The URL can be used to link to this page

Administrative Section Administrative Packet CITY OF CIlANllASSEN 7700 Marf<et Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 . Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us ;t ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Todd Hoffman; Park and Recreation Director DA TE: December 2, 2004 SUBJ: Park and Trail Conditions of Approval; Yo berry Farms, LLC I have reviewed the proposed Yoberry subdivision to ascertain what park and trail conditions of approval are appropriate. The grade of the land will create a unique but somewhat challenging neighborhood for recreational pursuits. There will be plenty of opportunity for backyard sliding, but driveway basketball games will prove difficult. PARKS Minnewashta Regional Park, a 200-acre property County, is just across Highway 41 from access to Regional not advised. underpass established. operated by Carver Pedestrian and is There are no is largely due provided in tb~~i;' services exist ìh: These recreation' new neighborhood. The City is property. required as a condition The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work; and play. ( TRAILS The site does not contain any segment of the city's comprehensive trail plan. A 1inear grass outlot that serves as a neighborhood trail corridor does exist to the north and east of the Yoberry plat. This outlot was acquired at the time the Highover Addition was platted. The applicant has acknowledged the presence of this outlot and is providing a sidewalk and stairway connection to the outlot at an appropriate location. It should be noted that the terrain in this vicinity of the plat requires the installation the stairway, a condition that will limit the types of uses appropriate in this corridor. Upon completion of the Yoberry neighborhood, it will be necessary to complete the sidewalk connection to Longacres Drive. This will require the installation of sidewalk in front of four homes on the west side of Gunflint Trail. c: Park and Recreation Commission Applicants Location Map Yoberry Farm City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-43 'CANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director 74 FROM: DATE: January 11,2005 SUBJ: Park and Trail Conditions of Approval - Yoberry Farm This memo is in response to a request from the Planning Commission for additional information regarding park and trail services associated with the proposed Yoberry subdivision. The City plans for the acquisition of public lands for neighborhood parks based on a park service area of 1/2 mile for each site. The comprehensive plan calls for neighborhood parks to contain 10 - 25 acres of land and service up to 5,000 residents per site. Community Parks serve a larger geographical region of the community, typically provide a broader set of amenities and serve up to 20,000 residents per site. The proposed Yoberry subdivision contains 57 homes generating a new population of approximately 175 people. The concept of public pocket parks or tot lots has not been utilized as a part of City Park planning to avoid the proliferation of small public land holdings and the associated expense in managing and maintaining these sites. However, numerous developers have chosen to embrace the "tot lot" model and construct private or association tot lots or parks as a component of their housing developments. The close proximity of two such association facilities prompted staff to encourage the developers of the Yoberry subdivision to consider incorporating an association tot lot in their plans. Whether or not this actually occurs is at the applicant's discretion. A park service area map is attached to this report. The map identifies that the Yoberry site as existing within the park service area of the Minnetonka Middle School West Campus. The property is also located on the fringe of the park service area for Sugarbush Park. In addition, the City currently owns public park property at the northern terminus of Century Boulevard that will be developed into a neighborhood park site at a future date. Again, the future park service area for this property reaches the Yoberry site. Finally, a proposed neighborhood park adjacent to Lake Harrison is being explored as a possible component of a future development in that area. If. acquired, this future site would also provide recreation access to the Yoberry plat. The proximity of park/school facilities is one of the variables each of us take into consideration when purchasing our homes. One of the realities in working with a comprehensive park plan is that a good number of our residents will not live directly adjacent to or even down the street from a public park. A large portion of the City's homeowners reside a number of blocks away from a park. This community is blessed with a truly impressive array of public recreation facilities. In addition to City facilities, Minnewashta Regional Park, the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and Camp Tanadoona are all located within Ÿ2 mile of the Yoberry site. It is Staff's position that the Yoberry site is well served by existing and future public recreation services and the additional development of public recreation amenities on this site is unwarranted. Attachment: Park Service Area Map c: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Shanneen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner g:lparklthlyoberryamended.doc The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANIlASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 . Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Pari< Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us ., MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner --4( Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director IIY FROM: DATE: October 21, 2004 SUBJ: Proposed Hidden Creek Meadows Park and Recreation Conditions of Approval COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN The proposed Hidden Creek Meadows is located very near Cathcart Park. Cathcart Park is a neighborhood park owned by the ' ' cy of Shorewood, but located within the corporate boundaries of Chanhas 'Convenient access to the park is provided by the proposed sidewalk con along Pipewood Lane connecting with Cartway Lane. No parkland dedi as a condition· is plat. Full park fees shall be colI in force at the time of fin This propert Rail Transit C District as a re Hidden Cree:k¡f; Pipewood Cou recommended as The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown,thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 6200 6300 6400 6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 A B o o o v o o en ('I) o o ('I) ('I) o o co ('I) o o &t) ('I) o o ~ ('t) 7100 - õo ~'õ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen. MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources . Phone: 952227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web S"e www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner -1/f FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director DATE: October 21, 2004 SUBJ: Proposed Pinehurst, Park & Recreation Conditions of Approval COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN The proposed Pinehurst development is located within the park service boundaries of Pheasant Hill Park and Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. No parkland dedication is recommended as a condition plat. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN A section 0 eastern bou Galpin Boul located just Galpin Boul connection to in the develop for this sidew right-of way to' ~ rty at its side of Ian is the .- The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes. qualify schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work. and play. C D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO ...... «) it) 'V ('t) C\I ~ 0 0> (X) ...... «) C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I ~ ~ ~ ~ - __ City of Shorewood ",; r- - -- -- .. on. ~ ~ \IT \.\;¿,- 11 \"'! rI$- ~ \ I II II - ~r[ ~ \dtth~q -:- ~ ~ -;;i ~ =- . ~ ~ '- ~ Koe.L......mr_ .I! íst. ld [ïÐ l ~ ç;n- c-r- ~ \L r----ð " IIJ .. ~ ~~ :E-J ~ ~ 1Yie*t I ~ 0 -¡::-- ~ 'r' ~ 1~ rJ'y~HI11 i 1T ~ WN,o" .~11----i_,U West --.r; V ~L cy ..~ Tr ~ ~ c -v, .. ~.nF:[ :. ~ Ir- ~~. ~£T ------, - . ~ ~ I I. po=' -liI'/'7; Ji J _u~~ _ .~ C="¡ ~,_ t ~~ r r- .-d I- ~ . L------ i - ("'tY Lc ~e /// ~C1l Road J ~'V:: " 7/ '-*. ~ ~ P\'Ç.--I\ J-- -< I -~ "'" '----- --I ~ ~;;.o ; r~\ .v~~,¡ -¡ /S~J =: ~ ~ I ~.!'-7 ~ ~~Lu yRqæd . Á~\.~ V~ß9t ~0~:~~ \ ~ m~f- ~A ~~ -,--...j 11Q' Lake ~ J:::¡ I ""T. ì~ ~À~~' J~= .. C:fL1Jg -~ J /' J.,..f'I TT i r-- 945.2~""" ! . "J ilf ..;r ~~¡ L-~~[J ~ ~~ \ ~ ~yl:J::s~ ~~: ~ / ~~ g~!!-~r-W'Y!\ ~ 7:-$ ~ V1 ~"'" 7C:::\ dOI.s. / \ ~~ ví~ ! .., ~e'i ¥//I \\ ~"!J.N, c! ¿ /'." ~~~ h~ / ~~ ~?:I\;:,<y '! &}1~rr ,~~~I ~ ~"""'t 1 BAN EBERRYWAY. Y ~ ~ i\ ,~¿. ~. L 2 CLOVER ~ N I· ~ ,í') / 3 CONEFLOWERCRV ~ "811 _ \ [I- ~/__I J I I 5 4 PRIMROSE PLAcE "" l~ fV J;:-, ~ / 6 CONE FLOWEiêRV s . '",-~ i" .}1\ ~ 11 /1 \ ~ 7 BW~LVD r---r. '{\nÚ I -~4-i iOm~ELNE _ . , J I f CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone 952.227.1160 Fax 952.227.1170 Finance Phone 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.2271120 Fax 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.227.1130 Fax 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.227.1300 Fax 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone 952.227.1125 Fax 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director FROM: Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent 1R DATE: December 21, 2004 SUBJ: 2005 Community Special Events In the past the Park and Recreation Commission requested a listing for the city's community events. Our department will coordinate and sponsor the following events in 2005: February Festival: The twelfth Annual February Festival will be held Saturday, February 5 at Lake Ann Park. This special event includes open ice skating on a large rink on Lake Ann, a s'mores