2007 OSRMP Final Draft - Naperville Park District...2007 OSRMP Open Space and Recreation Master Plan...

OSRMP 20

07

Open Space and Recreation Master Plan

Naperville Park District 320 W. Jackson Ave Naperville, IL 60540 FINAL DRAFT

2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ======

3 FINAL DRAFT

Letter from the Board President

Dear friend of the Naperville Park District:,

As an organization dedicated to “providing leisure experiences that enhance the quality of life for our community,” the Naperville Park District must ensure that it is responding to the wants and needs of our residents – all while balancing the needs of a still-growing District. The way this is accomplished is through the creation of a Master Plan. This document provides an in-depth view of the District’s resources, programs and services, and benefits of partnership, thereby helping to establish equitability across all of our offerings.

Since the New Millennium, the Park District has made exceptional strides in planning and executing improvements District-wide, while projecting future needs based on proposed population growth. However, these guidelines and plans were contained across several individual documents. The purpose of this document is to consolidate that essential information into one cohesive plan, to better help in guiding the implementation of priorities for years to come. Additionally, the concept of balance in recreation is addressed. By carefully reviewing our open space versus our programmable space, we can ensure, to the best of our abilities, that we are meeting the needs of a diverse community with many different recreation preferences.

In addition to continuing to develop our parks, offer excellent sports, arts, and environmental programs, and attain the status of a best-in-class parks and recreation service provider, we also need to be good stewards of our land. This means taking care of the resources that we have, working to preserve open space, and making our parks wonderful places to enjoy. This Master Plan document also addresses these responsibilities as a District.

It’s no wonder that the Naperville community has been named as one of the “best places to live” by several media sources in recent years. One of the elements that makes it a great place is our Park District. Our staff is committed to providing the best possible experiences for our patrons time and again, and these initiatives are further enhanced by many of our community partners, both public and private.

Parks and recreation activities are an important part of a community and an essential component to living a healthy and well-balanced life. With our new Master Plan, we can be confident in our direction as an organization as we continue to provide a wide variety of resources for our residents. Our new plan will assist us in achieving our ultimate goal of further expanding our offerings while continuing to strive for excellence in all of our service areas.

Sincerely,

Kristen Jungles, Park Board President

Naperville Park District

4 FINAL DRAFT

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 5 Executive Summary 6 Introduction 10

Naperville Park District 10 Previous Plans – History 10

Analysis 12 Master Plan Process 12 Project Goals 12 Major Issues and Opportunities 13 Naperville Park District Boundaries 14

Demographics 14 2002 and 2005 Community Interest/Opinion Survey Results 16 Benchmark Analysis 17

The Plan 20

Naperville Park District System 20 Design Guidelines 20 Park Classification System 20 Possible Amenities 24 Parks Inventory 26 Analysis 26

Strategies for Success 26 District-Wide Policies and 5-Year Guides 26

District-Wide Recommendations 31

District Wide Service Areas--North and South 32 Planning Area Recommendations 39

Planning Area 1 40 Planning Area 2 43 Planning Area 3 46 Planning Area 4 49 Planning Area 5 52 Planning Area 6 55 Planning Area 7 58 Planning Area 8 61

Capital Improvement Plan 64

Land Acquisition 64 Capital Projects Multi-Year Overview 65 Maintenance 65 Summary of Major System-Wide Capital Projects 66 Funding 67

Conclusion 71 Appendices 72 Glossary of Terms 73


5 FINAL DRAFT

Acknowledgements In the preparation of this report, the Park Planning & Development Department Staff and the consultant, Thompson Dyke and Associates, wish to thank many at the Naperville Park District who contributed to and provided crucial input that helped shape the Master Plan. Park Board of Commissioners: Kristen Jungles, President Charlie Brown, Vice-President Suzanne Hart Ron Ory Andrew Schaffner Marie Todd Mary Wright NPD Leadership Team: Ed Dalton, Director of Parks Mindy Munn, Business Services Director, Interim Executive Director Ed Provow, Director of Golf Eric Shutes, Director of Planning Brad Wilson, Director of Recreation NPD Staff: Mary Gardocki, Planner Sameera Luthman, Marketing and Communications Manager Brian Guhl, Graphic Designer Futures Committee Ron Biondo Brian Gerber Tammy Jones Barb Zigterman Athletic Affiliates Kelle Bieschke Jeff Bradley Dagmar Kauffman Judy McCormick Lynn Mullany Dick Strang


6 FINAL DRAFT

Executive Summary The Naperville community organized itself as a city in 1890 with a population of 2,629 by 1900 and grew to 12,933 by 1960. Today Naperville is approximately 142,000 with a projected build out of 154,000 by 2017 with current planning boundaries spanning 47 square miles. To continue to meet the needs of this growing community, the Naperville Park District is one of numerous governmental agencies that are charged as stewards for the care of its residents. More specifically, the mission of the Naperville Park District is to provide leisure experiences that enhance the quality of life for our community. In addition, it is the Park District’s vision to be a best in class parks and recreation service provider creating unity and focus in the community. These statements guide the District in every decision and process it undertakes. As the City of Naperville approaches build-out, the Naperville Park District continues to manage and develop its land to serve the recreational needs of a still growing and changing community. To respond to this final growth spurt, it was recognized by the Naperville Park District that a new Open Space and Recreation Master Plan needed to be developed. This plan is a mechanism to guide the organization into the future by directing growth and change to be consistent with the overall vision and mission of the organization while achieving established goals and priorities. Over the past few years numerous plans, surveys, and data have been compiled and created. All are important pieces; however, all were separate, individual documents. The primary goal of this Master Plan was to synthesize the existing documentation and plans as well as integrate an open space analysis to provide clear and concise recommendations for the Park District. As a result of this synthesis, it was determined that a new strategic approach would be required if we were to meet the existing and projected needs of the population. It is an approach that focuses on the need to balance interrelated initiatives to remedy existing and projected deficiencies in the following areas: • maintenance costs for existing improvements and increased

maintenance and operating costs for new facilities • construction of new improvements to meet existing and

projected needs • acquisition of available open space to meet existing and

proposed needs


7 FINAL DRAFT

Over a ten year period, none of these initiatives takes precedence or is assigned a higher priority than any other. They must be undertaken simultaneously and in a coordinated fashion to ensure that the District’s broad vision and mission can be realized equitably without adversely affecting progress in any of the individual initiatives. This central theme can be found throughout the document and can be considered its guiding principles. Additionally, this Master Plan has six primary goals: • To create a living document that is regularly reevaluated/

amended during the budget process each year. • To provide a 10 year planning horizon • To provide goals that guide process, recommendations and set

priorities • To identify specific projects/partnerships and how to fund

them • To provide a review of Planning Areas and District Wide

Needs • To provide a document which the Park District and City can

utilize together in their planning and land use efforts Numerous issues and opportunities were explored and shared by stakeholders in the development of this plan. A few of these major issues include a lack of indoor programmable space controlled by the District, a decreasing ability to acquire new land to meet shortages in many areas, and a general lack of amenities throughout the District which result in over-programming of some sites. Such issues brought to the fore the need to simultaneously address deficiencies in maintenance, existing facilities and available open space. Primary opportunities that surfaced during this process were the identification of a skilled and committed staff, an involved Board that strives to improve the quality of life of the community and the Naperville Park District system, a concerned and active public that values its park and recreation system, and an abundance of existing quality parks and popular programs. A few impediments also need to be acknowledged as they may impact the goals and recommendations within this document. They include a shrinking supply of open space, rapid population growth projected in some areas while others remain relatively stable leading to diverse needs and service expectations, and an extremely large district that makes management and maintenance of parks a challenge. Additionally, frequent Park Board and


8 FINAL DRAFT

Executive Director turnover as well as communication barriers with other agencies impact the District as well. An important component integrated in this plan includes the 2002 and 2005 Community Interest and Opinion Surveys. These surveys provide an invaluable “snapshot” of resident opinions and perceived needs at the time. In these surveys, the five most important facilities to residents were trails, small neighborhood parks, playgrounds, outdoor swimming, and large community parks. The top five facilities for which residents have the most need include walking and biking trails, indoor swimming pools/leisure pool, indoor fitness and exercise facility, nature trails-nature center, and performing/cultural art facilities. This survey information was tempered with data collected from all stakeholders during the development of this plan. Additionally, the Master Plan analysis focused on other sources of information: open space and facilities standards analyses, previous plan data including the 2006 Recreation Master Plan and its recommendations, and existing park and open space analysis. The analysis identified existing and projected future deficiencies/surpluses in both open space supply and available facilities. The results were used to develop both District-wide policies and recommendations and specific recommendations for each individual Planning Area. In general, the District-wide policies and recommendations focus on a balanced program of increased maintenance, new facility construction and land acquisition to address identified deficiencies. However, it also identifies the need to expand partnership opportunities, collaborate with other governmental agencies, and establish and maintain fruitful partnerships with other jurisdictions and organizations to help supplement shortages and needs. Citizen input is encouraged in all Plan implementation actions. Specific recommendations in the Plan focus on how to address both deficiencies at a District-wide level and those within individual Planning Areas. They are not only based on the open space and amenities standards analysis but also include qualitative input on how to best meet Naperville Park District’s unique needs. The open space priorities and recommendations are based on land/population standards approved by the District. The recreation priorities and recommendations are based on the approved 2006 Recreation Master Plan. They are geared to address both existing deficiencies and potential future deficiencies based on projected population in 2017.


9 FINAL DRAFT

Where applicable, recommendations in this plan have been incorporated in the Capital Projects Multi-year Overview. The Overview is updated yearly and serves as a 'living document' which assists the Park District in better tracking proposed projects and progress in accomplishing goals. In addition to this capital fund, the Park District relies on numerous other funding sources including but not limited to grants, cash-in-lieu funds received from developers, property tax revenues, user fees, and donations. Additional alternative revenue sources are recommended including a Foundation, advertising naming rights, a sales tax increment earmarked for Naperville Park District, partnerships, and non-referendum bonding. While all recommendations provided in this document are important, it should be of utmost consideration that this Master Plan remains flexible and amended accordingly to accommodate unforeseen trends, needs and priorities. Although Naperville is quickly reaching build-out, it is a community that has become accustomed to a high level of park and recreation services. To ensure these services remain as well as to ensure the needs of the projected population are met, the Naperville Park District commits to develop, redevelop, and expand this outstanding park system through a flexible plan.


10 FINAL DRAFT

Introduction

Naperville Park District The Naperville Park District was established in 1966 when the population was approximately 18,000. Today the Park District has 107 full-time and 1,100 short-term staff members. The mission of the Naperville Park District is to be a leader in providing leisure experiences that enhance the quality of life for our community. In addition, it is the Park District’s vision to be a best-in-class parks and recreation service provider creating unity and focus in the community. These statements guide the District in every decision and process it undertakes. Over time, the Park District has acquired responsibility for approximately 2,500 acres of land. The Park District also manages two golf courses, and is responsible for maintaining the Naperville Riverwalk. The Park District has developed over 130 parks of varying types including four sports complexes, which offer many different amenities. Additionally, the District offers more than 900 sports, arts, and environmental programs each year for well over 60,000 participants of all ages. Various partnership agreements have been authorized to leverage the community’s tax dollars and to expand recreation opportunities. As the City of Naperville rapidly approaches build-out, the Naperville Park District continues to manage and develop its land to serve the recreational needs of a still growing and dynamic community. The Park District is proud of its variety of services and unique traditions.

Previous Plans

The District was established by referendum in 1966. There have been four major Comprehensive Plans prepared throughout the history of the Naperville Park District that have guided its activities since it was formed. They are as follows: 1968: The first Plan was created in 1968 near the time the Naperville Park District was established. The 1968 Master Plan’s main objective was the acquisition of open space then owned by the City of Naperville. It contained recommendations for: • park-school cooperation • establishment of management policies and


11 FINAL DRAFT

• a list of major facilities the Park District would need to fund and develop

It served as a starting point for future planning efforts undertaken by the District.

