P a B L
AND Pa r k s RAUER
r U
SE k &A P
LANNING s , O SSOCIATES A ND D C p ESIGN , L
e TD
i n .
S t
y M p
a i
n
o c
n
e e f
, s N M
o a
h c r a t
Tr a i l s a n
d o 2008
r T
r t
a h
i
l f S
i
e y
l s
t d
e
P Op e n Sp a c e
m l P a n l
a
n
Ac k n o w l e d g m e n t s
Starting in early 2007, Northfield’s Park and Recreation Advisory Board In t r o d u c t i o n (PRAB) oversaw the preparation of a comprehensive parks, open space, and trail system plan for the city. This document is the final product of the public process, which was completed in December of 2007.
Pu b l i c In v o l v e m e n t Given the considerable public interest in parks, open space, and trails, the Northfield City Council and PRAB placed high value on extensive citizen involvement in the project. Through formal and informal meetings and open houses, individual citizens and advocacy groups had direct access to the consultant team and PRAB on numerous occasions. The comments and suggestions received from these interactions proved very fruitful and greatly influenced the development of the plan.
The consultant team would like to thank Northfield for undertaking an open Ac k n o w l e d g m e n t s and constructive public participation process for this project. This allowed many perspectives to be considered and acted upon. Through this process, a responsible balance between individual interests and the general public good has been achieved. The consultant team would also like to thank the PRAB for their participation. Their individual and collective insights were instrumental in considering options and drawing final conclusions. The City Council should also be commended for their faith in the public process and confidence that citizens can help find reasonable solutions if given the right opportunity and planning process. Finally, the consultant team extends a thank you to the many citizens who took the time to attend meetings, write letters, and make phone calls so that we could understand their perspectives first hand. Sincerely,
Jeff Schoenbauer, Senior Principal Brauer & Associates, Ltd.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n I Pr o j e c t Ov e r s i g h t No r t h f i e l d Ci t y Co u n c i l Lee Lansing-Mayor Noah Cashman Scott Davis Jim Porkorney Arnie Nelson Jon Denison Kris Vohs
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k a n d Re c r e a t i o n Ad v i s o r y Bo a r d Grace Clark Margaret Colangelo Dennis Easley Eric Hong Daniel Hudson Spencer Jones Richard Vanasek, Chair
No r t h f i e l d Ci t y St a f f Joel Walinski, Director of Public Services Dan Olson, City Planner Lynn James, Administrative Assistant
o n s u l t a n t e a m Brauer & Associates, Ltd. C T 10417 Excelsior Boulevard #1 Hopkins, MN 55343 (952) 238-0831 Jeff Schoenbauer, RLA, Senior Principal/Principal-in-Charge George Watson, RLA, Senior Principal Candace Amberg, RLA, Principal Jason Amberg, RLA, Principal Amanda Prosser, LAIT
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n II Ta b l e o f Co nt e nt s
Se ct i o n 1 – Co m m u n i t y Inp u t a n d Va l u e s St a t e m e nt 1.1 - 1.6 Overview 1.1 Growth of the Community/Demographic Changes 1.1 Public Process Findings 1.2 Trends Influencing Planning Outcomes 1.3 Influence of Public Input and Trends on Planning Outcomes 1.5
Se ct i o n 2 – Vision a n d Po l i c y Pl a n 2.1 - 2.6 A Common Vision 2.1 System Plan Goals and Policies 2.1 Guiding Principles 2.4 Achieving the Common Vision 2.5
Se ct i o n 3 – Pa r k s a n d Gr e e n w a y Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.1 - 3.30 Overview 3.1 Interlinked Systems – Northfield and School District 659 3.1 Park and Greenways Classifications 3.2 Local Park System Plan 3.4 Park Reserve Land 3.17 Natural Open Space (Greenway) System 3.18 Select Special-Use Facilities and Amenities 3.28 Sustainable Park System Practices 3.30 Park Signage Program 3.30 Park Master Planning and Facility Design Quality/ Development Standards 3.30
Se ct i o n 4 – Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.1 - 4.28 Overview 4.1 General Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines 4.1 Trail Classifications 4.3 Local Trail System Plan 4.6 Mill Towns Trail 4.18 Downtown Area Trail System Connections 4.20 Trail Development and Public Use of Carleton and St. Olaf Properties 4.21 “Complete Streets” Philosophy 4.22 Trail Related Amenities and Standards 4.23
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n TC.1 Ta b l e o f Co nt e nt s
Se ct i o n 5 – Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s a n d St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n 5.1 - 5.16 Overview 5.1 Natural Resources Stewardship Philosophy and Vision 5.1 A Public-Private Partnership 5.3 Overview of Ecological Conditions 5.3 Dual Track Stewardship Strategy 5.5 Phases and Time Frames for Natural Resources Stewardship Programs 5.8 Providing Buffers to Protect Sensitive Ecological Systems 5.10 Enhancing Wildlife Habitat 5.12 Water Resources Management 5.13
Se ct i o n 6 – Im p l e m e nt a t i o n Pl a n 6.1 - 6.16 Overview 6.1 A Balanced Approach to Implementation 6.1 A Disciplined Approach to System Investments 6.2 Long-Term Commitment to a Sustainable System 6.2 Prioritizing Criteria for System Initiatives 6.2 Implementation Strategies and Priorities 6.3 Funding Options 6.9 Admin. Provisions – Interrelationship With CE 6.11 Admin. Provisions – Interrelationship With Local Associations/Facility-Use Policy 6.11 Admin. Provisions – Shared Responsibility Agreements 6.14 Admin. Provisions – Public Involvement 6.16
App e n d i x A – Pa r k a n d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e nt Co n s i d e r a t i o n s A.1 - A.38 Overview A.1 Development Cost Considerations A.1 Consideration for Park Development A.3 Facility Development Guidelines A.37
App e n d i x B – Su m m a r y o f Fi n d i ng s f r o m Pu b l i c Pr o c e s s B.1 - B.5 Overview A.1 Development Cost Considerations A.1 Consideration for Park Development A.3 Facility Development Guidelines A.37
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n TC.2 Se c t i o n 1 Co m m u n i t y Inp u t a n d Va l u e s St a t e m e n t
Understanding the needs and desires of the community was one of the Ov e r v i e w first steps in preparing the system plan. Through the public process, citizens and their local representatives on the Park & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and City Council had a variety of opportunities to provide input and perspectives on planning issues. These findings provided the foundation for developing the parks, open space, and trail system plan. Through these interactions, a strong and consistent public statement has been made: Preserve the sense of place and livability of the community while accommodating growth and evolving recreational and social trends. These values have been extensively reflected in the system plan.
In 2000, the total population of Northfield was 17,147. Since then, the Gr o w t h o f t h e overall population has grown to over 19,413. By 2020, the population is Co m m u n i t y a n d projected to grow to 23,600. Figure 1.1 illustrates the projected population growth rate in Northfield. e m o g r a p h i c h a ng e s D C Fi g u r e 1.1 – Pr o j e c t e d Po p u l a t i o n a n d Ho u s e h o l d Gr o w t h Ra t e s Th r o u g h 2020 30,000 2007)
o n d 23,600 y e B p r o ej c t oi n s Gr o w t h Po p u l a t oi n 20,000 r o j e c t e d 19,413 p ( 17,147 u l a t i o n p o P
2000 2007 Ye a r 2020 10,000 To accommodate this projected growth, privately-held land in Northfield will continue to be subdivided for residential housing, commercial, and industrial uses – including spreading out into the surrounding township on a managed basis. Inherently, this growth will impact the demand for parks, Complementary Study: “Chapter Two, open spaces, and trails. Demographic Composition, Northfield Comprehensive Plan” provides a more The system plan as presented here is planned to accommodate this level of comprehensive overview of the demographic trends growth. However, should growth rates and overall population significantly that influenced the development of the park, open space, and trail system plan. exceed these projections, reevaluation of the system plan is recommended. De m o g r a p h i c In f l u e n c e s As a modestly growing community, many of the new households that have come to the community since 2000 are families with school age children, a trend that will likely continue. As a college town, 28% of the local population comes from St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges, which effectively lowers the median age in Northfield. Excluding this population, Northfield looks much like other communities.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 1.1 Se c t i o n 1 - Co m m u n i t y Inp u t a n d Va l u e s St a t e m e n t
Fi g u r e 1.2 – Ke y De m o g r a p h i c Gr o u p s w i t h At the same time, with the general aging of the population, there will also Ev o l v i ng Re c r e a t i o n a l Ne e d s be a higher propensity of “empty nesters” or households without school age children. The senior population will also likely continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace than more gentrified communities. Ch i l d r e n Recreational trends – which are greatly influenced by demographics and other societal factors – will continue to evolve. For example, today’s younger age groups have much more diverse interests than in past Yo u t h Se n i o r generations, at times making it more difficult to engage them in “traditional” recreational activities. There is also a marked shift in adult recreation trends away from organized sports (i.e., softball) to passive/informal activities (i.e., Ad u l t hiking in natural areas, biking a paved trail) as the overall population ages. The changing demographic character of the city coupled with the changing A well-balanced and flexible system that can respond recreational trends underscore the need for a well-balanced and flexible to evolving, broad-based community needs of different demographic groups will be required to be successful. system that can respond to evolving, broad-based community needs. The system plan places considerable emphasis on addressing this issue by ensuring that the active and passive recreational interests of residents are reasonably accommodated.
u b l i c r o c e s s i n d i ng s Public input into the planning process occurred at several levels. Interviews P P F with stakeholder groups, public open houses, and work sessions with the PRAB were used to gain extensive public input and receive direction on key planning issues. Formal presentations to the City Council were undertaken to ensure consistency with overall community goals and priorities. All meetings throughout the process were open to the public. Appendix B – Summary of Findings from the Public Process summarizes the input gained from the PRAB and local stakeholders and should be referred to for specific perspectives on needs and demands. These findings were instrumental in shaping planning decisions related to parks, open spaces, and trails throughout the city. Some of the overarching themes gleaned from the public process include: • The relationship between the City and School District has generally worked out well in meeting local needs for recreational programming and facilities; continued reliance on this partnership will be important to effectively and efficiently meet local needs • In the shorter-term (1-5 years), supply of athletic facilities should be adequate to reasonably keep pace with demand, especially if the proposed improvements as defined in Section 3 are phased in; in the longer-term, additional athletic facilities will be needed to balance supply and demand and meet other objectives of the system plan • Overall, the park system functions well in servicing community needs; however, a disciplined approach to future park enhancements is necessary to maintaining a well-balanced system that meets the needs of an evolving demographic over time • The greenway corridor is one of the most important aspects of the system plan; maximizing the value of, and access to, natural and scenic areas along the Cannon River corridor and other natural greenway corridors defined by the system plan is especially important • Greater focus on developing a comprehensive trail system is needed, especially the greenway-based trails as defined in Section 4; the trail system should focus on high value interlinked trails that entice high levels of use for recreation, fitness/health, and alternative transportation • Maintaining a sound working relationship with St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges will continue to be important, especially as it relates to implementing the greenway and trail system plans
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 1.2 Se c t i o n 1 - Co m m u n i t y Inp u t a n d Va l u e s St a t e m e n t
In addition to findings from the local public process, a variety of state Tr e n d s In f l u e n c i ng and regional trends affecting parks, open space, and trail system planning Pl a nn i ng Ou t c o m e s influenced planning outcomes, as the following considers. Pa r k Us e Tr e n d s Recent findings by the Metropolitan Council, MN DNR, and other agencies suggests that future growth in participation in many areas of outdoor recreation is not as assured as was the case a decade or two ago. In numerous activities, research indicates that participation rates are expected to actually decline as Minnesotans shift their activity patterns based on evolving interests, age, and access to newer forms of recreation. Other key findings include: • Decreasing participation in nature-based activities: fishing, hunting, wildlife-watching, state park attendance, etc. • Growing disconnection with nature, which impacts personal development, societal well-being, stewardship of natural areas; also contributes to nature-deficit disorder in youth • Barriers to getting outdoors include time, family obligations, work responsibilities, lack of money, weather, bugs (uncontrollable environment), lack of outdoor skills and equipment, lack of information and knowledge, and concerns about personal safety • Aging population is affecting recreational trends • More ethnically diverse population with widely varying expectations • Obesity/health issues on the rise, with lifestyle choices being a key factor • Greater diversity in recreation opportunities available to all age groups • Funding issues – less local government aid (LGA), dollars for acquisition and capital improvements; suggests greater need for non-traditional approaches • Increasing urbanization – urban sprawl is eating away at the rural environment with often limited regard for natural open space • Technology is competing for people’s discretionary time and creating more sedentary time • Energy costs are rising and limiting people’s willingness to travel very far for recreation • Climate change is impacting our natural resources and weather The shift away from active/organized to more passive/informal uses is especially noticeable, particularly with older age groups. At the adult level, this can be attributed to an aging population in combination with changing personal interests. For example, activities such as adult softball have given way to walking and nature viewing. Within the younger age groups, the electronic era is absorbing an increasing percentage of the free time of youth and young adults, often taking away from their participation in programmed recreational activities and time spent freely in a park setting. Although many Northfield athletic associations anticipate stable or modest growth in their programs, changing trends underscore the importance of closely tracking participation rates and adjusting priorities based on documented demands. Demographic shifts toward an older population and a general broadening of recreation interests for youth and adults have changed the public park system planning paradigm of the past. Although traditional park and recreation opportunities remain very important as quality of life indicators, emerging trends must also be accommodated for the parks, trails, and recreational facilities to be successful. With increasingly limited public funding available, using resources where they are most valued by the community and leveraging economic opportunities with private development to maximize public values is extremely important.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 1.3 Se c t i o n 1 - Co m m u n i t y Inp u t a n d Va l u e s St a t e m e n t
Ec o n o m i c Va l u e o f Op e n Sp a c e The quality of life value residents place on preserving open space has important economic value as well, as reflected in a 2005 public opinion survey summarized in Figure 1.3.
Fi g u r e 1.3 – Ec o n o m i c Va l u e o f Op e n Sp a c e
This citizen attitude is further reflected in a 2005 Metro Residents Survey funded by the Metropolitan Council, in which 79% of those surveyed felt it was moderately (26%) to very (53%) important to continue purchasing land for new parks and parks and open space expansion. This perspective is an important consideration as the city grows outward where the opportunities to integrate highly valued open space with development still remains.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 1.4 Se c t i o n 1 - Co m m u n i t y Inp u t a n d Va l u e s St a t e m e n t
Co m p l e m e n t a r y Re g i o n a l St u d i e s Over the past decade a number of regional studies have been conducted to determine recreational trends associated with the regional park system. These studies looked at residents’ desires for a variety of recreational opportunities and their perspectives on current facilities and future needs. The main generalizations from these studies that have application to Northfield include: • Walking around the neighborhood or in large natural parks remains the top activity, with over 85% of respondents being interested in this activity • Individual sports are becoming more and more preferred over organized ones, at least at the adult level Fi g u r e 1.4 – Tr a v e l Di s t a n c e s • People value parks even if they do not regularly use them Fo r Tr a i l s • There is an especially strong desire to set aside land for nature areas/ 3.0 miles open space, bike paths, and general use trails In terms of actual users of trails, recent research by the Metropolitan Council suggests that the majority of trail users live within three miles of the trail they 0.75 miles are using, as figure 1.4 illustrates. This suggests that the majority of trail use 50% of trail users live within 0.75 within the city will be from residents, not people driving to the area from miles of the trail outside the region. Regional trail The regional studies are consistent with some of the perspectives from 0.75 miles Northfield residents, suggesting that there is a very strong link between 75% of trail users live within 3.0 local interests and those typically ascribed to the regional population. This miles of the trail reinforces the vision and basic precepts of the system plan as described in Section 2 – Vision Statement and Policy Plan. It also provides an additional 3.0 miles rationale for developing a balanced system that offers recreational opportunities and values to the widest audience.
Ac t i v e Living/De s i gn f o r He a l t h Mo v e m e n t Increasingly, public health officials (public and private health care industry) across the country are stressing the importance of planning and designing communities that foster active living and healthy environments for individuals, families, and broader community. With obesity rates and other health risks associated with inactive lifestyles on the rise, well-designed and located parks, open spaces, and trails are proving increasingly important and beneficial to society in terms of promoting physical health and economic prosperity (i.e., healthy individuals are more productive and health care costs are reduced, both of which add to the economic bottom line). Further, well-planned and designed parks, open spaces, and trails enhance perceptions of quality of life in a community, social well-being, and general mental health. Well-designed trail systems also promote alternative forms of transportation that provide personal health benefits along with reducing congestion on local roads and improving air quality.
The input received from residents during the public process, along with In f l u e n c e o f Pu b l i c Inp u t noted trend information, greatly influencing planning outcomes and points a n d Tr e n d s o n Pl a nn i ng of emphasis in the system plan. In spite of varying opinions on needs and uncertainties about trends, it is important to underscore that all residents Ou t c o m e s in No r t h f i e l d that participated in the planning process consider parks, natural open spaces, trails, and recreational facilities very important quality of life indicators.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 1.5 Se c t i o n 1 - Co m m u n i t y Inp u t a n d Va l u e s St a t e m e n t
To remain relevant to the community, the system plan has particularly emphasized the following key points: • The system must be balanced, diverse, and flexible enough to adjust to ever-changing needs of the community • Providing quality parks, open spaces, and trails is very important to encouraging higher levels of use; conversely, spreading investments too thinly across the community is discouraged since doing so often leaves unmet expectations – resulting in lower overall use levels • Providing trails and natural open spaces are at least or more important than traditional parks, such as a neighborhood park or athletic facility • Other values of parks, open spaces, and trails also need to be maximized, ranging from increasing the economic value of properties adjacent to or near parks and open spaces to improving the overall aesthetic of the community through park beautification efforts
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 1.6 Se c t i o n 2 Vision St a t e m e n t a n d Po l i c y Pl a n
The public process and open conversation that the City has had with its A Co m m o n Vision residents in 2007 was instrumental in creating a common vision for the community. A key underpinning of this vision is fostering a high quality of life through the provision of parks, open spaces, recreational facilities, and trails within the context of responsible land stewardship, long-term sustainability, and economic viability.
Mi s s i o n St a t e m e n t The mission statement is an outgrowth of the common vision and reflects the City’s commitment to its desired lifestyle and providing a balanced overall system. The mission statement is to: “Promote a high quality of life in Northfield by providing a balanced and sustainable system of parks, natural open spaces, athletic facilities, and trails consistent with the historic sense of place in the community.”
As a river town with a significant historic context, Co n s i s t e n c y w i t h Ot h e r Pl a n s Northfield is well-positioned to maintain its high quality of life in part through the provision of parks, open The Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan (System Plan) is intended to be spaces, and trails. consistent with, and complementary to, the vision, goals, and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The forthcoming goals are broad statements that chart the course for Sy s t e m Pl a n Go a l s a n d achieving the stated mission. They define desired future conditions and Policies outcomes. Accompanying objectives qualify specific goals. Policy statements articulate strategies or actions necessary to achieve specific objectives. Note that policies are not ordinances and thus allow for some discretion by the Park & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and City Council as to their application.
Sh a r e d Go a l s w i t h Sc h o o l District a n d Adjoining Cities, To w n s h i p s , a n d Co u n t i e s The City will continue to foster mutually beneficial relationships with the School District, surrounding cities, townships, and counties in serving local residents’ parks, open spaces, and trail system needs. Where applicable, the following goals and polices are intended to be consistent with, and complementary, to those of its partners.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 2.1 Se c t i o n 2 - Vision St a t e m e n t a n d Po l i c y Pl a n
Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n Goal Statement: To implement a cohesive, effective, and efficient comprehensive system plan. Objectives: Policy Statements: • To routinely evaluate and • The plan shall be used to guide park, athletic facility, and trail development within update the system plan and Northfield recreational needs of the • All development shall be consistent with the system plan, unless approved otherwise community to ensure adequate by PRAB and City Council action parks, athletic facilities, open • Review and updating of the plan shall be undertaken as warranted; revisions should space, and trails are provided be made based on documented changes in community needs, unique conditions, or • To use the plan for the purpose unforeseen circumstances/opportunities of guiding implementation • The plan shall be adopted by the City Council and referenced in the Comprehensive Plan • Residents shall be given an opportunity to participate in the planning process (i.e., through needs assessment studies, neighborhood meetings, etc.) to ensure that their needs are understood and acted upon • Copies of the plan shall be made available to residents for review on the City’s website • Copies of the plan shall be available for review at City Hall, and available for purchase at cost
Pa r k s a n d Op e n Sp a c e Acquisition a n d De v e l o p m e n t Goal Statement: To provide residents with parks and natural areas for recreational uses, protection of the natural environment, as visual/physical buffering of land development, and as a means to maintain the sense of place, ambiance, appearance, and history of the community. Objectives: Policy Statements: • To enhance the quality of life • When in compliance with the system plan, the City shall reserve the right to acquire within the city by providing or otherwise secure land within all developments for park, open space, and trail adequate parkland and natural purposes areas to fulfill the present and • Parkland dedication policies and ordinances shall be used by the City to require future needs of residents each developer (of all land use categories) to dedicate land or, at the discretion of • To use the parks, natural areas, the City, an equivalent cash value contribution for parks and open space acquisition and interconnecting trail and development; at the discretion of the City, parkland dedication fees can be corridors as a major factor in waived to achieve other public values consistent with other City plans if doing so shaping development serves the best interest of the City • To maintain and enhance the • Parks, natural resource areas, and related recreation facilities shall be acquired and natural character and aesthetic developed by the City in accordance with the system plan qualities of the community by • Alternatives to direct acquisition of property shall be used where appropriate to set providing parks and natural aside land for park and open space purposes; this includes conservation easements areas and other means as defined by the system plan • To encourage sequential growth • Acquisition of specific parcels of land for park uses shall be based on the quality of within the city in harmony with the land and natural resource, its suitability for the desired uses, and its location as the natural environment defined in the system plan (or accepted alternative); undesirable land parcels with limited park and natural resource value shall not be accepted • A reasonable effort shall be made to eliminate physical barriers that deter individuals from using parks and recreation facilities; barrier-free design principles shall be applied in accordance with accepted guidelines and laws • Design and maintenance procedures shall be consistent with industry standards; design and maintenance of all parks and recreation facilities shall emphasize high quality and user safety • The PRAB and city staff shall review with landowners/developers all parkland, natural open space, and trail corridor dedication, acquisition, and development goals and objectives on a given property prior to the preparation of formal development plans to ensure a common understanding of desired public outcomes; subsequently, the PRAB shall review conceptual development plans prior to the preparation of a formal development submittal package to ensure that the goals and objectives as set forth are being reasonably achieved • Parks and trails shall be named in accordance with the Park and Trail Naming Procedures Policy prepared and periodically updated by the PRAB and approved by the City Council
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 2.2 Se c t i o n 2 - Vision St a t e m e n t a n d Po l i c y Pl a n
Tr a i l Co r r i d o r s Acquisition a n d De v e l o p m e n t Goal Statement: To provide residents with a high quality interconnected trail system for recreation and transportation and as a means to tie parks and open spaces together. Objectives: Policy Statements: • To provide a trail system that • Trail easement policies and ordinances shall be used to require developers to emphasizes harmony with the dedicate land for the core system of trails and provide access from new subdivisions natural environment to those trails • To allow for relatively • Trail corridors shall be developed in conjunction with and integral to future uninterrupted hiking, biking, developments, parks, greenways, and roadway projects as defined by the system and other uses to and through plan the City’s park and open space • The trail system shall be developed to minimize conflicts between pedestrians and system and developed areas vehicles • To effectively tie the various parks • Trail types, development standards, and general location shall be in accordance together into a interconnected, with the system plan and accommodate a range of activities (i.e., walking, hiking, high quality system; and to bicycling, and in-line skating) effectively tie the city trail • Trail support facilities should be provided as warranted (including trail signage and system with those of adjacent striping, benches, picnic tables, bridges, restrooms, parking, shelters, etc.) communities and the regional • Trail design shall be sensitive to the natural environment and character of the area trail system • Trails shall be designed to be accessible wherever feasible given the specific setting • To safely protect users from • Trails shall be constructed to require minimal maintenance and limit vandalism developmental encroachment • Screening and buffering shall be provided where necessary along trail corridors to and associated vehicular traffic provide a physical and perceptual separation between the trail and adjacent land uses • Motorized vehicles shall be prohibited on trails unless required for maintenance and safety
Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Goal Statement: To provide for the preservation and conservation of ecological systems and natural resources within the city. Objectives: Policy Statements: • To preserve significant natural • A well-defined natural resources stewardship plan shall be implemented for the resources as open space and purpose of enhancing and protecting the natural resources and ecological systems a highly valued aspect of the within the city overall open space system • Residents shall be educated and informed about ecological issues so that they better • To maintain and enhance understand the importance of restoration and management programs and their role the character or appeal of in protecting the natural resources of the community the community through • Natural resource areas may, at the discretion of the City, be set aside (through direct interconnected natural open purchase, developer’s agreements, conservation easements, or by other means) to spaces preserve the natural character of the community; these areas shall be considered as • To encourage orderly and desirable additions to, rather than substitutes for, other types of parkland sequential growth within the • Natural resource areas shall be defined to include all lands that are considered community and in harmony by the City to be natural amenities and/or of ecological significance; land areas with the natural environment exhibiting steep slopes and other non-buildable features may, at the City’s • To ensure sustainable and discretion, be set aside as natural resource areas and included as part of the park, desirable natural resource areas greenway, and trail system and ecological systems are • Policies and ordinances protecting natural resources and ecological systems protected and managed within within the city shall be reviewed, including the review of wetland and shoreland the city management policies to ensure that they are consistent with accepted statewide standards and requirements; a water quality management plan shall also be developed and implemented by the City • Property owners and local business community shall be encouraged to preserve the natural character of their properties
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 2.3 Se c t i o n 2 - Vision St a t e m e n t a n d Po l i c y Pl a n
Co m m u n i t y Participation Goal Statement: To establish an effective, ongoing means of communicating and interacting with residents about issues related to parks and recreation facilities, programs, and future development. To provide residents with the opportunity to participate in recreational activities and programs through the City and various civic and volunteer organizations. Objectives: Policy Statements: • To promote active and ongoing • Information sharing and education programs shall be used as needed to enhance interaction between the participants/residents knowledge of the existing programs and facilities (e.g., City and its constituents to community newspaper/ activities brochure, etc.). ensure effective recreational • Community participation and interaction shall be promoted to determine the programming and facility needs and desires of the residents; periodically scheduled public meetings, needs development assessment surveys, neighborhood meetings, focus groups, interviews, etc., shall be • To promote ongoing used as tools to assess the needs of the community communication between the • The formation of athletic/youth/civic groups and associations shall be promoted to PRAB and residents assist in the continued development of recreation programs and facilities • To promote ongoing volunteer • Residents and PRAB shall work together to define park facilities and programs programs and civic and that are needed, can be provided, and what residents can do to assist (e.g., athletic/youth organizations Adopt-A-Park) to encourage residents and • Volunteerism shall be promoted through the development of various volunteer community organizations to programs (e.g., Adopt-A Park, etc.) assist in park improvements, maintenance, and providing recreation programs
Pa r t n e r s h i p s Goal Statement: To maximize the park and recreational opportunities available to residents through the development of fair and equitable working partnerships between the City and the local recreational program providers, local school district, adjacent cities and township, county, churches, and civic organizations. “Fair and equitable” is defined as being in the best interest of the City while respecting the need for partners to also realize value in a given relationship. Objectives: Policy Statements: • To fairly and equitably integrate • A cooperative effort shall be undertaken between all partners to encourage the the City of Northfield parks and optimal use of limited resources and minimize duplication of park sites, facilities, facilities with those of the other and services partners • All agreements - although intended to be fair and equitable to all partners - shall be • To fairly and equitably integrate made in the best interest of the City of Northfield the City of Northfield programs • Clearly defined joint-use agreements and policies shall be formally adopted between with those of the other partners all partners • Where feasible, new facilities shall be planned in consideration of the needs of other partners • Where feasible, new facilities shall be located adjacent to property owned by other partners to facilitate shared use and programming • Ongoing information sharing, communication, and interaction between all partners shall be undertaken to promote each one’s system and programs • The City shall appoint a staff person to be responsible for coordinating facility use and program development; each partner shall be encouraged to do the same
Fu n d i ng Goal Statement: To secure the funding necessary to carry out the mission of the Northfield Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan. Objectives: Policy Statements: • To define the funding options • All forms of funding for implementing the system plan shall be pursued on available for implementation an ongoing basis and in a time frame consistent with community need and of the system plan, and to development maximize the use of each • Public-private partnerships shall be used where appropriate to help fund or source defer costs to implement the system plan; this includes the use of conservation • To prepare an implementation development and/or form-based approaches to development planning when it plan that defines the relative serves the best interest of the City in maximizing public values timing and extent of acquisition • A complete analysis of financing mechanisms available to the City for and development of system implementation of the system plan shall be undertaken and updated on a periodic components basis • A review of the park dedication formula and program fees (resident and non-resident) shall be undertaken on a periodic basis • A priority ranking system and an implementation plan shall be prepared prioritizing future improvements where future costs can be reasonably projected • Shared-cost and joint-use agreements between the City and any partners shall be reviewed on a periodic basis to determine if they are equitable and cost effective
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 2.4 Se c t i o n 2 - Vision St a t e m e n t a n d Po l i c y Pl a n
Re c r e a t i o n Pr o g r a m s Goal Statement: Working with local recreational program providers, the City will strive to provide residents with the opportunity to participate in recreation activities and programs through well-designed, effective, and interesting recreation programs. Objectives: Policy Statements: • To support local recreational • In cooperation with other program providers, standards shall be established providers efforts to meet local that apply uniformly to all programs, sites, and facilities and shall include: a) recreation needs, including identification of the recreational program objectives and related facility needs for those of children, teens, adults, specific activities; b) ensuring that adequate support of local recreation providers is elderly, and the disabled in place for program viability and success; and c) undertaking a seasonal review of • To support and encourage a the effectiveness of City support for each recreational program that uses local public wide diversity of recreation facilities interests within the community • In concert with program providers, leadership and Code of Conduct guidelines for • To work with program providers each activity and program shall be developed defining acceptable and appropriate to provide adequate facilities for actions and behavior of individuals responsible for overseeing specific programs and programmed use on a fair and activities that use city parks and facilities equitable basis to ensure that all • An ongoing communication strategy shall be established between the City and individuals and groups receive program providers to encourage across-the-board collaboration among providers, reasonable access to facilities broaden recreation interests, and track demand/recreation trends affecting the city • The City shall encourage all program providers to provide an equal opportunity to participate in recreation • Parks and trails use policies, rules, and regulations shall be prepared and periodically updated by the PRAB and approved by the City Council; this includes policies, rules, and regulations associated with signage and activities provided by local associations using City facilities
A number of guiding principles support the vision and mission statements. Guiding Principles These include: • Implement a balanced system plan offering multiple community values • Allow for some flexibility in implementing the plan to adjust to realistic financial limitations and unforeseen events • Maintain a high and consistent standard of quality throughout the system • Plan and design parks for their entire lifecyle (i.e., 15 to 20 years) • Adhere to a standardized planning and design process for individual parks to ensure consistency in public involvement and outcomes
Achieving the common vision will require the use of conventional and non- Achieving t h e Co m m o n conventional approaches to planning, development, and funding. Successful Vision implementation of the plan will also require a steadfast commitment to collaborating with the development community for a couple of key reasons: • The nuances of integrating open spaces, parks, and trails into new developments requires a high level of collaboration and flexibility to achieve the highest public values • The cost of implementing the system plan to its fullest potential is likely to be well beyond the City’s means using conventional funding mechanisms, park dedication policies, and past approaches to acquisition and development By combining standard regulatory controls with alternative approaches to the development process (such as conservation development), achieving the vision and goals set forth in this and the City’s Comprehensive Plan becomes more realistic. Lacking that, realizing the full potential of the system plan becomes significantly more of a challenge, and perhaps even unlikely.
Achieving the common vision will also require expanding on the cooperative relationship between the City and its partners as defined in various sections of this plan.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 2.5 Se c t i o n 2 - Vision St a t e m e n t a n d Po l i c y Pl a n
End of section. This page is left purposefully blank.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 2.6 Se c t i o n 3 Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
The system plan consists of parks, athletic facilities, open spaces, and trails Ov e r v i e w serving a wide variety of active and passive recreational needs. This section considers each of these components, with the exception of trails, which are detailed in Section 4 – Trail System Plan. The system plan is based on current and anticipated needs of residents as defined is Section 1 – Community Input and Values Statement and Section 2 – Vision Statement and Policy Plan. Although the public process provided a sound basis for system planning, the plan still remains dynamic and will require adjustments as changes occur in trends and resident expectations as Northfield continues to evolve as a community.
The parks, athletic facilities, open space, and trail system within Northfield is In t e r l i n k e d Sy s t e m s – intrinsically interconnected with School District properties. This is especially No r t h f i e l d a n d Sc h o o l the case with athletic facilities, in which continued collaboration is necessary to effectively and efficiently serve local needs. District 659 Currently, the City and School District 659 have a Community Services Recreation Program agreement in place that has been mutually beneficial in serving local residents’ recreational needs, especially as it relates to athletic facilities. This includes, to varying degrees, cooperation on use, operations, and maintenance of athletic facilities at a variety of sites. Continuing this Ci t y relationship remains important in order to maximize the efficient use of land o f No r t h f i e l d and funding resources to meet local needs. At h l e t i c Facilities, Periodic review of Community Services Recreation Program and related Tr a d i t i o n a l Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e s a n d t r a i l s agreements to ensure that evolving needs are adequately addressed is Primary role in important to the continued success of this partnership. This is considered meeting the needs in more detail in Section 6 – Implementation Plan and Administrative of residents (as Provisions. Well thought-out and up-to-date agreements are especially related to this important as the City and School District 659 reach their respective Sc h o o l planning context, population and enrollment thresholds in future years, at which time Di s t r i c t 659 not the School District’s larger balancing facility supply and demand becomes most important. At h l e t i c Facilities educational role) (In d o o r a n d Ou t d o o r
The parks, athletic facilities, open space, and trail system within Northfield is intrinsically interconnected with School District properties for the benefit of residents living in the city.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.1 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
The system plan consists of a variety of parks and open spaces defined Pa r k a n d Gr e e n w a y under various classifications. Each classification serves a particular purpose Classifications in meeting local park and recreation needs. Although some flexibility is warranted, classifying parks is necessary to ensure a well-balanced system and that all recreational needs are effectively and efficiently met. The classifications applied to Northfield are based on guidelines recommended in the National Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Greenways Guidelines (National Recreation and Parks Association, 1996) and Planning and Urban Design Standards (American Planning Association, 2006), albeit expanded or modified to address circumstances unique to the city. The following table provides an overview of each classification used in Northfield. (Each of the classifications are further expanded upon later in this section.) Pa r k s a n d Gr e e n w a y Classifications Classification Common Guidelines Application to Northfield Neighborhood Neighborhood parks are the basic units of the park system and Neighborhood parks remain a basic unit of the Park (and serve a recreational and social purpose. Focus is on informal park system in Northfield. In areas with urban Mini- active and passive recreation. Neighborhood parks are typically 5 densities, a service area of ¼- to ½-mile radius Neighborhood acres or more, with 8 to 10 acres preferred for new parks. Mini- remains appropriate. When new parks are Park) neighborhood parks, which are used only on a limited basis when connected with greenway-based trails, service securing more land is impractical, are 1 to 3 acres of developable areas can be expanded to ½-mile radius or land. Service area is ¼-mile radius for mini parks and up to a slightly more since trails and open space become ½-mile for a typical neighborhood park, uninterrupted by major part of the park experience. 5 acres* is typically roads and other physical barriers. adequate for new parks if the park is integrated into larger greenway system. Community Community parks serve a broader purpose than neighborhood Given the city’s proximity to the riverfront Park parks. Focus is on meeting community-based recreational needs, as and the natural areas that will be set aside in well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces. Size varies, greenways, there is limited need for any new depending on function. 20 acres minimum preferred, with 40 or traditional community parks beyond that defined more acres optimal. Service area can be community-wide or several under this plan. neighborhoods in a given area of the city. Athletic Consolidates programmed adult and youth athletic fields and This classification has application to Northfield to Complex/ associated facilities to a limited number of sites. Tournament meet local needs for athletic facilities (in concert Facility level facilities are appropriate. Size varies, with 20 acres or more with school sites.) As a growing community with desirable, but not absolute. 40 to 80 acres is optimal. families, facility demand will continue to grow in sync with age-group population growth. Greenway/ Lands set aside for preserving natural resources, remnant Within the city proper, the potential for Natural landscapes, and open space, and providing visual aesthetics/ establishing greenways and preserving open Open Space/ buffering. Also provides passive use opportunities. Ecological space is limited, with the notable exception of Conservation resource stewardship and wildlife protection are high priorities. the Cannon River corridor. This reinforces the Areas Suitable for trail corridors. Overall land area varies depending on importance of working closely with landowners opportunity and general character of natural systems within a city. and developers in growth areas to set aside land for greenways and interconnected trails systems. Regional Park/ Larger scale, regionally based parks and open spaces focusing on No regional parks impact Northfield, although Reserve natural resource preservation and stewardship. Typically a minimum the larger blocks of land set aside by St. Olaf and of 500 acres and up to several thousand. Service area is regional, Carleton College serve an important open space which generally encompasses several cities. function, especially if publicly accessible trails are provided. Special Use Covers a broad range of parks and recreation facilities oriented The use of this classification will be limited toward single-purpose uses – such as a nature center, historic sites, in Northfield, primarily to the parks in the plazas, urban squares, aquatic centers, campgrounds, golf courses, downtown area, such as Bridge Square Park. etc. Overall size varies, depending on need. School Site Covers school sites that are used in concert with, or in lieu of, city Continuing the established relationship between parks to meet community recreation needs. School sites often School District 659 and the City is vital to provide the majority of indoor recreational facilities within a successfully meeting the long-term demand for community. Size varies, depending on specific site opportunities. athletic facilities in a cost-effective manner.
* Neighborhood park size note: The recommended minimum 5 acre size for new neighborhood parks may be modified at the City’s discretion if the park is part of an overall public amenity package associated with a given development area. This might include, for example, providing enhanced streetscapes and public squares that add value to the public realm and complement neighborhood park features. Note, however, that the essential value of a neighborhood park should be retained to ensure that 1) the recreational needs of local residents are adequately meet, and 2) the City does not accept a series of smaller mini-parks in lieu of a neighborhood park, which is inefficient and inconsistent with the system plan as defined in this section.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.2 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Cu m u l a t i v e Pa r k Sy s t e m Ac r e a g e St a n d a r d s In the past, acreage standards (i.e., optimal number of acres of park land per 1000 population) were often used to determine the overall land area necessary to meet community park and recreation needs. In the mid-1990’s, reliance on this type of standard was discouraged under the National Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Guidelines (National Recreation and Parks Association, 1996) because it was found to be too arbitrary and did not adequately accommodate the individual nuances of park and open space opportunities and needs of individual communities. The current guideline is for each community to evaluate and determine its own park and open space needs and desired level of service through local public process, then, if necessary, compare that evaluation against similar situations within the region. Northfield’ system plan falls within standard practices and compares favorably to other communities in terms of public land area and park distribution to service community needs. Nuances with Northfield’s system include the opportunity for an extensive natural greenway/open space system surrounding the city and along the riverfront. This is a unique opportunity that sets Northfield apart from many communities of similar size.
Fl e x i b l e App l i c a t i o n o f t h e Classifications The system plan provides some flexibility in applying the park classifications to accommodate the ebb and flow of community needs as the system is being developed and in response to funding limitations. Flexibility is also needed to ensure that the city does not overbuild facilities if future demand is uncertain. Through flexible-use policies, activities that are not normally desired or allowed in a given type of park would be acceptable under select circumstances. The most common example of this is using neighborhood parks for more programmed use than would be typically desired due to an interim shortage of athletic facilities. Another example is programming youth activities on adult-sized facilities when there is a temporary shortage of facilities. Flexible-use policies are typically applied on a case-by-case basis in response to a given circumstance. Standard protocol for establishing these policies includes: • City staff identifies a use or need and defines the park or facility flexibility required to address it • PRAB considers staff recommendations and prepares a specific flexible-use policy to address it, which should include a strategy statement about the long-term approach to resolving the situation • Flexible use policy is forwarded to City Council for approval • Flexible use policy is recorded as an attachment to the System Plan
Key consideration with flexible use policies. Note that although flexible use policies have their application, they should not be construed as long-term solutions to addressing facility supply and demand issues. Although flexibility is needed to meet community needs, the use of these policies by their nature compromises the system and therefore should not be considered permanent solutions.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.3 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Although the greenway and park system functions as a cohesive whole, Lo c a l Pa r k Sy s t e m Pl a n individual parks will continue to have a significant and defined purpose consistent with their classifications. The Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan refers to the attached map illustrating System Plan (System Plan) illustrates the location and name of each park all of the parks, open spaces (greenways) and trails. within the system, and the general areas where new parks will be needed as development occurs. The following table provides an overview of the total number of parks under each classification, along with approximate number of total acres.
Su m m a r y Ta b l e o f Pa r k Nu m b e r a n d Ac r e a g e s f o r Ac t i v e -Us e Pa r k s Park Classification (as listed on page 3.2) Total Number Total Combined Acreage Neighborhood Park –Existing 19 90
Neighborhood Park – Proposed Future 9 45 (Contingent on extent of future residential development and annexation; based on 5 acres/site)
Note: Although School Community Park and Special Use – Existing 6 68 District properties are not listed, many of their Athletic Complex/Facility – Existing 3 175 facilities are important (Does not include school sites) to servicing local needs. Reserve Land – Proposed (Near Hauberg Woods) 1 40
Total Local Parks – Existing and Proposed Future 38 418 Note: Greenways and conservation areas are not listed in the table. The following provides an overview of the parks identified on the System Plan falling under the various park classifications listed above.
Ne i g h b o r h o o d Pa r k s Neighborhood parks are the basic unit of the park system and serve a recreational and social purpose. Development focuses on informal recreation. Programmed activities are typically limited to youth sports practices and, very occasionally, games.
Existing Neighborhood Parks As illustrated on the System Plan, there are 19 existing parks within the Existing neighborhood parks like Lions Park have proven Northfield park system that serve neighborhood uses, including: popular with residents and remain a key part of the • Aspen Park – 2 acres, currently undeveloped overall park system. • Central Park – 3 acres, with children’s play area, plaza area, walking paths, maintained green space, and sitting areas • Cherry Park – less than 1 acre, with children’s play area, picnic shelter, and access trail • Dresden Hill Park – less than 1 acre, with children’s play area and limited maintained green space (refer to Redefining/Transitioning Select Existing Park Properties on page 3.8 for additional information) • Grant Park – 6 acres, with children’s play area, paved trails, maintained green space, and ponding area • Heritage Park – 2 acres, with children’s play area, basketball court, picnic shelter, and looped trail; limited maintained green space • Heywood Park – 7 acres, with looped trail system and maintained green space; otherwise undeveloped • Jefferson – 1 acre, with children’s play area, access trail, and small maintained green space • John North – 3 acres, with children’s play area, looped trail, and limited maintained green space • Lashbrook Park – 12 acres, currently undeveloped naturalized open space
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.4 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
• Liberty/Prairie Hill Park – 12 acres, with paved trail loops, maintained green space, and natural areas surrounding stormwater ponds; otherwise undeveloped • Roosevelt/Roosevelt Ridge Park – 12 acres, with ballfield, maintained green space, and trails; also linear wooded area • Sibley Swale Park – 11 acres, with a fair amount of maintained and natural open space; two developed areas with separate children’s play areas and linear trail system with connections to neighborhood • Truman Park – 3 acres, maintained green space, children’s play area, and picnic shelter • Tyler Park – 4 acres, with paved trails, children’s play area, full basketball Albeit important, play areas are only one component of court, picnic shelter, and maintained green space use a well-designed park. To be successful, a cross-section • Washington Park – 2 acres, with children’s play area, full basketball of amenities are necessary to create a social atmosphere court, and small ballfield with skinned infield that draws in neighborhood residents on a routine basis. • Way Park – 8 acres, with children’s play area, basketball half court, As illustrated, trails in particular have universal appeal, memorial, and small ballfield; new master plan has been adopted, which even a relatively short loop in a neighborhood park. once implemented will extensively upgrade the park For the most part, the existing parks are capable of meeting the primary needs of the neighborhoods they serve and, collectively, meet acceptable standards for neighborhood parks. That said, a significant functional issue related to the existing system is that some of the parks are too small and actually too close together. This sometimes results in duplication of facilities, such as play equipment, while at the same time not having enough collective space to provide other desirable amenities, such as passive open space or informal play space. Although this situation should be avoided in the future, most of the current limitations can be overcome to a degree through good design and maximizing the use of the land that is available. Key points about existing neighborhood parks defined in these two paragraphs. Another factor to consider is that the facilities and amenities in some parks are reaching the end of their lifecycle or do not meet optimal contemporary design standards. In addition, much more attention needs to be given to master planning and park design to improve the aesthetic quality, overall appeal, efficiency of maintenance, and functional capability of the parks to enhance use levels. Appendix A – Park and Trail Development Considerations provides a more detailed description of each of the existing neighborhood parks and their specific role in the park system. Suggestions for future development scenarios and potential associated costs are also provided. Areas Where New Neighborhood Parks will be Required as Development Occurs As illustrated on the System Plan, there are a number of areas within the city and areas subject to annexation where new neighborhood parks will be required to service local needs as development occurs. The locations for these parks are conceptual and do not represent a specific parcel of land. Their actual location will be based on how they can be best integrated with new developments that the park will serve, and the following criteria. General Criteria for Establishing the Location of New Neighborhood Parks The distribution of future neighborhood parks is intrinsically linked to development patterns and layouts, as well as how a given park interlinks with greenways and greenway-based trail system. This is especially the case in future annex areas, where the greatest opportunity lies for blending neighborhood parks with greenways. (Figure 3.6 on pages 3.24 and 3.25 conceptually illustrates a neighborhood park being integrated into a larger greenway system.)
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.5 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
In situations where neighborhood parks are integrated with greenways and greenway-based trails, the spacing between individual parks can be greater than traditional standards suggest for two reasons: 1) the greenway is part of the park experience; and 2) the trails within the greenway make it easier and safer to get to the park from a given neighborhood. Should the greenway system substantially change or not materialize, the distribution of the neighborhood parks would need to be reconsidered. As a general guideline, a service area radius of around 1/2-mile or slightly more and uninterrupted by major roads or physical barriers is appropriate for annex areas where the parks are linked together by greenway-based trails. Specific Site Selection for New Neighborhood Parks Site selection for a neighborhood park is critical to its ultimate quality and success. Desirable criteria for selecting new parks include: • 5 acres or more preferred, with 3 acres the minimum size to function properly • Centrally located within the neighborhood area it serves • Site exhibits desirable physical and aesthetic characteristics, with a balance between developable open space and natural areas; lowlands and other lands not suitable for development are also not suitable for a neighborhood park • Connection to neighborhoods via trails or sidewalks; the more convenient the pedestrian access, the more use a park is likely to receive • Connection to a greenway or open space system to expand the sense of open space at the neighborhood level Although natural amenities are desirable, designated wetlands or non-upland protected areas that cannot be developed for active or passive park uses should not be included in the acreage calculation for a neighborhood park. At the discretion of the PRAB and City Council, “left over” land not suitable for residential development should not be accepted for neighborhood park uses if it does not meet the desirable criteria. This includes stormwater holding ponds, which can only be integrated into the design of a neighborhood park under two conditions: 1) the ponds are a designed feature with either natural or ornamental qualities; and 2) the area of the pond is not considered as part of the neighborhood park acreage calculation. (Side note: Protected areas, such as wetlands, remain very valuable aspects of the larger greenway system, but they are not a direct land substitute for acreage needed for neighborhood parks.) Development/Redevelopment of Neighborhood Parks The design for each neighborhood park should be consistent with the desired service level and tailored to the neighborhood it serves, rather than the generalized needs of the community. The following table provides a general palette of amenities typically found within neighborhood parks offering three different levels of service. A community such as Northfield can typically afford an upper basic to medium service level. (Note: Section 6 – Implementation Plan and Administrative Provisions also considers this issue relative to priority setting.)
