My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/25/2001 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2001
>
04/25/2001 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2014 3:52:25 PM
Creation date
7/30/2014 11:46:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
04/25/2001
Env Bd Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
143
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
individual park <br />locations can be effectively intertwined with the natural areas contained <br />/1k the greenway system. Figure 4.4 illustrates this concept. <br />As shown on the figure, the actual and conceptual location of existing <br />and <br />proposed trails are identified. The trails are broken down into two <br />types, <br />and . Park trails refer to trails that are located <br />in their own <br />easement, in a greenway corridor outside of a road right -of -way, or in a <br />city/ <br />regional park. Connector trails refer to trails that are typically <br />located in an <br />existing road right -of -way. <br />In the context of this study, the park trails are of greatest concern in <br />that their <br />ultimate location is intrinsically linked to the ultimate extent of the <br />greenway - <br />system. In this sense, success toward establishing a greenway system will <br />also <br />mean greater success in establishing an interlinked system of park trails <br />throughout the city. <br />Flexibility of Implementing the Park and Trail System <br />Plan <br />As with the greenway system itself, it should be understood that a <br />certain <br />degree of flexibility in meeting the objectives set by the park and traiii, <br />system <br />plan is warranted. This could be considered in the same light as showing <br />greater flexibility with respect to lot sizes, road widths, and setbacks <br />in order <br />to provide more open space and resource protection opportunities. This <br />greater flexibility is not to suggest deviating from the principles of <br />the <br />plan, which must be adhered to if a balanced park and trail system is to <br />be <br />achieved within the city. What is suggested is that the physical location <br />and <br />makeup of specific park and trail elements be considered on a case-by- <br />case <br />basis whereby the vision of the plan is still realized, but with greater <br />flexibility <br />as to how that actually occurs on the ground. The ultimate location of <br />parks <br />and trails and their physical size, orientation, and inter - connectiveness <br />are all <br />factors that need to be considered within the context of the overall <br />greenway <br />system and community development footprint. Site - specific natural <br />resource <br />characteristics and development opportunities and constraints will all <br />play a <br />role in how park and trail issues are ultimately resolved. <br />Worth noting about the greenway and trail corridor systems is that once • <br />completed, the user experience will be that of a being in a largely <br />Ilapca &_PspeariovBoapS Xnzt o_ Atvo_AaK6cY <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.