cookout on a flaming bon fire, ice fishing contest, food concessions and more. This one-day event will draw 1000-1500 participants and spectators. Easter Egg Candy Hunt: The Easter Egg Candy Hunt on Saturday, March 26, will celebrate its 22nd anniversary this spring. Over 900 children, ages 2-10, and their parents attend this annual event. The program includes live entertainment, a coloring contest, and the candy hunt. This event will be held at the Chanhassen Recreation Center. Fourth of July Celebration: Chanhassen's premier community event. This annual celebration is a year-round topic of conversation in the community and is renowned throughout the state. Participation levels stop 3,000 people per day. This year's activities are scheduled for July 3rd and 4th. Highlights include a kiddie parade, carnival games, adult and children fishing festivals, beach games, the Chamber of Commerce Trade Fair, a street dance, and the spectacular fireworks display over Lake Ann. City Center Park (north of City Hall) and Lake Ann Community Park are the venues for this event. Halloween Party: The Halloween Party has provided children with Halloween fun and entertainment for 19 years. The Halloween Party includes trick or treating, live entertainment, games, haunted room, an authentic horse- drawn hayride, and refreshments. A targeted service level of 1,200 children and parents has been set for this year's celebration on Saturday, October 29. ~ The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director 1/512005 Page 2 Tree Lighting Ceremony: This annual event will be held on Saturday, December 3. The location will at City Center Park just east of the library. You can enjoy the lighting of the holiday tree, refreshments and a visit from Santa Claus. If you have questions regarding any of the events please stop by. g:\park\jerry\Communityspecialevents05 CITY OF CIlANllASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.2271100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.2271110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us January 10, 2005 Mr. Joe Hiller Grants Manager, Local Grants Program Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Mr. HiUer: I am writing to infonn you of the action taken by the City of Chanhassen in response to your correspondence dated May of 2004. Lake Susan Park · Items 1, 2 and 3 have been completed. · Item 4 will be completed in the spring of 2005. South Lotus Lake Park Boat Access · Item 1 has been completed. Playground · Item 1 has been completed. · Item 2 will be completed in the 2005 construction season. North Lotus Lake Park · Items 1, 2 and 3 have been completed. Chanhassen Elementary Tennis Courts · Items 1, 2 and 3 have been completed. Lake Ann Park · Items 1,2 and4 have been completed. · Item] wi1lþe completed in the 2005 construction season. Again, thank you for assisting the City in these matters. Sincerely, Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director C: v(ark and Recreation Commission Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. -~-------. -.. ------_..--- " hat if you were push- ing a stroller or us- ing;J.cane? If there's a park near your office, is it close enough for a lunchtime visit? These questions may seem ob- vious, but surprisingly few cities ask them. Even fewer have the kind of answers that would help to develop an excellent park system. Last spring, the Trust for Public Land surveyed the 50 larg- est U.S. cities. The results were dismaying. TPL found that only 18 of the cities had a goal for the maximum distance any resident should live from the nearest park-and among the 18, the standard ranged from as close as one- eighth of a mile to as far as a mile. Distance trom a park is an important measure. It may be more significant even than counting up the absolute amount of parkland in a city. Los Angeles is a case in point. L.A. ranks fifth among big cities with more than 30,000 acres of parkland, bur more than half of that land is located in the mountainous-and relatively in- accessible-œnrral section of the city. Mean- while, poorer neighborhoods often lack any significant parks at all. Large segments ofL.A.'s Is 3.7 million residents are too far from a park to use it easily, conveniently, or trequently. The fact is, it's easier to count gross acreage than to figure out how far anyone is trom a park, so the average person can't rate his or her city against a norm. What's worse, there's no stan- dard for acceptable distance. A common maxi- mum distance selected as a goal by Cleveland, Colorado Springs, Columbus, Nashville, Phoe- nix, and Portland is half a mile. But other cities-including Auscin, Fresno, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, and Charlotte--allow a full mile. Yet the argument can be made that even a half a mile is too far. The best of the hunch The five top cities have selected standards that relate to the needs and capabilities of their citi- zens. They are: Denver (three to six blocks, . ____~.......c.__.~.