The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06 09 14 Creating Places that Enrich People’s Lives Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To:CityCouncilandStaff From:RitaTrapp,Planner Date:June6,2014 Re:TrailandSidewalkGapStudyandParkDedicationFeeEvaluationandUpdate TheCityofPriorLakehasbeenworkingwithHKGitoconductaTrailandSidewalkGapStudy,as wellasaParkDedicationFeeEvaluationandUpdate.Oneofthefinalstepsintheprojectisto reviewthedraftfindings,assumptions,andrecommendationswiththeCityCouncil. Backgroundandmethodologyforbothprojectsareprovidedintheattachedmemosand ovidedbelow. handouts.Anoverviewofthekeyareasfordiscussionispr AttheJune9,2014CityCouncilWorkSession,thestaffisrequestingthattheCityCouncilfocus onthefollowing: I.TrailGapPrioritization undmemofortheTrailandSidewalkGapStudy,thetrailandsidewalk Asnotedinthebackgro gapsidentifiedthroughthestudyandthe2010PriorLakeTrailSurveyhavebeenprioritized basedonasetofcriteriathatwasreviewedbyStaffandtheParksAdvisoryCommittee.The CityCouncilisbeingaskedtoconfirmtheprioritization. II.ParkDevelopmentAssumptions Asnotedonpage2ofthebackgroundmemofortheParkDedicationFeeEvaluationand Update,assumptionsweremadeaboutthenumberandtypesofparksasspecifiedinthe/źƷǤ͸ƭ ComprehensivePlanandthecomponentsoffuturetotlot,neighborhood,andcommunity parks.TheCityCouncilisbeingaskedtoreviewandconfirmtheseassumptionsasthey influencetheassumedfuturecostsforparkdevelopment. III.CostAttributionbetweenNewGrowthandtheExistingCommunity UnderMinnesotaStatuteParkDedicationfessmaybeusedtobuildparksandtrails necessitatedbynewgrowthordevelopmentonly.TheParkDedicationFeeEvaluationand Updateseekstoidentifyfutureparkandtrailsystemgrowthsofeescanbecollectedfromnew development.Intheparkdedicationmodel,allnewneighborhoodparksandtotlotsare assumedtobetheresultofnewgrowthinthecommunityandarethereforesupported100% byparkdedication.TheneedforacommunityparkatCampbellLakeisalsoattributedto 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 www.hkgi.com Ph (612) 338-0800 communitygrowth.AstheacquisitionoflandforPikeLakeParkoccurredaspartofpark dedicationfundsinthepast,thecostofdevelopingtheparkisbeingentirelyattributedtonew growth.Incontrast,only50%ofthecostsassociatedwithVierlingandSpringLakeParkare hduetotheirlocationandtheexistingcommunityneedforthose attributedtonewgrowt facilities. Traildevelopmentiscompletedthroughacombinationofdevelopment,partnershipsandcity funds.Asnotedinthebackgroundmemo,theparkdedicationmodelincludescostsfortrails alongcollectorroadsintheOrderlyAnnexation(OAA)andUrbanExpansionAreas(UEA),as wellastheĭźƷǤ͸ƭportionoftraildevelopmentcostsalongCountyRoadsintheOAAandUEA. Themodelalsoprovidesforaboutonemileofoffstreettrailsineachoftheneighborhoodpark serviceareastoensureoffroadconnectionstolocalneighborhoodscanbemade. Usingtheseassumptions,theĭźƷǤ͸ƭneedsforparksandtrails(excludinggaps)through2040are anticipatedtocost$29million.Adetailedbreakdownregardingthecostsisprovidedinthe attachedtable.TheParkDedicationModeltakesthetotalassumedcostof$29millionand distributes90%ofthosecoststonewresidentialgrowthand10%tonewnonresidential growth.Asshownintheproposedsummarybelow,thisdistributionresultsinthefeesdropping onlyslightlyforresidentialunitsandmoresignificantlyfornonresidentialdevelopment.Staff notesthatthereisonlyaslightdropforresidentialduetothereductioninthetotalnumberof residentialunitsanticipatedthrough2040.TheCityCouncilisbeingaskedtoreviewthese assumptionsandprovidefeedbackonanyconcernsregardingthemodel. 0 ±ª$¤£¨¢ ³¨®&¤¤#®¬¯ ±¨²®ΑΏΏΔ³®ΑΏΐΓ 20052014 ParkandTrailSystemCost$38.3million$29million ResidentialGrowth9,200units7,200units ResidentialPerUnitFee$3,750$3,650 NonResidentialGrowth600acres600acres NonResidentialPerAcreFee$6,400$4,850 IV.FundingGapforParkandTrailDevelopment TheconcurrentcompletionoftheTrailandSidewalkGapStudyandtheParkDedicationFee EvaluationandUpdatehasalsodemonstratedthatthereisafundinggapforparkandtrail developmentthatcannotbefundedthroughparkdedication.Thisfundinggapissummarizedin thefollowingtable: 2 ParkDevelopmentFundingGap VierlingParkLandAcquisition$675,000 SpringLakeParkConstruction$3,200,000 VierlingParkConstruction$260,000 