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.6 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Ov e r v i e w o f Ne i g h b o r h o o d Pa r k Se r v i c e Le v e l s Service Level General Site Parameters Palette of Amenities to Consider Basic Service Park size ranges from 1.0 • Smaller-sized children’s play structure with limited age separation (2,500-3,500 s.f.) Level to 3.0 acres; designed for • Accessible trail to play structure and key park features, plus a link to neighborhood active use, with limited sidewalk or community trail system (<$200,000 in passive use area given the • Smaller maintained green space for informal use (1 acre minimum preferred) 2007 dollars) smaller park size • Basketball halfcourt or small hardcourt (for hopscotch, 4-square, etc.) • Limited general site amenities – benches, picnic tables, trash containers, etc. • Limited amount of ornamental landscaping • Limited natural landscaping and natural-based stormwater infiltration systems in non-developed areas • Relies on street lights for security lighting • On-street parking, or no parking (walk-to park) Medium Park size range from 2.0 • Modest-sized children’s play structure with more age separation (3,500-5,000 s.f.) Service Level to 4.0 acres, with more of • Accessible trail to play structure and key park features a balance between active • Trail loop internal to the park, plus a link to neighborhood sidewalk or community trail ($200,000 to and passive uses system $400,000 in • Medium-sized maintained green space for informal use (1 to 2 acres preferred) 2007 dollars) • 1/2 to full-size basketball court • Small hardcourt area (for hopscotch, 4-square, etc.) • Modest amount of general site amenities – benches, picnic tables, trash containers, etc. also might include a drinking fountain • Modest amount of ornamental landscaping, particularly near active use areas • Greater use of natural landscaping and natural-based stormwater infiltration systems in non-developed areas • On-street parking, or small on-site parking lot (less than 10 spaces) • Small picnic shelter and picnic area • Modest emphasis on aesthetic improvements and architectural elements – arbor structure with benches, ornamental fencing, etc. • Limited ornamental and basic security lighting • Extensive emphasis on design details and quality aesthetic nuances – i.e., park is an important streetscape/urban design feature; the importance of design should not be underestimated, with aesthetically appealing parks far more likely to be used Higher Park size range from 3.0 • Larger-sized children’s play structure with extensive age separation (5,000-6,500 s.f.) Service Level to 5.0 acres or more, with • Accessible trail to play structure and key park features a balance between areas • Larger trail loop system internal to the park, plus a connection to neighborhood sidewalk (>$400,000 in for active and passive uses or community trail system 2007 dollars) maintained • Larger open maintained green space for informal use (2 acres minimum preferred) • Full-size basketball court • Larger hardcourt area (for hopscotch, 4-square, etc.) • Higher level of general site amenities – benches, picnic tables, trash containers, etc.; might include a restroom enclosure; also includes a drinking fountain • Extensive amount of ornamental landscaping, particularly near active use areas • Extensive use of natural landscaping and natural-based stormwater infiltration systems in non-developed areas • On-street parking, or small to medium on-site parking lot (from 10 to 20 spaces, maximum) • Larger family picnic shelter and picnic area • Higher level of emphasis on aesthetic improvements and architectural elements – arbor structure with benches, ornamental fencing, etc. • More extensive ornamental and security lighting • Tennis court – only if demand warrants • Extensive emphasis on design details and quality aesthetic nuances – i.e., park is an important streetscape/urban design feature; the importance of design should not be underestimated, with aesthetically appealing parks far more likely to be used
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.7 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Developer-Related Agreements Related to Neighborhood Parks In addition to stipulations about the amount, location, and character of land set aside for a neighborhood park, the developer’s agreement between the City and developer should also define qualitative expectations and requirements. These include, but are not limited to, the following types of construction impact-related stipulations: • Tree and natural area protection – to ensure that all quality natural features will remain undisturbed during construction • Soil condition and compaction protection – to ensure that the site is not used for unauthorized soil mining/transfer and that native soils are not unduly compacted relative to native conditions • Excessive grading protection – to ensure that the site is not unnecessarily graded, hence creating drainage issues and soil quality and compaction concerns Limiting the Use of Neighborhood Parks for Programmed Athletics The athletic facilities strategically located within the city are intended, Neighborhood over time, to accommodate the vast majority of programmed athletic uses p a r k within the city. Importantly, neighborhood parks should not indefinitely be heavily programmed since that takes away from their capacity to serve local residents’ day-to-day recreational needs. Although neighborhood parks can Shifting Programmed Athletic be used on occasion for younger children’s programs such as T-ball, doing Uses to Designated Athletic so should be purposefully limited to avoid overuse issues, such as excessive Facility Sites Will Ensure parking in the neighborhoods, turf quality issues, and detracting from the that Neighborhood Parks neighborhood sense of place. (Refer to page3.12 for additional information Remain Focused on Serving Neighborhood Needs on the use of neighborhood parks for programmed athletics.) Interconnection of Neighborhood Parks to Local Neighborhoods The interconnection of parks through the trail and sidewalk system is of particular importance to the success of the park system. This is especially At h l e t i c the case with neighborhood parks, where safe and appealing access to them Fac i l i t y Si t e s is critical to their use levels. Lacking these trail connections, any inequity in park distribution will become more apparent to the user because the parks Note that some use of neighborhood parks for youth will be harder to get to and from within a given residential neighborhood. athletics is acceptable on a limited basis to efficiently The less convenient the access, the less use parks are likely to receive. meet community needs. But the focus should be on younger age groups and practice over game As previously noted, the integration of new neighborhood parks with uses. Problems of over use tend to emerge when the larger open space (greenway) system with interlinking trails is also an neighborhood parks are used too routinely for scheduled games or for older participants. Adult programmed use important factor in pushing the service radius of a neighborhood park to should be avoided. 1/2-mile or more. The rationale for this is that the greenways and trails provide easier direct access to neighborhood parks and that these corridors are perceived to be part of the park experience by the user. If the greenway system does not materialize, the location of any new neighborhood park warrants reconsideration to ensure adequate service is provided. Redefining/Transitioning Select Existing Park Properties To Ensure Highest and Best Use One of the main goals of the system plan is to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of all park property. In Northfield, redefining or transitioning select existing park properties to another use or function has merit to ensure that each land parcel is used to its highest and best use in meeting community needs. To that end, the section on natural greenway corridors provides recommendations and guidelines related to redefining or transitioning specific, larger parcels of existing neighborhood parks into natural open space/conservation areas (refer to page 3.20).
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.8 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
With respect to other parks, reclassifying Oddfellows Park from a neighborhood park to a community park is also called for under the system plan. This is considered in greater detail under the forthcoming community parks section.
Co m m u n i t y Pa r k s Community parks typically serve a broader and more specialized purpose than neighborhood parks. Their focus is on meeting community-based recreational needs, as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces. The general palette of amenities typically found within this class of park includes: • Amenities common to a neighborhood park, albeit at a larger scale • Larger group picnic facilities • More extensive looped trail systems • Open maintained green space for passive and active use • Winter activities, such as ice skating, sledding, and skiing • Event space • Special use facilities having a community appeal Levee Park provides a much-desired connection to the river near downtown. The new master plan for the In addition to specific amenities, community parks also often serve an park will further enhance to the appeal of the park to residents and visitors. important aesthetic role by providing green space and buffering, along with creating an appealing sense of place that helps define the essential character of the community. This is especially the case in Northfield, where the downtown area parks are part of the gateway experience as residents and visitors enter the downtown business district. Existing Community Parks System Plan refers to the attached map illustrating As illustrated on the System Plan, there are six parks that fall under the all of the parks, open spaces (greenways) and trails. community park classification. The downtown area community parks consist of Ames, Bridge Square (and related downtown riverwalk), Babcock, and Riverside Lions Park – each serving an individual and collective purpose within the larger park system. Individually, each park needs to address specific community needs, as is defined in Appendix A – Park and Trail Development Considerations and figure 3.1 on the next page. Collectively, the downtown area parks play a vital role in establishing a unified park and gateway experience that is intrinsically linked to the historic downtown area. Currently, only Bridge Square is serving that function in any meaningful way. With the addition of the appealing Veterans Memorial, Riverside Lions Park has significantly improved the public aesthetic along the TH 3 corridor. Otherwise, Ames, Babcock, and much of Riverside Lions Parks serve a functional purpose, but do not otherwise advance the larger unified park aesthetic, experience, or sense of place along the river and into the downtown area. Given their importance, the City is encouraged to prepare a comprehensive master plan encompassing all of the downtown area parks prior to initiating any major improvements in any of them. This approach will ensure that all interests, stakeholder concerns, and ideas from the public are duly considered – with the end result being a cohesive master plan. To set the stage for this process, figure 3.1 (along with Appendix A) highlights some of the key functions and opportunities associated with each of these parks. The section entitled Select Special-Use Facilities and Amenities starting on page 3.28 should also be referenced for ideas on features appropriate for a community park.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.9 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Fi g u r e 3.1 – In t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p o f Co r e Co m m u n i t y Pa r k s in Do w n t o w n Ar e a Note: Image is taken from overall System Plan map, Bridge Square Park – provides an urban which should be referred to for complete legend square in the historic downtown area, information. along with providing a direct pedestrian connection to and promenade along the riverfront. Continued refinement of the design, aesthetic qualities, and function of this important people space should be the primary master plan focus for this area.
Ames Park – is a currently under-utilized and visually uninteresting gateway into the downtown area. Enhancing the park’s aesthetic qualities and streetscape appeal is an important master plan focus, as is providing amenities like overlooks, improved walkways, and architectural features (arbors, etc.) to entice people to use the area. If the site is selected for the skateboard facility (as considered on page 3.28, how that is integrated into the park’s design will be critical to its success without unduly compromising the park’s other functions and aesthetic appeal.
Riverside Lions Park – remains an important park unit that serves both community and neighborhood functions. Continuing to accommodate the seasonal farmers market and providing space for the annual car show and other events remains viable. On the southern-most end of the park is the well maintained Veterans Memorial, which is a highly visible and compelling architectural feature. Taking full advantage of the scenic values of the river corridor should be a top priority, as is the need to enhance the general aesthetic quality of the park through good design, landscaping, and architectural elements.
Babcock Park – this park is under utilized and lacks a cohesive and visually appealing design. Although the existing uses remain viable and appropriate, a new master plan is needed to better organize the site, make it more visually appealing, and ensure that the right mix of facilities and amenities are provided to meet community needs. As with the other parks, taking full advantage of the scenic values of the river corridor should be a top priority.
Trails Linkages – linking Babcock and Riverside Lions Park (and points beyond) to the downtown area should a major master plan focus. Special attention needs to be given to the missing link between Riverside and Fifth Street, along with providing adequate signage and kiosk information for wayfinding. In addition to the downtown parks, the successful development of the outdoor pool at Memorial Park establishes it as a community park, although it also functions as a neighborhood park for the surrounding neighborhood. Given the extensive public involvement in developing the current master plan for the site, it is assumed that surrounding residents are satisfied that their recreational needs are being adequately met. If that is the case, continued phased implementation of the master plan is appropriate, as defined in Appendix A. That said, the PRAB should also periodically monitor the demand for traditional neighborhood park amenities, such as a children’s play area. If new demands arise over time, a reevaluation of the master plan would be warranted to make sure that neighborhood-level needs are being fully met. An important side note to Memorial Park is that the site is considered one of several candidate sites for a new skateboard park, which is discussed on page 3.28. Whether or not that occurs will be determined under a separate planning process, which will include opportunities for public input.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.10 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Oddfellows Park is the other remaining community park within the system. This park is classified as a community park due to its size, the facilities that are offered, and its proximity to nearby Way Park, which is classified as the neighborhood park for this area. Under a community park designation, future development of Oddfellows Park can be more flexible and accommodate facilities serving a broader array of user groups or are more specialized and larger scale (both indoor and outdoor recreational facilities). In the nearer-term, the site is best viewed as reserve land since no formal program has emerged to guide future development of this site. (With Way Park’s master plan robustly addressing neighborhood park needs in this area, there is little justification to duplicate those amenities in this location.) In the shorter term, maintaining the current facilities is appropriate until they reach the end of their effective lifecycle. Once the Way Park master plan is implemented, it will be easier to discern how this park factors into meeting the needs of local residents and best serves the community. Interconnection of Community Parks to Surrounding Neighborhoods and Larger Community As with neighborhood parks, the interconnection of community parks via the trail and sidewalk system is of particular importance to the success of these parks. Conversely, these community-type parks are also important to the success of the trail system by providing a destination for users to go to when using the trail system. Overall Balance of Community Parks Each of the community parks contribute significantly to the overall quality of the park system. Individually, each park plays a role in providing a wide-array of recreational choices for residents and visitors alike. Given the extent of existing community park opportunities, there is little justification for adding new community park sites as part of this plan update (i.e., for at least the next ten to 15 years). Note, however, that this may change if annexation occurs at a faster pace than anticipated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Instead, in the foreseeable future the focus should be on providing a quality experience within the existing community (and neighborhood) parks. In addition to meeting defined needs, the design of these parks is critical to creating an appealing sense of place that residents and visitors will return to time and again. The one caveat to this is the proposed park reserve land in the Hauberg Woods area, whereby setting aside additional land is recommended as a hedge against unknown future demands as the community expands outward and recreational trends change. This is considered in detail on page 3.17
At h l e t i c Facilities System Plan refers to the attached map illustrating The System Plan includes athletic facilities in a number of parks for varying all of the parks, open spaces (greenways) and trails. levels of programmed uses. City-provided facilities are also complemented by School District 659 athletic facilities, as considered in more depth on page 3.13. The table on the next page provides recommendations on the appropriate level of use of each park for organized athletics. Note that this Key statement about proposed use level table. only relates to programmed use. Day-to-day use by residents is considered non-programmed general use and is therefore not specifically defined.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.11 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Pa r k s Us e d f o r Re c r e a t i o n Pr o g r a m s (a s o f 2007) Park/Site Name Classification Proposed Level of Use for Programmed Athletics Aspen Park Neighborhood Park Central Park Neighborhood Park Cherry Park Neighborhood Park Dresden Hill Park Neighborhood Park Each of these parks are not well-suited for organized athletic programming. The Grant Park Neighborhood Park overall objective is to ensure that these parks are available to neighborhood residents for informal recreation. They should only be used for programmed Heritage Park Neighborhood Park activities under special permit as determined appropriate by the City, with even Jefferson Park Neighborhood Park that use being generally limited to younger children living in the neighborhood. John North Park Neighborhood Park Sibley Swale Park Neighborhood Park Truman Park Neighborhood Park Heywood Park Neighborhood Park Lashbrook Neighborhood Park Liberty/Prairie Hill Park Neighborhood Park Each of these parks have some capacity to accommodate limited programmed use. If used for programmed activities, use should be limited to younger age groups Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Park and low to modest use levels to avoid excessive wear on the open space, impacts Tyler Park Neighborhood Park to the neighborhood (such as parking), and reduced access to field space by Washington Park Neighborhood Park local residents. Here too, the primary focus of these parks should be on informal neighborhood use. Way Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Campostella Park Nature Park Char Carlson Park Nature Park Hauberg Woods Nature Park Hidden Valley Park Nature Park Par Meadow Park Nature Park As speciality community or nature parks, none of these parks are well-suited for Spring Creek Park Nature Park programmed athletic purposes. Ames Park Community Park Bridge Square Community Park Memorial Park Community Park Oddfellows Park Community Park Riverside Lions Park Community Park Babcock Park Community Park The ballfield and hockey rink are intended for extensive youth and adult athletic programming and organized sports. Sechler Park Athletic Complex Each of the sites are intended for extensive youth and adult athletic programming and organized sports. Over time, the vast majority of intensively programmed Sibley Soccer Fields Non-Park Public outdoor athletic activities will continue to occur at these sites, in conjunction with Property* select school sites. Spring Creek Soccer Athletic Complex * Sibley Soccer Fields is City-owned public utility property, not designated park land. As such, its use could change if the City needed the property for other utility purposes. Proposed use levels reflect desired outcomes relative to creating a balanced system, whereby each park unit serves its intended purpose to the fullest extent. In Northfield, excessive use of neighborhood parks for programmed athletics has not been a major concern. However, as demand grows for field space, the prospect of that occurring increases. For that reason, it is important to define the level of use that is appropriate for each of the parks based on their classification and physical makeup. In doing so, the PRAB can be well positioned to address these issues if manifested in the future. Importantly, the impact that overuse can have on a given park or neighborhood should not be taken lightly in that it does indeed affect the quality of the park experience (or living in a given neighborhood) if overuse issues are left unchecked.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.12 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Relationship Between Northfield and Local School District 659 Relative to Athletic Facilities Although not individually described under the City’s park system plan, School District 659 athletic facilities are important to meeting the needs of local associations and broader community. The system plan is based on the premise that this current relationship between the two partners will continue, with any changes having potentially profound impacts on meeting future facility demands. This approach offers several important benefits: • Maximizes efficient use of land and economic resources – achieved by having fewer and larger sites where facilities can be more effectively programmed, maintained, and operated by the City and School District • Maximizes program efficiency and effectiveness – by allowing local program providers to draw from a large enough area to ensure program success, especially since many of the programs are already school district-based and draw the majority of their participants from the city and surrounding townships. Whereas continued collaboration with the School District is assumed given past practice, it should not be taken for granted. As defined on page 3.1, periodically revisiting existing agreements to ensure that current needs are adequately addressed and in alignment with the updated system plan is important to the continued success of this partnership. Facility Types Needed to Support Local Demands The following table highlights the various facilities needed to support local programming.
Facility Ty p e s Ne e d e d t o Se r v i c e Lo c a l At h l e t i c Pr o g r a m m i ng Ne e d s Facility Name Basic Facility Description (Optimal*)
Athletic Green/Soccer Field Generally defined in terms of full-size soccer field equivalent, which is 75 x 120 yards (225’ x 360’). Allow (for Soccer, Football, and 5 to 10 yards between fields. This accommodates soccer, football, and lacrosse. Grading should allow for Lacrosse) multi-directional play and smaller field layouts. Space requirement: 1.7 to 2.1 acres
Full-Size Baseball Field 90’ baseline, 60’-6” pitching distance, raised mound, turf infield, agg-lime baselines, 320’-330’ foullines/380’ centerfield, 8’ to 10’ fencing, and warning track. Space requirement: 3 to 3.85 acres.
Junior Varsity-Sized Baseball 75’ to 80’ baseline, 52’ to 54’ pitching distance, raised mound, agg-lime infield, 300’ foullines and Field centerfield, 8’ fencing, and warning track. Space requirement: 2.0 to 2.5 acres.
Little League-Sized Baseball 60’ to 65’ baseline, 46’ pitching distance, raised mound, turf infield, agg-lime baselines, 200’ foullines/250’ Field centerfield, 6’ fencing, and warning track. Space requirement: 1.2 to 1.5 acres.
General Purpose Ballfield 50’ to 75’ baseline, variable pitching distance, agg-lime infield, 200’ to 280’ foullines and centerfield, and no fencing. Space requirements: 1.2 to 2.0 acres.
Adult Softball Field 70’ baseline, 50’-6” pitching distance, agg-lime infield, 280 to 300’ foullines and centerfield, 8’ fencing, and warning track. Space requirements: 2.0 to 2.5 acres.
T-Ball Field/Informal Playfield 60’ baseline, agg-lime infield, 100’ to 120’ foullines and centerfield, no fencing. Space requirements: 0.3 to 0.5 acres.
Outdoor Hockey Rink 85’ x 200’ rink size, boards, and warming house. Space requirements: 22,000 square feet.
Outdoor Basketball Court 50’ x 84’ plus 10’ unobstructed space on all sides (3’ minimum). Half-court size is 50’ x 50’. Space requirements: 5,040 square feet.
Tennis Court 60’ x 120’ within fenced area for single court. Space requirements: 7,200 square feet.
Sand Volleyball Court 50’ x 80’ area for single court. Space requirements: 4,000 square feet. * Optimal size relates to standards for new facilities. Some variability in these standards exists for existing facilities.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.13 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Athletic Facility Supply and Demand – Outdoor Facilities Staying on top of the demand cycle for athletic facilities is critical given the importance of efficiently using existing facilities in order to manage capital funding and operations/maintenance costs. Given the significant cost to redevelop or expand the system, having a solid understanding of the facility supply and demand is an increasingly important priority. As a reference point, the following defines the supply and demand for various outdoor facilities based on interviews with local associations, user groups, and city staff. Note that this is a starting point for more detailed planning that more completely evaluates the specific needs of various user groups. At h l e t i c Facility Su pp l y a n d De m a n d f o r Ou t d o o r Facilities Longer-Term Facility Demands (6 or more Facility Name User Group(s) Nearer-Term Facility Demands (1 to 5 years)* years)*
Athletic Green/ Northfield Youth In general, there are adequate facilities to meet Very likely that expanding the soccer Soccer Field Soccer Association nearer-term needs, although use pressure and complex to the south will be necessary, with overuse issues are on the horizon. There is also a at least 2 more athletic greens needed to Community growing concern about the need to rest fields to meet anticipated longer-term demand and Education avoid overuse maintenance issues. avoiding having to rely on neighborhood parks. Additional fields would also allow Additional attention also needs to be given to for more rest time of fields, thus improving maintenance strategies that ensure good field quality. Adding lighting to select fields in the quality from season to season. longer-term would also extend capacity of existing facilities. Setting aside some reserve Adding more parking at the soccer complex is also land (as defined in this section) would be a a shorter-term need. hedge against unknown future demands as the community grows and trends change.
Full-Size Baseball Northfield Knights Similar situation to above. Longer-term demands are unclear and Field should be evaluated after nearer-term facility Community Optimal nearer-term solution would be adding a demands are met. As with athletic greens/ Junior Varsity Education new ballfield at Sechler to take the pressure off of soccer fields, setting aside some reserve land Baseball Field existing facilities. The actual mix of facilities needs (as defined in this section) would be a hedge Northfield more evaluation and input from the user groups. against unknown future demands as the Little League-Sized Youth Baseball community grows and trends change. Ballfield Association Additional attention needs to be given to maintenance strategies that ensure good field Adult Softball Field quality, as is the need to make sure adequate on-site parking is available. General Purpose Ballfield
T-Ball Field
Outdoor Hockey Northfield Hockey Given weather uncertainties and desire to play Adding new outdoor rinks over time should Rinks Association indoors, adding additional outdoor facilities does be based on known demand. not appear warranted in the nearer-term. High Northfield Skating quality maintenance is the key concern with School outdoor rinks. For example, flooding the rink in Babcock in the evening is preferred to improve ice quality. Moving the hydrant closer to the rink would also improve efficiency.
Outdoor Basketball None Basketball courts are popular amenities in Same as nearer-term. Courts neighborhood parks and should be considered as parks are developed/redeveloped, with input from local residents.
Outdoor Tennis Tennis Club Adding one or two new outdoor courts on the Adding new courts over time should be based Court northern end of the city would be justified to on known demand. complement those provided by the School District and local colleges.
Sand Volleyball None The demand for volleyball courts is not linked to Same as nearer-term. Court any specific program. Adding new courts over time should be based on known demand. * The facility demand summary relates primarily to information from the defined user groups. It is presumed that the same mix of facilities will support the School District’s and City’s programming needs as well.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.14 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
The information gained from interviews with local associations provides a reasonable level of confidence about understanding nearer-term demands for outdoor facilities and developing a strategy that maximizes the efficient use of existing facilities. Although keeping track of athletic facility supply and demand in a more complete and objective way is a top priority for guiding longer-term decisions, the information gained as part of this process for nearer-term decisions is adequate since overall growth in facility demand has yet to reach its peak. In other words, any slight over-capacity that might occur in decisions made in the next few years will ultimately be absorbed through growth in demand. Likewise, any shortages will be recognized and can be addressed in future facility development decisions. Notably, as the demand for facilities reaches its peak in the future, it will be increasingly important that the City be able to objectively understand true demand to avoid over or under development of facilities. Thereafter, the opportunity to make adjustments in the mix of facilities will be more difficult and costly. Figure 3.2 illustrates this important point.
Fi g u r e 3.2 – Ba l a n c i ng Su pp l y a n d De m a n d in t h e Lo ng e r -Te r m Note that facility Most important period to be demand will likely level off or even drop once Excess supply in nearer-term closely tracking supply and demand is 2010 through school enrollment possible due to imperfect passes its peak information for tracking 2015 supply and demand cilities a and scheduling facilities F efficiently Facility Su pp l y t h l e t i c A o r
f n d
a De m 1 to 5 Any excess supply in n d acility a F years nearer-term (1 to 5 years) e m can be absorbed through D growth in demand over time, n d
Adjusting supply of facilities to meet demand requires a
as long as it occurs prior to paying attention to population shifts over time and l y point of peak demand pp anticipating how that will affect each program. This is u especially the case as the community ultimately peaks in S school age cohorts. 2007 2020 - Pe a k Po p u l a t i o n /Sc h o o l En r o l l m e n t Gr o w t h o f De m a n d
Strategy for Athletic Facilities – Nearer-Term (Existing Sites) The primary strategy for balancing nearer-term facility supply and demand is through expansion of Sechler Park and Spring Creek Soccer Complex as funding allows, then adjusting uses at other parks as new facilities are brought online. To accomplish this, the City must work with the School District, local associations, and various user groups to more completely define the optimal mix of facilities at the various sites to meet current or projected demand. The table on the previous page should be used as the baseline, recognizing that a more detailed evaluation and design process may result in modifications or refinements. Note that continued consolidation of athletic facilities to a limited number of larger sites remains the most effective and efficient approach. Most communities take this same approach. In addition to the operational and maintenance values, larger complexes allow for a closer association between players, parents, and coaches during scheduled events. Larger complexes with more activity, participants, and spectators also creates a more dynamic social atmosphere that people tend to enjoy. Fewer sites also provide greater conveniences, such as parking, restrooms, and concessions, and the capacity to generate revenue.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.15 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
For these reasons, it is recommended that the City, School District, and local associations continue to focus resources on improving/expanding the athletic complexes first and limiting development of facilities within neighborhood parks to what is appropriate for neighborhood-level uses. Under this approach, any new use pressure that might manifest itself in the next few years will be absorbed by designated athletic facilities. Strategy for Athletic Facilities – Longer-Term In the longer-term, predicting the demand for specific types of facilities cannot be done with absolute certainty for a number of reasons: • Demographic shifts and population growth will result in changes in recreational demands • Participation rates for existing programs may change over time due to evolving recreation trends • Programs may change in terms of season, in-house versus traveling teams, etc. • New sports may emerge and require space for practice and games The lack of a formal and integrated participant registration and facility scheduling system between the City, School District, and local associations also limits the City’s ability to predict demand for one type of facility over another in the longer-term. Whereas the information gathered from local associations is valuable for nearer-term planning, it is not stable enough to be used to define specific longer-term demands with acceptable accuracy. In spite of the limitations of predicting longer-term demand, the need to proactively set aside some reserve land as a hedge against future programming growth and facility needs is an important consideration that has to occur before the opportunity is missed due to other land use decisions. This issue is considered in more depth on page 3.17. Keeping Track of Athletic Facility Supply and Demand as a Growing Priority Northfield and Community Education currently parcel out facilities to local user groups relative to the number of participants, needs, and established relationships. In 2007, City and School District facilities supported a multitude of local associations as previously defined. Although this approach has worked well in the past, continuing growth in programs and resultant facility demand will ultimately require a more robust system for tracking true demand and managing facility use to ensure the right mix of facilities is available and that each is efficiently scheduled. Staying on top of the demand for athletic facilities is critical given the costs to acquire and develop land and operate and maintain facilities. For this reason, establishing a more solid understanding of athletic facility supply and demand by working closely with user groups should be a nearer-term priority (i.e., within the next 5 years). This will allow the City and School District to gain greater confidence in determining the land area and right mix of facilities needed to meet future needs as they manifest. To that end, the City and School District have already started enhancing their capacity to track demand through the introduction of a web-based registration system. Continued expansion of this program is encouraged, with the following process being a commonly recommended approach to best position the City and Community Education to gather this information: • Year 1 – establish working protocol between the City, Community Education, and individual user groups to move toward a common system for registration, tracking participation, and scheduling facilities
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.16 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
• Years 2 and 3 – implement a common, web-based system for tracking registration and scheduling facilities; track participation rates of each group using City and School District facilities; adopt a formal city policy on the use of Northfield facilities to support resident and non-resident participants in athletic programs offered by the City, Community Education, and local associations • Years 4 and 5 – implement use policy; continue tracking participation rates and facility needs; develop overall facility demand fact sheet defining types of facilities needed to support local user groups; update overall master plan for athletic facilities throughout the city to accommodate defined demand; monitor and reestablish priorities based on new information
Setting aside some reserve land as a hedge against future programming Pa r k Re s e r v e La n d growth and facility needs is an important but not imminent system planning concern. In all likelihood, the need for additional land for community park or athletic facility use will not manifest until after 2015 or even 2020, barring any major change in anticipated population growth or recreation trends. Although a longer-term issue, setting aside reserve land does have to be addressed in a timely enough manner to avoid missing the opportunity due to other land use decisions, or land values escalating beyond affordability. Although there is some flexibility in the specific land parcel that could serve this purpose, the general criteria for site selection includes: • Centrally located on the north end of the city to balance out the system (currently, community parks, schools, and athletic facilities are mostly located on the southern side of the city) • Relatively easy vehicular access • Directly linking to the greenway-based destination trail system • Land that can be developed for a variety of purposes, ranging from athletic fields to picnic areas, open green space, and natural buffers To provide a basis for discussion, the System Plan highlights a general System Plan refers to the attached map illustrating all of the parks, open spaces (greenways) and trails. search area that fits this criteria. The City is encouraged to proactively engage property owners over time to make sure community interests are being considered as land use decisions evolve and opportunities present themselves. One of the distinct advantages of this search area is its proximity to Hauberg Woods, whereby the acquisition of even a modest amount of land could be combined into a larger park and greenway unit serving numerous functions. In many ways, this scenario would result in a classic community park that serves a cross-section of active and passive uses. Importantly, if adjacent land is acquired, the park’s design would have to thoughtfully preserve the intent and integrity of Hauberg Woods as a natural area. Protecting the high quality fen in this area is of particular importance as land use decisions area made. In terms of land area, setting aside a 20 acre parcel as reserve land would be Important qualifier to land needed to service future athletic facility demand: Any expansion of the recommended minimum, with up to 40 acres being optimal. Otherwise, the School District’s athletic facilities will possibly the risk of under-estimating land needs becomes a concern. Further, affect the need for setting aside land in reserve for disposing of excess land if not needed is much easier than acquiring more if athletic facilities. needs were under-estimated.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.17 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
The natural greenway system plan is one of the most ambitious and Na t u r a l Gr e e n w a y inspired aspects of Northfield’s overall park, open space, and trail system. Co r r i d o r (Op e n Sp a c e ) It will also be one of the most challenging aspects to implement given the many parcel-by-parcel economic and other variables that will have Sy s t e m to be addressed as land use decisions are made over time. Nonetheless, the public value of such a system has consistently proven to be very high and fully justifies the local commitment that will be needed to attain it. The following describes the evolution of the linear greenway plan and key strategies for its implementation.
Co n s i s t e n c y w i t h t h e Gr e a t e r No r t h f i e l d Gr e e n w a y Co r r i d o r Sy s t e m Pl a n The natural greenway system defined under this plan is a direct outgrowth of the Greater Northfield Area Greenway Corridor System Plan adopted in 2007 – albeit refined and expanded in certain instances. Figure 3.3 illustrates the overall plan for the greater Northfield area. Fi g u r e 3.3 – Gr e a t e r No r t h f i e l d Ar e a Gr e e n w a y Co r r i d o r Sy s t e m Pl a n
As figure 3.3 illustrates, the proposed area-wide greenway system extends System Plan refers to the attached map illustrating well-beyond the City of Northfield proper. As Northfield’s System Plan all of the parks, open spaces (greenways) and trails. illustrates, the proposed linear greenway around and through Northfield remains consistent with the larger area-wide plan.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.18 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Na t u r a l Gr e e n w a y Co r r i d o r De f i n e d Consistent with the Greater Northfield Area Greenway System Plan, the natural greenway corridor is defined as “a connected system of protected natural areas and cultural resources accessible for human use.” It is also defined as an essential component of Northfield’s physical infrastructure, and should be considered a part of its comprehensive land use plan and transportation network. Further, the greenway corridor system: • Serves to protect, preserve and enhance natural open spaces, and maintain connection between these areas • Emphasizes protection and restoration of high quality resources • Seeks to balance protection of the health and function of natural areas with providing human access for recreation, education, and non-motorized transportation • Allows for incremental growth, with connections to neighboring communities and nearby natural and cultural resources being top priorities
Na t u r a l Gr e e n w a y Co r r i d o r s – A Sy s t e m o f Pu b l i c a n d Pr i v a t e La n d s As the graphic in the left column illustrates, the linear greenway corridor No r t h f i e l d Na t u r a l system will in all likelihood consist of publicly-owned lands (held by the City or other public agency) and privately-owned lands that would be perpetually protected as natural open space as part of the development process Pu b l i c l y -Ow n e d Pr i v a t e l y -Ow n e d or by other means. Given the economics of land values, it is extremely n a t u r a l Op e n n a t u r a l Op e n unlikely that such a robust greenway system is economically feasible solely Sp a c e Sp a c e through park dedication or other forms of direct public acquisition. (This is considered in more detail on page 3.26) Gr e e n w a y Sy s t e m More likely, protecting portions of privately-owned lands as permanent open space will occur through managed collaboration and negotiation with developers and landowners as land is developed. To the community’s benefit, St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges are larger private land owners with ambitious natural resource preservation goals for much of the land they own. Public Lands – Northfield-Owned System Plan refers to the attached map illustrating As illustrated on the System Plan, publicly-owned lands currently defined as all of the parks, open spaces (greenways) and trails. part of the greenway system include the following: • Cannon River Conservation Lands – in the Sechler, Babcock, and Campostella Parks area; the river corridor and adjacent natural areas are important natural areas and the backbone of the greenway system • Hauberg Woods Park – stand-alone park offering nature trails in high quality natural setting • Spring Creek Park – with paved and natural trails in natural setting along the creek corridor in the southeast corner of the city In addition to the above parks and conservation lands, a number of existing neighborhood parks are being redefined or transitioned into natural open space/conservation areas, as figure 3.4 on the next page illustrates.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.19 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Fi g u r e 3.4 – Re d e f i n i ng /Tr a n s i t i o n i ng Se l e c t Existing Pa r k Pr o p e r t i e s To En s u r e Hi g h e s t a n d Be s t Us e (Note: Images are taken from overall System Plan map, which should be referred to for complete legend information.)
Liberty Park Greenway/Conservation Par Meadow and Sibley Swale Park Greenway/ Area – as shown on the aerial image, the Conservation Areas – as shown on the aerial image (in system plan calls for Prairie Hills Park (in lighter green color), the system plan calls for transitioning darker green color) to be developed as Jefferson to Roosevelt Park Greenway/ Par Meadow Park from maintained green space to a a neighborhood park, with the Liberty Conservation Area – as shown on the aerial image natural greenway/conservation area to improve habitat, Park area (in lighter green color) to be set (in lighter green color), the system plan calls for more effectively infiltrate stormwater, enhance buffering aside as a natural greenway/conservation transitioning the interconnected areas south of between private properties, and reduce maintenance area, focusing in on habitat restoration, Jefferson Park from maintained green space to a costs. Development in the park would be limited to trails effectively infiltrating stormwater, natural greenway/conservation area to improve and select overlooks. As shown on the aerial image (in enhancing buffering between private habitat, more effectively infiltrate stormwater, lighter green color), the system plan calls for transitioning properties, and reducing maintenance enhance buffering between private properties, and the northern and southern ends of Sibley Swale Park costs. Development in these areas would reduce maintenance costs. Development in these from maintained green space to a natural greenway/ be limited to trails, and perhaps select areas would be limited to trails. As shown on the conservation area to improve habitat, more effectively other amenities as determined appropriate aerial image (in lighter green color), the area south infiltrate stormwater, enhance buffering between private by the PRAB and City Council. (A pond of Roosevelt Ridge Park would remain a natural properties, and reduce maintenance costs. Note that this overlook would be an example.) As also greenway/conservation area, with development would occur when the park is redeveloped, at which time shown on the aerial image (in lighter again being limited to trails. the neighborhood park component would be consolidated in green color), the area south of Liberty a more central location. Park would continue to be preserved as natural greenway/conservation area, with development being limited to trails.
Retaining Park Lands Note: Even though some of As figure 3.4 illustrates, the system plan calls for transitioning a considerable these park parcels will no longer be defined and amount of currently maintained green space into natural conservation areas maintained as a neighborhood park per se, they still for the reasons cited. Realistically, this process will take time to implement most often provide some value to the park system, for a couple of reasons. First, the City will have to work with adjoining as defined in figure 3.4. This includes providing residents through an open public process to determine when and how the space for wildlife habitat, natural infiltration of stormwater, and buffering between private transition best takes place, address individual concerns of property owners, properties. and define what the transition will actually entail. Second, transitioning maintained turf to natural vegetation must follow an established protocol to If sold off to adjoining property owners, much of be successful, all of which takes time, expertise, and resources over a period this land would likely become mowed backyards or used for some other private purpose. For these of years to implement. Whatever the time frame, the transition of these land reasons, only parcels that do not effectively serve parcels will yield long-term benefits and allow the City to shift its limited one or more of the listed functions should be park maintenance resources toward activities that best serve the community. considered for dispersal, at the discretion of the PRAB and City Council. With respect to future greenways, the use of park dedication and publicly-funded direct acquisition will continue to be options for setting aside natural open spaces. However, those tools alone will not be sufficient to accomplish the full vision for the greenway system as defined by the plan. In all likelihood, the City will have to partner with other agencies, such as the MN DNR, as well as extensively with private property owners and developers to be successful, as the following considers. Privately-Owned Lands System Plan refers to the attached map illustrating As the System Plan illustrates, a considerable opportunity still remains in all of the parks, open spaces (greenways) and trails. Northfield area to perpetually preserve natural open space as part of an interconnected greenway system. Since the vast majority of these lands are privately-owned, setting aside any portion of them for open space will
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.20 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
require a high level of collaboration and flexibility between the City and landowners/developers to achieve win-win outcomes that serve everyone’s best interests. As previously noted but worth reiterating, it is very unlikely that this type of open space system can be realized through public funding alone. In Northfield, St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges are major private land owners, primarily on the northern and western sides of the city. In both cases, many of these acres are already formally and informally being set aside as natural open space. Considerable resources are being invested by these landowners in restoring the land to functioning, higher quality natural ecological systems. In the context of preserving open space, the land management approaches of the two colleges complements the goals of the Greater Northfield Area Greenway System Plan and those of this plan. In terms of interaction between the City and the two colleges, the primary objective is to maintain an open working relationship to ensure consistency between land use decisions, approaches to land preservation, and provisions for public access through formal and informal agreements. (Section 4 –Trail System Plan considers trail access issues in this regard.) With respect to other privately-owned lands, setting aside land will most likely come in the form of conservation easements or other land protection strategies negotiated as part of the development process.
La n d s In c l u d e d Un d e r Na t u r a l Gr e e n w a y Co r r i d o r Sy s t e m The “natural greenway corridors” highlighted on the System Plan illustrates the general alignment of the interconnected greenway system as it traverses across various types of land. From an implementation standpoint, the parcel-by-parcel characteristics of these lands will greatly affect protection strategies. In general, the lands within the proposed greenway fall into one of three zones, as the following defines and figure 3.5 on the next page illustrates. Each of these zones require different protection strategies.
Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e Zo n e s De f i n i ng Gr e e n w a y Co r r i d o r Natural Resource Protected Zone: Generally consists of water bodies and land areas that have some level of protection under current regulatory controls and local ordinances. Specific areas included in this zone: • Designated lakes and water bodies • Parkland • Wetland systems – including those listed on the National Wetland Inventory and areas mapped as fens/seeps, cattails, and other wetland-type plant communities • Relevant plant communities listed on the County Biological Survey • Floodplain areas and county ditches or streams Under protected status, development of these lands is extensively controlled and often highly restricted or even prohibited. Under established regulatory rules, any encroachment into these areas typically requires special permitting and mitigation. As protected lands, the City can generally rely upon existing regulations to preserve these areas as open space within the open space system.
Natural Resource Conservation Zone: Consists of upland areas defined under various natural vegetative cover or soil types. Specific areas included in this zone: • Unique natural areas that support rare plant and animal species • Oak forest, aspen, maple-basswood, lowland forest, and other natural areas that are significant, largely intact natural systems, especially those that are adjacent lands within the protected zone as previously defined • Previously restored natural areas The areas encompassed by the conservation zone are those where preservation opportunities are very high and where protection of these ecological systems is a foremost consideration as land is developed. Development in the conservation zone is allowed in accordance with city zoning codes and development ordinances. Beyond these requirements, the natural values of these lands are not inherently protected. In addition, land ownership and development rights give property owners certain rights to develop their property consistent with local zoning and development requirements. Because of this, the city will have rely on a variety of strategies if desirable portions of these lands are to be preserved as open space when development occurs.
Natural Resource Enhancement Zone: Consists of upland areas that fall outside the other two zones yet are important to the creation of the greenway system by providing linkages between higher quality natural areas, along with providing space for greenway-based trails, natural infiltration systems, and buffering. Typically, these are agriculture lands that do not currently exhibit high natural ecological value, but offer opportunities for significant ecological enhancements as part of future greenway planning. An example of this is transitioning an agricultural field into a prairie as part of a conservation development.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.21 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
The key point to be made with the three-zone approach is that setting aside land for greenways does not have to be limited to lands with remnant natural features. Quite to the contrary, under the mantra of a conservation development approach to planning, protecting and enhancing the ecological values of all lands should be considered whenever development occurs in the community. Further, every attempt should be made to link these newly created natural areas to the larger greenway system as depicted on the map wherever opportunity to do so exists. This linkage should be both in the form of a natural landscape features as well as linear trail corridors that allow for human access and appreciation of these natural amenities. Other than local setback requirements and related development ordinances, uplands falling under either of the last two zones are not inherently protected from development. In fact, land ownership and development laws give property owners certain rights to develop their property consistent with local zoning and land use requirements. As such, the extent to which these lands will actually be protected will be based on how well the City, landowners, and developers collaborate within the context of market forces and economic viability.
Mo d e l Gu i d e l i n e s f o r Gr e e n w a y Sy s t e m Pl a nn i ng Ecologically, the optimal width of a greenway encompassing the three zones defined above is inherently variable due to the uniqueness of each site, which in turn requires tailored protection and preservation strategies. In addition, different types of development have more or less impact on ecological systems, which inherently affects the optimal width of a greenway to protect ecological values. The same variability holds true with aesthetic values, whereby the landscape features encountered greatly affect the greenway’s visual sense of space and scale. For example, a wooded area with significant topographical change offers a different sense of scale and visual buffering than would an open, flat prairie. Understandably, a specific greenway “standard” is inherently elusive to define.
Fi g u r e 3.5 – No r t h f i e l d Gr e e n w a y Co r r i d o r Ty p i c a l Cr o s s -Se c t i o n (s p a n s b o t h p a g e s )
Ov e r a l l Gr e e n w a y Co r r i d o r En c o m pa s s e s Al l Zo n e s (500’ o r Mo r e Av e r ag e Minimum Wi d t h De s i r e d )
Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e En h a n c e m e n t Zo n e (w i d t h Va r i e s ) Residential lot sizes and (Wi d t h Va r i e s De p e n d i n g o n backyards only as needed to In f i l t r a t i o n Requirements Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e Co n s e r va t i o n Zo n e meet market requirements (50’ o r Mo r e Av e r ag e Minimum Wi d t h De s i r e d Wh e n No Tr a i l is Pr e s e n t )
Frontyard setbacks reduced Natural infiltration system for managing stormwater where possible to maximize open integrated seamlessly into greenway corridor) space in greenway
Match Line - See Opposite Page
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.22 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
At the same time, the City needs to provide some clarity about greenway requirements and open space preservation objectives in order for development planning to occur. For this reason, the forthcoming general guidelines are provided as a basis for discussion, with the full recognition that each site-specific situation will require a tailored outcome. The following table highlights the key public values typically being sought as part of a greenway design, along with baseline physical space guidelines to achieve those values.
Ke y Pu b l i c Va l u e s a n d Ph y s i c a l Sp a c e Gu i d e l i n e s f o r Gr e e n w a y s Key Public Values Physical Space Guidelines Consistent with the overall System Plan, the As a baseline reference, a typical conservation-type development strives to set aside public values being sought as part of a greenway 50% or more of the total land area within a development as open space in the form of design typically include: an interconnected, holistic greenway system (as apposed to fragmented or isolated land • Preserving interconnected natural open areas with stormwater ponds). However, actual outcomes and acreage totals respond to spaces and greenway corridors the nuances of individual sites, density issues, and economic realities. • Preserving or enhancing the quality of local With respect to the linear greenways shown on the System Plan, a 500 foot or more ecological systems average width is a recommended starting point in order to set aside a wide-enough • Enhancing wildlife habitat corridor to accommodate the listed public values. If a wetland or other sensitive natural • Managing stormwater/improving water feature is encountered, the width of the adjoining buffer becomes a key determinant quality through natural infiltration techniques of the overall greenway width. As is the case when the greenway is used to manage • Providing public park and trail opportunities stormwater runoff using natural infiltration techniques, whereby extra width might be • Preserving the overall aesthetic quality and needed. (Refer to Section 5 for more information on these last two issues.) visual character of the community • Creating distinct neighborhoods using From a practical standpoint, a width of 350 feet or less changes the context from a greenways to help shape the built form greenway to a linear connection, with the distinction being that the area is not wide • Reducing the extent of impervious surfaces enough to fully achieve desired natural and aesthetic values. Anything less than 100 feet • Establishing a privately-funded endowment is best defined as a trail easement versus a greenway since it does not provide enough program for long-term natural resources space to adequately accommodate desirable greenway features. stewardship To add context, the greenway cross-section illustrated in figure 3.5 and conceptual greenway plan illustrated in figure 3.6 (parts 1 and 2) on the next couple of pages translate the key public values and physical space guidelines into a plan layout form.