1971: The next Naperville Park District Plan, the 1971 Master Plan, was prepared by consolidating the work of eight subcommittees working separately to produce reports. When combined, the separate reports served as the final Master Plan. The eight subcommittees were Beach and Swimming, Land Needs, Conservation, Golf Course, Ice Rink, Historical Complex, Park-School Facilities and Tennis. Each addressed matters consistent with their areas of interest. 1986: The 1986 Master Plan contained a thorough inventory of Naperville Park District facilities at the time and was used to guide land acquisition and development of new recreation spaces within Naperville during periods of substantial growth and development. 2001: The fourth Plan was the 2001 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. Its goals and objectives were separated into those pertaining to Open Space and Recreation. The Open Space goals and objectives were primarily concerned with preservation of existing open space but also were concerned with acquisition of new open space based on the needs of specific planning areas designated in the Plan. The Recreation goals and objectives were aimed at providing equality in service amongst the Planning Areas while reducing system redundancy. The Plan provided a detailed analysis of system shortcomings by Planning Areas and further sub-divided into neighborhoods. Overall, the Plan succeeded in providing an in-depth system-wide audit and analysis however provided limited concrete recommendations and strategies to achieve them. In addition to the four comprehensive plans, the Recreation Master Plan was completed in January of 2006 and was prepared by PROS Consulting. It has provided key data and policy direction in the preparation of this Master Plan. Its principal recommendations focus mainly on the development of a community-wide trail system, building two regional recreation/aquatic centers, expanding environmental and passive recreation and a continued response to recreation trends by maintaining “best-in-class” facilities.


12 FINAL DRAFT

Analysis

Master Plan Process

A master plan is a mechanism to guide an organization into the future by directing growth and change so that they will be consistent with the overall vision and mission of the organization as it strives to achieve established goals and priorities. The Master Plan development and process was a collaborative effort between Naperville Park District Staff and its consultant, Thompson Dyke and Associates (TD&A). The Master Plan is also based on the need to compile and coordinate data from different planning documents and sources into one comprehensive document. The Master Plan also reflects input from Naperville Park District Athletic Affiliates (organized facility use groups), the Futures Committee and Park Board Commissioners. Minutes from these input meetings are contained in Appendices E and F. Relevant data from previous plans and community interest surveys served as a foundation for this Master Plan. Base data, key interview points and public feedback and other pertinent background information were synthesized in a collaborative effort between Naperville Park District Staff and TD&A. (See Appendix G for a complete list of resources utilized). Based on park and recreation data analysis, relevant recommendations have been prepared for the District as whole as well as individual Planning Areas. The Plan is intended to guide the Naperville Park District well into the next decade.

Project Goals

The Master Plan is intended as a guide for the Naperville Park District, to achieve strategic, controlled growth and development into the next decade and beyond. As with all plans, the Master Plan is a “snapshot in time” but should not be allowed to become static. It should be reevaluated periodically in order to reflect the changes and growth the District will inevitably experience in the years to come. The Master Plan will result in goals and recommendations that were derived utilizing results from related plans and studies as well as input from various stakeholders, the Board of Commissioners and Naperville Park District Staff. It should also reflect a consensus on how the Naperville Park District should move forward to accomplish these goals and recommendations. Other general goals of the Master Plan project include:


13 FINAL DRAFT

• Create a living document that is regularly reevaluated/amended during the budget process each year.

• Provide a 10 year planning horizon • Provide goals that guide process, recommendations and set

priorities • Identify specific projects/partnerships and how to fund them • Provide a review of Planning Areas and District Wide Needs • Provide a document which the Park District and City can

utilize together in their planning and land use efforts

Major Issues and Opportunities

The following listing of issues and opportunities was developed as a result of input obtained from various stakeholders, the Board of Commissioners and Naperville Park District Staff during interviews conducted by the Consultant and through data analysis.

Major Issues Affecting the Plan

• Lack of indoor programmable space controlled by the District • Decreasing ability to acquire new land to meet shortages in

many Planning Areas due to a lack of available land, competition for available land, high land costs (compared to the Fair Market Value in the ordinance) and a lack of available funds.

• Changing demographics • Lack of connection and physical barriers among various trails

throughout the District • A general lack of amenities throughout the District and the

impact that such shortage has on amenities (e.g. inability to rest fields due to over-programming, etc.)

• A need to balance simultaneous and interrelated initiatives to address deficiencies in maintenance, existing facilities and available open space.

Opportunities List

• Skilled and committed Staff, who are passionate about parks

and recreation and the advancement of the Naperville Park District

• An involved Board who strives to improve the quality of life of the community and the Naperville Park District system

• A concerned public that values its park system • An abundance of existing quality parks and popular programs • High interest/participation in parks and recreation programs


14 FINAL DRAFT

among Naperville Park District residents • High average household income, a strong tax base and a strong

Naperville Park District financial position • Consolidation of all Naperville Park District park data into one

electronic format/ database for ease of use by all employees and integration into its GIS system enabling enhanced mapping and spatial modeling.

Impediments List

• Lack of open communication and consensus between

Naperville Park District and other governmental jurisdictions on various levels

• Frequent turnover of the Board and Executive Director positions.

• A shrinking supply of open space • Rapid population growth projected in some areas while others

remain relatively stable leading to diverse needs and service expectations

• An extremely large district that makes management and maintenance of parks a challenge

Naperville Park District Boundaries

The Naperville Park District manages open space and recreation activities within the limits of Naperville, IL as well as small areas in Plainfield and Aurora. The planning boundaries of the District intersect 2 counties and 6 townships.

Demographics

Population Projections –District-wide and Areas

Planning Areas For analysis purposes, the Naperville Park District system has been divided into eight Planning Areas. The Planning Area boundaries are depicted on the map to the left.

In review and analysis of District needs, the system is more comprehensively divided in two main areas: the north and the south. This boundary is defined as 75th Street. Planning Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 are considered North. Planning Areas 5, 6, 7 and 8 are considered South.


15 FINAL DRAFT

Summary The population projections provided by the City of Naperville anticipate a continued rapid growth within Areas 1, 7 and 8. Because of this growth, it will be important to focus continued land acquisition efforts to meet this increasing demand. At the same time, it is also important to pursue enhanced system-wide facility maintenance on its existing facilities and construct new facilities to meet present deficiencies as well as increasing demand. Though Areas 7 and 8 have experienced substantial growth and demand from newer development, Area 1 will continue to have the highest total population in 2017 and presently lacks critical open space and facilities. Overall, the projected population in the north will be 79,296 by 2017 and the south will be 74,704.

Trends

Growth The growth in the City of Naperville and Naperville Park District has been rapid, particularly over the past few decades. This growth is projected to continue. The anticipated growth can be mitigated by the possible acquisition of land to meet both existing deficiencies as well as meet the needs of projected new residents. It is projected that continuing growth in population will be accompanied by increasing recreational and open space service demands and a decrease in available land. Aging population The rapid population growth of Naperville has resulted in increases for every age segment. However, the three fastest growing segments of the population were for those 60-64 (32.4%), 65-74 (29.8%) and 85+ (26.8%). This growth suggests increased need for senior-oriented facilities, as well as additional recreation/open space areas that provide opportunities for senior-oriented programs and activities.


16 FINAL DRAFT

Changing population The average household size between 2000 and 2004 increased by 8.3% to 3.13 persons/household. It is projected that this increase will continue through 2009 to a height of 3.43 persons/household. This increase is partially attributable to an increase in the numbers of children in the District and corresponding increase demand for programmed park and facility space to meet their needs. Income According to data in the 2006 Recreation Master Plan, the median household income for Naperville was $95,505. This is approximately double the national average and it is expected to rise to $105,890 by 2009. The continued rise in median household income of current Naperville residents and the continued relocation of families to Naperville indicates a strong demand for park amenities. More specific information regarding age, ethnicity, population and income changes can be found in the 2006 Recreation Master Plan.

2002 and 2005 Community Interest

and Opinion Survey Results

The 2002 and 2005 Community Interest and Opinion Surveys provide an invaluable “snapshot” of resident opinions and perceived needs at the time. While the survey results controlled against bias, some have expressed concern that their results may be skewed because those interested in park and recreation issues might be more likely to respond. Furthermore, many not interested in District activities may not have bothered to respond at all. Regardless, the survey results are the best available data and were used throughout the preparation of the Master Plan. However, it is specifically recognized that they are “snapshots in time” that may be less reflective of needs and desires today. As a result, it is important for the Naperville Park District to continue to solicit public input through resident surveys and other means in order to improve its understanding of changing resident concerns and desires.

Summary of Survey Results

The results of the 2005 Community Interest and Opinion Survey were used in the synthesis of data and formulation of recommendations for this Master Plan. Overall, the survey indicated that the vast majority of Naperville residents regularly use Naperville parks and participate in Park District programs. Residents also cited the Naperville Park District as the number one organization they rely upon for recreation programs and services.


17 FINAL DRAFT

Of those who visited District properties, 35% indicated that they used Naperville Park District facilities 20 or more times per year. Respondent’s amenity preferences were provided by Planning Area. A total of 98% of respondents indicated that the parks they visited in the past year are in good or excellent condition. The overwhelming majority of respondents cited trails as their number one recreational need. A majority of residents also indicated that, for the most part, large community parks are currently meeting their needs. District-wide, the top five most important facilities to residents were:

• Trails • Small Neighborhood Parks • Children’s Playgrounds • Outdoor Swimming • Large Community Parks District-wide, the top five facilities for which residents have the most need include: • Walking and biking trails • Indoor swimming pools/leisure pool • Indoor fitness and exercise facility • Nature trails-nature center • Performing/cultural art facilities There was significant correlation between the top five facility District-wide preferences with each of the Planning Area preferences.

Implications for Master Plan

Because the Naperville Park District is the critical provider of programmed and other recreational opportunities to Naperville residents, respondent opinions and concerns have been afforded great weight in developing recommendations while being tempered by input gathered during the Master Plan process from various stakeholders. Incorporating this input in the planning process is integral in developing consensus and support for the continuing operations of the District.

Benchmark Analysis

A benchmark analysis is very useful in establishing planning standards and guidelines. In this Master Plan, the benchmark entities were those used in the 2006 Recreation Master Plan. The analysis provides a “yardstick” with which to measure the Naperville Park District against its peers around the region and


18 FINAL DRAFT

country. This is useful because it provides a categorical and objective measure of potential strengths and weaknesses within the Naperville Park District system.

Historic Expenditure per resident (based on total of operating budget and population) As is illustrated in the chart and graph that follow total and per capita expenditure by the Naperville Park District have both risen in the past few years. Most dramatically, this rise occurred in 2006 with the development costs associated with the South Maintenance Building at Frontier Sports Complex. Such increases show a renewed commitment by the Naperville Park District to invest the money necessary to maintain and improve a high quality park system.

Total Yearly Capital Expenditure District-wide

$-

$1,000,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$3,000,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$5,000,000.00

$6,000,000.00

$7,000,000.00

$8,000,000.00

$9,000,000.00

$10,000,000.00

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


19 FINAL DRAFT

Peer Comparison

The following table and graph indicate that the present supply of park land by the Naperville Park District is second among those entities included in the benchmark analysis. The Naperville Park District’s present supply of 17.7 acres per 1,000 population is only behind the supply of land provided by Rockford Park District (22.2 acres/1,000 population). A key component of this Master Plan is the utilization of a Naperville Park District’s 17 acres/1,000 population standard which was agreed upon by the Park Board of Commissioners at the August 23, 2007 Board Workshop. (The NRPA standard is 10 acres/1000 people.)

Naperville Benchmark Comparison of Existing acres/1000 pop.

17.7

22.2

16.913.9

15.513.6

12.4 11.5

1.9

Naperville,IL ParkDistrict

Rockford, ILPark District

Elgin, IL Fox Valley,IL ParkDistrict

Plano, TX Arlington,TX

Tacoma,WA/Metro

Park District

Roseville,CA

Henderson,NV

Benchmark Cities

Acr

es/1

000

Peop

le


20 FINAL DRAFT

The Plan

Naperville Park District System

Design Guidelines Design guidelines developed by Naperville Park District staff classifies all of the District’s Open Space as either Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, District Parks, Greenways, Preservation/conservation Areas, Special Use or Future Parks (temporary classification). There are also sub categories for each which aligns with Municipal Code 7-3-5. Additionally, the design guidelines recommend possible amenities that may be included in each of the various park types. These Design Guidelines as well as community survey input, stakeholder input and a current needs analysis informed the recommendations set forth in this plan.

Park Classification System

Neighborhood Parks (NP) Neighborhood Parks serve residents in a variety of age groups located within a limited area or ‘neighborhood’ and are easily accessible without pedestrian barriers. Neighborhood Parks should be a minimum of 5 acres to a maximum of 14.9 acres in area with a service area of ½ mile radius and serving a population of 5,000 persons. Neighborhood parks should be developed for both active and passive, non-programmed recreation activities. Neighborhood Park facilities are generally designed for daytime use, and are unlighted. They generally do not include off-street parking and are served by available on-street parking, if any.