Total$4.1million TrailDevelopmentFundingGap PriorityTrailsFundedThroughPartnerships$270,000to$450,000 (TT&N) PriorityTrailsFundedThroughCityFunds $1millionto$1.6million (OO,EE,BB,F,L,S,AA,GG,&MM) NonPriorityTrailsFundedThroughPartnerships$150,000to$250,000 (J&KK) PriorityTrailsFundedThroughCityFunds$335,000to$550,000 (C,M,Z,JJ,LL,NN,PP,QQ,SS,UU,&VV) Total$1.8millionto$2.9million NotethatthisdoesnotincludethedevelopmentoftrailsalongHighway13 3 Attributable to June 5, 2014 draft Development Percent $1,350,000100%$4,950,000100%$1,520,000100%$190,000100%$175,000100%$2,904,000100%$2,850,000100%$6,700,000100% $540,000100%$520,000100%Neighborhood park development11 new Neighborhood Parks averaging $225,000 each to develop$2,475,000100%$225,000100%$210,000100%$350,000100% New $3,200,00050% $675,00050%$260,00050% $7,515,000$8,200,000$13,379,000$29,094,000 DescriptionCost 1 mile of off-street trails connecting parks and neighborhoods for each of the 11 Neighborhood Park Service Areas Trail extensions along County Roads in OAA & UEACounty contribute to 50% of trails along one side of County Roads. City wants facilities on both sides (38000 LF) New Natural Resource Community Park assumed to be 15 acres in size and land price of $90,000/acre 2,800 LF. Assume Scott County fund 50% of trail on one side. City to construct trail on both sides 11 new Neighborhood Parks averaging 5 acres in size at land price of $90,000/acre Approximately 15 acres of lake frontage for natural area and trails along Prior Lake Natural resources oriented park. Cost includes trail development, including bridge 3 new Tot Lots averaging 2 acres in size at land price of $90,000 per acre 7,000 lf to eliminate gap on 180th Street and Parkwood Drive Development based on master plan with recreational facilities City construct on both sides of collector roads (67000 LF) 3,500 lf to eliminate gap to Markely Lake from CR 21 Tot lot park development3 new Tot Lots averaging $75,000 each to develop N/S portion from 82 South. 3,800 lf on one side Vierling ParkNatural resources oriented park with trails Community Park on Campbell LakeNatural resources oriented park Update Dedication SubtotalSubtotalSubtotal Costs Park Development Needs Trail extensions on city roads in OAA & UEA Trails Parks Trail Component Trail Community Park on Campbell Lake New New Costs and for and for Park Costs Construction Park Needs Neighborhood Parks New Spring Lake Park Connecting trails Construction Lake Vierling Park Total Land Pike Lake Tot Lots Trail RR Prior Trail II Trail HTrail Y ParkPark To: Prior Lake City Council From: Lil Leatham and Tim Solomonson Subject: Sidewalk and Trail Study Date: June 2, 2014 Introduction The City of Prior Lake sidewalk and trail system works well, but has gaps and missing segments that hinder full use of the network. The City hired Hoisington Koegler Group to evaluate the sidewalk and trail network and prioritize improvements. Evaluation and prioritization occurred in the Fall of 2013-Spring 2014. Needs within the City include: A.Improved connections for biking and walking throughout the City (across the lake). B.Elimination of trail and sidewalk gaps connecting to key destinations including regional and community parks, retail and employment destinations, and community buildings. Increase recreational walking and biking opportunities. C. Study Goal: Prioritize sidewalk and trail improvements to enhance connectivity and safety. Study Objectives: Assess the condition of existing sidewalks and trails. Identify gaps in the trail and sidewalk network. Develop criteria to prioritize improvements. Make recommendations for improvements (locations, cost estimates and implementation partners). Condition Evaluation Field evaluation of existing sidewalk and trail condition was completed in the Fall of 2013. Sidewalks and trails were evaluated by dividing the existing sidewalks and trails into segments using intersections with roadways, other trails, or sidewalks, or where a distinct change in surface condition occurred to mark the beginning and end points of the segment. Each segment was then visually inspected and the condition was