In t o Se a m l e s s Na t u r a l Sy s t e m
Pr o t e c t e d Zo n e Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e Co n s e r va t i o n Zo n e En h a n c e m e n t Zo n e (100’ o r Mo r e (50’ o r Mo r e Upper “bench” buffer to prevent erosion of sleeper slopes Av e r ag e Minimum Av e r ag e Minimum Wi d t h De s i r e d Wh e n Wi d t h De s i r e d ) Residential lot sizes and Frontyard Tr a i l is Pr e s e n t ) setbacks reduced Buffer (see page backyards only as needed to where possible 5.11 for filter strip meet market requirements to maximize and RMZ width Destination-type open space in guidelines) – 50’ trail greenway min. average width recommended where feasible
Match Line - See Opposite Page
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.23 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Fi g u r e 3.6 (Pa r t 1) – Co n c e p t f o r In t e g r a t i ng Gr e e n w a y i n t o Pr i v a t e De v e l o p m e n t (La r g e r Sc a l e )
Natural infiltration areas and buffers designed as Existing remnant natural part of larger ecological upland areas preserved Proposed Residential system to extent possible, with development area (typical)* Neighborhood park continuity with existing seamlessly integrated protected areas of into greenway and trail especially high value system to maximize Direct park street frontage maintained value Park reserve land (uses 500’ or more desired to be determined in minimum width future as needs emerge)
Trail system flows through greenway with limited encroachment of adjoining residential properties Naturally-shaped ponds, Proposed wetlands, and uplands all residential part of natural infiltration development HAUBERG WOODS system and the overall Existing area NATURAL AREA (Existing) ecological plan for the park (typical)* greenway property line
Connecting Trails encroach corridors can adjoining properties be of a more Flexibility on limited scale, property lines but must still be along with strategic land Narrow easement detracts wide enough to trades can from greenway and trail avoid sense of be win-win system continuity encroachment Ecological buffer for City and provided adjacent to developer in high quality natural maximizing systems, especially open space Ponds lack natural wetland systems and pursuing character other public EXISTING values DEVELOPMENT AREA Existing railroad (retain opportunity for trail corridor if abandoned) Land for future Greenway space too limited to be of neighborhood park much value as part of larger system preserved As illustrated, the intent of the greenway system plan is to seamlessly integrate natural open space with local neighborhood parks, trails, and protected natural areas. With adequate land set aside, accomplishing the key public values described on page 3.23 becomes much more achievable. For example, under this approach to greenway design, the stormwater management system purposefully becomes an indistinguishable part of the larger ecological plan, rather than being an engineered holding pond wedged in between residential properties that offers little ecological or wildlife value and lacks aesthetic appeal.
As the contrast between the proposed greenway and the existing development illustrates, the nuances of design are extremely important to greenway planning. Whereas the existing development (lower left corner of image) includes many of the pieces of a desirable greenway, the overall design of the open spaces, parks, trails, and ponds is not up to the same level (in terms of public value) as represented by the proposed greenway plan. As the two photos below illustrate, the simple placement of a trail within a greenway can have a dramatic affect on the experience of the trail user, and that of the adjoining property owners.
In the left photo, placement of the trail directly adjacent to the residential properties reinforces the sense of encroachment and takes away from the user’s experience of traversing through a greenway-type setting.
In contrast, in the right photo, the trail is designed to be more of an integral part of the greenway design, with greater separation from adjoining residential properties (just off to the right of the photo). These types of design nuances are vital to maximizing the public value of the greenway and trail systems.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.24 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Fi g u r e 3.6 (Pa r t 2) – Co n c e p t f o r In t e g r a t i ng Gr e e n w a y i n t o Pr i v a t e De v e l o p m e n t (De t a i l Sc a l e )
Over time, well-designed “created” ponds and natural systems will offer many of the same ecological and wildlife values as existing natural systems
Neighborhood park seamlessly transitions into natural greenway
Trails flow through greenway as part of an overall design to maximize appeal, Maintaining optimal sense of safety, and continuity buffer widths is critical to ecological quality of natural wetland and pond systems
Maintained front and backyards of properties kept to the minimal in order to maximize extent of natural open space and capacity to infiltrate stormwater runoff close to its source Connecting corridors can be of a more limited scale, but must still be wide enough to avoid sense of encroachment As illustrated, maximizing open space within the context of maintaining the economic viability of the development project requires taking advantage of every opportunity to work flexibly and collaboratively with the developer to best serve the public interest. This ranges from encouraging the developer (through ordinances and incentives) to use natural infiltration techniques to manage stormwater to being flexible on issues such as lot sizes, mix of housing, and density trade-offs if the public’s greater interest is best served in doing so. As defined on page 3.26, setting aside land for this type of greenway system will require approaches beyond those typically used to acquire individual parks.
* The layouts for the proposed residential development area (typical) are conceptual only. Actual planning and design of residential or other types of private development will be in accordance with City of Northfield’s Comprehensive Plan and related zoning and development requirements.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.25 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Pr o t e c t i o n St r a t e g y f o r Na t u r a l Gr e e n w a y Co r r i d o r Sy s t e m The extent to which land highlighted as part of the greenway system will actually be protected will be based on many factors, the most important being the incentives and flexibility the City gives to landowners and developers in exchange for protecting portions of their properties. The ever-increasing value of land coupled with the limited financial resources available to cities underscores the importance of collaborating with private developers to preserve open space as development occurs. Setting aside land for the greenway system will require approaches beyond those typically used for acquiring individual parks. The following provides an overview of various strategies for this purpose. The use of any of these will be dictated by the circumstances associated with a given development project and land area. Standard Regulatory Land Use Controls Land use guidelines, zoning, and traditional development policies and ordinances will continue to play a key role in managing development in Northfield, including protecting open spaces. Specifically, this includes: • Land Use Zoning Ordinance – establishes densities and land uses that are based, in part, on their compatibility with the system plan, especially greenways • Subdivision and Platting Ordinances – among other provisions, establishes setbacks and protection mechanisms for preserving natural areas. Provisions include, at a minimum, ordinances related to wetland protection, tree preservation, shoreland protection, floodplains, site grading, and setbacks between built and natural landscape features Local ordinances and land use controls will continue to provide the regulatory strength and leveraging position behind the City’s management of development. Well-crafted ordinances will also provide the incentive for developers to be more receptive to collaborating with the City to maximize the public values from a private development in an economically-viable way. Other Strategies for Protecting and Managing Natural Resources Complementary Strategies: The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a variety of There are a number of other strategies and tools that can be used to complementary strategies for protecting and preserve open space, depending on the circumstances and level of managing natural resources. Where discrepancies arise, the Comprehensive Plan strategies prevail. collaboration between the City and developer. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: • Direct Purchase/Fee Simple Acquisition: Relates to purchasing the property when the parcel meets the long-term preservation objectives of the community and the parcel can be integrated into the larger parks, open space, and trail system. Priority is typically given to larger parcels. With limited fiscal resources, direct purchase is typically considered only after other protection methods have proven to be unsuccessful. • Conservation Easement: Restricts development of land while permitting the landowner to retain ownership of the property. It is filed in the public records of the property and binds current and future property owners. The landowner may sell or donate the easement to a conservation organization, but it is not required. Where the easement is donated to a qualified charitable organization, a tax benefit may occur to the owner. • Purchase or Transfer of Development Rights: A city, land trust, or other developer purchases the development rights to a property, while the landowner continues to maintain ownership. Once the rights are purchased, the land can only be used for a specified purpose other than development. The land would typically be protected under a subsequent conservation easement or other protection program. Transfer
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.26 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
of development rights refers to protecting the natural values of one property by transferring or selling the right to develop that property to other properties within the city under strict guidelines. Both of these Regulatory-Driven approaches ensure that there is no economic harm to the landowner or developer and that the city retains its desired development density. • Overlay Zoning: Refers to a type of resource protection zoning that is superimposed over traditional zoning to protect defined natural resource areas while still allowing the underlying use in an appropriate form. A Tr a d i t i o na l De v e l o p m e n t flood plain zoning district is an example of this. Tr ac k • Bonus/Incentive Zoning: Is similar to transferring development rights except that the landowner or developer rights are used by the developer on the same property rather than purchased by another developer for some other property. This could allow a developer to develop at a higher density than normally allowed if the developer sets aside land in a Leverage Traditional conservation easement or greenway. Development Controls to • Clustering: Allows developers to cluster development on smaller lots to Entice Developers into a allow for the provision of conservation easements and greenways. Collaborative Track • Natural Resource Protection Zones: Allows the city to impose a buffer along sensitive environmental areas. The buffer width varies depending on the situation, and can be fixed or flexible. • Land Trusts: Property owners can donate their property or a conservation easement to a conservation program. A number of these programs exist at the local, state, and national level. However, because of participation requirements (particularly with regards to parcel size), Pu b l i c land trusts are sometimes of limited use. Va l u e s -Dr i v e n • Deed Restrictions/Mutual Covenants: Establish legally defined limits Co l l a b o r a t i v e Tr ac k on the use of a property. They are put in place by the property owner or land developer and are carried forward by the owner or a legally established association. Typically, they need renewal after 30 years. • Stewardship Program: Land management practices may be voluntarily Public Values-Driven undertaken by a landowner to preserve open space. In some instances, a landowner may ”register” their property with a conservation organization, thereby entering into a non-binding agreement to follow good land management practices. A landowner may also enter into a management agreement with a conservation organization, specifying how land will be managed.
Collaborative App r o a c h t o La n d De v e l o p m e n t The previously defined strategies are most effectively used as part of a collaborative approach to land development, which is often defined as a “public values collaborative approach” or an “open space design/ conservation development approach.” Under this context, cities allow themselves more flexibility to work with developers to achieve the desired public values within the context of the economic viability of a development. In Northfield, greater reliance on form-based zoning in the future as envisioned in City’s Comprehensive Plan gives the City more flexibility to participate in this type of process and allows the City Council to decide which outcomes are in the best interest of the community. The same holds true with the use of the orderly annexation process on terms that are consistent with the vision for the greenways system. The City, in collaboration with landowners or developers, will undoubtedly need to rely more heavily on the use of a well-managed collaborative process if it is to achieve the vision for the open space system. The main value of this approach is that it allows for more creativity in development planning to accommodate specific public values being sought by the City consistent with its vision.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.27 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Realistically, it will only be economically-viable to set aside select portions of any given land parcel as protected open space. For that reason, the City must articulate to landowners and developers the desired form of the greenway as it traverses through and around the city.
In addition to the parks and athletic facilities previously defined, a number Se l e c t Sp e c i a l -Us e of special-use facilities and amenities are also part of the system plan, as the Facilities a n d Am e n i t i e s following defines. Sk a t e b o a r d Pa r k Skateboarders’ interests were represented by The Northfield Skateboard Coalition during the public process. The group currently has a proposal and design concept for a new skate plaza that would serve their needs. The desired size of the facility is 12,000 to 15,000 s.f. Access to nearby parking, bathrooms, drinking fountain, vending machines, benches, picnic tables, shady areas, and grassy areas for sitting is also desired. A facility of this size would have a capacity of up to 200, although daily use would be less. A key positive aspect of the skateboard park is that it would serve an age group not always interested in other forms of outdoor recreation. The advocates also point out the importance of the social aspect of the activity, underscoring that location matters for facility success. The importance of selecting a location for this type of facility that addresses the needs and concerns of the user group, along with those of the larger community, should not be underestimated. To that end, and after much discussion, the PRAB concluded that the facility is best located in a community park, with Ames, Memorial, and Babcock Parks being candidate sites. The PRAB also concluded that a separate public process was necessary to adequately consider the issues from various perspectives and select the site that best balances the interests of the various stakeholders. To aid that process, the following table identifies the opportunities and limitations of each of the sites currently being considered.
Sk a t e b o a r d Pa r k Si t e -Se l e c t i o n Opp o r t u n i t i e s a n d Co n s t r a i n t s Park Name Site Opportunities/Benefits Site Constraints/Limitations Memorial Park • Relatively central location, with ease of • Adopted master plan for the park, which emerged after pedestrian and vehicular access from surrounding extensive public input, does not include skateboard park neighborhood via local streets and sidewalks facilities • Good social atmosphere synergy with community • Potential impact of locating another community-wide facility pool, which could entice more use of the facility of this scale on surrounding residential properties (i.e., noise, • Adequate space to accommodate need traffic, security concerns, etc.) • Availability of support facilities, such as parking, • Loss of general open space and possibly other planned restrooms, etc. amenities included as part of current master plan (but not yet implemented) Ames Park • Central location near downtown area • Access to site through downtown area and across river more • Social atmosphere of downtown area, with added congested appeal of local and outside visitors being in the • Lack of support facilities, such as parking, restrooms, etc. area as casual spectators • Uncertain visual impact of facility as a gateway feature into • Adequate space to accommodate need downtown area • Proximity to other social activities • Impact of facility use patterns on surrounding downtown businesses serving a diverse cross-section of clientele (i.e., noise, traffic, security concerns, etc.) • Loss of open space for other uses, such as annual events Babcock Park • Relatively central location • Lacks social atmosphere of other sites • Adequate space to accommodate need • Pedestrian access more limited than other sites • Easy vehicular access • Lacks support facilities, such as restrooms, etc. • Little to no impact on surrounding land uses • Visually least attractive setting for this type of highly social use • Loss of open space for other uses, such as annual events
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.28 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Of f -Le a s h Do g Pa r k The off-leash dog park at Babcock Park was brought up as a discussion point at a number of the public meetings. Overall, the facility has proven to be popular and successful with residents and continuing to provide it at this site has merit. Facility enhancements that should be considered (as part of an overall master plan for the park) include: • Water drinking fountain • Benches • Picnic shelter or picnic tables • Landscaping to improve site aesthetic qualities and add shade Continued collaboration between the Canines at Play advocacy group to design, develop, operate, and maintain the facility is highly encouraged to help ensure future success, responsible use, and covering costs. For point of reference, most communities charge a fee to help offset costs. For a community of Northfield’s size, providing one off-leash dog park facility is fairly common practice, although local policies often vary. In the shorter term (1-5 years) continuing this approach is recommended given the many other priorities. That said, the PRAB should also maintain open discussions with the advocacy group to stay abreast of changing needs and consideration of other possible future site(s) that might be developed in over the longer term (5 or more years). Although the actual size of future facilities should be determined as part of the design process, a 5 to 10 acre parcel would be a common starting point. Anything less than a couple of acres would not be large enough to avoid overuse issues.
Ar c h e r y Ra ng e Development of an archery range in the community was supported by a number of local groups, including the Sportsman’s Club and Community Education. Space requirements for a modest-sized facility as proposed by the Sportsman’s Club is an area 150 yards long and 100 yards wide. In addition to providing some funding, the Club is also interested in designing the facility and helping local recreation providers develop programs. After review of possible sites, the PRAB concluded that the facility is best located in Lashbrook Park, which is currently undeveloped park land of adequate size to accommodate an archery facility of this scale while still leaving enough space for developing a neighborhood park. Note that a master plan should be prepared for the entire site prior to development of the archery facility to ensure it functions well with other neighborhood park uses.
Cu l t u r a l Facilities, Am e n i t i e s , a n d Ga r d e n s As master plans are prepared for the various parks, consideration should be given to including select cultural facilities, amenities, and gardens that serve specialized needs, as well as those that broaden the appeal of the park system to a wider range of user groups. A couple of examples include providing a performance area for arts/cultural groups and/or a staging area for movies-in-the-park. Beautification of parks though the use of ornamental and wildflower gardens should also become a more robust aspect of the design for parks. In general, the first phase of adding cultural facilities, amenities, and gardens Ideas for Cultural Facilities, Amenities, and should be directed at the core community parks, which are intended to Gardens: Appendix “B” should be referred to for have a broader community appeal. Involving local advocacy groups in baseline ideas and perspectives of existing advocacy defining the demand for certain types of facilities and establishing baseline groups that participated in the public process. design criteria and funding strategies is recommended.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.29 Se c t i o n 3 – Pa r k s , At h l e t i c Facilities, a n d Op e n Sp a c e Pl a n
Note that in each case, the development of a specialized facility or amenity should be accompanied with a plan for funding development along with operations and maintenance to ensure that everything that is built is indefinitely sustainable.
In d o o r Ho c k e y a n d Te nn i s Facilities As defined in Appendix B – Summary of Findings from the Public Process, separate local advocacy groups support the development of indoor facilities for hockey and tennis. Given the magnitude of these types of facilities, separate feasibility studies are needed and recommended to determine the overall demand and financial viability of such endeavors. Note that none of the existing park sites are well-suited for the development of a larger scale facility without compromising some other use. Therefore, development of these facilities would also likely include additional land acquisition.
As is stated and implied throughout this document, development of the park Su s t a i n a b l e Pa r k Sy s t e m system is underpinning by the notion of sustainability in its many emerging De s i gn , De v e l o p m e n t , a n d forms – i.e., economically, ecologically, and programmatically. As defined on page 6.2 in Section 6, every park property that is set aside must take Ma i n t e n a n c e Pr a c t i c e s into account the long-term commitments required to develop, operate, and maintain it across its lifecyle. This relates as much to selecting durable products and materials for play structures as it does to balancing maintained lawns with natural areas to add aesthetic appeal, control maintenance costs, infiltrate stormwater, provide wildlife habitat, and reduce carbon emissions. Under the broad sustainability context, the City is encouraged to work with local advocacy groups and the two local colleges to develop and adopt appropriate “green” principles for developing, operating, and maintaining park land and facilities.
A comprehensive signage program carried uniformly throughout the Pa r k Si gn a g e Pr o g r a m parks and trail system is important to providing a consistent message and information to park and trail visitors. Typically, a signage program includes park and trail names, direction to features, general information and rules, and ecological stewardship program and interpretive information. To ensure it remains an ongoing priority, an annual investment in a signage program is recommended.
The quality standard for built features within the park system should be Pa r k Ma s t e r Pl a nn i ng a n d consistent with industry standards for safety and durability. This is especially Facility De s i gn Qu a l i t y / the case with play equipment, outdoor furniture, and other site amenities where strict standards apply. De v e l o p m e n t St a n d a r d s The design of individual parks should also be of a consistent quality. Master plans should be prepared for each park prior to their development to ensure that the right mix of amenities are provided and the park’s design is cohesive with and complementary to the design for other parks and public spaces. The City’s standard practices for public participation in the planning process should continue to be used for each park development project.
Sp e c i a l St a k e h o l d e r Co n s i d e r a t i o n s Re l a t e d t o Fu t u r e Pa r k Ma s t e r Pl a n s Appendix B – Summary of Findings from the Public Process summarizes the perspectives and needs of various stakeholder groups that participated in the system planning process. As new master plans are prepared for individual parks, the PRAB is encouraged to invite interested stakeholders to participate at the detail planning level to ensure that their concerns and interests are appropriately addressed.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 3.30 Se c t i o n 4 Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
As with parks, athletic facilities, and open spaces, the trail system is Ov e r v i e w underpinned by the common vision defined in Sections 1 and 2. The overarching goals of the trail system are to: • Develop an interlinking system of high value trails throughout the city that connect with adjoining communities and the state trail • Provide reasonable trail access to the natural resource amenities within the community without unduly compromising their integrity and natural qualities • Provide an appropriate level of universal accessibility to trails throughout the system
The trail system plan is consistent with MN DNR’s Trail Planning, Design, and Ge n e r a l Tr a i l Pl a nn i ng , Development Guidelines (2007) for designing and developing sustainable De s i gn , a n d De v e l o p m e n t trails. The DNR guidelines are recognized as the most comprehensive standards for trails and address trail planning, design, and development. All Gu i d e l i n e s trail development should be consistent with these guidelines as applicable to the classifications used in Northfield. A key concept of the trail guidelines is maximizing the value of trails to local residents. The values ascribed to trails are important because they are at the core of why a person uses a particular trail on a repeat basis. Studies clearly indicate that trail users make a distinction between trails based on their perception of value, as figure 4.1 illustrates.
Fi g u r e 4.1 – Pe r s o n a l Va l u e s As c r i b e d t o Tr a i l s Source: MN DNR’s Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (2007)
Ba s e -Li n e Va l u e s Pe r s o n a l Va l u e s Determines if a person will even use a Values that a person is seeking from trail no matter what personal values it the use of a given trail once the base- might offer line values are acceptable Co m p e l l i n g , Hi g h -Va l u e Tr a i l Ex p e r i e n c e
Sa f e t y Re c r e a t i o n En j o y a b l e Sa f e Su s t a i n a b l e Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Co n v e n i e n c e Fi t n e s s
Attention to the principles of trail design when trails are being planned will help ensure that each of these values will be maximized, resulting in high-quality trails to which users will return time and again As the graphic illustrates, safety and convenience are base-line determinants for whether a person will even use a trail irrespective of its quality. Once these two values are perceived as being acceptable, then the personal values will be given more consideration by a trail user. The following considers each of these values in greater detail.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.1 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
Sa f e t y A sense of physical and personal safety is the most important trail value in that without it people are disinclined to use a trail irrespective of how many other values it might provide. Physical safety can be relatively assured through good trail design. Personal safety, which relates to a sense of well- being while using a trail, is a less tangible yet still important factor that cannot be taken lightly.
Co n v e n i e n c e Convenience is important to day-to-day use of a trail. As defined in Section 1, studies have shown that the vast majority of shared-use paved trails are used by those living within a few miles of the trail they use most frequently. Safety and convenience are critical to the success of a trail. This photo illustrates how open Although convenience is important, its influence is still tempered by sightlines help improve the perception of safety recreational value. No matter how convenient, a poorly designed trail in for trail users. This is especially important when a parent is using the trail with young children. an uninteresting setting will have limited recreational value. Alternatively, a well-designed trail in an interesting setting might draw users from some distance. The point is that trails should be located where they are both convenient and offer the recreational amenities that users are seeking.
Re c r e a t i o n Of all the values ascribed to a trail, its recreational value is the most important in terms of predicting its level of use, assuming that safety and convenience are not issues. In general, trails offering a high-quality recreational experience are those that: • Are scenic and located in a pleasant park-like setting, natural open space, or linear corridor away from traffic and the built environment • Provide a continuous and varying experience that takes visitors to a variety of destinations and is a destination unto itself • Offer continuity with limited interruptions and impediments to travel This underscores that trail planning must be based on criteria that go beyond simply providing miles of trail – with considerable emphasis on the High value trails are most often scenic and away from traffic. This photo illustrates a trail through a quality of the trail experience as much or more than quantity. greenway system that interlinks with neighborhood parks, making the trail itself a major part of the In Northfield, creating trails with high recreational value inherently recreational experience. affects community planning and development. Planning for trails that follow greenways that seamlessly traverse public open spaces and private developments alike is considerably different than planning for trails that follow road rights-of-way. While greenway-based trails often pose more challenges to plan and implement, the value of these trails to the community has proven to be very high and worth the investment. Cities that have successfully integrated these types of trails often highlight them as key aspects of the community’s quality of life.
Fi t n e s s Fitness is a growing value that cannot be overlooked. Fortunately, this value is generally achieved if safety, convenience, recreational, and transportation values are met. Most critical to accommodating this value is developing an interlinking trail system that provides numerous route options with trail lengths necessary for the types of uses envisioned.
Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n (Co m m u t i ng ) The transportation (commuting) aspect of trails is valuable to a growing subset of the user population. This is especially the case with shared-use paved trails, where bicycling, in-line skating, and walking are viable means of transportation, especially for people in urban and suburban settings.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.2 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
On-road bikeway facilities are also viable and important means of transportation if developed to acceptable standards. Importantly, promoting the use of trails and on-road bikeways for transportation will only be successful if the system is perceived as safe and convenient relative to a user’s skill level. Without such a system, residents will simply use their vehicle. The system plan consists of a variety of trails, bikeways, and sidewalks Tr a i l Classifications defined under various classifications. Each classification serves a particular purpose in meeting local trail needs. The distinction between trail types is important due to the variability in their recreational value, which greatly affects the value of the system to residents and the degree to which a trail or system of trails will be used. The classifications applied to Northfield’ trail system are consistent with the MN DNR’s Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (2007). The following table provides an overview of the classifications for trails in Northfield. Each of these classifications are further defined later in this section. Tr a i l Classifications Classification Common Guidelines Application to Northfield Destination Destination trails are paved trails for walking, jogging, bicycling, Destination trails will be the backbone of the Trails and in-line skating located within a greenway, open space, park, greenway-based trail system that loops the city parkway, or designated trail corridor. and connects to adjoining communities and college campuses. Linking Trails Linking trails emphasize safe travel for walking, jogging, bicycling, Linking trails will be primarily used as a means and in-line skating to/from parks and around the community. to connect neighborhoods and developed areas Linking trails are most often located within road rights-of-way or to the destination trail system, and provide safe utility easements. routes to schools. Sidewalks Sidewalks emphasize safe travel for walking and jogging within Sidewalks work in concert with linking trails residential areas and business districts and to/from parks and and are primarily used as a means to connect around the community. Although biking and in-line skating are neighborhoods and developed areas together and allowed on sidewalks, the narrower width and concrete surface limit to the destination trail system, as well as provide their use for this purpose. Sidewalks are most often located within safe routes to schools. road rights-of-way of a local street. Natural Trails Nature trails are commonly used in areas where natural tread is Natural trails will be primarily used in nature areas desired and harmony with the natural environment is emphasized. and as secondary connections to the destination Use is limited to hikers and joggers in Northfield. trail system, especially within a preserved natural area or conservation easement. On-Road Bike routes and lanes are on-road facilities that primarily serve Bikeways augment, but do not take the place of, Bikeways fitness and transportation bicyclists and in-line skaters, as well as the trail and sidewalk system. recreationalists with a higher skill and comfort level being around automobiles.
Ch a r a c t e r a n d Va l u e Co m p a r i s o n Be t w e e n Tr a i l Classifications Each of the trail classifications defined above: • Accommodate specific types of trail users • Provide a certain type of recreational experience and value to pedestrians, bicyclists, in-line skaters, and wheelchair users • Are located in a specific type of setting appropriate for the activity • Follow design guidelines that allow for a safe and enjoyable use of the facility The following table considers the expectations of the most common types of trail users in Northfield, and the values and preferences that are likely to be of most importance.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.3 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
Va l u e s a n d Pr e f e r e n c e s o f Tr a i l Us e r Gr o u p s User Group Values and Preferences Symbols Family Group – Safety and convenience are top priorities, followed by a pleasant recreational experience. Various Modes Controlled, traffic-free access to sidewalks and trails is preferred. Length of trail is less important than quality of experience. Will typically only use low-volume residential streets when biking or skating, and rarely busy streets even with bike lanes or routes. Fa m i l y Recreational Same as family user group, with trail continuity and length also being important for Walker, Bicyclists, repeated use. 20 miles of connected trails are needed for bicyclists, at a minimum. This and In-Line Skater user group is also more comfortable with street crossings. Bicyclists and in-line skaters will use roads that are not too busy. Loops are preferred over out-and-back routes for variety. Re c r e a t i o n a l Fitness Walker/ Length of trail and continuity are most important, although an appealing setting is also Jogger, Bicyclists, desired. Bikers are reasonably comfortable on busier roads, but prefer bike lanes/routes to and In-Line Skater provide separation from vehicles. Bikers will often use a combination of roads and trails to create a desirable loop, which is much preferred over out-and-back routes. Fi t n e s s Transportation Directness of route is important. Will use a combination of sidewalks, trails, residential Walker, Bicyclists, streets, and roads that are relatively safe, convenient, and direct. Bike lanes/routes are and In-Line Skater preferred on busy roads to improve safety. Bicyclists are not overly dependent on trails, but will use them if convenient and not too heavily used by families and recreational users, who tend to slow them down. Walkers need a trail or sidewalk. Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Figure 4.2 provides a comparative analysis of each of the trail classifications highlighted in the table on the previous page relative to the values and preferences of the various user groups defined in the above table.
Fi g u r e 4.2 – Co m p a r a t i v e An a l y s i s o f Tr a i l Classifications Re l a t i v e t o Us e r Gr o u p Va l u e s a n d Pr e f e r e n c e s Source: Brauer & Associates, Ltd. –Trail Values and Preferences Handbook De s t i n a t i o n Tr a i l – Gr e e n w a y Se t t i ng Value Statement Value Rating Hi gh Desirable and Directness is safe environment key to value r o u p
for family and G
recreational outings s e r
in appealing setting U o t away from traffic Mo d
and distractions. ion t a
If continuity is c provided and design
standards adhered lassifi to, also serves C Lo w
fitness users very r a i l well. Sometimes T o f lack of directness
reduces value to a l u e V transportation user. Fa m i l y Re c r e a t i o n a l Fi t n e s s Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n
De s t i n a t i o n Tr a i l – Pa r k w a y Se t t i ng Value Statement Value Rating Hi gh Desirable and safe environment r o u p
for family and G
recreational outings s e r
in appealing setting. U o t Can be of lower Mo d
recreational value ion t a
due to proximity c of traffic, increased
frequency of road lassifi crossings, and C Lo w
distractions like r a i l noise. Bicyclist T o f transportation users
will often stay on a l u e V the road, so the trail Fa m i l y Re c r e a t i o n a l Fi t n e s s Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n has less value to them.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.4 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
Li n k i ng Tr a i l – Ro a d Ri g h t -o f -Wa y Se t t i ng Value Statement Value Rating Hi gh Provides safe and often convenient r o u p
travel for families, G
but recreational s e r
value diminishes U o t as separation from Mo d
traffic decreases ion t a
and traffic volumes c increase. If
continuity is lassifi provided, still has C Lo w
value to fitness and r a i l transportation users T o f getting from one
place to the next. a l u e V Fa m i l y Re c r e a t i o n a l Fi t n e s s Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n
On-Ro a d Bi k e w a y – Bi k e La n e a n d Bi k e Ro u t e s Value Statement Value Rating Hi gh Families will rarely use for perceived r o u p
safety reasons. G
Recreational users s e r
will occasionally U o t use as a means to Mo d
connect to another ion t a
trail or less-busy c street. Fitness and
transportation lassifi users will use if C Lo w
convenient and r a i l direct. Meeting T o f desirable design
standards is a l u e V important. Fa m i l y Re c r e a t i o n a l Fi t n e s s Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Si d e w a l k Value Statement Value Rating Hi gh Families will use to get to a park, trail, or around r o u p G
the neighborhood, s e r
as is the case U o t
with recreational Mo d
walkers. Less ion t a
friendly to family c bikers. Recreational
bicyclists and in-line lassifi skaters will use C Lo w
streets to avoid r a i l sidewalks. Fitness T o f and transportation
users will use a l u e V which ever is most Fa m i l y Re c r e a t i o n a l Fi t n e s s Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n convenient. As the comparisons illustrate, the type of trails (and resultant quality of the experience relative to expectations) provided within the system greatly affects whether or not a given targeted user group will routinely use a particular trail corridor. For example, as illustrated, a destination trail within a greenway setting has decidedly higher value to families and recreational users than that of a linking trail along a roadway or sidewalk. The important point is that quality of experience indeed matters and that any deviation from an optimal classification, alignment, and design detail will directly affect whether or not the trail system is fully successful (i.e., routinely used). The system plan presented in this section is based on this fundamental premise.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.5 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
The trail system plan includes existing and proposed trails that collectively Lo c a l Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n form an integrated trail system. The plan is based on four key principles: • Using high recreational-value destination trails to form a core system of trails • Using linking trails and sidewalks as a means to connect the destination trails together, and provide pedestrian-level transportation routes to schools, public parks, other public facilities, and commercial districts that cannot otherwise be reached by destination trails • Using on-road bikeways to serve recreational, fitness, and transportation bicyclists comfortable riding on the road • Developing a system plan that is ambitious in its vision, yet realistic and achievable in the context of resources available to the City. System Plan refers to the attached map illustrating The System Plan illustrates each type of trail included as part of the trail all of the parks, open spaces (greenways) and trails. system plan. The total potential miles of each trail type, and the system as a whole, are defined in the following table.
Po t e n t i a l Tr a i l Sy s t e m Mi l e a g e Wi t h Fu l l De v e l o p m e n t Trail Classification Total Combined Miles Destination Trails* 22
Linking Trails** 9
Bike Lanes 7
Bike Routes 10
Total – All Trails and Bikeways 48 * Destination trail mileage does not include trail corridors that head out into the townships beyond the looped greenway system as illustrated on the System Plan. **Linking trail mileage does not include sidewalks The following describes each trail type shown on the System Plan.
De s t i n a t i o n Tr a i l s Destination trails are paved trails located within a greenway, open space, park, parkway, or designated trail corridor. As the name implies, the high recreational value of this type of trail often make it a destination unto itself. Destination trails have a particular emphasis on continuity and are the major conduits for travel within and between trail systems. Figure 4.3 illustrates a typical destination trail, accompanied by a photo on the next page highlighting this type of trail in a greenway-type setting offering high recreational value.
Fi g u r e 4.3 – De s t i n a t i o n Tr a i l s in Na t u r a l Gr e e n w a y -Ty p e Se t t i ng Natural landscape/ Natural landscape buffer to adjacent buffer 10-foot wide pedestrian, bicycle, and in- development line skating trail (asphalt surfaced)
Natural area for preserved for natural values, scenery, stormwater management, and buffering
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.6 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
As the photo illustrates, destination trails typically emphasize a natural, scenic setting and creating a sequence of events that make the trail appealing to the user. Any deviation from these design principles incrementally diminish its value. Development of Destination Trails The destination trails traversing through the city as shown on the trail system map represent trail corridors that: • Traverse multiple parcels of land, many of which are currently privately-owned • Align, where feasible, with greenway corridors exhibiting natural qualities to create a pleasant aesthetic setting for a trail Destination trails in natural open space/greenway • Provide contiguous routes of travel from one area of the city to another, settings. This photo illustrates the general character of with particular emphasis on connections between neighborhoods and trails located within a greenway away from roadways and traffic. Maximizing the use of destination trails local and regional parks located within scenic natural settings is a focus of the The uninterrupted character of destination trails is essential to their trail system plan. recreational value. If continuity is lost, the value of the trail diminishes and, in some cases, can effectively change its designation from destination to linking trail. The conceptual alignment of the destination trails as shown on the System System Plan refers to the attached map illustrating Plan are considered optimal at a citywide planning scale. The actual all of the parks, open spaces (greenways) and trails. alignment of these trails will be determined as part of the development process as deemed appropriate by the PRAB and City Council. The location of a trail relative to a residential development is also important to maintain a high level of quality. Figure 4.4 illustrates the character of the greenway-based trail and its general relationship with adjacent development.
Fi g u r e 4.4 – Gr e e n w a y -Ba s e d Tr a i l s a n d Ad j a c e n t De v e l o p m e n t Trail is located within Natural landforms and vegetation used as buffer greenway uninterrupted (refer to Section 5 – Natural Resources Stewardship Trail interconnected with by built environment Plan for buffer criteria) active park areas as defined Development screened and setback from under park system plan Trail buffered from trail to create visual separation for trail sensitive natural areas user and property owner
Integrating trails into the fabric of the community’s built form as it is being Critical point! developed is critical to the realization of this type of greenway-based trail system. Once development occurs, the likelihood of retrofitting this type of trail into a developed area is exceedingly difficult. Descriptions of Primary Destination Trail Corridors To add context, the following describes the essential aspects of the major destination trail corridors illustrated on the System Plan.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.7 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
Ca nn o n Ri v e r Co r r i d o r –So u t h o f Do w n t o w n Ar e a The southern end of the Cannon River Corridor essentially follows the river from the 5th Street south to Dundas. The area along the river is very scenic. Currently, a section of the Mill Towns Trail is developed along the west side of the river following the entrance road into Sechler Park and continuing south along Armstrong Road into Dundas. The trail is starting to show considerable wear and will need upgrading in the foreseeable future. Although functional, the trail’s alignment is not as aesthetically appealing as it could be through this area, especially the segment that runs adjacent to the entrance drive to Sechler Park. On the eastern side of the river, trail development is limited to Babcock and Riverside Lion Parks, which includes a perfunctory connection between the two parks under the Highway 3 bridge. The bridge underpass has constricted overhead clearance and limited visual appeal. The trail in Riverside Lions Park dead ends into a parking lot behind commercial buildings prior to making the desired connection with 5th Street. As shown on the System Plan, a looped trail along both sides of the river from downtown Northfield to Dundas is proposed. All of these trails will be located either in a natural greenway or park setting. Relocating the existing trail on the west side of the river to a more interesting alignment is proposed over time to add recreational appeal and create greater separation between vehicles and trail users. Although relocating the entire west-side trail is optimal, the section that traverses through Sechler Park and along the park entrance drive is a higher priority than the section from Sechler Park south to Dundas. The optimal time to realign the trail is when the current one needs upgrading. Improving the underpass connection between Riverside Lions Park and Babcock Park is also a priority to entice more use of these trails. This should optimally occur when the pedestrian bridge across the Cannon River is constructed in 2008. Development of the trail along the east side of the river should be integrated into the master plan for Babcock and Riverside Lions Parks to ensure continuity. In Riverside Park, the connection to 5th Street needs to be completed to improve access to this trail from the downtown area.
Improving the character of the connection between The trail on the east side of the river that traverses through Riverside Lions Park currently dead ends in a Riverside Lions Park and Babcock Park would parking lot. Making the connection from this point to 5th Street is a top priority to create a more direct improve its appeal to users. connection with the downtown area.
The segment of the west side trail that traverses through Sechler Park functions as a linking trail versus a Relocating the segment of the existing trail from more desirable destination trail. Over time, relocating this trail to a more interesting alignment closer to Sechler Park to Dundas is also proposed over time the river would improve its overall recreational value to trail users. to improve its appeal. However, this is a much lower priority since this trail functions reasonably well compared to the section through Sechler Park. It is also a low priority relative to development of other trails in the community.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.8 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
Ca nn o n Ri v e r Co r r i d o r – No r t h o f Do w n t o w n Ar e a As shown on the System Plan, the northern end of the Cannon River Corridor follows the west side of the river from the downtown area north to the city limits, where it would head west following the northern trail corridor. As with the southern end of this trail corridor, the area along the river is scenic and interesting, especially looking east across the river. The one major developmental factor associated with this alignment is that much of it will have to follow an existing active railroad right-of-way due to limited space along the river. If the railroad remains active, a trail easement will need to be negotiated with the railroad authority, which might prove challenging. Although field review suggests that development of a trail is feasible, ensuring the public’s safety will need due consideration in terms of separation between uses. In select areas, fencing may be necessary to provide a physical barrier between the track and trail. In spite of the challenges, trail development in close proximity to railroad tracks is fairly common practice today in the region. If the railroad corridor is abandoned in the future, the City (and perhaps other public partners) should immediately attempt to secure easement rights and build the trail directly on the rail grade. Should both options related to the railroad track alignment prove unsuccessful, the City will have to give greater consideration to the east side of the river for development of this important trail corridor. As the principle land owner, this would require negotiations with Carleton College. Although this is a viable fallback option, developing a paved trail through the college’s arboretum site is a secondary option for a couple of reasons. First, development of a paved trail is inconsistent with the colleges’ current vision for the arboretum site as reflected in their master plan for the area. As such, introducing a paved trail would require a significant rethinking of that plan. Second, the arboretum site already provides an extensive network of nature trails, which are generally open to the public for hiking and nature study/observation. These trails have proven popular with local residents and thus serve to augment the City’s own trail system. For these reasons, developing the paved trail on the west side of the river currently has the highest merit, and if that fails finding an acceptable alignment for the trail on the east side would then have to be given greater consideration. (Note: Also refer to Trail Development and Public Use of Carleton and St. Olaf Properties on page 4.21 for additional information on trail development as it relates to the Carleton College campus.) Note that this segment of trail is also proposed as the preferred option for the Mill Towns Trail given its continuity and scenic qualities. As shown on the System Plan, the trail would continue north along the rail grade. (This and other options for the Mill Towns Trail alignment are considered in more detail on page 4.18.)
Where space allows, the trail would meander through woodlands along the river corridor
Nature trails are provided on Carleton Trail would College’s be adjacent to property on the the railroad east side of the grade where river necessary
As the aerial illustrates, space is limited in some areas along the railroad corridor. Nonetheless, the river corridor remains an appealing location for a trail.
Negotiating a trail easement along the railroad tracks is the key challenge with this alignment.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.9 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
We s t e r n Tr a i l Co r r i d o r As shown on the System Plan, the western trail corridor conceptually parallels the western edge of the city limits where adequate open space still remains to establish the greenway and greenway-based trail system. Although not exclusively, the majority of the greenway corridor north of Highway 19 traverses lands owned by St. Olaf College – much of which is being maintained as natural open space and, for the most part, is expected to remain that way for the foreseeable future. The majority of the land south of Highway 19 envisioned as part of the greenway is owned by either St. Olaf or Malt-O-Meal. Throughout this corridor, the intent is to integrate the paved trail in an ecologically sustainable manner consistent with the broader vision that these land owners may have for their properties. As with any other private property owner, establishing a trail easement through these properties will require negotiation and accommodation. As such, the actual alignment of the trail will likely vary from that shown on the system plan. (Note that the existing trail linking trail to the west and along North Avenue complements but is not a substitute for this trail corridor. As defined previously in this section, there is significant qualitative difference between the two types of trail alignments.) If an easement through these properties is provided just for the trail, a minimum width of 20 feet is recommended to allow for the 10’ wide trail tread plus a few feet on either side for maintenance. A temporary construction easement may also be needed when the trial is developed. Although it is not anticipated that St. Olaf or Malt-O-Meal intend to sell any of their properties in the foreseeable future, provisions for maintaining the broader greenway context along this corridor (as defined in Section 3) should not be overlooked as the alignment of the trail is being negotiated. (Note: Also refer to Trail Development and Public Use of Carleton and St. Olaf Properties on page 4.21 for additional information on trail development as it relates to the St. Olaf College campus.) To enhance the safety and function of this trail corridor, a grade-separated crossing is proposed under Highway 19 and Armstrong Road, with the former being a higher priority than the latter given traffic volumes.
Optimal destination trail alignment through portion of St. Olaf College property
The vast, natural open landscape character of the St. Olaf property makes for an ideal greenway setting that students and residents would enjoy.
The actual alignment of the greenway and greenway-based destination trail will have to respond the St. Olaf’s overall vision for their property. Nonetheless, the prospect for a very appealing trail experience is high throughout this area.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.10 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
No r t h e r n , So u t h e r n , a n d Ea s t e r n Tr a i l Co r r i d o r s As shown on the System Plan, each of these trail corridors traverse privately-owned property as part of the larger greenway and park system as defined in Section 3. With respect to the actual trail alignment, the focus should be on creating a safe, convenient, and visually appealing user experience. To enhance the safety and function of these trail corridors, grade-separated crossings are proposed in several locations as shown on the System Plan. The following aerial images highlight some of the more important design considerations associated with high quality destination trails as they traverse through developments and greenways.
The lack of a greenway-type connection between park units diminishes the appeal of the trail connection The lack of integrating the trail into the overall design for the greenway and ponding system diminishes its appeal, as does its encroachment into the backyards of adjacent residents.
A looped trail within a neighborhood park is desirable, but it must be designed in the context of an overall master plan and not developed independently to make sure it functions well
As with the image above, the lack of a greenway-type connection between open space areas diminishes the appeal of the trail connection. In addition, these open space areas lack continuity and connection, Careful selection diminishing their value as a of road crossings is greenway component important to ensure users cross where it is safe. Multiple crossings in a short distance should be generally avoided.
In both of these examples of existing developments within Northfield, the greenway and associated destination-type trails add much value to the living environment for adjacent property owners and the community at-large. However, there are also numerous missed opportunities (as highlighted on the images) that if taken advantage of would have improved the overall quality of the greenway and trail system as a community amenity. Paying attention to these details is critical to the success and value of the system to residents 10, 20, or even 50 years hence.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.11 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
Neighborhood-Level Destination Trails The destination trails illustrated on the system plan are complemented Destination trail (10-foot wide) by neighborhood trails that link an individual development area or within a greenway neighborhood to the core trail system. Since these trails are incorporated into development plans as they occur, the location of neighborhood trail Neighborhood connections are not shown on the system map. Figure 4.5 illustrates the trail (8-foot wide) relationship between the destination trails as shown on the trail system plan from within a and local neighborhood trails. subdivision Fi g u r e 4.5 – Relationship Be t w e e n De s t i n a t i o n Tr a i l s a n d Ne i g h b o r h o o d Tr a i l s
Neighborhood trails complement the Neighborhood trail connection destination trails. This photo illustrates how an through development to Natural greenway 8-foot wide neighborhood trail interconnects with destination trails system as defined a 10-foot wide destination trail. on system plan
Destination trail as defined on trail Development lots system plan
As the graphic illustrates, destination trails shown on the trail system plan are complemented by neighborhood trails that link an individual development area or neighborhood to the larger trail system. Since these trails are incorporated into development plans as they occur, the location of neighborhood trail connections are not shown on System Plan refers to the attached map illustrating the System Plan. Easy access from residential areas to the core trail system is critical to all of the parks, open spaces (greenways) and trails. encouraging high levels of use on a daily basis. Development Standards and Guidelines The destination trails should be consistent with regional trail standards, which is a 10-foot wide asphalt trail suitable for walking, bicycling, and inline skating. 8-foot is a standard width for a neighborhood trail, which is adequate within most subdivisions where use levels are lower and space for a trail corridor often more limited. All of these trails should meet accessibility standards whenever possible, which as a general rule means grades of 5 percent or less. The Minnesota Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (MN DNR 2007) provide the baseline standards and guidelines for developing destination trails.
Li n k i ng Tr a i l s The main difference between linking and destination trails is their location, which can significantly affect their recreational value. Whereas destination trails emphasize a recreational experience in a greenway or parklike setting, linking trails emphasize safe travel for pedestrians to and from parks and around the community. Linking trails are most often located within road rights-of-way or utility easements. Linking trails do provide recreational value, but not to the level of destination trails due to vehicular traffic (safety, noise, odors) and a less visually attractive setting. Figure 4.6 illustrates a typical linking trail, accompanied by photos of actual trails.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.12 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
Fi g u r e 4.6 – Ri g h t -o f -Wa y -Ba s e d Li n k i ng Tr a i l s Right-of-way width varies Adjacent land use 10-foot wide pedestrian, bicycle, and in-line skating trail (asphalt surfaced) 10-foot minimum setback where space permits, more on rural-section roads
Typical roadway
Signage Signage
Depending on the circumstances, linking trails can be developed on one or both sides of the roadway, although that should only occur when heavy use patterns are anticipated, which is not expected in Northfield. As the images illustrate, the setting for linking trails greatly affects their recreational value as judged by scenic quality, continuity, and separation from vehicular traffic. Development of Linking Trails The linking trails shown on the system map are essential in cases where destination trails are not an option. In most cases, linking trails are located within road rights-of-way. The main variable is the side of the road the trail would be located on, which will be determined by the City at the time of implementation. As defined in Section 6 – Implementation Plan, providing a network of linking trails remains a development priority because or their importance to tying the system together and getting users safely around the community. Although typically located in an existing road right-of-way, the City is encouraged to develop linking trails at the same time that roadway and subdivision development occurs since it is often more difficult and costly to retrofit. The extent to which linking trails are ultimately developed will be based on the demand from residents for links from established or new neighborhoods to the destination trail system as it takes shape. Development Standards and Guidelines As with destination trails, linking trails should be consistent with regional trail standards, which is a 10-foot wide asphalt trail suitable for walking, bicycling, and inline skating. An 8-foot width can also be used in situations where the linking trail provides access from an area with limited Linking trails in varying forms. These photos illustrate development or the trail serves as a neighborhood connection as opposed two linking trails in Northfield. In both cases, the trail to a through trail. provides a safe conduit for pedestrian-level travel. In the left photo, the trail provides continuity and separation All linking trails should meet accessibility standards whenever possible, from motor vehicles, but adjacency to the road diminishes the user’s recreational experience relative to which as a general rule means grades of 5 percent or less. The Minnesota a greenway-based trail. In the bottom photo, the linking Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (MN DNR 2007) trail primarily serves a functional purpose given its provides the baseline standards and guidelines for developing linking trails. proximity to the park entrance road. Other applicable standards, such as the Mn/DOT Bicycle Facility Design Guide, should also be referenced, especially if specifically required for grant funding or if the trail crosses roadways.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.13 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
Si d e w a l k s The difference between sidewalks and linking trails is their location, width and surfacing – each of which can significantly affect the user groups that are accommodated. Whereas linking trails are typically asphalt and 10 feet wide, sidewalks are concrete and 5 to 6 or 8 feet wide. Sidewalks are most often located within road rights-of-way within a neighborhood, downtown area, or commercial district. Sidewalks do provide recreational value, but generally only serve walkers, joggers, and children/families on bikes. Adult recreational and fitness bicyclists and in-line skaters will not routinely use sidewalks because they are too narrow and the crack control joints make for a rougher riding surface. The following aerial image and accompanying photos illustrate sidewalks in Northfield. The location of existing sidewalks varies considerably across the city. In the older, more established neighborhoods, sidewalks are common, as illustrated in the aerial photo.