Comparable subcategories of Neighborhood Parks in Municipal Code 7-3-5 include:

Subcategory Area Mini Lot .2 acres Play Lot .5 - 2.9 acres Neighborhood Playground 3 – 4.9 acres Neighborhood Park 5 – 14.9 acres Neigh/School Park 5 – 14.9 acre

Mini Lots and Play Lots are small parks located in high-density commercial or residential areas where public or semi-public space is absent. Mini Parks serve persons of all ages located in the immediate area. Depending on area and resident needs, they can


21 FINAL DRAFT

contain some landscaping, planting, benches or other sitting areas and hard surface game areas to provide some recreation opportunities. Play Lots, on the other hand can contain only playground related amenities, including benches, picnic shelters, picnic tables, bike racks, drinking fountains and trash receptacles. Play equipment should be safe and attractive for children. Play Lots serve a population located within a ¼ mile travel distance. Due to their small size and inefficiencies associated with maintaining them, further acquisition of these parks is not encouraged. Neighborhood Playgrounds are located in areas that cannot be served by a Neighborhood Park or where conditions make it impossible to combine a park with an elementary or junior high school. They range from 3-4.9 acres in size, serving children 2-12 years of age. Neighborhood Playgrounds can contain only play apparatus and playground related amenities, such as benches, picnic shelter, picnic tables, bike racks, drinking fountains, and trash receptacles. Due to their small size and inefficiencies associated with maintaining them, further acquisition of these parks is not encouraged. Neighborhood/School Parks are located on or adjacent to school grounds. They typically have limited access time as school programming takes priority over general use of the park by the public. Similar to Neighborhood Parks, they range in area from 5-15 acres, with a service area of ½ mile radius and 5,000 persons. Neighborhood/School Parks are intended for active recreation such as field games, court games and playgrounds. They may also include limited picnic and shelter facilities, as well as limited on-site school parking during school hours. Community Parks (CP) Community parks are larger than neighborhood parks and are intended to serve several neighborhoods. Sometimes referred to as “drive-to parks,” they generally range in area from 15 to 40 acres and have a service area of two miles in radius and serve 20,000 persons. Community Parks include passive as well as active amenities and are often lighted for intense programmed sports. They are also easily accessible by multiple modes of transportation with on-site parking available. Comparable subcategories in Municipal Code 7-3-5 include:

Subcategory Area Playfield 15-40 acres


22 FINAL DRAFT

District Parks (DP) District parks are the largest component of the Park District’s Open Space system. They generally serve the entire community. Their area typically exceeds 40 acres and can contain a variety of outdoor recreation amenities such as sports complexes and associated facilities located strategically throughout the community. These facilities are “drive-to parks” with on-site parking and field lighting for nighttime programmed use. They are also easily accessible by multiple modes of transportation with on-site parking available. Comparable sub categories in Municipal Code 7-3-5 include:

Subcategory Area Regional Community Park 40 acres or more

Greenways (GW) Greenways are linear parks usually developed adjacent to a natural resource such as a creek, river or lakeshore so that these resources enhance the park experience for visitors. Existing topography and intended use dictate appropriate width for individual Greenways. Greenways with widths less than fifty (50) “useable” feet should be discouraged and narrow corridor sections should be kept to a minimum. Greenways can provide valuable open space and a scenic environment for walking, jogging and bicycling or a variety of passive recreational opportunities all free or relatively free from automobile interference. They can also provide a transportation corridor that links neighborhoods to parks, schools and shopping areas, A Greenway can also provide a natural buffer between differing land uses and when located adjacent to water bodies, improve their water quality. They can also be used to provide necessary easements for underground utilities and as such are often acquired with little effort. There are no specific standards for Greenways other than they should be of sufficient area and width to protect the adjacent resource and accommodate maximum usage. Preservation/conservation Areas (PA) Preservation/conservation Areas are set aside to preserve significant natural or cultural resources, landscapes and open space or provide enhanced aesthetics/buffering. As such, their use for recreation is a secondary objective. These areas typically include dedicated watersheds or natural/non-developed areas. The location and size of Preservation/conservation Areas are dictated by the location of the natural resource. The suitability of a particular natural or cultural resource to be designated as a Preservation/conservation Area should be based on its ability to


23 FINAL DRAFT

enhance the overall character of the community. Because the fundamental purpose for acquiring various natural or cultural resources for inclusion in a Preservation/conservation Area is to maintain/preserve existing conditions, development within a Preservation/conservation Areas should be very limited. Special Use (SU) Special Use parks and areas are intended for specialized or single purpose recreation activities. They should be located to provide easy access for the entire community. Because there are so many different types of Special Use facilities, there are no specific size and development criteria. Examples of Special Use facilities include recreation centers, senior centers, nature centers, community theaters, trap shooting, community gardens, special event facilities, hockey arenas, golf courses, aquatic facilities, zoos, arboretums, maintenance or support areas, etc. Future Parks Future Park is a temporary classification for open space not yet owned by the Naperville Park District but awaiting the conveyance process. They are given a temporary ID beginning with 9. Once the proper classification has been determined for the ultimate use of the open space, appropriate guidelines established above should guide park planning and development decisions for such open space. Based on an inventory of all parks in the Naperville Park District system, the following chart shows the park types found in each Planning Area. A complete list of all parks, facilities, and buildings in the Naperville Park District System can be found in Appendices A and B.


24 FINAL DRAFT

Possible Amenities

Following are possible amenities that are recommended for inclusion in each of the various park types. Categories include primary, secondary, supplemental and structures. o = Possible Programmed Use


25 FINAL DRAFT

Other considerations such as the uniqueness of a specific park, comparable amenities nearby, or overall recreation and programming goals of the Park District should be reviewed in the placement of any amenity.


26 FINAL DRAFT

Parks Inventory

Naperville Park District staff carried out a system wide inventory of all land and amenities over a period of three months prior to the start of the Master Plan. The park data was entered into a database and then used as the base data for the analysis contained in the Master Plan. The inventory was important in providing an accurate understanding of all amenities and parks owned and maintained by the Naperville Park District.

Analysis

The Master Plan analysis focused on five main sources of information: open space and facilities standards analyses; previous plan data and recommendations; existing park and open space data including service area maps (Appendix D); input from the public, staff and Board; and the 2002 and 2005 Community Interest and Opinion surveys. The analyses identified existing and projected future deficiencies/surpluses in both open space supply and available facilities. The results were used to develop both District-wide policies and recommendations and specific recommendations for each individual Planning Area.

Strategies for Success

Although its contents concern many of the issues contained in this Master Plan, the contents of the Naperville Park District Strategic Plan are not summarized herein. In preparing the Master Plan recommendations and policies from the Strategic Plan were reviewed and utilized to develop policies and recommendations that follow. The reader is advised to consult the Strategic Plan for more information on its contents.

District-Wide Policies and 5-Year Guides

The following policies and guides are major overarching prerogatives recommended for the Naperville Park District. They should serve as guiding policies that steer all planning decisions made by the Board and Staff. Recommended policies prepared in conjunction with this Master Plan include: 1. Undertake a balanced program of simultaneous and

interrelated initiatives to address deficiencies in maintenance, existing facilities and available open space and anticipate the increased operating and maintenance costs (Appendix C) associated with new facilities.

2. Identify and acquire new land in Planning Areas that are deficient in park acreage before acquiring land elsewhere. However, if land becomes available elsewhere, staff will


27 FINAL DRAFT

explore such opportunities but acquisition will be considered only in accordance with adopted Naperville Park District land acquisition guidelines.

3. Adequately maintain existing parks and facilities before undertaking new improvements.

4. Where practicable, focus on providing open space and developing new facilities in areas where such facilities are deficient.

5. Collaborate with other governmental agencies with land holdings within and adjacent to the Park District’s boundaries to ensure such facilities are consistent with Park District goals and policies.

6. Avoid acquiring land that burdens the District as a result of limitations on use or programming or that will require additional maintenance costs that exceed anticipated benefits.

7. Continue to assist in updating the Municipal Code 7-3-5: Land Cash Dedication Ordinance to support the goals of this plan.

8. Continue to establish and maintain fruitful partnerships with other jurisdictions, community and corporate organizations and private recreation providers to help supplement shortages and needs.

9. Explore additional aquatic options in each planning area that can serve the entire District.

10. Cooperative use of facilities owned by others is only recommended if it satisfies District needs. As cooperative agreements are renewed, maximize the value of the facility to the District.

11. Plan for the acquisition and improvement of parks in compliance with this Master Plan, Naperville Park District’s ADA Transition Plan and its Capital Projects Multi-Year Overview.

12. Encourage citizen input in all Plan implementation actions. 13. Maximize the use of alternative revenue.


28 FINAL DRAFT

District Wide Guide for Years 1-5 1. Undertake a balanced program of increased maintenance,

facility construction and land acquisition to address identified deficiencies.

2. Appoint an advisory group consisting of stakeholders and Naperville Park District representatives to explore opportunities to address existing indoor recreation space deficiencies.

3. Undertake a comprehensive review of existing trails and prepare a new trail plan that incorporates City, County, and Forest Preserve trails and identifies cost sharing opportunities. This Plan should also prohibit the acceptance of existing trails into the trail system that are a maintenance liability, constructed with poor quality materials, are of inadequate design, improperly constructed or were poorly maintained.

4. Request that the City of Naperville adopt this plan as part of its Comprehensive Plan and utilize it in its land use decision making.

5. Review the feasibility of a Nature Center serving the entire District and consider Seager Park or Knoch Knolls Park as potential locations as well as explore partnerships to fulfill need.

6. Create additional guidelines for ongoing maintenance specific to the park and facility type, which meet or exceed those of peer park district policies.

7. Schedule a seminar/retreat for Board members to attend each year to promote unity and understanding among members, review priorities and adopt rules of procedure to govern Board functions.

8. Develop a plan for regular resident surveys or other means to solicit public input to increase understanding of citizen opinion and interest.

9. Consider maintenance and improvements for each park based on the Service Level Guidelines outlining park maintenance standards and the Design Guidelines.

10. Consider donor opportunities for supplemental amenities. 11. Collaborate with Athletic Affiliates on the implementation of

Master Plan Recommendations in a manner that does not confer ownership rights and subject to annual use agreements.

12. Update the entire District-wide database system to reflect new multi-use field standards and make it consistent with Plan findings and recommendations.

13. Collaborate with the City and School Districts to make detailed demographic data available for planning and implementation projects.

14. Develop a coordinated system of tracking leases and


29 FINAL DRAFT

agreements so that expiration dates are anticipated with sufficient time to plan for potential needs.

15. Utilize the Naperville Park District existing ADA Transition Plan to integrate ADA compliance into Park District open space and facilities.

16. Create a policy for the location of cell phone towers and high-tension electrical transmission lines within Park District Property.

17. Investigate the formation of a Park Foundation to provide supplementary financial assistance to the District in the development and maintenance of various facilities.

18. Investigate vacant land for possible acquisition for future development as programmed or un-programmed parkland.

19. Formalize a storm water retention pond improvement schedule and incorporate in the Capital Overview.

20. Investigate other methods to schedule sporting events to increase efficiency.

21. Investigate programs used by other communities to reduce vandalism in the parks and incorporate successful elements into a Program tailored to meet Naperville Park District needs.

22. Implement a concentrated public relations campaign to improve the community’s opinion and perceptions of the Park District.

23. Prepare a market study to determine if there is a need/market for a tennis center.

24. Identify partnership opportunities in the event additional high schools are constructed in the near future.

25. Incorporate environmentally responsible design standards in park master plans and facility designs.

26. Collaborate with other local and regional agencies in transportation planning initiatives to improve access to parks within the Naperville Park District system.


30 FINAL DRAFT

District Wide Guide for Years 6-10 1. Continue implementing a balanced program of increased

maintenance, facility construction and land acquisition to address identified deficiencies.

2. Consider maintenance and improvements for each park based on the Service Level Guidelines outlining park maintenance standards and the Design Guidelines.

3. Construct sufficient new sports fields and/or convert existing fields to artificial turf to enable the District to rest natural turf fields 10-15% of time.

4. Encourage joint use of facilities through cooperative leases in a manner that does not substantially reduce Naperville Park District’s ability to program facilities it does not own.

5. Over time, consider replacing cooperative facility agreements with Naperville Park District owned facilities in order to control and program them as needs change.

6. Continue implementation of a concentrated public relations campaign to improve the community’s opinion of the Park District.

7. Explore opportunities to share indoor aquatic facilities, tennis and sports fields with other Naperville jurisdictions to meet resident needs.

8. Investigate potential of converting traditional storm water detention facilities into naturalized water detention with passive recreation to create usable open space and make an amenity instead of a liability.