documented. Evaluation/visual inspection was documented with georeferenced photos of trail/sidewalk surface conditions continuously along each segment. Several data points were collected at the start, approximate mid-way point, and at the end of each segment. The visual inspection was based on pavement condition, 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-3800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com Direct (612) 252-7127 Email lil@hkgi.com Sidewalk and Trail Evaluation and Prioritization June 4, 2014 Page 2 general accessibility, clearance, and sight distance and resulted in a condition classification of excellent, good, average, poor, or very poor. Pavement Condition Pavement condition was classified on a scale of 1-5, as defined below, with 1 as the worst condition and 5 as the best: 1.Surface has significant cracking, spawling, shifting, or vegetation intrusion over the majority of the trail surface area. 2.Surface has significant cracking, spawling, shifting, or vegetation intrusion over a moderate to limited amount of the trail surface area. 3.Surface has moderate to minor cracking, spawling, shifting, or vegetation intrusion over the major to moderate amount of the trail surface area. 4.Surface is mostly consistent in appearance with minor cracking, spawling, shifting, or vegetation intrusion over a moderate to limited amount of the trail surface area. 5.Surface has limited to no visible cracking, spawling, shifting, or vegetation intrusion over the length of the segment. General Accessibility (width and slope) Generally accessibility was evaluated based on trail width and slope. Sidewalk or trail width was measured wherever a change occurred with a tape measure and rounded to the nearest foot. Areas with steep slopes were identified by visual observation and measured using GIS topographic data provided by the City. In order to be considered accessible to persons with disabilities, the running slope of a walk or trail is 1:20 (5 percent) or less with a cross slope no greater than 1:50 (2 percent). Areas that did not meet the width or slope criteria below were noted. Type Width Minimum 3 feet wide with passing areas for accessibility. Desirable minimum width for Trail multi-use trails is 8 feet for low use trails and 10 feet for higher use trails. Sidewalk 5 feet minimum Boardwalk Minimum 3 feet wide for accessibility with minimum 5 foot desired. Presence of a side barrier at trail level to prevent slipping. 42 inch high hand rail/guardrail when the boardwalk is more than 30 inches above grade/water surface and at overlooks. Clearance Encroachments into side (min. 2 ft. side clear zone) or overhead (minimum 80 inch and desired 10 foot overhead clearance) as well as encroachments within the trail or walk surface (signs, benches, lights, newspaper boxes, vegetation, etc.) were noted. Sidewalk and Trail Evaluation and Prioritization June 2, 2014 Page 3 Sight Distances Any sight distance issues such as vegetation blocking an intersection, etc. or difficult turning movements, such as sharp turns at the bottom of a downhill trail or short sight or stopping distances to a intersection, were noted. Sidewalk and Trail Gap Prioritization Trail gaps were identified through the following: Gaps identified in the 2010 Prior Lake Trail Survey Gaps discovered during the field evaluation process Gaps in connections to key destinations: regional and community parks, retail and employment destinations, and community buildings. Once identified, each gap was scored on a three point scale, 0-2 with zero being meets criteria poorly or does not meet criteria, one being meets criteria moderately well, and two being meets criteria well for the following criteria: Connects existing trails and sidewalks – does the proposed trail or sidewalk gap link existing segments of the trail and sidewalk network, how many segments does it connect, and is the new connected trail length substantial in length? Connects residents to key destinations – does the proposed trail or sidewalk gap connect residents to city destinations (schools, downtown, etc.) or city resources (existing parks, trails, or