In newer parts of town, sidewalks are more limited, often occurring only along collector-level streets.
Where provided, sidewalks add considerable value to the trail system by providing a safe means for local residents to migrate to the established trail system or get to a local park, business, or school.
Development of Sidewalks As a general guideline, sidewalks should be provided in all new neighborhoods as determined appropriate during the subdivision design process to complement and interconnect with the larger trail system. The extent to which sidewalks are provided should be consistent with the City’s subdivision ordinances and development standards, which should be referred to for detailed requirements.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.14 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
In established neighborhoods, retrofitting sidewalks can be a challenging proposition given encroachment issues and resident expectations. In these cases, sidewalks should be provided if and when they are desired by the neighborhood to improve access and safety for pedestrians. From a practical standpoint, development of destination and linking trails will likely take precedence over retrofitting sidewalks given costs, variability of resident expectations and values, and the previously defined challenges. That said, sidewalks can add considerable value to the overall trail system and should not be overlooked, especially in new developments. Development Standards and Guidelines Sidewalks should be consistent with local standards for development, When considered the safest approach, families on which is typically a 6-foot wide concrete surface in a residential setting. All bikes will use a sidewalk. Adult recreational and fitness sidewalks should meet accessibility standards whenever possible, which as a bicyclists will not routinely use them. general rule means grades of 5 percent or less.
Na t u r a l Tr a i l s Natural trails are commonly used in areas where a natural tread is desired and harmony with the natural environment is emphasized. Natural trails are surfaced with native soils, turf, crushed aggregate, or other selected non-asphalt or concrete surface. Figure 4.7 illustrates a typical natural trail, accompanied by photos of actual trails.
Fi g u r e 4.7 – Na t u r a l Tr a i l s 4 to 6-foot wide Natural landscapes exhibiting natural-surfaced trail Natural unique landforms, vegetation for pedestrians only landscapes patterns, and wildlife habitat
Interpretive signage
Natural hiking trails to meet varying needs and settings. Grass and native soils are preferred surfacing for natural trails. Grass is typically suitable where use is light to moderate. Where trails receive heavier use, native soil surfacing prevails. The width of hiking trails typically responds to the setting and type of use.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.15 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
Development of Natural Trails Natural surface trails complement the paved destination trails and provide more natural trail opportunities for residents. Natural trails in Northfield are appropriate in two situations: • Secondary connections from a neighborhood to the destination trail system through natural conservation areas or open spaces where a less developed trail corridor is more appropriate than a paved trail • Within natural parks, open spaces, or preserve areas for interpretation and general hiking; this includes select arboretum sites, wildlife management areas, and scientific natural areas In Northfield, nature trails will be most prevalent on property owned by St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges, consistent with their own master plans. Development Standards and Guidelines For most natural trails in Northfield, a width of 4 to 6 feet is appropriate when designed for pedestrian-only use. The difficulty level for natural trails used for this purpose should be relatively “easy” whenever possible, consistent with accepted standards. The Minnesota Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (MN DNR 2007) provide the baseline standards and guidelines for developing natural trails, including defining difficulty levels.
Bi k e w a y s On-road bikeways (i.e., bike lanes and bike routes) are paved segments of roadways that serve as a means to safely separate bicyclists from vehicular traffic. Bikeways generally allow a cyclist to go faster than on many trails and offer more continuity in surfacing and intersections. Complementing shared-use trails or sidewalks with on-road bikeways enhances the overall trail system by making it more complete and user friendly. For advanced bicyclists and some in-line skaters, bikeways are important conduits to longer routes outside of the city limits. The distinction between a bike lane and bike route is the level of Bike lane is a designated portion of the roadway exclusiveness and the setting. A bike lane is a designated portion of the defined by striping, signing, and pavement markings. roadway defined by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the The bike lane shown here is along 4th Street. However, a 3 feet wide, the bike lane is narrower than the more preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. A bike route is a shared portion optimal 5-foot width. A less than optimal width can of the roadway that provides some separation between motor vehicles result in decreased levels of use due to perception of and bicyclists. State statutes define a bike route as a “roadway signed for safety. encouragement of bicycle use.” Most people would recognize a bike route as a paved shoulder with signage and drive lane striping. In Northfield, both bike lanes and routes are envisioned based on the character of a given route and expected level of use. The photos illustrate common types of bike lanes and bike routes. The routes shown on the plan generally follow main arteries through the city, create an on-street loop, and connect with the trail system in multiple locations. The routes were selected to enhance bicycle-based access to local schools, public facilities, and college campuses. Note that expansion of the on-road bikeway system may be warranted over time, depending on use patterns and public demand. In this regard, the route system now shown on the system plan is best viewed as first tier Bike route on wider, higher speed roadway. Once facilities that can be expanded as warranted. speeds get above 50 mph, a minimum 6-foot shoulder is recommended to provide reasonable separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles. A minimum 4-foot shoulder is recommended for road speeds of less than 50 mph, although 5 or more feet is still preferred.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.16 iÊ,ÕÌiÊ ÊLiÊÀÕÌiÊÃÊ>Êà >Ài`Ê«ÀÌÊvÊÌ iÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊÌ >ÌÊ«ÀÛ`iÃÊÃiÊÃi«>À>ÌÊLiÌÜiiÊ ÌÀÊÛi ViÃÊ>`ÊLVÞVÃÌðÊ-Ì>ÌiÊÃÌ>ÌÕÌiÃÊ`iwÊiÊ>ÊLiÊÀÕÌiÊ>ÃÊ>ʺÀ>`Ü>ÞÊÃ}i`ÊvÀÊ iVÕÀ>}iiÌÊvÊLVÞViÊÕÃi°»Ê ÃÌÊ«i«iÊÜÕ`ÊÀiV}âiÊ>ÊLiÊÀÕÌiÊ>ÃÊ>Ê«>Ûi`Ê Ã Õ`iÀÊÜÌ ÊÃ}>}i°ÊÊÕÊvÊ{ÊviiÌÊÃÊÌ iÊÀiVi`i`Êà Õ`iÀÊÜ`Ì ÊvÀÊ À>`Ü>ÞÃÊÜ iÀiÊLVÞViÃÊ>ÀiÊ«ÀiÃiÌ°ÊÊÈvÌÊà Õ`iÀÊÃÊÀiVi`i`ÊViÊÌÀ>vwÊVÊ Ã«ii`ÃÊiÝVii`ÊxäÊ« °ÊvÊÀÕLiÊÃÌÀ«ÃÊ>ÀiÊ«ÀÛ`i`ÊÊÌ iÊi`}iÊvÊÌ iÊ`ÀÛiÊ>i]ÊÌ iÊ ÃÌ ÊL}ÊÃÕÀv>ViÊà Õ`ÊLiÊ>ÌÊi>ÃÌÊxÊviiÌÊÜ`i°Ê ÃÌÊLiÜ>ÞÃÊÊÃÕLÕÀL>ÊÀÊÀÕÀ>ÊÃiÌÌ}ÃÊÜÊLiÊ`iÃ}>Ìi`Ê>ÃÊLiÊÀÕÌiðÊ/ iÊii`Ê vÀÊ`iÃ}>Ìi`ÊLiÊ>iÃÊÃÊÃÌÊvÌiÊ>ÃÃV>Ìi`ÊÜÌ Ê`ÜÌÜÊ>Ài>ÃÊ>`Ê>ÀÊ LÕÃiÃÃÊ`ÃÌÀVÌÃÊÊÕÀL>ÊVÀiÊ>Ài>ÃÊÜ iÀiÊÌÀ>vwÊVÊÃÊ i>ÛÞ°ÊÊ/ iÊvÜ}Ê« ÌÃÊ ÕÃÌÀ>ÌiÊÌ iÊÃÌÊVÊLiÊÀÕÌiðÊÊ Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
In addition, bikeways should be a design consideration for all new or upgraded roads within the city, especially “through” roads that reasonably interconnect with the bikeways and trails shown on the system plan. Development Standards and Guidelines For bike routes, a minimum of 4 feet is the recommended shoulder width for roadways where bicycles are present, although 5 or more feet is preferred. A 6-foot shoulder is recommended once traffic speeds exceed 50 iÊÀÕÌiÊÊ>ÀÀÜiÀ]ÊÃÜiÀÊëii`Êmph. If rumble strips are provided on iÊÀÕÌiÊÊÜ`iÀ]Ê } iÀÊëii`ÊÀ>`Ü>Þ°Ê the edge of the drive lane, the smooth À>`Ü>Þ°Ê7 iÀiÊë>ViÊÃÊÌi`Ê>`ÊÌÀ>vwÊVÊëii`ÃÊ "ViÊëii`ÃÊ}iÌÊ>LÛiÊxäÊ« ]Ê>ÊÕÊÈÊvÌÊ >ÀiÊÎäÊ *]ÊÃÕV Ê>ÃÊ>}ÊÌ ÃÊÃViVÊLÞÜ>Þ]Ê>Êbiking surface should be at least 5 feetà Õ`iÀÊÃÊÀiVi`i`ÊÌÊ«ÀÛ`iÊÀi>Ã>LiÊ wide. ÕÊà Õ`iÀÊÜ`Ì ÊvÊ{ÊviiÌÊÜÕ`ÊLiÊ>`iµÕ>Ìi°ÊÊ Ãi«>À>ÌÊLiÌÜiiÊLVÞVÃÌÃÊ>`ÊÌÀÊÛi ViÃ°Ê The width of a bike lane on roads with a curb should be a minimum of 5 79feet fromÊ " 1,/"the face of - the curb, with 4 feet desired to the left of the joint / iÀiÊ>ÀiÊÊÃiÌÊÃÌ>`>À`ÃÊvÀÊÌ iÊVwÊ}ÕÀ>ÌÊvÊ>ÊLiÜ>Þ°Ê/ iÊ«À>ÀÞÊ`iÌiÀ>ÌÊbetween the gutter and the road pavement (3 feet minimum). If daily traffic ÃÊÌ iÊi `ÊÌ >ÌÊLVÞVÃÌÃÊÜÊÕÃiÊ>Ê«>ÀÌVÕ>ÀÊÀ>`ÊL>Ãi`ÊÊÌÃÊ`ÀiVÌiÃÃ]Êexceeds 10,000 ADT or when average speeds exceed 30 mph, 6-foot lanes >VViÃÃLÌÞÊvÀÊ>Ê}ÛiÊV>Ì]ÊVÌÕÌÞ]ÊVvÀÌÊ>`Ê>ÌÌÀ>VÌÛiiÃÃ]Ê>`]Ê>LÛiÊare recommended from the face of the curb where space allows. When >]Ê«iÀVi«ÌÊvÊÃ>viÌÞ°ÊÊ>ÞÊVÕÌiÃ]ÊLiÜ>ÞÃÊ>ÀiÊiÃÌ>Là i`ÊÊ>Ê`iÊparking is provided, the parking lane should be 8 to 10 feet wide and the v>VÌÊ>iÀÊ>ÃÊ«>ÀÌÊvÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊ«ÀiVÌÃÊÜ iÀiÊ«>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀÃÊ>ÀiÊ«ÀÛ`i`ÊvÀÊadjacent bike lane bike lane should be a minimum of 5 feet wide, with 6 «iÀ>Ì>ÊÃ>viÌÞÊ>`Ê>Ìi>Vi°Ê7 iÀiÊÌ ÃÊÃÊÌ iÊV>Ê«VÞ]ÊVÀ`>ÌÊfeet preferred where space allows. LiÌÜiiÊÌÀ>Ê«>iÀÃÊ>`ÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊi}iiÀÃÊÃÊVÀÌV>ÊÌÊiÃÕÀ}ÊÌ >ÌÊ>ÞÊÕ>ViÃÊ >ÃÃV>Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊLiÜ>ÞÃÊ>ÀiÊv>VÌÀi`ÊÌÊÌ iÊ`iÃ}ÊvÊÌ iÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊ>ÌÊÌ iÊ«ÌÊvÊAs a general guide, the Mn/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual provides VÃÌÀÕVÌÊ«>}°Ê/ ÀÕ} ÊÌ ÃÊ>««À>V ]Ê>ÞÊVÌiÃÊ >ÛiÊÃÕVViÃÃvÕÞÊiÝ«>`i`Êtables that relate bikeway types to roadway characteristics, as figure 4.8 LiÜ>ÞÊÃÞÃÌiÃÊÜÌ ÕÌÊÃÕLÃÌ>Ì>ÊV>«Ì>ÊiÝ«i`ÌÕÀiðÊillustrates.
Fi g u r e 4.8 – Bi k e w a y Ty p e s Ba s e d o n Ro a dÃÊ>Ê}iiÀ>Ê}Õ`i]ÊÌ iÊ w a y Characteristics É "/Ê iÜ>ÞÊ>VÌÞÊ iÃ}Ê >Õ>Ê«ÀÛ`iÃÊÌ>LiÃÊÌ >ÌÊ Source: Mn/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual Ài>ÌiÊLiÜ>ÞÊÌÞ«iÃÊÌÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊV >À>VÌiÀÃÌVÃ]Ê>ÃÊÌ iÊvÜ}ÊÕÃÌÀ>ÌiðÊas illustrated in the MN DNR’s Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (2007)
79Ê - Ê"*/" -Ê",Ê," 79- / iÊvÜ}ÊÌ>LiÃÊ«ÀÛ`iÊÀiVi`i`ÊLiÜ>ÞÊ`iÃ}Ê«ÌÃÊvÀÊÛ>ÀÕÃÊÀ>`Ü>ÞðÊ/ iÊÌ>LiÃÊÀi>ÌiÊÌÊÕÀL>ÊÃiVÌÊÜÌ ÊVÕÀLÊ >`Ê}ÕÌÌiÀ®Ê>`ÊÀÕÀ>ÊÃiVÌÊÊVÕÀLÊ>`Ê}ÕÌÌiÀ®ÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÃ°Ê ÌiÊÌ >ÌÊÜ`iÊVÕÀLÊ>iÊÀiviÀÃÊÌÊ>ÊÀ} ÌÊÌ ÀÕ} ÌÀ>vwÊVÊ>iÊÃÊÜ`iÀÊÌ >Ê£ÓÊ viiÌ°Ê- >Ài`Ê>iÊÀi>ÌiÃÊÌÊÌÀ>ÛiÊ>iÃÊÌ >ÌÊV>ÊLiÊi}>ÞÊÕÃi`ÊLÞÊLVÞVÃÌÃ]ÊLÕÌÊ>ÀiÊiÃÃÊÌ >Ê£ÓÊviiÌ°ÊÊ /ÊÀi>ÌiÃÊÌÊ>ÛiÀ>}iÊ`>ÞÊÌÀÊ Ûi ViÊÌÀ>vwÊV°Ê ÊÊÊÊÊÊ /ÊÊÓÊ>i® Êxää xääq£]äää £]äääqÓ]äää Ó]äääqx]äää x]äääq£ä]äää £ä]äää ÊÊÊÊÊÊ /Ê{Ê>i® É É Ó]äääq{]äää {]äääq£ä]äää £ä]äääqÓä]äää Óä]äää ÊÎäÊ« - >Ài`Ê>i 7`iÊVÕÀLÊi 7`iÊVÕÀLÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i *ÃÌi`Ê ÎäÊ« - >Ài`Ê>i 7`iÊVÕÀLÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i -«ii` Îxq{äÊ« 7`iÊVÕÀLÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i Ê{äÊ« iÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i iÊ>i 1ÀL>Ê-iVÌÊÊ Õ`iiÃÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ /É >iÊ Ê£äääI £]äääqÓ]xää Ó]xääqx]äää x]äääq£ä]äää £ä]äää ÊÎäÊ« {½Ê«>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ {½Ê«>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ {½Ê«>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ {½Ê«>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ Ƚʫ>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ *ÃÌi`Ê ÎäqÎxÊ« {½Ê«>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ Ƚʫ>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ Ƚʫ>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ Ƚʫ>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ n½Ê«>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ -«ii` Îxq{xÊ« Ƚʫ>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ Ƚʫ>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ Ƚʫ>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ n½Ê«>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ £ä½Ê«>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ Ê{xÊ« Ƚʫ>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ Ƚʫ>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ n½Ê«>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ £ä½Ê«>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ ,ÕÀ>Ê-iVÌÊÊÊ Õ`iiÃÊ £ä½Ê«>Ûi`Êà Õ`iÀ IÊ- Õ`iÀÃÊ>ÀiÊÌÊiViÃÃ>ÀÞÊÜ iÊÌ iÊ /ÊÃÊiÃÃÊÌ >Êxää]ÊÕiÃÃÊÌ iÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊÃÊ i>ÛÞÊÕÃi`ÊLÞÊÌÀÕVÊÀÊ i>ÛÞÊ ViÀV>ÊÛi ViðÊÊÌ iÃiÊÃÌÕ>ÌÃ]ÊLVÞVÃÌÃÊà Õ`ÊLiÊ>VV`>Ìi`ÊÜÌ Ê>Êà >Ài`Ê>i°Ê For each of the routes shown on the plan a more detailed evaluation of
-"/Ê *,/ /Ê"Ê /1, Ê, -"1, - roadway conditionsqÊ{°{ÓÊq and striping configurations will be necessary/, Ê* before ]Ê - ]Ê Ê /, -Ê Ê7/ ,79- any of the routes can be designated as a bike route. The most 6 "* important /Ê1 - aspect of this relates to intersections, in which a combination of traffic flow issues associated with turn lanes will have to be balanced against providing adequate space for a bicyclist to safely maneuver. Notably, in some cases this evaluation may result in a particular route being determined to be not appropriate as a designated bike route facility.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.17 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
The Mill Towns State Trail is a state designated 26 mile trail corridor that Mi l l To w n s Tr a i l starts near Faribault and ends near Cannon Falls, as illustrated in figure 4.9. The local Mill Towns Trail Friend group has been advocating development of Fi g u r e 4.9 – Mi l l To w n s Tr a i l Al i gn m e n t the trail since 1992. To date, 3 miles have been constructed (in 1995) from Northfield to Dundas. In 2002, the City established some sections of the trail through town, mostly along local streets in the form of on-street bike lanes in combination with existing sidewalks. State funding continues to be sought for development of the trail. Figure 4.10 illustrates the currently proposed trail alignment through Northfield.
Fi g u r e 4.10 – Mi l l To w n s Tr a i l Al i gn m e n t Th r o u g h No r t h f i e l d
In 2008, a pedestrian bridge over the Cannon River along with a trailhead/ transit hub will be developed on the north end of Babcock Park. The bridge will effectively connect Sechler Park and the trail from Dundas to downtown Northfield.
Al i gn m e n t Op t i o n s f o r Mi l l To w n Tr a i l Th r o u g h No r t h f i e l d Finding the most advantageous alignment for the trail through Northfield continues to be a significant planning issue. Currently, the adopted alignment includes the use of a bike lane/sidewalk configuration from the downtown area east along 4th Street serves a functional purpose. Whereas this is an acceptable approach, it does not offer the same user value or qualitative experience as that of a destination trail. In particular, family and recreational-type trail users often perceive bike lanes as less desirable than separated trails when riding a bike. Although all of these facilities are technically sound, perception of safety Note: Refer to pages 4.3 – 4.5 for additional and recreational value is what drives personal decisions on whether or not information on the different values of trails classes. a person or family will actually use a given trail. Any departure from the “optimal” trail configuration usually results in diminished levels of use. Given this, development of the trail alignment offering the highest-value experience to the targeted user groups should be explored first, with second and third options being available should the desired alignment prove unfeasible to implement. (Note that any changes to the adopted Mill Towns Trail alignment would require approval from the MN DNR.) Figure 4.11 on the next page illustrates the three optional alignments for the Mill Towns Trail as it traverses through the city. The table on the next page provides an overview of three options worthy of consideration, each posing implementation opportunities and constraints.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.18 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
Fi g u r e 4.11 – Mi l l To w n s Tr a i l Al i gn m e n t Op t i o n s
Given the importance of the Mill Towns Trail as a multi-community trail, maintaining the highest quality experience possible through Northfield is vital to enhancing use levels and encouraging tourism. To that end, as destination-type trail configuration will have broader appeal than a sidewalk/bike lane configuration, as the photos illustrate. As figure 4.11 illustrates, option ‘A’ following an existing railroad grade is the preferred option, with options ‘B’ and ‘C’ alternative routes. The following table considers each of these trail route options in greater detail.
Ov e r v i e w o f Mi l l To w n s Tr a i l Ro u t i ng Op t i o n s Route Option Trail Route Description and Recreational Value Developmental Issues Option ‘A’ Route essentially follows an existing active railroad There are two options for locating the trail along this route. – Railroad grade. If inherent developmental issues can be The first, and preferred, is to build the trail on the rail grade. Grade Route addressed, this route offers continuity and high scenic This, however, would require abandonment of the rail line, qualities along the river corridor. The one downside is which is speculative, at least for the foreseeable future. The potential for developmental encroachment from the second alternative is to locate the trail in an adjacent easement west. between the tracks and the river. Limited physical space is the main challenge with this alignment, as is the uncertain nature of negotiating an easement with the railroad authority. Option ‘B’ – Route follows Highway 19 through the Carleton The limiting factors along this route include right-of-way width, Highway 19 Campus and west from there. This option allows for some of the grades adjacent to the road, and existing Carleton Route a destination trail-type experience to be relatively College facilities. Another condition of development would be maintained. This option would also improve access to addressing any concerns related to impacts to Carleton campus the downtown area and larger trail system for college setting. students, a primary targeted user group. Although In spite of any developmental challenges, development of a trail along a roadway, entering Northfield via Highway 19 through this area is technically achievable and doing so would corridor is a pleasant experience, with the campus considerably improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation for facilities creating an appealing sense of entrance to the residents and college students alike. community. Given the traffic levels on the highway (especially trucks) overall safety of this corridor for pedestrians would be improved with a separated and continuous trail. Option ‘C’ From downtown, this route heads west along 4th Once the route reaches Wall Street and Hall Avenue, adequate – 4th Street/ Street and Wall Street until it heads north along Hall space is available to place a linking-type trail along the roadway. Wall Street/ Avenue. As previously noted, the 4th Street segment Although not a destination trail its entire length like the Hall Ave. is a combination of a bike lane and sidewalk versus other two options, this route continues to be a viable option, Route continuous paved trail – which results in a change of especially if the other two prove too difficult to implement. recreational value as defined on page 4.4.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.19 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
The downtown area of Northfield is one of the key destinations associated Do w n t o w n Ar e a Tr a i l with the overall trail system. It is also one of the most challenging areas to Sy s t e m Co nn e c t i o n s maintain trail and bikeway continuity due to inherent street and parking configurations, which are unlikely to substantially change. Maintaining adequate parking is of particular importance, and any reduction would not be well received by the local businesses. Assuming that opportunities to change the physical design of the streets in the downtown area are limited, maintaining a safe pedestrian and bicycle environment centers around share-the-road and traffic calming approaches. Fortunately, drivers in the downtown area are already accustomed to pedestrians crossing the street, bicyclists riding on the road, and angled parking – all of which providing the type of visual cues that tend to slow down traffic. Nonetheless, improving the pedestrian-level connections and flow through and around the downtown area is a goal of the trail system plan. As figure 4.12 illustrates, this will be accomplished in several ways, including: Note: Trail and bikeway connections to and • Provide contiguous pedestrian-way along the river and a bikeway (in the through the downtown area as defined under this form of bike lane) along 5th Street, Union Street, and 4th Street system plan will need to be integrated into the • Provide information kiosks at select downtown entry points to orient more detailed Downtown Northfield Streetscape Framework Plan prepared by the Major’s pedestrians and bicyclists and provide route-finding information through Streetscape Task Force. and around the downtown area • Provide route finding and “share the road” type signage and pavement markings along key routes through the downtown area
Fi g u r e 4.12 – Do w n t o w n Ar e a Tr a i l Sy s t e m Co nn e c t i o n s Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Kiosk 2nd Street
3rd Street Downtown Area Routes Defined with Signage
Pedestrian 4th Street Through Route (None Bridge Square Ames Park Bicycle) Pedestrian and Bicycle Bikeway – Painted Pedestrian Information Kiosk Bike Lanes on Pavement Riverside and Bicycle Lions Information Park Trail Kiosk Connection Union Street
to Downtown Washington Street Area
5th Street Division Street Water Street Street Water
One-Directional Bikeway – Painted Bike Lanes on Pavement
With respect to the kiosks and signage, design character is important and must balance providing information with aesthetic quality. The design character of the information kiosks should be consistent with the downtown streetscape theme and be part of an overall “gateway” design context.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.20 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
Simple pavement markings can The design for the route finding and share-the-road signage should be of provide bicyclists with route a consistent theme as the kiosks and be at a pedestrian scale. The signage finding information through the downtown area without should be readable, but not excessive in terms of numbers of signs or creating a distraction to dominating the visual character of the downtown streetscape. To this end, vehicular traffic. preparation of the downtown area gateway, kiosk, and signage package is recommended prior to the installation of any signs. The following photos illustrate a simple kiosk and signage design that provide necessary information in an appealing and consistent fashion.
In this coordinated design sequence, trailhead kiosks and trailside signage provide needed information in an appealing manner that adds to, rather the detracts from, the trail experience.
As illustrated on the System Plan and previously considered in this section, Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t a n d significant segments of the proposed greenway and greenway-based trail Pu b l i c Us e o f Ca r l e t o n system traverse across St. Olaf and Carleton College properties. Given the extent of their collective land holdings, the creation of virtually any form a n d St. Ol a f Pr o p e r t i e s of greenway and trail system encircling the city inherently involves their properties. As such, it is fair to surmise that implementation of the plan as proposed is predicated on successfully negotiating greenway and trail easements across these (and other) private properties. Whereas there is much public good that can be attained with the system as proposed, St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges are inherently accorded the same rights and privileges of any other private property owner. For that reason, the City will have to negotiate in good faith and remain flexible as to the exact trail and greenway alignments and configurations through these properties. The City will also have to be mindful of current land use plans and policies that each college has for their properties. Realistically, much discussion remains between the City and two colleges as to how to best proceed to achieve desired public values while respecting the land use vision that St. Olaf and Carleton College may have for their own properties. In spite of the inherent uncertainties about defining a mutually acceptable route, the prospects for success are much bolstered by the established public-private relationship that the City has with the two colleges on serving the community’s best interest. For example, both St. Olaf and Carleton already allow formal and informal public access to many acres of their land holdings in the form of nature trails. In many respects, the goal of the trail system plan is to build upon this success story by providing facilities (i.e., destination-type trails) that can serve a broader cross-section of the community without compromising the integrity of the land being traversed. In doing so, enhanced recreational opportunities will be made available to local residents and college students alike, along with furthering the increasingly important causes of promoting healthy lifestyles and greater connection to the natural world.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.21 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
In approaching the negotiating process, it is reasonable to expect that St. Olaf and Carleton College will have numerous baseline expectations. These are likely to include, but not necessarily limited to, the following conditions: • The colleges will continue to retain control of their property, with land use policies directed at accommodating college needs first • Negotiated trail easements/alignments will likely require stipulations for re-routed or temporary closure of trails depending on college activities and future land use decisions • Legal protections will have to be put into place that address liability issues associated with public use of the trails traversing across private property • Maintenance and general operations of trail corridors will have to be defined and consistent with land management practices employed by the colleges • Security and enforcement of trail rules and issues related to unlawful use of the trails and adjoining private property will have to be addressed, with stipulations of appropriate actions if problems persist
The System Plan and this section provide the basis for developing a “Co m p l e t e St r e e t s ” comprehensive system of trails, sidewalks, and bikeways throughout Ph i l o s o p h y Northfield. The underlining philosophy is to foster more extensive opportunities for pedestrian-level recreation, fitness, and commuting. Unfortunately, accomplishing this in the already developed areas of the city poses inherent retrofitting challenges not always easily addressed. Accommodating bicyclists in the downtown area, finding the best route for the Mill Towns Trail, and improving routes to schools and parks are a few examples of such challenges. With greater insights as to the importance of these facilities to fostering healthy lifestyles comes the need to improve planning and design practices to avoid missed opportunities in the future as the community develops. To that end, the City is encouraged to adopt a “complete streets” philosophy in which new or upgraded streets are designed to enable safe access and movement for all users. Taking a cue from the U.S. Department of Transportation, the following policy considerations are recommended to ensure that pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities are accommodated as the city’s transportation infrastructure Well-designed bikeway facilities as shown here using evolves: optimal design standards result in safer, less frustrating • Bicycle and pedestrian ways should be considered in new and transportation facilities for both bicyclists and motorists. reconstruction projects. Factors to consider include determining if Conversely, the lack of, or providing substandard, facilities results in greater reliance on motor vehicles for bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the roadway, transportation and higher incidences of conflict. if the cost of establishing bikeways or walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use, and if sparsity of population or other factors indicate an absence of need • In rural areas, paved shoulders should be considered in all new construction and reconstruction projects on roadways used by more than 1,000 vehicles per day • Sidewalks, shared use paths, street crossings (including over and undercrossings), pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, transit stops and facilities, and all connecting pathways should be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so that all pedestrians, including people with disabilities, can travel safely and independently • The design and development of the transportation infrastructure shall improve conditions for bicycling and walking through the following additional steps: planning projects for the long-term; addressing the need for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross corridors as well as travel along them; and designing facilities to the best currently available standards and guidelines
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.22 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
, - *,/ Ê ,"-- -ÊqÊ1 ,*-- -Ê Tr a i l Re l a t e d Am e n i t i e s Trail related structures and amenities primarily consists of grade separated / iÊVi>À>ViÊâiÊvÀÊÌÀ>ÃÊÕ`iÀÊLÀ`}iÃÊ>`ÊÌ ÀÕ} ÊLÝÊVÕÛiÀÌÃÊ>`ÊLiLÃÊÃÊcrossing (bridges and underpasses) and parking areas. a n d St a n d a r d s }iiÀ>ÞÊVÃÃÌiÌÊÜÌ ÊÀÊ}Ài>ÌiÀÊÌ >ÊÌ iÊÌ iÀÊVi>À>ViÊâiÃÊvÀÊ>ÊÌÀ>°Ê/ ÀiiÊ >ÀÊVÃ`iÀ>ÌÃÊÜÌ Ê>ÞÊÌÞ«iÊvÊÌÕiÊ>ÀiÊÃ} ÌiÃ]Êë>ViÊvÀÊiiÀ}iVÞÊ>`ÊGr a d e -Se p a r a t e d Cr o s s i ng s a n d Bo a r d w a l k s >Ìi>ViÊÛi ViÃ]Ê>`Ê} Ì}°Ê The Minnesota Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (MN Ê}iiÀ>]Ê>ÊÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀÊà Õ`ÊLiÊ>LiÊÌÊVi>ÀÞÊÃiiÊ>ÊÌ iÊÜ>ÞÊÌ ÀÕ} Ê>ÊÌÕiiÊDNR 2007) provides baseline standards and guidelines for grade-separated ÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀiÊvÀÊiÌÀÞÊÌÊiÝÌ°Ê ÕÀ}Ê>Ài>ÃÊà Õ`ÊLiÊ>Û`i`ÊÊiÌ iÀÊi`ÊvÊÌ iÊcrossing. The following figures illustrate the key aspects of these as they ÌÕiÊÌÊ>Û`Ê>ÞÊ«iÀVi«ÌÊvÊiÌÀ>«iÌÊÜ iÊ«>ÃÃ}ÊÌ ÀÕ} ÊÌ iÊÌÕi°Ê } Ì}Êrelate to destination and linking trails. à Õ`ÊLiÊ>`iµÕ>ÌiÊvÀÊÃ>viÌÞ°Ê/ iÊLÝÊà Õ`Ê>ÃÊ`i>ÞÊ>ÜÊiÕ} Êë>ViÊvÀÊ Fi g u r e 4.13 – Gr a d e -Se p a r a t e d Cr o s s i ng s>Ìi>ViÊÛi ViÃÊÌÊ«>ÃÃÊÌ ÀÕ} ÊÜÌ Ê>`iµÕ>ÌiÊVi>À>Vi°Ê/ iÊvÜ}Ê}À>« VÊ – Un d e r p a s s e s (Source: Minnesota Trail Planning, Design, and DevelopmentÕÃÌÀ>ÌiÃÊÃiÊvÊÌ iÊiÞÊ>ëiVÌÃÊvÊ>ÊVi>À>ViÊâiÊvÀÊ>ÊLÝÊVÕÛiÀÌÊ>`ÊLiLÊ Guidelines (MN DNR 2007) Illustration provides baseline information on the use of box culverts for road crossings or creeks. ÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀi°ÊÊ
, Ê<" Ê",Ê "8Ê 1 6 ,/-Ê Ê "-
,>`ÊÃÕÀv>Vi
>Ì>ÊÕÊi>ÀÌ iÊVÛiÀÊ>ÃÊÀiµÕÀi`Ê LÞÊÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀ>Êi}iiÀ}ÊvÀÊLÝÊVÕÛiÀÌ
6>`>«ÀvÊ Ü>«>VÊ ,ivÀVi`ÊVVÀiÌiÊ £Ó½äÊÕÊÜ`Ì } ÌÊwÊÝÌÕÀiÃÊ £È½ÊÌÊ£n½ÊÌÞ«V>Ê LiLÊÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀi ÌÊ«ÀÛ`iÊ i} ÌÊ>ÌÊViÌiÀÊ >`iµÕ>ÌiÊ } Ì}Ê >Ì>Ê Ì ÀÕ} ÕÌÊ `À>>}iÊ ÌÕi Ì ÀÕ} ÕÌÊ LÝ }iiÀi`Ê ÀivÀVi`Ê £n½ÊÌÊÓ{½ÊÌÞ«V>ÊÜ`Ì Ê «ÀiV>ÃÌÊÊ `i«i`ÃÊÊ>««V>Ì®
£Ó½ÊÊÛiÀÌV>ÊVi>À>ViÊ«ÀiviÀÀi` £ä½ÊÕ® VVÀiÌiÊ LÝÊVÕÛiÀÌÊ iLÌÞ«iÊ>ÀV i`ÊÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀiÃÊ>ÀiÊÕÃi`ÊÜ iÊ>Ê>À}iÀÊ ÊÃiVÌÃÊ Õ`iÀ«>ÃÃÊÃÊii`i`ÊvÀÊÌÀ>ÊÕÃiðÊ/ iÊ i} ÌÊ>`Ê £ä½ÊÌÞ«V>ÊÌÀ>ÊÃiVÌ Ãi>i`ÊÌÊ Ü`Ì ÊvÊÌ iÊÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀiÊ>ÀiÊ}Ài>ÌiÀÊÌ >Ê>ÊÌÀ>`Ì>Ê «ÀiÛiÌÊ LÝÊVÕÛiÀÌÊÌÊ>ÜÊ>`iµÕ>ÌiÊë>ViÊvÀÊ>Ìi>ViÊ - Õ`iÀÊÃ`iÊÌÕiÊqÊӽʫÀiviÀÀi`]ÊÜÌ Ê i>>}i® Ûi ViÃÊÕ`iÀÊÌ iÊ>ÀV °Ê £½ÊÕÊ>VVi«Ì>LiÊÊ
/9* Ê "8Ê 1 6 ,/Ê/1 "Ê, Ê-* 1- Ê/1
ÌÀ>ÃÌÊvÊÃ} ÌiÃ°Ê Ì ÊvÊÌ iÃiÊLÝÊ VÕÛiÀÌÃÊ«ÀÛ`iÊ>`iµÕ>ÌiÊ} ÌÊvÀÊÛÃÌÀÊÃ>viÌÞ°Ê / iÊ} ÌÊ«i}ÊÊÌ iÊViÌiÀÊvÊÌ iÊLÝÊVÕÛiÀÌÊ ÊÌ iÊÀ} ÌÊ« ÌÊ}Ài>ÌÞÊ«ÀÛiÃÊÛÃLÌÞÊ>`Ê ÜÊLiÊÀiÊ>VVi«Ìi`ÊLÞÊÌ iÊÕÃiÀ°Ê Ì>LÞ]ÊÊ LÌ ÊvÊÌ iÃiÊV>ÃiÃÊÌ iÊà Õ`iÀÊÃÊ>Ê`ÕiÊ ÌÊÃÌiÊÌ>ÌðÊÀÊÌ ÃÊÌÊÌÊLiÊ>ÊÃÃÕi]Ê ÛÃÕ>ÊVÕiÃ]Ê>`iµÕ>ÌiÊÃ} ÌiÃ]Ê>`ÊÃ}>}iÊ LivÀiÊiÌiÀ}ÊÌ iÊÌÕiÃÊ>ÀiÊ«ÀÌ>ÌÊÌÊ>iÀÌÊ ÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀÃÊÌÊ>Ê>ÀÀÜi`ÊÃiVÌ°ÊÊÊ
"À>Ìi°Ê Ì ÊvÊÌ iÃiÊÌÕiÃÊ>ÀiÊ>««i>}Ê ÛÃÕ>Êvi>ÌÕÀiÃÊvÊÌ iÊÌÀ>]ÊÀ>Ì iÀÊÌ >Ê>Ê `ÃÌÀ>VÌ°ÊÊÌ iÊivÌÊ« Ì]ÊÌ iÊLÝÊÃÊÜ`iÊ>`Ê «ÀÛ`iÃÊ>ÊÃ Õ`iÀÊ>`Ê`À>>}iÊ>ÊÌ iÊÜ>ÞÊ Ì ÀÕ} ÊÌ iÊÌÕi°ÊÊÌ iÊÀ} ÌÊ« Ì]ÊÌ iÊÀ>ÌiÊ V >À>VÌiÀÊvÊÌ iÊLÝÊVÕÛiÀÌÊ>iÃÊÌÊÀiÊvÊ >Ê}>ÌiÜ>ÞÊÌ >Ê>Ê«i`iÌÊÌÊÌÀ>Ûi°Ê/ iÊ >À`ÃV>«iÊ>ÀÕ`ÊÌ iÊiÌÀ>ViÊÃÊ>ÃÊ>ÊÛÃÕ>Ê VÕiÊvÀÊLVÞVÃÌÃÊ>`ÊiÊÃ>ÌiÀÃÊÌÊÃÜÊ`Ü°Ê
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , -"/Ê *,/ Op e n Sp a c e , a/Ê"Ên d T/1, Ê, -"1, -r a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n qÊx°£{Êq /, Ê* ]Ê -4.23 ]Ê Ê /, -Ê Ê7/ ,79- 6 "* /Ê1 - Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
Fi g u r e 4.14 – Gr a d e -Se p a r a t e d Cr o s s i n g s – Ov e r p a s s e s (Source: Minnesota Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (MN DNR 2007) Illustration provides baseline information on the use of bridges for road crossings or creeks.
, Ê7 /-Ê Ê , / ,-/ - À>`iÊvÊLÀ`}i]ÊVÕ`}Ê £Ó½ÊÕÊÜ`Ì ÊÀiVi`i`ÊÜ iÊLÀ`}iÊÃÊ >««À>V iÃ]Êà Õ`ÊiiÌÊ Ê ÕÃi`ÊvÀÊÃÜL}Ê>`ÊVÀÃÃVÕÌÀÞÊÃ}ÊÊ ÃÌ>`>À`ÃÊvÊx¯ÊÀÊiÃÃÊVÃÌ>ÌÊ ÇÓ»qÈ»Ê } Ê >Õv>VÌÕÀi`Ê }À>`iÊÀÊ>ÊÀ>«Ê}À>`iÊvÊn°ÎÎ¯Ê «ÀÌiVÌÛiÊÃVÀii}Ê LÀ`}iÊÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀiÊ ii`i`ÊvÀÊ}À}ÊiµÕ«iÌ® £\£Ó®ÊÜÌ ÊȽÊÝÊȽÊ>`}ÊiÛiÀÞÊ ÀÊviViÊ>ÞÊLiÊ Ó°x½ÊÊiiÛ>ÌÊV >}iÊ>`Ê>ÌÊ VÃ`iÀi`ÊÊ Ì iÊLÌÌÊ ÃÌÕ>ÌÃÊÜ iÀiÊ >ÊLÀ`}iÊVÀÃÃiÃÊ>Ê À>`Ü>Þ]ÊÜ>ÌiÀÜ>Þ]Ê {n»qx{»Ê } ÊÀ>}Ê ÀÊÀ>À>`ÊÌÊ«ÀiÛiÌÊ ÊLÀ`}i]ÊÜÌ Ê LiVÌÃÊvÀÊLi}Ê «i}ÃÊÊÌ iÊÀ>}Ê Ì ÀÜÊvÀÊ>LÛiÊ Ì >ÌÊÜÊÌÊ«iÀÌÊ >Ê{»Êë iÀiÊÌÊ«>ÃÃÊ Ì ÀÕ} ÊÃiiÊÌiÊ - Õ`iÀÊÊLÀ`}iÊ >LÕÌÊÀ>}Ê i} ÌÊ qÊÊÊӽʫÌ>ÊÊ ÕÊLÀ`}iÊÜ`Ì ÊÌÊ>ÌV ÊÌÀ>ÊÜ`Ì Ì ÃÊ«>}i® £ä½ÊÀiVi`i`ÊÕÊvÀÊÕÌÕÃiÊ - Õ`iÀÊÊLÀ`}iÊqÊÓ½Ê «>Ûi`ÊÌÀ>Ã]Ên½ÊvÀÊ«i`iÃÌÀ>ÞÊÌÀ>î «Ì>Ê , Ê7/Ê*,"/ /6 Ê /9* Ê , Ê, +1, /- - ,
`iÀÊLÀ`}iÃ°Ê ÃÌÊVÌi«À>ÀÞÊLÀ`}iÃÊ >ÀiÊ«Ài>Õv>VÌÕÀi`ÊÃÌiiÊLÀ`}iÃÊÜÌ Ê>Ê >Üi>Ì iÀ}ÊÃÌiiÊwÊà ÊÌ >ÌÊÀiµÕÀiÃÊÌi`Ê >Ìi>Vi°Ê iV}ÊÃÊ«À>ÀÞÊÌÀi>Ìi`ÊÜ`Ê «>ÃÊ>`Ê«iÀ«i`VÕ>ÀÊÌÊÌ iÊÌÀ>ÊÌÊ«ÀiÛiÌÊ LiÊÌÀiÃÊvÀÊV>ÌV }ÊÊ>Êi`}iÊ>`ÊÌ ÀÜ}Ê >ÊLVÞVÃÌÊvvÊL>>Vi°ÊÌ Õ} ÊÃÌiiÊÃÊÊvÌiÊÌ iÊ >ÌiÀ>ÊvÊV Vi]ÊÌÃÊV >À>VÌiÀÊV>ÊLiÊÃvÌii`Ê ÜÌ ÊÌ iÀÊ>ÌiÀ>Ã]ÊÃÕV Ê>ÃÊÜ`Ê>«ÀÃ°Ê ÌiÊ Ì >ÌÊÌ iÊLÀ`}iÊÃÊÌ iÊÃ>iÊÜ`Ì Ê>ÃÊÌ iÊÌÀ>ÊÊ Ì iÊÀ} ÌÊ« ÌÊ£äÊviiÌ®°Ê/ iÊ>«ÀÃÊ i«Ê>iÀÌÊ ÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀÃÊÌÊÌ iÊ>VÊvÊà Õ`iÀðÊÊÊ
ÌÀ>ÃÌÊvÊÃÌÞiðÊÊ>ÞÊ>««V>ÌÃ]ÊÌ iÊ ÕÃiÊvÊ>ÌiÀ>ÌÛiÊ>ÌiÀ>ÃÊ >ÃÊiÀÌÊÌÊLiÊÊ ÃÞVÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊÃiÌÌ}°ÊÃ]ÊÌÀ>ÊÜ`Ì ÃÊà Õ`Ê LiÊVÃÃÌiÌÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊÌi`i`ÊÕÃi°ÊÊÌ iÊivÌÊ « Ì]ÊÌ iÊÌÀ>Ê>`ÊLÀ`}iÊ>ÀiÊ£äÊviiÌÊÜ`iÊvÀÊ ÕÌ«iÊÕÃi°ÊÊÌ iÊÀ} ÌÊ« Ì]Ê>ÊÈvÌÊÜ`Ì ÊÃÊ >««À«À>ÌiÊvÀÊÌ ÃÊ«i`iÃÌÀ>ÞÊLÀ`}iÊ>VÀÃÃÊ >ÊÃ>ÊÀ>Ûi°ÊÊ
À`}iÊ`iÃ}ÃÊÌÊLiÊV>ÕÌÕÃÊ>LÕÌ°ÊÊÌ iÊ Determining whether an at-grade or grade-separatedivÌÊ« Ì]ÊÌ iÊLÀ`}iÊÃÊÞÊnÊviiÌÊÜ`i]ÊÜ V Ê crossing is required or optimal depends on a number of variables,ÃÊiÃÃÊÌ >ÊÌ iÊ>`}ÊÌÀ>ðÊ/ ÃÊV>ÊV>ÕÃiÊ including traffic volumes, VyÊVÌÃÊvÊÌ ÃiÊÕÃ}ÊÌ iÊÌÀ>Ê`ÊÌÊ}ÊÃ}iÊwÊiÊ roadway speeds, crossing distance, and >VÀÃÃÊÌ iÊLÀ`}i°ÊÊÌ iÊÀ} ÌÊ« Ì]ÊÌ iÊ«>}Êpractical issues such as site topography. The Minnesota Trail Planning,ÀÕÃÊÊÌ iÊ`ÀiVÌÊvÊÌ iÊÌÀ>°ÊvÊÕÃi`ÊvÀÊ/6ÃÊ Design, and Development Guidelines (MN DNR 2007) provides baselineÀÊ ÀÃiÃ]ÊÌ ÃÊ«ÃiÃÊviÜÊ«ÀLiÃ°Ê ÕÌÊLVÞViÊ standards and guidelines for ÌÀiÃÊV>ÊV>ÌV ÊÊÌ iÊi`}iÃÊ>`ÊÌ ÀÜÊÌ iÊÀ`iÀÊ where a grade-separated crossing is mostvvÊL>>Vi°ÊÊÊ appropriate, as figure 4.15 on the next page illustrates.