9. Collaborate with other governmental jurisdictions to investigate the acquisition of appropriate land for use as a fairground and public space for large festivals. Furthermore, clearly determine the Naperville Park District’s role in providing such space.

10. Explore partnership opportunities with other park districts or government agencies to address a growing regional interest in cricket, including the possibility of providing a cricket pitch in the north area.

11. Prepare a market study to determine if there is a need/market for an additional Naperville Park District golf course and if such a market exists, search for a suitable site.


31 FINAL DRAFT

District-Wide Recommendations

The recommendations that follow were developed to implement identified needs and advance recommended policies. They are

focused on how to address both deficiencies at a District-wide level and in the following section, within individual Planning Areas.

They are not only based on the open space and amenities standards analysis but also include qualitative input on how to

best meet Naperville Park District’s unique needs. The priorities and recommendations are based on land/population standards

approved by the District and are geared to address both existing deficiencies and potential future deficiencies based on projected

population in 2017. Recommendations and priorities are also based on the 2005 Community Interest and Opinion Survey results and the Capital Projects – Multi-Year Overview. Recommendations

take into account the overarching District-wide policy to achieve balance among maintenance, new facility development and land

acquisition.


32 FINAL DRAFT

District-Wide Service Areas--North and South North and South divided by 75th Street 2007 Pop. – 142,000 (North = ~76,000, South = ~66,000) Projected 2017 Pop. – 154,000 total (North = 79296, South = 74704) Total Planning Area – 47.55 sq. mi. (North = 24.13, South = 23.42) Existing and future NPD Open Space – 2,544 acres (North = 774.93, South = 1769.07)

Land Use/Demographic Characteristics

• The growth in the City of Naperville and Naperville Park

District has been rapid, particularly over the past few decades. • The median household income for Naperville is $95,505 and is

expected to rise to $105,890 by 2009. • Newer development predominates in the south. Older

developments, the historic district and the downtown area are in the North.

• The North’s population has grown 5% since 2000, the South has grown 16%.

• 5% population growth is anticipated in the North by 2017 and by 13% in the South.

• More specific information regarding age, ethnicity, population and income changes can be found in the 2006 Recreation Master Plan.

District-wide Amenities Summary

The following table is a comparison of Naperville Park District existing amenities against specific standards established for Naperville and contained in the 2006 Recreation Master Plan by PROS Consulting. These standards were specifically tailored by PROS to meet Naperville’s unique needs and were based on a variety of considerations. The table shows the current deficiency/surplus for each facility/amenity for the entire District and, utilizing projected population growth by the year 2017, projects deficiencies/surpluses for the District assuming no new facilities/amenities are provided in that 10-year period. Facilities/amenities used by the Naperville Park District but owned by others (such as school gymnasiums) are included in this analysis even though Naperville Park District has limited control over programming them. This analysis shaped District-wide amenity recommendations as well as Planning Area specific recommendations.


33 FINAL DRAFT


34 FINAL DRAFT

Considerations/Priorities • The amenities focus on whether they are serving a district wide need

or a more local need. • The following conceptual approach will satisfy facility needs but

must be considered in conjunction with the need for maintenance of existing facilities, the need for land acquisition and the increased maintenance and operating costs associated with new facilities.

• Based on its review of the analysis contained in the 2006 Recreation Master Plan, its review of other District planning documents, its experience in park district master planning and operations and input from Athletic Affiliates and the Futures Committee (see Appendix E: “Staff, Futures Committee and Athletic Affiliates Interviews - Summary”), TD&A concludes that the District is presently deficient in providing programmable indoor space. This current deficiency is estimated at approximately 234,000 square feet based on standards contained the Recreation Master Plan and will increase to over 250,000 square feet by 2017 unless new space is provided. The deficiency is also significant when the District’s Indoor space facilities are compared to other Districts/Departments in the Chicago area. Some of these Districts/Departments serve smaller populations but have nonetheless constructed substantial new indoor recreation facilities that have also become important community gathering places.

Recommendations • Although the additional amenities/facilities are recommended in

locations currently owned by the Naperville Park District, remaining shortages should be reviewed and addressed through partnership opportunities or through the acquisition and development of new land.

• Improvements on any leased land should be investigated prior to development to determine restrictions. Additionally, a cost benefit discussion should occur to determine if any such improvements are appropriate on land not owned by the Park District.

• Amenities that should be evaluated on a District Wide approach rather than Planning Area are those most suited to serving the entire community (or 20,000 or more residents per type.) Specifically, those would include Trails, 90’ Baseball, Adult Softball, Golf, Cricket, Indoor Recreation Centers, Indoor and Outdoor Pools, and Skate Parks, and synthetic turf fields.

• Appoint an advisory group to explore opportunities to address existing indoor recreation space deficiencies. Such an advisory group must also focus substantial emphasis on building consensus throughout the District on the need for such space as well as the District’s role in addressing existing space deficiencies. In order to best meet the needs of all District residents, the Committee should also consider the provision of such indoor spaces in both northerly and southerly locations. Such locations will also increase potential demand for programming and revenue generation potential.


35 FINAL DRAFT

District-Wide Amenity Recommendations Snapshot

See Appendix D for the related service area maps.


36 FINAL DRAFT

Local Amenity Recommendations Snapshot The following is a summary of the local amenities that will be reiterated in each Planning Area in which it is identified. Below is a consolidated snap shot of the local amenities for quick reference. Appendix D contains service area maps for each.


37 FINAL DRAFT

District-Wide Open Space Summary The following chart summarizes open space analysis results and identifies open space shortages and/or surpluses within the District.

* NRPA Standards from Lancaster, R.A. (Ed.) (1990). Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

The District-wide Open Space analysis is based upon the approved Naperville Park District standard of 17 acre/1,000 population that is consistent with Naperville’s unique needs/context, recommendations by PROS Consulting, standards utilized by Naperville Park District’s peers, and evolving needs and trends in the park and recreation industry. In applying this 17 acre/1,000 population standard to the Naperville Park District system it is expected that Neighborhood Parks (2 acres/1,000 pop.), Community Parks (3 acres/1,000 pop.) and District Parks (5 acres/1,000 pop.) will be supplemented by an additional 7 acres/1,000 pop. of Naperville Park District land that includes a mix of Special Uses, Greenways and Preservation/conservation Areas. These types of holdings are now prevalent throughout the Naperville Park District system and promote Naperville Park District’s role as an environmental steward. Although a recommended acreage per 1000 population has been provided for these types, the NRPA does not have a standard for these types since they are unique holdings and dependent upon existing conditions and needs. District Parks serve the entire community and are not evaluated in each planning area. However, they are further subcategorized as North and South and are summarized below.

NRPA Standard

Recommended ac/1000

Service Area (in people)

Service Area (in miles)

Existing Acres

(Including Future Acres)

% of total acres

Current Ratio

Projected Ratio

Projected Need

(17/1000)

Projected Over/

(Under) by 2017

Projected % PopServed

Neighborhood Parks 1-2 2.0/1000 5000 0.5 425.43 16.7% 3.00 2.76 308 117.43 138%Community Parks 5-8 3.0/1000 20000 2 427.61 16.8% 3.01 2.78 462 (34.39) 93%District Parks 5-10 5.0/1000 DW DW 864.72 34.0% 6.09 5.62 770 94.72 112%Special Use (with golf courses) NA 5.0/1000 DW DW 427.51 16.8% 3.01 2.78 770 (342.49) 56%Greenways NA 1.0/1000 DW DW 151.73 6.0% 1.07 0.99 154 (2.27) 99%Preservation/cons Areas NA 1.0/1000 DW DW 247 9.7% 1.74 1.60 154 93.00 160%All Open Space 10/1000 17/1000 2544 17.92 16.52 2618 (74.00) 97%

NRPA Standard

Recommended ac/1000

Service Area

(in people)Service Area

(in miles)

Existing Acres


% of total acres

Current Ratio

Projected Ratio

Projected Need

Projected Over

(Under) by 2017

North Areas 1, 2, 3, 4 DW DW 124.84 14.4% 1.57 385 (260.16)South Areas 5, 6, 7, 8 DW DW 739.88 85.6% 9.90 385 354.88

All District Parks 5-10 5.0/1000 DW DW 864.72 94.72


38 FINAL DRAFT

Recommendations to address Neighborhood Parks and Community Parks are presented in each individual Planning Area. Considerations/Priorities Overall, the Naperville Park District clearly exceeds the NRPA standard of 10 acres/1000. Based on Open Space analysis, the North has a shortage of land. This deficiency is further exacerbated by the lack of available land for purchase. There is a need for more community and district wide parks in the northern area of the city. Leased land is somewhat tenuous and a loss of these acres could affect the overall analysis. Areas 3 and 6 have the majority of the leased acres. Recommendations Within the District as a whole, make it a priority to balance land acquisition, development of new facilities and maintenance of existing facilities. Make land acquisition a priority in the north and strive towards achieving 5 acres/1000 residents of District Parks or 17 acres per /1000 residents of all park types.


39 FINAL DRAFT

Planning Area Recommendations

Following are summary tables of the results of the Open Space and Amenity Planning Area analyses. They identify aggregated open

space and facility needs and quantify the recommended actions the Naperville Park District must take to provide for projected need in

each planning area

.


40 FINAL DRAFT

Planning Area 1

Bounded on the north and west by Park District Boundaries, on the east by Washington Street and on the south by Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railway lines. 2007 Pop. – 25,437 Projected 2017 Pop. – 28,233 Total Area – 8.27 sq. mi. Existing NPD Open Space – 148.63 acres

Land Use/Demographic Characteristics • This Area encompasses a strong office, light industrial/

commercial corridor that includes I-88, Rt. 59 and Diehl Rd. • Housing includes both single-family, multi-family, and an age

restricted gated community. • Older development is mixed with some recent development. • The Area’s population has grown 8% since 2000. • 11% population growth is anticipated in this Area by 2017. • The Area is adjacent to 2 substantial DuPage County Forest

Preserves.

Amenities Summary The following chart shows the acreage and amenities found in each park in Planning Area 1. The inventory results were analyzed by applying Naperville Park District amenity standards to each amenity type. The results of this analysis were used to determine appropriate recreation priorities and recommendations.


41 FINAL DRAFT

Considerations/Priorities • The large projected population increase in this Area will

increase demand for amenities in all parks. A significant portion of this increase will be from a new age-restricted community currently being developed. A cash donation was accepted and some credit for private open space was granted in 2007.

Recommendations • More emphasis in this area should be placed on maintenance

and developing more amenities in existing parks to meet the amenity deficiencies since the probability of addressing the entire land deficiency is extremely unlikely.

• Add playgrounds; consider locating 1 at Nike Sports Complex. • Explore the addition of 1 - 60’ field at Country Lakes Park in

partnership with Athletic Associations. • Add 2 - 80’ baseball field; consider locating at Nike Sports

Complex. • Add 2 large multi-use grid fields; consider locating at Nike

Sports Complex. • Add 6 tennis courts; consider locating a group of 6 courts at

Nike Sports Complex or Country Lakes. • Add 2 basketball courts, consider locating at Nike Sports

Complex.

ID Name Other Info Cla

ssC

ode

Acr

es O

wne

d

Acr

es L

ease

d

Futu

re A

cres

Tota

l Acr

es

Play

grou

nd

Bask

etba

ll C

ourt

s

Base

ball

- 60

ft

Base

ball

- 80

ft

Base

ball

- 90

ft

Soft

ball-

Yout

h

Soft

ball-

Adu

lt

Tenn

is C

ourt

s

Trai

l Mile

s

Gol

f

Swim

min

g

Skat

e Bo

ard

Faci

lity

Smal

l Mul

ti U

se F

ield

s

Larg

e M

ulti-

Use

Fie

lds

1F Bainbridge Greens Near School NP 8.8 8.81R Century Farms Park NP 5.61 5.61 11J Cress Creek Park NP 1.63 1.63 1 11B Fairway Commons Park NP 3.02 3.021E Fox Hill Greens NP 7.53 7.53 11N Kendall Park NP 4.15 4.15 11L Mill Street Park Near School/Co-op NP 4.98 4.98 1 11Q Nike Park NP 0.29 0.29 11H Queensbury Greens NP 7.66 7.66 1 21C Willow Bend West NP 1.59 1.591A Country Lakes Park CP 20.54 11.08 31.62 1 2 1 0.331O Nike Sports Complex DP 45.38 45.38 2 1 2 41D Colfax Way GW 1.17 1.171P Nike Greenway GW 2.04 2.041I Forest View Park PA 2.17 2.17

1M Heritage Woods PA 16.16 16.16 0.591K Miledje Square PA 1.27 1.271G Redfield Commons PA 3.56 3.56

Naperville North H.S. 2 2Mill Street School 2

128.42 20.21 0 148.63 8 5 3 0 2 3 1 0 0.92 0 0 0 4 4


42 FINAL DRAFT

• Add 1 mile of trail; consider locating at Nike Sports Complex. • Explore utilizing synthetic turf fields at Nike Sports Complex. • Consider maintenance and improvements for each park based

on the Service Level Guidelines outlining park maintenance standards and the Design Guidelines.