__~.~.___._.~,._,~~~ ___ "_,-._.~--=---.~=~,-~.~.~-,~~,~.- - c ~ .~ "- ö c o § .:! -0 C ~ c 5 ~ ~ u American Planning Association 9 Biking to parks is encouraged by Active Living by Design (opposite). Left: Austin s Barton Springs PooL Below: the new bicycle parkingfacility in Chicago's Millenium Park. Too depending upon the neighborhood); Minne- apolis (six blocks); Long Beach, California (a quarter mile in high-density neighborhoods); Seattle (an eighth of a mile in dense neighbor- hoods); and Chicago (a tenth of a mile to a pocket park). The others seem to have set their standards based more on their perception of political reali- ties-mostly the lack of funding and the diffi- culty in acquiring enough land. Most successful of all is Minneapolis. Accord- ing to Rachel Ramadhyani, a landscape archi- tect with the Minneapolis Park Board, fully 99.4 percent of city residents live within six blocks of a park (although Minneapolis's blocks are so long that six of them can add up to more than half a mile). The city's six-block standard, which dates back more than 50 years, can be found in the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board . Far? . policies document. Susan Baird, the director of community out- reach and partnership for Denver's parks and recreation department, says of her city's parkland goal: "We just thought about being able to walk for 10 or 15 minutes." To reach that goal, Denver set its maximum distance in most neigh- borhoods at six walkable blocks, meaning that parks cannot be counted if they are on the other side of such barriers as interstate highways, rail- road tracks, or unbridged stream valleys. City parks officials solicited resident input on parks during public meetings leading up to the adoption of Denver's most recent parks master plan in 2003. In focus groups, many parents, particularly those who spoke little English, indi- cated that they were uncomfortable when chil- dren had to walk more than six blocks to a park. Thus, Denver has set an even more ambitious 10 Planning December 2004 When Standards Fall Short In doing research for AP A's City Parks Forum, I reviewed counrless park and open space plans. According to many of the plans, the park standards set by the National Recreation and Park Association ranged from as low as four acres for evety 1,000 people to 17 acres per 1,000 people. Why such a spread? Apparently, the original 1979 standards calling for a certain number of acres for certain types of parks had been misinterpreted, miscalculated, or both. Some plans took a different approach, based on the 1996 edition ofNRPA's Park, Recre- ation, Open Space ,wd Greenway Guidelines. This edition (the latest) calls tor local park standards to be based on a level-oF-service analysis, an improvement over the cookie- cutter method, but still not a perfect solution. The problem with borh approaches is that they consider parks only as recreational facili- ties. Even the more up-to-date, LOS version is based upon resident demand garnered from use and survey data tèd into a formula that determines the amount of space needed for ballficlds, sports courts, and other facilities. The demand for unstructured park space such as open lawns or wooded areas is not ad- dressed. How many surveys include questions about those kinds of spaces? The fact is that parks play multiple roles in our communities. Parks are integral parts of our physical, social, emotional, and in some cases, spiritual landscapes. They provide pub- lic gathering places. Parks and open spaces are a critical tool for protecting natural resources. Exposure to green spaces helps reduce our stress levels. Parks as open space have a key urban design role in development patterns. None of those functions is captured by the recreational facility standards we use today. Standards that take into account proximity, service areas, and percentage ofland cover, are an improvement but they still fall shore What we need is a set of indicators that relates to park function in a more holistic way. That might mean looking at the amount of previous land cover, percentage of tree canopy, or public triangulation points. This kind of multivariable analysis, while made easier by geographic information systems, is still sure to be uncomfortably messy. But as the great landscape plan net Jens Jensen said, "A little inconvenience tor the sake of a better envi- ronment is well worth the cost." Mary Eysenbach EysenbKh. is currently a Loeb Fellow at rhe Harvard School of Design. ..... goal for its newer, denser subdivisions: No house can be more than three blocks from a park. "These newer homes have virtually no yards, so it kind of balances," Baird says, and closer parks help give more breathing room and play space. Today, she says, upwards of 90 percent of the city's 555,000 people live within the man- dated six blocks of the city's 6,200 acres of parkland. Denver officials are also "repurposing" land for parks. One approach is to convert sites for "lcarninglandscapes." Using bond funding, more than 200 old, gravel-covered elementary and middle school grounds are being revamped with trees, gardens, artwork, and playground equip- ment. The new landscapes remain part of the school property but will be accessible to the public after school hours and on weekends. With schoolyards located every half mile, the learning landscapes add green space to built -out neighborhoods that previously lacked adequate parks and open areas. "They really provide a large amenity in the neighborhoods," says Baird. Seattle, while not quite at this point yet, is steadily approaching its two distinct goals: In the single-family neighborhoods (which cover about 70 percent of the city), the half-mile standard is close to being met, says Kevin Stoops, the planning manager for Seattle's parks and recreation department. In the denser, multifamily and commercial neighborhoods, designated "urban villages," the city's goal is to have a park or mini-park no more than an eighth of a mile from every resident. Stoops estimates thar close to 60 percent of those areas will meet that goal within the next few years. \Valldng vs. driving Numerous recent studies show that Ameri- cans today are rarely willing to walk more than a block or two. Some arc physically incapable of going farther; others may be afraid to cross neighborhood boundaries; many more simply do not have the time. For seniors and young children, time and capability fac- tors become even more of an issue. "Most people perceive parks as strong amenities, and more,people will use them if they're within walkiqg distance," says Rich- ard Killingsworth, director of the Active Liv- ing by Design program at the University of North Carolina. Officials in cities with walkable park dis- tance standards say that pedestrian accessibil- ity increases physical fitness and general good health. Moreover, accessible city parks allow neighbors to connect during morning play- ground sessions, lunchtime picnics, afternoon pick-up games, after-dinner strolls, or week- '_____________..' _____ - __ ___ n_ ___._~ ~ '" " [ èi " o òj ." " > " èi 1 j f u Denver is converting schoolJards into parklike ''learning landscapes, " open to the public after end festivals. It is relationships with people that make parks more than just fields, trees, and playground equipment. On the other hand, a distance of over half a mile to a park almost guarantees that most people will either skip the trip or they will drive. Once a standard is downgraded so that it is based on driving, it loses the "commu- nity" portion of the benefit. At that point, it no longer matters how far away the park is. The park has become a formal destination, not a place to drop in. Other issues also enter the equation. Those who must travel a greater distance to get to the park arc less likely to know other park visitors. Younger children and teens will no longer be able to get to the park on their own. More drivers may make it necessary to devote part of the park itself to a parking lot. Hard to meet The health value also goes down. According to a study on obesity, community design, and physical activity soon to be published by Lawrence D. Frank of the School ofCommu- nity and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia, every additional hour spent in a car is associated with a six percent increase in the likelihood of obesity. But even a city that recognizes the connec- tion between fitness and walking can have trouble meèting the standard. In its 1983 parks master plan, officials in Austin set a goal of placing every resident within one mile of a park. But even that rather low goal has been . , " r'_ ,'.~ ~..,~_.. · schooL Above left: Crofton Elementary School playground. Above: GIS mapping by the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department shows neighborhoods that are a mile or less from city parks. hard to meet, says Stuart Strong, planning, design, and construction manager for the De- partment of Parks and Recreation. "We just couldn't keep up with a one-mile standard." Austin has, in fact, acquired large tracts of open space in recent decades. But money has not always been available to buy smaller par- cels for neighborhood parks, Strong says. As an alternative, the city has provided greenways to link existing parks. It also encourages resi- dents to bike instead of drÎve to park facilities like the famous Barton Springs Pool. Other places have similar problems. "We're not even close to meeting the one-mile goal," says Phil Bruce, the planning director ofJack- sonville. A planner in Indianapolis estimates thar, even with the city's one-mile standard, Resources TPL. The Trust for Public Land is based in San F.r:'lficisco and has offices in 40 cities. Since 1972, TPL has completed more than 2,500 land-conservation projects on some 1.5 million acres. Its urban program has acquired parkland in park-poor communities in more than 400 cities. TPL's most recent report, No Place to Play, compares park access