Key statement related to grade-separated and In Northfield, grade-separated crossings are specifically recommended in other road crossing locations in Northfield: Note a number of key locations associated with destination trails to minimize that the City’s Transportation System Plan should disruption to trail flow and maintain the continuity of the trail experience. be referred to for additional detailed information 9 The Ê,System PlanÊ / illustratesÊ1 these locations. Even in cases where the on grade-separated and controlled pedestrian threshold for a grade-separated crossing is not technically met in these crossing locations. Where discrepancies arise, the / iÊ-/"Ê-ÕLVÌÌiiÊÊ iÃ}Ê}Õ`iiÃÊvÀÊÀ>}Ê i} ÌÃÊ>ÃÃV>Ìi`ÊÜÌ Êlocations, the added value of improved trail flow and added perception Transportation Plan findings and recommendations LVÞViÊv>VÌiÃÊÃÊÌ iÊÀiVi`i`ÊÃÌ>`>À`ÊvÀÊ>}ÊÌÀ>ÃÊ>`ÊLÀ`}iÃÊÊ iÃÌ>°Êof safety make the trail more appealing to use, making the additional prevail. / iÊÃÌÊÕ«Ì`>ÌiÊvÀ>ÌÊV>ÊLiÊvÕ`ÊÊÌ iÊÜiLÊ>ÌÊVðÌÀ>ëÀÌ>Ì° investment a valid cost-benefit consideration. À}ɶÃÌi`rxE«>}i`rn{°ÊÜÊÌ iÊÊiÌÌi`Ê VÞViÊ,>}Êi} ÌÊ,i«ÀÌÊ>`Ê ÀiviÀiViÊ«>}iÃÊÎ{]ÊÎx]Ê>`ÊÎÈÊvÀÊëiVwÊVÊÀ>}Ê i} ÌÊÀiVi`>ÌÃ°Ê Ê}iiÀ>]ÊÌ iÊÀi«ÀÌÊÀiVi`ÃÊÌ >ÌÊÀ>}ÃÊLiÊ>ÊÕÊvÊ{nÊV iÃÊvÀÊÃÌÊ >««V>ÌÃ]ÊÜÌ Êx{»ÊÀiVi`i`ÊÜ iÀiÊÌ iÀiÊÃÊÃ}wÊV>ÌÊ«ÌiÌ>ÊvÀÊ>Ê } No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n ëii`Ê>}Õ>ÀÊVÃÊÜÌ Ê>ÊÀ>}°Ê 4.24
-"/Ê *,/ /Ê"Ê /1, Ê, -"1, - qÊx°£ÈÊq /, Ê* ]Ê - ]Ê Ê /, -Ê Ê7/ ,79- 6 "* /Ê1 - - >Ài`1ÃiÊ*>Ûi`Ê/À>ÃÊ x
/, É, - *,/ Ê ,"-- -Ê/Ê," Ê / ,- /" -ÊÊÊ ,>`Ü>ÞÊVÀÃÃ}ÃÊ>ÌÊÌiÀÃiVÌÃÊ>ÀiÊiÊvÊÌ iÊÃÌÊVÀÌV>Ê`iÃ}ÊVÃ`iÀ>ÌÃÊ vÀÊà >Ài`ÕÃiÊÌÀ>ÃÊ`ÕiÊÌÊÌ iÊ«ÌiÌ>ÊVyVÌÊLiÌÜiiÊÌÀÃÌÃÊ>`ÊÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀÃ°Ê ÀÊÀiÊvÀ>Ìt iÌiÀ}ÊÜ iÌ iÀÊ>Ê>Ì}À>`iÊÀÊ}À>`iÃi«>À>Ìi`Ê>««À>V ÊÃÊLiÃÌÊ`i«i`ÃÊÊ>Ê ,iviÀÊÌÊ É "/½ÃÊ iÜ>ÞÊ>VÌÞÊ ÕLiÀÊvÊÛ>À>LiÃ]ÊVÕ`}ÊÌÀ>vwVÊÛÕiÃ]ÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊëii`Ã]ÊVÀÃÃ}Ê`ÃÌ>Vi]Ê>`Ê iÃ}Ê >Õ>ÊÓääÈ®Ê>ÌÊÜÜÜ°`Ì° «À>VÌV>ÊÃÃÕiÃÊÃÕV Ê>ÃÊÃÌiÊÌ«}À>« ÞÊ>`ÊÌ iÊ>ÕÌÊvÊë>ViÊ>Û>>Li°ÊÊ`>ÞÌ`>ÞÊ ÃÌ>Ìi°°ÕÃÉÌÀ>ÃÌÉLiÉLi`iÃ}° >««V>Ì]ÊÌ iÊii`ÊvÀÊ>`ÊÛ>LÌÞÊvÊ>Ê}À>`iÃi«>À>Ìi`ÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÃÊÌÀÃV>ÞÊi`Ê ÌÊvÀÊ>``Ì>ÊvÀ>Ì°Ê ÌÊÌ iÊi}iiÀ}ÊvÊÌ iÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊ>`ÊÜÊ >ÛiÊÌÊV«ÞÊÜÌ Ê É "/ÊÃÌ>`>À`Ã°Ê Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n / iÊvÜ}ÊÌ>LiÊ«ÀÛ`iÃÊÀiVi`>ÌÃÊvÀÊÛ>ÀÕÃÊÌÞ«iÃÊvÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊ ÌiÀÃiVÌÃ°Ê ÌiÊÌ >ÌÊÌ iÃiÊ>ÀiÊ}iiÀ>Ê}Õ`iiÃÊ>`Êi>V Ê>««V>ÌÊÀiµÕÀiÃÊÃÌi Fi g u r e 4.15 – Gu i d e l i nëiVwVÊi}iiÀ}ÊÌÊ`iÌiÀiÊÌ iÊLiÃÌÊVÕÀÃiÊvÊ>VÌÊÌÊ>ÝâiÊÃ>viÌÞ°Êe s f o r De t e r m i n i ng Ro a d w a y Cr o s s i ng Tr e a t m e n t (Source: Minnesota Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (MN DNR 2007.) 1 -Ê",Ê / , Ê," 79Ê ,"-- Ê/, / / / iÊvÜ}ÊÌ>LiÊ«ÀÛ`iÃÊ}iiÀ>Ê}Õ`iiÃÊvÀÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊVÀÃÃ}ÃÊ>ÌÊÌiÀÃiVÌÃÊL>Ãi`ÊÊëii`Ã]Ê>`ÊÛi VÕ>ÀÊ ÛÕi°Ê/ iʺ}`»ÊÃÌ>`>À`ÊÃÊÀiVi`i`ÊÜ iÊÌ iÊÌÀ>ÊÃÊÕÃi`ÊLÞÊ>Ê>À}iÊÕLiÀÊvÊV `Ài]ÊÃiÀÃ]ÊÀÊ`Ã>Li`Ê «i«i°Ê`ÊÃÊ>ÃÊÀiVi`i`ÊvÊÌ iÊÌÀ>ÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÃÊ i>ÛÞÊÕÃi`Ê>`ÊvÊÌ iÊÌÀ>ÊÃÊ>Ê>ÊÀiVÀi>Ì>ÊVÀÀ`À°ÊÊ -ÕÀVi\Ê É "/½ÃÊ iÜ>ÞÊ>VÌÞÊ iÃ}Ê >Õ>ÊÓääÈ®° *ÃÌi`Ê-«ii` -Ì>`>À` /Þ«iÊvÊ ÀÃÃ}Ê i«i`}ÊÊ-«ii`Ê>`Ê6ÕiÊvÊ/À>vwV xä³Ê« Ê À>`iÊ-i«>À>Ìi` {xÊ« ` À>`iÊ-i«>À>Ìi` ->ÌÃv>VÌÀÞ /À>vwVÊ-}>à {äÊ« `Ê /À>vwVÊ-}>à À>`iÊ-i«>À>Ìi` ->ÌÃv>VÌÀÞ ÀÃÃÜ>Ê³Ê i`>Ê,ivÕ}iÊÃ>` /À>vwVÊ-}>à ÎäÊ« `Ê ÀÃÃÜ>Ê³Ê i`>Ê /À>vwVÊ-}>à À>`iÊ-i«>À>Ìi` ,ivÕ}iÊÃ>` ->ÌÃv>VÌÀÞ ÀÃÃÜ> ÀÃÃÜ>Ê³Ê i`>Ê /À>vwVÊ-}>à ,ivÕ}iÊÃ>` 6i VÕ>ÀÊ6ÕiÊ ÛiÀ>}iÊ >ÞÊ/À>vwV® Ó]äää {]äää È]äää n]äää £ä]äää £Ó]äää ÌiÃ\ UÊ/ iÊÌÞ«iÊvÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÃiiVÌi`Ê>ÌÊ>ÊÌiÀÃiVÌÊLiÌÜiiÊ>Ê>Ê>`ÊÃiV`>ÀÞÊÀ>`ÊÃÊÕÃÕ>ÞÊÌ iÊÃ>iÊ>ÃÊvÀÊÌ iÊ >ÊÀ>`° UÊvÊÀiÊÌ >ÊÌ ÀiiÊ>iÃÊ>ÀiÊÌÊLiÊVÀÃÃi`]ÊÌ iÊÌiÀÃiVÌÊà Õ`Ê >ÛiÊ>ÊÀivÕ}iÊÀÊi`>ÊÃ>`°Ê7 iÀiÊ «i`iÃÌÀ>ÃÊÀÊLVÞVÃÌÃÊÜ>ÌÊ>ÌÊ>ÊÃ>`]Ê>Ê«Õà ÊLÕÌÌÊÀÊLVÞViÃiÃÌÛiÊÌÀ>vwVÊ`iÌiVÌÊ`iÛViÊ>ÞÊLiÊ `iÃÀ>Li°Ê UÊÌÊ>À}iÊÌiÀÃiVÌÃÊvÊÛiÀÞÊLÕÃÞÊÀ>`Ã]Ê«i`iÃÌÀ>Ê>`ÊLVÞViÊÌÀ>vwVÊà Õ`ÊLiÊÃi«>À>Ìi`ÊLÞÊ}À>`iÊvÀÊLÌ Ê Ì iÊ>Ê>`ÊÃiV`>ÀÞÊÀ>`]ÊÃÌi>`ÊvÊÕÃ}ÊÃ}>Ã°Ê UÊ}Ê>ÊÀ>`Ã]ÊVÀÃÃ}ÃÊà Õ`ÊLiÊ>ÌÊÌiÀÃiVÌðÊvÊ>Ê`LVÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÃÊÕ>Û`>Li]ÊÌ iÀiÊÕÃÌÊLiÊ}`Ê Ã} ÌÊ`ÃÌ>ViðÊvÊÌ iÊëii`ÊÌÊÃÊÛiÀÊ{äÊ« ]ÊVÃ`iÀÊÜiÀ}ÊÌ iÊëii`ÊÌÊÌ ÀÕ} ÊÌ iÊVÀÃÃ}Ê>Ài>ÊÌÊ {äÊ« °Ê
Pa r k >Ãi`ÊÊÌ iÊ>LÛiÊÌ>Li]Ê>Ê}À>`iÃi«>À>Ìi`ÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÃÊ`iÃÀ>LiÊViÊëii`ÃÊÀi>V Ê{xÊ i ng Ar e a s /Tr a i l h e a d s « ÊÀÊÜ iÊ>ÊVL>ÌÊvÊëii`Ê>`Ê>ÛiÀ>}iÊ`>ÞÊÌÀ>vwVÊ /®ÊÛÕiÃÊÀi>V ÊÌ iÊÊ In theÌ Àià `ÃÊ } } Ìi`ÊÊÌ iÊÌ>Li°ÊÊ initial years as the trail system is implemented, local parks and schools should be defined on local park and trail maps as parking areas for trail users. This will avoid duplication of infrastructure and make it clear to residents where they can expect to park. The development of stand-alone trailheads are not anticipated as being necessary since many of the trail users will be accessing the system by foot, bicycle, or in-line skates from their home or a local street. Ê}À>`iÃi«>À>Ìi`Ê VÀÃÃ}ÊÃÊÀiVi`i`Ê In the longer-termÜ iÊëii`ÃÊ>`Ê /Ê once the system is more fully developed and use patterns more defined, stand-aloneÀi>V ÊÌ Àià `ÃÊ>ÃÊ trailheads may be necessary in select locations `iwi`ÊÊÌ iÊ«ÀiÛÕÃÊ where parking problemsÌ>Li°Ê in a given neighborhood or along a specific street become a more significant issue. These cases should be considered on an individual basis. If parking is provided at some point, it should be located on the edge of park or other publicly-owned property where feasible. The overall size of the parking area should be kept as small as possible to -"/Ê *,/ /Ê"Ê /1, Ê, -"1, -accommodate documentedqÊx°£ÎÊq demand. Provisions for expansion/, Ê* should ]Ê - be ]Ê Ê /, -Ê Ê7/ ,79- 6 "* /Ê1 -Ê provided, but only occur if demand warrants. Over development of parking areas is not recommended due to cost, stormwater management issues, long-term maintenance, and increased needs for policing.
Trailside Am e n i t i e s a n d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t St a n d a r d s In most cases, trailhead amenities should be limited to signage. The Minnesota Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (MN DNR 2007) provides baseline standards and guidelines for trailside amenities and should be used as the primary reference to ensure consistency with other trail systems in the region.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.25 Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
With respect to trail crossings of roadways, development standards should be consistent with the Minnesota Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (MN DNR 2007) and pertinent aspects of the Mn/DOT Road Design Manual. The following figures illustrate the design standards associated with the more common roadway crossing situations. Fi g u r e 4.16 – Ro a d w a y Cr o s s i ng s - >Ài`1ÃiÊ*>Ûi`Ê/À>ÃÊ x (Source: Minnesota Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (MN DNR 2007) Illustration provides baseline information on roadway crossings.
- Ê " 1,/" -Ê"Ê," 79Ê ,"-- -ÊÊÊ
8 8 , ÊÊ /, `LVÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÊ>ÊÕÀL>Ê -Ì>`>À`Ê É "/Ê ÃiÌÌ}ÊÜÀÃ°Ê i>ÀÊÃ} ÌiÃÊ>`Ê Ü>À}Ê>À}à ÃÜiÀÊÌÀ>vwVÊëii`ÃÊ>ÜÊvÀÊ>ÊÃ>viÊ VÀÃÃ}°Ê º/À>Ê ÀÃÃ}»Ê ÜiÛiÀ]ÊÌ ÃÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÊVÕ`ÊLiÊ Ü>À}Ê «ÀÛi`ÊLÞÊÜ`i}ÊÌ iÊÀ>«ÊÌÊ Ã} >ÌV ÊÌ iÊÜ`Ì ÊvÊÌ iÊÌÀ>°Ê/ ÃÊÃÊ VÃ`iÀi`ÊÊÀiÊ`iÌ>ÊÊ«>}iÊ -Ì>`>À`Ê É "/Ê x°Ó£®
Óxä½ÊÕÀL>ÊÃÌÀiiÌÊ Çxä½ÊÀÕÀ>ÊÃÌÀiiÌ» VÀÃÃ}Ê>À}à -} ÌiÃÊq£ää½ÊvÀÊLVÞVÃÌÃ]ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ £Èx½ÊvÀÊÌÀÃÌÃÊ>ÌÊ{äÊ« ]Ê ÓÇä½ÊvÀÊÌÀÃÌÃÊ>ÌÊÈäÊ« -Ì«ÊÃ}
-Ì>`>À`]Êi>ÃÞÌÃiiÊ>Ì }À>`iÊÌÀ>ÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÊÀÕÀ>Ê £ää½ >Ài>°Ê/ ÃÊ } ÞÊÛÃLiÊÌÀ>Ê -Ì>`>À`Ê -Ì«Ê i>`ÊÃ}Ê VÀÃÃ}ÊÜÀÃÊÜiÊÊÌ ÃÊÃiÌÌ}°Ê >VViÃÃLiÊÀ>«Ê vÊii`i`® Ì Õ} ÊÌÊà Ü]ÊÃ} ÌiÃÊvÀÊ ÊÕÀL>ÊÃiVÌÊ Ì iÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊ>ÀiÊ«iÊ>`ÊÌÀ>Ê vÕÊÜ`Ì ÊvÊÌÀ>® ÕÃiÀÃÊ>ÀiÊi>ÃÞÊÌÊÃii°Ê
/ , ÊÊ 8
" Ê/, Ê ,"--
8 8 , ÊÊ /, -Ì>`>À`]Ê>««À«À>ÌiÞÊ -Ì>`>À`Ê É "/Ê «ÃÌi`ÊVÀÃÃ}°Ê/ ÃÊ Ü>À}Ê>À}à VÀÃÃ}Ê>ÌÊ>ÊÌiÀÃiVÌÊÜÀÃÊ º/À>Ê Üi°Ê/ iÊÞÊÌ}Êv>VÌÀÊÃÊ ÀÃÃ}»Ê Ì >ÌÊÌ iÊ>VViÃÃLiÊÀ>«ÊÃÊÌÊ>ÃÊ Ü>À}Ê Ü`iÊ>ÃÊÌ iÊÌÀ>]ÊÜ V ÊV>ÊV>ÕÃiÊ Ã} «ÀLiÃÊvÊLVÞVÃÌÃÊiiÌÊÊÌ iÊ À>«Ê>`Ê>ÀiÊLÌ ÊvÀVi`ÊÌÊÌ iÊ -Ì«ÊÃ} ViÌiÀ°Ê
-} ÌiÃÊq£ää½ÊvÀÊLVÞVÃÌÃ]ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ £Èx½ÊvÀÊÌÀÃÌÃÊ>ÌÊ{äÊ« ]Ê ÓÇä½ÊvÀÊÌÀÃÌÃÊ>ÌÊÈäÊ« -Ì>`>À`Ê É "/Ê VÀÃÃ}Ê>À}à ViÞÊÌi}À>Ìi`ÊÜÌ Ê Óxä½ÊÕÀL>ÊÃÌÀiiÌÊ Çxä½ÊÀÕÀ>ÊÃÌÀiiÌ» ÃÌÀiiÌÃV>«i°ÊÌi}À>Ì}ÊÌ iÊ ÌÀ>ÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊÃÌÀiiÌÃV>«iÊ >iÃÊÌÊiÃÃÊÌ`>Ì}ÊÌÊÌ iÊ ÕÃiÀ°Ê-} ÌiÃÊ>`ÊÌ iÊViÌiÀÊ Ã>`Ê>ÃÊ«ÀÛiÊÌ iÊÃ>viÌÞÊvÊ Ì ÃÊVÀÃÃ}°ÊÊ -Ì«ÊÃ} `iµÕ>ÌiÊ>`}É -Ì>`>À`Ê>VViÃÃLiÊ ÌÀ>ÃÌÊ>Ài> À>«ÊÊÕÀL>ÊÃiVÌÊ «ÀiÃiÌÊvÕÊÜ`Ì ÊvÊ ÌÀ>® / ,- /" Ê/, Ê ,"--
/ iÊvÜ}Ê« ÌÃÊ«ÀÛ`iÊiÝ>«iÃÊvÊ>Ì}À>`iÊÌÀ>ÊVÀÃÃ}ÃÊvÊÀ>`ÃÊÌÊ } } ÌÊ Û>ÀÕÃÊ`iÃ}ÊÌiV µÕiÃ°Ê ivÌ®Ê/ iÊÃ>viÌÞÊvÊÌ ÃÊVÀÃÃ}ÊvÊ>ÊLÕÃÞÊÀ>`ÊÃÊ i >Vi`ÊLÞÊÌ iÊi`>°Ê/ ÃÊë>ViÊ}ÛiÃÊÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀÃÊ ÃiÊ«ÀÌiVÌÊvÊÌ iÞÊv>ÊÌÊ>iÊÌÊ>ÊÌ iÊÜ>ÞÊ>VÀÃÃ°Ê ,} Ì®Ê/ ÃÊ>`}Ê>Ài>ÊÃÊÊLiÌÜiiÊÌ iÊ>ÊÀ>`Ê No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n >`Ê>Ê>VViÃÃÊÀ>«ÊÌÊ>ÊvÀiiÜ>Þ°ÊÌ Õ} ÊÌÊÃÊ>À}iÊ4.26 iÕ} ÊÌÊ>VV`>ÌiÊ>ÊviÜÊÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀÃ]ÊÌ iÊ>ÀÀÜÊ VÕÀLÊvÀViÃÊÕÃiÀÃÊÌÊÌ iÊViÌiÀÊvÊÌ iÊÀ>«ÊÕÃÌÊÜ iÊ iÛiÀÞiÊÃÊ}ÀÕ«i`Õ«Ê>ÌÊ>ÊVÃÌÀVÌi`Ê«Ì°ÊvÊÌ iÊ À>«ÊÜiÀiÊ>ÃÊÜ`iÊ>ÃÊÌ iÊÌÀ>]Ê«i«iÊ i>`i`ÊÊ iÌ iÀÊ`ÀiVÌÊVÕ`ÊÃÌ>VÊÕ«ÊLiÃ`iÊi>V ÊÜÌ ÊÌÌiÊ ÌiÀviÀiVi°Ê
-"/Ê *,/ /Ê"Ê /1, Ê, -"1, - qÊx°£Êq /, Ê* ]Ê - ]Ê Ê /, -Ê Ê7/ ,79- 6 "* /Ê1 -Ê ," 79Ê ,"-- -ÊÊ ,>`Ü>ÞÊVÀÃÃ}ÃÊViÊÊ>ÊÛ>ÀiÌÞÊvÊvÀÃÊ`ÕiÊÌÊÃÌiëiVwVÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊ ÀÊÀiÊvÀ>Ìt Vw}ÕÀ>ÌÃÊ>`ÊÀ} ÌvÜ>ÞÊÌ>ÌðÊ/ ÃÊÃÊiëiV>ÞÊÌ iÊV>ÃiÊÜ iÀiÊÌÀ>ÃÊ>ÀiÊ ,iviÀÊÌÊ É "/½ÃÊ iÜ>ÞÊ>VÌÞÊ ÀiÌÀwÌÌi`ÊÌÊ>ÊiÝÃÌ}ÊvÀ>ÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀiÊvÊÀ>`ðÊÊÀ>`ÊVÀÃÃ}ÃÊà Õ`ÊLiÊ`iÃ}i`Ê iÃ}Ê >Õ>ÊÓääÈ®Ê>ÌÊÜÜÜ°`Ì° ÌÊLiÊÃ>vi]ÊÜ V Êi>ÃÊ >Û}Ê>`iµÕ>ÌiÊÃ} ÌiÃ]Ê>««À«À>ÌiÊÃ}>}iÊ>`ÊÌÀ>vwVÊ ÃÌ>Ìi°°ÕÃÉÌÀ>ÃÌÉLiÉLi`iÃ}° VÌÀÊ`iÛViÃ]Ê>`Ê>«iÊÌiÊÌÊVÀÃÃÊÌ iÊÀ>`ÊLiÌÜiiÊÌÀ>vwVÊyÜðÊ/ iÊvÜ}Ê ÌÊvÀÊ>``Ì>ÊvÀ>Ì°Ê }À>« VÊ«ÀÛ`iÃÊ>ÊÛiÀÛiÜÊvÊÃ} ÌiÊ`ÃÌ>ViÃÊÀi>ÌÛiÊÌÊ>ÊÌÀÃÌÃÊëii`Ê>`Ê Ài>VÌÊÌi°ÊÊ
-/ Ê -/ Ê " - ,/" -ÊÊÊ / iÊÌ>LiÊ`iwiÃÊÌ iÊ`ÃÌ>ViÊÌÀ>Ûii`ÊÊÌ ÀiiÊÃiV`ÃÊ>ÌÊÃÌi`Ê Ã«ii`Ã]ÊÜ V ÊÃÊÌ iÊÌiÊ>ÊÌÀÃÌÊii`ÃÊÌÊÀi>VÌÊÌÊ>ÊLVÞVÃÌÊ >LÕÌÊÌÊVÀÃÃÊÌ iÊÀ>`°ÊÊ ÃÌ>ViÊ/À>Ûii`ÊÊ/ ÀiiÊ-iV`ÃÊ>ÌÊ ÃÌi`Ê-«ii`ÃÊ 6i ViÊ-«ii`Ê« ®ÊÊÊÊÊÎäÊÊÊÊÊ{äÊÊÊÊÊ{xÊÊÊÊÊxäÊÊÊÊÊxxÊÊÊÊÊÈäÊÊÊÊÊÇäÊ ÃÌ>ViÊ/À>ÛiÊvÌ®ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ£ÎÓÊÊÊÊ£ÇÈÊÊÊ£nÊÊÊÊÓÓäÊÊÊÓ{ÓÊÊÊÓÈ{ÊÊÊÎänÊ
Èx½ÊÃÌ««}Ê`ÃÌ>ViÊvÊ >ÊLVÞVÃÌÊ>ÌÊ£xÊ« Ê®
-} ÌiÃÊ
Ê}iiÀ>]ÊÌÀ>ÊVÀÃÃ}ÃÊ>ÌÊÌiÀÃiVÌÃÊ>ÀiÊv>ÛÀi`ÊÛiÀÊ`LVÊVÀÃÃ}ÃÊLiV>ÕÃiÊ Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n ÌÀÃÌÃÊ>`ÊÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀÃÊ>ÀiÊ iÀiÌÞÊÀiÊ>Ü>ÀiÊvÊÌÀ>vwVÊÃÃÕiÃÊ>ÌÊÌiÀÃiVÌÃ°Ê / >ÌÊÃ>`]Ê`LVÊVÀÃÃ}ÃÊ>ÀiÊVÊÊÕÀL>Ê>`ÊÀÕÀ>ÊÃiÌÌ}ÃÊ>`ÊÕÃÌÊLiÊ >VV`>Ìi`°Ê/ iÊvÜ}Ê}À>« VÃÊ«ÀÛ`iÊ`iÃ}Ê}Õ`iiÃÊvÀÊÌ iÊÃÌÊVÊ Fi g u r e 4.17 – Cr o s s w a l k Me d i a n a n d Ra i l r o a d Tr a c k At-Gr a d e Cr o s s i ng s (Source: Minnesota Trail Planning, Design, and DevelopmentvÀÃÊvÊ>Ì}À>`iÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÊVÀÃÃ}ð Guidelines (MN DNR 2007) Illustration provides baseline information on these features
,"--7 Ê É,- Ê- / iÊ É "/ÊÀ>`Ê`iÃ}Ê>Õ>ÊÀiVi`ÃÊ«i`iÃÌÀ>Êi`>ÊÃ>`ÃÊ>ÌÊ ÌiÀÃiVÌÃÊÜ`iÀÊÌ >ÊÇxÊviiÌÊÀÊÜ iÊ>Ê«i`iÃÌÀ>ÊÜ>}Ê>ÌÊÓ°xÊviiÌÊ«iÀÊ / ÃÊ`LVÊVÀÃÃ}Ê >ÃÊ ÃiV`ÊV>ÌÊVÀÃÃÊÌ iÊÃÌÀiiÌÊV«iÌiÞÊÊiÊ}ÀiiÊVÞVi°ÊÃ>`ÃÊ>ÀiÊÃÌÊ >ÊÀ>Ãi`Êi`>ÊÜÌ Ê>ÊVÕÌÊ ÌÞ«V>ÞÊÕÃi`ÊvÀÊ`LVÊVÀÃÃ}Ã]ÊLÕÌÊV>Ê>ÃÊLiÊÕÃi`Ê>ÌÊÌiÀÃiVÌðÊÊÊ Ì ÀÕ} °Ê/ ÃÊ>ÜÃÊÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀÃÊ ÌÊ«ÀVii`ÊÜÌ ÕÌÊ>ÞÊÀ>«ÃÊ Ê«iÃÊÀÊÌ iÀÊ ÀÊ}À>`iÊV >}iÃ]ÊÃÊÌ iÞÊV>Ê LÃÌÀÕVÌÃÊà Õ`ÊLiÊ vVÕÃÊÊÌ iÊÌÀ>vwVÊ>`ÊÌ iÀÊ ÊÌ iÊVÀÃÃÜ>Ê>Ài> ÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀðÊ
È°x½ÊÕÊ -Ì>`>À`Ê É "/Ê Ü`Ì VÀÃÃ}Ê>À}à -Ì«ÊÃ}
,>Ãi`ÊÃ>`ÊÜÌ Ê«>ÀÌ>Ê À>«ÊVÕÌÌ ÀÕ} °ÊÌ Õ} Ê Ì iÊÃ>`ÊÃÊ>Ê}`Ê`i>]ÊÌ iÊ £ää½ ,-Ì>`>À`Ê>VViÃÃLiÊ ," Ê/, Ê ,"-- -ÊÊ VÕÌÌ ÀÕ} ÊÃÊÌÊ>ÀÀÜ]Ê À>«ÊÊÕÀL>Ê Ü V ÊvÀViÃÊ««Ã}ÊÌÀ>Ê -Ì«Ê i>`ÊÃ}Ê ,>À>`ÊVÀÃÃ}ÃÊÀiµÕÀiÊëiV>ÊV>Ài°Ê7 iiÛiÀÊ«ÃÃLi]ÊÌ iÊ>««À>V ÊÌÊÌ iÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÃiVÌÊ«ÀiÃiÌÊvÕÊ ÕÃiÀÃÊÌÊÜ>ÌÊÊÌ iÊ``iÊ vÊii`i`® n½ÊÕ]Ê£ä½Ê à Õ`ÊLiÊ>ÌÊäÊ`i}ÀiiÃÊÌÊÌ iÊÌÀ>VÊÌÊ>ÜÊLVÞVÃÌÃÊ>`ÊiÊÃ>ÌiÀÃÊÌÊÀ`iÊÛiÀÊÜ`Ì ÊvÊÌÀ>® vÊÌ iÊÀ>`ÊÌÊ«>ÃÃÊiÊ>ÌÊ>Ê «ÀiviÀÀi`ÊÜ`Ì Ìi°Ê/ ÃÊV>Ê«ÃiÊ>ÊÃ>viÌÞÊ Ì iÊ«>ÛiiÌÊ}>«ÊV>ÕÃi`ÊLÞÊÌ iÊÀ>ÃÊ>ÌÊ>Ê«iÀ«i`VÕ>ÀÊ>}iÊ>`ÊÌÊ>ÜÊÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀÃÊÀÃÊÜ iÊÌÀâi`ÊÌÀ>vwVÊÃÊ / iÊÜ`Ì ÊvÊÌ iÊVÀÃÃÜ>Ê>`ÊVÕÀLÊVÕÌÃÊà Õ`ÊLiÊ£ä½ÊÕ°Ê,>Ãi`ÊÌÊÊLÌ ÊÜ>ÞÃÊ`ÜÊÌ iÊÌÀ>VÊ>ÃÊÌ iÞÊ>««À>V ÊÌ iÊVÀÃÃ}°Ê ÀÃÃ}Ê>}iÃÊvÊ>««À>V }ÊvÀÊLÌ ÊÃ`iðÊÊ Ã>`ÃÊà Õ`ÊLiÊVÕÌÊÌ ÀÕ} ÊÀÊ >ÛiÊ Ê>VViÃÃLiÊVÕÀLÊÀ>«ÃÊÜÌ Ê>ÊLiÌÜiiÊÈäÊ>`ÊäÊ`i}ÀiiÃÊ>ÀiÊ>VVi«Ì>Li]ÊLÕÌÊà Õ`ÊÞÊLiÊÕÃi`ÊvÊäÊ`i}ÀiiÃÊ ÕÊ>`}Ê>Ài>ÊvÊ{ÊviiÌÊLiÌÜiiÊÀ>«Ã°ÊÊ ÃÊÌÊ«ÃÃLi°Ê/ iÊvÜ}Ê}À>« VÊ>`Ê« ÌÃÊ«ÀÛ`iÊ}Õ`iiÃÊ>`ÊiÝ>«iÃÊvÊ À>À>`ÊVÀÃÃ}ðÊÊÊÊ
, ," Ê/, Ê ,"-- -ÊÊÊ -"/Ê *,/ /Ê"Ê /1, Ê, -"1, - qÊx°£nÊq /, Ê* ]Ê - ]Ê Ê /, -Ê Ê7/ ,79-Ê/ iÊ«ÀiviÀÀi`ÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÜ`Ì ÊvÊ>ÊÀ>À>`ÊÌÀ>VÊÃÊiµÕ>ÊÌÊÌ iÊÜ`Ì ÊvÊÌ iÊÌÀ>Ê«ÕÃÊÎÊviiÌÊÊi>V ÊÃ`iÊÌÊ«ÀÛ`iÊ 6 "* /Ê1 - >`iµÕ>ÌiÊ>iÕÛiÀ}Êë>ViÊ>ÌÊÌ iÊ>VÌÕ>ÊVÀÃÃ}°Ê/ ÃÊÃÊiëiV>ÞÊ«ÀÌ>ÌÊÜ iÊÌ iÊÌÀ>ÊÃÊ>`>ViÌÊÌÊÌ iÊÌÀ>VÊ>`Ê Ì iÊVÕÀÛiÃÊÌÊ>iÊÌ iÊVÀÃÃ}]ÊÜ V Êà Õ`ÊLiÊ>ÃÊVÃiÊÌÊäÊ`i}ÀiiÃÊ>ÃÊ«ÃÃLi°Ê/ iÊVL>ÌÊvÊ>}ÊÌ iÊÌÕÀÊ >`ÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÌ iÊÌÀ>VÃÊÜ iÊ}ÊvÀÊÌÀ>Ã]ÊLÃiÀÛ}ÊV}ÊÌÀ>ÊÌÀ>vwV]Ê>`Ê>}ÊÃÕÀiÊÌ >ÌÊ>ÊÜ iiÊ`iÃÊÌÊ V>ÌV ÊÊÌ iÊÀ>Ê}>«ÊV>ÊÌ>iÊÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀÃÊ>ÌÌiÌÊ>Ü>ÞÊvÀÊÃÌ>Þ}ÊÊÌ iÀÊ>i°Ê/ iÊiÝÌÀ>ÊÜ`Ì Ê«ÀÛ`iÃÊÃiÊÀiVÛiÀÞÊ Ã«>ViÊvÊ>ÊÕÃiÀÊÊÃÕ`}iÃÊÌ iÊVÀiÀ°ÊÊ-ViÊÌÀ>ÃÊ>ÀiÊÕÃÕ>ÞÊvÀiµÕiÌ]ÊÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀÃÊvÌiÊ`ÊÌÊÃÌ«Ê>ÌÊÌ iÊÌÀ>VÃ]ÊÜ V Ê Õ`iÀÃVÀiÃÊÌ iÊii`ÊvÀÊ«iÌÞÊvÊ>iÕÛiÀ}Êë>ViÊ>ÌÊÌ iÊVÀÃÃ}Ê>Ài>°Ê Ê 7>À}ÊÃ}
-} ÌiÃÊÊ>Ê `ÀiVÌÃÊà Õ`Ê /À>ÊÜ`iÃÊLÞÊνÊÊi>V ÊÃ`iÊ>ÃÊÌ iÊÌÀ>Ê>««À>V iÃÊÌ iÊ LiÊV«iÌiÞÊ VÀÃÃ}ÊiÝ>VÌÊ«ÌÊvÊÜ`i}ÊL>Ãi`ÊÊwi`ÊV`ÌÃÊÌÊ «iÊ -Ì«ÊÃ} iÃÕÀiÊ>ÊVvÀÌ>LiÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÛiiÌ®
/ iÊ«>ÛiiÌÊÃÕÀv>ViÊ>`Ê`iÃ}ÊvÊÌ iÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÃÊvÌiÊ `iÌiÀi`ÊLÞÊÌ iÊÀ>À>`Ê>ÕÌ ÀÌÞ°Ê VÀiÌiÊÃÊ«ÀiviÀÀi`ÊÊ -Ì«ÊÃ} `ÕiÊÌÊÌÃÊ`ÕÀ>LÌÞ]Ê>Ì Õ} Ê«ÀivÀi`ÊÀÕLLiÀÊ>ÌÃÊ>ÀiÊ >ÃÊV°Ê7`ÊVÀÃÃ}ÃÊ>ÀiÊ>VVi«Ì>LiÊLÕÌÊÌi`ÊÌÊ >ÛiÊ>Êà ÀÌiÀÊviÊë>°Ê
7>À}ÊÃ}
/ ÃÊÌÀ>ÊVÀÃÃ}]ÊVÃÌÀÕVÌi`ÊÜÌ ÊVVÀiÌiÊ / iÊVVÀiÌiÊ>`ÊÃÌiiÊvÀ>}ÊvÊÌ ÃÊ Ì Õ} ÊÃÌ ]ÊÌ ÃÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÃÊÞÊ>ÃÊÜ`iÊ ÜÌ ÊÃÌiiÊvÀ>}]Ê«ÀÛ`iÃÊ>«iÊÃ Õ`iÀÊ VÀÃÃ}ÊÃÊÛiÀÞÊ`ÕÀ>LiÊ>`ÊÃÌ>Li°ÊÌ Õ} Ê >ÃÊÌ iÊÌÀ>°ÊÛiÊÌ iÊ>LÀÕ«ÌiÃÃÊvÊÌ iÊ Ü`Ì ÊvÀÊ>iÕÛiÀ}ÊÌ ÀÕ} ÊÌ ÃÊV}iÃÌi`Ê >VVi«Ì>Li]ÊÌ iÊiÃÃÌ >ä`i}ÀiiÊVÀÃÃ}Ê VÀÃÃ}]ÊÀiÊÜ`Ì ÊÜÕ`Ê>iÊÌ iÊÌÕÀÊ >Ài>°ÊÊÊ >}iÊVÀi>ÃiÃÊÌ iÊV >ViÊvÊV>ÌV }Ê>Ê ÀiÊVvÀÌ>LiÊ>`ÊVÀi>ÃiÊÌ iÊ>À}Ê Ü ii°Ê vÊÃ>viÌÞ°ÊÊ
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.27
7`ÊVÀÃÃ}ÃÊ>ÀiÊVÊÊÀÕÀ>ÊÃiÌÌ}ÃÊ / ÃÊÀ>ÊVÀÃÃ}ÊÃÊ>ÌÊ>Ê``Ê>}iÊ>`ÊVÕ`Ê / ÃÊVvÕÃ}Ê} ÌÀ>ÊÌÀ>ÃÌÊ ,/®Ê>`Ê >`ÊÜÀÊÜiÊvÊ>Ì>i`°Ê/ ÃÊVÀÃÃ}Ê ÀiÃÕÌÊÊ>ÊLVÞVÃÌÊV>ÌV }Ê>ÊÜ iiÊÜ iÊ À>`Ü>ÞÊVÀÃÃ}Ê>Ài>Êi>ÀÊ>ÊLÕÃÞÊÌiÀÃiVÌÊ VÕ`ÊLiÊ«ÀÛi`ÊLÞÊÜ`i}ÊÌ°ÊÊÊ Ü>ÌV }ÊvÀÊÌÀÃÌðÊ/ iÊvÀi`ÊVVÀiÌiÊ «ÃiÃÊ>ÊV >i}iÊiÛiÊÌÊiÌiÊLVÞVÃÌðÊÌÊ ÜÌ ÊÃÌiiÊvÀ>iÊVÀÃÃ}Ê i«ÃÊÌÊÌ iÊ ÃÊ>ÃÊVvÕÃ}ÊÌÊÌÀÃÌÃÊÜ Ê>ÀiÊi>ÃÞÊ V >ViÊvÊÌ >ÌÊVVÕÀÀ}°Ê `ÃÌÀ>VÌi`ÊvÀÊ«>Þ}Ê>ÌÌiÌÊvÀÊÌÀ>ÊÕÃiÀðÊ
-"/Ê *,/ /Ê"Ê /1, Ê, -"1, - qÊx°ÓäÊq /, Ê* ]Ê - ]Ê Ê /, -Ê Ê7/ ,79- 6 "* /Ê1 - Se c t i o n 4 - Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n
End of section. This page is left purposefully blank.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 4.28 Se c t i o n 5 Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
As part of the system plan, a general review of natural resource mapping Ov e r v i e w within the city was undertaken to gain a sense of the overall extent and condition of natural resource areas. This review was used as the basis for the natural resources stewardship plan presented in this section. The plan applies to all public parks and open space parcels included under the system plan that exhibit natural plant communities and ecological systems. For consistency, the program also has application to privately-owned properties or those that are held by other public agencies. (This section complements the protection strategy for open space defined in Section 3, which addresses lands desired to be set aside as natural open space and greenway corridors.)
The stewardship plan promotes an ecosystem-based approach to managing Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s natural systems. An ecosystem is essentially where things live and represents St e w a r d s h i p Ph i l o s o p h y an interacting group of physical elements (soils, water, plants, animals, etc.) that inhabit a particular place. a n d Vision Ecosystem-based management views people as part of the community, and as such maintaining a healthy ecosystem is the best way to meet human needs as well as those of other organisms. General goals of this philosophy are to: • Enhance the health of the ecosystems in the city • Preserve and enhance the biological diversity of native habitats • Provide an appropriate balance between resource preservation, recreational use, and development The stewardship plan focuses on achieving a sustainable landscape quality. This is defined as the point at which Northfield can indefinitely maintain a certain acceptable level of resource quality within the context of realistic limits – which is contingent upon two primary factors: • Public understanding of and commitment to natural resource preservation and stewardship programs The Cannon River corridor is one of numerous examples • Undertaking ecological restoration and management programs that are in the city where maintaining its high value as a natural scientifically sound and technically feasible resource amenity will require a long-term commitment to its ecological health. Lacking that commitment, this Through a well-defined stewardship program and a concerted, ongoing type of resource will slowly degrade due to lack of natural processes and the collective impact of invasive effort to protect natural areas, confidence can be gained that current species, fragmentation, and hydrological changes threats (e.g., inundation of invasive species, impacts of new development, associated with adjacent development. degradation of water quality) can be effectively mitigated or managed. Stewardship programs inherently need to be flexible due to the changing nature of the living systems. The framework presented here should be viewed as a flexible plan that is neither conclusive nor absolute. It is the beginning of an ongoing process that relies on monitoring, research, and cost evaluations to provide feedback on program effectiveness and intensity.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.1 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
Achievability a n d Sustainability o f Ec o l o g i c a l St e w a r d s h i p Pr o g r a m s To be successful, restoring and managing ecological systems must be both achievable and sustainable. Achievable refers to what is scientifically and economically viable and feasible. Sustainable refers to the level to which restoration and management programs can be scientifically and economically maintained over an extended period of time. The following considers achievability and sustainability from the two distinct but interrelated perspectives of ecology and economy (human/economic capital). Ecological Perspective From an ecological perspective, what is achievable and sustainable is defined in scientific terms based on testing and research. Scientifically, human intervention through well thought-out and carefully implemented programs over a period of time can help reverse the current downward trend in the ecological quality of the city’s natural systems (as measured by biodiversity and general ecological health). A successful program requires a full understanding of the ecological problems being faced and a defined course of action that is based on science. As defined in this section, human intervention will be required given the current conditions found within these systems. Although dramatic improvements can often be made, restoring the landscape to pre-settlement conditions is not realistic from a scientific perspective. Past impacts to the land since man first settled and introduction The preservation and restoration of open space by St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges are local examples of invasive alien plants simply preclude this possibility. However, it is where highly disturbed sites are slowly be transformed achievable to restore and manage many ecosystems to sustainable and back into a natural amenity for their intrinsic natural productive levels, resulting in considerable human and ecological value qualities, habitat value, along with providing recreational that can be perpetuated for generations to come. The key point here is opportunities and scenic enjoyment for residents, that Northfield must set realistic goals and expectations as to what can be visitors, and students attending the two campuses. achieved and sustained through restoration and management programs. Economic (Human/Economic Capital) Perspective From an economic perspective, what is achievable and sustainable is based on the amount of human and economic capital that can be committed to ecological programs now and in the future. The importance of this cannot be overstated in that the long-term viability of any ecological program undertaken is directly related to the long-term commitment made to it in terms of human and economic resources. Ultimately, how the collective community values land stewardship and ecological health relative to other quality of life issues will define the extent to which ecological programs can be successfully implemented. Recognizing this, it is critical that Northfield undertake ecological programs in a pragmatic manner that keeps pace with available economic resources.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.2 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
Undertaking a natural resource stewardship program across the city will A Pu b l i c –Pr i v a t e require a close partnership with landowners and private developers to be Pa r t n e r s h i p successful. The City alone will not likely have the financial resources to both set aside land for open space or parks and provide stewardship for those lands. As defined in Section 3, setting aside land for preserved natural areas and providing perpetual stewardship of those lands will have to be accomplished as part of the development process if it is to occur. Achieving these goals will have to be balanced against flexibility given to the developer to maintain the economic viability of a development.
Pa r t n e r i n g w i t h Ca r l e t o n a n d St. Ol a f Co l l e g e s As relatively large land owners, land use decisions made by Carleton and St. Olaf Colleges inherently affect the extent to which open space will be preserved in and around the city. To the community’s good fortune, land management plans for both colleges emphasize limited development and, of equal importance, restoration of many acres over time to replicate a more natural landscape character. Maintaining a close working relationship with Carleton and St. Olaf Colleges will enhance the prospect for complementary land use and management decisions that are consistent with the provisions of this system plans.
As defined in Section 3, the proposed natural open space system strives to Ov e r v i e w o f Ec o l o g i c a l preserve the highest quality and most unique landscape features of the city Co n d i t i o n s to the extent possible. The quality of the natural ecological systems found within theses areas range from relatively healthy natural and undisturbed systems to those that have been highly impacted and degraded by past land uses or lack of management. In virtually all cases, the lack of natural processes, such as wildfire, along with impacts from past development and other land uses has resulted in a significant threat to the overall health of native plant communities as the years have passed. In many cases, certain species of plants – native and non-native – are out-competing other native plant species when natural processes are disturbed, fragmented, or halted. This is resulting in a trend toward substantial reductions in biodiversity, function, and visual beauty.
Ob s e r v e d Tr e n d s In Ec o l o g i c a l Sy s t e m s Without human intervention and conscientious stewardship, the overall trend of ecological systems across the city will be toward continued decline, as measured by biodiversity and general ecological health. For example, figure 5.1 graphically illustrates the current trend in a typical oak savanna or forest system found in this and many other Midwestern regions.