Open Space Summary

The following chart summarizes open space analysis results and identifies open space shortages and/or surpluses within this Planning Area. It is based on approved Naperville Park District standards and present and projected population. It also has been used to suggest land acquisition priorities.

Considerations/Priorities • Based on Open Space analysis, this Planning Area has a

shortage of land. Planning Area 1 is the most populous planning area and will experience the highest open space deficiency in the entire Park District. Due to a unique geographic configuration, this deficiency is further exacerbated by the separation of residents in the western half of the Area from open space in adjacent Areas.

Recommendations • Within this Planning Area, make it a priority to balance land

acquisition, development of new facilities and maintenance of existing facilities.

• Make land acquisition a priority in this Planning Area and to strive towards achieving 5 acres/1000 people of community parks or 17 acres per /1000 people established standard, focusing on community and district park acquisitions.

• Reconcile credit for private open space previously granted to the age-restricted community in the north when considering land acquisition or amenities.

NRPA Standard

Recommended ac/1000

Service Area


(in miles)

Existing Acres


% of total acres

Current Ratio

Projected Ratio

Projected Need

Projected Over

(Under) by 2017

Planning Area 1Neighborhood Parks 1-2 2.0/1000 5000 0.5 45.26 30.5% 1.78 1.60 56.47 (11.21)Community Parks 5-8 3.0/1000 20000 2 31.62 21.3% 1.24 1.12 84.70 (53.08)All 17/1000 148.63 5.84 5.26 479.96 (331.33)


43 FINAL DRAFT

Planning Area 2

Bounded on the north and east by District boundaries, on the west by Washington Street

and on the south by the Burlington Northern Railway. 2007 Pop.– 8,257

Projected 2017 Pop. – 8,349 Total Area – 3.82 sq. mi.

Existing NPD Open Space –78.60 acres Land Use/Demographic Characteristics

• The north portion of this Area is dominated by a large office/

research district containing no open space or facilities/amenities except for the Danada Woods Forest Preserve.

• Housing is mostly single-family with small pockets of multi-family.

• Encompasses the northern portion of the Downtown. • Older development is mixed with some recent development

and Downtown office, retail and service uses. • The area’s population has risen by 3.2% since 2000. • 1.1% population growth is anticipated in this Area by 2017.



44 FINAL DRAFT

Considerations/Priorities • Additional maintenance of existing amenities is necessary. • Minimal projected population increase in this Area will not

substantially increase demand for amenities in all parks. • Substantial trails are provided within McDowell Grove but do

not connect with Naperville Park District trails. Recommendations • Make maintenance of existing amenities a high priority,

however balance maintenance with developing new facilities and land acquisition.

• Since this is an older portion of the City, land acquisition opportunities are limited. Therefore, it is recommended that in the long term, amenities be placed to the extent possible in existing parks.

• Look for opportunities to connect existing trails to others. • Consider maintenance and improvements for each park based


Open Space Summary



ssC

ode

Acr

es O

wne

d

Acr

es L

ease

d

Futu

re A

cres

Tota

l Acr

es

Play

grou

nd

Bask

etba

ll C

ourt

s

Base

ball

- 60

ft

Base

ball

- 80

ft

Base

ball

- 90

ft

Soft

ball-

Yout

h

Soft

ball-

Adu

lt

Tenn

is C

ourt

s

Trai

l Mil

es

Gol

f

Swim

min

g

Skat

e Bo

ard

Faci

lity

Smal

l Mul

ti U

se F

ield

s

Larg

e M

ulti

- Use

Fie

lds

2C Columbia Estates Park NP 3.92 3.92 12B Kroehler Park NP 1.13 1.13 12E Old Plank Park NP 7.15 7.15 12F Springhill Park NP 1.4 1.4 12H Yorkshire Manor Park NP 3.01 3.01 12A Arrowhead Park CP 16.33 7.98 24.31 1 1 1 22D Seager Park CP 30.9 30.9 1 0.132G Springhill Greenway GW 6.78 6.78

Beebe Elementary Co-op 170.62 7.98 0 78.6 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 2 0


45 FINAL DRAFT

Considerations/Priorities • Much of the northern portion of this Planning Area consists of

a large office/light industry area and, most of the Area’s parks are located in the southern portions of the area.

• To this extent, there is a geographical deficiency of Neighborhood Parks in the northern portion of the Area; however, there is no real need for parks at this location since there are no residential neighborhoods located in that area.

• Area 2 has an existing population of 8,257 and projected 2017 population of 8,349 that are below the District-wide Planning Area averages for existing and projected 2017 populations (17,647 and 19,520, respectively).

• The needs of some residents in the southern and western portions of Planning Area 2 are met by existing open space in neighboring planning areas but some of these Areas exhibit similar deficiencies.

• Based on open space analysis, this Planning Area will be deficient in land by more than 63 acres by 2017, unless additional open space is acquired. To some extent, this deficiency may be partially mitigated by the existence of substantial County Forest Preserves; however, Naperville Park District’s ability to program this land is very limited as is its ability to acquire useful open space in this Area. The relatively small deficiency coupled with minimal population growth and the availability of existing open space nearby in other Planning Areas suggests that land acquisition efforts in Planning Area 2 be assigned a medium priority and be balanced with facility development and maintenance.

Recommendations • Balance land acquisition, development of new facilities and

maintenance of existing facilities. • Make land acquisition a medium priority in this Planning Area

and strive to achieve the 17 acres /1,000 people established standard.

NRPA Standard

Recommended ac/1000

Service Area


(in miles)

Existing Acres


% of total acres

Current Ratio

Projected Ratio

Projected Need

Projected Over

(Under) by 2017

Planning Area 2Neighborhood Parks 1-2 2.0/1000 5000 0.5 16.61 21.1% 2.01 1.99 16.70 (0.09)Community Parks 5-8 3.0/1000 20000 2 55.21 70.2% 6.69 6.61 25.05 30.16

All 17/1000 78.6 9.52 9.41 141.93 (63.33)


46 FINAL DRAFT

Planning Area 3

Bounded on the north by Burlington Northern Railway, on the south by 75th St., on the west by Rte. 59 and on the east by Washington St. and the West Branch of the DuPage River. 2007 Pop. – 22,248 Projected 2017 Pop. – 22,872 Total Area - 7.07 sq. mi. Existing NPD Open Space –406.96 acres

Land Use/Demographic Characteristics • The western portion of this Area contain a large commercial

and industrial district • Single-family and multi-family housing • Older development is mixed with more recent development • The area’s population has grown 3.4% since 2000. • 2.8% growth in this Area is projected in this area by 2017. • Contains the majority of the central business district



47 FINAL DRAFT

Considerations/Priorities • Because Planning Area 3 is projected to experience only

minimal population growth by 2017 assign a lower priority to providing new facilities/amenities.

• Minimal projected population increase in this Area will not substantially increase demand for amenities.

• Additional emphasis should be placed on the maintenance of existing amenities in the near term and development of new amenities in the long term.

Recommendations • Emphasize maintenance of existing facilities/amenities before

constructing new ones. • Add a minimum of .34 mile of trails; considered Wildflower

Park. • Consider adding 4 new tennis courts at Knoch Park (pending

the outcome of the Martin Mitchell property study.) • Explore utilizing synthetic turf fields at Knoch Park. • Look for opportunities to connect existing trails to others and

to extend the Riverwalk north through McDowell Grove Forest Preserve via trails.

• Consider maintenance and improvements for each park based


ssC

ode

Acr

es O

wne

d

Acr

es L

ease

d

Futu

re A

cres

Tota

l Acr

es

Play

grou

nd

Bask

etba

ll C

ourt

s

Base

ball

- 60

ft

Base

ball

- 80

ft

Base

ball

- 90

ft

Soft

ball-

Yout

h

Soft

ball-

Adu

lt

Tenn

is C

ourt

s

Trai

l Mil

es

Gol

f

Swim

min

g

Skat

e Bo

ard

Faci

lity

Smal

l Mul

ti U

se F

ield

s

Larg

e M

ulti-

Use

Fie

lds

3A Brush Hill Park NP 10.72 10.72 13D Buttonwood Park NP 3.47 3.47 13Y Carol Acres NP 13.91 13.913T Harris Fawell Park By School NP 9.2 9.2 1 13I West Greens NP 1.79 1.79 13B Wil-O-Way Park NP 7.92 7.92 1 1.5 1 13G Burlington Park CP 51.16 51.16 0.303Q Gartner Park CP 15.26 15.26 1 1 2 13C May Watts Park By School CP 28.68 28.68 1 13S Pioneer Park CP 15.63 10.39 26.02 0.663U Wildflower Park CP 26.81 26.81 1 0.403F Wil-O-Way Commons CP 21.87 21.87 13K Knoch Park DP 38.69 38.69 1 3 2 2 3 1 8 2 23H Riverwalk Park DP 10.63 30.14 40.77 1 3.50 13W 425 West Jackson SU 0.19 0.193J Alfred Rubin Riverwalk Community Center SU 1.29 1.293O Broeker Parkway SU 0.93 0.933X Centennial Park SU 21.73 21.73 1 13M Community Garden Plots SU 31.46 31.463V North Maintenance Facility SU 0.36 0.03 0.393L Sportsman's Park SU 28.04 28.04 0.303R Lincoln Greenway GW 7.89 7.89 0.01

3A1 Firemen's Memorial Park PA 3.49 3.493N Hobson West Park PA 3.72 3.723E Hobson West Ponds PA 8.85 8.853P William Friedrich Memorial Park PA 2.71 2.71

242.89 164.07 0 406.96 9 2.5 5 2 2 7 1 8 5.17 0 1 1 5 3


48 FINAL DRAFT


Open Space Summary


Considerations/Priorities • Open space analysis indicates that this Planning Area meets

present and projected population needs and has a substantial surplus.

• Geographically there is a lack of coverage in the western portion of the District; however, there is limited or no residents in the deficient areas.

• Area 3 has an existing population of 22,248 and a projected 2017 population of 22,872. These are well above the District-wide Planning Area averages for existing and projected 2017 populations (17,647 and 19,520, respectively).

• Because Planning Area 3 is projected to continue to meet its land/population ratio by 2017, coupled with minimal population growth, no land acquisition efforts need be undertaken in this Area.

• Leased land is somewhat tenuous and a loss of these acres could affect the analysis. This Area and Area 6 have the majority of the leased acres in the overall district.

Recommendations • Do not acquire additional land unless a unique opportunity

arises consistent with land acquisition criteria. • Balance the maintenance of existing facilities with the

development of new facilities in this planning area.

NRPA Standard

Recommended ac/1000

Service Area


(in miles)

Existing Acres


% of total acres

Current Ratio

Projected Ratio

Projected Need

Projected Over

(Under) by 2017

Planning Area 3Neighborhood Parks 1-2 2.0/1000 5000 0.5 47.01 11.6% 2.11 2.06 45.74 1.27Community Parks 5-8 3.0/1000 20000 2 169.8 41.7% 7.63 7.42 68.616 101.18

All 17/1000 406.96 18.29 17.79 388.824 18.14


49 FINAL DRAFT

Planning Area 4

Bounded to north by the Burlington Northern

Railway line, to the south by 75th Street, to the east by Park District Boundaries and to the west by

Washington Street and the West Branch of the DuPage River.

2007 Pop. – 19,386 Projected 2017 Pop. – 19,842

Total Area - 4.97 sq. mi. Existing NPD Open Space – 140.74 acres

Land Use/Demographic Characteristics • Encompasses the eastern portion of the Downtown business

district. • Existing housing is almost entirely single-family housing with

small pockets of office development and Downtown office, retail and service uses.