lakes), how many new connections are made? Serves existing residential areas and/or is located primarily in the developed area of the city – does the proposed trail or sidewalk gap link to existing residential neighborhoods, does it span more than one? Enhances safety – does the proposed trail or sidewalk gap improve the safety of motorists, pedestrians, or cyclists by separating or improving their interaction along roadways and intersections? Increases recreational opportunities and/or creates loop trail opportunities – does the proposed trail or sidewalk gap create new loop trail(s) or connect to existing loop trail(s)? Trail is in below average condition or does not meeting minimum width standards – has the existing trail or sidewalk been ranked as below average, or failed to meet slope or width standards during the visual inspection. Has available Right-Of-Way (ROW) – does the proposed trail or sidewalk gap fall within an existing easement or ROW, will private property be impacted? Is feasible and cost effective – does the proposed trail or sidewalk gap alignment pass through areas with significant changes in topography or areas identified as wetlands or with wet soils, or have other constraints that will affect feasibility or increased costs? Can be coordinated with planned road improvements – does the proposed trail or sidewalk gap fall along a roadway which has been identified for improvement in the City, County, or MNDOT Capital Improvement Plan? Sidewalk and Trail Evaluation and Prioritization June 4, 2014 Page 4 Addresses an identified community need in the 2010 Prior Lake Trail Survey – does the proposed trail or sidewalk gap address a need in the city’s trail and sidewalk network identified in the 2010 Prior Lake Trail Survey, how often is this gap mentioned? The scores assigned for each category above are identified in the attached matrix. The score for each category was totaled to give the prioritization score, from which the gap’s priority ranking was assigned. The priority rankings were then reviewed by Staff and the Parks Advisory Commission. To assist the City with allocating resources to improving the system, the gaps were classified by whether it would likely be funded by future development; whether there are opportunities for partnerships; or whether city funds are likely going to be the primary source for development. Cost estimates for select priority segments have also been prepared to assist Staff with CIP planning. XevA enilnwoTA enilnwoTevA enilnwoTevA enilnwoTevA enilnwoTevA noeXevA noe eAehaN1 v zctht57 E tS hctaN evA ze evA nitneuQ aL notecnir P rT t sorT t S a cit U evA nonreV O noC R llen d evA amabalA evA erihspmaH naisiuoL evA a naisiuoL evA a evA n ogerO erC doowke riC ve c A be ue Q ve c A be ue Q evA yhtomiT gtuR tS sre tC k oorB el bbeP evA aliuqA J annho rD Boone Ave rD ediS t seW evAdoowethW i evA em ocle W evA dil cuE r T ag e m O riC lairts udnI r CtseroF i rD tdrahnelhuM aLdoowednaC l evA r ehsiF eAaa v cstI ev A eladnreFrT sk aO ne ddi H nilleW evA notg evA t nome gdiR dR nwothsu M r T dri beulB oR wes doo dR P aL eki rT ek evAyedaH l evA ts eW riC ediskeerC aL ek deuL e vA sk waH eviF dRaoV irtci feJ sref ssaP dR eciR evA ekarD e vA ml E e v A t u nlaW dR anneK cM dR anne KcM a L doo wegd eW eA v ehoY riskr L sioL a rT t esn uS e vA nwa lriaF D liarT atoka E dR noirO citsyM B ekaL dvl a L ev or G el p aM ev AsugreV a L en ile ro hS aL xaf ilaH evA d rofgna L rD weiv ekaL r D e gd irt seW evA enilnwoT ev evA enile saB evA n oeX aevA enilnwoTevA enilnwoTevA enilnwoTA enilnwoTevA enilnwoTleWevA acsriC tevmlErTresnuSresnuSrT tesnrT tesnSaliuqAevA tunl eAehaN1 v zctht57 E tS hctaN evA ze evA nitneuQ aL notecnir P rT t sorT t S a cit U evA nonreV O noC R llen d evA amabalA evA erihspmaH naisiuoL evA a naisiuoL evA a evA n ogerO erC doowke riC ve c A be ue Q ve c A be ue Q evA yhtomiT gtuR tS sre tC k oorB el bbeP evA aliuqA evA J annho rD Boone Ave rD ediS t seW evAdoowethW i evA em ocle W evA dil cuEveA emoc r T ag e m O riC lairts udnI r CtseroF i seroF rD tdrahnelhuM aLdoowednaC l evA r ehsiF eAaa v cstI atI ev A eladnreFrT sk aO ne ddi H nilleW