in almost two dozen cities is scheduled for release early next year. For more information, go to www.tpl.org. A chart indicating standards for maximum allowable distance from a park in 17 U.S. cities is included in the website ver- sion of this article, at www.planning.otg. 30 percent of its residents do not have the mandated access to a park. Geographic information systems have made calculating distance from parks far easier than in the past. In North Carolina, officials of the merged Charlotte-Mecklenburg County park and recreation department use GIS to plot a one-mile service radius on maps marked with population figures and existing parks. The computer can then determine how many people live inside each service circle; the maps make it obvious where new parkland should be acquired. Currently, only 49 percent of Mecklenburg County's residents live within a mile of the closest park, according to park planner John DeKemper. Kl'(~ping up But even with GIS and other tools, park planners often face an uphill battle when it comes to acquiring land. That's especially true in inner-city areas, according to DeKemper. "We're competing with developers who want to build housing, and we have a very limited budget," he says. "A quarter mile or a half mile would be a nice goal, but I don't think it's something we would be able to achieve here." Michael Krosschell, principal planner for Indianapolis's Department of Parks and Rec- reation, faces the same problem. "We're run- ning to try to keep up, but subdivisions are going up," he says, explaining the city's mod- est one-mile goal. David Fisher has another view, based on American Planning Association II - his long experience as the superintendent of the Minneapolis park system. (He left in 1999 to become executive director of the newly created Great Rivers Greenway in St. Louis.) Fisher thinks city park officials are too timid in their outreach. "We tell people, 'You need a park in your neighborhood just like everyone else. ,,, He adds, "Park systems suffer too quietly. Fire departments don't do that. You lose out when the money gets low be- cause people don't think parks are a priority." In Fisher's view, park officials must take a marketing-oriented approach if they are to overcome the resistance of mayors and city councils to buying land and developing parks in needy areas. That approach worked in greater St. Louis, where residents of six juris- dictions in two states voted to tax themselves to pay for parkland to create interconnecting greenways in the Mississippi River corridor. Kathy Dickhut, assistant commissioner of Chicago's Department of Planning and De- velopment, agrees that planners must take aggressive steps to add parkland. In rapidly developing areas, Dickhut recommends charg- ing developers an open space impact fee, "based on clear open space goals and objectives." (Chicago's impact fee ranges from $313 to $1,253 per unit, depending on location, and the money goes toward buying parkland.) With more than 500 parks occupying 7,000 acres, the Chicago Park District esti- mates that more than 90 percent of the city's 2.9 million residents have a park or play lot within a half mile of their home. Nineteen different park districts operated separately be- fore being consolidated in 1934. "I think that helped get this distribution across the whole city," says Dickhut. "You had separate focuses on different parts of the town and everyone wanted to make sure they had their own parks. " Still, there were charges of discrimination in predominantly African American neighborhoods. In the 1990s, the city undertook the highly detailed study that led to its "City Space" plan, which identified gaps in parkland. Based on those findings, the planning department and the park district now earmark impact fees paid by developers of new housing units. Since 1998, says Dickhut, over $23 million in im- pact fees has been collected--enough to buy land for 21 parks, totaling 17 acres. l' ~ F- ¡:: J Peter Harnik is the author of Inside City Parks (Urban Land Institute, 2000) and the director of the Center for City Park Excellence, a division of the Trust fot Public Land, located in Washington, D.C. Jeff Simms is an intern at the center. w > 0:: w ro .= ro en ro 0\ .= ro .= Q) W 0 0\ .... r ( .- 0\ 0 0 ~ i/ \.,) /\. 0:: ro 0 0 Q) .= 0 IV " VI C '0 ~ ro ~ 0 Q,I .... C c :E > Q) 0:: .Q O'¡:; 0 x lit " E w 0\ Ox ..... « Q) " Q,I Q) ex: w c:c a: Q.. a... 0:: I I I I I I · w · I > I · 0:: « Ü ]! c: .9 Q) c: // ~ / Q) ( 16 d -..I ~Iç //81'~ C, ~8 \ a..·oc )~I~ r / w« ,,~._/ x_ü .~) , C , I , I ì / I I //,,/ / (/..&' "" / ::1 Q) , .t:: ~ / (,) cu I CI)-..I / r-" \ ,) c-.l. ~ ~/,.r/ ~ ..a '" § ~ N ..a E :::J N '.." '\ "'- / ", '" \ ',,- \ , \ I ( / ! /~ ~..Q cuE -..I~ c · I · I · I , I , I , fmtm .. tn ,J __" <"'-. \ 1 . t ~ j ~Q) "i:::":':: CUcu 0..-..1 ( ) / / ,/'.",-, /,/"--~/"'........ /'\- \j' r/>/ '\--"b l/--.,-' "-.-.__ / .-----./ ]! U) '" ..c: Ü o 1-- ~... ~u c:w- ~. . ... ... CC4¡ c:w~ ~. ~~ (~~ '" U) ~ :;¡