• The area also includes North Central College. • Older development is mixed with recent development. • The area’s population has grown 3.4% since 2000. • 2.4% growth is anticipated in this area by 2017. •



50 FINAL DRAFT

Considerations/Priorities • Minimal projected population increase in this Area will not

substantially increase demand for amenities. Recommendations • Emphasize maintenance of existing facilities/amenities before

constructing new ones. • In the long term, develop existing parks with additional

amenities if necessary. • Look for opportunities to connect existing trails to others. • Consider maintenance and improvements for each park based


Open Space Summary



ssC

ode

Acr

es O

wne

d

Acr

es L

ease

d

Futu

re A

cres

Tota

l Acr

es

Play

grou

nd

Bask

etba

ll C

ourt

s

Base

ball

- 60

ft

Base

ball

- 80

ft

Base

ball

- 90

ft

Soft

ball-

Yout

h

Soft

ball-

Adu

lt

Tenn

is C

ourt

s

Trai

l Mil

es

Gol

f

Swim

min

g

Skat

e Bo

ard

Faci

lity

Smal

l Mul

ti U

se F

ield

s

Larg

e M

ulti-

Use

Fie

lds

4B Burlington Square Park NP 1.75 1.75 0.044E Burr Oak NP 1.69 1.69 1 1 0.024G College Park NP 0.23 0.23 14J Country Commons NP 9.7 9.7 1 1

4H East Greens NP 3.9 3.9 1 0.54O Hobson Grove NP 10.01 10.01 14S Huntington Commons NP 3.96 3.96 14V Huntington Estates Park NP 0.81 10.8 11.61 1 14W Huntington Ridge Park NP 3.1 3.1 14Q Olesen Farm Park NP 2.15 2.15 14X Pembroke Commons NP 3.05 3.05 14P Pembroke Park NP 3.08 3.08 1 14K Prairie Park By School NP 7.54 3.43 10.97 2 24C Sally Benton Park NP 0.17 0.174Z Three Meadows NP 3.82 3.82 14A Central Park SU 3.78 3.78 1 0.104F Veterans Park SU 14.41 14.41 0.304N Bailey Hobson Woods Park GW 5.7 5.7 0.304U Huntington Estates Parkway GW 1.59 1.594L Pioneer Greenway GW 5.74 6.86 12.64R Rock Ridge Park GW 9.28 9.284Y Goodrich Woods PA 13.58 13.58 0.394M Hobson Woods Park PA 1.67 1.674I Kings Park PA 1.21 1.214D Lincoln Woods PA 2.16 2.164T Olesen Estates PA 5.57 5.57

85.9 54.84 0 140.74 13 3.5 3 0 0 0 0 0 1.15 0 0 0 0 2


51 FINAL DRAFT

Considerations/Priorities • Based on open space analysis, this Planning Area will be

deficient in land by almost 200 acres by 2017 unless additional open space is acquired. Because of this relatively large deficiency, anticipated population growth and the ability of any newly acquired land in Planning Area 4 to benefit other Planning Areas nearby, land acquisition efforts in this Area should be assigned a high priority. It should be noted, however, that almost all land in this area is already developed.

• The Area is substantially deficient in coverage of Community Parks; however, it has a surplus of Neighborhood Parks.

• Planning Area 4’s central location suggests that its residents’ open space needs may be partially satisfied by open space located in Planning Areas 3 and 6.

Recommendations • Balance land acquisition, development of new facilities and

maintenance of existing facilities. • Focus on acquiring larger parcels or community parks.

NRPA Standard

Recommended ac/1000

Service Area


(in miles)

Existing Acres


% of total acres

Current Ratio

Projected Ratio

Projected Need

Projected Over

(Under) by 2017

Planning Area 4Neighborhood Parks 1-2 2.0/1000 5000 0.5 69.19 49.2% 3.57 3.49 39.68 65.70Community Parks 5-8 3.0/1000 20000 2 0.00 0.00 59.53 (59.53)

All 17/1000 140.74 7.26 7.09 337.31 (196.57)


52 FINAL DRAFT

Planning Area 5

Bounded on the north by 75th Street, on the south by the DuPage River, on the west by Naperville/Plainfield Road and on the east by the West Branch of the DuPage River and Washington Street. 2007 Pop. – 21,660 Projected 2017 Pop.– 22,412 Total Area – 5.41 sq. mi. Existing NPD Open Space –517.23 acres


• The western portion of this Area wraps around the eastern side

of Springbrook Prairie. • Housing in the Area is dominated by single-family dwellings

primarily located in recent subdivisions. • The area’s population has grown 8.4% since 2000. • 3.5% population growth is anticipated in this area by 2017.


53 FINAL DRAFT


Considerations/Priorities • Minimal projected population increase in this Area will not

substantially increase demand for amenities in all parks. • Additional emphasis should be placed on the maintenance of

existing amenities and developing new amenities. • In the long term, adding amenities to existing parks can help

alleviate any amenity shortages within the Planning Area. Recommendations • Emphasize maintenance of existing facilities/amenities before

constructing new ones. • Look for opportunities to connect existing trails to others. • Consider maintenance and improvements for each park based



ssC

ode

Acr

es O

wne

d

Acr

es L

ease

d

Futu

re A

cres

Tota

l Acr

es

Play

grou

nd

Bask

etba

ll C

ourt

s

Base

ball

- 60

ft

Base

ball

- 80

ft

Base

ball

- 90

ft

Soft

ball-

Yout

h

Soft

ball-

Adu

lt

Tenn

is C

ourt

s

Trai

l Mile

s

Gol

f

Swim

min

g

Skat

e Bo

ard

Faci

lity

Smal

l Mul

ti U

se F

ield

s

Larg

e M

ulti-

Use

Fie

lds

5G Arbor Way NP 3.26 3.26 1 0.385A Brighton Ridge Park NP 13.02 13.02 15N Old Sawmill Park NP 9.5 9.5 15M Old Sawmill Parkway NP 2.37 2.375F Spring-Field Park NP 6.83 6.83 1 1 0.285S Timber Creek Park NP 19.09 19.09 1 15C Westglen Park By School NP 6.36 6.36 25L Willowgate Square NP 1.76 1.76 15I Old Farm Park CP 22.75 22.75 15J Weigand Riverfront Park CP 18.31 18.31 0.305D Winding Creek Park CP 19.09 19.09 1 2 25Q DuPage River Sports Complex (West) DP 62.54 62.54 1.5 1 2 2 4 25P Knoch Knolls DP 217.35 217.35 4.67 25U Kingsley Prairie By School/Co-op GW 16.71 16.71 15T Knoch Knolls Greenway GW 4.03 4.035H Old Farm Greenway GW 4.67 4.675K Knoch Knolls Commons PA 4.9 4.95R Rivercrest Estates Park PA 18.05 18.055O Springbrook Parkway PA 49.67 49.67 0.755E West Branch Parkway PA 7.94 7.94 1.005B Westglen Commons PA 9.03 9.03

Spring Brook Elementary 1454.69 62.54 0 517.23 9 3.5 3 2 2 1 0 4 7.38 0 0 0 6 2


54 FINAL DRAFT

Open Space Summary The following chart summarizes open space analysis results and identifies open space shortages and/or surpluses within this Planning Area. It is based on approved NAPERVILLE PARK DISTRICT standards and present and projected population. It also has been used to suggest land acquisition priorities.

Considerations/Priorities • According to the open space projections this planning area

now meets its land ratio requirements. Recommendations • Do not acquire additional land unless a unique opportunity

arises consistent with land acquisition criteria.

NRPA Standard

Recommended ac/1000

Service Area


(in miles)

Existing Acres


% of total acres

Current Ratio

Projected Ratio

Projected Need

Projected Over

(Under) by 2017

Planning Area 5Neighborhood Parks 1-2 2.0/1000 5000 0.5 62.19 12.0% 2.87 2.77 44.82 17.37Community Parks 5-8 3.0/1000 20000 2 60.15 11.6% 2.78 2.68 67.24 (7.09)

All 17/1000 517.23 23.88 23.08 381.00 136.23


55 FINAL DRAFT

Planning Area 6

Bounded on the north by 75th Street, on the south by and east by Park District boundaries and on

the west by the DuPage River. 2007 Pop.– 19,100

Projected 2017 Pop. – 19,185 Total Area – 4.52 sq. mi.

Existing NPD Open Space – 417.73 acres

Land Use/Demographic Characteristics • The southern portion of this Area is dominated by a large

single-family estate-housing district • Housing is almost entirely single - family at variety of densities • Most of this Area was annexed between 1960 and 1980 • Population has grown 1.3% since 2000. • A small rate of population growth (0.4%) is projected in this

Area by 2017.



56 FINAL DRAFT

Considerations/Priorities • Because subdivision amenities are provided in many of the

newer developments in Planning Area 6, new recreational facilities/amenities should be assigned a moderate priority.

• Minimal projected population increase in this Area will not substantially increase demand for amenities in all parks.

• Additional emphasis should be placed on the maintenance of existing amenities and the development of new amenities.

• As opportunities arise, existing parks can be improved with additional needed amenities to rectify Planning Area shortages.

Recommendations • Emphasize maintenance of existing facilities/amenities before

constructing new ones. • Look for opportunities to connect existing trails to others. • Consider adding playgrounds to existing parks. • Consider maintenance and improvements for each park based



ssC

ode

Acr

es O

wne

d

Acr

es L

ease

d

Futu

re A

cres

Tota

l Acr

es

Play

grou

nd

Bask

etba

ll C

ourt

s

Base

ball

- 60

ft

Base

ball

- 80

ft

Base

ball

- 90

ft

Soft

ball-

Yout

h

Soft

ball-

Adu

lt

Tenn

is C

ourt

s

Trai

l Mile

s

Gol

f

Swim

min

g

Skat

e Bo

ard

Faci

lity

Smal

l Mul

ti U

se F

ield

s

Larg

e M

ulti-

Use

Fie

lds

6C Columbia Commons NP 9 9 1 2 26I Eagle Park NP 4.13 4.13 16F Farmington Park NP 5.62 5.62 16G Hunters Woods NP 8.96 8.96 1 0.256B Oakridge Parkway NP 12.09 12.09 16O Ranchview Park By School/Co-op NP 8.8 8.8 1 1 66L University Heights Park NP 9.91 9.91 16M Walnut Ridge Park NP 10.06 0.12 10.18 1 1 0.306K Meadow Glens CP 18.67 18.67 2 2 36D DuPage River Park East DP 35.99 236.53 272.52 0.506J Campus Greens GW 4.87 4.87

6H Stanford Meadows GW 10.72 10.726P Baileywood Park PA 6.38 6.386E Farmington Commons PA 4.9 4.96A Riverwoods Park PA 25.94 25.946N Walnut Ridge Woods PA 5.04 5.04

Scott Elementary Co-op 1181.08 236.53 0.12 417.73 9 3 3 0 0 2 0 6 1.05 0 0 0 5 0


57 FINAL DRAFT

Open Space Summary The following chart summarizes open space analysis results and identifies open space shortages and/or surpluses within this Planning Area. It is based on approved Naperville Park District standards and present and projected population. It also has been used to suggest land acquisition priorities.

Considerations/Priorities • According to the open space projections this planning area

now meets its overall land requirements. • This Area has a surplus of total acreage and a surplus of

acreage for Neighborhood Parks. • Leased land is somewhat tenuous and a loss of these acres

could affect the analysis. This Area and Area 3 have the majority of the leased acres in the overall district.


arises consistent with land acquisition criteria. • This area has a surplus of total acreage and a surplus for

Neighborhood Parks. If a unique opportunity arises, consider adding a larger parcel for a Community Park.

NRPA Standard

Recommended ac/1000

Service Area


(in miles)

Existing Acres


% of total acres

Current Ratio

Projected Ratio

Projected Need

Projected Over

(Under) by 2017

Planning Area 6Neighborhood Parks 1-2 2.0/1000 5000 0.5 68.69 16.4% 3.60 3.58 38.37 30.32Community Parks 5-8 3.0/1000 20000 2 18.67 4.5% 0.98 0.97 57.56 (38.89)

All 17/1000 417.73 21.87 21.77 326.145 91.59


58 FINAL DRAFT

Planning Area 7

Bounded on the north and west by Park District boundaries, on the south by 95th Street and on the east by Naperville/Plainfield Road. 2007 Pop.– 8,351 Projected 2017 Pop. – 10,363 Total Area – 5.56 sq. mi. Existing NPD Open Space – 231.14 acres


• This area is one of the newer portions of Naperville and is

growing rapidly. • Housing is predominantly single-family contained in large

newer planned developments, including an age restricted gated community.

• The Area’s population has grown 22.3% since 2000. • 24.1% population growth is anticipated in this area by 2017. • This area adjoins the Springbrook Prairie



59 FINAL DRAFT

Considerations/Priorities • To address Community Park open space deficiencies, consider

the introduction of some Community Park facilities/amenities in larger neighborhood parks where appropriate.

• The large projected population increase in this Area will increase demand for amenities in all parks and particularly for deficient Community Park amenities. A significant portion of this increase will be from a new age-restricted community currently being developed. A cash donation was accepted and some credit for private open space was granted in 2006.