Fi g u r e 5.1 – Cu r r e n t Tr e n d in Oa k Sa v a nn a o r Fo r e s t Sy s t e m Presettlement – d i v e r s e a n d 1950s – La c k o f n a t u r a l p r o c e s s e s 1970s t o p r e s e n t – n a t i v e s p e c i e s Fu t u r e – Na t i v e s y s t e m s i m p l y v i b r a n t n a t u r a l s y s t e m (f i r e ) c h a n g i n g n a t u r a l b a l a n c e increasingly d o m i n a t e d b y i n v a s i v e s c o l l a p s e s Overstory Open Canopy Single age- system canopy becoming class overstory collapses overstocked with little Limited regeneration Invasive shrub occurring shrub layer layer dominant Shrub layer Diverse Shrub layer shade herbaceous invasion suppressing Ground ground occurring stabilizing layer layer ground layer vegetation collapses
Flora and fauna diversity declines over time as native system collapses
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.3 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
This example is reflective of what is happening to varying degrees in all of the ecological systems found throughout the region. Although some of the ecological degradation cannot be entirely reversed, there are many opportunities to forestall further decline and make substantial progress toward achieving a more sustainable and healthier landscape over time. Figure 5.2 graphically illustrates the current overall trend in ecological quality, as well as defining the spectrum of opportunity for reversing this trend. Fi g u r e 5.2 – Tr e n d An a l y s i s
Historic i t h W t o La n d s c a p e T u a l i t y nd e r W Q St e e p n e s s o f Tr e n d Li n e De p e n d e n t h o t u t i ntervention in I p o n e s o u r c e s o m m i t t e d t o N U R C e s o u r c e A ulatr R u m a n Re s t o r a t i o n a n d Ma n a g e m e n t vec i t H u a l i t y Pr o g r a m s e Q R a t u r a l p S oec ur s e i h s d r w a e t N in u s t a i n e d S a n d s c a Q r e n d o f L r i m a r y bjective e v e r s a l u a l i t y T P O : R p y t i u l a e v e l L istoric Q o f Cu r r e n t Tr e n d in t h e H Sp e c t r u m o f Po t e n t i a l Qu a l i t y o f t h e Ci t y ’s Na t u r a l a x i m u m Opp o r t u n i t y f o r M r o a c h e s o u r c e s t o c h i e v e a pp R A e s o u r c e A Intervention Su s t a i n a b l e a n d De s i r a b l e R La n d s c a p e a t u r a l
N St a t u s q u o l i n e Ma i n t a i n St a t u s Qu o in Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e Qu a l i t y w i t h Th e Minimal Le v e l o f (Po i n t a t w h i c h c u r r e n t l e v e l o f Su s t a i n e d Hu m a n Intervention Re q u i r e d t o Av o i d Co n t i n u e d De c l i n e To t a l l y n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e q u a l i t y is m a i n t a i n e d ) Li n e o f Co n t i n u e d De g r a d a t i o n De g r a d e d Wi t h o u t Hu m a n Intervention La n d s c a p e Presettlement Pr e s e n t Fu t u r e Ti m e f r a m e
Re l a t e d Th r e a t s t o Ec o l o g i c a l Sy s t e m s In addition to the overall trend in ecological conditions, there are some other significant threats facing the natural resources within the region. The following considers those of most concern. Ecological Systems Fragmentation: The ecological communities within the city are becoming increasingly fragmented, which refers to the division of the various native plant communities into smaller, more isolated areas by roads, farm fields and pastures, old and new development, and a variety of other land uses. The fragmentation of ecological systems reduces overall native plant diversity and health and the quality and quantity of food and cover for wildlife. Within the context of greenway planning, habitat fragmentation is a significant concern and an important consideration in determining how new development is accommodated in the city. Erosion: As surface and groundwater hydrology change in response to new land uses, the likelihood of erosion greatly increases due to higher concentrations of stormwater. Of equal concern is erosion along lake shorelines and wetlands, where soil migration from upstream locations is significant. Inappropriate Uses: The occasional misuse of public property can be found across the city and surrounding countryside. This includes encroachment of private land uses and activities onto public properties that causes disruption to natural systems. Mowing natural areas and dumping debris are common examples of encroachment. Although the extent of this activity does not appear to be excessive, if left unchecked it can lead to substantial degradation of ecological systems and soil structure. To forestall this activity, the city should remind citizens of what is legal and illegal on public property and encourage them to report such instances to local authorities for enforcement.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.4 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
The comprehensive stewardship program entails a dual-track strategy, as the Du a l Tr a c k St e w a r d s h i p following graphic illustrates. St r a t e g y Pu b l i c l y -Ow n e d Pa r k s a n d Co m p r e h e n s i v e Na t u r a l Op e n Sp a c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pr o g r a m Pr i v a t e l y -He l d /Ow n e d Na t u r a l Op e n Sp a c e s
The first track relates to publicly-owned parks and natural open spaces. The second track relates to privately-owned natural open space that are protected under conservation easements or land trusts. (Note that in this context, private and public relates to direct ownership, not access. As defined in Sections 3 and 4, many privately-owned natural open space parcels will be accessible to the general public (via trails) as part of developers’ agreements associated with establishing open spaces and destination trails as development occurs.) Each of these tracks requires different stewardship strategies.
St e w a r d s h i p St r a t e g y f o r Pu b l i c Pa r k s a n d Na t u r a l Op e n Sp a c e s The stewardship strategy establishes a road map toward realizing a more healthy and vibrant natural landscape and achieving the stated vision. The time frame for implementing the stewardship strategy for public land is uncertain due to the The following defines the action steps for developing and implementing a realities of establishing funding mechanisms. stewardship program as it relates to public lands. Realistically, the greater shorter-term opportunity relates to the stewardship strategy for privately- Action Step 1 – Develop Overall Mapping of Ecological Systems owned natural open space as defined on page 5.7. Using MLCCS mapping protocol, the vegetative communities across the city will have to be mapped. Refinements should continue on an as-needed basis. Additional ecological evaluations will also continue through partnerships with other agencies and private developers as development occurs. Action Step 2 – Develop Ecological Prototypes for Healthy and Unhealthy Systems Ecological prototypes refer to the general structure, site conditions, vegetative species lists, and other variables attributed to each of the ecological communities found within the city. Prototypes assist restoration and management efforts by helping compare existing conditions against measurable criteria for healthy systems and in recognizing possible causes resulting in ecological changes. By recognizing what a healthy system looks like, specific targets or models for management and restoration programs can be developed and implemented. Preparation of ecological prototypes and an accompanying implementation plan will require assistance from a trained professional familiar with natural resource stewardship issues in this region. As a basic resource, figure 5.3 provides an overview of ecological prototypes and a listing of relevant publications defining ecological systems in the region and invasive threats to those systems.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.5 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
Fi g u r e 5.3 – Ex a m p l e s o f Ec o l o g i c a l Pr o t o t y p e s a n d Listing o f Re l e v a n t RSECTIONe l a t V e d- N ATURALPublicatio RESOURCES SnTEWARDSHIPs PLAN
MESIC OAK SAVANNA ECOLOGICAL PROTOTYPE
HEALTHY SYSTEMS
General Structure: Indicator Species of Healthy System: • Semi-open to open tree canopy • Bur oaks • Multiple age classes of trees • Northern pin oaks • Dominant cover of native grasses, sedges, and forbs • Shrub component: chokecherry, low juneberry, • Natural oak regeneration dogwood, wolfberry, New Jersey tea, American SECTION V - NATURAL RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP PLAN • Sporadic native shrub layer hazelnut, leadplant • High light levels interspersed with partial/isolated • Many grasses and forbs found in the prairie would be shade present in savannas, along with oak woodland under- WstoryET plantsPRAIRIE being E COLOGICALpresent in the P grovesROTOTYPE Soils Profile/Topography/Hydrology: • Well drained silt, clay and sand loams, gravelly sands, HEALTHY SYSTEMS alluvium glacial features • Higher and dry sites, and moist, well drained soils General Structure: Indicator Species of Healthy System: • Patchy, patterned plant communities reflecting soil • Prairie cordgrass and hydrological gradients • Canada bluejoint UNHEALTHY SYSTEMS • High biodiversity – plants, insects, birds, and animals • New England aster • High diversity of native grasses and forbs • Mountain-mint General Structure: Indicator• Predominance Species of Unhealthy of native grass, System: sedge, and forb species • Extensive variety of other native grasses, sedges, and • Continuous, closed canopy • Europeanof low, buckthornmoist-to-wet soils forbs • Dense layer of non-native shrubs • Tartarian• Natural honeysuckle succession and progression toward • Bare, eroding soil (ground layer vegetation sparse to • Blackconservative locust species Soils Profile/Topography/Hydrology: absent • Boxelder• High groundwater table and often groundwater-based • Shallow organic soils • Low light levels, predominant dense shade • Europeanhydrology brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and other non- • Soils are saturated in the spring and dry out as year • No oak regeneration native• Full grasses to nearly full sun progresses • Few or no young age classes of keystone trees (e.g., • Agricultural weed species oaks) • Lack of native groundcover vegetation • Encroachment by development or agriculture UNHEALTHY SYSTEMS
General Structure: Indicator Species of Unhealthy System: • Altered hydrology due to de-watering or flooding • Reed canary grass • Heavy invasion by woody growth (e.g., glossy • Glossy buckthorn PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS buckthorn) • Overstocked dogwoods • Invasion by non-native reed canary grass • Purple loosestrife Causes of Change: Restorative• Homogenous Capacity: vegetation and low pattern of diversity Protection• Stinging Strategy: nettles • Cessation of historic fire regimes - the lower frequency • Oak savanna occurs on sites where fire was frequent • Adopt• Invasive land developmentgiant reed grass practices that place a high of fire on these sites compared to open prairie sites enough to prevent closed tree and shrub canopies so priority on ecological protection of upland natural allowed the development of the tree component that prairie grasses and forbs dominate the ground communities • Destruction due to development layer • Implement an annual, long-term, monitoring, • Invasion of competing non-native shrubs • Highly restorable under well-designed and restoration and management plan • Encroachment of adjacent development with implemented restoration and management program • Protect historic hydrologic regime/systems associated pollutants • Highly disturbed sites may require replanting of native • Intensive grazing species, especially ground cover, if native seed bank is • Change in hydrologic regime (drier or wetter) absent PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Causes of Change: Restorative Capacity: Protection Strategy: • Draining of soils for agriculture tillage • Potential to be restorable under well-designed and • Adopt land development practices that place a high SPRING LAKE REGIONAL PARK - SCOTT COUNTY • Cessation of wild fire and overgrazing implemented restoration and management program 5.17 priority on ecological protection, with a particular • Hydrologic changes due to urban development and in cases where off-site factors can be controlled focus on upland buffer systems and natural infiltration a change to surface water rather than groundwater • Highly disturbed sites may not be realistically restored systems dependent hydrology due to extent of past degradation and uncontrollable • Implement an annual, long-term monitoring, • Nutrient enrichment from dewatered substrates and off-site factors restoration, and management plan off-site introduction • Restoration may require replanting of native species if • Protect historic hydrologic regime/systems • Salt and fertilizer loading native seed bank is absent
Ecological prototypes define the characteristicsSPRING LAKE of R EGIONALhealthy PARK -and SCOTT unhealthyCOUNTY ecological systems and define protection and management considerations defining 5.18 causes for change, restoration capacity, and protection strategy. These prototypes are then used as the basis for prioritizing the stewardship program and development of detailed plans for restoration, management, and monitoring specific natural areas.
These publications provide valuable information on native plant communities within the region, threats to those communities, and basis for developing a site-specific stewardship program. All of them are available through the MN DNR website.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.6 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
Action Step 3 – Develop Detailed Stewardship Plan The detailed stewardship plan is a technically-based document that defines the restoration and management approach for the natural areas throughout the city. The plan typically includes a definition of restoration techniques, management and restoration strategies for each ecological unit, time lines for program implementation, and monitoring protocol. The plan also includes costing information for each phase of the program. Action Step 4 – Prioritize Public Lands for Stewardship In the context of funding limitations, a multi-phased approach will be required. The baseline strategy for publicly-owned lands is to sequentially address stewardship needs based on established priorities. The key priorities include: 1. Continuing to manage ecological communities that have already been restored 2. Mitigating immediate threats to natural areas and ecological systems 3. Protecting and enhancing the highest quality systems within existing parks, with an emphasis on areas readily observable by the public 4. Systematically expand stewardship activities, with an emphasis on areas that are adjacent to previously restored areas to reduce habitat fragmentation, create sustainable systems, and maintain stewardship efficiencies Action Step 5 – Establish an Annual and Five-Year Budget for the Stewardship Program Critical to the success of the stewardship program is consistent year-to-year funding. The PRAB should recommend to the City Council a five-year plan that defines funding levels associated with priorities. The plan should be updated each year to ensure that stewardship program planning is in alignment with funding allocations. Action Step 6 – Undertake Stewardship Program for Priority Sites Consistent with the approved budget, a phased approach should be implemented at the priority sites. Stewardship Plan Implementation Initially, stewardship budgets will likely be modest, with the key objective being to establish the program and to position the city for grant opportunities and leveraging any funding opportunities that emerge as part of the development process. St e w a r d s h i p St r a t e g y f o r Pr i v a t e l y -Ow n e d Na t u r a l Op e n Sp a c e Establishing a stewardship program for privately-owned land is tied to the development planning process, as is the actual setting aside of land for open space as defined in Section 3. Since these programs are not inherently mandated, the City will have to rely on collaborations with developers and landowners if stewardship programs are to be integrated into land development packages. The technically based practices, techniques, and phases associated with private stewardship programs are consistent with those ascribed for public land. The primary difference is that these programs are generally funded as part of an overall developer’s agreement with the City. Depending on the economies of a specific development and the public values ascribed to the area, the City may also participate in some aspects of these stewardship programs.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.7 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
To protect all interests, the developer’s agreement as it relates to stewardship programs should include the following provisions: • Definition of a stewardship program – relates to the construction, restoration, maintenance, and monitoring of natural ecological systems as part of the designated development proposal. • Fund agreement – relates to the establishment of a perpetual funding source for long-term stewardship program within the designated development. The fund typically consists of some combination of an endowment (that bears yearly interest) and yearly association fees that are a stipulated part of the purchase agreement for a residential lot. • Areas covered under the stewardship program – defines the specific land areas where stewardship would occur, most often being legally defined under a conservation easement. • Stewardship program phases – typically includes two phases: 1) development phase, and 2) long-term stewardship phase. Under the development phase, the developer would bear the cost of stewardship. Once the development is complete, a homeowners association takes over stewardship responsibility through an established fund. • Stewardship program technical requirements – defines the technical specifications for restoring, managing, maintaining, and monitoring designated natural areas. • Restriction of uses within conservation easements – defines uses that cannot occur in conservation areas. • Signage of the conservation easement – stipulates the type of signage required to define the limits of the preserved areas. • Protocol for administration of the stewardship program – stipulates the administrative procedures for program oversight and the city’s legal authority to take action if the agreement is not fulfilled.
The actual restoration of a given ecological community will occur in phases. Ph a s e s a n d Ti m e f r a m e s Each phase will have distinct objectives toward attaining more diverse and f o r Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s healthy ecological systems within the park. The phased approach also allows for close monitoring of program successes and ensuring that resources St e w a r d s h i p Pr o g r a m s invested in the program are appropriately allocated to their greatest value. In general, three major phases are envisioned for a typical stewardship program, as defined in the following table. St e w a r d s h i p Pr o g r a m Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ph a s e s Classification Common Guidelines Application to Northfield Phase I Broadens understanding of restoration needs, options, and Small test or demonstration plots are the – Testing and opportunities. Also increases local residents’ knowledge and backbone of the initial testing to determine the Education understanding of restoration issues. The need for extensive testing restoration practices best suited for the setting. prior to restoring larger tracks diminishes over time in line with Direct exposure to restoration practices and their knowledge. impact on the surrounding environment will give park visitors working knowledge of stewardship programs. Phase II Involves the major restoration and management tasks and The remedial phase employs a variety of – Remedial consequently is the more expensive phase. Its focus is on returning restoration techniques in a major effort to restore Phase the land to the biological and structural conditions necessary for a vegetation and habitat structure and biological healthy ecological landscape to emerge and prosper. diversity and restore ecological functions.
Phase III Represents the routine tasks that are conducted annually at strategic After significant investments during Phase II, the – Maintenance times to maintain specific ecological and biological objectives set stewardship program shifts to a lower level of Phase for each unit and subunit. intervention during the maintenance phase. This is inherently less costly and provides an excellent opportunity for long-term citizen and student involvement as volunteers.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.8 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
Ti m e f r a m e s f o r Im p l e m e n t i n g St e w a r d s h i p Pr o g r a m s In general, the techniques involved in restoring and managing the City’s natural resources remain relatively consistent between phases and between ecological systems. Common techniques include a combination of prescribed burning, weeding and brushing, seed harvesting and disbursement, and planting. Using these techniques, a step-by-step process should be implemented over an extended period of time to achieve defined desired results. Although stewardship techniques are relatively consistent between phases, the main distinction lies in the intensity of the work involved to achieve a set of objectives, and the use of one restoration technique over that of another in a particular situation. For example, the initial removal of dense clusters of buckthorn in a given area may require substantial effort during the remedial phase. Under the maintenance phase, continued removal will still be necessary, but require substantially less effort. Figure 5.4 illustrates how the level of restoration effort lessens as the management plan moves from the remedial into the long-term maintenance phase.
Fi g u r e 5.4 – Re s t o r a t i o n Ef f o r t Re l a t i v e t o Ph a s e s a n d Ti m e l i n e s
Hi g h Re s o u r c e s Co m m i t t e d t o Re s t o r a t i o n Ta s k s Diminish a s Re m e d i a l Ph a s e Pr o g r e s s e s To w a r d Ma i n t e n a n c e Ph a s e
Po i n t a t Wh i c h Lo n g -T e r m
) Sustainability Be c o m e s Ac h i e v a b l e l l o c a t i o n s f f o r t
A Co n s i s t e n t Re s o u r c e Al l o c a t i o n E t o Ma i n t a i n Su s t a i n a b l e
u m a n La n d s c a p e (Le v e l o f Wo r k e s o u r c e
/ H Ef f o r t Fl u c t u a t e s Ov e r Ti m e ) R o f
u n d i n g e v e l L ( F
Te s t i n g a n d Ed u c a t i o n Ph a s e Co n t i n u e s
Lo w a i n t e n a n c e h a s e Re m e d i a l Ph a s e M P Ti m e f r a m e o n t i n u e s (3 t o 5 Ye a r s ) (C ) As figure 5.4 illustrates, the remedial phase often takes three to five years (or more) to complete for each ecological community within a given land unit. This time frame is highly dependent upon the magnitude of the work involved to complete restoration tasks and the resources committed to the effort. The maintenance phase begins once remedial work is completed and continues on indefinitely at a sustainable level. As illustrated, the work effort under the maintenance phase will fluctuate due to the ever-changing conditions found across the site. The actual schedule for implementing the stewardship program would likely be staggered to ensure that the work undertaken in any given year is manageable and affordable. Realistically, implementing a stewardship program across the entire community is a long-term effort, with the maintenance phase continuing indefinitely. This underscores the importance of establishing a stewardship program as soon a possible and building on that program over time.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.9 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
Maintaining buffers between built features and adjacent sensitive natural Providing Bu f f e r s areas is essential to ensuring their long term ecological quality, diversity, t o Pr o t e c t Sensitive and habitat value. Irrespective of how well subdivisions are designed, all development has an impact on the adjoining natural resource, including Ec o l o g i c a l Sy s t e m s habitat fragmentation, soil compaction, increased runoff, and erosion. For these reasons, providing adequate buffers is an essential part of development planning and design.
Bu f f e r De f i n i t i o n s Buffers refer to the area between a sensitive ecological system and the edge of a development or construction related to development. It is an area in which no development should occur, with the exception of restoration, management, and stewardship of natural resources. Managing stormwater through the use of natural infiltration techniques can occur in this zone if it is done in harmony with the natural systems that are found on the site. The term “sensitive ecological system” refers to lands where ecological systems exhibit qualities that would be unacceptably degraded (i.e., health, function, diversity, etc.) due to development if a buffer was not provided. Under this definition, the term is inclusive of all ecological systems that hold the promise of being stable, functioning, and productive systems if managed and cared for through a routine stewardship program. Consistent with common practice, wetlands, riparian areas, and water bodies are always considered sensitive ecological systems irrespective of their location and current condition. This also holds true for steep slopes and other landscape or geological features that if disturbed would significantly impact other ecological systems. In each case, adequate buffering is essential to protecting these systems.
Bu f f e r Wi d t h Gu i d e l i n e s Buffer widths vary in response to a number of conditions, including: • Sensitivity of the ecological systems being impacted • Size and scale of the natural area being impacted (larger areas allow for more liberal buffers) • Type of development being proposed and its potential for creating ecological impacts The type of development is an important consideration when establishing buffer requirements for development. This includes the trails that will be placed in the greenway system. As a general guideline, figure 5.5 on the next page highlights recommended buffer widths primarily associated with riparian areas. Notably, these guidelines may also have application to non-riparian areas that are considered to be ecologically significant. Given the variability of the situations that may be encountered, the extent to which buffers are provided adjacent to a given trail or development should be carefully considered by a trained specialist as part of the development planning and design process.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.10 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
Fi g u r e 5.5 – Tr a i l s o n t h e Ed g e o f Ec o t o n a l Ar e a s General Buffer Guidelines for Riparian Areas The buffer guidelines are consistent with those recommended in the following publications: MN DNR Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines (2007) and Sustaining Minnesota Forest Resources Handbook (Minnesota Forest Resources Council, 1999). These publications define buffers as “filter strips” for managing non-point pollution near surface water and wetlands associated with timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and construction. The guidelines have application to trail and other forms of development adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, open water wetlands, wetland inclusions, seasonal seeps, and springs. The guidelines also make a distinction between filter strips and riparian management zones (RMZs). Filter strips help minimize the runoff of sediment, debris, nutrients, and pesticides into water bodies and wetlands. RMZs encompass the area of land and water forming the transition from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems along steams, lakes, and open water wetlands. Within this zone, a higher level of protection is recommended to protect the intrinsic qualities of these ecosystems. This includes greater scrutiny of trail alignments. The graphic and related text define the width guidelines for filter strips and RMZs. Natural infiltration area Preferred trail location (outside the filter strip and RMZ zones) Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) Stream, lake, open water wetland, wetlands, Filter Strip Zone seasonal seep, or spring Natural infiltration area (across both zones)
Trail can be located within the RMZ if no other options are available (requires more stringent evaluation of ecological impacts)
Filter Strip Zone Width Guidelines Non-Trout Stream Riparian Management Zone Width Guidelines Trout Stream Riparian Management Slope of Land Recommended Width Water Body Type Recommended Widths Zone Width Guidelines 0-10% 50 feet Stream > 10 feet wide 100 feet minimum/200 feet preferred 200 feet preferred (150 feet 11-20% 51-70 feet Stream 3-10 feet wide 50 feet minimum/100 feet preferred minimum) for all designated trout 21-40% 71-110 feet Perennial Stream < 3 feet wide 50 feet minimum and preferred streams, lakes, and tributaries 41-70% 111 to 150 feet Open water > 10 acres 100 feet minimum/200 feet preferred Open water < 10 acres 50 feet minimum/100 feet preferred
Bu f f e r s As s o c i a t e d w i t h Ec o t o n a l Ar e a s Ecotonal areas are the transition zones between ecological systems where native plant diversity is often the greatest. These areas are also notable corridors for wildlife where animals travel from one type of habitat to another. Poorly placed development can pose significant impediments to travel for some species, even creating “sinks” that trap animals in an isolated area. Understandably, ecotonal areas also appeal to humans and it is very tempting to place development right along or through the edges of these diverse landscapes. Finding a balance between providing the experience of being in proximity to an ecotonal edge while still protecting the ecotone is a major consideration. A robust understanding of these systems is critical to aligning a trail, for example, in the least disruptive manner. Even locating a trail a few feet one direction or another can substantially improve the protection of ecotonal areas without diminishing the experience. Typically, the ecotonal edge is the first 50 to 100 feet on either side of a vegetation transition line, although this can vary considerably. For example, locating a trail or other form of development right along the ecotonal edge should be the exception, not the rule. If trails are located within this zone, careful consideration should be given to minimizing the impact on these diverse systems. As with buffers in general, this typically requires technical evaluation by a trained specialist. Figure 5.6 provides examples of trails on the edge of ecotonal areas.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.11 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
Fi g u r e 5.6 – Bu f f e r Wi d t h Gu i d e l i n e s As s o c i a t e d Wi t h Fi l t e r St r i p s An d Ri p a r i a n Ma n a g e m e n t Zo n e s
Tr a i l In Co n f l i c t Wi t h An Ec o t o n e Tr a i l In Ha r m o n y Wi t h An Ec o t o n e A trail located right along the edge of the ecotone impacts A carefully located trail on the periphery of an ecotone but the most diverse area of native plants and disrupts the still close enough to enjoy the “edge effect” makes for a primary wildlife corridor. It also makes it more challenging pleasant trail that is sustainable. Although all trails impact to manage the ecotone with prescribed burning since the the site, through thoughtful design they can be much more trail creates an unnatural fire break. sensitive to native plant communities and wildlife.
Pr a i r i e Pl a n t Ecotone crossed Co m m u n i t y Wo o d l a n d Pl a n t where least Co m m u n i t y Wo o d l a n d Pl a n t disruptive to natural systems Trail corridor Co m m u n i t y
located in conflict Pr a i r i e Pl a n t with ecotonal Co m m u n i t y sustainability
Ecotonal area is the first 50’-100’ Trail corridor on either side located based on of a vegetative full knowledge of transition line ecological impacts (although this can along ecotone vary considerably and requires site- Ecotonal line specific ecological evaluation)
Wildlife habitat is a function of ecological quality. The healthier and more En h a n c i n g Wi l d l i f e diverse the ecological systems found in the community, the more diverse Ha b i t a t and rich the array of wildlife that can be sustained. Today, the city still retains a capacity to support a diversity of wildlife, albeit that will become less robust as development occurs over time. Preserving as many of the innate natural qualities of the city, its landforms, access to water, and ecological diversity are especially important to wildlife, especially avian and waterfowl species.
Limiting Ha b i t a t Fr a g m e n t a t i o n Mapping ecological systems, carefully managing the development footprint, and providing buffers adjacent to development collectively reduce habitat fragmentation. In spite of these efforts, fragmentation can still occur if wildlife needs are not specifically considered as development occurs, including development associated with parks and trails. Limiting the fragmentation of ecotonal areas is especially important with wildlife since many species tend to concentrate along these edges. This is especially true of riparian areas, along the edge between forests and meadows, and areas adjacent to steeper slopes and wetland edges. The less a trail or other development encroaches into these areas, the less fragmentation will occur. To reduce habitat fragmentation, the physical design and management This publication can be found on the MN DNR’s website (www.dnr.state.mn.us/cwcs/index.html). of trails and other forms of development should incorporate the needs of wildlife and protect the ecological values that are most important to species of greatest conservation need. The publication entitled Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife published by the MN DNR is an important resource in this regard and should be referenced as specific development projects are implemented.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.12 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
When ecological systems are in decline, the diversity Although the city is home to many creatures (such and overall population of birds also declines. as this snake), the fragmentation of local ecological Reversing this trend is one of the key objectives of the systems favors species that are more adaptable to a greenway plan and stewardship program. disturbed landscape, such as deer. Owls and other forms of wildlife will prosper as the stewardship program is implemented over time. Water resources management refers to managing stormwater across the Wa t e r Re s o u r c e s city in an ecologically-sound manner consistent with the larger ecological Ma n a g e m e n t vision for the community. The main principles are to manage stormwater using natural infiltration methods and preserve natural hydrology across the city as development occurs. Under this approach, stormwater runoff from roads, buildings, and other built features will be effectively captured and treated prior to reaching downstream wetland, pond, and lake systems. The following provides a framework for water resource management.
Na t u r a l In f i l t r a t i o n Me t h o d a s a n Un d e r p i nn i n g f o r a n Ecologically -Ba s e d App r o a c h t o St o r m w a t e r Ma n a g e m e n t The natural infiltration approach to stormwater management relies on passive, overland routing of runoff, as opposed to storm sewers, engineered ponds, and other built structures. This approach offers a couple of distinct advantages over conventional stormwater systems (i.e., storm sewers, engineered ponds, and other built structures), including: • Introduced contaminants picked up by runoff are removed at the initial stages of water flowage, rather than being transported to downstream locations and accumulating in wetland, lake, and river systems. This greatly reduces degradation to water quality and vegetative health in downstream systems. • Stormwater flow rates and volumes more closely emulate natural conditions. This greatly reduces unnatural fluctuations in water levels in downstream systems (wetlands and lakes) and therefore reduces impacts to the natural condition of water systems and vegetation. For these reasons, the use of natural infiltration for managing stormwater is fundamental to creating sustainable developments where impacts to adjacent ecological systems are kept to a minimum. These systems typically consist of four primary components, as illustrated in figure 5.7.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.13 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
Fi g u r e 5.7 – Na t u r a l In f i l t r a t i o n Sy s t e m
Component #1 Component #2 Component #3 Component #4 Developed - Natural Swale/ - Upland System - Wetland System - Water Body/ Edge Infiltration Basin Stream System
Stormwater infiltration expedited through natural processes
Stormwater Infiltration Flow rates diminished through overland disbursement and infiltration of stormwater (results in a more naturalized fluctuation of water levels in downstream systems)
Pollutant Capture Contaminant load captured early in stormwater disbursement cycle, which minimizes nutrient and pollutant loading in downstream systems A rain garden is an example of a natural infiltration system increasingly being used in housing developments, parks, and along trails to help manage stormwater. The following graphic images provide examples of the growing body of information about rain gardens and similar infiltration approaches. The city should encourage the use of rain gardens and other techniques whenever their application would be beneficial to adjoining natural systems – which is almost always the case. Build your own
RAIN GARDENWhat is a Rain Garden? How do I make a Rain Garden? The Rain Garden is one of the It’s not complicated. most popular new perennial Just follow these easy steps: garden designs for three reasons: 1. Dig a shallow depression, 1. Rain Gardens make good as large in circumference as
ESIGN use of rainwater runoff, thus you’d like. conserving precious water sup- 2. Direct your downspout or plies and helping protect the D sump pump outlet to your water quality of downstream Rain Garden depression, lakes and rivers. either by digging a shallow swale for water to run into 2. Rain Gardens are planted with native wetland the depression, or by piping the runoff through a buried and prairie wildflowers and grasses. These perennialWhere4-inch should black plastic I putdrain tilemy available Rain at anyGarden? home center. Anything else? plants naturally grew here when the first pioneers 3. Plant the native plants recommended in this design Keep it at least 10 feet away from your house. Other than that, A few more tips ... rolled across our land — so they’re hardy and low-you shouldsheet. pick a naturally low spot in your yard, and direct maintenance, not to mention beautiful! ● Try not to spread or spray lawn fertilizers too close to water from4. Water your downspoutyour planting or everysump otherpump day into for it. theIt’s firstbest twoto choose a location with full sun, but if that’s not possible, make the Rain Garden. Fertilizers will actually stimulate weeds ARDEN 3. Rain Gardens provide food and shelter for many weeks or so, until they show that they are growing and sure it gets at least a half-day of sunlight. and create competition for the native plants. interesting birds, butterflies and beneficial insects — well-established. ● such as dragonflies, which eat Also, during heavy rains, your depression will fill up and over- Don’t worry about mosquitoes. Dragonflies, swallows
G Once your native Rain Garden plants and purple martins will take care of them. If they do mosquitoes! — and they’ll flow. Make sure this overfloware drainage established, follows they’ll the thrivedrainage without become a problem, however, you can buy a “mosquito provide you with many pattern originally designed foradditional your lot. watering. Test this Fertilizersby filling areyour dunk” (containing organic bacteria Bt) to kill mosquito hours of enjoyable bird depression with a garden hosenot and necessar watchingy. And the only overflow. minimal After larvae in your areas of standing water. What is and butterfly watching. all, you certainly don’t wantweeding to flood will your be neighbor’s needed once yard. the If you need to, dig a shallow swaleinitial to weeds direct that overflow appear water whenR toward youAIN● InG theARDEN winter, the dead vegetationPLANTS in your Rain Garden AIN Rain Gardens meet the the street or other downhill disturbareas away your from ground buildings. have been (Listed in alphabeticalwill catch ordersnowflakes by common and frost,names) providing additional Dragonfly Seal of Approval! removed. interest as a beautifully textured winter landscape. R a Rain How deep should I make ● Come spring, mow and remove dead vegetation. Or if you can, burn it off. Native plants are adapted to the Shown here are two suggested Rain Garden layouts, depending upon your soil type. The abbreviation of each species name is followed my Rain Garden? historic fires of the American prairie region and it won’t (in parentheses) by a recommended quantity you should install for best results. As you purchase your native plants, check (✔) the boxes provided below to be sure you’ve got them all for maximum Rain AGarden depression beauty! of two to six inches will suffice if you don’t want hurt them at all. Check your local ordinances, or call Garden? standing water. If you do want standing water, dig your depres- your fire department for regulations. Cardinal flower T o tal Area: sion deeper, perhaps down to 18 inches in the deepest spot. Bottlebrush sedge AIN ARDEN JtJ (2) ● To attractCarex birds, hystericina place a purple martinLobelia cardinalis house nearby. R G : 70 sq. ft. Slope the) sides gradually from the edge to the deepest area. IfArrowhead (1-3' High, Blooms: May-July) (2-4' High, Blooms: July-Sept.) Culver’s root False Dragon’s Head Fox sedge A “Rain Garden” (3) Lc you have heavy clay soil, it may (4) well hold water without a Sagittarialiner. latifolia● Put a comfortable bench nearby so you can relax withVeronicastrum virginicum Physostegia virginiana Carex vulpinoidea Well-Drained Em Vv (5) (1-3' High, Blooms: July-Sept.) (3-5' High, Blooms: July-Aug.) (1-4' High, Blooms: July-Sept.) (1-3' High, Blooms: June-Aug.) is simply a shallow You can test this with your garden hose, too. If your soil won’t a friend while watching the birds and butterflies. to Sandy Soils An (6) hold water, purchase a plastic liner to Sr ● Place natural rocks or other garden ornaments in and depression in your hold the water in deeper areas, and (3) Mf Pv (6) 7 ft. around your Rain Garden — be creative! You’ll learn and install your plants around the edges Sa yard that’s planted (3) Ha (6) (5) have fun while designing your own backyard landscape. of the liner. (4) Pv Ls (6) with native wetland or Trust the experts! (4) Lp Za (6) Authentic native plants Jt (3) wet prairie wildflowers Mountain mint (4) Pg Pycnanthemum virginianum and grasses. and seed from — Golden Alexander Great blue lobelia Green bulrush Marsh phlox (1-4' High, Blooms: July-Sept.) New England aster 10 ft. Zizia aurea Lobelia siphilitica Scirpus atrovirens Phlox glaberrima Aster novae-angliae (1-2' High, Blooms: May-June) (1-4' High, Blooms:(2) Aug-Sept.) (2-4' High, Blooms: May-July) (2-4' High, Blooms: June-July) (1-4' High, Blooms: Aug.-Oct.) Abbrev. Common Name Species Name No. of Shopping Abbrev. Common Name Species Name T o No.tal of Area: Shopping Cv Plants List RAIN GARDEN: Plants List 70 sq. ft. (3) PERENNIAL GARDEN DESIGN SHEET #1 Jt Lc (4) An New England aster Aster novae-angliae 6 ■ ClayPg Marsh Soils phlox Phlox glaberrima 4 ■ Ac (5) Em Spotted Joe-Pye weed Eupatorium maculatum 3 ■ Pv Mountain mint Pycanthemum virginianum 10 ■As (5) Ch Ha Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale 6 ■ Sa Green bulrush scirpus atrovirens 5 ■ (4) Sf (6) Jt Torrey’s rush Juncus torreyi 5 ■ Sr Stiff goldenrod Solidago rigida 3 S■a Iv 7 ft. These are just two of many examples of (3) (5) Lp Prairie blazing star Liatris pycnostachya 4 ■ Vv Culver’s root Veronicastrum virginicum 5 ■ Sl (5) (4) Lc Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis 4 Iv Sv (6) ■ Za Golden Alexander Zizia aurea 6 (4)Prairie■ blazing star Cv Soft-stemmed bulrush Ls Great blue lobelia Lobelia siphilitica 6 ■ Liatris pycnostachya Pv (6) Scirpus validus literature on rain gardens and natural Total Plants Needed 70 (2-4' High, Blooms: July-Sept.)(3) River bulrush Sneezeweed (3-9' High, Blooms: May-July) Spotted Joe-pye weed Stiff goldenrod Mf Wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa 3 ■ Jt Ai (4) Scirpus fluviatilis Helenium autumnale Eupatorium maculatum Solidago rigida (3-5' High, Blooms: June-Aug.) (2-4' High, Blooms: Aug.-Oct.) (2-5' High, Blooms: July-Sept.) (1-4' High, Blooms: July-Oct.) infiltration systems available on the Web. 10 ft. Abbrev. Common Name Species Name No. of Shopping Abbrev. Common Name Species Name No. of Shopping Plants List Plants List Ac Sweet flag Acorus calamus 5 ■ Jt Torrey’s rush Juncus torreyi 6 ■ Ai Swamp milkweed Asclepias incarnata 4 ■ Lc Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis 4 ■ Pv False dragon’s head Physostegia virginiana 6 ■ As Water plantain Alisma subcordatum 5 ■ Sweet flag Wild bergamot Sl Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia 5 ■ Ch Bottle brush sedge Carex hystricina 4 ■ Acorus calamus Monarda fistulosa Swamp milkweedSa Green(1-3' bulrush High, Blooms: May-June)Scirpus atrovirensTorrey’s rush 3 ■Water plantain (2-4' High, Blooms: July-Aug.) Wild blue flag iris Cv Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea 6 ■ Asclepias incarnataSf River bulrush Scirpus fluviatilisJuncus torreyi 6 Alisma■ subcordatum iris virginica shrevei Iv Wild blue flag iris Iris virginica shrevei 9 (2-4'■ High, Blooms: July-Aug.) (1-3' High, Blooms: June-July) (1-3' High, Blooms: June-Sept.) (1-3' High, Blooms: May-July) Sv Soft-stemmed bulrush Scirpus validus 6 ■ Total Plants WNeededant more 69 information? Contact Taylor Creek Restoration Nurseries or Native Landscapes by AES at 608-897-8641, or by e-mail at [email protected]. We’ll be glad to answer your questions.
Design sheet produced by Native Landscapes by AES. APPLIED ECOLOGICAL Professional native landscape services are available; please call 608-897-8641. SERVICES, INC. Taylor Creek Restoration Nurseries and Native Landscapes by AES are divisions of Applied Ecological Services, Inc., 17921 Smith Road, Brodhead, WI 53520. Visit us at www.appliedeco.com.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.14 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
Hy d r o g r a p h As s o c i a t e d Wi t h Na t u r a l a n d Fl o w Ra t e Co n t r o l App r o a c h e s The use of a natural infiltration system also produces a much more natural hydrograph, resulting in lower peak flows and higher base flows relative to the hydrograph of a typical engineered flow rate control approach, as illustrated in figure 5.8.
Fi g u r e 5.8 – Hy d r o g r a p h s f o r Fl o w -Co n t r o l a n d Ec o l o g i c a l App r o a c h t o Hy d r o l o g y
Average Average
Spring Fall Spring Fall
Fl o w -Co n t r o l App r o a c h t o Hy d r o l o g y : Ec o l o g i c a l App r o a c h t o Hy d r o l o g y : • Unpredictable swings in water • Annual seasonal high and low levels water levels • Creates biological instability • Predictable hydraulics and • Promotes habitats for weeds seasonal trajectory and invasives • Promotes habitat for stable yet • Poor aesthetic qualities dynamic plant communities • Promotes poor water quality • Diversity of plants and animals
As the graphic illustrates, there are numerous advantages to using an ecological approach to stormwater management, making it the preferred method whenever possible. Engineered or mechanical systems for conveying stormwater should only be used when natural approaches are technically not feasible.
Be s t Pr a c t i c e s Fo r St o r m w a t e r Ma n a g e m e n t There are a variety of best practices related to managing stormwater, preventing erosion, and limiting non-point water pollution that have application to future development and complement the guidelines provided in this section. The following highlights several publications that are recommended resources covering many relevant best practices.
Mi nn e s o t a Po l l u t i o n Co n t r o l Ag e n c y The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has developed a manual entitled Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas to help local government officials, urban planners, developers, contractors and citizens prevent stormwater-related pollution. The manual contains detailed information about BMPs that can be used to protect lakes, streams and groundwater from stormwater-related pollution. The manual is available online through their website (http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/pubs/ sw-bmpmanual.html) and covers the following topic areas: • Water quantity and quality • Stormwater-detention ponds • BMP selection • Erosion prevention and sediment • Comprehensive stormwater policies and plans control • MPs for stormwater systems • Pollution prevention • Models and modeling
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.15 Se c t i o n 5 - Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Pl a n
Ur b a n Sm a l l Si t e s Be s t Ma n a g e m e n t Pr a c t i c e Ma n u a l Available through the Metropolitan Council, The Urban Small Sites Best Management Practice (BMP) Manual provides information on tools and techniques to assist municipalities and watershed management organizations (WMOs) in guiding development and redevelopment. The manual includes detailed information on 40 BMPs that are aimed at managing stormwater pollution for small urban sites in a cold-climate setting. The BMP Manual is available online on the Metropolitan Council’s website (http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/watershed/bmp/manual.htm). Key sections that have application to trail development include the following: • Runoff pollution prevention • Silt fences • Bioretention systems • Impervious surface reduction • Inlet protection • Filter strips • Pavement management • Temporary sedimentation • Wet swales • BMP maintenance basins/traps • Retention systems • Landscape design and maintenance • Check dams • Wet ponds • Grading practices • Stormwater treatment BMPs • Detention systems • Soil erosion control • Infiltration systems • Dry ponds • Mulches, blankets, and mats • Infiltration basins • Dry swales • Vegetative methods • Infiltration trenches • Sediment control • Filtration systems Mi nn e s o t a St o r m w a t e r Ma n u a l This manual is a valuable tool for those involved in stormwater management and conserving, enhancing, and restoring high- quality water in Minnesota’s lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and ground water. The manual is a dynamic document and revisions will take place every two years, with the most recent version posted on the MPCA website (www.pca.state.mn.us/ water/stormwater/stormwater-manual.html#manual.)
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 5.16 Se c t i o n 6 Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n & Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s The system plan establishes an overall vision for the community that is Ov e r v i e w ambitious yet realistic if incrementally implemented. This section sets forth an overall implementation strategy and establishes baseline priorities to guide that process.
Th e Ci t y a t a Th r e s h o l d Po i n t Within the next decade, growth in Northfield will likely continue at a steady, yet manageable pace, bringing along with it new demands for parks, open spaces, athletic facilities, and trails. Thoughtful and prudent implementation of the system plan will be critical to being successful in meeting needs in a fiscally responsible and balanced manner. By taking an assertive role in managing implementation of the plan in sync with community development, the City can gain greater assurance that the quality of life values held by residents will be realized in the future. Success in this regard will require insightful leadership and a willingness to use a variety of approaches to managing development and leveraging financial resources (public and private) to achieve desired public values.
As defined in Section 2 – Vision Statement and Policy Plan, a key principle A Ba l a n c e d App r o a c h t o of the plan is taking a balanced approach to implementation to ensure that Im p l e m e n t a t i o n multiple community values are being realized and that the wide-ranging interests of residents are well served as time goes on. A balanced approach also provides the City more latitude in taking advantage of opportunities as they arise. As the following graphic illustrates, the system plan consists of five implementation categories, each having its own set of priorities.
Na t u r a l Op e n Sp a c e / Gr e e n w a y s
At h l e t i c Neighborhood / Facilities Co m m u n i t y Pa r k s No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m
Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s Tr a i l s St e w a r d s h i p
An overall implementation strategy and set of priorities for each of these components is defined in this section.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.1 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
An important consideration in developing an implementation strategy is that A Disciplined App r o a c h t o the opportunities to enhance the system are quite substantial and diverse. Sy s t e m In v e s t m e n t s The magnitude of potential investment to achieve full plan implementation will undoubtedly require setting priorities that respond to realistic limitations of resources. The temptation to spread investment dollars too thinly across the entire system is also a major implementation consideration. Unfortunately, this strategy often falls short in that limited improvements do not have a major effect on the public’s perception that the quality of the system has improved. This often leaves residents with a sense of unmet expectations, which can result in a decrease in the perceived value of the system, rather than an enhancement. By focusing on raising the level of service through strategic and prioritized investments, the role that the system plays as a defining element in the City’s infrastructure can be strengthened.
A sustainable system is the point to which the community is willing to Lo n g -Te r m Co m m i t m e n t support implementing the system plan to receive desired public benefits. t o a Su s t a i n a b l e Sy s t e m Benefits relate to cultural (personal and social), ecological, and economic values that individual residents and the larger community find important and are willing to support by making investments in the system. To be sustainable, implementation of the plan must take into account the long-term commitments required to develop, operate and maintain, and ultimately replace each aspect of the system as it moves through its lifecycle. Figure 6.1 illustrates this important point.
Fi g u r e 6.1 – Li f e c y c l e Co s t s a n d Lo n g -Te r m Co m m i t m e n t t o Su s t a i n i n g Ea c h Sy s t e m Co m p o n e n t
Ye a r 1 Initial In v e s t m e n t Re d e v e l o p m e n t In v e s t m e n t
Ro u t i n e Up k e e p a n d Op e r a t i o n s
Li f e c y c l e /Li n e o f De p r e c i a t i o n o f Sy s t e m Co m p o n e n t
To t a l In v e s t m e n t Re q u i r e d t o Su s t a i n a Gi v e n Sy s t e m Co m p o n e n t (Initial De v e l o p m e n t , Re p l a c e m e n t / Op e r a t i o n s , Ma i n t e n a n c e , a n d Re d e v e l o p m e n t Re d e v e l o p m e n t ) Ye a r 15-20 Re q u i r e d
As illustrated, the total investment required to sustain a given component of the system is the cumulative cost for initial development, routine operations and maintenance costs, and redevelopment once a given park or trail reaches the end of its useful lifecycle. Given the major implications to long- term funding, the City should define the level of service it can indefinitely sustain at the point of initial implementation. The following table outlines general criteria for prioritizing plan Prioritization Cr i t e r i a f o r implementation. The criteria are broad enough to encompass the Sy s t e m Initiatives predominant factors in the decision process, yet limited enough to be manageable for decision makers to gain consensus and take action.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.2 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
Cr i t e r i a f o r Prioritizing Pl a n Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Evaluation Criteria Criteria Description
Community Demand Action is warranted due to identified community demand based on needs assessment studies and defined trends.
Recreation Program Need Action is warranted based on current and projected city and local associations’ recreation program facility demands.
Redevelopment/ Upgrading of Facility Action is warranted due to facility being: • In an unsafe condition or of poor quality • Old and at the end of its useful lifecycle • Ineffective at servicing current needs
Development Patterns and Action is warranted to service the needs of an area based on: Population Density • Current and projected residential development patterns • Current and projected population and demographic profiles
Funding Availability/ Partnership Action is warranted due to: Opportunity • Funding availability for specific use • Partnership opportunity for specific type of development
Preservation of Significant Natural Action is warranted to preserve and/or enhance significant natural resources in Resources the city.
The strategy for implementing the system plan and establishing priorities is Im p l e m e n t a t i o n St r a t e g i e s underpinned by two objectives: a n d Priorities 1. Developing a balanced system offering multiple community values 2. Taking advantage of opportunities as they arise
At times, these objectives will be in conflict in that opportunities to develop various aspects of the system will present themselves in an unbalanced, “out-of-order” manner. As such, the implementation of the plan inherently requires some degree of flexibility to respond to opportunities as they arise. The PRAB and City Council will have to consider these issues as they occur and determine the best course of action, which could include a rethinking or departure from the stated priorities.
Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Priorities Be t w e e n Sy s t e m Ca t e g o r i e s The following table establishes priorities between categories and the underlying rationale for one priority over another. Note that this is not absolute, which means that if an opportunity to implement a lower priority presents itself, the City should take advantage of it before the opportunity is lost.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.3 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Priorities Be t w e e n Ca t e g o r i e s Priority Category Overall Priority Statement
1 Relationship The interdependency of the park, open space, and trail system and recreational programming between with School Northfield and the School District is vital to effectively and efficiently meeting local needs. Ensuring that this is District accomplished in a fair and equitable manner is critical to long-term success. As such, periodic evaluation of the relationship and updating formal agreements is an ongoing priority.
2 Open Setting aside lands for open space and greenways is a top priority because it is intrinsically linked to community Space and development. Setting aside this land must occur as part of that process if it is to occur at all. Following through Greenways on the system plan will also require a close working relationship with St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges to establish greenway corridors across their properties.
2 Trails The implementation of many of the highest-value trails is also intrinsically linked to community development, especially the destination trails that traverse through the proposed greenway system in future areas of Equal priorityEqual annexation. Given its routine rating as the highest value recreational activity by people across age groups, developing the trail system is justifiably a very high priority within the city. As with the greenways, most of the destination trails need to be established as part of the development process, as well as establishing easements across St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges properties.
3 Parks Continued development of the park system remains important to serving traditional recreational needs. This falls slightly behind the other priorities larger due to the importance of taking advantage of opportunities as development occurs. Further, upgrading the neighborhood and community parks is linked to local funding commitments, which will have to be balanced against other community funding needs.
4 Athletic Athletic facilities are listed a bit lower in terms of priority due to the relative balance between supply and Facilities demand. Although continued enhancement of existing facilities and adding new ones as defined in Section 3 is a priority, this can occur over time as demands warrant and funding packages materialize.
