Loading...
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 ! .'--- "..~.