• Additional emphasis should be placed on the maintenance of existing facilities/amenities.

Recommendations • Emphasize maintenance of existing amenities before

constructing new ones. • Add limited Community Park improvements in larger

Neighborhood Parks where appropriate. • Look for opportunities to connect existing trails to others. • Consider maintenance and improvements for each park based


Open Space Summary



ssC

ode

Acr

es O

wne

d

Acr

es L

ease

d

Futu

re A

cres

Tota

l Acr

es

Play

grou

nd

Bask

etba

ll C

ourt

s

Base

ball

- 60

ft

Base

ball

- 80

ft

Base

ball

- 90

ft

Soft

ball-

Yout

h

Soft

ball-

Adu

lt

Tenn

is C

ourt

s

Trai

l Mil

es

Gol

f

Swim

min

g

Skat

e Bo

ard

Faci

lity

Smal

l Mul

ti U

se F

ield

s

Larg

e M

ulti-

Use

Fie

lds

7F Brook Crossings NP 12.58 12.587G Cantore Park By School NP 9.52 9.52 1 17I Heatherstone Park NP 4.59 4.59 1 17B Kingshill Park NP 5 5 17A Monarch Park By School NP 7.89 7.89 17E Springbrook Crossings NP 8.67 8.677H Summerfield Lake NP 9.21 9.21 17C White Eagle Park NP 7.66 7.66 17D Springbrook Golf Course SU 166.02 166.02 18

Gordon Gregory Middle School 2White Eagle Elementary 1

231.14 0 0 231.14 4 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 18 0 0 0 2


60 FINAL DRAFT

NOTE: This overall number includes a large special use facility: Springbrook Golf Course. By removing it from the calculations, this planning area would have a shortage of 111.05 acres.

Considerations/Priorities • According to the open space projections, this Planning Area

meets its total existing and 2017 projected needs and has a surplus of Neighborhood Park acreage but it is deficient in terms of acreage devoted to Community Parks.

• If the golf course is removed from the analysis, the area would be deficient 111.05 acres.

• To some extent, the Area has access to additional open space due to the existence of substantial County Forest Preserves, however, Naperville Park District’s ability to program this land is very limited as is the Naperville Park District’s ability to acquire useful open space in this Area.

• The large population increase projected for this Planning Area will increase demand for Community Park Amenities.

• The Area has a surplus of total acreage and a surplus of acreage for Neighborhood Parks. It does not meet the standard for Community Parks.


arises consistent with land acquisition criteria to help rectify the shortages in Community Parks and the shortage that would exist if the golf course is not considered.

• Consider adding more amenities in existing neighborhood parks.

• Reconcile credit for private open space previously granted to the age-restricted community in this planning area when considering land acquisition or amenities.

NRPA Standard

Recommended ac/1000

Service Area


(in miles)

Existing Acres


% of total acres

Current Ratio

Projected Ratio

Projected Need

Projected Over

(Under) by 2017

Planning Area 7Neighborhood Parks 1-2 2.0/1000 5000 0.5 65.12 28.2% 7.80 6.28 20.726 44.39Community Parks 5-8 3.0/1000 20000 2 0.00 0.00 31.089 (31.09)

All 17/1000 231.14 27.68 22.30 176.171 54.97


61 FINAL DRAFT

Planning Area 8

Bounded on the north by 95th Street, on the south and west by Park District Boundaries

and on the east by Naperville/Plainfield Road and the DuPage River.

2007 Pop. – 16,736 Projected 2017 Pop. – 22,743

Total Area – 7.93 sq. mi. Existing NPD Open Space – 602.97 acres

Land Use/Demographic Characteristics This Area is one of the newest additions to Naperville and is growing rapidly. Housing is mostly detached single-family in newer developments. Population has grown 53.2% since 2000. 35.9% population growth is anticipated in this area by 2017.

Amenities Summary

The following chart shows the acreage and amenities found in each park in Planning Area 8. The inventory results were analyzed by applying Naperville Park District amenity standards to each amenity type. The results of this analysis were used to determine appropriate recreation priorities and recommendations.


62 FINAL DRAFT

Considerations/Priorities • The large projected population increase in this Area will

increase demand for amenities in all parks. • This area contains a surplus of multi-use fields that serve the

entire District. Recommendations • Emphasize maintenance of existing amenities but balancing

with the development of new amenities in the long term. • Add trail connections between existing trails. Consider locating

1 mile at Southwest Community Park. • Add 3 playgrounds; consider locating 1 at Frontier Sports

Complex, 1 at Southwest Community Park and one at Ashwood Park.

• Continue to maintain the surplus of multi-use fields. • Add 2 - 60’ baseball fields; consider locating at Southwest

Community Park. • Add 2 - 80’ baseball fields; consider locating at Southwest

Community Park. • If needed, consider constructing 1 youth softball field at

Commissioner’s Park in an existing practice area. • If tennis cannot be expanded at Knoch Park, then consider

locating bank of 6 at Southwest Community Park.


ssC

ode

Acr

es O

wne

d

Acr

es L

ease

d

Futu

re A

cres

Tota

l Acr

es

Play

grou

nd

Bask

etba

ll C

ourt

s

Base

ball

- 60

ft

Base

ball

- 80

ft

Base

ball

- 90

ft

Soft

ball

-You

th

Soft

ball

-Adu

lt

Tenn

is C

ourt

s

Trai

l Mile

s

Gol

f

Swim

min

g

Skat

e Bo

ard

Faci

lity

Smal

l Mul

ti U

se F

ield

s

Larg

e M

ulti-

Use

Fie

lds

8K A. George Pradel Park By School NP 12.1 12.1 1 1 29A Ashwood Park NP 11.22 11.229B Creekside Park NP 3.68 3.688J Crestview Knoll NP 1.35 1.35 18H High Meadow By School NP 3.34 3.34 1 18I River Run Park NP 3 3 18C Rose Hill Farms Park NP 5.54 5.54 18R South Pointe Park NP 5.97 5.97 18Q Tallgrass Park By School NP 0.14 5.02 5.16 28D Ashbury Park CP 26.79 26.79 2 4 0.20 28S Southwest Community Park CP 39.54 39.548P Tallgrass Lakes CP 25.83 25.83 1 1.008F Commissioners Park DP 77.3 77.3 2 1.45 3 68E Frontier Park DP 110.17 110.17 1 2 4 4 1.00 1 1 118A Naperbrook Golf Course SU 159.27 159.27 188B Ashbury Greenway GW 17.27 17.27 0.708L Clow Creek Greenway GW 32.64 32.648O Tallgrass Greenway GW 13.48 0.29 13.778G Brook Prairie PA 7.13 7.13 1.008M River Run Preserve North PA 15.72 4.32 20.04 0.108N River Run Preserve South PA 7.45 7.458V Riverview Farmstead PA 14.41 14.41

Neuqua Valley H.S. 2 12578.44 0 24.53 602.97 7 4 3 0 2 5 4 16 5.45 18 0 1 9 19


63 FINAL DRAFT

• Add 4 basketball courts; consider locating at Tall Grass Lakes, Ashwood Park, Southwest Community Park, and River Run Park.

• Explore utilizing synthetic turf fields at Commissioners Park. • Explore a partnership with Athletic Affiliates for development

of a 60’ baseball field at South Point. • Consider maintenance and improvements for each park based


Open Space Summary


NOTE: This overall number includes a large special use facility: Naperbrook Golf Course. By removing it from the calculations, this planning area would still have a surplus 57.05 acres.

Considerations/Priorities • According to the open space projections, this Planning Area

meets its total existing and 2017 projected needs and has a surplus of Neighborhood and Community Park acreage.

• This Area has a surplus of total acreage and a small surplus of acreage for both Neighborhood and Community Parks.


arises consistent with land acquisition criteria.

NRPA Standard

Recommended ac/1000

Service Area


(in miles)

Existing Acres


% of total acres

Current Ratio

Projected Ratio

Projected Need

Projected Over

(Under) by 2017

Planning Area 8Neighborhood Parks 1-2 2.0/1000 5000 0.5 51.36 8.5% 3.07 2.26 48.488 2.87Community Parks 5-8 3.0/1000 20000 2 92.16 15.3% 5.51 4.05 68.232 23.93

All 17/1000 602.97 36.03 26.51 386.65 216.32


64 FINAL DRAFT

Capital Improvement Plan Park District staff formulated a Capital Projects Multi-year Overview as part of the 2006 Capital Budget process in order to effectively implement future park improvements. The Overview is updated yearly and serves as a 'living document' which assists the Park District in better tracking proposed projects. Staff gathered park improvement and cost data through an analysis of past capital forecasts and the Recreation Master Plan as well as the execution of the Park and Facility Inventory. It then incorporated this data into the Overview spreadsheet thus providing a timely approach to modifying and sorting project information. The Overview tracks yearly projected inflation and material/labor increases (2007 - 5%, 2008-2016 - 10%) with the ability to quickly adjust the document as inflation rates and market trends fluctuate. The Overview also includes a separate section featuring District-wide projects and facility improvements. The facility improvements section of the Overview focuses on various capital projects that could be considered as part of any potential referendum to fund such improvements. However, no such referendum is now proposed. Further discussions between the Park Board and staff are recommended in order to effectively evaluate these substantial planned capital improvements. The Multi-year Capital Overview spans ten years with the flexibility to add to the document at any time. The overview reveals improvement projects that are classified into six classes (District Park-DP, Community Park-CP, Neighborhood Park-NP, Greenways-GW, Preservation/conservation Areas-PA, and Special Use-SU). Additionally, the projects are further broken out into specific capital improvement groups. The analysis of these groups will assist staff in measuring the equity of future park improvements.

Land Acquisition Historically there has been immense development pressure on the City of Naperville. This pressure is increasing as the City reaches build-out. As a result, it is important for the Park District to acquire quality parkland before it is purchased for other development. However, such land acquisition efforts must also be balanced with both the maintenance needs for existing and proposed improvements and the need to build new facilities to address existing and projected deficiencies. Within the entire District there are presently a limited number of


65 FINAL DRAFT

parcels available for purchase. Some of this land is not appropriate for park use due to its lack of area, access, unfavorable topography, etc. The existing land shortages makes it extremely important for Naperville Park District to acquire the best land in a competitive environment. The District utilizes various criteria to evaluate land for potential purchase. These criteria are presented in the District’s Land Analysis worksheet, presented below. Parcels being considered for potential purchase are evaluated as to whether they possess or lack desirable physical characteristics, land use characteristics and cost considerations. When completed, and considered in conjunction with the parcel’s value in fulfilling the recreational needs of the District, the rankings/total scores help determine which parcel is most advantageous to purchase. General land acquisition recommendations by Planning Area are reflected in the individual Planning Area summaries.

Capital Projects Multi-Year Overview

The Capital Projects Multi-Year Overview is a summary of all projects identified for implementation for the next 10 years and is a key document in Naperville Park District’s Capital Budget. It classifies each project as new, renovation, maintenance, etc and lists each improvement planned. In order to be included in the Overview, a capital item to be included must meet the following criteria: • A cost estimate of over $5,000 • A life span of at least 3 years • Result in the creation of a fixed asset • Result in the revitalization of a fixed asset The Overview is not a fixed document, and over the course of the year, additions and subtractions occur due to unforeseen circumstances and changes in District priorities. It has been recommended that the Capital Projects Multi-Year Overview incorporate all of the capital recommendations set forth in this Master Plan.

Maintenance

In addition to outdoor facilities, the Naperville Park District also maintains enclosed, indoor facilities. These serve a variety of purposes such as providing space for administration offices, indoor programmable space, maintenance activities, etc. A complete list of these structures is contained in Appendix B. Throughout the data-gathering portions of this Master Plan


66 FINAL DRAFT

process, the need to better maintain existing facilities, whether indoor or outdoor, was articulated. This need is acknowledged and reflected in the principal theme contained throughout this Master Plan: the need to undertake a balanced program of simultaneous and interrelated initiatives to address deficiencies in maintenance, existing facilities and available open space and anticipate the increased operating and maintenance costs associated with new facilities and amenities (see Appendix C for an estimate of costs). The Naperville Park District currently owns and maintains 35 retention ponds and 49 detention basins in its system. The chart below summarizes their planning area locations.

There is over 100 acres of retention pond area. Additionally, there are numerous other wet areas such as rivers and streams. When totaled, this equates to many miles of shoreline that require stabilization and maintenance. The amount of labor, hours and money required to service these facilities is substantial. A recent internal evaluation suggests that approximately $100,000 per year should be allocated to pond maintenance (see Capital Overview). In return, there is limited if any recreational benefit of such investment. Therefore it is in Naperville Park District’s interest to no longer accept drainage basins or ponds as parkland.

