed limit on the adjacent
roadways .
3. An analysis of the type arxi am:unt of traffic 1Nhi.ch walld use the
facility (Le., bikes, pedestrians).
4. '!he average pedestrian delays, if a crcssi.rg already exists.
196
...r--
:' I
) I /'"
! \_/
...-..............
. 5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
.
.
'!he tine of day an:i day of the week when the heaviest pedestrian (
traffic 'WCUld oa::ur. '
An analysis of pedestrian gap acceptance (gap sb.xly of ex:i.stin;
traffic) .
A sight distance analysis for the roadway traffic ani pedestrian
traffic.
'!he spaci.n;J of ooub.ulled intersectialS.
'!he ex:i.stin; ani protected larxi uses in the area to deteDnine future
pedestrian traffic.
'!he accident histoty in the area.
'!he peak-hc:ur ani average daily traffic in the area, both ex:i.stin; am
protected.
If the detailed traffic sb.xiy inlicates a pedestrian crossin;J facility is
needed, the next step sha.1ld be to ccrxhJct a costjbenefit alternative
analysis to deteDnine the best pedestrian facility cpinion (Le., at~e
signal, overpass, urrleJ:pass).
Although each facility location design should be evaluated separately,
mi.n.inn1m design stanJards shculd be maintained. '!hey are as follGlS:
L 8'-0" wide - two-way pedestrian only trail
2. 12 / -0" wide - two-way pedestrian;bike trail
3. 12 / -0" wide - two-way pedestrian only overpass/urrleJ:pass
4. 12 / -0" wide - two-way pedestrian;bike ovm:pass/urxlerpass
5. 5 percent max:ilnum grades
6. 30 nq;:h design for bike trails
(
7. Harrlicap ao=essible
'!he analysis am design of any pedestrian facility should use stanJards
fourrl in the Federal Highway Admi.ni.stration/ s (FHWA' s) Mann;:! 1 on uniform
Traffic Control rEvices an:i 'n1e 1merican Association of state Highway arxi
Transportation Officials (AASHro) "Green Book" A Policv on Gec:rretric I:esion
of Hiahwavs am streets.
'!he evaluation of pedestrian crossin;s is very subjective and each case
shculd be analyzed. on its am. 'n1e p~~ criteria stated are not
stardards, but guidelines to facilitate a sourrl en;ineerin; jn.~TJt of the
situation.
e-
197
,.;:-
!&
\.~.",,/
--7-- .,--------- \.:-;:-'-0L\, -'r:-~-
___L - -- ~ -. ........ - .. "'~\u;a-.t t~\>\-.-="--T- I
/' I '~'" . , h .~, "_,,~":..
~_~ ~ ___.-:..~n ,< "'-'!"-__
; !-~
ii. .
..
..
.... .JI tI'J1 ,. .
.,
'j
"~
iiHltllH~ ~
:- ~
~ - - ... -ili.
...~l~!~' -.,.
.~' '--~-=f.>r--,,~
. ~- '-:~~~~_,i":':~ .~,
,=:1umrn~ ..---L. ~
~ ~,
~
~
I
\
'i
'j
"""1
. ~ 1
-~-....
-- ....".."
./ . -
r=: ,
j .
J.,\'
f}
, "
., ,
.-, r
:II
'_ ~:'lj
.- ~< ,-",~L'{;Tr[5-7 ... '\ +~
.. ~ ~ --l~~'.:.' /.
~_ C,TT or $T~.::us POlII f
I,. I: I '
. f ! :
:~. h~::u ! - ,
! l. _~-_
'-----~----------
.
PL YMOUTi-\
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Particular attention should be given to the
relationship between these uses and other
land uses throughout the City.
Although a detailed proposal for each
facility is 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 their role in the
"Community Structure Concept".
. Encourge the development of public
and semi-public uses in, or near
neighborhood centers. These would
inctude churches, parks. recreation
facilities, and publiC service facilities
(post offices. fire stations, libraries. utitity
structures, etc.),
. Protect natural resources, such as flood
plains, severe slopes. shoreland man-
agement areas and ponding areas for
development
f'
:t
. Provide a centrally 10'- .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 malor met-
ropolitan facilities are not ptanned for
Plymouth at this time, maintain a degree
of flexibility to take advantage of the
opportunities as they arise
Recreation facilities plans are
guides designed to:
. Provide a 'Jreater diverSity of park tvpes
:0 meet the Increasing o('pularcr
:~c::rTldnU for (SCre~~:i(~-n
. Deve=op 3 [Tju-~i<JurGcSe :r:=t;l S'/S-Te~
~hcd IS :_~,-lrsiu!i../ re!(J,tef-; lC) 1-.2H..J;::i1 ar=(~:
rea.tures. as \,-...€~;I as t(H~ ,~r_tiC:Gate'-=:
,~eve;opment pattern
. Protect througn puclic o\'1n ersh I:::' cr
easement cerlam 1000vlanc arEas
shorElancs and wetland areas that are
sensitive ecologicaily: and. utilize for
controlled exposure.
. Use Ihis pOlicy of reqUiring park and
open space dedication 'oNhen develop-
ment occurs as a base for the land
acquisition and development program.
. Encourage the Planned Unit Develop-
ment (PUD) approach in development.
_'.J, where neighborhoods and the City can
7 fully benefitlrom private open space
that will enhance and supplement the
public open space and parks
Education facilities planning re-
flects the guidance to:
. A.chieve a close working relationship
between the City and School Boards to
allow for the goals of each and to
provide for the best relurn for the public
dotlars used. As all four of the school
districts that service Plymouth also
serve abutting communities. coordina-
tion with those pUblic bodies is vital.