evA notg evA t nome gdiR dR nwothsu M r T dri beulB oR wes doo dR Toronto Ave P aL eki rT ek evAyedaH l evA ts eW riC ediskeerC aL ek deuL e vA sk waH eviF dRaoV irtci feJ sref ssaP dR eciR evA ekarD e vA ml E A e v A t u nlaW dR anneK cM dR W anne KcM a L doo wegd eW eA v ehoY riskr L sioL a rT t esn uS Tt t esnuS Su Ttu e vA nwa lriaF D liarT atoka E dR noirO citsyM B ekaL dvl a L ev or G el p aM ev AsugreV a L en ile ro hS aL xaf ilaH evA d rofgna L rD weiv ekaL r D e gd irt seW evA enilnwoT ev evA enile saB evA n oeX available. are that Projects estimates foot. cost linear detailed a $70 more to have $40 at* an estimated with Projects were wetlands acquisition. or slopes right-of-way steep with include Projects not foot.do costs linear Estimated per $50 costs. to $30 estimated from range general would these costs for assumed conducted was it was projects conditions construction existing sidewalkinto investigation and trail typicaldetailed For No only.foot. linear purposes a planning $40 to $25 general at estimated for prepared are reconstruction were costs Estimated primarily 1 primarily are that Projects available. foot. estimates linear cost a $70 detailed to $40 atmore estimated have * an were with wetlands Projects or acquisition. slopes steep right-of-way with Projects include foot. linear not do costs per $50 Estimated to $30 from costs. range estimated would costs general assumed these was for it conducted projects was construction conditions sidewalk existing and into trail investigation typical For detailed only. purposes No foot. planning linear a general $40 to for$25 at prepared estimated were are costs reconstruction Estimated 1 Creating Places that Enrich People’s Lives Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To:CityCouncilandStaff From:RitaTrapp,Planner Date:June4,2014 Re:ParkDedicationFeeEvaluationandUpdate InconjunctionwiththeTrailandSidewalkStudy,HKGiisassistingtheCityofPriorLakewithan evaluationandupdatetoitsparkdedication.Lastupdatedin2004,theParkDedicationFee EvaluationandUpdateisneededtoensurethatPrior\[ğƉĻ͸ƭfeesmeettheState{ƷğƷǒƷĻ͸ƭ reflectiveofnewķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ͸ƭfairshare reasonablenexusrequirementandthatthefeesare ofparkandtrailneedsandcurrentlandvalues. Theprocessofupdatingthemodelhasincludedgatheringinformationonforecasted population,household,andemploymentgrowth;identifyingtheamountandtypeof developableland;pinpointingparksystemneedstosupportfuturegrowth;andusingtheTrail andSidewalkStudytoidentifyfutureneeds.Followingisanoverviewoftheinformationthat wasusedtogeneratethemodel.Thefindingsoftheparkdedicationmodelwillbereviewedat theWorkSession. FutureCommunityGrowth Theanalysisoffuturecommunitygrowthhelpstoidentifywhereparkandtrailsystem expansionswillbeneeded,aswellastoinformforecastsforpopulation,households,and employmentgrowth.Theattachedmapusesaredhatchtoidentifythosepropertieswhichare felttohavethepotentialtodevelopby2040.BasedontheComprehensivePlanguidancefor thosepropertiesitwillbeassumedthattherewillbeanadditional7,200householdsand 16,500peopleby2040.TheseprojectionsmatchthecurrentdraftMetropolitanCouncil projectionsforThriveMSP2040. ParkNeedsAnalysis TheParksGapAnalysisseekstoidentifywhereadditionaltotlot,neighborhood,and communityparksareneededtoensureresidentslivewithinareasonabledistance.Theservice areaforatotlotisconsideredonequartermile,whiletheserviceareaforaneighborhoodpark isonehalfmile.Communityparkserviceareasareonemileasitisassumedthatusersmay drivetothefacility. Ascanbeseenontheincludedmaps,theanalysisidentifiedaneedfor11additional neighborhoodparks.ThreeoftheparksareneededonthenorthsideoftheCityforgrowth 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 www.hkgi.com Ph (612) 338-0800 occurringnorthofCountyRoad42andeastofPikeLake.Theremainingeightareneededinthe orderlyannexationarealocatedtothesouthwestoftheCity. Therearethreetotlotsproposed.Thefirsttotlot,locatedonthenorthsideoftheCitywestof PikeLakewillprovideasmallplayareaforsurroundingresidentialneighborhoods.Afull neighborhoodparkwasfeltnottobeneededbecauseofthepotentialfuturedevelopmentof