Summary of Major System-Wide

Capital Projects: Estimated Costs Major capital park projects recommended in this Master Plan that exceed $500,000 in cost and will greatly enhance parks and recreation are summarized in the following excerpt from the Capital Projects Multi-Year Overview.

Park Name Description Projected CostsNike Sports Complex Park Development, expansion property $5,500,000Seager Park Park Improvements $800,000Frontier Park Park Improvements $1,500,000Commissioners Park Park Improvements $3,200,000Southwest Community Park Park Development $5,300,000Knoch Park Park Improvements $3,500,000Knoch Park Barn Renovation and/or new maintenance facility $7,000,000Centennial Park Bath House Improvements $5,100,000Knoch Knolls Nature Center $2,750,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Ponds 7 4 4 3 6 11Basins 6 6 8 11 7 8 1 2


67 FINAL DRAFT

Funding The following information was excerpted from the Naperville Park District 2007 Fiscal Year Budget report. A summary of pertinent aspects of the Budget have been provided here to provide context for developing a strategy for funding Plan recommendations.

Existing Revenues/Projected Funds Major sources of Naperville Park District revenue identified in the 2007 Budget include: • Tax Revenue ($16,355,296), • Bond Proceeds ($25,000,000)—not issued • Interest Income ($1,565,167), • Program Income ($5,019,405), • Cash-in-lieu Revenues ($1,400,000), • Golf Fees ($2,992,500 green/cart fees only), and • Miscellaneous ($3,310,028) These represent a total consolidated revenue of $55,642,396 and constitute revenue growth over 2006 of $24,929,453 or an 81% increase. However, much of this increase is attributable to bond proceeds intended for construction of a new recreation center that did not take place. Absent these proceeds, Naperville Park District was projected to receive approximately the same revenue received in 2006.

2007 Budget Goals Various budget goals were included in the 2007 Budget. Some budget goals were identified as short-term, while others were anticipated to be implemented over several budget cycles. The 2007 list of budget goals includes: • Reduce tax support to below 50% of total District-Wide

revenue. The plan to achieve this goal includes the following: • Diversify revenue through the development of additional

recreation facilities • Strategic marketing of services • Offering and growing core programs according to customer

need • Continuously improving service systems, customer satisfaction

and customer loyalty


68 FINAL DRAFT

• Expanding the use of volunteers • Include a facility manager position included within 2007

budget submission • Implement new marketing and public relations initiatives • Create and implement a three-year technology plan • Implement a golf capital plan • Implement park maintenance standards across divisions • Align Recreation labor dollars with core programs and

customer needs The decision to not proceed with construction of the recreation center has affected both anticipated costs and revenues in the 2007 Budget. In the preparation of the 2008 Budget, and each year thereafter, strategies to fund the recommendations of the Master Plan must be carefully developed with particular emphasis on the central theme reflected in the Plan, that of undertaking a balanced program of simultaneous and interrelated initiatives to address deficiencies in maintenance, existing facilities and available open space (and anticipating the increased operating and maintenance costs associated with new facilities). In subsequent years, these strategies must be refined to address, lower priority projects, implementation progress and changing conditions.

Future Funding Strategies The cost of the recommendations contained in this Master Plan will be incorporated into the 2008 Capital Projects Multi-Overview in connection with the preparation of the Capital Budget. Funding the various projects will require increasing revenues and the use of a mix of the various potential revenue sources that follow is contemplated. A brief description of each potential revenue source is also provided. Grants Grants are available to park districts from a variety of sources. The Illinois Association of Park Districts, the Illinois Park and Recreation Association, and the National Recreation and Park association all provide lists of grant opportunities. Although the combined list of available grants for all three organizations is a long one, it appears that few of these potential opportunities can be realized by the Naperville Park District. However, the Access to Recreation Initiative that seeks to achieve barrier free access to recreation environments beyond that required by the ADA may be


69 FINAL DRAFT

a program that can benefit the Naperville Park District. Also, a creative use of grants may result in receiving funds for operations not previously considered for grants. The major grant programs available are the familiar ones administered by the IDNR (OSLAD/LWCF and Bike Path.) Federal CMAQ funds may be available for specialized bike and pedestrian facilities, and CDBG funds may also be available. Cash-in-lieu Funds received from the City of Naperville Presently, the City of Naperville enforces its Land Dedication Ordinance in new subdivisions that is based on a standard of 8.6 acres of park land per 1,000 population. However, the open space standard utilized in this Master Plan is 17 acres of park land/1,000 population and it is recommended that the Naperville Park District consider formally requesting the City to increase its required land dedication ratio to more closely match the open space ratio used by the District. Recently, in August 2007, The Fair Market Value used in the ordinance was increased to $323,600. A review and update of this value is recommended every two years. Property Tax Revenues/Property Tax Increase Seven cents per $100 of valuation was dedicated to capital by the Naperville Park District Board in the early 1990s to be used exclusively for capital improvements to the park system as well as to pay off any park district debts. An increase in the property tax rate consistent with state mandates can provide a source of additional revenue to fund the capital improvements recommended herein. Once costs are identified, Naperville Park District should consider whether such an increase should be implemented. Expansion of User Fees An increase or expansion of user fees can provide a source of additional revenue. However, increasing user fees must be carefully analyzed and introduced so as to not reduce participation in programs, eliminate participation by broad segments of Naperville Park District’s residents or have the effect of reducing total program revenue. Sponsorship of Events The right to be identified as the sponsor of various events has value and the proceeds for sponsorship can be used to defray event costs.


70 FINAL DRAFT

Naming Rights and Advertising The right to have a facility or park named after an individual or company also has value. Proceeds from the sale of those rights and the ability for companies to advertise products in Naperville Park District facilities can be used to offset facility costs. Donations An active program of seeking donations from local businesses and individuals should be established to help fund implementation. Concession Revenue Enhancing/expanding revenues from concessions can partially offset costs of facility improvements and the implementation of other Master Plan recommendations. Creation of Parks Foundation The formation of a Parks Foundation has been successful in many Park Districts and provided substantial revenue for planned capital projects. Sales Tax Increment earmarked for Naperville Park District Adoption of a sales tax increment to be earmarked for Naperville Park District use may provide necessary implementation revenue. Partnerships Partnering with Affiliate organizations to defray improvement and/or operation costs can be a significant source of revenue. However, it is important that Naperville Park District maintain control of its facilities and protect its rights via annual agreements. Non-Referendum Bonding Non-Referendum Bonding Authority allows the Naperville Park District to issue general obligation bonds which can assist in funding some of the capital improvements recommended herein.


71 FINAL DRAFT

Conclusion This Master Plan asks its readers to envision the goals and priorities of the Naperville Park District in a new way. As reiterated throughout the document, this Master Plan is based upon the need to balance interrelated initiatives to remedy existing and projected deficiencies in the following areas: • maintenance costs for existing improvements and increased

maintenance and operating costs for new facilities • construction of new improvements to meet existing and

projected needs • acquisition of available open space to meet existing and

proposed needs Over a ten year period, none of these initiatives takes precedence or is assigned a higher priority than any other. They must be undertaken simultaneously and in a coordinated fashion to ensure that the District’s broad vision and mission can be realized without adversely affecting progress in any of the individual initiatives. Likewise, the Master Plan should remain flexible and amended accordingly to accommodate unforeseen trends, needs and priorities. Although Naperville is quickly reaching build out, it is a community that has become accustomed to a high level of park and recreation services. To ensure these services remain as well as to ensure the needs of the projected population are met, we will continue to develop, redevelop, and expand this outstanding park system. Peter Drucker, renowned business management consultant once said, “Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work.” We are confident this plan will create plenty of work to provide enhancements to the Naperville Park District in the years ahead. With specific goals and recommendations, we now have better direction of what we need to accomplish and when we need do it. All of this leads to better decision making and an increased commitment to our mission of providing leisure experiences that enhance the quality of life for our community. Our future is now. With tools in hand, let us continue to strive to meet our vision: To be a best in class parks and recreation service provider creating unity

and focus in the community.


72 FINAL DRAFT

Appendices Appendices have been consolidated into a separate document and can be found on our website or requested from the Planning Department. Appendix A: List of Parks and Other Holdings List Appendix B: Facilities/Buildings List Appendix C: Park Amenities Maintenance Costs- 2006 Yearly Costs Appendix D: Service Area Maps Appendix E: Staff, Futures Committee and Athletic Affiliates Interviews - Summary Appendix F: Park Board Workshop – Summary Appendix G: Resources for Plan


73 FINAL DRAFT

Glossary of Terms ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act Age-restricted Community: a residential subdivision or development consisting residential units intended and operated for occupants based on age requirements. Guidelines for each development vary and may be marketed as Continuous Care Retirement Communities (CCRC), Active Adult or other categories. Amenities: A structure or place which is built, installed, or established to serve a particular purpose. In the Park District, amenities include buildings as well as all structures or places that facilitate recreational activity, e.g baseball fields, multi use fields, basketball courts. The term “facility” is often interchanged. Athletic Affiliate: Any Naperville athletic organization that utilizes/rents Naperville Park District facilities to conduct events and competitions. Examples of Athletic Affiliates include, but are not limited to: Naperville Little League, Naperville Baseball Association, Naperville Diamonds, Softball Association, Wheatland Athletic Association, Naperville Youth Football League, St. Raphael Football, Naperville Soccer Association, Lightning Soccer Club, Galaxy Soccer Club, America’s Soccer Club, AJAX F.C. Chicago, Neuqua Valley Lacrosse, Naperville North Lacrosse, and Naperville Central Lacrosse. Build Out*: Development of land to its full potential or theoretical capacity as permitted under current or proposed planning or zoning designations. Capital projects: projects which meet the following criteria: 1) a monetary value of at least $5,000, 2) a life of at least 3 years, 3) result in the creation of a fixed asset (a new purchase of, or improvements to, land, parks, buildings, vehicles, equipment, and construction in progress), and 4) result in the revitalization of a fixed asset (expenditures that are incurred to increase the capacity, life, or operating efficiency of an asset). Conveyance process: the process in transferring all or a part of a title or equitable interest in land. Co-op: Cooperative agreement, usually involving the sharing of resources or land to meet a common goal.


74 FINAL DRAFT

CP: Community Park Design Guidelines: A set of parameters to be referenced in a park site’s design and development. DP: District Park

Facilities: A structure or place which is built, installed, or established to serve a particular purpose. In the Park District, facilities include buildings as well as all structures or places that facilitate recreational activity, e.g baseball fields, multi use fields, basketball courts. The term “amenity” is often interchanged. Fair Market Value*: The price in terms of money that a property will bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions of a fair sale, the buyer and seller each prudently knowledgeable, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. GIS: Geographic Information System GW: Greenway High and dry: Property located within a park that is not part of floodway or floodplain, not located in a retention or detention basin, remains dry under normal conditions and drains well throughout the year. IDNR: Illinois Department of Natural Resources Land Acquisition Criteria: qualifications or considerations used by the Park District to determine if potential property will meet the needs of the Park District. Municipal Code 7-3-5: City Ordinance requiring developers to donate property for park land or cash in lieu of park land based upon the projected population created by the development. The ordinance requires developers to donate 8.6 acres of park for every 1,000 residents added. Cash donations are calculated based on the fair market value of the total required land donation. In 2007 this amount was determined to be $323,600 for one acre of land.

NP: Neighborhood Park


75 FINAL DRAFT

NRPA: National Recreation and Park Association Open Space*: See A Planner’s Dictionary for various definitions based on type. PA: Preservation/Conservation Area Programmable space: Property located within a park that is dedicated for active, organized use including, but not limited to ball fields, tennis courts, volleyball courts, soccer fields and other similar areas primarily used for organized league play. Service Level Guidelines: Guidelines developed by the Naperville Park District Parks staff that outline maintenance standards for parks. Service area: The service area of a park or facility is defined by its purpose and varies from ½ mile to community wide. The service area includes those areas within the relevant radius without encountering a barrier based on preferred mode of access. Stakeholder: a group and/or individual who has a vested interest in the capacity of the district to meet and exceed customer requirements. Examples of stakeholders include: residents, athletic affiliates, staff, board members, future committee members etc. SU: Special Use * A Planners Dictionary. Michael Davidson and Fay Dolnick (eds). 2004. 460pp.

2007 OSRMP Final Draft - Naperville Park District...2007 OSRMP Open Space and Recreation Master Plan...

Documents

Transcript of 2007 OSRMP Final Draft - Naperville Park District...2007 OSRMP Open Space and Recreation Master Plan...