The overall layout looks pretty good. You did an excellent job of getting the distances between your frames even (see lower left corner with margin, map and inset lines all roughly evenly spaced).
I'm not a big fan of LiDAR in recreational or reference maps. It looks ok here but I think it might look better without it. The level of detail can be distracting. But the area may be too flat for regular shaded relief so I understand why you'd want to use it.
Label placement looks pretty good and there is a good label hierarchy. Some of the labels could use more spacing between the main label and its prefix or suffix. And you could probably use more street labels overall. You could also increase the size of some of the labels for easier reading. The bridge labels are very small as a re some of the trail labels.
I don't like the dark blue for the park building labels. Normally I'd match my label color to the feature color, but I don't think you want yellow labels either. A dark grey might work. Or consider using dark grey for the road labels and solid black for the buildings, depending on what's more important.
I think the water color is a little over saturated, I'd try a lighter blue.
The legend... should say something other than "Legend" ; ) I'm not sure you need it anyway though. You could replace it with a text box that has some important park info, contact numbers etc, plus the scale, author info, and any symbols you do need to show (like trails). But I don't think anyone needs the legend to tell them what is the park or the cemetery or the roads on this map.
I don't like it when maps completely mask off areas that flow directly into the mapped area, like the NW corner under the inset. If you want to keep the inset here you could keep the mask but use a transparency so we can see that roads do in fact continue beyond the city limit.
I think you have a good looking label for the parks dept. in the upper right, I'd make it a little bigger so it stands out more.
Good work so far.