5 Natural With the ever increasing value that society places on preservation of remaining natural areas, establishing a Resources stewardship program will become an increasingly significant priority. It is rated lower at this point due to the Stewardship other priorities and the fact that much of this relates to lands that have yet to be set aside as future open space and greenways, which will occur as development pushes out into surrounding area.
The following defines the implementation strategy and priorities associated Also refer to Appendix A – Park and Trail with each to the categories listed in the above table. Development Considerations for general development cost considerations for parks, trails, Im p l e m e n t a t i o n St r a t e g y f o r En h a n c i n g t h e Relationship w i t h and stewardship of natural areas. t h e Sc h o o l District Northfield and School District each play a vital role in the success of the system plan. Whereas this partnership offers many benefits, it also requires diligence in terms of defining responsibilities and commitments to fairly and equitably implementing the plan over time. Key action steps include: 1. Preparing or updating existing formal agreements related to planning, land acquisition, development, operations, and maintenance of joint use facilities involving Northfield and School District; this is especially important with respect to athletic facilities 2. Preparing or updating existing formal agreements related to recreation programs serving Northfield residents; this will also involve the School District and local associations as providers of recreational programs and services 3. Formalizing the coordination between Northfield, School District, and local associations on tracking registration and participation in recreational programs; this includes the use of a common scheduling system to ensure the efficient use of recreational facilities
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.4 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
Im p l e m e n t a t i o n St r a t e g y f o r Pr e s e r v i n g Op e n Sp a c e a n d Gr e e n w a y s Implementing the open space and greenway plan will require the use of a variety of strategies as defined in Section 3 – Parks, Athletic Facilities, and Open Space Plan. The most important of these is greater reliance on a collaborative approach to land development where public open space, trails, and park amenities can be more fully integrated into private developments. The use of alternative strategies defined in Section 3 are relatively straightforward but also represent a significant departure from traditional land development practices. Making this transition will require a good-faith partnership between the City, landowners, and developers – along with a willingness by all parties to be flexible. Following are key action steps to enhance the confidence of each party with this approach: 1. Develop a prototype process for public values-based or conservation development approaches through a hands-on working collaboration between the City and developers for select development parcels. 2. Formalize the use of alternative approaches as part of the City’s tools for managing development; this includes updating the Comprehensive Plan and zoning, subdivision, and platting ordinances to reflect these approaches. The importance of thinking differently about managing development cannot be overstated. Lacking the flexibility that the aforementioned alternative approaches provide both the City and the developer, implementing the open space system plan to its fullest potential becomes much more uncertain, if not unrealistic. One of the key values of the alternative approach is that it allows the mixing and matching of strategies for protecting and managing natural resources, as defined in Section 3. Figure 6.2 illustrates the cost-benefit to the City associated with a number of these strategies. Fi g u r e 6.2 – Li f e c y c l e Co s t s a n d Lo n g -Te r m Co m m i t m e n t t o Su s t a i n i n g Ea c h Sy s t e m Co m p o n e n t 100% Le g e n d
Po t e n t i a l Le v e l o f Pr o t e c t i o n 75% Ac h i e v e d *
50%
Av e r a g e Le v e l o f Pr o t e c t i o n 25% Le v e l o f Di r e c t Ac h i e v e d Co s t In c u r r e d b y Ci t y 0 * The level of protection can De e d Co n s e r v a t i o n Pu r c h a s e Di r e c t Gi f t /La n d vary significantly with some Re s t r i c t i o n s / Ea s e m e n t De v e l o p m e n t Pu r c h a s e / Do n a t i o n of the identified tools – which Co v e n a n t s Ri g h t s Fe e Ti t l e underscores the importance of In Northfield, direct purchase of land for greenways and natural open spaces to the extent envisioned selecting the most predictable tool under the system plan will likely be cost prohibitive, especially as land values continue to escalate. whenever possible to ensure long- Therefore, the use of other lower direct-cost tools such as conservation easements will be imperative if term protection of the resource. the City is to achieve its vision.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.5 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
As the graphic illustrates, gifted or donated land offers the highest cost-benefit to the City. However, this cannot be relied upon as the primary tool for setting aside open space since most decisions on land uses will be driven by economics. Second to this, conservation easements offer the greatest cost-benefit to the City under the assumption that perpetual easements can be negotiated with a landowner or developer during the development process. Stringent attention to the details of the conservation easement is also critical to ensuring long-term protection of the resource. Deed restrictions are also a low cost alternative, but the level of protection is at the discretion of the landowner, which can change from year to year. Direct purchase is also an option for full protection, but carries with it the highest direct cost to the City of any of the options. One of the strengths of the alternative approach to development is that it leverages the economies of the development itself to fund desirable public values, such as conservation easements. In other words, this approach works toward the greatest level of open space protection (and other public values, such as trails) with the least amount of direct City capitalization. With respect to St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges, the main implementation goal with respect to greenways is to maintain an open working relationship to ensure consistency between land use decisions, approaches to land preservation, and provisions for public access via trails (shared-use paved and nature trails) in select locations through formal and informal agreements. Other than a trail easement for paved trails, there is no need for either of the colleges to set aside land in a formal conservation easement if that land is to remain undeveloped open space under their own land use plans and/or policies. However, should either college decide to sell off or otherwise develop their property, then the same strategy to set aside greenways through other privately-held lands apply.
Im p l e m e n t a t i o n St r a t e g y f o r Tr a i l s The implementation strategy for greenway-based destination trails parallels that which is recommended for the greenway system. Specifically, these trails should be considered one of the public values being sought as part of the development process. As with greenways, the City will need to collaborate with developers to leverage the economies of each development to help fund these trails. Direct public funding may also play a role in implementing the greenway-based trails consistent with its standard trail development policies. With respect to destination trails traversing St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges, the main implementation strategy is negotiating a formal trail easement following the conceptual route defined on the System Plan wide enough for the trail and routine maintenance (20-foot minimum, as defined in Section 4). The strategy for other trails within the system will be consistent with past practices of prioritizing and developing trails in line with available resources. The City should establish a five-year trail program that defines key priorities. Trails that serve the greatest public good in terms of recreational, transportation, and safety values will be the highest priorities. (Refer to Appendix A – Park and Trail Development Considerations.)
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.6 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
Im p l e m e n t a t i o n St r a t e g y f o r Pa r k s Based on the limited funding available from outside sources, implementing the neighborhood and community park system plan in the near term will continue to rely on traditional funding sources (i.e., park dedication fund and, at the discretion of the City Council, CIP or referendum funding.) Under this scenario, development of individual parks will continue on a priority basis consistent with past practices and available funding. Under a limited funding scenario, being disciplined to funding key parks first will put the City in the strongest position to meet the basic recreational needs of the community. In the longer term, the City should continue to monitor citizen support for alternative funding programs (i.e., referendum). Key action steps for developing the park system include: 1. Establish an initial five-year park improvement program specifically focusing on neighborhood and community parks as defined under the system plan. This should include a determination of desired service levels throughout the system, as figure 6.3 considers. The program should be consistent with anticipated funding levels. (Refer to Appendix A – Park and Trail Development Considerations.) 2. Prepare a master plan for priority parks consistent with the five-year park improvement program. This should include a development cost estimate and listing of priorities for each park. 3. Undertake park improvement projects consistent with funding availability and set priorities.
Fi g u r e 6.3 – Po t e n t i a l De v e l o p m e n t Co s t s f o r Pa r k s
$600,000 The potential development cost for a neighborhood-level park is highly variable Hi g h e r Se r v i c e and depends on the service level desired Le v e l Pa r k by the community. Basic service levels are De v e l o p m e n t most common in small communities with Co s t s limited population and tax base to fund development. A community like Northfield $400,000 typically falls into the medium service level, with $200,000 to $300,000 being common general budgets for new neighborhood Me d i u m Se r v i c e parks. Higher service levels are typically in Le v e l Pa r k urban or suburban areas where population De v e l o p m e n t density is higher, as are expectations for park Co s t s and recreation services. $200,000
Ba s i c Se r v i c e Le v e l Pa r k De v e l o p m e n t Co s t s $0
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.7 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
Im p l e m e n t a t i o n St r a t e g y f o r Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Developing and implementing a natural resources stewardship program is also an important priority. As defined in Section 5 – Natural Resources Stewardship Plan, a formal program will be needed as open spaces are preserved if the long-term health of the natural systems within these areas are to be assured. This is particularly important in that stewardship is a long-term endeavor where results from near-term actions (or the lack of action) will be most evident years into the future. The action steps defined in Section 5 outline the specific strategy for developing this program. The most critical factor in this endeavor is securing a perpetual funding source. Lacking this, gains made during initial phases of the program can be easily lost if not followed by continued investment in management in future years. The funding requirements for each phase of stewardship varies considerably. Figure 6.4 provides an overview of how the three phases relate to each other in terms of funding levels. Fi g u r e 6.4 – Sh i f t s in Fu n d i n g Le v e l s t o Su pp o r t St e w a r d s h i p Pr o g r a m
Co s t s Ri s e in Sy n c Wi t h Ac r e a g e a n d Co m p l e x i t y o f Pr o g r a m
Ph a s e II – Re m e d i a l Re s t o r a t i o n Ph a s e Ph a s e III – Ma i n t e n a n c e
o s t (Co s t Ri s e s a s Ac r e a g e Ph a s e (Pr o g r a m Co s t s
C In c r e a s e s ) Fa l l s t o a Su s t a i n i n g Le v e l On c e Ph a s e II is Ph a s e I – Te s t i n g Co m p l e t e d
r o g r a m P Ph a s e
Pr o g r a m Ti m e f r a m e Ph a s e III – Ma i n t e n a n c e Ph a s e Fo l l o w s Ph a s e II Ti m e f r a m e Di c t a t e d b y Fu n d i n g Wo r k (Co s t Ri s e s a s Ac r e a g e In c r e a s e s ) Co m m i t m e n t s Fo r Al l Ph a s e s As the graphic illustrates, the cost for restoring or stabilizing natural systems far outpaces the costs of taking care of it once that is completed. Through proper management, the extra costs associated with restoration can be controlled over time as long as the maintenance phase continues indefinitely. Also, the longer that natural systems remain in a state of decline before efforts are made to manage them, the more expensive and scientifically challenging it will be to restore them. Key action steps for establishing a stewardship program for publicly-owned lands and other open space lands set aside in conservation easements: 1. Establish a formal process for negotiating stewardship programs and funding mechanisms as part of new developments where land is set aside in conservation easements. The program should set forth funding level requirements and administration/oversight of funding use to achieve stewardship objectives. 2. Establish an initial five-year stewardship program for publicly-owned natural open space lands. The intent is to begin the process of managing natural resources and building the City’s capacity to fund the program on a long-term basis. This should include a formal process of defining new ways in which this type of program can be funded given the potential long-term costs of the program. (It is unlikely that sole reliance on CIP type funding program will be sufficient to accomplish this goal.)
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.8 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
The availability of funding to implement the System Plan will have direct Fu n d i n g Op t i o n s impact on the level of development that can be undertaken. At the local level, the vast majority of direct funding will come through the park dedication fund, CIP, local referendum, and (increasingly) partnerships with developers to set aside open space and provide long-term stewardship funding.
Lo c a l Le v e l Fu n d i n g Op t i o n s The park dedication fund provides funding for parks as long as community development continues to occur. Any controls imposed on the extent (i.e., total number of units) or rate of development (i.e., number of units per year) allowed within the city will limit the revenue generated under this fund. In cases where land is taken in lieu of fees, the fund balance for park development is further reduced. This reality underscores the need for the City to regularly review its park dedication policy relative to park needs and land values. As justified, fees should be periodically adjusted to keep pace with park development costs if the park dedication fund is to remain a viable tool for improving the park system. Even with periodic adjustments, park dedication fees alone will not be adequate to fund the system plan to an optimal level. Realistically, both new and existing residents will have equal responsibility to bear the costs of developing the system through local taxes. Practically, the local CIP will have to be relied upon to a greater extent for funding portions of the system plan if it is to be implemented. The City also has the option of undertaking a local referendum to provide capital for system improvements. At the local level, indirect funding of the system will also be vital to implementing the system plan. This is especially the case with greenways, greenway-based trails, and natural resource stewardship programs. Collaboration with the development community and leveraging the economies of the private sector will be critical to realizing these aspects of the system plan.
Op e r a t i o n s a n d Ma i n t e n a n c e Fu n d i n g As with capital investments, funding ongoing operations and maintenance is a local government responsibility. The challenge lies in that it is difficult to use capital dollars generated from park dedications, certain taxes, or a bond referendum for operations and maintenance functions. In general, funding for operations and maintenance is covered through the City’s annual budget. The most critical aspect of operations and maintenance funding is that it keeps pace with the overall development of the system. To ensure that this happens, the City should define potential increases in operations and maintenance costs as part of all capital improvement projects and budget for these costs accordingly.
Ot h e r Fu n d i n g So u r c e s In addition to local funding sources, there are a number of other potential sources of funding, as defined in figure 6.5 on the following table.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.9 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
Fi g u r e 6.5 – Li f e c y c l e Co s t s a n d Lo n g -Te r m Co m m i t m e n t t o Su s t a i n i n g Ea c h Sy s t e m Co m p o n e n t Source Description/Overview Probability
State Outdoor The State of Minnesota annually allocates funds Qualifying for funding for restoration and Recreation and for park acquisition and development projects management of the City’s natural resources has LCCMR Grants that meet recreational needs identified by the some potential. Very competitive. State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. The grants are competitive and awarded through the Department of Natural Resources according to project merits.
Land and Water The federal government allocates monies Funding availability through this program has been Conservation Fund each year to states for public acquisition and limited in recent years. However, there is a growing development projects. The State of Minnesota likelihood that this program will be funded at a administers these grants through the Department higher level in forthcoming years. of Natural Resources.
ISTEA / T-21 The federal government allocates monies each Funding availability through this program has been year for alternative forms of transportation, robust in recent years. The potential for receiving which includes bicycle trails that focus on funding for local trails is relatively high. transportation.
Fees/ Enterprise Minnesota statute allows cities to prescribe and Becoming a much more relied upon funding Funds provide for the collection of fees for the use of source, especially for singular use facilities ranging any city park or other unit of the city park system from ballfields to picnic shelters. or any facilities, accommodations, or services provided for public use therein.
Partnerships Relates to partnerships formed with adjacent With limited funding options, forming partnerships cities, the county, and school districts to develop, to spread the cost of providing a specific type of maintain, and operate parks and recreational service will play a critical role in funding park and facilities on a joint-use basis. recreation initiatives.
Donations Relates to cash donations, gifts, volunteerism, Limited potential from a cash perspective, but and professional services donated to the park for important with respect to the use of volunteers to planning, acquisition, or development purposes. offset some program costs. Although these grant and alternative programs can provide meaningful local funding for certain types of developments, they can only be counted on for augmenting local sources. Ultimately, it will be up to the local citizens to decide the value that they put on the parks, greenways, and trails in the community, and fund them accordingly.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.10 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
For many years, School District 659’s Community Education program Administrative Pr o v i s i o n has provided a variety of educational and recreational programs for the – In t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h residents of Northfield and throughout the school district. In concert with Community Education, the City will continue to refine its approach to Co m m u n i t y Ed u c a t i o n recreation programming and leisure services based on feedback from the community and cost-benefit analysis. As determined appropriate by the PRAB and City Council, the City will continue to collaborate with Community Education to ensure that residents have extensive opportunities to participate in a variety of recreational and enrichment programs and services. Through an effective working partnership, it is believed that local residents will have ever-increasing opportunities to participate in programs that are locally-based and cost effective while fostering community spirit and enhanced quality of life. As part of this process, the City should closely monitor the cost-benefit of services it receives to ensure that residents receive the highest value relative to resource investments. As part of this, existing agreements should be reviewed and updated to make sure they are consistent with current needs and expectations. Evaluation of fees and charges should also occur on a scheduled periodic basis.
The main purpose of the facility use policy is to prioritize scheduled access Administrative Pr o v i s i o n and use of parks and facilities in the City of Northfield. The following – In t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h outlines both mandatory and suggested guidelines for managing this issue. Lo c a l As s o c i a t i o n s / Ge n e r a l Relationship Be t w e e n t h e Ci t y a n d Lo c a l As s o c i a t i o n s Facility-Us e Po l i c y The City of Northfield fully supports organized local athletic associations providing programs and services for the betterment of youth and adults in the city. To this end, the City is committed to providing facilities and material support deemed reasonable by the PRAB and City Council to support these programs. Further, the City, in concert with Community Education, will actively coordinate program offerings to effectively and efficiently meet community needs while avoiding duplication of efforts. In return, local associations must commit to the City that program offerings are mindful of the public’s health, safety and welfare and are fair and equitable to all residents. In addition, it is the City of Northfield’s policy that the public is best served when there is only one independently incorporated local association per sport or activity. The City also understands and supports that in some cases the public and volunteers are best served by having the traveling component of a particular sport administered by its own independent local association. In such cases, a clear link between associations must be apparent, that each complements the other, and that duplication of effort and use of facilities is avoided. At its discretion, the City of Northfield may charge differing facility use fees as deemed appropriate by the PRAB and City Council to discourage formation of new local associations that compete with existing athletic associations and/or create a need for duplicate services, which the City of Northfield views as not in the public’s best interest. Further, any new associations that compete with existing athletic associations will be of lower priority and will not be assured of timely access to facilities or other material support. The City of Northfield will not provide any administrative or professional recreation staff liaison assistance to competing local associations determined to be duplication of service and not in the public’s best interest. The City of Northfield also expects local associations to provide programs in a manner that is in keeping with the City’s vision and policy plan as defined in Section 2, or otherwise documented by the City.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.11 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
Sc h e d u l i n g Pr i o r i t y f o r Facilities Pr o v i d e d b y t h e Ci t y Scheduling priority for facilities relates to all parks and recreation facilities owned or operated by the City as defined in this document or otherwise provided by the City. Examples include athletic fields, outdoor basketball courts, outdoor hockey rinks, etc. At all times, the City reserves the right to determine if a facility is considered “a scheduled facility” or not. In other words, the City may decide that it is in the public’s best interest to periodically not schedule specific facilities for purposes of the need to rest a field for maintenance or safety or make a specific park or facility available to the public at large due to demand or its classification. At the discretion of the PRAB and City Council, certain City-owned facilities may be exempted of this policy and be administered under separate policy. Local associations that meet the stated guidelines and request permitted use of a facility for a single use or ongoing program will be granted that opportunity based on the following priority of use schedule, and within the adopted standards for number of uses per team. Priority #1 - City Programs City provided programming, services, and events will be the top priority for facility use. An example includes reserving park space for Jesse James Days each year. Note that Northfield Public Schools Community Services Division’s programs are included under this priority. Priority #2 – Youth Programs Youth programs (18 and under) that are members of an independently incorporated local association currently recognized by the City of Northfield as the official organization for that particular program offering. One association per sport/activity will be given priority status based on seniority and number of participants. All recognized non-profit organizations must follow these general guidelines: 1. 75% of participants shall be City of Northfield, defined as youth residents 18 years old and under living in Northfield, or who go to school in Northfield 2. Association or Club is a non-profit organization as defined by State statute 3. Association or Club must file a financial statement with the City each year that will be made public upon request; this statement must indicate revenue, expenditures and fund balances 4. Association is open to all Northfield residents and may not discriminate based on race, ethnic background, or religion, or ability; however, team assignments may be based on ability 5 All board meetings are open to the public, with the exception of personnel issues and litigation 6. Organization must have an open process for parents to discuss concerns or recommend changes to the organization 7. Teams are playing during the designated “primary season” 8. The organization must abide by the City of Northfield core values and strategies for promoting healthy youth through involvement in programmed activities as may be developed in forthcoming years Priority #3 – Northfield Public Schools Programs Northfield School District 659 school-based programs, such as curriculum programs, interscholastic team practices, games, tournaments, etc.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.12 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
Priority #4 – Adult Programs Non-profit adult associations or organizations that have 60% or more Northfield residents during the designated primary season. Adult “residents” must either live or work full-time in Northfield. Priority #5 – Service Groups Northfield non-profit public service groups using City facilities to raise money for the benefit of the entire community. Priority #6 – Local Businesses and Groups Businesses and neighborhood groups located in Northfield during the designated primary season. Priority #7 – Youth Programs, with Lower Percentage of Resident Participants Non-profit youth associations or organizations that have 60% or more Northfield residents during the designated primary season. Priority #8 – Secondary Season Youth Programs Priority #2 local associations during a secondary season. Priority #9 – Non-Affiliated Associations Youth and adult teams not affiliated with a Northfield non-profit organization. These teams are scheduled on a first come, first served basis after higher priority teams have had an opportunity to schedule their season. At least 50% or more of the participants on each team must either live or work full-time in Northfield. Facility reservations will be limited to home games only, and team practices are limited to a maximum of one per week (may only have one game plus one practice per week maximum).
Fi e l d Us e Fe e The City will set fees prior to each season of use by the various local associations and other prioritized uses. All fees, any outstanding bills, and a complete participant roster (where applicable) must be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Department before any scheduling needs will be considered for a given season or event. This fee will be used to cover basic services including, but not limited to, coordination of scheduling and maintenance, providing portable toilets at select locations, and general field set up for games. Excluded items include maintaining a field more than once each day, providing extra portable toilets and/or cleanings, or moving bases. At the City’s discretion, fees for priorities lower than #2 as previously listed typically covers use only. No maintenance will be performed nor may any changes be made to facilities by the persons/groups making the reservation unless expressly allowing in the permit. Any maintenance or changes to fields may be requested and will be reviewed for feasibility. If the City is able to honor requests, fees will be assessed based on actual expenses incurred as determined by the City.
Facility Us e Pe r m i t Priority #3 through #9 teams must have an approved Northfield Park and Recreation Department Facility Use Permit to have access to scheduled facilities.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.13 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
Pr e e m p t i v e Cl a u s e The City of Northfield will make every effort to avoid preemption of scheduled events once a facility has been reserved and all requirements are met. However, the City reserves the right to preempt a scheduled event at a scheduled facility when in the City’s best judgment the preemption is in the community’s best interests.
Administrative Pr o c e d u r e s The following procedures will be used for administering facility use policies: 1. Fees for use of scheduled facilities will be subject to change each year at the discretion of the PRAB and City Council. 2. The City will establish dates each year by which teams must commit requests for reservation use in order of priority status. After that date, fields, or facilities will be reserved on a first come, first served basis. 3. If associations or organizations are at the same priority level offering the same sport activity for the same age group and gender, then the team or organization that has the highest seniority will receive the higher priority status for reservations. 4. Any organization that fails to provide for and follow the guidelines set forth by the City, or provides false information on a permit application, is subject to revocation of its permit at the discretion of the PRAB and City Council. 5. No organization will be allowed to sublease the City’s facilities without City approval. As defined in other sections, maximizing the level of cooperation Administrative Pr o v i s i o n between the City, School District, and local associations is at the core of – Sh a r e d Responsibility economically and effectively servicing all of the community’s parks and recreational needs. The objective of all joint-use agreements is for the Ag r e e m e n t s City to derive some quantifiable benefit from forming a partnership, even though the agreement itself may not represent an even split with respect to commitment or responsibility. Having very clearly defined shared responsibility agreements in place between partners is critical to describing each parties commitments to equitably and predictably implementing the system plan. Key elements of these agreements include: • Equal representation – each partner, through mutual agreement, should appoint an authorized person to represent their interests in any agreement • Ongoing communication – between representatives should be undertaken to define the issues and take action on directives from elected officials • Implementation planning – clearly defines the commitments and responsibilities of partner on an overall basis and on a specific facility basis On an overall basis, shared responsibility agreements should clearly define mutual goals and general principles of the process. The goals, objectives, and policies as defined in Section 2 – Vision Statement and Policy Plan should provide a starting point for this process. On a specific facility basis, the shared responsibility agreements should clearly define the specific responsibilities of each partner involved in the acquisition, development, operation, and maintenance of a particular facility. These detailed agreements are vital to the success of the system plan because it is at this level at which actual implementation takes place.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.14 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
Ge n e r a l Ag r e e m e n t Pa r a m e t e r s The following defines the general format for shared responsibility agreements associated with recreational facilities: • Name of Project/Park Site: Defines the name for the site and its classification as part of the system plan • Parties to the Agreement: Defines the parties involved in the agreement and key points of contact/administrator • Date and Term of Agreement: Defines the starting and ending date of the agreement, and any provisions for annual review (to assure that the agreement is meeting its objectives) and terms of renewal (often automatically on a yearly basis unless requests are made for revisions) • Site Description: Clearly defines the property limits, including legal descriptions as appropriate • Ownership: Clearly defines legal owners of the property and specifies any long-term ownership intentions with the property • Lease Agreement: If a particular parcel of property is leased to the City (or vice versa), the conditions of the lease arrangement should be clearly defined • Development Program and Site Master Plan: Clearly defines how the site will be developed in the future; this should include a written program defining all facilities and site amenities along with a graphic master plan illustrating the layout of key development features • Land acquisition responsibilities: Clearly defines each party’s responsibility related to funding land acquisition; the time frame for acquisition should be clearly defined • Development Responsibilities: Clearly defines each party’s responsibility related to funding development and administration of the development process through final construction; the time frame for development should also be clearly defined • Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities: Clearly defines each party’s responsibility related to operating and maintaining the facilities; this should be very specific and include a facility-by-facility breakdown; also important is to define which party has the authority to limit use of a particular facility for maintenance purposes, which is typically given to the party who is responsible for maintaining the facility; the expected level of maintenance should also be defined, such as “safe, sanitary, and operable conditions shall be maintained at all times” • Programming and Scheduling: Clearly defines each party’s use of the various facilities and the manner in which they are scheduled, including which party or uses have priority status • Insurance: Clearly defines the level of insurance each party must carry; typically, each party carries liability insurance for the site and lists each other as “additional insured” • User Fees and Income from Activities: Clearly defines how user fees, if collected, and other income will be used; typically, user fees and income are used to off-set debt and operational/maintenance costs • Review Process: A provision should be included establishing an agreement review process • Rules: Clearly defines the standard operational rules, such as time of operation, reservations, use of facilities, etc. Although shared responsibility agreements have legal standing, it is important that they be written to be understandable by those responsible for implementation, namely the PRAB and City of Northfield’ and School District’s staff, maintenance crews, and programmers.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.15 Se c t i o n 6 - Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n a n d Administrative Pr o v i s i o n s
Northfield is committed to continuing public involvement through the Administrative Pr o v i s i o n – implementation of the system plan. The degree to which this will occur Pu b l i c In v o l v e m e n t will vary depending on what aspect of the plan is being implemented. For larger scale projects, such as the development or redevelopment of a neighborhood park, public involvement in the actual design process will be fairly extensive and involve representation from key stakeholders. In addition, forums for broader public input (e.g., open houses and presentations) would also be used as needed to communicate and exchange ideas with interested citizens. For smaller scale projects, notifications of interested parties would be a more appropriate approach. The objectives associated with involving citizens in the implementation process include: • Determine who the stakeholders are and their interest in a particular development initiative • Understand their needs and unique perspectives • Identify and understand concerns and problems • Develop alternatives and find appropriate solutions with input from stakeholders In addition to formalized processes for particular projects, Northfield will use the PRAB to advise the City Council on development initiatives as they occur. The public is welcome to attend its regularly scheduled meetings. Also, Northfield uses numerous tools to provide a consistent level of communication with interested citizens.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n 6.16 App e n d i x a Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
The following provides a general overview of each park based on Ov e r v i e w field evaluations at a system plan-level. Recommendations on future development of parks and trails are also provided to help guide future decisions by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board and City Council. Potential development costs are also provided to aid in setting budgets and priorities.
The cost projections define the potential costs associated with upgrading De v e l o p m e n t Co s t or developing the major components of the system plan to reach an Co n s i d e r a t i o n s optimal level of development. The projections are based on a combination of site-specific development issues and professional judgments based on projects of similar size and characteristics. The projections are also based on 2007 dollars, which will require inflation adjustments over time. The cost projections take into consideration assumptions regarding the basic age of existing amenities. The actual timing of upgrading a particular park will affect whether there is any value in salvaging an existing feature or simply replacing it. Timing will also affect the cost projections – which generally means costs will rise above what is shown the further out upgrades are made since more amenities will require replacement.
Us e o f t h e Co s t Pr o j e c t i o n s Important cost projections qualifier! Projecting the potential cost for implementing the The intended use of the cost projections is to aid the Park and Recreation system plan poses inherent limitations due to the Advisory Board and City Council in developing an overall funding and lack of detailed development programs and design implementation strategy, including: plans. Although the projections are suitable for the • Defining the potential magnitude of the public investment needed to intended purposes, detailed cost projections are recommended as individual projects are identified develop the system to its optimal level for implementation. • Comparing the relative cost of one park or trail improvement over that of another • Determining the level of service threshold that the community is willing to support with local funding • Prioritizing and budgeting for capital improvement initiatives based on funding availability Although the intent is to be conservative, actual costs will vary, perhaps significantly, depending on the actual conditions found out in the field, final design and scope of a given project, and economic conditions at the time of bidding and implementation. Note that the cost projections should be updated on a periodic basis to stay in alignment with potential cost increases over time and to factor in costs to replace items that will wear out over time.
Co s t Pr o j e c t i o n s f o r Gr e e n w a y s Given the uncertainty on the final shape and form that these greenways will take relative to the greenway plan, projecting costs with any degree of certainty is difficult. However, even modest projections suggest that the cost for the City to directly acquire the greenways would likely be prohibitively expensive, well into the millions of dollars based on per acre land costs within the city.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.1 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Under the system plan, the City will have to rely extensively on working collaborations with and, in some cases, provide various incentives to landowners and developers in order to set aside land for greenways.
Co s t Pr o j e c t i o n s f o r Tr a i l s Cost projections for trails are based on estimated lineal foot costs that assume generally good conditions requiring a limited degree of extra site preparation (e.g., soil corrections), bridge building, and additional stormwater management planning. Costs do not include any costs associated with land acquisition, bridges, or underpasses. The cost projections are limited to destination and linking trails, and do not include neighborhood-type trails referenced in Section 4. Note that projecting the costs for developing trails without the benefit of site surveys and design layouts offers certain practical limitations. Given this, it is important to underscore that the cost projections presented here are for planning purposes and that more detailed evaluation is required to firm up costs as the city develops their funding packages and grant applications.
Po t e n t i a l Co s t f o r Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Type Estimated Miles Projected Costs Destination Trails (trails within the greenway system) 22 miles* $2.9 to $3.2 million Linking Trails (trails along roadways) 9 miles* $1.2 to $1.4 million Totals 31 miles $4.1 to $4.6 million** * Only includes proposed new trails. **Professional fees/limited contingency are factored into the projected costs. Adjusting for inflation! A 10% per-year cost estimate increase is recommended from date of plan adoption to account for inflation.
Co s t Pr o j e c t i o n s f o r Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e s St e w a r d s h i p Since restoration and management of the natural resource areas in the city is still in its infancy and the ecological condition of the properties has not been fully evaluated, projecting the cost for implementing a comprehensive program is difficult to determine. However, for planning purposes, the following table considers a range of cost projections for restoring and managing ecological resources under similar conditions found in Northfield.
Po t e n t i a l Initial Re s t o r a t i o n Po t e n t i a l Ye a r l y Lo ng -Te r m Ma i n t e nan c e an d Co s t s Manag e m e n t Co s t s Adjusting for inflation! Cover Type Range of Cost/Acre Cover Type Range of Cost/Acre A 10% per-year cost Maple-Basswood Forest $1,500 to $4,000 Maple-Basswood Forest $150 to $250 estimate increase is recommended from date of Oak Savanna System $1,500 to $4,000 Oak Savanna System $200 to $400 plan adoption to account for inflation. Wetland Systems $1,500 to $3,500 Wetland Systems $150 to $250
Co s t Pr o j e c t i o n s f o r Pa r k s an d At h l e t i c Facilities Cost projections for parks and athletic facilities are based on a level of development consistent with the parameters defined earlier in this section. The following provides an overall projected cost for specific parks, recognizing that funding limitations may require phasing development of a given park over a period of years. Acquisition costs associated with any new parks are not included in the table. Given the variability of land values, projecting acquisition costs with any degree of certainty from one year to the next is difficult. Even modest projections suggest that the cost for the City to directly acquire the land for future parks would be into the millions of dollars based on per acre land costs within the city.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.2 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Po t e n t i a l Co s t f o r Pa r k an d At h l e t i c Facility De v e l o p m e n t Park Range of Potential Costs Ames Park $200,000 to $300,000 Aspen Park None projected Babcock Park $500,000 to $1,000,000 Bridge Square None projected Campostella Park None projected Central Park $50,000 to $100,000 Char Carlson Park $50,000 to $60,000 Cherry Park $4,000 to $6,000 Dresden Hill Park None projected Grant Park $150,000 to $200,000 Hauberg Woods $25,000 to $75,000 Heritage Park $50,000 to $75,000 Heywood Park $200,000 to $250,000 Hidden Valley Park $5,000 to $10,000 Jefferson Park $15,000 to $25,000 John North Park $4,000 to $6,000 Lashbrook $250,000 to $300,000 Liberty/Prairie Hill Park $250,000 to $300,000 Adjusting for inflation! Memorial Park $100,000 to $150,000 A 10% per-year cost estimate increase is Oddfellows Park None projected recommended from date of plan adoption to account for inflation. Par Meadow Park $5,000 to $10,000 Riverside Lions Park $300,000 to $800,000 Roosevelt Park $30,000 to $40,000 Sechler Park $100,000 to $200,000 Sibley Soccer Fields None projected Sibley Swale Park $200,000 to $250,000 Spring Creek Park $200,000 to $250,000 Spring Creek Soccer $25,000 to $50,000 Truman Park $5,000 to $15,000 Tyler Park None projected Washington Park $10,000 to $15,000 Way Park $800,000 to $900,000 New Neighborhood Parks (allows $2,250,000 to $3,150,000 $250,000 to $350,000 per site x 9 parks identified on the System Plan) Baseline Total $5,778,000 to $8,537,000 Contingency and Professional Fees (20%) $1,156,000 to $1,707,000 Overall Total $6,934,000 to $10,244,000
The following provides development recommendations for each of the Co n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r Pa r k existing parks within Northfield. De v e l o p m e n t
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.3 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Am e s Pa r k Classification: Community / Special Use Park — 2.5 acres Character: Ames Park is located at a key entry point to the historic downtown area of Northfield, directly adjacent to the Cannon River. The park is in a highly visible location and connected to the downtown area by a sidewalk across the bridge. Overall the park is under-utilized, with much of the land maintained as open green space for community events. An existing memorial trail (dedicated to Jean Campbell Brooks) extends along the shoreline through the park. The shoreline currently exhibits some erosion. The only parking available to support the park is across the river. The view to the north of a loading dock is in need of visual screening. The powerline running through the park is also a visual distraction and functional impediment. Development Considerations: The park’s overall aesthetic qualities need enhancement – especially given its importance as a “gateway” into the downtown area. As defined in Section 3, the park was selected as a candidate site for a new skateboard park, which if built here would require careful siting as part of an overall design. Other key amenities and improvements worthy of consideration as part of an overall master plan include: enhancing the park’s visual and functional connection to the downtown area; improving walkways, overlooks, and sitting areas; adding a shelter or arbor structure for sitting and architectural aesthetics; adding streetscape elements complementary to the downtown area; and enhancing the memorial area and specialty gardens. The shoreline of the river also needs to be stabilized and enhanced with native plantings. Additional ornamental landscaping throughout the park is needed to improve the park’s aesthetic qualities and selectively screen or frame views. Maintaining a good-sized multi-use turf area is an important design element to accommodate annual community events and provide space for informal lawn activities.
Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $200,000 to $300,000 for listed general park improvements. An additional $250,000 to $300,000 is needed if the skateboard park is developed. Relocation of power lines would be an additional cost.
Cannon River Dam & Falls Bridge Square Park (see page \A.7)
Riverwalk Dahomey Ave.
Memorial Walkway & Plaza
Open Green Space For Informal Use View A
5th Street Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Vi e w A
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.4 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
As p e n Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 2 acres Character: This park is an undeveloped, open space with wooded areas. An asphalt trail provides access to the park from the north, although it ends at the edge of the park property. The mature trees provide an appealing natural setting for this small park. Development Considerations: In the nearer-term (prior to new development to the south), development of this park is a low priority since the neighborhood to the north can be serviced by park amenities at the local schools and Spring Creek Athletic Complex. The exception to this is trail development as part of the trail connection between the athletic complex and school sites as shown on the overall system. In the longer-term, when the land to the south is developed, Aspen Park should be factored into the overall open space system, but will not need to be developed as a neighborhood park unless a clearly documented service gap arises due to the ultimate location of other new parks in this area as illustrated on the System Plan. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: None, assuming that this area can be serviced with other parks and the nearby school.
View A Trail South Division St.
Pa r k Ae r i a l
Vi e w A
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.5 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Bab c o c k Pa r k Classification: Community Park — 29 acres Character: This is a linear park along the Cannon River adjacent to a commercial and industrial area. The northern most section of park is located along Dahomey Ave. (TH 3) and includes a rodeo grounds (with old bleachers on either side of an open turf area). The primary use of this area is for Jesse James Days. A fenced off-leash area is located adjacent to the river. The only access to the river is through the off-leash area. A partially-paved parking lot in poor condition is provided off of Dahomey Ave. (Commercial trucks routinely use the lot for parking.) An asphalt trail connects the park to Riverside Lions Park on the opposite side of Dahomey Ave. (via a bridge underpass). A ballfield, which is in good condition, is located back behind the commercial and industrial areas further to the south. The gravel parking lot adjacent to the ballfield is fairly steep and exhibiting erosion problems. A hockey rink with an aggregate surface has been relocated to this section of the park. Although located next to the river, the amenity value of this natural corridor has not been used to design advantage. Development Considerations: As part of the core community parks in the general downtown area, Babcock Park is under utilized and lacks a cohesive and visually appealing design. Although the existing uses remain viable and appropriate, a new master plan is needed to better organize the site, make it more visually appealing, and ensure that the right mix of facilities and amenities are provided to meet community needs. Section 3 should be referred to for a listing of amenities common to community parks. In addition, the interrelationship of the park with the other community parks in the downtown area should be taken into consideration when determining the right mix of facilities and design features. Taking full advantage of the scenic values of the river corridor should be a top priority, as is the need to enhance the general aesthetic quality of the park through good design, landscaping, and architectural elements. As defined in Section 3, the park was selected as a candidate site for a new skateboard park, which if built here would require careful siting as part of an overall design. Development Costs to Optimal Level: $500,000 (basic improvements) to $1,000,000 (robust improvements) – based on typical costs for similar level of development for a community park, not site-specific program evaluation) An additional $250,000 to $300,000 is needed if the skateboard park is Rodeo Grounds developed on this site. Dog Park Cannon River
Parking Lot
Do g Pa r k Dahomey Ave.
Ball Field Sechler Park
Hockey Rink
Ro d e o Gr o un d s
Ice Arena
Existing De v e l o p m e n t Ba l l f i e l d
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.6 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Br i d g e Sq ua r e Pa r k /Do w n t o w n Ri v e r w a l k (1 o f 2) Classification: Special Use Park — Less than 1 acre Character – Bridge Square: Bridge Square consists of several pieces of land in the downtown area along the river, all with varying characters. The corner of the 5th St. bridge is the start of the riverside walkway, where there is a basic seating area with a great view of the river (photo A). The walkway heads north and becomes constricted between the river and adjacent parking lot (photo B), eventually leading to a walkway that overlooks the river dam (photo C). The walks, walls and railings need upgrading. At Bridge Square Park, located by the dam, the park space transitions to an urban plaza with planters, ornamental walkways, seating, and sculptures (photo D). This area is more consistent with the historic downtown character of Northfield. To the north of Bridge Square Park the pedestrian walkway continues along the river. Development Considerations – Bridge Square: The Downtown Northfield Streetscape Framework Plan was prepared in 2006 to guide redevelopment of this park and riverfront area. This includes reworking the parking lot to create more space for the riverwalk and related streetscape amenities. There are also plans to rebuild aspects to the dam and adjacent walls. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: No estimate provided since this area is part of the Downtown Northfield Streetscape Framework Plan.
Ph o t o A Ph o t o C
Ph o t o B Ph o t o D
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.7 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Br i d g e Sq ua r e Pa r k /Do w n t o w n Ri v e r w a l k (2 o f 2) Classification: Special Use Character – Downtown Riverwalk: This is a pedestrian walkway along the river between Bridge Square Park north to and 2nd Street. Overall, the walkway is a pleasant experience – with perhaps the exception of views of utilities, back of buildings, and related parking lots. A few of the buildings have made improvements to their rear facades, with some providing second entrances, stone planters, and seat walls. There is also a maintained turf area on the north end of the walk with a gazebo. The turf area leads right to the edge of the river wall, with a significant drop down to the water. No safety railing is provided in this area. This walkway, as well as those on the opposite side of the river, draw people to the edge of the river for viewing and relaxation. Although likely an appealing feature to many residents and visitors, the riverwalk is not always evident from the downtown area. Development Considerations – Downtown Riverwalk: Potential improvements include enhancing the pedestrian link to the riverwalk from the downtown area and Bridge Square Park to create a continuous river experience. Improved ADA accessibility to the walkway should also be a consideration, as is the case with providing additional screening of utility areas and safety enhancements. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: No estimate provided since this area is part of the Downtown Northfield Streetscape Framework Plan.
Ri v e r w a l k , Lo o k i ng So u t h Utilities Al o ng Ri v e r w a l k
Wa t e r s Ed g e o n We s t Si d e La w n Me e t i ng Ri v e r ’s Ed g e
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.8 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Ca m p o s t e l l a Pa r k Classification: Nature Area — 14 acres Character: This park is an undeveloped, heavily wooded natural open space park located along the Cannon River, just to the southwest of Babcock Park and behind an industrial area. Development Considerations: Other than being part of the linear greenway and trail corridor along the Cannon River, the park will largely remain natural open space. The one exception is the possible development of an archery range if siting it at Lashbrook Park falls through for any reason. The limiting factor in this regard is the heavy vegetation, which may make this site less physically practical and more costly to develop for archery. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: None. (Trail development through the park is included under the cost estimate for trails.)
Cannon River
Campostella Park
Adjacent Industrial & City Facility Uses
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Si t e Ph o t o
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.9 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Ce n t r a l Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 3 acres Character: This park is adjacent to an old school site now owned by Carleton College. The park has a formal character, with symmetrical walkways leading to a central plaza space surrounded by ornamental gardens and open green space – reminiscent of old town squares. The plaza space is large and lacks a focal point. The play area is still in good shape, but is a bit out of character for the site and seems retrofitted into the design. Site amenities also lack an overall sense of cohesive design character. The old school building is boarded up and the gravel parking lot detracts from the park atmosphere. Development Considerations: The park site remains a viable and important neighborhood park for this area of the city. It should be enhanced over time with amenities common to neighborhood parks as defined in Section 3. Possibilities in this regard include adding a basketball court, small picnic shelter, and lawn games area. The interrelationship between the park and the adjoining Carleton College property should also be considered as part of any improvement planning for the park. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $50,000 to $100,000.
Playground
Or na m e n t a l Pl an t s Carleton College Property Plaza
Ce n t r a l Pl a z a
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Ch i l d r e n ’s Pl a y Ar e a
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.10 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Ch a r Ca r l s o n Pa r k Classification: Conservation (Nature) Area — 9 acres Character: The western side of the site is mainly an open area, with a mature stand of dense trees located on the eastern side. The park is essentially an open space surrounding stormwater detention ponds that have some aesthetic appeal, including an island with a mature oak tree. An asphalt trail runs along the eastern side of the pond and provides a scenic walkway with views of prairie, wetland, woods, and wildlife. Development Considerations: Completing the trail system and adding a couple of simple bench overlooks at select locations along the trail would allow park users to stop and enjoy the view. Additional landscaping along the western edge of the park would help screen future development on that side and help retain the natural appearance of the site. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $50,000 - $60,000.
Honeylocust Dr.
Jefferson Road
Trail
Ponds Wooded Area
Oak Lawn
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Vi e w o f Po n d Vi e w o f Po n d , Ve g e t a t i o n & Wi l d l i f e
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.11 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Ch e r r y Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — Less than 1 acre Character: This is a small neighborhood park tucked back in a residential area. More recent upgrades include play equipment, a shelter structure, and an asphalt trail extending to the neighborhood street to the south. The asphalt trail separates the park space from residential property, though some of the residential lots could easily be confused as being part of the park. The park amenities lack a consistent character. Development Considerations: Updating site amenities with a more consistent character is recommended when replacement is needed. In addition, any additional development of this park should be considered in the context of the development of Way Park to ensure that duplication of amenities is limited. As such, improvements to this park should be very limited, with Way Park providing a higher level of service for this neighborhood area. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $4,000 - $6,000.
Shelter
Cherry St.
Trail
Play equipment
St. Olaf Ave.
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Pa r k Tr a i l
Pa r k Sh e l t e r Pl a y Eq u i p m e n t
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.12 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Dr e s d e n Hi l l Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — Less than 1 acre Character: This is a small neighborhood park located on a large hill near a dense area of housing. Park development is limited to play equipment, picnic tables, and benches. The play equipment is in acceptable condition, but is nearing the end of its useful life. Located on a hill, providing accessible routes to the playground equipment and park amenities will continue to be a challenge. The park amenities also lack a consistent character. Given the park’s small size, it is substandard given the density of the housing in its service area. Development Considerations: The long-term future of this park is contingent upon whether a new neighborhood park is provided to the north, as defined on the System Plan. If that approach is taken, this park could be phased out of the system. If replaced, the City should consider selling the property and using the proceeds for development funding for the relocated park, which if properly located would more effectively service this area. Given this possibility, near-term investments into the park other than routine upkeep should be avoided. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: None.
Play equipment
Dresden Ave.
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Vi e w o f Pl a y g r o un d
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.13 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Gr an t Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 6 acres Character: This is an appropriately sized neighborhood park tucked behind higher density residential area. Unfortunately, much of the park is a de facto stormwater ponding basin and the site is hard to access from local streets. No parking is available except for off-site parking lots provided at the high school and associated with private apartment buildings. The site is very open with limited landscaping buffering the views of the surrounding housing. An asphalt trail traverses through one side of the park and connects to the residential areas and high school. Much of the park space is in a low area with a stormwater pond. A newer playground is located on the north side of the park. Development Considerations: An overall master plan for the park is needed that creates a more appealing neighborhood park that meets local needs. In addition to existing amenities, a basketball court, overlooks of the pond, a small shelter structure or arbor, a looped trail, and select other neighborhood park amenities should be considered. The park entrance points should also be enhanced to be more inviting. The overall landscaping scheme should include maintained turf along with natural areas, especially surrounding the pond. This combination would make the park more aesthetically interesting and reduce maintenance and improve water quality and wildlife habitat. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $150,000 - $200,000.