PikeLakePark.Inthesouthernurbanexpansionareatwototlotswereidentifiedbecausethe th anticipatedgrowthinthoseresidentialneighborhoodsisnotanticipatedtogosouthof180 Streetsoafullneighborhoodparkwouldnotbeneeded. TheanalysisalsoidentifiedaneedforanewCommunityParkinthevicinityofCampbellLake. Thisparkisanticipatedtobeprimarilynaturalresourcesincharacter,thoughitisassumedto includeaplayground.Asecondnaturalresourcesparkidentifiedisproposedtobelocatedon theVierlingproperty.WhileinadevelopedareaintheCity,theparkisseenasneededto provideadditionallakesideparkcapacityasthepopulationgrows.Asanaturalresourcespark, itisnotintendedtoprovideboatingaccesstoPriorLake. Partoftheneedsanalysisincludedreviewingassumptionsforparkdevelopmentcosts: NeighborhoodParksTheattachedgraphicsshowtwoalternativesforthedevelopment offutureneighborhoodparks.Oneisrelativelybasicwithaplayground,smallpicnic shelter,andopenlawnareathatcouldincludeavarietyoffeatures.Theexpanded graphicshowsalargerplaygroundarea,looptrail,andmoreactiverecreational component.Thecostforthebasicdesignisestimatedtobearound$175,000,whereas theexpandeddesignisestimatedtobeabout$275,000.Giventhatneighborhoodparks willbedevelopedwithdifferentcomponents,theparkdedicationanalysiswillusean averagecostof$225,000. CommunityParksΑAnestimatescostof$520,000wasidentifiedforthefuturenatural resourcebasedcommunityparks.Thisisanticipatedtoincludeasignatureplayground, about0.5milesoftrails,sometypeofdockorwateraccess,andparking. TotLotswereestimatedtocostabout$75,000.Thiswouldincludeasmallplay structure,picnictable,andshortwalkwaytotheplayground. TrailNeeds TheTrailandSidewalkStudyfocusedonidentifyinggapsinthesystemandwherereplacement isneededwithintheexistingcityboundaries.Someofthesegapscanbeattributedtonew growthandwillbeincludedascoststobefundedthroughparkdedicationfunds.Othersarein existingareasoftheCityandwillneedtobefundedfromothersources.Tobestillustratethis, theTrailandSidewalkStudymapwasaugmentedwiththeparcelsthatwereidentifiedas developableintheFutureCommunityGrowthanalysis. TheextentoftheTrailandSidewalkStudymap,providedinconjunctionwiththatstudy,also encompassesthoseareasanticipatedtobedevelopedthrough2040.Inthoseareas,the 2 proposedroadwaynetworkfromthe2030ComprehensivePlanwasusedtoidentifywhere trailswillbeneeded.Thecostofthesetrailswillbeassumedtobefundedthroughpark dedicationfunds.Theparkdedicationfeeanalysisusesanassumedtraildevelopmentcostof $50alinearfoot.Thisincludescostsforclearing,grubbing,grading,drainage,erosioncontrol, subbase,paving,curbcuts,accessramps,signage,andrestoration. Theparkdedicationmodeldoesnotincludethecostofalltrailandsidewalkgapsidentifiedin thestudyassome,suchasalongroadways,willbeconstructedbydevelopersaspartofthe transportationnetwork.Othergapsarelocatedindevelopedareasandcannotbeattributedto newgrowth.Trailsegmentcoststhatwereincorporatedintheparkdedicationmodelinclude thosethatwillbealongcollectorstreetsintheOrderlyAnnexationandUrbanExpansionAreas. Inaddition,the/źƷǤ͸ƭportionoftraildevelopmentalongCountyRoadsintheOrderly AnnexationandUrbanExpansionAreaswasalsoincluded.AllorpartsofthetrailgapsofH,Y, II,andRRwereincludedintheparkdedicationmodelgiventheirlocationindevelopingareasof theCity. 3 S AV NA IA UIS LO EN VA YHTOMIT S AV N A NR ZI T C K OOR B EL BBEP BOONE R KRAP D DR NWOT HSUM S E KE PILAKET HADLEY AV W TSE NL ECIR DR O NOIR DR WN VA SUGREV AH XAFIL NL VA ORB MU Z VA WOLRAH Y KCIRB DLO DR DRA neighborhood park illustrative example (subject to site characteristics, area needs, and budget) 0'30'60' typical size 25- acres 75 . . .. public street sidewalk/trail Sign Sign picnic shelter & open lawn play area open lawn potential components: + softball/t-ball field + volleyball or basketball court + ice skating rink + trails, nature preserve, etc. + picnic knoll neighborhood park illustrative example (subject to site characteristics, area needs, and budget) typical size 25- acres 75 . . .. public street sidewalk/trail Sign Sign picnic shelter & open lawn loop trail play area softball/ t-ball picnic knoll open lawn potential for: softball/t-ball field volleyball or basketball court ice skating rink trails, nature preserve, etc. wetland area with bridge loop trail