. Use combination "school-park" concept
wherever possible 10 necessitate the
least overlap in public administered
programs. Develop education faCilities
in accordance wilh the "Communit',-'
Structure Conceot"
,l .... .
~ d,. ~ I. : :..
I , ~l} :..; - .-
t 'I~' '.r.....'
_' ~ 'Tfr,
"a,p'~ . "';
f I~I'\
I ...J \ m
.~'
I.. (}\,....~~.-..~.~." :
I . f.t' ~
i"~ ~. '11-
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
y/ I'll!
il 1
~ - -. I.
:i
I
;'!-'------.~..___r_.-~.;;o.
I
I
I
'a !!
" '-'
'\
I I
./~/
I '.7
.
.
I.
EK~€f(pr
(( E2' L I't T I "-.) (;,
r{(DfVl OR(7)JJJPrJJc.J?
\t) PPr(tK ~eDle,A--T,ON
POLICY ADOPTING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING
THAT PORTION OF LAND BEING PLATTED. SUBDIVIDED OR DEVELOPED
WHICH IS TO BE CONVEYED OR DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC FOR PARK
OR PLAYGROUND PURPOSES OR WITH RESPECT TO WHICH CASE IS TO
BE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CITY IN LIEU OF SUCH CONVEYANCE OR
DEDICATION. ALL AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 500.25 OF CHAPTER V
OF THE CITY CODE
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, 1984, 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. Pur:pose: 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 nwnbers 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-
I~'-
/&
'''--' "
PARK DEDICATION POLICY
.
2.
C.
t'
\
':f'
. ~ . u-
\,\' f:
t\/ .JT.~"'
\- ~: ~'
~\) ,~.
/ '" <'
.
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.
Standards
PUJ::Poses:
of land for
shall apply:
for Accepting Dedication of Land for Public
In the consideration of accepting the dedication
public purposes the following special provisions
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.
In those cases where subdividers and developers of land
provide significant amenities, such as, but not limited
to, swimming pools, tennis courts, handball courts,
ballfields, etc., within the development for the benefit
of those residing or working therein, and where, in the
judgement of the City Manager, such amenities
significantly reduce the demands for 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.
o.
Exceptions to these
recommended by the
Commission.
provisions
Park and
shall be reviewed and
Recreation Advisory
3. Residential Dedication ReCVJirements: 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 space, 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.
-2a-
,/
; (--
I' ~'
\ -'
.__._,.._..,_._.,-------~,--_.._,-
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 on attached Exhibit A. The
percentage derived from Exhibit A shall be applied to the
area of the site for which density is calculated.
v
\'
/'r
:1 ;(
--.s- .10,'
.x. .y'
~
.
.
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
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 residential land in the community and a
survey of residential fees in effect in other comparable
communities.
c.
When determined by
required to dedicate
the balance to be
dedication. In such
be used:
the developer shall be
of the area in land with
fees in lieu of such
following procedures will
the City,
a portion
made in
cases the
(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 la~d 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.
.---
-2b-
/
! il""
'.,~
"~'---
.
.
,
.
:.
PARK DEDICATION POLICY
4.
Industrial/Commercial Dedication Requirements: 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.
In those cases where 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 commercialand
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 shall 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.
Required Improvements: Developers shall be responsible for
making certain improvements to their developments for park,
playground, and public open space purposes:
-2c-
...-,-....
/'
/ I,
i .{! c
"'-/
e
te
(e
v
PARK DEDICATION POLICY
A. To provide finished grading and ground cover for all
park, playground, trail and public open 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.
I
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 or parking lot
paving) . 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
development's total park dedication requirements. The
amount to be credited will be established at the time the
final plat or site plan is approved based upon prevailing
engineering cost 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-of-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.
-2d-
----
/
I
.' I
l,~,..
~ , I , , I I I I '
+= I i I I I I I i "1 I I ,
r I , I 1 , I I I I I I ' ,
I I
, , ,
I I I I I I
I 1 I
i I
I I , , I , I
, I I I I
W' I , , I I , I I , , I I , ,
, I , , I I I ,
I , , I -,
, , I
I I I I I , I 1 I ,
-1 ' I , i , I I i I I , , I ' I I
I . I I
I 'I I I I r I I I I I I I I I : I I I I
T I I I 1 I I I , I I I I I I I
; , 1 I ,. I . , I I , I ' .
I . u,F , 1 ' I I , , I I I
I I , -:JiIII" I .
T: ,- I I I I I I I I I , , , ~ I 1 I
I I t , I I , I I ' I ' - I
, I -- . i
T I I I I I I 1 I I , I I ' -- I I I
, I I I I I T I I ' , I , , I I~ T I , I
I
I .J"
i , I I I ~ I I ; I , ,
I I , , , -' I I I I
~
j I , , I I I .I I I I
I I I ..I I I i I I
T'- I , I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I
.
.
.
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
RESIDENTIAL
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
c x b % = d
d - e = f
f:~=g
.
(g) (a) (c) (h) = i
i - j = k
5.7 - 2 + 10 = 13.7 (5.3 - 2 +10 = 13)
8.3 x 13.7 = 1.13 (8.3 x 13 = 1.07)
1.13 - 1.07 = .06
.06 : 1.07 = .0560
(.0560) (5.7) (8.3) (390) = 1033.25
1033.15 - 23520 = -22486.75
/
,
,
C
......-...--....
.
'.
,
.
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 the~Dedication 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 according to verified acreage and
paving costs and according to the Dedication Policy in effect at
the time of Building Permit issuance.
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. I
! .'---
"..~.