Playground
Pond
Trail
Jefferson Rd Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Vi e w o f Lo w Ar e a Vi e w o f Pl a y g r o un d Vi e w o f Po n d
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.14 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Haub e r g Wo o d s Classification: Currently – Nature Area — 52 acres / Future – Expanded for Neighborhood Park and Reserve Land Character: This is a very appealing nature area that has an asphalt trail leading into a wooded area, at which point it turns into a natural-surfaced trail. The entrance leading into the wooded section is very inviting, even though it runs past the backyards of housing. This site is significant in that it contains a high quality rich fen, which is rare to find. The downside is that railroad tracks split the land into two separate pieces. Currently, only the western side is accessible. Development Considerations: In 2007, a new master plan for the current nature area part of the park was prepared, which should be used as the basis for improving that area. As defined in Section 3, expansion of the park is proposed to accommodate a neighborhood park component to the west of the existing property. Setting aside land on either the south or north side for reserve land is also defined in Section 3. Creating an effective connection between the two halves of the park with preferably a grade-separated crossing of the railroad track is also a priority for both the park and the larger greenway system. Another priority is acquiring additional buffer around the rich fen and wooded areas to protect their ecological qualities. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $25,000 to $75,000 for nature trail, small parking lot, and related improvements. Does not include costs associated with development of future reserve land or a neighborhood park.
Potential development of future neighborhood park along future greenway in this area
Potential expansion to the north for reserve land
Nature Trails
Existing Hauberg Woods property
Asphalt Trail Na t u r e Tr a i l
Potential expansion to the south to protect high quality natural areas
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Vi e w o f Po n d
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.15 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
He r i t ag e Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 2 acres Character: This is a small neighborhood park surrounded by residential development with trail connections to local streets. The park exhibits some nice mature trees that provide shade and buffer the views of the adjacent housing. The small shelter structure is appealing and suitable for this size park. The play equipment is in good condition, but the surrounding surfacing is oversized for the equipment that is provided. A full size basketball court is located on the north end of the park. The trail system loops the park and provides a simple and desirable amenity. Development Considerations: Updating site amenities over time to create a unified character (i.e., benches, tables, trash receptacles, etc.) is the main development issue with this park. When the play area is in need of replacement, the container should be designed more creatively than is currently the case – with the equipment fitting more purposefully into the space provided. Improved accessibility should also be provided. If not heavily used, consideration to reducing the full-sized basketball court to a smaller court might be desirable to free-up some additional open space. Additional landscaping in select accent locations is would add to the parks aesthetic qualities. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $50,000 - $75,000 for adding play equipment.
Heritage Drive
Basketball Valley Drive Court
Playground Trail Sh e l t e r & Pl a y g r o un d
Shelter
Ba s k e t ba l l Co u r t
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.16 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
He y w o o d Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 7 acres Character: This is a newer neighborhood park located in a growing residential area. The park is only partially developed, with looped trails and open space being the only amenities. The park also lacks landscaping, with the lack of trees of greatest concern. The overall size of the park is one of its appealing features. Development Considerations: Recreational amenities should be consistent with the guidelines provided in Section 3 for a neighborhood park. Potential amenities include a creative playground, picnic shelter, basketball court, and open green space. There is no need for additional trails, with the exception of connections to any new amenities. Significantly more landscaping is needed to increase the buffering and sense of separation between the park and surrounding residential properties. Creating a sense of entrance to the park is also needed at the various access points, including along Jefferson Parkway. Given its larger size, a small parking lot might be appropriately considered as improvements are made. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $200,000 - $250,000 to complete the park to neighborhood park standards for a park this size.
Heywood Road
Trail
Jefferson Pkwy.
Greek Lane
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Vi e w o f Pa r k
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.17 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Hi d d e n Va l l e y Pa r k Classification: Conservation (Nature) Area — 6 acres Character: This is a natural, open space park centered around a stormwater management pond. The only development is an asphalt trail, which connects to the local streets and larger sidewalk and trail system. Most of the space around the pond is naturalized, which is appropriate and could be further expanded to reduce maintenance costs and improve wildlife habitat. Development Considerations: Expand naturalized plantings, with an emphasis on trees. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $5,000 - $10,000.
Hidden Valley Trail
Heritage Drive Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Po n d & Tr a i l
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.18 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Je f f e r s o n Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 1 acre (excluding adjoining greenway and trail corridor) Character: This is a small neighborhood park with a connection to a neighborhood-level greenway and trail system, giving residents fairly easy access to the site without having to walk along local streets. Amenities are limited to children’s play equipment (which is in good condition), trail access, and small turfed open space. Development Considerations: Given its small size, Jefferson Park will have to function in concert with Tyler, Truman, and Roosevelt Parks to fully service local neighborhood park needs in this general area of the city. As such, any improvements made to Jefferson Park or the other parks should take into consideration how they interrelate to ensure that a good balance of amenities is collectively provided in this neighborhood area. With Jefferson, a more creative children’s play area with a adjoining seating should be a priority when the existing equipment needs replacement. Maintaining a consistent design character for site amenities as they are replaced (i.e., benches, tables, etc.) is also important. Adding some ornamental fencing along the street would improve the character of the park and create a greater sense of separation between use areas and vehicular traffic. Adding some well-placed ornamental landscaping (trees and shrubs) would also make the park more aesthetically interesting. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $15,000 - $25,000 for ornamental fence and landscaping.
Playground
Trail
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Ch i l d r e n ’s Pl a y Ar e a
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.19 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Jo h n No r t h Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 3 acres Character: This neighborhood park is centered around a stormwater ponding basin/wetland natural area, with an asphalt trail looping around it. A small children’s play area is also provided. The playground is relatively new, but does not meet newer accessibility guidelines. The bench located in the play container may be encroaching into the equipment safety zone. Otherwise, much of the park space is de facto open space, with natural vegetation dominate in the areas prone to stormwater bounces. Development Considerations: Given the availability of typical neighborhood park features at the nearby Greenvale Elementary School, there is little justification to expand the amenities provided at this park. As such, the park is best suited to meet the basic needs of nearby families, with the school site providing amenities such as a large play structure, field space, basketball court, and hardcourt. Even expanding the play structure is hard to justify given the large structure at the school site. Although extensive upgrading is not needed, additional landscaping would be of value to improve site aesthetics and increase buffering and sense of separation between the park and surrounding residential properties. Relocation of the bench currently within the equipment safety zone is also advised. Selectively expanding the natural vegetation in the center of the park could also add interest and help reduce maintenance costs, especially on some of the steeper slopes and wetter areas of the park. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $4,000 - $6,000.
Playground
Zanmiller Dr..
Trail Lockwood Dr.
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Po n d i ng Ar e a Ch i l d r e n ’s Pl a y Ar e a
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.20 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
La s h b r o o k Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 12 acres Character: This is currently an undeveloped park exhibiting an appealing wooded area on the north side. Much of the remaining park is covered with natural grasses. A series of mowed nature trails crisscross the site, with a bench overlooking the open area also provided. Development Considerations: With the increased level of residential development in this area, development of this site as a neighborhood park is justified. Recreational amenities should be consistent with the guidelines provided in Section 3 for a neighborhood park. Potential amenities include a creative playground, park shelter structure, basketball court, and open green space. The park is nicely sized for a looped trail as well. Adequate space is available to retain a fair portion of the natural prairie now present. There is also adequate space for an archery range as part of a well-thought out master plan for the park. (Section 3 considers the archery range issue in greater detail.) A good landscaping plan is needed to help define use areas and create transitional zones between passive and active park uses. Creating a sense of entrance to the park is also needed at the various access points. Given its larger size, a small parking lot might be considered as improvements are made, especially if an archery range is provided. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $250,000 - $300,000.
Cedar Ave. Cannon Valley Place
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Na t u r a l Op e n Spa c e Vi e w Ac r o s s Pa r k
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.21 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Li b e r t y /Pr a i r i e Hi l l Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 12 acres Character: These two interrelated park units together serve this developing area of the city. Aside from the trails, the parks are undeveloped. Part of the Liberty Park unit is consumed by stormwater ponds surrounded by natural vegetation. Development Considerations: An overall master plan should be prepared for this entire park area to ensure local neighborhood park needs are effectively and efficiently met. Recreational amenities should be consistent with the guidelines provided in Section 3 for a neighborhood park. Importantly, the master planning process will need to resolve which area of these park units should be developed for active use and which should be restored as natural open space. It is not cost justifiable to create a separate active use area in each of these park units for a couple of reasons. First, the service area only requires one well-designed active use area, and it is best to provide one larger amenity rather than two smaller ones in terms of recreational value. Second, spreading out the active use amenities into two pieces diminishes the opportunity to create a recreational experience compelling enough for the park to become the social centerpiece of the neighborhood. For these reasons, a choice will have to be made as to which area of the park is best suited for the active use area. (From a park service area standpoint, the Prairie Hill Park area is perhaps best suited to be developed as the active neighborhood park area.) Although the interrelationship between the park units as part of the larger development is not ideal, a well-thought out master plan should be able to resolve most of the problems and disconnects. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $250,000 - $300,000. Thye Parkway
Liberty Park
Trails
Trails
Prairie Hill Park
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Vi e w o f Tr a i l Th o ug h Op e n Spa c e Op e n Gr e e n Spa c e (Mo w e d )
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.22 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Me m o r i a l Pa r k Classification: Community Park — 20 acres Character: This park was redeveloped in 2006-07 to include a large outdoor community pool and adjacent parking lot. The remainder of the park is currently open space, with the exception of a seemingly unused sand volleyball court located on the northern edge of the site. Development Considerations: With the development of the pool facility, one of the key elements of the current site master plan has been successfully implemented. Assuming local recreational needs (as associated with this park) remain unchanged, continued phased implementation of the master plan is envisioned. This would include development of looped trails and providing maintained green space, benches, and scattered picnic tables. Adding a picnic shelter and perhaps sand volleyball court(s) and lawn games (bocce ball) or hardcourt areas (for shuffleboard, etc.) would also be appropriate additions, if desired by residents. Additional landscape enhancements would also improve site aesthetics and further buffer adjoining properties. An important side note is that Memorial Park is defined in Section 3 as one of several candidate sites for a new skateboard park. Whether or not that occurs will be determined under a separate planning process, which will include public input. If it is determined that this park is the best suited for a skateboard facility, the current master plan would have to be redesigned to accommodate it. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $100,000 - $150,000, not including development of the skateboard park.
Existing De v e l o p m e n t (As Po o l is Be i ng Co n s t r u c t e d )
Vi e w o f Po o l
Ad o p t e d Ma s t e r Pl an
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.23 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Od d f e l l o w s Pa r k Classification: Community Park — 13 acres Character: The park property is extensively wooded, with much of the existing development clustered in the northwest corner. Pull-in style parking, which is less than ideal due to vehicles backing into traffic, is provided near the developed area. A large picnic shelter, which is fairly old, provides a group gathering space and adds an interesting architectural character to the site. A small restroom building, which is old and in poor condition, is located near the road, as are portable restrooms. A children’s playground, which is still in good shape, is tucked into some mature trees, which provides a nice setting and shade for the playground. A small gazebo is located between the large picnic shelter and the children’s playground. The park is located next to senior housing. Within the wooded area, nature trails are the only developed facilities. Development Considerations: This park is classified as a community park due to its size, the facilities that are offered, and its proximity to nearby Way Park, which is defined as the neighborhood park for this area. Under a community park designation, future development of Oddfellows Park can be more flexible and accommodate facilities that serve a broader array of user groups or more specialized uses. With the existing facilities, ongoing maintenance is one of the key issues, especially with respect to the large picnic shelter and restroom facility. In the nearer-term, the site is best viewed as reserve land since no formal program has emerged to guide future development of this site. With Way Park’s master plan robustly addressing neighborhood park needs in this area, there is little justification to duplicate those amenities in this location in the long term. In the shorter term, maintaining the current facilities is appropriate until they reach the end of their effective lifecycle. Once the Way Park master plan is implemented, it will be easier to discern how this park factors into meeting the needs of local residents. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: None.
Large Picnic Shelter Forest Avenue
Playground Restroom Building
Gazebo
5th Street
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Picnic Sh e l t e r Ga z e b o & Pl a y g r o un d Na t u r e Tr a i l
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.24 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Pa r Me a d o w Pa r k Classification: Conservation (Nature) Area — 7 acres Character: This park primary consists of stormwater ponds surrounded by limited upland along Woodley Street. An asphalt trail traverses through the site. Development Considerations: Adding a simple bench overlook at select locations along the trail would allow park users to stop and enjoy the view across the ponds. Naturalizing more of the mowed turf would add to the natural aesthetic quality of the park and help reduce maintenance costs. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $5,000 - $10,000.
Spring Creek Road
Trails
Woodley Street
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Vi e w Fr o m Wo o d l e y
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.25 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Riverside Li o n s Pa r k Classification: Community Park — 19 acres Character: Although a somewhat eclectic collection of land parcels and uses, Riverside Lions Park remains a viable park unit that serves both community and neighborhood functions. The northern end of the park is routinely used for a seasonal farmers market along 7th Street. An interesting wood pergola/arbor structure with seating adds an appealing architectural feature to this area of the park. A children’s play area is also provided adjacent to the arbor. Although the play equipment is in good condition, the surface area is oversized and not well sited relative to the arbor structure. An asphalt trail, which is in need of upgrading, traverses through this and other areas of the park and provides a connection to Babcock Park via a grade-separated crossing under the TH 3 bridge. Although functional, the connection is visually unappealing and lacks clear sight lines, which might intimidate some users. The trail also dead ends on the north end of the park into a parking lot on the back side of a commercial building. The middle section of the park includes an open grass area and a large concrete pad with lights previously used for a skateboard park. An older picnic shelter with some picnic tables and grills scattered around along with an older restroom building are located further to the south. On the southern-most end of the park is the well-maintained Vets Memorial, which was dedicated in 2005 and is a highly visible and compelling architectural feature. Parking is currently limited and primarily along 7th and 8th Streets. Development Considerations: As with the other riverside and downtown area community parks, a new master plan is needed for Riverside Lions Park to better organize site uses and determine the mix of facilities and amenities needed to best serve the community. Importantly, the park’s design needs to accommodate neighborhood and community park amenities since it serves both functions. A new master plan should also focus on ways to better support the farmers market and continue to provide space for the annual car show. Particular attention needs to be paid to the vehicular access and parking issues, especially along 7th and 8th Streets and the southern end of the park. The relationship of the park and adjacent housing also needs to be addressed as part of a new master plan, including determining the cost-benefit of acquiring select properties on the southern end of the park as related to the Vets Memorial. As with Babcock, taking full advantage of the scenic values of the river corridor should be a top priority, as is the need to enhance the general aesthetic quality of the park through good design, landscaping, and architectural elements. Extending the trail on the northern end of the park into the downtown business district is also an important design consideration. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $300,000 to $800,000, which ranges from limiting enhancements to neighborhood park-type features and trails to more robust enhancement of community park features associated with the farmers market, arbor area, and trail connection to 5th Street.
Trail Ends
Playground Farmers Market Area
Trail Under Bridge 7th Street
Old Pad for Skateboard Park
Babcock Park Picnic Shelter
8th Street
T.H. 3 (Dahomey Ave)
Vets Memorial Existing De v e l o p m e n t 9th Street Ve t s Me m o r i a l Ar b o r /Pe r g o l a Ar e a
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.26 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Ro o s e v e l t Pa r k /Ro o s e v e l t Ri d g e Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 12 acres Character: These combined parks include a ballfield and general open space for active neighborhood use. An asphalt trail connects Roosevelt Park with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition to the active use area, an extensive linear wooded area left in its natural state provides a nice buffer and opportunity for additional trail connections. Development Considerations: Given the park distribution in this area of the city, these two parks function in concert with Truman and Heritage Parks to fully service local neighborhood park needs. As such, any improvements made to any of the these parks should take consideration how they interrelate to ensure that a good balance of amenities is collectively provided in this neighborhood area. With this park, development considerations are limited, with the primary focus being on completing trail linkages to local streets through the wooded areas. Providing additional landscaping in select locations along Adams Street should also be considered to add to the park’s visual appeal. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $30,000 to $40,000 for trails and landscaping.
Adams St. Ballfield
Trails
Heritage Dr.
Roosevelt Park Area
Roosevelt Ridge Park Area
Valley Drive
Trail Segment
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Vi e w o f Ba l l f i e l d
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.27 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Se c h l e r Pa r k Classification: Athletic Complex — 105 acres Character: Sechler Park is an athletic complex located along the Cannon River, although the river itself is hard to even see from the active use area. Facilities include ballfields, limited open field area, parking, batting cages, concessions/restroom building, picnic shelters, and children’s play area. Although in generally good shape, some of the fields are in need of upgrading. The main baseball field is in excellent shape with large bleachers, a nice flagpole display area and adjacent concessions. The park lacks a sense of entrance and can be difficult to find for those who are not familiar with it. The park drive is narrow and an adjacent trail is separated by bollards, which is not especially appealing for trail users. The newer playground structure is appealing. Development Considerations: As defined in Section 3, Sechler Park is designated as a ballfield complex to service various local associations. Although nearly fully developed, working with local associations to add a ballfield in lieu of the open field space is appropriate, assuming that any previous use of this area can be accommodated elsewhere in the system. Otherwise, general maintenance and upgrading as facilities reach the end of their effective life are the primary development issues facing the park, along with improving the aesthetic qualities of the park with additional landscaping in select locations. The park entrance points should be enhanced to be more easily identifiable, attractive, and improved sense of entrance into the site. (Rerouting of the asphalt trail through the property is also a development consideration, as defined in Section 4.) Prior to any major upgrading, the City and local associations should collaborate on creating an updated master plan and phasing program to ensure that all improvements are duly considered. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $100,000 to $200,000 for ballfield improvements.
Railroad Tracks Ballfield (Main
Parking Baseball Field) Armstrong Road Park Drive Small Ballfields Pa r k Dr i v e & Tr a i l Ballfield Ballfield Open Field Ballfield Space Ballfield
Open Parking Field Space Picnic Shelter Ballfield Playground
Existing De v e l o p m e n t Ma i n Ba l l f i e l d Ar e a
So u t h -We s t e r n Ba l l f i e l d
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.28 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Si b l e y So c c e r Fi e l d s Classification: Athletic Facility — 10 acres Character: Sibley Soccer Fields is an open athletic green primarily used for soccer and other field games. The site is adjacent to the Sibley Elementary School located to the north. Residential properties abut the west and south property lines. An asphalt trail traverses along the western edge of the park and connects with the adjoining neighborhood streets and school site. Parking for the site is shared with the school. Development Considerations: Continued use of the site for soccer and other field games is envisioned, with no major improvements being necessary. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: None.
Trails
Maple Street Open Field Space
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Vi e w o f Fi e l d s Fr o m Map l e St r e e t
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.29 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Si b l e y Sw a l e Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 11 acres Character: This is a long, linear neighborhood park, with the southern end being a narrow strip of land running along Prairie Street. The southern end of the park offers a children’s play area, trails and open space. The northern end is surrounded by residential areas and offers another open space, playground, and trails, which link to residential streets. A wetland is located between the north and south ends of the park. Development Considerations: Currently, many of the park amenities are redundant, with essentially two neighborhood parks being provided on one piece of park land. Unfortunately, in doing so the size and scale of the play structures are comparatively small and do not serve the neighborhood as well as a single, more robust play structure. For this reason, the park warrants being redesigned when the current amenities wear out and need to be replaced, with the focus being on locating the active use area in a central location that is accessible by trail from other areas of the park and the surrounding neighborhood. Recreational amenities should be consistent with the guidelines provided in Section 3 for a neighborhood park. Potential amenities include a larger creative playground, picnic shelter structure, basketball court, and open green space. A fair portion of the unused space in the park could be restored as a natural landscape to complement the wetland. A good landscaping plan is also needed to help define use areas and create transitional zones between passive and active park uses. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $200,000 - $250,000, at the time of redevelopment.
Playground
Open Space
Maple Street
Vi e w o f No r t h Pl a y g r o un d Wetland
Trails Open Space
Playground
Existing De v e l o p m e n t Prairie Street
Vi e w o f So u t h Pl a y g r o un d
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.30 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Sp r i ng Cr e e k So c c e r Co m p l e x Classification: Athletic Complex — 60 acres Character: Spring Creek Soccer Complex is a newer facility developed for soccer use and other field games. Along with the soccer fields, development includes an aesthetically appealing large picnic shelter, a larger children’s play area (designed with accessible features), and parking lot. There are some seating areas and water misting towers for players to cool down. The parking is a bit undersized, which occasionally forces some parking into the surrounding neighborhood streets. Development Considerations: Continued use of the site for soccer and other field games is envisioned. Given anticipated growth in demand over the next decade, expansion of the soccer fields to the south into areas that are currently natural grasses will likely be needed. Select relocation of the existing stormwater ponds might also allow for more efficient use of the property for athletic fields. Adding an asphalt trail loop around the park may also be warranted, with a connection to the city-wide trail system as shown on the trail system plan. Additional landscaping should also be introduced over time to buffer adjoining properties and add aesthetic interest to the site. Shade trees in the group gathering areas are especially needed. In the longer term, adding lighting to select fields could be considered to accommodate growing program needs, if warranted. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $200,000 to $250,000 to expand athletic fields to the south and add looped trail. (Adding field lights is not included.)
Jefferson Parkway Parking
Playground
Shelter
Fields
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Ph o t o o f Sh e l t e r & Misting To w e r s
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.31 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Sp r i ng Cr e e k Pa r k Classification: Conservation (Nature) Area — 70 acres Character: This is a natural open space park following Spring Creek. The southern end closest to the soccer complex is a series of stormwater ponds with asphalt trails around them. The northern area is a more appealing natural creek corridor. An extensive linear trail system is provided on the southern end of the park. The northern end of the park along the creek corridor is undeveloped. Development Considerations: Extending the trail system as defined by the trail system plan is the primary development consideration, along with providing select scenic overlooks and trail orientation/educational signage. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $25,000 to $50,000 for extending the trail and providing scenic overlooks.
Vi e w o f No r t h e r n Se c t i o n Prairie Street Prairie
Bridge Vi e w o f Mi d d l e Se c t i o n
Trails Spring Creek Road
Jefferson Parkway
Vi e w o f Pe d e s t r i an Br i d g e Trails
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.32 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Tr u m an Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 3 acres Character: This neighborhood park is tucked into a residential area, with a wooded area separating it from a local street. Park amenities include a children’s play area, asphalt trail loop, and shelter structure, all of which are in fair to good condition. The natural surfaced “social” trails running through the woods appear to have been created by bike use, with soils being highly disrupted in certain areas to create jumps and hills. Buckthorn is also dominant in the woodlot. Development Considerations: Given the park distribution in this area of the city, this park functions in concert with Roosevelt Ridge and Hidden Valley Parks to fully service local neighborhood park needs. As such, any improvements made to any of these parks should take consideration how they interrelate to ensure that a good balance of amenities is collectively provided in this neighborhood area. With this park, development considerations include providing a more creative children’s play area with adjoining seating when the existing equipment needs replacement. Maintaining a consistent design character for site amenities as they are replaced (i.e., benches, tables, etc.) is also important. Adding landscaping in select locations and removing undesirable invasive plants in the wooded area are nearer-term priorities. Discouraging the use of bikes in the wooded areas is also a site impact concern that needs to be addressed. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $5,000 to $15,000 for landscaping and management of the invasive vegetation in the woods.
Trails
Shelter
Playground
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Tr a i l En t e r i ng Pa r k Pl a y g r o un d & Sh e l t e r Tr a i l s Th r u Wo o d s
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.33 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Ty l e r Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 4 acres Character: Tyler Park provides a nice array of recreational amenities that are in newer condition. The entrance to the park is inviting, with views of the shelter structure and a large children’s play area. A basketball court is located close to the street for easy access, yet far enough away for adequate sense of separation. Parking is provided along the street. An asphalt trail loops around the perimeter of the park, in affect delineating an interior open green space for informal recreational activities. Development Considerations: Given the distribution of parks in this area of the city, Tyler will have to function in concert with Jefferson Park to fully service local neighborhood park needs. In addition, care should be taken to avoid duplicating the facilities provided at the adjacent school. Currently, no further enhancements are needed until amenities are in need of replacement. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: None.
Basketball Court
Shelter Playground Trails Open Space
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Pa r k En t r an c e Vi e w
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.34 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Wa s h i ng t o n Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 2 acres Character: This park is located directly adjacent to City Hall, which was once a school. Park amenities include a fairly large children’s play area, a full basketball court, a ballfield, and picnic tables. The parking lots are restricted use only (for employees of City Hall) during the work week. The perimeter of the park exhibits fairly mature trees, which provide shade and helps make the park more aesthetically pleasing. However, the park lacks a unifying character. Development Considerations: Reducing the size of the skinned ballfield infield and adding landscaping in select locations are the primary enhancements needed for this park. Otherwise, no further enhancements are needed until amenities are in need of replacement. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $10,000 to $15,000 for removal of the excessively large ballfield infield and additional landscaping.
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Vi e w o f Pl a y Ar e a
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.35 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
Wa y Pa r k Classification: Neighborhood Park — 8 acres Character: This park is currently divided into two segments by a local street. The northern half is the current neighborhood park, which includes a children’s play area, basketball half court, memorial, and ballfield. A small building used for a warming house is adjacent to the ballfield, with is used for winter skating. This half of the site exhibits numerous mature trees, which provide shade and a pleasant park setting. The southern half of the site is open and undeveloped. Development Considerations: In recent years, a group of residents formed an organization (The Friends of Way Park) and worked together to create a new master plan for Way Park, which has since been adopted by the City. One of the key aspects of the master plan is cul-de-sacing the street dividing the park to create a unified park space. Other improvements include creating a large open space with adjacent tiered seating in a hillside for a natural amphitheater, redesigning much of the north side into a more cohesive and interesting design, and creating a new memorial space on the south side. Improvements to the children’s play area, ballfield, skating rink, and walking trails are also envisioned. Potential Development Costs to Optimal Level: $800,000 to $900,000.
Existing De v e l o p m e n t
Ad o p t e d Ma s t e r Pl an
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.36 Appendix B – Park Evalautions and Development Considerations
Appendix B – Park Evaluations and
Development Considerations
The park system evaluation and development considerations provide general overviews of Overview each park based on field investigations. These reviews were undertaken to provide the Park Board and City staff with an understanding of the system and a basis for the key findings and recommendations.
Park System The park system classifications described in the System Plan are applied to each of the parks defined in this section. The classifications include: Classifications x Neighborhood Parks x Community Parks x Youth Athletic Complex x Community Athletic Complex x Greenway (Natural Open Space) x Special Use x Park-School App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s x Regional Park/ Reserve x Private Park/ Recreation Facility Facility De v e l o p m e n t The following table defines the most appropriate location for different Facility Types and The followingtypes table of defines recreational the most facilities. appropriate The tablelocation is intended for different as a types general of recreational guideline. Gu i d e lfacilities. i n e s The(Source: table is intendedBrauer & asAssociates, a general Ltd.guideline. General Recreation Facility Guidelines Location Guidelines Manual) Activity Neighbor. Community Youth Ath. Community Greenway Special Park- Regional Private Park Park Complex Ath. Complex Use School Park Informal play iii iii ii ii ii iii ii Youth softball i ii iii iii ii iii ii Adult softball i iii ii ii ii Youth baseball i ii iii iii ii iii ii Adult baseball i iii ii ii ii Youth soccer i ii iii iii ii iii ii Adult soccer i iii ii ii ii Youth football i ii iii iii ii iii ii Adult football i iii ii ii ii Youth lacrosse i ii iii iii ii iii ii Adult lacrosse i iii ii ii ii Ice hockey ii ii iii iii Appendix B – Parkii Evalautionsiii and Development Considerationsii
Ice skating ii iii ii iii ii iii ii TennisActivity Neighbor.ii Communityiii Youthiii Ath. Communityiii Greenway Specialii Park-iii Regional Privateii Basketball Parkiii Parkiii Complexiii Ath. iiiComplex Use ii Schooliii Park ii Sliding hill ii iii i i i ii i Play StructuresLegend: (open) iiiNot an appropriateiii locationiii iii ii iii ii ii Hardsurf. game i iii Appropriate oniii a very limitediii basis (typicallyiii not desirable) ii iii i ii Horseshoes ii Appropriatei oniii a limited basis (desirable onlyii if need is documented and/orii if a more idesirable locationii is not availableii ) Volleyball iii iiiAppropriate andiii desirable locationiii iii ii iii ii ii Disc Golf iii iii ii ii Skate park ii iii ii iii ii i ii PARKS,Archery NATURAL range OPEN SPACE/GREENWAY, iii ii iii ANDTrack TRAIL /field SYSTEM PLAN iii ii iii iiB- 1 Amphitheater iii ii iii Nature center iii ii ii iii ii Aquatics fac. iii iii iii iii i ii Fishing area iii iii iii Picnic area iii iii iii iii ii ii ii iii ii Beach area iii iii iii Sm. pic. shelter iii iii iii iii ii ii iii ii Lg. pic. shelter iii iii iii iii ii Seating areas iii iii iii iii iii iii iii iii ii Restrooms iii iii iii ii ii iii ii Warming bldg. i ii iii iii i Concess. Bldg. i ii ii ii Site amenities iii iii iii iii iii iii iii iii ii (benches, trash, fountain., etc. Arch. Elements iii iii iii iii iii iii iii iii ii (arbors, etc.) Parking i iii iii iii ii iii iii iii ii Paved trail iii iii iii iii iii iii iii iii ii Nature trail i ii iii ii iii Mtn. bike trail i ii i Equestrian trail ii Groomed ski ii iii trail
Legend: (open) Not an appropriate location i Appropriate on a very limited basis (typically not desirable) ii Appropriate on a limited basis (desirable only if need is documented and/or if a more desirable location is not available) iii Appropriate and desirable location
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.37
PARKS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE/GREENWAY, AND TRAIL SYSTEM PLAN B- 2 App e n d i x A –Pa r k an d Tr a i l De v e l o p m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Spa c e , an d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl an A.38 App e n d i x B Su m m a r y o f Fi n d i n g s f r o m Pu b l i c Pr o c e s s
The following provides general summaries of findings from the public Ov e r v i e w process.
The following summary statements define the key findings from focus group Su m m a r y St a t e m e n t s f r o m meetings held with various stakeholder groups primarily in July and August Fo c u s Gr o u p Me e t i n g s of 2007. In some cases, the summaries are complemented by additional meeting notes and filled out interview assessment forms that are on file at City Hall with the Public Services Director. Note that the findings represent the perspectives of those being interviewed and do not necessary represent conclusions drawn by the Park Commission or City Council.
Fo c u s Gr o u p Me e t i n g s Su m m a r y St a t e m e n t s
Group Key Findings Skateboarders Skateboarders were represented by The Northfield Skateboard Coalition, a local group advocating the development of a high quality facility for skateboarding. The group provided a proposal and design concept for a new skate plaza that would serve their needs. In their opinion, the old skate park failed due to poor design, bad surface, and other quality issues. As per the proposal, a new facility would ideally be 12,000 to 15,000 s.f. and include access to bathrooms, drinking fountain, vending machines, benches, picnic tables, shady areas, and grassy areas for sitting. Nearby parking is also needed. A facility of this size would have a capacity of up to 200, although daily use would be less. A key positive aspect of the skate park is that it would serve an age group not always interested in other forms of outdoor recreation. The advocates also point out the importance of the social aspect of the activity, underscoring that location matters for facility success (i.e., ability to be seen). The group feels strongly that Old Memorial Park next to the new pool is the best location, with Ames and City Hall Parks distant seconds. Old Memorial Park is thought best suited due to location, visibility, and access to other amenities. It is also felt that the development could be buffered from adjoining neighborhoods and cause few impacts greater than that of the pool. The group is also willing to share costs through various fund raising activities.
Seniors Overall, senior citizen advocates feel that the parks are not well designed to serve their needs, with the primary focus being on younger families and children. They see themselves as a growing population in need of outdoor recreation opportunities. Enhancements that would be of value include wider, smoother paths that better accommodate walkers. Narrow paths being used by bikers, inline skaters, and strollers are perceived as less safe, and higher bicyclist speeds are also of concern. In general, parks need to be more thoughtfully designed to better address senior needs. Providing shaded seating areas, looped trails with off-walk areas for wheelchair resting, wind and noise screenings, picnic tables with free- standing benches that are movable for small groups, and access to drinking water are examples of amenities that are needed. Benches should have backrests. Restrooms and trash containers are also important. In select locations, outdoor cooking areas with raised grills, food prep areas, good lighting, water, and shade are desirable to get seniors outside and socializing more with friends and family. Activities such as archery, horseshoes, shuffleboard, pickle ball, bird watching, and croquet are examples of desirable activities in these locations. (Pickle ball uses a tennis court to accommodate 4 smaller courts with lower nets.) Checker boards and chess tables, badminton, bocce ball, refreshment venders, and two-person swings were also defined as being desirable amenities. In select locations, tennis courts and miniature golf might have merit, as is the case with a portable movie screen, and more natural green space to look at and enjoy. All aspects of a park’s design should be accessible. Parking lots should be accessibly designed and close to senior use areas. Riverside Park was thought to be an example of a park that could better serve seniors if well designed. The improvements to Bridge Square has increased use levels, has a better atmosphere, and makes the park more appealing to seniors. Friends of Hauberg The committee is concerned about the future of the park space and preserving the rare, rich fen located here. Woods The land was gifted to the city as parkland and they want to ensure that it is not sold for development, but kept as a minimally developed nature preserve with viewing and educational opportunities. They would ultimately like the city to help with maintenance of the existing trails and look into opportunities to acquire an easement or additional property around the fen, that is currently not park land, to protect the fen.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n B.1 App e n d i x B –Su m m a r y o f Fi n d i n g s Fr o m t h e Pu b l i c Pr o c e s s
Fo c u s Gr o u p Me e t i n g s Su m m a r y St a t e m e n t s (Co n t i n u e d ) Group Key Findings Canines At Play The existing pilot dog park located in Babcock Park has been successful and very well received by dog owners in the community. The CAP group works with the Jesse James committee members for use of this space during the Jesse James Days. Other users include non-dog owners, such as seniors from the nearby housing and families with small kids who like to come and watch the dogs. The users have been very respectful of the space, clean up after the dogs, and contribute money for ongoing maintenance and improvements. They would ultimately like to have one or two other locations that contain woods and/or water to allow for easier access to residents in the community and to reduce the pressure on the one site. They would also like to add seating, water fountains, lighting, and shade at the dog park(s).
Center for Sustainable The Center for Sustainable Living group is a fiscal umbrella for the community gardeners group who have plots Living / Community located at Greenvale Elementary School. The group meets once a month and provides information on sustainable Gardener’s Club living, social structures, transportation, and encourages rain gardens, perma culture, etc. They are currently working on forming a green coalition and would like the city spaces to be more sustainable rather than having so much mowed turf, especially since proper maintenance of the parks seems to be an issue, and are very concerned with buffer or public spaces along the river and stream corridors and the city’s regulation of development. The Community Gardener’s Club works with the Center for Sustainable Living group to provide garden plots for the community at the Greenvale Elementary School site, which is currently 80’ x 90’. Approximately thirty families participate at this site and space is limited. Each plot costs $25 for a full plot and $15 for a half plot, but there are grants available for those who can’t afford it. Two of the garden plots are dedicated to the school for educational use and one plot is dedicated to a food shelf. They have a waiting list of people to use the gardens and would like to be able to provide garden plots at other sites so they would be more spread out for the community, but have been told by the City that they can’t put gardens on public park land due to some type of law or regulation that makes it illegal. Water is the most important consideration for any potential future garden sites, along with location in relation to the people who would make most use of the site.
Ice Now This committee was formed by various skating groups and associations in the city to study the need for indoor ice rinks and to lobby for improvements to existing and/or new ice rinks for the City of Northfield. Based on their study, they feel a 2-rink indoor facility would serve the needs of the community and have already started conversations with interested groups on raising some funds for the proposed improvements.
Jesse James This committee is an all volunteer group that is in charge of the Jesse James Days event that draws in Committee approximately 150,000 people over the 4-day event and is held the weekend after Labor Day weekend. The event is spread out over several park locations and people tend to walk from one location to another by sidewalks and trails. The main events take place on the Babcock Park rodeo grounds into Riverside Lions Park and up into the downtown area. They are satisfied with the space they have, though Ames Park has had a reduction in open space for their carnival and the rodeo grounds could use additional parking. YMCA The YMCA started up within the past year in the community with approximately 200 members and currently have office space and rent out gym space from the Armory and Greenvale Elementary School for mom and tot programs. They are conducting a community survey to find the needs and desires of the community to determine the type of facility they would like to build that would give the community the items they are lacking without competing with existing programs. Their goal is to build a facility within the next 2-5 years that would have the appropriate indoor space for gyms, fitness rooms, aquatics, etc. and would also like some outdoor field space that is lighted. They feel approximately 15 acres would provide the room necessary for a building, parking, fields, buffer space and room for expansion.
Northfield Youth The association primarily uses the fields at Sechler Park, with additional space found at the Dundas field and the Baseball Association Northfield High School field. The NYBA schedules the large field at Sechler Park and has first priority. Practice space for the in-house programs are on any green park space available, which is only once a week, if at all. The spring programs are the most popular and they don’t have any practice space. The 13/14 age group plays on fields that are undersized for them. Ultimately, they would like one more large ballfield at Sechler Park with related parking and misting towers like those found at the soccer complex.
Northfield Veterans The group has developed a memorial at the Riverside Lions Park, dedicated to the Northfield area veterans. Their primary concern is the land surrounding the memorial and would like to work with the city on future planning efforts for improvements surrounding the memorial, as well as looking at possible future acquisitions to include into park space, as this park is a highly visible entrance feature to the City of Northfield.
The Key The Key is a youth organization that provides Northfield city youth an alternative resource for recreation and spare time activities and is run by a youth board, with and adult advisory board. They own a building on Water Street next to a city owned building where they have their programs, but also use space at churches, Carleton College and the High School due to lack of adequate space, which causes some confusion for participants. Ultimately, they would like a building of their own that can handle their programming activities. An ideal location would be adjacent, or close to, park property where outdoor sports programs could be held.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n B.2 App e n d i x B –Su m m a r y o f Fi n d i n g s Fr o m t h e Pu b l i c Pr o c e s s
Fo c u s Gr o u p Me e t i n g s Su m m a r y St a t e m e n t s (Co n t i n u e d ) Group Key Findings NDDC The Northfield Downtown Development Corporation is very concerned about keeping a “small town” identity to the downtown area and are very concerned about future developments not fitting in with this character. They feel that the city needs to have a specific plan and objectives in place that city staff should follow for future development, as the city staff turnover seems high. The river and adjacent spaces should be considered a high priority. More initiative needs to take place to incorporate the river into the downtown space by creating better “store fronts” and pedestrian riverwalk spaces along the back sides of the buildings along the river and designating them as park spaces with improved maintenance. They would like the riverwalk pedestrian areas to create a loop system with pedestrian bridges across the river and feel that the area from Carleton College to 7th Street is important to the downtown businesses. Greenway systems and trails are highly desirable for the community and should provide better connections to other trails and sites, such as Carleton College. They also feel that the farmers market location by the Riverside Lions Park should be considered a legitimate use and incorporated into the park system. The NDDC is also interested in having an RV park somewhere for visitors.
Northfield Garden This 100+ member club work to beautify the city, provide information on gardens and plants, and eradicate Club invasive species. They donated the planters and hanging baskets downtown and the arbor/pergola structure at Riverside Lions Park to the City of Northfield, along with various ornamental and memorial gardens. Their main concern is lack of maintenance of the spaces in Northfield and feel that it is hurting the small town charm of Northfield, as well as wasting the taxpayers money, such as by not watering newly planted trees which end up being replaced repeatedly.
Northfield Hockey There are approximately 260 skaters in this association. There is one indoor ice arena facility which they feel is Association not meeting the needs of the community and is in such poor condition that it is not worth investing any money for improvements to it. It is only operational from October to the end of February and the outside temperatures will affect the ice conditions. They currently buy 50% of their ice time in other communities, which still isn’t enough time as they would like. There is one outdoor ice rink located at Babcock Park they use for practice space. They would like the city to flood this rink in the evening so the ice can get a hard freeze overnight, as well as move the hydrant, which is about 400 feet away from the rink. They feel a new 2-rink indoor facility would meet the needs of the community, but that it should have regulation sized rinks, adequate shower and locker facilities, and concessions area. This would allow for regular tournaments, which would bring money into the community. The indoor facility could also be used for other activities during hockey’s off-season, such as practice space for soccer or lacrosse.
Northfield Knights This adult Class B amateur baseball team uses the large field at Sechler Park three nights a week, April through mid-August. They have their needs met at this field but would like some improvements, such as permanent bathroom facilities, their own concessions, additional seating, and liquor sales.
Northfield Skating The school started in 2005 and over the period of one year, had a 450% increase in participants resulting in 165 School students with 12 coaches. The school uses the ice arena for 3-1/2 hours on Sunday, which only allows for a large group session so they can’t have private lessons, special groups or practice time. The rink is not qualified to hold competitions, so this factor, along with lack of year-round use, has resulted in seeing some participants going to other communities. They would prefer an Olympic sized rink, but can use NHL sized, for competitions.
Northfield Youth The NYSA currently has over 1,400 participants in the house and traveling programs. Their traveling program Soccer Association is their biggest scheduling concern. They use two sites for games and practices which include the Spring Creek Soccer Complex (Tuesday nights) and the Sibley Soccer Fields. The NYSA handles the maintenance at the soccer complex and has the Knights of Columbus handle the concessions. They hold one tournament each year in June which attracts 65 teams. The school district pays a fee to use the complex to minimize their maintenance needs and also because football will get higher priority of school fields. Other users of the complex include one adult mens soccer team and the Hispanic League, which has 10 teams and also uses Sechler Park. Parking can become an issue at times and will overflow into the surrounding neighborhood streets. They would ultimately like to expand the property to the south for additional field space to reduce the pressure on the fields.
Northfield Swim Club The swim club is volunteer based, but has paid coaches. They currently have between 50 - 60 members between the ages of 5 and 18. The swim club utilizes two facilities, the Middle School pool and the new outdoor pool. Their main concern is keeping costs down to their members so are very concerned with higher pool rates. They have helped fund improvements and equipment for the pools and even though they now pay a fee for lane use, they can get bumped by community education and Red Cross groups. They feel better communication and scheduling can reduce the propensity for conflicts.
Northfield Volleyball This is a new club that has only been in operation for the past year. Major constraints to the clubs growth include Club qualified coaching and gym space. Currently they use school gym space which is expensive and they have to compete for gym time with school programs. They feel two additional gym courts available at reasonable times and days would be beneficial to them, along with better coordination of scheduling.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n B.3 App e n d i x B –Su m m a r y o f Fi n d i n g s Fr o m t h e Pu b l i c Pr o c e s s
Fo c u s Gr o u p Me e t i n g s Su m m a r y St a t e m e n t s (Co n t i n u e d ) Group Key Findings Community Education The City and Community Education (CE) have an established working relationship related to recreation programming for city residents. The City currently provides funding to help support a CE staff position. Examples of programs that are offered at City facilities include Little League Baseball, Youth Soccer Program, Ultimate Frisbee, SUPER Kids, Adaptive SUPER Kids, SkyHawks, Wiggle & Giggle, Introduce a Kid to Fishing, Water Babies, Starfish, Aqua Tots, Swim Lessons, Open Swim, Kickball League, Adult Softball League, Flag Football, Co-Rec Softball, Adult Football League, and Books and Stars. CE also provides a variety of programs through the School District and in cooperation with other organizations, which are generally available to city residents. Overall, CE anticipates that supply and demand for facilities will remain reasonably balanced. Even with some anticipated growth in programming, no major shortage of facilities is envisioned at this time. A few recommen- dations include making improvements at Sechler softball fields, where turf quality is a major concern by user groups, as is the lack of a good restroom and lighting. Unless lights are added, use levels are nearing capacity at this facility. Other thoughts on facility needs (based on input from users and CE staff observation) include sand volleyball courts in a central location, outdoor tennis courts on the north side, skate park, archery range, open space for pick-up games/frisbee, and a permanent and larger off-leash park. Additional neighborhood parks on the north side should also be considered to better service some of the more densely populated areas. Some trends to keep an eye on include lacrosse, kickball, and soccer, especially at the youth level. Overall, scheduling the use of City facilities has been easy through Barb in the Engineering Department. Over time, using a coordinated web-based system for facility scheduling, tracking registration, and determining participation levels is desirable. This approach would also allow for greater ease in keeping track of true supply and demand for facilities and overall facility utilization rates. Otherwise, CE staff envision continuing to build upon their current relationship with the City to serve the needs of residents. Mill Towns Trail Friend The Mill Towns Trail Friend group has been pursuing development of a 26 mile trail from Faribault to Cannon and Non-Motorized Falls since 1992. To date, 3 miles have been constructed (1995) to a minimum width and construction standard. Task Force In 2002, the City established some sections of the trail through town, mostly on local streets. State funding is being sought for development of the trail, including sections through Northfield. Acquisition of right-of-way is the most immediate concern. In 2008, a pedestrian bridge over the river and trailhead/transit hub will be developed. The bridge will effectively connect Sechler Park and Dundas to downtown Northfield. Finding an appropriate alignment for the trail through Northfield remains a major point of focus for the group, especially in the area of Carleton College on the north end of town. Finding the best route along the river to the south of downtown is also a major goal. The group is encouraged that this planning process will give these issues due consideration. The Non-Motorized Task Force focuses on improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities in Northfield to improve safety and encourage outdoor recreation, fitness, and alternative transportation. The group is very interested in the planning process as related to trails and on-road bike lanes/routes. Short term suggestions include installing bicycle parking at parks, creating trails at places where streets dead end, adopting appropriate standards for building trails, separating bicyclists and pedestrians from traffic in high use areas to improve safety, and creating a trails and bike route map for the city. Longer term suggestions include integrating trails with on-street bikeways in a continuous, signed system; developing high-value trails in proposed greenway corridors capable of handling bikers, walkers, and inline skaters. Tennis Club Organized about a year ago, the Tennis Club is a local advocacy group for promoting tennis and improving tennis facilities in Northfield. The group has been working independently and with local schools and colleges to promote tennis as an inter-generational sport and to enhance participation, especially at the youth level. One of the key concerns of the group is the lack of an indoor facility with six to eight courts. Providing a couple of additional outdoor courts in a city park is also a desire, although this is secondary relative to the need for an indoor facility. Recognizing that developing an indoor facility is costly, the group sees a partnership between the City and Carleton College, St. Olaf, or private party as the most reasonable approach. Building an indoor tennis facility as an add-on to a community center (if built) would also be a consideration. More immediate suggestions include adding wind screens at the Middle School courts and improving lighting at the Middle School and High School. The group would also be interested in web-based scheduling of facilities to make it easier to reserve time, versus showing up at a court and hoping it is open. Adding a couple of outdoor courts to Way Park should also be considered. Sportsman’s Club The key goal of the Sportsman’s Club is developing an archery range in Northfield, preferably in a city park. Space requirements is an area 150 yards long and 100 yards wide. The group would provide funding for developing the range, but would request that the city help with maintenance such as mowing and portable toilet. The group also highlighted the high interest in the sport and support for programming the facility by the School District/ Community Education. The group also provided extensive information on design requirements for an archery range. Mayor’s Youth Council As a year-old organization, the Youth Council is still developing its strategy for engaging youth in positive recreational, social, and learning activities. With respect to parks and recreation, suggestions include an increased emphasis on facilities that attract youth, such as movies in the park, skateboard park, socializing/gathering places (especially after 9:00 or 10:00 PM when youth have no where to hang out), volleyball courts, ultimate frisbee area, and an outdoor venue for concerts, plays, and arts.
Friends of Way Park This committee was formed when the hospital was relocated and removed from the park site to ensure that the property was returned to park land, as was originally stated in the land donation by the Way family. The committee hired a designer to create a master plan for the park property and are willing to have fund raising efforts to help the city fund the proposed improvements.
No r t h f i e l d Pa r k s , Op e n Sp a c e , a n d Tr a i l Sy s t e m Pl a n B.4